# Designer names have tainted the good old crossbreed



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

20 year ago we bought that once in a life time dog, she cost £50 from a pig farm where the two working dogs had procreated. We were the proud owners of a springer cross collie who gave us 16 years of utter joy.
If we were ever asked what she was we always said 'springer collie cross', that designer name Sprollie hadnt been invented yet and a springer collie cross was EXACTLY what she was.

Now fast forward to now and we have Cockerpoos, Labradoodles, Sprollies, Springadors, Jugs, Sprockers, Cavipoos etc etc, the list goes on.

Gone are the days when your dog was simply a crossbreed that you had no problem describing as such. No one minded if you bred a little of crossbreed dogs because a dog is just a dog, it will love you all the same no matter what.

But now if you give your dog a stupid made up name you can whack the price up and ask stupid money for it - they have become fads, over produced because people see a way to make money and buyers want the latest trend.

And what has this done to the state of our beloved crossbreed? Ruined it. Now i anyone hears you are breeding a non-pedigree litter you are lambasted for being irresponsible and you must be a clueless moron.

As i sit here my dog has just serviced a bitch that, wait for it, isnt the same breed as him! But will i get hated for it, of course. However if these puppies give their owners even half the joy our crossbreed gave us their owners will be very lucky people indeed.

Am i the only one that feel that the popularity of designer breeds given silly names has tainted the good old crossbreed?

Sorry for a heavy first post but i was thinking of this the other day and thought this was an appropriate forum on with to see if others share my view (and i will be no way offended if you dont)


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

I have a springer x lab and springador suits, he is a lab on springs  


However I agree with you on your post but the problem now is people are breeding over and over again, crap to crap, and everyone thinks they can do it and make a grand!! And just because you have a pure bred dog and so does your mate doesn't mean you can make puppies. My OH nan had spaniels and labs none were health tested and all were fine (talking about 12 dogs in total) but now quite a few of them would prob have problems as no one thinks before breeding. I have an Old English Sheep dog, and puppies are fetching £850+ atm a lot of people think I am stupid having him done, but why would I want to breed him I dont even have his papers?? And I am sorry but I don't want to be responsible for more dogs in this country, I think when you breed you need to think potentionally you have responsibility for keeping 12 or so more dogs out of rescue.


20years ago if you had a dog with a hideous tummy problem you prob wouldn't think of breeding it. But now people don't care all they think of is £££, they also don't care if their name is muck for breeding crap dogs. 

There is nothing wrong with x breeding but a decent breeder will gladly provide puppy packs, telephone advice, and happy to stay in contact as a bare minimum. If in a years time one of your puppies looses his/ her home, I hope you would be able to say yes I can take him/ her back so they don't have to go into rescue.

Out of interest what have you bred?


----------



## Kinjilabs (Apr 15, 2009)

I own a zoo said:


> 20 year ago we bought that once in a life time dog, she cost £50 from a pig farm where the two working dogs had procreated. We were the proud owners of a springer cross collie who gave us 16 years of utter joy.
> If we were ever asked what she was we always said 'springer collie cross', that designer name Sprollie hadnt been invented yet and a springer collie cross was EXACTLY what she was.
> 
> Now fast forward to now and we have Cockerpoos, Labradoodles, Sprollies, Springadors, Jugs, Sprockers, Cavipoos etc etc, the list goes on.
> ...


Sorry but! As i sit here my dog has just serviced a bitch !???

Why?, whatever cross it they are, theres enough dogs in rescue already without breeding more


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

Kinjilabs said:


> Sorry but! As i sit here my dog has just serviced a bitch !???
> 
> Why?, whatever cross it they are, theres enough dogs in rescue already without breeding more


I wasn saying crossbreeding is bad, just saying that designer trends have led to over population and greedy breeding.

As for enough dogs in rescue - there is a MASSIVE proportion of the population who will not get a dog from rescue, for whatever reason, no matter how many litters people stopped breeding there will still be rescue centers full of dogs sadly.

