# Cross Bred Dogs...



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

The idea of breeding differant breeds of dogs appears to be rather unpopular on this forum...

now i understand there are stupid mixes eg Akita x Staffy  where it just seems to be a bad mix of temprements

i also understand about back yard breeders...

BUT, if someone takes out health tests, and does everything by the book, and breeds a cross bred litter, there is nothing wrong with that. (IMO)

I seem to find that so called 'designer dogs' are unpopular here, and i assume this is due to them being seen as a fashion item? Is that assumption correct? (By designer dog i mean Puggles - pug x beagle) However, i think these are quite good mixes...

And also dogs that may seem to be a bad mix... Labrador x Staffy/Collie as I own, turn out to be one the most gentle, calm and PERFECT dogs. Obviously i am biased  but I genuinely think my mutt is the sweetest, kindest, most loyal and gentle dogs I have ever come across - and now, being more knowledgeable, would probably not have touched her with a barge pole because of her mix!!!

Maybe it isn's so much about the breed and more to do with how the dog is bought up...

What are your views on cross breed dogs and sensible mixes? Also, is it ALL about the dogs upbringing?

Please no massive arguments


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

It has nothing to do with the dogs personally or their nature for me. I just don't like seeing deliberately cross bred dogs. They rarely have health tests done. Just because a dog is sweet or cute or good natured doesn't mean it should be bred from. x


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> It has nothing to do with the dogs personally or their nature for me. I just don't like seeing deliberately cross bred dogs. They rarely have health tests done. Just because a dog is sweet or cute or good natured doesn't mean it should be bred from. x


yes but if a dog is "sweet or cute or good natured" and is bred from with health test done and everything done by the book, why is it wrong to deliberately cross breeds?


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Tapir said:


> yes but if a dog is "sweet or cute or good natured" and is bred from with health test done and everything done by the book, why is it wrong to deliberately cross breeds?


Why wouldn't you just breed one of the breeds? Why would you cross them? x


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

Fuzzbugs!x said:


> Why wouldn't you just breed one of the breeds? Why would you cross them? x


to mix the traits of the breeds. to improve traits. to have a nice looking dog.
why not cross them? what is the reason not to?


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Tapir said:


> to mix the traits of the breeds. to improve traits. to have a nice looking dog.
> why not cross them? what is the reason not to?


Because the original dogs will more than likely be good dogs and nice looking. It tends to be a money making scheme. It also tends to be done by the very ignorant. and alot of the time it tends to ahieve nothing more than another couple of dogs in a kennel block. Google it or look at the various past threads.


----------



## Merlin Birmingham (Apr 4, 2010)

Personally im not in favour of any intentional breeding whilst there are so many dogs in without a home or in a bad home, my current pooch is a cross and he has a life of riley just because he isnt one full breed doesnt make me him any less of a loving companion.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

Merlin Birmingham said:


> Personally im not in favour of any intentional breeding whilst there are so many dogs in without a home or in a bad home, my current pooch is a cross and he has a life of riley just because he isnt one full breed doesnt make me him any less of a loving companion.


i am exactly the same as you. I don't agree with ANY breed at the minute with so many dogs needing homes, and my dog is too a cross bred.

i just wanted to see peoples oppinions, and why cross breeding - even when done properly and all things considered, is STILL frowned upon. :confused1:


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2010)

I do believe that we are not allowed to have these types of discussions as leads too arguments and tempers DO Frey!!!


----------



## the melster (Mar 20, 2010)

I have a cross breed and prefer them to a pure breed. I refuse to abide to a list of what dogs are 'allowed' and what are not. To date my dogs have lived longer than pedigree and have in my opinion been healthier.

It also isn't always possible to adopt from a shelter. Because we live in an apartment despite having a dog for the past 10 years we are deemed unsuitable to adopt by our local shelters. My dog is walked 3 times a day and I am home all day.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

i agree with the adoption point too. although i have yet to try to adopt, I am sure I would be deemed unsuitable as my garden isn't fenced fully, and Rosie was left on her own (before my mum worked from home) for 6 hours. However, we love and care for her, walk her twice a day and she is very happy and healthy - at nearly 15 years!

anyway, back to topic


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I thought this sort of post was banned. Nothing wrong with a good old mongrel though if that is what you want - I have owned a few in my time.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

sorry i didn't realise they weren't allowed.

just trying to get some opinions


----------



## charmedlassie88 (Sep 21, 2009)

I don't really see the point in it tbh. Why cross two beautiful breeds to get a mutt? My dog is a mutt and absoloutly lovely but that doesn't mean we should go about mating different breed dogs on purpose...just to see?

You wouldn't mate a syrian with a russian hamster would you?
Why are dogs different? You might luck out and get a cute cross or you might not, why risk it.


----------



## casandra (Aug 1, 2008)

Tapir said:


> to mix the traits of the breeds. to improve traits. to have a nice looking dog.
> why not cross them? what is the reason not to?


Ah, but you see, if you mix the traits of the breeds you get both the good and the bad.

So you take a staffy that has a beautiful temperament, but unknown history (lets say in this instance the dog's grandfather had a very poor temperament) and you cross her with a lovely Border Collie dog (who's grandfather had hip dysplasia of the worst kind).

You do all the necessary testing on both dogs (hips, eyes, Thyroid etc) and they all come out with good scores.

You now have a nice litter of 10 puppies, coming around to 8 weeks of age, you're about to send them off to their new homes, when out of nowhere, a handful of them start acting up and after they go, one year down the line, they end up mauling a toddler, another dog, or an adult for seemingly NO reason whatsoever.

Throwback, is what we call it, when a single characteristic in the lineage of two parents, that has skipped a couple generations, all of the sudden and out of the blue flares up.

This can be a temperament or health thing as these are both genetic and it is the first three generations that have the heaviest affect on pups.

Also it is highly unlikely that the dogs being crossed are good representatives of their breed, as in the kind that are actually worthy to be bred. Studies have suggested that less than 10% of pedigree dogs are worthy to be bred from, so surely the vast majority of those dogs who are worthy enough (good temperament, good pedigree, correct conformation, and healthy lines etc) would be put to other dogs of the same breed to ensure the betterment of said breed? Many also make the mistake of trying to breed dogs with vastly differing types. Such as the pug (with its short snout and breathing problems) to the beagle or the Jack russell. Sometimes, the resulting puppies will be free of breathing difficulties, but the majority of the time, you are passing on breed issues that could cause more harm in the long term than it is worth.

When you are breeding, you are NOT just breeding two dogs, you're bringing together two "families" in a sense. You really have to consider the lines the dogs have come from to get a good picture of what the quality of puppies would be like. This also means knowing first or second hand the temperament and conformation as well as the health of the parents, grandparents and great grandparents of the puppies.

There have been dogs who have gotten hip scores of 3-5x their breed average who have produced puppies with an average score who then went on to produce puppies with astronomical scores.

I hope that makes sense lol


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I don't mind it all that much provided of course the health tests for both breeds have been carried out, the pedigrees checked for any other problems, the two breeds aren't guaranteed to cause physical or temperment problems and they aren't two hugely different breeds in terms of size or shape. You could end up with a dog with the best of both breeds say the intelligence of a poodle with the steadiness of a labrador or the worst of both the manicness of a JRT with the reactivity of a border collie, I've seen this it's bad.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

casandra said:


> So you take a staffy that has a beautiful temperament, but unknown history (lets say in this instance the dog's grandfather had a very poor temperament) and you cross her with a lovely Border Collie dog (who's grandfather had hip dysplasia of the worst kind).


yes but as i said,

_IF ALL THE CHECKS WERE MADE, lineage, health tests, everything by the book, just as if purebred pups were being bred, what is the problem?_

i just cant understand why that is not okay?
it is instantly assumed that all xbreeds are from BYB, when many are, but there are also people who breed cross breeds well, and do everything properly.

It just seems that cross breeding is frowned upon - but imo, for no reason!


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

Tapir said:


> The idea of breeding differant breeds of dogs appears to be rather unpopular on this forum...
> 
> now i understand there are stupid mixes eg Akita x Staffy  where it just seems to be a bad mix of temprements
> 
> ...


Below is a quote from you from another thread which rather contradicts what you are saying here!

_"I still think it is irresponsible to breed puppies for personal satisfaction (which is all it is...the bitch doesn't mind not having puppies) and bring EVEN more poor dogs into the world, when rescue centres are bulging and desperate for homes for thousands of unwanted dogs.

something serious needs to be done to reduce the amount of puppies produced a year..no matter how good/healthy the lines are."_


----------



## terriermaid (Nov 5, 2007)

i deleberatly breed cross the parents are heath tested and in the field and show ring ,the puppies are reared as if pedigrees and i always have waiting lists ,i have just sold a litter and at least 2 ppl have rebooked as i refused to sell them 2 out of the same litter 
i also have a deliberate bred lurcher 3/4 racing grey hound (for speed) 1/8 collie (for brain) 1/8 bull (for stamina)


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

Ridgielover said:


> Below is a quote from you from another thread which rather contradicts what you are saying here!
> 
> _"I still think it is irresponsible to breed puppies for personal satisfaction (which is all it is...the bitch doesn't mind not having puppies) and bring EVEN more poor dogs into the world, when rescue centres are bulging and desperate for homes for thousands of unwanted dogs.
> 
> something serious needs to be done to reduce the amount of puppies produced a year..no matter how good/healthy the lines are."_


i don't think dogs should be bred willy nilly, but that is an ideal and is never going to stop, which is what that quote is referring to.

on this thread, more realistically i am discussing the breeding of cross breeds and why it is frowned upon.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

terriermaid said:


> i deleberatly breed cross the parents are heath tested and in the field and show ring ,the puppies are reared as if pedigrees and i always have waiting lists ,i have just sold a litter and at least 2 ppl have rebooked as i refused to sell them 2 out of the same litter
> i also have a deliberate bred lurcher 3/4 racing grey hound (for speed) 1/8 collie (for brain) 1/8 bull (for stamina)


brilliant! This is the kind of breeding i'm talking about!!!

cross breeding to improve traits etc.


----------



## Merlin Birmingham (Apr 4, 2010)

Ridgielover said:


> Below is a quote from you from another thread which rather contradicts what you are saying here!
> 
> _"I still think it is irresponsible to breed puppies for personal satisfaction (which is all it is...the bitch doesn't mind not having puppies) and bring EVEN more poor dogs into the world, when rescue centres are bulging and desperate for homes for thousands of unwanted dogs.
> 
> something serious needs to be done to reduce the amount of puppies produced a year..no matter how good/healthy the lines are."_


I do not see how she is contradicting herself, she says on this thread that she doesnt believe in any intentional breeding at the moment.

I think she just wants to touch on the subject because to see why people have such aversions to cross breeding.


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

terriermaid said:


> i deleberatly breed cross the parents are heath tested and in the field and show ring ,the puppies are reared as if pedigrees and i always have waiting lists ,i have just sold a litter and at least 2 ppl have rebooked as i refused to sell them 2 out of the same litter
> i also have a deliberate bred lurcher 3/4 racing grey hound (for speed) 1/8 collie (for brain) 1/8 bull (for stamina)


Show ring???


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

Merlin Birmingham said:


> I do not see how she is contradicting herself, she says on this thread that she doesnt believe in any intentional breeding at the moment.
> 
> I think she just wants to touch on the subject because to see why people have such aversions to cross breeding.


thank you for explaining  that is what i meant

p.s. you puppy is beautiful...just popping on his web page now


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

deb53 said:


> Show ring???


Maybe terrier shows? They hold them at our local game fair & they don't have to be pedigree


----------



## Merlin Birmingham (Apr 4, 2010)

Tapir said:


> thank you for explaining  that is what i meant
> 
> p.s. you puppy is beautiful...just popping on his web page now


Its fine, I can see why these types of threads are not liked as I get so worked up when people look down on an animal because it has not come from fully fledged parents, its always going to happen, I think the main priority should be to look after these poor animals, who through no fault of there own are being looked down upon.

P.S Thanks for taking a browse.


----------



## terriermaid (Nov 5, 2007)

deb53 said:


> Show ring???


i was talking about the parents ,have been shown ,but yes some of the previous puppies are also shown,it is actually harder to qualify for a top terrier or lurcher show than crufts


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

terriermaid said:


> i was talking about the parents ,have been shown ,but yes some of the previous puppies are also shown,it is actually harder to qualify for a top terrier or lurcher show than crufts


I didnt realise you had to qualify for terrier/lurcher shows. How do you qualify, What do judges look for as no breed standard to go by? Out of 1 litter of crosses there could be such a diversity of type so in a ring there must be all sorts so what criteria/standard would the judge go by?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

I don't mind cross breeding as long as they aren't seen as the next fashion dog, and as long as the parents are health tested, and the breeds aren't too different (ie in size).

I think the poodle crosses are good and pug crosses (it usually means the puppy has a longer nose so has less breathing problems) and crossing dallies to get rid of the urinary condition that's common in dallies.


----------



## terriermaid (Nov 5, 2007)

you qualify for the larger shows with smaller shows offering qualifiers much the same as any other ,why should there be a big diversity in the litter ? breed standards where written for the parson russell over 100 years ago yet they have been on the register for about 30 ,you dont need breed standard to asses a dog fit for funtion ,with lurchers they have differnt sizes therefore differnt functions ,conformation and movement still applies ,a decent mouth and at the end of the day a judge will have a prefered type as with all showing


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Crossbreeds are scum!!

So I don't know why I own two of them


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I don't mind cross breeding as long as they aren't seen as the next fashion dog, and as long as the parents are health tested, and the breeds aren't too different (ie in size).
> 
> I think the poodle crosses are good and pug crosses (it usually means the puppy has a longer nose so has less breathing problems) and crossing dallies to get rid of the urinary condition that's common in dallies.


seven pets....i think, maybe, we finally agree on something! 

no in all seriousness i share this oppinion.
ive never heard about crossing dallies to stop the condtion. what are they normally bred with?

also, why are poodles such popular crosses? i imagine they have a very good temprement and desiable coat (i don't know of poodles temprement, I dont think I have ever met one!)