But as i stated breeding a litter of crossbred dogs immediately got a negative response. Had i come on and said i had just bred a pure bred litter the reception would be different - and after all, a dog is a dog.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

I own a zoo said:


> I wasn saying crossbreeding is bad, just saying that designer trends have led to over population and greedy breeding.
> 
> As for enough dogs in rescue - there is a MASSIVE proportion of the population who will not get a dog from rescue, for whatever reason, no matter how many litters people stopped breeding there will still be rescue centers full of dogs sadly.
> 
> But as i stated breeding a litter of crossbred dogs immediately got a negative response. Had i come on and said i had just bred a pure bred litter the reception would be different - and after all, a dog is a dog.


I assume both your dog and the visiting bitch had ALL the health-tests for their respective breeds?

You lambast todays cross-breeds and then add to the problem


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

swarthy said:


> I assume both your dog and the visiting bitch had ALL the health-tests for their respective breeds?
> 
> You lambast todays cross-breeds and then add to the problem


no no you get me all wrong.

I am saying that the good old cross breed is a super dog that has it merits in our world but that people making up silly names and creating a 'must have designer dog' is giving them a bad rap.

And yes my dog has had ALL the health tests available, as will any puppies and i will be offering life long support to the new puppy owners, willing to take any dog back at any point, no questions asked.


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

I own a zoo said:


> I wasn saying crossbreeding is bad, just saying that designer trends have led to over population and greedy breeding.


A nice designer name adds to the value but demand pushes the price up not the breeder.
At least with a name you know roughly what to expect a pup to turn out like.

I heard (don't linch me if I'm wrong ) that Labradoodles have been purposely bred in Australia for a long, long time way before they 'arrived' here.
I personally don't care if a dog is pure bred or a cross (with or without a designer name) it's the health checks of the parents that are important.


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

Im not keen on the amount of breeding that goes on pedigree or cross I think the supply far outstrips the demand.

However if you are a responsible person who has done all the health checks , who has the money for emergancy vet treatments should they be necessary and will home check new owners and ensure that any problem pup is returned then at least youve done the best by your dogs..

Not like my bint of a SIL who bought a beagle pup in a car park (puppy farm) and was lucky the dog turned out to be healthy and good natured shes now planning to breed from this non registered/non health tested dog and is wondering why she cant find a stud :frown2:

My neice announced their plans via FB.. Ive tried to dissuade them but the $ signs are blocking thier view ....A common ailment among breeding folk


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

delca1 said:


> A nice designer name adds to the value but demand pushes the price up not the breeder.
> At least with a name you know roughly what to expect a pup to turn out like.


sometimes the problem arises when someone has a friend who has a certain crossbreed and they decided they want one, so they go out and buy the same named crossbreed but their dog turns out nothing like their friends. Sometimes people miss the point about it being a crossbreed and expect them all to be the same as they all have the same fancy name.

Even thought my springer/collie was superb i would want to try and breed another litter as they just wouldnt ever be the same.


----------



## Kinjilabs (Apr 15, 2009)

and after all, a dog is a dog.


Yep and not a breeding machine


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

dorrit said:


> .
> 
> However if you are a responsible person who has done all the health checks , who has the money for emergancy vet treatments should they be necessary and will home check new owners and ensure that any problem pup is returned then at least youve done the best by your dogs..


Oh absolutely, the bitch owner is fully prepared for any cost incurred with the litter and it isnt about money from selling puppies for them. I hope to be involved in selecting potential owners too and will be very strict on what kind of home would suit this cross.


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

Kinjilabs said:


> and after all, a dog is a dog.
> 
> Yep and not a breeding machine


what make you say that? Confused really. It seems as if you are trying to imply i am an evil being for breeding my dog, who is idolised by myself, shown succesfully at a VERY high level, and I only allowed him to be used to this bitch after i was certain the bitch owner was breeding for the right reasons and prepared for what may result.

I do understand your concern though but please be assured I am not the villain you want to think i am.


----------



## Kinjilabs (Apr 15, 2009)

I own a zoo said:


> what make you say that? Confused really. It seems as if you are trying to imply i am an evil being for breeding my dog, who is idolised by myself, shown succesfully at a VERY high level, and I only allowed him to be used to this bitch after i was certain the bitch owner was breeding for the right reasons and prepared for what may result.
> 
> I do understand your concern though but please be assured I am not the villain you want to think i am.


Well if your dog is shown at a very high level, I would wonder what other people in "your breed" would think of you using your dog on another breed?

Is there a specific reason?

Didnt say you were evil


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

Kinjilabs said:


> Well if your dog is shown at a very high level, I would wonder what other people in "your breed" would think of you using your dog on another breed?
> 
> Is there a specific reason?


I am sure they wont like it but in my opinions one litter of crossbreeds aimed at working or pet homes will do far less damage than some of the shocking overuse of certain stud dogs, breeders using dogs with known health problems in their line and blatant use of aggressive stud dogs is currently doing to our beloved breed. It's no longer about the conformation or temperament of your dogs but on who is holding the lead and who is friends with who.
My dog has won 1st place at Crufts three years in a row but because i am not a 'big name' in the breed or buddies with influential breeders I doubt he will ever get a second look, which will be a massive loss to the breed.
It's sad really


----------



## Kinjilabs (Apr 15, 2009)

I own a zoo said:


> I am sure they wont like it but in my opinions one litter of crossbreeds aimed at working or pet homes will do far less damage than some of the shocking overuse of certain stud dogs, breeders using dogs with known health problems in their line and blatant use of aggressive stud dogs is currently doing to our beloved breed. It's no longer about the conformation or temperament of your dogs but on who is holding the lead and who is friends with who.
> My dog has won 1st place at Crufts three years in a row but because i am not a 'big name' in the breed or buddies with influential breeders I doubt he will ever get a second look, which will be a massive loss to the breed.
> It's sad really


Ok Ok BUT!!!theres far too many dogs out there already needing homes without breeding more!

So what are you going to call these cross breeds?surely they have to be called some sort of name besides crossbeeds or mongrels to get money for them?


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

Kinjilabs said:


> Ok Ok BUT!!!theres far too many dogs out there already needing homes without breeding more!
> 
> So what are you going to call these cross breeds?surely they have to be called some sort of name besides crossbeeds or mongrels to get money for them?


They will just be called the crossbreeds that they are, they will be worth the same amount of money with or without the silly name :biggrin:


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

dorrit said:


> who bought a beagle pup in a car park (puppy farm) and was lucky the dog turned out to be healthy and good natured


Your problem being?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

I own a zoo said:


> But as i stated breeding a litter of crossbred dogs immediately got a negative response. Had i come on and said i had just bred a pure bred litter the reception would be different - and after all, a dog is a dog.


You REALLY believe that? you haven't been around the forums very long then - the response would have been pretty much identical



I own a zoo said:


> no no you get me all wrong.
> 
> I am saying that the good old cross breed is a super dog that has it merits in our world but that people making up silly names and creating a 'must have designer dog' is giving them a bad rap.
> 
> And yes my dog has had ALL the health tests available, as will any puppies and i will be offering life long support to the new puppy owners, willing to take any dog back at any point, no questions asked.


What about the visiting bitch? you are not breeding the puppies - generally the only tests on pups are aruond eye and hearing screening - yes some people DNA test litters if they are looking to keep a pup for a specific purpose - but all that is immaterial as you are not producing the litter.

are you seriously telling me that someone with a health-tested pedigree bitch is going to come to a health-tested dog of another breed (both often not insignificant sums of money) and then sell their pups as "good old fashioned mutts" for £50 a time? somehow I doubt that


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

I own a zoo said:


> My dog has won 1st place at Crufts three years in a row but because i am not a 'big name' in the breed or buddies with influential breeders I doubt he will ever get a second look, which will be a massive loss to the breed.
> It's sad really


What a load of rubbish - I know LOTS of stud dog owners - not big names and being used amongst the show, responsible pet and working fraternities


----------



## SpicyBulldog (Jun 30, 2012)

I fully understand your point. 