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Tapir said:


> seven pets....i think, maybe, we finally agree on something!
> 
> no in all seriousness i share this oppinion.
> ive never heard about crossing dallies to stop the condtion. what are they normally bred with?
> ...


:lol::lol:

I think dallies are crossed with weims, I'm not sure someone may correct me on that. The condition with dallies causes crystals in the urine, and a lot of dallies have it. Crossing them seems to have made puppies without this problem.

I have met loads of cockerpoos, and they are gorgeous, happy little dogs, mostly like cockers but with a poddle coat. But you can get any mix of the two breeds, but those are the only dogs I have seen.


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

terriermaid said:


> you qualify for the larger shows with smaller shows offering qualifiers much the same as any other ,why should there be a big diversity in the litter ? breed standards where written for the parson russell over 100 years ago yet they have been on the register for about 30 ,you dont need breed standard to asses a dog fit for funtion ,with lurchers they have differnt sizes therefore differnt functions ,conformation and movement still applies ,a decent mouth and at the end of the day a judge will have a prefered type as with all showing


In a litter of crosses there could most definitatly be a diversity as I said if someone is crossing 2 breeds. 
It was cross breeding you mentioned that you did and not about the Parsons.

Yes the Lurcher is a good example as in size, conformation, coat etc.

It was just out of interest regarding the qualifying. I've seen local terrier shows just didn't realise out of ignorance that the winners then qualify and go on to compete at a national level against other qualifiers.

(You learn something new each day)

Not sure if i can see that it is "harder" to qualify than Crufts but that maybe my ignorance too


----------



## tafwoc (Nov 12, 2009)

Oh i love my crosses. I don't think i will ever buy a pedigree, unless it was for a certain purpose, such as a working dog. Not when there are so many different looking x breeds in rescue for me to have


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> :lol::lol:
> 
> I think dallies are crossed with weims, I'm not sure someone may correct me on that. The condition with dallies causes crystals in the urine, and a lot of dallies have it. Crossing them seems to have made puppies without this problem.


They back crossed with English pointers, as it was found that they didnt carry the gene responsible.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> They back crossed with English pointers, as it was found that they didnt carry the gene responsible.


oh right. thank you for correcting me.


----------



## Miss.PuddyCat (Jul 13, 2009)

This is why I havent posted really in the dog section as my mom has taken an interest into four common crossed dogs so instead I just looked into the history of the site to read up on it.


----------



## staceydawlz (Jun 8, 2009)

can i ask is it a rule not to talk about crossbreeds because to me that sounds rediculous!! iv got a full pedigree lab and as from yesterdayish lol i have a staffy cross and so far so good hes a great dog...so far! i dont have a problem with ether and lets face it crosses will never be out bred! x


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

You can talk about them but at one point everytime crossbreeds were mentioned it turned into all crossbreeds are great, all purebreds are crippled wrecks/ all purebreds are great, all crossbreeds are evil arguments. There were very militant people on both sides most of whom aren't around anymore


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

I have absolutely no idea what has been said on this thread, but i will put in my opinion.

Cross breeds DO have a place in this world. I for one have no issues with them. Except for the fact a lot of cross breeders do not Health Test (as well as pedigree breeders!) this annoys me!

A breeding dog should be totally sound, in internal health and as well as external. So health tests are a must. To me H/T's are as important as temperment.

If a person decides to cross breed, well then they should have the true and exact knowledge of BOTH breeds. All the genetics, health, etc etc etc.

They should be willing to spend out the money for health tests (which is not just '''seen by the vet and OKayed''') I.E hips/elbows/eyes etc

I would not buy a cross breed puppy unless all this and more is accounted for.

(P.S For anyone who thinks i am picking on cross breeds i actually expect the same of of ALL breeders, no matter if they are pedigree or cross breeders)

Off to read the thread now.............(or maybe tomorrow! :lol


----------



## dobermummy (Apr 4, 2009)

sequeena said:


> Crossbreeds are scum!!
> 
> So I don't know why I own two of them


 how dare you

(i own 3 )


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

casandra said:


> When you are breeding, you are NOT just breeding two dogs, you're bringing together two "families" in a sense. You really have to consider the lines the dogs have come from to get a good picture of what the quality of puppies would be like. This also means knowing first or second hand the temperament and conformation as well as the health of the parents, grandparents and great grandparents of the puppies.


i totally agree with this point...however the consequence of this truthful remark is that within a single breed (no matter how many specimens there are even in the hundred of thousands) there are so few families....that any breeding will result in inbreeding, i don;t know home many articles i have posted on this subject and there is a thread running at the moment bringing on the table, yet again, more evidence of the genetic mess that pure breeds are.

still purists, won;t contemplate the possibility that deliberate crosses might just be "marginally" better (in terms of health, general conformation and even temperament) that the pure breeds..
there is a host of evidence out there proving this point...yet pure breed breeders discard this huge body of evidence in order to perpetrate in their course....

by all means, we all are absolutely free to pass on and divulge our opinion...and it demands respect! but if that opinion is not really supported by evidence, or even worse, there is a host of evidence to the contrary...then i guess there is something wrong with the whole argument. 
sometimes i wonder if it would be more honest for purist to come out of the closet and state simply: i love my pure breed, i care for them i breed and will breed to standard so that i can show and win! as, for most breed health will be ok...though slowly by steadily deteriorating, but in some breed health issues are so stringent that the time to do something to mend it is well past...and only critical actions will now be possible to achieve anything like a remotely healthy dog...

sorry for my rant...
but i really get upset when such arguments are brought about to counter what is a well known established in many branches of science...and ignore in pure breed breeding practices!
also sorry to Cassandra (i have quoted your info for the sake of clarity...rather than for taking a blow at you)

best
D


----------



## casandra (Aug 1, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> also sorry to Cassandra (i have quoted your info for the sake of clarity...rather than for taking a blow at you)
> 
> best
> D


No biggie, hun, I read it for what it is, and I totally agree!

I personally threw aside the OP's original connotation that all health tests, lineage etc are already taken care of, because that is certainly NOT the norm, even for purebred dogs, which you'd think would need it more!

Me, for instance, I personally will not breed crosses because I LOOOOOVE my breeds as they are and I can see ways of improving the breed as a whole in my future. Pomeranians, Samoyeds and above all else, the Dobermann. <3

Whenever I see these three breeds crossed, it is NOT for the health or conformation or lineage or what have you, the ultimate demand is money. (this is just what I am seeing, I'm not trying to insinuate that all crosses out there are like this, but my experience lies directly within these breeds).

The Pomeranian and Samoyed are both incredibly healthy breeds by today's standards, the Dobermann, I would consider a breed in crisis.

So in a sense, I guess the only real issue I see with breeding cross-breeds, despite the fact that the parents would have all of the health tests and what not is because I forsee them as being harder to sell into good forever homes.

Many of the breeders I know have always said that there will always be a market for high quality (from health tested parents, titled etc) purebred puppies. This is why I think many of these "designer" breeds are being given these ridiculous names. People are very covetous creatures, we like competition and we always like to have the best stuff as possible. So surely instead of having a mutt (labrador x poodle) we decide to give them a name; ie the HYPOALLERGENIC (cough-not-cough) Labradoodle.

(this is another pet peeve of mine. If you cross a labrador with a poodle, the odds are actually not in your favour for producing puppies with poodle-fur. Most of the doodle breeds I have met are actually either completely non poodle-furred or have a mix of the two parent's furs. My cousins have a goldendoodle and their dog sheds like mad in some places, but in others, the fur is different in texture.)

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Mollydoodle (Mar 10, 2010)

I have a Labradoodle who came from a very good breeder who healthchecked and even sent the tests to America for better tests than the British breeders recommend. Molly has HD but there can still be throwbaks with Hd so all the testing in theworld wudnt have stopped it. I hate the term designer dogs but thingk it is up to the owners wot dog they choose. I do thingk things have gone a bit far with the new names cuming out just to advertise pups and make mor money than selling as crosses. Shurly we all have choyces and fredom to deside what we want and what we can pay as long as the dogs come from healthchcecked parents. Wot annoys me is peeple assuming that crossbreeds are never healthchecked but there are all sorts of breeders who dont healthcheck . Peeple just thingk that coz they are selling crossbreeds or designer dogs wotever that they are bakyardbreeders wich can be the case for any breed og dog bred.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Mollydoodle said:


> I have a Labradoodle who came from a very good breeder who healthchecked and even sent the tests to America for better tests than the British breeders recommend. Molly has HD but there can still be throwbaks with Hd so all the testing in theworld wudnt have stopped it. I hate the term designer dogs but thingk it is up to the owners wot dog they choose. I do thingk things have gone a bit far with the new names cuming out just to advertise pups and make mor money than selling as crosses. Shurly we all have choyces and fredom to deside what we want and what we can pay as long as the dogs come from healthchcecked parents. Wot annoys me is peeple assuming that crossbreeds are never healthchecked but there are all sorts of breeders who dont healthcheck . Peeple just thingk that coz they are selling crossbreeds or designer dogs wotever that they are bakyardbreeders wich can be the case for any breed og dog bred.


Can I just ask which of, and why, the American health tests are better?


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Can I just ask which of, and why, the American health tests are better?


i would also be interested in this reply.

mo


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

I haven't read the whole thread, but in answer to your original post.



> I seem to find that so called 'designer dogs' are unpopular here, and i assume this is due to them being seen as a fashion item? Is that assumption correct? (By designer dog i mean Puggles - pug x beagle) However, i think these are quite good mixes...


I think the thing that disturbs me most is that it really is a 'fashion' and as such command silly prices, overbreeding (as everyone thinks they are 'the' dog to get, few have health tests done and most come from breeders out to make a bit of money. To be fair, this happens with any popular pure breed too - it happen to dalmatians when the film 101 dalmatians came out, it happens in labs because they are so popular, but there are still good breeders out there that breed for the breed first. With these fashionable crosses, the only thing they are producing is pets - not working towards a breed and traits etc, so it attracts far more poor breeding practices, byb and puppy farmers.



> And also dogs that may seem to be a bad mix... Labrador x Staffy/Collie as I own, turn out to be one the most gentle, calm and PERFECT dogs.


But so are my pure bred labradors! and to be fair, most pet owners would consider theirs the perfect pets. The biggest problems occur because people do not choose a breed that will fit in with their lifestyle.



> Maybe it isn's so much about the breed and more to do with how the dog is bought up...
> 
> What are your views on cross breed dogs and sensible mixes? Also, is it ALL about the dogs upbringing?


Upbringing plays a big part, but temperament is inherited, so breeding plays a part as too does the actual breed as they have different traits. There are so many breeds that there should be a dog to suit everyone's needs if researched carefully, with a cross it's a bit of a lottery.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> who healthchecked and even sent the tests to America for better tests than the British breeders recommend.


mmmm - I'm a assuming you're referring to the Penn hip scoring as opposed to the UK BVA scoring system. I've heard someone else with a labradoodle claim that it was a better system. While I do think it has merits, I'm not convinced it is better than the UK system, which gives far more detail than other scoring systems. I'm also curious why US breeders rarely use it too if it is superior.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> sometimes i wonder if it would be more honest for purist to come out of the closet and state simply: i love my pure breed, i care for them i breed and will breed to standard so that i can show and win!


I will quite happily admit that I love my pure breed  and I would never purposely cross it. I feel sad that people see the need to cross it - a labrador is perfect the way it is  I don't show, but being in the cards or winning in Trials or Working Tests is the icing on the cake, absolutely, but the most pleasure is in building the partnership and actually seeing my dogs working and doing what they were bred to do - and they love it just as much too


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rocco33 I've just given you *rep* for your posts, very well put explanations and answers


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I will quite happily admit that I love my pure breed  and I would never purposely cross it. *I feel sad that people see the need to cross it *- a labrador is perfect the way it is  I don't show, but being in the cards or winning in Trials or Working Tests is the icing on the cake, absolutely, but the most pleasure is in building the partnership and actually seeing my dogs working and doing what they were bred to do - and they love it just as much too


Rocco, so here I will pose a sincere question for you. I do understand that for you a labrador is perfect. I don't understand why, because it is that for you, you feel a need to restrict others to that perfection, (indeed a sadness over the issue), when a mix of a labrador might be their perfection.

I guess the question is about why not each to their own - why can't we leave it at that without vilifying or finding fault with those that mixbreed or want mixes?

I have a good friend who is on her fourth Cockapoo, from the same breeder (her Aunt) who shows and breeds Toy Poodles, and very occasionally breeds a litter of Cockapoos with the co-operation of another Cocker Spaniel breeder.

Over 25 years they have had a litter every couple or three years (when waiting list is there) of the mixes for people like my friend (a teacher that I work with) that LOVES this mix MORE than they would appreciate either of the parent breeds.

The dogs are health checked. The sires used on the four pups my friend has owned have always been championed and she has gleaned four beautifully temperamented pets. This is a popular combination specifically because the F1 puppies produced can be fairly consistent (to any breeder with any understanding of temperament/type breeding).

Why does it create sadness in purebred affectionados (sp?) that these dogs carried their genes into a cross instead of into a purebred?

I primarily like companion bred dogs. Why are people so up in arms with breeders making the choice to mix these breeds . . . there are no working trials involved here that breeders are aiming for.

What is wrong with having a pedigreed dog with different breeds in its background and even working forward from there if you know what you've got. My grandfather bred dogs this way, starting before registry breeding was 'the be all end all', and so did my mom. It is not rocket science.

I DON'T GET IT - the love of purity and the upset with cross breeders.

CC


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

Going back to these F1 dogs. For example, the 'cockapoo'. These breeders are trying to create a whole new breed. Yes, they say the parents are health tested etc etc, but in trying to create this new breed don't they realise how small the available gene pool is? Who's to say what new inherited diseases may start cropping up in this new brand of crossbreed, diseases that weren't present in the original parent breeds. Genetics is a fickle part of nature.

My gripe is that these dogs are the new designer 'It' thing of current times. What about the true 'mongrels' out there (and I'm talking about dogs of unknown parentage here)? So many of these dogs are found in rescue, or bred accidentally, yet their 'value' is even more reduced since this new tier of dog breeds appeared on the scene. Ironically, it is these mongrels that are the healthiest dogs out there.

I'm sure this has been said before (haven't had a chance to read the whole thread) with pedigree dogs you'll have a pretty good estimate of the dog's traits and characteristics, what size it will eventually be, what health risks are attributable to that particular breed. I sincerely don't think that by crossing different breeds we'll end up with 'better' dogs - if that were the case then surely it would have been done by the Victorians (who had a certain penchant for playing God ). I'm sure that if you want a particular dog that matches the traits of two types of pedigree dogs, there'll be a pedigree breed out there that fits the criteria! You only have to look.

Personally, I don't care if a person prefers a pure pedigree or a mixed mongrel - they're all dogs at the end of the day. However, paying £650 or more for a fashionable cross is just ludicrous in my eyes. It's like buying supremely expensive bottled water - ordinary water with fancy packaging .


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

To be honest, how many dogs in the UK today are completely companion animals? And in contrast, how many dogs in the UK are used for showing or working trials?

There are way, way more companion dogs than show or working dogs. When you show or work, the breed is important as it is being bred for a specific job and showing is only for purebreeds. So really, the vast majority are just pets, so who cares what the dog is made up of? As long as it's healthy and happy and well looked after, who cares what the dog looks like or what breed the dog is. If someone's ideal dog is a cross between a cavalier and a cocker, then that's the dog for them and no-one should say otherwise.

The only thing I will say is buy from responsible and reputable breeders, but then this is the same with purebreds too.


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> So really, the vast majority are just pets, so who cares what the dog is made up of? As long as it's healthy and happy and well looked after, who cares what the dog looks like or what breed the dog is.


I don't mean to be blunt, Seven, but weren't you very recently having trouble with your cocker spaniel? If you'd researched a bit more into the breed you'd have realised what cockers are bred to do, and what they will INSIST on doing, regardless of whether you want them to or not. They don't know they are just a pet - they are doing what comes instinctively to them through generations of breeding.

With a cross-breed there is absolutely no guarantee of what characteristics the dog will have or inherit. You mentioned as an example a cavalier and cocker cross - you're crossing two breeds of spaniel there, do you realise? But which traits will come out more than others? It's a total lottery, and sometimes the jackpot isn't what you want.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

shamykebab said:


> I don't mean to be blunt, Seven, but weren't you very recently having trouble with your cocker spaniel? If you'd researched a bit more into the breed you'd have realised what cockers are bred to do, and what they will INSIST on doing, regardless of whether you want them to or not. They don't know they are just a pet - they are doing what comes instinctively to them through generations of breeding.
> 
> With a cross-breed there is absolutely no guarantee of what characteristics the dog will have or inherit. You mentioned as an example a cavalier and cocker cross - you're crossing two breeds of spaniel there, do you realise? But which traits will come out more than others? It's a total lottery, and sometimes the jackpot isn't what you want.


how rude. if you read a recent thread that I made, you would see what mistakes I have made with researching before getting Ollie. how dare you!! everyone makes mistakes, most people don't even research one bit before getting a dog, at least I researched breeders and health testing.

to be honest, who are you to say that cavs x cockers are not good dogs? who are you to say that they shouldn't live and they shouldn't be bred? people get crossbred pups from rescue all the time, you don't know how they'll turn out, but no-one goes around saying they shouldn't have rescued it because you don't know what you are going to get.

any puppy is a lottery, either with temperament or health, only adult dogs will be true and you will definitely know what you are getting. maybe all puppies should go in rescue for a year before they can go to new homes, as then their true temperaments would have come out?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I DON'T GET IT - the love of purity and the upset with cross breeders


You don't have to GET IT!  You're entitled to your view as I am mine. OK to get upset was probably not accurate. TBH, I'm not the sort of person to get too bothered by what others do - particularly if they health test. In truth, those purebreds used to breed crossbreeds are rarely the best dogs so they will probably not be missed in the gene pool, so from that point of view it's not a big deal.



> that LOVES this mix MORE than they would appreciate either of the parent breeds.


I can't understand this argument as cross breeds do not breed true. I'm sure they have loved each one, but it is a lottery what kind of pup they get each time they breed. Fine, if people like that and want the unexpected then so be it, but the number of poodle crosses that have been passed on because they didn't have the non-shedding / hypo allergenic coat that the buyers thought they would is quite high.

I suppose my main problem with it is the designer aspect. I have no problem with people cross breeding if they have a purpose. Many working dogs are crossed - terriers, lurchers etc and the breeders have an aim in mind. One of the most successful crosses is done by GDBA - again, with thought (and health testing) in mind and a proven outcome. But what I don't agree with is the pick n mix approx to breeding crosses. I like a lab so I'll have a bit of that, and I like a collie - so will put that into the mix. Effectively this is exactly what most cross breeding is - at least when it's not due to the handiest stud available being next door, or one that can be given a fancy name so attract buyers.

I like a breed as it is no changes, just as it is.  One could argue that those who cross breed are playing God by trying to create things that are new - a mix and match. I DONT GET IT.

What I find most telling is that one of the most popular crosses is a poodle cross - along with the fancy names of ...........poo or ...........oodle. What I can't understand is if the poodle is so well loved by everyone why does it never figure in the top 20 breeds year on year


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shamykebab said:


> I really don't think you can compare dogs and humans so directly, you really can't.


I don't understand why certain concepts don't transfer over . . . however I did not put that comment in as a debate but just as an honest explanation of where I do come from in my thinking.



shamykebab said:


> Going back to these F1 dogs. For example, the 'cockapoo'. These breeders are trying to create a whole new breed. :.


Sorry. This is wrong. The Cockapoo has been around for 40 years in North America and a huge number of breeders JUST breed it as an F1 cross.

Those who are trying to create a new breed are doing so because of the pressure of those who think in line with registries. I think that is ill thought out, as I firmly believe we need no more breeds bred within closed gene pools.



shamykebab said:


> My gripe is that these dogs are the new designer 'It' thing of current times.:.


See above . . . . no some are not, but ALL are being thrown under the bus and included as "designer", and all slammed together often without allowance for exceptions. I'm sure those who are involved in purebred don't all liked being lumped one and the same as if they were all as bad as purebred puppyfarmers.



shamykebab said:


> What about the true 'mongrels' out there (and I'm talking about dogs of unknown parentage here)? So many of these dogs are found in rescue, or bred accidentally, yet their 'value' is even more reduced since this new tier of dog breeds appeared on the scene. Ironically, it is these mongrels that are the healthiest dogs out there.


So it is OK to have a system where mongrels are less valuable than purebreds, but not OK to bring one more tier into the system. I don't get how that is reasoned.



shamykebab said:


> I'm sure this has been said before (haven't had a chance to read the whole thread) with pedigree dogs you'll have a pretty good estimate of the dog's traits and characteristics, what size it will eventually be, what health risks are attributable to that particular breed.


I disagree with most of what you have stated above - my experience tells me that there are many generalities and broad brushes stated above. Traits and characteristics, size and health risks can also be VERY predictable in crossbreeds so these statements do not apply to all crossbreeding nor all purebreeding.



shamykebab said:


> I sincerely don't think that by crossing different breeds we'll end up with 'better' dogs - if that were the case then surely it would have been done by the Victorians (who had a certain penchant for playing God ). ..


Well actually, it is very well documented that the Victorians (and breeders before them) did do a lot of crossbreeding. Why do you think they did not?



shamykebab said:


> I'm sure that if you want a particular dog that matches the traits of two types of pedigree dogs, there'll be a pedigree breed out there that fits the criteria! You only have to look..


Sometimes there is a pedigree breed that fits, that is possibly a rare breed in a far off country. That would be a silly and unaffordable option for many.

I know for a fact that for me, I've had many mixes that fit the criteria I appreciate, but there is not even one pedigree breed (bred in my country) that fits it . . . so I would suggest you are wrong.



shamykebab said:


> Personally, I don't care if a person prefers a pure pedigree or a mixed mongrel - they're all dogs at the end of the day. However, paying £650 or more for a fashionable cross is just ludicrous in my eyes. It's like buying supremely expensive bottled water - ordinary water with fancy packaging .


Then lets hope you keep to your sensible water and don't make these ludicrous choices for yourself.

CC


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Can this be kept on the subject of dogs please.


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> how rude. if you read a recent thread that I made, you would see what mistakes I have made with researching before getting Ollie. how dare you!! everyone makes mistakes, most people don't even research one bit before getting a dog, at least I researched breeders and health testing.


Sorry, I don't see how I was being rude, I was just stating a fact in response to what you said ("who cares what the dog looks like or what breed the dog is"). Take it as you will.



SEVEN_PETS said:


> to be honest, who are you to say that cavs x cockers are not good dogs? who are you to say that they shouldn't live and they shouldn't be bred? people get crossbred pups from rescue all the time, you don't know how they'll turn out, but no-one goes around saying they shouldn't have rescued it because you don't know what you are going to get.


Don't you think you're being a bit melodramatic there?  I never said they wouldn't be good dogs, I just said that you wouldn't be quite sure what you'd get. Please read my posts more carefully. As for rescue, the people who worl in these centres are very experienced. They assess the dog for it's temperament and characteristics, then and only then will they place the dog in a very carefully selected home.



SEVEN_PETS said:


> any puppy is a lottery, either with temperament or health, only adult dogs will be true and you will definitely know what you are getting. maybe all puppies should go in rescue for a year before they can go to new homes, as then their true temperaments would have come out?


Er, no. Puppies are puppies but they will still show the characteristics of their particular breed. And your last sentence is simply ridiculous, I'm sorry.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> Can this be kept on the subject of dogs please.


Apologies to Rocco and thanks for editting as obviously an upset was caused - that was not my aim, as I was trying just to explain a perspective, but we'll keep it to dogs.

CC


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I don't understand why certain concepts don't transfer over . . . however I did not put that comment in as a debate but just as an honest explanation of where I do come from in my thinking.
> 
> Sorry. This is wrong. The Cockapoo has been around for 40 years in North America and a huge number of breeders JUST breed it as an F1 cross.
> 
> ...


CC, lol, I don't have time to go through the whole post but I never said cross-breeds were a bad thing! I'm just worried that many people who aren't as aware as others may just latch onto the next fashionable whippy-poo or border-husky without knowing what they're getting themselves into while paying tremendous amounts of money for them. What happens when they're not so fashionable anymore? Meanwhile, there are so many similar crossed dogs out there in rescue centres. I'm also not saying that 'mongrel' dogs are valueless - we've had them in our family all our lives and they were the best dogs with their own special quirks.

And yes, I do drink sensible water. Unless I'm in London and it's horrid .


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shamykebab said:


> CC, lol, I don't have time to go through the whole post but I never said cross-breeds were a bad thing! I'm just worried that many people who aren't as aware as others may just latch onto the next fashionable whippy-poo or border-husky without knowing what they're getting themselves into while paying tremendous amounts of money for them. What happens when they're not so fashionable anymore? Meanwhile, there are so many similar crossed dogs out there in rescue centres. I'm also not saying that 'mongrel' dogs are valueless - we've had them in our family all our lives and they were the best dogs with their own special quirks.
> 
> And yes, I do drink sensible water. Unless I'm in London and it's horrid .


Just shows where living in a different/country does make a difference in perspective, as here, where most are mutts and mongrels, my worry has always been about those latching onto the next fashionable insert purebreed name here without knowing what they are getting themselves into.

Mongrels/mutts/mixbreeds still, for the most part, sell for much less.

I believe our concerns are similar!

I drink tap water, and at home well water. Haven't brought myself to be able to pay $$ for bottled water yet.

CC


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Just shows where living in a different/country does make a difference in perspective, as here, where most are mutts and mongrels, my worry has always been about those latching onto the next fashionable insert purebreed name here without knowing what they are getting themselves into.


Good point. I guess good owner-education is what you have to hope for .


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shamykebab said:


> Good point. I guess good owner-education is what you have to hope for .


In Alberta we've been doing quite well on that front, WITHOUT attacking those that breed conscientiously. I live in a province the size of Texas.

We remain with ~90% unregistered dogs here but our two large city shelter systems place all healthy and adoptable.

That makes me believe the rescue situation is not so much affected by what "type" is produced, but by ownership responsibility attitude . . . and that is a whole 'nuther type of education.

Our rescues can only supply less than 25% of those that are needed to make up for dogs lost to attrition each year which means there IS room for breeding by those who breed carefully and back their pups for life.

Even with this, a huge effort, still, is required to place the large rambunctious younger dogs that have been acquired as puppies and then dumped. It is those marketting dogs carelessly; it is those that have unreasonable expectations of dog ownership; and those that show an obvious lack of responsibility that need to be reached.

CC


----------



## Matrix/Logan (May 7, 2009)

shamykebab said:


> Going back to these F1 dogs. For example, the 'cockapoo'. These breeders are trying to create a whole new breed. Yes, they say the parents are health tested etc etc, but in trying to create this new breed don't they realise how small the available gene pool is? Who's to say what new inherited diseases may start cropping up in this new brand of crossbreed, diseases that weren't present in the original parent breeds. Genetics is a fickle part of nature.
> 
> My gripe is that these dogs are the new designer 'It' thing of current times. What about the true 'mongrels' out there (and I'm talking about dogs of unknown parentage here)? So many of these dogs are found in rescue, or bred accidentally, yet their 'value' is even more reduced since this new tier of dog breeds appeared on the scene. Ironically, it is these mongrels that are the healthiest dogs out there.
> 
> ...