People assume a litter of crosses makes means someone is a byb and the person buying is an idiot. 

I've bought a cross bred. I knew what to expect, knew about the parents, studied the pedigrees, was provided a contract and health guarantee (sire has some of the best hips in the breed which was very important to me) life long support provided, ect, ect. 
At the end of the day if I want (and NEED) an LGD it isn't as important if the dog is pure or crossed but rather if they can do their job, have a stable temperament and are healthy.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I look at it this way - Teebs is a JRT X Chihuahua or you could say Jackchi which is easier. Britches is a Chihuahua x Yorkie or you could say Chalkie, which is easier. Bruce is a Shih tzu x Yorkie, dunno what you'd call him, lol!

Whatever you want to call them it doesn't change what they are and I personally don't really care if people want to abbreviate and make the cross easier to describe. I am under no illusion that just because you amalgamate two names you then have a specific breed and anyone who is must be a fool. Also years ago we often didn't know what the breeds were crossed with as they were truly 'mongrels' of loads of other mongrel dogs and not two pure breeds.

'A Rose by any other name.......' as the saying goes and call my guys what you like, wouldn't offend me as they are just as sweet whatever they're called. 

We live in a world of text and abbreviations so why any different when describing a dog of two breeds?


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

Sorry but your not in the 70s/80s anymore. We as pet owners were more ignorant then to the health problems arising from such cross breed litters with the knowledge of health and genetics that we have now it's a shame for you to stick your head in the sand about the very real problem.

"Back in the day" (I feel it sounds about right to say due to your start to the thread) when cross breeds were just that, it was also standard to leave your dog unfixed running around the town to please all the bitches, it was standard to whack your dog in the nose with a paper if it did anything wrong and rubbing his nose in his accident on the carpet. 

Since then our knowledge of breeding, health, genetics and training is very difference. Health tests are around now to help us not blind breed, rescues are fuller now than ever with dogs needing homes, many of which are......crossbreeds! 

I have a cross breed sat here with me right now, this week I made the choice that in the next week or so I will have to put her down because her health is appalling. Has she given me joy? Yes of course. But she has also broken my heart. I watch her daily, have done since I rescued her, struggling with life because of the genetic conditions her idiot cross breeders didn't give a **** about. I love her more than I love anything else, I have to let her die because she will suffer for the rest of her life if I don't. 

Joy for me is seeing my dogs healthy.........

Cross breeding without health testing, is idiotic. You are introducing problems from 2 breeds, not 1 like you would with same breed breeding.


----------



## Grace_Lily (Nov 28, 2010)

I own a zoo said:


> 20 year ago we bought that once in a life time dog, she cost £50 from a pig farm where the two working dogs had procreated. We were the proud owners of a springer cross collie who gave us 16 years of utter joy.
> If we were ever asked what she was we always said 'springer collie cross', that designer name Sprollie hadnt been invented yet and a springer collie cross was EXACTLY what she was.
> 
> Now fast forward to now and we have Cockerpoos, Labradoodles, Sprollies, Springadors, Jugs, Sprockers, Cavipoos etc etc, the list goes on.
> ...


I have a Springer cross Cocker and always describe her as a 'Sprocker'. I couldn't care less for designer connotations, Sprocker is just easier to say than English Springer Spaniel cross English Cocker Spaniel when I'm asked what she is. I have no issue describing her as a crossbreed, clearly, or I wouldn't call her by the Sprocker name tag when she could easily pass as a ESS.