Can i just say that you mention the victorians and the new designer dogs!! But how did ''pedigree dogs'' originate if it wasn't peoples curiosity of mixing dogs to get 'their designer dog' in the first place?!?!   
My personal view is dogs are all dogs and should be loved and cared for no matter whether they are ''upper-class'' of ''working-class'', i have one of each at the mo and am seriously considering another dog whether it ends up being a x or a pedigree pooch it will be offered the same responsible loving home my other 2 have the privelage of living in!  :lol: :thumbup:

Example: The Doberman was a dog developed by infusing German Pinscher, Rottweiler, and even Greyhound at one point. However, after Herr Dobermann got the traits he was looking for, he stopped using different breeds and focused on setting the traits he wanted with the dogs he had, until the Doberman was a uniform type of dog.

After many years, you no longer got puppies in a litter of Dobermans who resembled their Greyhound, Pinscher, or Rottweiler ancestors. They all looked like Dobermans. Uniformity was achieved, and a purebred dog was created.

THIS is how most purebred dogs are developed. And it is ALWAYS based on obtaining the perfect dog for the job...whether it's herding, hunting in low brush, retrieving waterfowl in icy water, or protecting a tax collector on his rounds.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Matrix/Logan said:


> Can i just say that you mention the victorians and the new designer dogs!! But how did ''pedigree dogs'' originate if it wasn't peoples curiosity of mixing dogs to get 'their designer dog' in the first place?!?!
> My personal view is dogs are all dogs and should be loved and cared for no matter whether they are ''upper-class'' of ''working-class'', i have one of each at the mo and am seriously considering another dog whether it ends up being a x or a pedigree pooch it will be offered the same responsible loving home my other 2 have the privelage of living in!  :lol: :thumbup:


The difference is, when breeds were formed, they were done so with a purpose, dogs were bred because of their temperament, ability and conformation, they weren't bred because the name sounded like a selling point. I am friends with many people who work their dogs, some are kennelled, some live in the home, all are loved and obviously love what they're doing.

Once the breed standards were set, and pedigree dogs came about, they were beyond the means of most folk, and any people that had dogs, usually had something produced from an accidental mating, latch key dogs and all that.

In the modern day you would hope we might have moved on from animals as commodities, but unfortunately someone will always want an animal because of it's unusual colour or name. Owning two chocolate Labradors, I always get comments on Tau, because she is unusually pale, if I could breed for that pale colour I could make a fortune, but that isn't, and shouldn't ever be a priority for anyone breeding animals. The minute every dog owner feels privileged, rather than it should be their right, to own dogs, will be a good move towards reducing unwanted, unecessary dogs of any breeding.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

I think we have enough breeds and enough dog full stop!

Rather than bringing in YET more life to the world. Why not spend that time assisting the rescue crisis, rather than indirectly adding to it? 

Unfortunately, the reason to that is pure selfishness.


----------



## Matrix/Logan (May 7, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> I think we have enough breeds and enough dog full stop!
> 
> Rather than bringing in YET more life to the world. Why not spend that time assisting the rescue crisis, rather than indirectly adding to it?
> 
> Unfortunately, the reason to that is pure selfishness.


But then like a lot of people have put on here in recent threads they have struggled to get a dog from rescue for various reasons. A poster on another thread at the mo says she tried to get a rescue dog but was turned down as she worked and yet her dog gets walked 3 x a day! Some people who don't work don't even give that 'quality time' to their dogs! 
My brother and sister-in-law recently tried to 'adopt' too but were turned down by wood green because they worked more than 4 hours a day. So rescue isn't always an option sadly.  (3hours each side of lunch time, with the whole hour in the middle spent at home)


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Matrix/Logan said:


> But then like a lot of people have put on here in recent threads they have struggled to get a dog from rescue for various reasons. A poster on another thread at the mo says she tried to get a rescue dog but was turned down as she worked and yet her dog gets walked 3 x a day! Some people who don't work don't even give that 'quality time' to their dogs!
> My brother and sister-in-law recently tried to 'adopt' too but were turned down by wood green because they worked more than 4 hours a day. So rescue isn't always an option sadly.  (3hours each side of lunch time, with the whole hour in the middle spent at home)


I too struggled. I went to RSPCA, Battesea and The Dogs Trust.

I wanted 2 medium sized dogs and I was told that we didn;t have enough experience and that we were out for too long (5-6 hrs a few days a week).

Funny that I have 3 rescue dogs now ........

Some people will give up at the first hurdle (or second) and others will persevere.

I eventually went to a smaller rescue organisation and then found my third on gumtree.com.

Where there's a will there's a way!

But it sounds far better to say "well I tried, but nobody would give me a rescue dog. So I had no choice but to buy a puppy"

That excuse does not wash with me


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The difference is, when breeds were formed, they were done so with a purpose, dogs were bred because of their temperament, ability and conformation, they weren't bred because the name sounded like a selling point..












Title: Buy A Dog Ma'am



Sleeping_Lion said:


> In the modern day you would hope we might have moved on from animals as commodities, but unfortunately someone will always want an animal because of it's unusual colour or name. Owning two chocolate Labradors, I always get comments on Tau, because she is unusually pale, if I could breed for that pale colour I could make a fortune, but that isn't, and shouldn't ever be a priority for anyone breeding animals. The minute every dog owner feels privileged, rather than it should be their right, to own dogs, will be a good move towards reducing unwanted, unecessary dogs of any breeding.


Any suggestions on how to do this, because I don't believe discouraging the breeding of one type of dog over another is going to accomplish it . . . after all the practise of marketting dogs by some wanted hyped "quality" whether is be it's purebred heritage or crossbred vigour has been going on, obviously, for a great length of time. I see the "hype" around both (and other marketting gimmicks) equally as harmful.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Title: Buy A Dog Ma'am
> 
> Any suggestions on how to do this, because I don't believe discouraging the breeding of one type of dog over another is going to accomplish it . . . after all the practise of marketting dogs by some wanted hyped "quality" whether is be it's purebred heritage or crossbred vigour has been going on, obviously, for a great length of time. I see the "hype" around both (and other marketting gimmicks) equally as harmful.
> 
> CC


Ok, as an artist, that is an artistic representation of a subject, not necessarily 100% factual 

Goodvic, I always do my bit for charity, I have a charity auction prize on at the moment. How many litters have I bred to date, none! I've raised thousands of pounds for chairty though, without a penny profit for myself, and when I do charity auction prizes, I also donate p&p to the winning bidder, every little bit counts.

People want dogs as pets, and as long as people want pets, there will be those that take advantage of this. Now whether you think a pet can be provided by a reputable pedigree dog breeder, or someone who happens to health test and cross bred, is up to you. Personally, I like my Labradors, and I'll stick to that, I see no reason for me to cross breed, other than to produce a saleable gimmick. And for me, that's just not an option.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, as an artist, that is an artistic representation of a subject, not necessarily 100% factual .


You don't believe, then, that dogs were being bred and marketted with "purity" and better breeding the gimmick 100 years ago? (BTW, they still are).

Here is an excerpt from the 1911 book "Toy Dogs And Their Ancestors" written in 1911, about dog dealers.

_"*Pitfalls For Dog Novices. Part 2*

I have seen ladies buy up dog after dog, getting all those which beat theirs, and they never got a good dog at all, and got rid of a lot of money.

As an illustration, a lady may buy a good dog at a show. It gets about that she has given a big price for him, which may or may not be true,* and this rouses up all the dealers*, *who think if they can eclipse him with another, she will give a still bigger price for the winner.* The dog is, therefore, beaten in grand style at his next show, and she duly receives overtures from the owner of the winner, who talks confidentially to her friends in the hearing of the defeated owner. Her husband does not want her to keep a stud dog, she is reluctantly obliged to part with him. Dog given away at £250 (!!!). To this the friend cries out that it would be ridiculous to part with the dog for such a sum; the victim pricks up her ears, and most likely the confidential friend finds an opportunity for improving the occasion. The victim wavers, hesitates, and is lost; and thinks she has secured a bargain at £80, yet from that moment the dog's show career declines. He may win a third prize now and again, for "auld lang syne," but his meteoric brilliance is at an end. Beware, then, of sky-rockets. There are lots of dogs with these bubble reputations."​_
http://chestofbooks.com/animals/dogs/Toy-Dogs-Ancestor/Pitfalls-For-Dog-Novices-Part-2.html

another excerpt, same book:

_"A man who will brighten tip trade by giving prizes and does not beat down the breeders, but gives them good value for their stock, one would think to be a godsend to the " Fancy," but this is not how it works out. *The bigger dealers are not satisfied with getting first-class prices for good dogs, but on the contrary, they want to keep their good dogs and win all the prizes themselves palming off the riffraff and misfits on the unsuspecting fairy prince for the fabulous prices which only fancy points can demand. *The fairy prince, especially if he be an American, is generally quite prepared to pay double the market price, and does not grudge the price if he gets what he wants, but he expects to get a marvel for his money, and small blame to him. Numbers of fanciers hate a man they cannot fleece, and directly he shows them plainly that he will not buy their rubbish but intends to get the best or shut his purse, their one idea is to prevent this unwelcome connoisseur teaching anyone else by getting rid of him as quickly as possible.."​_
http://chestofbooks.com/animals/dog...es-Exhibitors-Clubs-And-Reporters-Part-7.html

Please don't sell me the naivety that there were not dog breeds developed for monetary gain. The Cavalier Spaniel was developed after the 1920s for a monetary prize for Pete's sake.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> You don't believe, then, that dogs were being bred and marketted with "purity" and better breeding the gimmick 100 years ago? (BTW, they still are).
> 
> Here is an excerpt from the 1911 book "Toy Dogs And Their Ancestors" written in 1911, about dog dealers.
> 
> ...


Of course they were, I note however your excerpt is from a toy dog publication, if you were to find one about working/gundogs dogs I'd be very surprised


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Yes, so would I, but we're not only talking about working breeds. I've also just read this which tells me we do agree on a lot.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> People want dogs as pets, and as long as people want pets, there will be those that take advantage of this. Now whether you think a pet can be provided by a reputable pedigree dog breeder, or someone who happens to health test and cross bred, is up to you.


CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Yes, so would I, but we're not only talking about working breeds. I've also just read this which tells me we do agree on a lot.
> 
> CC


But that's where we perhaps differ, my priority is dogs that have an ability and will work for me, as well as fabulous temperament and good conformation.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Apologies accepted Comfortcreature - thank you.



> Just shows where living in a different/country does make a difference in perspective, as here, where most are mutts and mongrels, my worry has always been about those latching onto the next fashionable insert purebreed name here without knowing what they are getting themselves into.


There must be a big difference. One the problems I have is that these fashionable cross breeds are selling for more, and sometimes more than double the price of the purebred dogs they were bred from. Also, they are rarely health tested or good examples of the breed. I agree that you could insert the name of a popular purebreed in there and I disagree with that sort of breeding too.

I'm aware of and hate how breeding for looks alone has led to exaggerations and health problems in some breeds and can quite see the benefits of outcrossing to improve these breeds, but I don't believe this is why these crosses are done. Someone mentioned 'puggles' being a good cross. I will firstly say that I don't know enough about either breed to make an informed breeding decision, but I would question the wisdom of crossing a breed which suffers from breathing problems with a dog that runs forever  I see no sense in that because while it may improve some offspring, others will be further hindered - what happens to them? Do they get culled? Who makes that decision. The breeders of old culled those pups that had problems or did not suit, but that was years ago when attitudes were different. I cannot see people prepared to do that now and I include myself in that.
Rather than trying to produce healthy puppies, I cannot help feel that the real driving force in these crosses are the cute name, the novelty value and the price tag that accompanies it.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Why breed cross-breeds? Maybe to create new dogs for the way people live now. Most dogs are pets, not workers, so I see nothing wrong with cross breeding to bring about dogs that are, for instance, small to medium sized to fit in the smaller houses, non-shedding to minimise grooming and housework, nice temperament without any particular obsessions like hunting, lower energy for people that don't have time to walk hours each day. That's fine by me.

All the 'pure breeds' were created like this for other, different (often sporting)qualities. Then the breeds were standardised, stud books closed in line with the ethos of eugenics that was current at the time with the aristocracy and upper classes who got to run things back then. 

Keep pure breeds for the purpose for which they were created, by all means, but not necessarily with closed books for small gene pools or where there are health problems. It should be possible to cross out to dogs of other breeds/types that were instrumental in creating the breed in the first place, to increase genetic diversity.

Apart from the designer dogs, cockapoos and puggles and such like, there are also dogs being deliberately cross bred for other purposes - for instance Border Collie X JRT's are being crossed as agility dogs. They are fast, intelligent and should size into medium.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> for instance Border Collie X JRT's are being crossed as agility dogs


.

But that's still breeding for a purpose - with an aim in sight. What I hate is the pick n mix, novelty approach, the fancy name and the large price tag attached.


----------



## Captain.Charisma (May 24, 2009)

As long as the two breeds have simualr characterics/traits and are roughly the same size, whats the big deal ?

Like erm, a dog with a Rotti mum and boxer dad ?


----------



## Mollydoodle (Mar 10, 2010)

Matrix/Logan said:


> Can i just say that you mention the victorians and the new designer dogs!! But how did ''pedigree dogs'' originate if it wasn't peoples curiosity of mixing dogs to get 'their designer dog' in the first place?!?!
> My personal view is dogs are all dogs and should be loved and cared for no matter whether they are ''upper-class'' of ''working-class'', i have one of each at the mo and am seriously considering another dog whether it ends up being a x or a pedigree pooch it will be offered the same responsible loving home my other 2 have the privelage of living in!  :lol: :thumbup:
> 
> Example: The Doberman was a dog developed by infusing German Pinscher, Rottweiler, and even Greyhound at one point. However, after Herr Dobermann got the traits he was looking for, he stopped using different breeds and focused on setting the traits he wanted with the dogs he had, until the Doberman was a uniform type of dog.
> ...


Rep for you Matrix.

All dogs on this planet as mongrels/wolfs ect and humans made pedigrees, now there are crossbreeds and still mongrels but at the end of the day THEY ARE ALL DOGS and we as indivdules have the FREEDOM OF CHOYCE. we are neva going to agree on this so why keep on? some peeple luv crossbreeds some luv pedigrees and some luv mongrels , I luv all of them and hav had all of them but I favor Labradoodles now but I hate the snobery from the pedigree peeple. It is no-one elses bisness wot i pay for my dog where I get her from or what dog i get and the snobs are not going to stop crossbreeds being bred so why dont we just agree to dissagree?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> Why breed cross-breeds? Maybe to create new dogs for the way people live now. Most dogs are pets, not workers, so I see nothing wrong with cross breeding to bring about dogs that are, for instance, small to medium sized to fit in the smaller houses, non-shedding to minimise grooming and housework, nice temperament without any particular obsessions like hunting, lower energy for people that don't have time to walk hours each day. That's fine by me.
> 
> All the 'pure breeds' were created like this for other, different (often sporting)qualities. Then the breeds were standardised, stud books closed in line with the ethos of eugenics that was current at the time with the aristocracy and upper classes who got to run things back then.
> 
> ...


i agree with this. purebreds were bred for a specific purpose. most dogs in this country are just pets so what's wrong with crossbreeding to get different characteristics? when I was searching for a dog, i obviously looked at different breeds, and the only dogs without any hunting instinct, tracking instinct or herding instinct were toy breeds. what if you wanted a medium-large dog with traits that made them a companion, not a hunting machine? i don't mind crossbreeding as long as the breeder is responsible and has thought about the breeding and what they are trying to achieve from breeding the two dogs, but of course, this is the same with purebreds too.


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

if someone health tested their dogs to cross them then i could just about live with that, however do to no health tests and breed them - why?

theres no need to breed crosses,,,, that said i own one who was an 'accident' (best accident ever) however i wouldnt have activly seeked to buy a crossbreed.


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> i agree with this. purebreds were bred for a specific purpose. most dogs in this country are just pets so what's wrong with crossbreeding to get different characteristics? when I was searching for a dog, i obviously looked at different breeds, and the only dogs without any hunting instinct, tracking instinct or herding instinct were toy breeds. what if you wanted a medium-large dog with traits that made them a companion, not a hunting machine? i don't mind crossbreeding as long as the breeder is responsible and has thought about the breeding and what they are trying to achieve from breeding the two dogs, but of course, this is the same with purebreds too.


what if you crossed what i have - springer x collie.... she has gundog traits... scents - bogs off.chases.....

not that much collie trats except the markings/long back - however you never know what you will get with crossbreeds - ever....


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

nic101 said:


> what if you crossed what i have - springer x collie.... she has gundog traits... scents - bogs off.chases.....
> 
> not that much collie trats except the markings/long back - however you never know what you will get with crossbreeds - ever....


Exactly. Thank you!


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

I don't think there is a need to breed crosses just as much as pedigrees currently.

Right now there are a *lot* of dogs needing homes and so I think if someone decides they want to breed a lhasa apso with a yorkshire terrier, go right ahead if you know damn well you can find each pup a permanent and loving home.

What I don't agree with is people breeding puppies because they want to/want the experience to say they have done it etc. I think the way things are at the minute with so many dogs about, even people struggling to sell them, that the only real reason to breed is to continue a fantastic bloodline/type of dog that has proven itself as a good pet or working dog or whatever, but either way I think anyone doing that needs a list as long as the amount of pups they expect to be born, BEFORE they even mate.

I know Rachybobs has a list as long as her arm for people after her pups, I think everyone should be like that. My breeder had a waiting list and the only reason I managed to get Rupert was because one family seemed to have vanished off the face of the earth and another had changed their mind.

Health testing would still need to be done of course.

Overall, I don't think we need to be breeding many dogs at all right now, and I think due to being more established and known in terms of traits and characteristics, pedigrees should be the ones bred first to continue what is within them already. If there is a demand for cross breeds I have no issue whatsoever with them being bred. I would rather see pedigrees being bred before cross breeds though, say the world was full to capacity, I would say pedigrees should be bred before crossbreeds to continue already established lines, but providing there are homes waiting and enough demand I do not have an issue with it.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

nic101 said:


> what if you crossed what i have - springer x collie.... she has gundog traits... scents - bogs off.chases.....
> 
> not that much collie trats except the markings/long back - however you never know what you will get with crossbreeds - ever....


with a first cross, you are right, you have no idea what you are going to get, but once you are breeding the crosses together and getting third and fourth crosses, then you can start to get a similar type of dog in your puppies. even purebred breeds have different traits, even in one litter, so you can't expect crossbreeds to be exact to the book.

labradoodles and cockerpoos have been bred loads now, so you do start to get a similar dog with similar traits. most people would now know the traits of a cockerpoo and what they are likely to be like.

any puppy is a risk, you have no idea what it is going to grow up like or if it's going to follow its breed or breeds traits.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Tinsley said:


> I don't think there is a need to breed crosses just as much as pedigrees currently.
> 
> Right now there are a *lot* of dogs needing homes and so I think if someone decides they want to breed a lhasa apso with a yorkshire terrier, go right ahead if you know damn well you can find each pup a permanent and loving home.
> 
> ...


but what if people want a puppy from a breeder? if breeders are discouraged to breed, then people will go to pet shops or puppy farmers. people won't just suddenly start going to rescues. not everyone wants a rescue dog, sometimes people CAN'T get a rescue dog, but are still suitable for a dog. good, responsible breeders should still be encouraged to breed, whether they are breeding purebreds or crosses. if the dog is a pet, it doesn't matter what it is made up of or what breeds are in it. what matters is its temperament and suitability as a pet surely?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I wasn't going to post on this thread any more, and haven't read any responses since my last post, so apologise now, but a very good illustration of why I'm against cross breeding hit me in the face whilst reading the Yorkshire Post. Labradoodle pups, £800 no health tests mentioned. 

Don't get me wrong, there are people who breed pedigrees that are in it for the cash, but the cross breeds are a target market, and whether those who own a cross breed like it or not, they are very subject to 'fashion', more so in my opinion than the most fashionable of pedigrees. 

It all boils down to people being able to have a choice, and unfortunately, even when trying to educate some people to buy responsibly, they will always choose the bargain pedigree without papers, or the puppy with a name that they love, like jackapoo, or jugapoo etc. As the saying goes, you can't educate pork - and that, by the way, does not include those folk who've researched their cross breed and bought 'responsibly' as they see it, just those who buy a cross breed because it sounds good. 

I will stick to my Labradors, and just enjoy them for what they are


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Matrix/Logan said:


> Example:
> The Doberman was a dog developed by infusing German Pinscher, Rottweiler, and even Greyhound at one point. However, after Herr Dobermann got the traits he was looking for, he stopped using different breeds and focused on setting the traits he wanted with the dogs he had, until the Doberman was a uniform type of dog.


actually, matrix - 
nobody really *knows* what breeds *and mixed breeds* Dobermann used to get his desired dog - 
and he was not just choosing for looks, he was selecting for temp, too.

he was a tax-collector, and checks were non-existent; he feared robbery. 
he was also, very conveniently, the head of the dog-pound of his day - so he had access to a huge pool of dogs, 
and as desex was virtually nonexistent in dogs (they killed pups they did not want, or dogs not desired to breed), 
the dogs entering the pound were intact - he could use anything, and did.

he DID have a goal for looks - he admired the Standard Pinscher, a breed that was well-established already. 
and he wanted a bigger dog, a deterrent - active, athletic, devoted and suspicious of strangers.

the old saying in Germany was, _If U can touch my Doberman, U can have him._ 
needless to say, that won;t fly in the modern day; American Dobes are WAY softer then the Euro-version, who are still not 
Herr Dobermanns original *bite first, apologize later* model.

i do not know if we have enuf DNA-markers yet to parse the breed-history of Dobes - 
it is well known that he used mixed-breeds as well as dogs who Looked To Be *breeds*, but it is not documented 
that he used any *papered* - that is pedigreed - individual dogs. 
he spent 25-years achieving a breed that threw true; *Adolph Hitler* condemned the breed as mutts - just like Jewish people. 
:nonod: eugenics was part of the social web + woof of the time; it entered EVERYthing.

all my best, 
--- terry


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Tapir said:


> What are your views on cross breed dogs and sensible mixes?


the best reason that i know of for crossing (good representatives, with all pertinent health screens for ALL dogs, 
plus every screen available for their individual breeds) is outcrossing to deepen and widen the gene-pools in breeds.

*designer* dog NON-breeds - custom-mixes :thumbdown: 
crossing divergent breeds in an effort to mix-and-match traits is just profit-driven whoredom; 
Pit x BCs for flyball?! Border-Borders? :nono: just to shave nanoseconds off the clock? where have sports + ethics gone? 
what do U do with the leftovers, who do NOT find a dog-sport home? they make lousy pets, lemme tell ya.

Puggles? get real - a money-maker, pure + simple. pimping dogs, to be blunt. 
1st-generation Lab x Poodles? same thing; prostituting ones dog for $$.

purebreds - the trouble spot
we have dug ourselves (and purebred dogs) a massive hole - 
closed registries were the first bad step; 2 world-wars and all the destruction they caused, including genetic bottlenecks, 
were the second; but worst of all has been the on-going fad for breeding MATADORs to every bitch whose owner 
can dig-up the stud fee, and deliberate exaggeration of breed-traits...

if there is ANYthing distinguishing about >> this breed << by DoG, a breeder will make it more-so. :nonod: 
simply ALLOWING Dalmatians to have one patch over an eye or ear, or Two patches over one eye and one ear, 
could **halve** the number of deaf and monaural dogs... 
but the Fancy would have a stroke, at the very suggestion. :thumbdown:

IMO the Dal x Pointer and backcrossed was among the best concepts dogdom ever had... 
and reneging on full-registry of the backcrossed progeny, was among the worst.  how short-sighted! 
how cruel and stoopid, to ban the very dogs created to help eliminate *gout* and purine-intolerance in Dals.

if purity is everything, our dog breeds are doomed; immune depression and fertility depression are inevitable, and already present 
in many breeds.  i would hate to see the loss of breeds to mere pigheaded insistence on looks and pedigree, 
vs function and genetic diversity as a long-term continuing effort.

the thread breeding healthier dogs... SITE - Pet Forums Community 
has more info - including the presence of B + T and Liver + T and Brindle patterns in Labs as recessives, 
yellow or cream as recessives in Flat-Coats, and deliberate crossing of similar breeds - 
there is a handsome Chessie x Golden in a photo.

IMO there is *nothing wrong* with maintaining regional variance, like fox-red smaller Goldens in New England, the medium-straw-gold of the Plains states, and huge cream Goldens in southern Calif; it adds to the diversity within the breed, and enriches it. 
the day that every Golden around the globe looks like every other Golden of the same sex, the breed will be a dead end.

 hoping for sanity - a little-more logic and a lot-less rhetoric, 
--- terry


----------



## Guinevere13 (Mar 31, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> 1st-generation Lab x Poodles? same thing; prostituting ones dog for $$.


Excuse me - must go and tell my dog her mother was a prostitute


----------



## Matrix/Logan (May 7, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> actually, matrix -
> nobody really *knows* what breeds *and mixed breeds* Dobermann used to get his desired dog -
> and he was not just choosing for looks, he was selecting for temp, too.
> 
> ...


Like i said i have just put on info as i found it on google! (copied and pasted the quote so am not responsible if it is incorrect!) 
Proves you can't even research your breed then as you can't always believe the info given if you are saying it is incorrect. May as well just go with your heart like we always have done and not be led by info that may sway your decision but also may be wrong!!


----------



## Matrix/Logan (May 7, 2009)

Guinevere13 said:


> Excuse me - must go and tell my dog her mother was a prostitute


Hahahahaha!! Well said.... :thumbup:  

Hope she takes the news ok! LOL


----------



## Guinevere13 (Mar 31, 2008)

Matrix/Logan said:


> Hahahahaha!! Well said.... :thumbup:
> 
> Hope she takes the news ok! LOL


Thanks - she just carried on snoring!  Doesn't look like she is bothered.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> the best reason that i know of for crossing (good representatives, with all pertinent health screens for ALL dogs,
> plus every screen available for their individual breeds) is outcrossing to deepen and widen the gene-pools in breeds.
> 
> *designer* dog NON-breeds - custom-mixes :thumbdown:
> ...


Apols as I can't quite work out from your post, are you pro positive breeding decisions *within* a pedigree group (ie good linebreeding, out crossing etc), or do you think that pedigrees limit gene pools and make for unhealthy breeding full stop? Just asking after looking at your post about fox reds, which are actually part of the yellow group of Labradors. Completely agree with your view re the money spinning breeds, it is abhorrent, but unfortunately driven by demand.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Matrix/Logan said:


> ...i found (the Dobe foundation) info on google! (copied and pasted the quote so am not responsible if it is incorrect!)
> Proves you can't even research your breed then as you can't always believe the info given if you are saying it is incorrect.


oh, dear - 
i was hoping it came from a book on Dobes, breeding, something.  
most web-factoids have no references or any source, they are just put up like posters on a wall - 
more decor than science. 

here is a fairly reputable source - 
Origins / History of the Dobermann Breed 
NOTE that after Dobermanns death (the dog-warden, dog-skinner + tax-man) both Manchester Terrier + Greyhound 
were introduced to Dobes foundation stock - but Herr Dobermann did not choose those breeds to mix-in.

also NOTE how short the docks + crops are - 
these are guards + vermin-killers, not show-ring darlings with 8-inch long crops. they have stubs for tails + spikes for ears. 
(for the record, i think both practices are asinine - if the show-ring is to choose STUDS + DAMS, we should see them 
as they were *born* -- not post-plastic-surgery.  )

notice how the champs change, from 1901 to 1904 - i would bet that infusion of Manchester Terrier was around then. 
they become finer of bone with less barrel.

cheers, 
--- terry


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> ...are you pro positive breeding decisions *within* a pedigree group (ie good linebreeding, out crossing etc), or do you think that pedigrees limit gene pools and make for unhealthy breeding full stop? [snip]...
> ...fox reds... are actually part of the yellow group of Labradors.


at this point, lion - 
much so-called line-breeding IS in-breeding.  many breeds with thousands of literal real-dogs registered, 
have a factual gene-pool of only 30 to 50 *dna-individuals* to choose from; everybody is everybodys cousin. 

the whole closed-registry thing is bad-enuf; throw in matador-studs, cherry-pick for breed TRAITS (type for the ring), 
and no requirement for working-ability (field, herd, fetch, guard, pull...), and purebreds are in free-fall for quality + health.

let me see if i can find a good photo of a fox-red New-England Golden, a straw-blonde plains-states Golden, and a monster-sized cream from California - i think U will be quite astonished.

back shortly, 
--- terry


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> but what if people want a puppy from a breeder? if breeders are discouraged to breed, then people will go to pet shops or puppy farmers. people won't just suddenly start going to rescues. not everyone wants a rescue dog, sometimes people CAN'T get a rescue dog, but are still suitable for a dog. good, responsible breeders should still be encouraged to breed, whether they are breeding purebreds or crosses. if the dog is a pet, it doesn't matter what it is made up of or what breeds are in it. what matters is its temperament and suitability as a pet surely?


Where did I say no breeders are allowed to breed? I said I think they should have a list of people wanting pups before they mate the dog, therefore people can still have a pup from a breeder, it just gives the pups better security of a forever home? I don't see what would be so wrong about waiting a while to get a pup either, people would be more prepared and probably more keen on the idea, any people who didn't want to wait would be more suited to the dogs from puppy farms anyway, they get what they pay for and nothing more etc.

Like many have said, temperament is more guaranteed in dog breeds which are well established, you aren't going to get that from breeding any cross bred dog, IMO it would need to be a 5th gen to give a much more certain idea of what it was, and not many are even 3rd gen. I know someone who gets their doodles from incredibly good breeders in terms of doing every health test under the sun, but they refuse to breed anything other than 1st gens because it 'takes away the lottery of what you get'.

I never said my opinion should be implemented, it is an opinion. If I was asked what would I do in the current dog situation it would most likely be different to the above, the question was what is my *opinion* on cross breeds being bred.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I think your definition of line breeding, and in breeding, might be a tad different to mine. Line breeding can be beneficial, I believe, in breeding I think isn't something that should be done without a lot of research. There are a few breeds where because of the limitations of the gene pool it is difficult not to line or indeed inbreed, so you either retain the breed, and do the best you can with research, or accept that you can't keep a breed intact, as far as I can see it?

And please, call me Joanne, it is in my siggy, but I'm aware not everyone has these 'viewable' as an option.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Tinsley said:


> Where did I say no breeders are allowed to breed? I said I think they should have a list of people wanting pups before they mate the dog, therefore people can still have a pup from a breeder, it just gives the pups better security of a forever home?


i read your post as you saying that there are too many dogs in rescue and people shouldn't breed as much.

"Overall, I don't think we need to be breeding many dogs at all right now"

these were your words.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> i read your post as you saying that there are too many dogs in rescue and people shouldn't breed as much.
> 
> "Overall, I don't think we need to be breeding many dogs at all right now"
> 
> these were your words.


Those are my words, as are these:

"the only real reason to breed is to continue a fantastic bloodline/type of dog that has proven itself as a good pet or working dog or whatever, but either way I think anyone doing that needs a list as long as the amount of pups they expect to be born, BEFORE they even mate."

I think if you ask a lot of people they would say we don't need to breed as many dogs as we currently do, we don't *need* to because the majority of breeds wont die out, we could probably breed 50% the amount we do of things like staffies/labs and still do fine. I just think people should have a waiting list before they breed to give a better chance of certainty that the pups can find homes, without that how do they know whether people would even want their pups etc, you wouldn't go and set up a club in town without checking how many young people lived there, would you, because its a big venture to lose money on. To me its the same with pups, but they end up in rescues or with people who lose interest because they are available to just go and buy from some breeders, they don't care if the pups lose out.

I don't think people should breed as much, but I didn't say they shouldn't breed at all


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> let me see if i can find a good photo of a fox-red New-England Golden, a straw-blonde plains-states Golden, and a monster-sized cream from California - i think U will be quite astonished.


here is some good stuff on origin - 
Golden Retrievers 
note the range of color: fox-red to cream.

from InlandSoCal.com - Pets: December 2009 Archives 
this picture

is a typical fox-red New England type: they tend to be small, Ms about 45 to 55#; Fs 10# lighter; wavy over shoulders, 
sometimes wavy on the rump, too; limited feather, no enormous plume tails.

i will try to find a full-body profile, but NOTE that black nose + eye-rims - no putty-noses among fox-red Goldens.


----------



## Matrix/Logan (May 7, 2009)

chianya said:


> well im glad ppl do cross breed otherwise i wouldnt have suki she is exactly what i want i love the look of huskys but i do have a young family and a husky would be to big strong hairy and no recall. I would of rescued but u cant with children under 7


Well said! :thumbup:


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

i'm not getting further and further into an argument.

From what i can see there are occasions that the mixing of two distinct breeds is beneficial, the biggest example of this being the lua dallies.

I object to dogs being x-bred just as moneyspinners and out of fashion, just as much as i object to certain pedigree breeds being bred with ridiculous out of proportion price tags and as fashion acessories.

I support any ethical breeding. Health tests, no inbreeding, responsible breeders taking responsibility for their pups, with valid reasons to produce a litter. For most mix bred pups i cannot see any valid reason for producing them.

Just my feelings.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

chianya said:


> well im glad ppl do cross breed otherwise i wouldnt have suki she is exactly what i want i love the look of huskys but i do have a young family and a husky would be to big strong hairy and no recall. I would of rescued but u cant with children under 7


exactly. you wanted a dog with characteristics that didn't fit with a purebred so what's wrong with cross breeding especially if they are going to be just pets?


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

The problem is many people dont want a dog that looks the same as fred's down the road, I personally LOVE a mixture. I would LOVE to see All breeds whatever the mix health tested, I dont understand why breeders dont if it benefits the dogs in the long run BUT not havin health tests wouldnt put me off buying a dog, I would however make sure i have excellent pet insurence to cover any problems that might Arise 

Ive always had moggies only one had health problems mainly because of the first 4 weeks of her life. And we have always had crosses, Only one had a health problem relating to her breeds which was slight HD

I dont think unless the breed is rare breeders should be breeding, there should be tougher ways to control the amount of breeding that happens. Although this would take alot of time and money so i doubt it would happen


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> ...a straw-blonde plains-states Golden...


hey, joanne! :--)

heres a REALLY good pair of shots, a fox-red and a cream - 
the cream-bitch is very young in the upper-photo, she still has *toast* on her ears + back - 
look how much she lightens, once past 2-YO in the second photo - 
Gun Dog Forum • View topic - SOLD(WI) Field Golden Retriever Litter due August 9th, 2009. 
the sire looks the same - the bitch looks like another dog!  
these are field-bred Goldens with minimal feather.

show-bred New England Goldens - 
still smaller + deeper color, MORE feather - 
GingerRun Golden Retrievers - golden retriever breeders connecticut puppies

midwestern - 
this is the one most folks think of as *THE Golden * - more feather, but not plush; bigger, but still a lean graceful head. 
Girl Labrador Retrievers at Dances With Dogs Retrievers

this is Colorado, sorry - not California 
still U get the idea - BIG frames, BIG coats, Big Broad Back-skulls + tab-ears set forward - 
Double B Golden Retrievers Colors White English Platinum White Golden Cream Red Goldens 
they look like a mix of Great-Pyr + Golden, not hunting-type lithe dogs.

midwestern-Goldens + western-creams often have putty-noses or caramel pigment, not black - 
or the pigment fades in winter like snow-nose, or sunburns + pinkens.

given my druthers, i prefer lots of pigment - black noses, black eye-rims, black claws + pads. 
cheers, 
--- terry


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Wow some of those are obese dogs . I like the pale ones with dark noses


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ahh, that's where you've confused me, a golden retriever is just that in England, I've never heard it referred to in a similar way to Labradors, where you get fox reds, as part of the yellow group. 

There are very few working line goldies in England now, the majority are show/pet bred, but I have seen a few working and love them, and they do tend to retain the darker pigmentation in those lines.


----------



## davehyde (Jul 13, 2009)

the u.s. seems to have different ideas on how goldens sould look.

diff breed standard too.

they market the pale ones as 'english cremes' and ask more.
prefer they english lines by miles.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> at this point, lion -
> much so-called line-breeding IS in-breeding.  many breeds with thousands of literal real-dogs registered,
> have a factual gene-pool of only 30 to 50 *dna-individuals* to choose from; everybody is everybodys cousin.
> 
> ...


Ok, just coming back to this, so you're suggesting we don't have breeds really? Or would you like to see more control over the use of certain dogs within breeding?

Even within the Labrador gene pool (which must be one of if not the largest gene pool) some studs are over used, but that's more by people who really don't know what they're doing and justs choose something that has won something (I'm not sure if that's what you call a matador-stud). I see no reason for not being able to use other breeds to try and eliminate a health problem within a breed, or even to help widen gene pools in a diminished breed, but I like my breed the way it is, and don't see the need for the majority of breeds to introduce completely different breeds at this point?


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

I haven't actually met any golden retrievers who's pigment is permanently different, I meet more labradors with permanent pigment loss.

My boy has a slightly pink nose in winter, but his eye rims and all around his nose and lips are always black, his nose just lightens in the winter time but in his first summer, so last year, it went completely black again, currently it is turning more that way. Do we mean a full and permanent pigment loss or a seasonal change like mine? I know of many american retrievers with the same pigment changes as Roo.


----------



## davehyde (Jul 13, 2009)

they call it winter nose i think


Technically called "hypopigmentation" (or snow nose, winter nose) it results from loss of sunlight, and causes the nose to fade to brown in winter; normal colour returns as summer approaches. Snow nose occurs mainly in light-coated breeds; the colour change can become permanent in older dogs. It is not associated with disease.

Another reason for this condition is a deficiency of B vitamins, PABA in particular.



Get rid of plastic food bowls and replace them with metal or ceramic bowls since some pets may be allergic to plastic. Plastic dish dermatitis can occur if the dog eats or drinks out of plastic or rubber bowls. It is triggered by a reaction to an antioxidant found in the dishes.

Vitaligo causes black depigmentation in the nose and sometimes the lips to fade to brown.

PABA

PABA is the shortened name for para-aminobenzoic acid that is often thought of as only an ingredient used in sunscreens, while it is in actual fact a nutritional ingredient as well. Since it is a moiety of PGA, a form of folic acid, some health professionals do not consider it a vitamin, but only a B-complex factor.

PABA is used to improve the protein used in the body, it relates to red blood cell formation as well as assisting the manufacture of folic acid in the intestines. Para-aminobenzoic acid is used in sunscreen preparations since it can help protect the skin against ultra-violet radiation. 

It has been linked to hair growth as well as reversing the greying of hair, but these results are disappointing. People suffering from vitiligo, over - pigmentation of skin, or without pigment in some spots, have reported an improvement of the skin after more PABA was ingested.

Best used with Vitamin C and the B group vitamins, plus Folic Acid are best taken with PABA. 

PABA is found in liver, kidney, brewer's yeast, molasses, whole grains, bran, yoghurt, mushrooms and spinach, and can be made by intestinal bacteria.

TIP 
A new herbal remedy for animals is called Chorela. It is supposed to stimulate the immune system and has proven helpful in treating dogs that lose pigment from their nose, and also dogs that have the nasty habit of eating their own droppings. Seek advice on this product from your vet or a naturopath. 

SNOW NOSE "REMEDY"

Another suggested "remedy" is: 

B Complex With Choline, Inositol & PABA 

Vitamin C, Calcium Ascorbate powder 

Megamino Amino Acids

The Vitamin C works together with the B to help absorption. Give just before meals. One B Complex tablet in the AM and one in the PM. The Vitamin C is given by body weight. ½ tsp. for each 50lbs of weight. The Amino Acid tablet is given in the AM only.

Vitamins B and C are water soluble and once the body has absorbed what it needs, it will eliminate the rest. These vitamins are not stored in the body. They are also helpful with stress (for you too) and for the skin in general. In case you don't know it, the B vitamins that brighten our dogs' coats and darken their pigments work on us too. The B vitamins are necessary for our skin and for our hair colour. If your hair is prematurely grey, it may be a simple Vitamin B deficiency. There are documented cases where grey hair turned back to its natural colour after supplementing with the B complex vitamins.

It is very probable that the success you will have in returning your dog's pigment back to black will be directly related to the diet you feed - in addition to the above supplementation.

Good luck! I hope this is of value to you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TIP 

A new herbal remedy for animals is called Chlorela. It is supposed to stimulate the immune system and has proven helpful in treating dogs that lose pigment from their nose, and also dogs that have the nasty habit of eating their own droppings. Seek advice on this product from your vet or a naturopath. 


Chlorela (fresh water algae) - "Superior to Vitamin Supplements & Improves Digestion." 

Being a very ancient single cell algae, chlorela was the earth's first green plant and the first link in the food chain. Each cell of this plant is self sufficient and capable of life sustaining functions. Chlorela is 60% protein, and contains 8 essential amino acids, and more chlorophyll per gram than any other plant in nature! In just 1 tablespoon it provides 300% of the daily need for Vitamin B12 and Vitamin C. It is very rich in beta-carotene. Due to its rapid growth and the abundance of nutrients, chlorella offers many benefits including protection against toxic pollutants, pesticides, drugs, chemicals, atmospheric radiation, power lines, microwaves, computers and television.
The natural vitamins and minerals in chlorella are bio-chelated. That means they are naturally wrapped in amino acids, so they will be taken in by the body more readily.
Chorela contains natural digestive enzymes and fibrous materials that improve your digestion.
Higher in chlorophyl than any other plant. Contains more chlorophyl per gram than any other plant. Contains 5 to 10 times the chlorophyl content of barley grass, spirulina, and wheat grass. Chlorophyl is one of the greatest food substances for cleansing the bowel and other elimination systems, such as the liver and blood.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> mmmm - I'm a assuming you're referring to the Penn hip scoring as opposed to the UK BVA scoring system. I've heard someone else with a labradoodle claim that it was a better system. While I do think it has merits, I'm not convinced it is better than the UK system, which gives far more detail than other scoring systems. I'm also curious why US breeders rarely use it too if it is superior.


hey, rocco! :--) 
i think i can answer this one  altho breeders, USA or other, *will not like my hypothesis... - 
it does not make them look good: 
breeders *prefer* the less-predictive + single-pose OFA scoring BECAUSE it is a * =closed registry= * - 
they can publish the results, or bury them like a stillborn pup, and pretend it never happened.*

Penn-HIP is the *Penn*(sylvania State-Univ) *H*ip *I*mprovement *P*rogram - 
it uses 3 poses not ONE severely abstracted one, but the same severe-abstraction with 2 more functional poses; 
it compares *breed specific data* not Rotts to Greyhounds - it can predict the adult-hip-score of a 12-WO pup 
at 2-YO with 85% accuracy... those are all good things.

_breeders IMO + IME avoid it because they do NOT like the undeniable results - admitting that the dog scored 
only -*Fair*- rather than -*Good*-, or worse yet, -*Poor*-... :eek6: a terrifying prospect. _
OFA is less-accurate, less-predictive, cannot be used to choose which pups to reserve for future possible breeding... 
*but thank DoG, its a closed registry + no one but the owner need ever know!* unless of course, its worth bragging over. 
 then they plaster it on billboards :laugh:


----------



## Ridgielover (Apr 16, 2008)

There's a different system over here in the UK. If a dog's plates are submitted to the BVA for hip scoring, then the score will be published for all to see, whether it's good or bad.


----------



## nic76 (May 2, 2010)

""Upbringing plays a big part, but temperament is inherited, so breeding plays a part as too does the actual breed as they have different traits. There are so many breeds that there should be a dog to suit everyone's needs if researched carefully, with a cross it's a bit of a lottery.[/QUOTE]

my cavalier can be a bit fiesty but i kow both his parents very well and neither have bad temperments. also know his grandparents and great grandparents.all very calm fantastic dogs.charlie has been brought up the same as rosie and toby but has a snappy nature. we also had another cavalier 10 yrs ago who turned very snappy. i always thought cavaliers are ment to be good family dogs. i much prefer our bichon to the cavvies now she is so placid.

his temperment maybe passed from generations ago but seems strange for a cavvie and he has had a good life so far..he is only 20mths old but worries me with the kids.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

I'm all in favour of crossbreeding under certain circumstances - particularly when it is outcrossing done with the specific intention of improving a breed that needs help.

LUA dalmatians are the obvious example here. ALL purebred dallies (in the USA at least) carry the gene resulting in high levels of uric acid. Therefore there was no way to reduce this particular health problem within the breed.
So one breeder outcrossed - just once - to a champion pointer. From that one mating, dogs from every generation since have been crossed back to purebred dalmatians, so the current dogs are more than 99% pure dally. Yet, breed a LUA to a normal and half the pups will not suffer from HUA, and are therefore virtually no risk of urate stones etc.

So WHY do so many dally breeders object to allowing LUA dogs to be registered? Nothing more than purist snobbery IMO.

Look at so many of the other pedigrees suffering from serious issues. Bulldogs with those ridiculous faces that cause them to snore, overheat, require surgery, etc. Seeing as virtually all pedigree bulldogs looked like they've been hit in the face with a shovel it would be virtually impossible to breed in a proper nose without outcrossing. Hence the "Victorian bulldog" being created. Still a bulldog - but one that can breathe, exercise, mate and whelp as nature intended.

All the breeds that are seriosusly inbred could benefit from well thought out outcrossing. I'm not an expert on dog breeding specifically - but that doesn't mean I'm a total breeding novice. In lab mice and rats for example, it is widely accepted that inbred strains / breeds suffer from "inbreeding depression". Compared to "outbred" strains, they usually have smaller litters, more health problems, shorter lifespan etc. When you consider that genetically some of our pedigrees have a smaller gene pool than endangered species like the giant panda you see the extent of the problem.

When breeds with small gene pools also have known heritable health problems it becomes even more of an issue. So your breed is already massively inbred. I think we all agree that only health tested dogs should be allowed to breed. But that would mean reducing the gene pool still further, bringing with it its own problems. Some outcrossing, alongside health testing etc could improve the breed significantly without causing a genetic bottleneck.

But of course, for all this breed improvement to happen, those first few litters will just be crosses - and to many people unacceptable.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Colette said:


> I'm all in favour of crossbreeding under certain circumstances - particularly when it is outcrossing done with the specific intention of improving a breed that needs help.


An outcross is when you mate two dogs with no common lines in their 10 generation pedigree - and very difficult to do, even in breeds such as my own with quite diverse gene pools - cross breeding is not outcrossing.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

swarthy said:


> An outcross is when you mate two dogs with no common lines in their 10 generation pedigree - and very difficult to do, even in breeds such as my own with quite diverse gene pools - cross breeding is not outcrossing.


i dunno, swarthy - 
if the cross-breeding was done with the specific intent to BACK-cross to the original breed, as was done above *with the 
original permission of the AKC + the American Dalmatian breed-club*, i would term it out-crossing - its meant to add new-genes, 
so i think thats an apropos term for the practice.

besides, outcrossing to a different TYPE within the same breed is another use of the term - 
breeding a Flabrador to a lighter hunting-hound type Lab, for instance. 
so is breeding one kennel-line to another - so long as the dogs are not common lineage in the 5-gen pedigree.

personally, i have never seen a 10-gen pedigree [yet] - i am sure they exist, but the influence of any ancestry 
past the great-grandparents [which is only 4 gens] is minimal.

JMO + IME, Ur mileage may vary, 
-- terry


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2010)

nic76 said:


> my cavalier can be a bit fiesty but i kow both his parents very well and neither have bad temperments. also know his grandparents and great grandparents.all very calm fantastic dogs.charlie has been brought up the same as rosie and toby but has a snappy nature. we also had another cavalier 10 yrs ago who turned very snappy. i always thought cavaliers are ment to be good family dogs. i much prefer our bichon to the cavvies now she is so placid.
> 
> his temperment maybe passed from generations ago but seems strange for a cavvie and he has had a good life so far..he is only 20mths old but worries me with the kids.


 another reason you really should reconsider this mating, its quite likely Charlie could pass his bad temperament on to his offspring.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Perhaps I got my terminology muddled, but the point remains the same.

High levels of inbreeding, and small gene pool, lead to various problems including inbreeding depression, increased incidence of heritable disease etc.

Obviously outcrossing, in the sense of breeding virtually unrelated individuals within the same breed, is a good option. Hell, simply not mating close relatives or overusing stud dogs would be a start.

But, in breeds where almost all individuals have the same problem (like the dalmatians), or those with already highly limited gene pools, just one or two crossbreedings followed by backcrossing (check terminology?) to the main breed can be a highly effective way of improving health and widening gene pool at the same time.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Colette said:


> Obviously outcrossing, in the sense of breeding virtually unrelated individuals within the same breed,
> is a good option. *Hell, simply not mating close relatives or overusing stud dogs would be a start.*


agreed! :thumbup:

there are simple formulae now to determine CoI - Coefficient of Inbreeding - between any 2 individuals, but breeders seem 
determined to ignore this simple tool. :huh: i don;t know why - its not difficult, U don;t need to be a math-whiz.

still hoping for improvement, 
--- terry


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

But breeding close relatives doesn't affect the puppies at all honestly. I hate that formula I had to do it in population genetics but it's useful to see how inbred the dog would be and work out any problems from there


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> But breeding close relatives doesn't affect the puppies at all honestly.


say what, hun?  of course it does - 
WHY do U think it is illegal to marry ones full sibling, half-sibling, parent or 1st-cousin, 
in most of the Western world? *because it hugely increases the risk of serious genetic problems in the children.*

in-breeding is merely another term for incest - and carries the same risks, that of doubling-up on any deleterious traits. 
it also, JUST * LIKE matador-breeding, prunes the genetic tree very rapidly, pauperizing it of diversity.

a helpful article: Demystifying Inbreeding Coefficients 


> EXCERPT -
> _ ...there are two complications to deal with. The first is that* there will be more than one common ancestor.*
> Let's consider the case of first cousins. In human populations such a pairing is prohibited in some societies but allowed
> in others. We have already calculated the inbreeding for a single shared grandparent. First cousins have two shared
> ...


cheers, 
-- t


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I know all that but talk to a lot of breeders and they'll tell you that absolutely no problems come from breeding say half siblings or grandfather to grandaughter. It causes increased infertility, can fix deletrious mutations that aren't shown in the heterozygote form and can't be tested for so they have a higher chance of appearing in later generations. Not to mention decreases the gene pool. I would never do it but I've seen a few dogs with many repeated breedings that are inbred .


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> I know all that but talk to a lot of breeders and they'll tell you that absolutely no problems come from breeding say,
> half siblings, or grandfather to granddaughter.


its also the root cause of things much harder to measure, and a lot more insidious + threatening - 
like immune depression, like failure to conceive, smaller litters, resorption, auto-immune disorders of all types, 
various inflammatory diseases from cardiac problems to arthritis + atopic dermatitis (all auto-immune to one degree 
or another), and more. :nonod:

its EASY to point a finger at liver-shunts or PDA or juvie-cataracts - 
its damnably hard to point a finger at immune-suppression + an increased risk of cancer.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Forgot about weakened immune systems. Just look at the royal families very inbred often cousin to cousin marriages and a lot of inherited health problems that have stayed because of the close marriages. Or how every royal house ended up with haemophilia in their genes because one person was a carrier and her children ended up most of the families. Ok not dogs but a good example.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> personally, i have never seen a 10-gen pedigree [yet] - i am sure they exist, but the influence of any ancestry
> past the great-grandparents [which is only 4 gens] is minimal.


  are you serious?

I've got full 10 generation pedigrees for ALL my dogs, and a slightly more patchy ancestry going back to the late 1870's - it's taken me over 7 years of researching but I did it and gleaned as much information as was physically possible.

Inbreeding COI's are generally based on 10 generations not 5: on paper, a pedigree dog can easily look like a complete outcross over 5 generations, but a 10 generation pedigree can tell a VERY different story, and if dogs crop up many times, their influence and genes will continue long beyond the time they fall off the back of the visible pedigree.

There are two key features in my own breed such as Bolo pads and the white flash on the chest - you've only got to at a few litters pedigrees and you quickly see where the common links are - and they are consistent - some going back to dogs some 60 years ago - a LOT of generations in doggie terms.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Inbreeding COI's are generally based on 10 generations not 5: on paper, a pedigree dog can easily look like a complete outcross over 5 generations, but a 10 generation pedigree can tell a VERY different story, and if dogs crop up many times, their influence and genes will continue long beyond the time they fall off the back of the visible pedigree.


sorry, i was not thinking of the odds of in-breeding behind the 1st 5-gens - 
and of course, that is HIGHLY critical info, in case of shared g-g-grands, etc.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> Forgot about weakened immune systems. Just look at the royal families very inbred often cousin to cousin marriages and a lot of inherited health problems that have stayed because of the close marriages. Or how every royal house ended up with haemophilia in their genes because one person was a carrier and her children ended up most of the families. Ok not dogs but a good example.


yup - 
Germany, Austria, Prussia, Russia + Britain, plus of course, France, Portugal + Spain, all had royal relatives + married off 
their kids to one another. :nonod: its a wonder things were not worse!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> I know all that but talk to a lot of breeders and they'll tell you that absolutely no problems come from breeding say half siblings or grandfather to grandaughter. It causes increased infertility, *can fix deletrious mutations that aren't shown in the heterozygote form and can't be tested for so they have a higher chance of appearing in later generations*. Not to mention decreases the gene pool. I would never do it but I've seen a few dogs with many repeated breedings that are inbred .


So you condone these breeders producing just a few affected dogs so they can, maybe, identify some deleterious mutations?

Its not important that puppies are born with increased risk of diseases/conditions so a breeder can carry on a breeding program thinking they possibly may have identified a parent carrier?

Are you kidding me? Where is the empathy for the pups born to suffer?

CC


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> So you condone these breeders producing just a few affected dogs so they can, maybe, identify some deleterious mutations?


*nicky was not condoning anything, CC  
she pointed out the things that the breeders Are Ignoring, or claim to be helpful, but are in fact, damaging.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> So you condone these breeders producing just a few affected dogs so they can, maybe, identify some deleterious mutations?
> 
> Its not important that puppies are born with increased risk of diseases/conditions so a breeder can carry on a breeding program thinking they possibly may have identified a parent carrier?
> 
> ...


What? I don't condone inbreeding in any form I've had far too much education on genetics for that. I don't think carriers should be bred what kind of person do you think I am? I get that you're determined to start an argument but don't start attacking people


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

swarthy said:


> I've got full 10 generation pedigrees for ALL my dogs, and a slightly more patchy ancestry going back to the late 1870's - it's taken me over 7 years of researching but I did it and gleaned as much information as was physically possible.


i have to agree here - 20 years ago before the internet I started "linechasing" my own pedigree cats, together with one or two others I knew from the cat clubs. It was fascinating and very slow stuff as we were writing off for most of the data, to persons uknown, by postal mail. I even wrote off to the South African Cat Registry and was delighted when they write back with full details as one of my cats had a SA ancestor, although from pure English lines!

We got to the original imports from Siam in the 1880's, and the bulk of that data comprises the online databases today, as we shared it all when the internet became popular. Much of my own work is in that database.

I have some 10-gen peds of my own late cats plus a lot more. It is a LOT easier these days thanks to the people like myself who put in the hard donkey work in the 80's and 90's, and I thank everyone who took the time to write back, sometimes including lovely letters about the personality and health of their individuals, which of course don't usually make it onto a linechasing enquiry.

I still have all the paper files from those days.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> I don't think carriers should be bred what kind of person do you think I am?


 A carrier for a recessive gene cannot produce affected dogs if bred to a clear.

We see talk of expanding gene pools and not close linebreeding (inbreeding is brothers to sisters) - if we eliminated every recessive gene carrier from some breeds they would cease to exist, cross breeding won't resolve that problem because you are breeding for WHAT purpose? and many recessive and dominant conditions are common across many breeds.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It will however produce more carriers. Within large gene pools there's no need for it. Maybe in the smaller breeds but something like a labrador


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> It will however produce more carriers. Within large gene pools there's no need for it.


U cannot avoid breeding **every** carrier, nicky - 
as *every dog* carries an average of 5 bad genes (ref Padgett). thats true whether the dogs purebred, a cross or random-bred.

no dog is perfect - testing for carriers wherever possible helps. 
if there is no test (yet), then DELAYING breeding till at least 2-YO, will show most symptomatic dogs - 
but there is no way to divine who is a carrier, without a test. and not breeding any POTENTIAL carrier, means don;t breed - 
at all. :huh:


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Well yes you can't test for a lot of conditions yet but for the conditions that we know and can test for I don't think carriers should be bred within breeds with large gene pools


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> Well yes you can't test for a lot of conditions yet but for the conditions that we know and can test for I don't think carriers should be bred within breeds with large gene pools


Even in large gene pools, only a small percentage of dogs are bred from - and yes, I have analysed an entire breed to that level - if we remove quality genes from a gene pool just because they are a carrier - in the future - this WILL come back and bite us.

Carriers can be bred out 1st generation if the person chooses to go that way - personally, I prefer to pick the best pup.

Breeding is about the whole dog, not one recessive condition - dominant conditions are clearly a different matter - top of the shop should always be temperament in conjunction with health and type - but ultimately, even for the majority of breeders, exhibitors and workers - the dogs are pets first and everything else comes second.

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

I find it quite amazing that some people on here (and I am not saying you because I don't know you and have not seen your posts up to now) can think it perfectly acceptable to seek specific crosses - usually from two random dogs bred together - a large percentage of the time without any health tests or knowledge of the risks they are exposing future generations to (because a source such as Wikipedia says cross breeds are healthier), yet don't think it is sensible to use the tools available for health testing to make responsible decisions that retain a diverse high quality diverse gene pool within a pedigree breed.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> ...for the conditions that we know and can test for I don't think carriers should be bred within breeds with large gene pools


nicky, no breed can afford to simply lop-off all the carriers of everything we can test for -

here is VetGens list of tests by breed - 
VetGen Canine Breeds Ordering List

here are OptiGens available tests - 
OptiGen - Tests offered - Canine genetic testing, Ithaca, New York

U cannot simply announce, ALL carriers are not to be bred, ever. 
from Optigen - Optigen - Frequently Asked Questions re PRA status: 


> EXCERPT -
> _21. If this test has a large margin of error in diagnosing carriers and affecteds, won't it limit our gene pool to the point that other problems will become more of an issue?
> 
> Whether and how we limit the gene pool is a really important issue.
> ...


carrier re Autosomal recessive inheritance: 
VetGen: Veterinary Genetic Services - Canine - Breeding Strategies

an overview of genetics - 
Great Dane Club of America - Breeding for disease control, longevity and temperament.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> nicky, no breed can afford to simply lop-off all the carriers of everything we can test for -


That's very true. By doing so, it would potentially allow any existing untestable conditions to proliferate and/or create exactly the right conditions for another serious issue to crop up.

As much as we can health test for quite a few things nowadays, we can't test for everything (Epilepsy for one).

It's slowly, slowly - rushing to eliminate one issue totally, would be giving another underlying issue the best chance ever to predominate... possibly to the extirpation of the breed.

It's a question of balance - which conscientious breeding is always about, even in breeds which have no need for tests.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

there are ailments which can occur such as "cherry eye", scrolled cartilage etc which is not tested for under the BVA eye scheme and there is no evidence of this being hereditary 
but some people will still refuse to breed from a dog who would suffer from something like cherry eye, 
so who's right here? :confused1:

i think that such dogs can be bred from and will continue to do so until i am given evidence this is hereditary


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> But breeding close relatives doesn't affect the puppies at all honestly. I hate that formula I had to do it in population genetics but it's useful to see how inbred the dog would be and work out any problems from there . . .
> 
> I know all that but talk to a lot of breeders and they'll tell you that absolutely no problems come from breeding say half siblings or grandfather to grandaughter. *It causes increased infertility, can fix deletrious mutations that aren't shown in the heterozygote form and can't be tested for so they have a higher chance of appearing in later generations.* Not to mention decreases the gene pool. I would never do it but I've seen a few dogs with many repeated breedings that are inbred .





comfortcreature said:


> So you condone these breeders producing just a few affected dogs so they can, maybe, identify some deleterious mutations?
> 
> Its not important that puppies are born with increased risk of diseases/conditions so a breeder can carry on a breeding program thinking they possibly may have identified a parent carrier?
> 
> ...





Nicky10 said:


> What? I don't condone inbreeding in any form I've had far too much education on genetics for that. I don't think carriers should be bred what kind of person do you think I am? I get that you're determined to start an argument but don't start attacking people


I still don't understand, then, your statements - what you were getting at. Was the first one in sarcasm then? I'll take your word for it that the way I am reading it is not what you meant. Apologies.

CC


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

What do you think I meant? That breeders should inbreed if they think a mutation is in the genes to see if it comes out? I was stating the problems with inbreeding that some breeders cheerfully ignore to fix their "type" or some pretty ear set or something. I don't agree with breeding dogs with known problems or breeding close relatives is that clear enough?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> What do you think I meant? *That breeders should inbreed if they think a mutation is in the genes to see if it comes out?*


Absolutely. That is how it reads to me which is why I thought to comment on it. I have actually read on breeder lists, many, many times, the exact first statement you made used to justify inbreeding with the suggestion that if any 'problems' crop up in the litter then you can just cull and know not to do that again.



Nicky10 said:


> I was stating the problems with inbreeding that some breeders cheerfully ignore to fix their "type" or some pretty ear set or something. I don't agree with breeding dogs with known problems or breeding close relatives is that clear enough?


Thankyou for clarifying.

CC


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Starlite said:


> there are ailments which can occur such as "cherry eye", scrolled cartilage etc which is not tested for under the BVA eye scheme and there is no evidence of this being hereditary
> but some people will still refuse to breed from a dog who would suffer from something like cherry eye, so who's right here? :confused1:
> i think that such dogs can be bred from and will continue to do so until i am given evidence this is hereditary


if cherry-eye is NOT heritable, why is it a known-risk in specific breeds?

cherry eye

__________________________________________________

Cherry Eye or Prolapse of the Glands of the Third Eyelid | Critterology.com 


> EXCERPT - *bold added - *
> 
> _ It is common to see glands in both eyes prolapse since *the cartilage weakness is believed to be heritable in Beagles, Basset Hounds, Bulldogs, Cocker Spaniels, Boxers, Bloodhounds, Bulldogs, Neapolitan Mastiffs, Shar-Peis, Lhasa Apsos, and the Pekingese. *
> Cherry eye commonly occurs in the *Saluki,(English) Mastiff, Komondor, and Kuvasz but the genetics involved have not yet been unraveled and the cause to-date remains unknown.* The condition is also seen and *believed to be a heritable problem in Burmese and Persian cats * (breeds).
> Cherry eye may also occur secondary to trauma. _


more: Congenital and Inherited Eye Conditions 
_______________________


----------



## amar82 (Apr 3, 2012)

Tapir said:


> The idea of breeding differant breeds of dogs appears to be rather unpopular on this forum...
> 
> now i understand there are stupid mixes eg Akita x Staffy  where it just seems to be a bad mix of temprements
> 
> ...


Hi there. Apologies if this is a bit of a late reply to a fairly old thread, or if I'm 'going over old rope', but I recently had the unpleasant experience of being insulted and heckled when I posted a question regarding different types of crossbreeds on Yahoo Questions, and the more I think about it the more I am astounded at both how rude and how naive the people were. So, I wanted to post here to air my views on the topic.

Firstly, I agree with you completely. My experience with those against deliberately bred cross-breeds, is 95% of the time the same rhetoric, which always revolves around four points:

1) That there are plenty of crossbreeds in kennels, so don't go to a back yard breeder (who they always insist is irresponsible).
2) You never know what you are going to get with a cross breed
3) There is no point to cross breed, as there is no purpose
4) They are mutts and in some way worth less than purebreeds, or should be looked down upon in comparison to purebreeds.

Please note, I am not assuming that everyone is like this, but as I said, through personal experience this is what the majority against crossbreeds have tended to come out with.

My approach to these points is the following:
1) There might be lots of crossbreeds in kennels, but not necessarily the cross people tend to want. In all the shelters I have looked at (and believe me I have considered this as a primary option, as I'd much rather save a puppy than just buy one), you only usually find certain types of crossbreed, such as Staffy, Mastiff and Rottweiler crosses, and sometimes Lurcher crosses. What I have never seen available, are the likes of Cavapoos, Cockapoos, Labradoodles, Springadors and the types of crossbreed that are heavily in demand. So fine, if someone wants a random crossbreed and has no criteria whatsoever for what they want, then yes, the kennel is a good idea. BUT, for those people who specifically want a particular type of crossbreed that is not readily available in these shelters, then the suggestion of shelters is of no merit and in my opinion really is just a way of trying to guilt people into taking on a random rescue dog and stopping them owning a popular crossbreed.

In regards to the suggestion that all breeders of these crossbreeds must be greedy backyard breeders or puppy mills, to me this comes across as simply anti-crossbreed propaganda, as in reality there can also be backyard breeders and puppy mills of purebreeds, too. All you have to do, is make sure that if you are going to buy a crossbreed, or a purebreed, just check carefully that who you are buying from is a reputable breeder, who health checks and carries out all appropriate actions of a responsible breeder. It shouldn't matter if the dog is a crossbreed or a purebreed if they have been brought into this world in a loving, caring manner.

2) You never know what you are going to get with a purebreed either. All dogs have their own personalities and even puppies of the same litter will be different from one-another. So this line of argument seems entirely redundant. Not only that, but there is also the concept that you are making the dogs less-inbred which is much healthier. I have read people giving examples saying it doesn't make them healthier, but the laws of genetics says that it does. It may take a few generations of crossbreeding, but once they are less connected in the gene pool, it wil have a benefit. Not only that, but the rule of hybrid vigour does apply - as I have done my research on this and am satisfied with the proof I found.

3) If a breed is deliberately crossed and this cross is popular, that in itself is reason enough for the cross breed to exist - public demand is more powerful than any other reason. Some people cross for working purposes, others cross for appearance or fur types. Nobody is in a position to dictate to the rest what reasons are legitimate for crossbreeding and ones are not. As long as the crossbred dogs are well-looked after and are cared for and shown love and affection, it shouldn't matter why they exist, just that they are looked after and cared for. Also, there are people that genuinely do find themselves liking certain aspects of different dogs and want a mix of the two. I find myself in that exact situation, as I like parts of the Cavalier breed and parts of the Poodle breed. I know some may argue that you don't know which parts you will get, but let me just say I have yet to find a spaniel/poodle crossbreed that has the 'wrong mix'. I believe that evolution and the laws of nature tend to iron out issues like this.

4) All the beloved 'purebreeds' are in-fact cross breeds really. For example the Rhodesian Ridgeback was created by breeding a variety of different dogs together, such as Mastiffs, Hounds, Danes, Terriers and the wild Hottentot dog in Africa. This breed is not called a 'mutt' or a 'mongrel' even though it is a result of a variety of dogs being cross-bred. The same rule should apply for all dogs, not just dogs that pedigree purebreed lovers are used to considering to be of value. I can imagine if there was such a purist mentality that existed when some of today's purebreeds were first created by mixing other breeds, there would be the same sort of judgemental and critical claims. People just don't like change, particularly when there are a set of rules they are accustomed to which dictate what is 'right' and 'wrong' such as breed standards, etc. If such purists did exist back in the days when the Ridgeback was first created, then they had to get used to the fact that there was a new breed in existence. The same can be said for people today - they simply have to get used to the fact that 'doodle'-type breeds are popular and their popularity is ever-growing, so one day soon they too will be acknowledged as a new breed.

For the record, I am totally against puppy mills and breeders who simply churn out dogs and sell them at extortionate rates for profit, but it must be acknowledged by those who debate this topic that not all breeders are doing it for profit, and it needs to be accepted that some are merely casual hobby breeders, who love these types of crossbreed and want others to be able to have a chance at enjoying them too. What is so wrong about that side of things? Once again, if the breeders can prove they are responsible and are interested in the wellbeing of the dogs, I really don't see how anyone can have a problem with it, or with these relatively new breeds of dogs. If they still have a problem, in my opinion I see this more about personal prejudice than about anything else.

That's my opinion on the subject, anyway.


----------