In terms of price, I don't take it into account at all when looking for a pet dog. The years of love and happiness they will provide means that any price is fair to me. When we bought Lily we could have easily bought a pure breed dog instead, but to be honest there's many other factors that I consider before one that says 'are her parents the same breed?'. Some may think I was ripped off for paying £250 for 'just' a cross, but nobody who had actually met Lily would say that 

So, that's my perspective, I don't think 'designer' names have done any harm to cross breeds, if anything they've revived their popularity.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I am under no illusion that just because you amalgamate two names you then have a specific breed and anyone who is must be a fool. Also years ago we often didn't know what the breeds were crossed with as


Sadly then, there really are a lot of fools around who genuinely believe they are getting "a breed".

Only the other day in the vets, there was a lady with a small pup - the two ladies with their clearly pampered pedigree pooches asked her what breed it was and she replied "a jug" - their faces were a mass of confusion and bewilderment.

The pup was cute and a little character - I also believe he was going to be a right handful for such a little dog - and judging by the owner, if this happens, she won't be able to handle him.

I love all dogs of any shape and size, I've got absolutely nothing against cross-breeds - whether they are a 50/50 split or a complete heinz 57 - what I am against I'm afraid is the large majority of lemons who breed them, often without a single health-test and then advertise them as "non-moulting", or "healthier" than their pedigree counterparts when increasingly evidence shows us that this isn't the case.

To think people don't believe they are buying a breed - a frightening number seriously DO believe that is exactly what they are doing  - just as how many times on here have we seen people say that "labradoodles" are soon to become a registered breed - they aren't - and they can't be because it would be impossible to formulate a breed standard for them - genuine lovers of these crosses recognise that.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

I often refer to Roo as a Jacksie...as he is a pain in my bloody Jacksie.

But I'm with Malmum. The problem with the abbreviating/coining of names like Sprocker/Labradoodle etc isn't the name itself, but the morons that think it is an actual breed. And then you are lead back to the irresponsible breeders who allow them to think like that.


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

swarthy said:


> What a load of rubbish - I know LOTS of stud dog owners - not big names and being used amongst the show, responsible pet and working fraternities


That is not a load of rubbish in our breed. You cant comment on the breeding practices in a breed yo dont know about. It is VERY much about who you are and who you know if our breed


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

swarthy said:


> To think people don't believe they are buying a breed - a frightening number seriously DO believe that is exactly what they are doing  - just as how many times on here have we seen people say that "labradoodles" are soon to become a registered breed - they aren't - and they can't be because it would be impossible to formulate a breed standard for them - genuine lovers of these crosses recognise that.


Exactly, totally agree with you on that one.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I own a zoo said:


> I am sure they wont like it but in my opinions one litter of crossbreeds aimed at working or pet homes will do far less damage than some of the shocking overuse of certain stud dogs, breeders using dogs with known health problems in their line and blatant use of aggressive stud dogs is currently doing to our beloved breed. It's no longer about the conformation or temperament of your dogs but on who is holding the lead and who is friends with who.
> My dog has won 1st place at Crufts three years in a row but because i am not a 'big name' in the breed or buddies with influential breeders I doubt he will ever get a second look, which will be a massive loss to the breed.
> It's sad really





I own a zoo said:


> That is not a load of rubbish in our breed. You cant comment on the breeding practices in a breed yo dont know about. It is VERY much about who you are and who you know if our breed


what do you mean he won 1st place at Crufts 3 times in a row...in what?

and if he has been placed 1st that means he must have got placed highly at other CH shows aswell for him to qualify, so how can you claim its all about who is holding the lead, and who is friends with who?....in some cases it might br so, it is in my breed aswell, but to have your dog placed highly proves all the judges of your breed arnt the same

why dont you just pick your judges more carefully before you enter?.

.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

I own a zoo said:


> That is not a load of rubbish in our breed. You cant comment on the breeding practices in a breed yo dont know about. It is VERY much about who you are and who you know if our breed


If what you say is true, you wouldn't be walking away with firsts at Crufts (unless you were the only dog in the class) - similarly as Noushka says, you must have done well in CH shows in the first place to get him to Crufts.

If your dog has so much to offer, why not buy in a potentially suitable bitch of the same breed and prove him that way - I know people who have done this with great success - it's been a long waiting game waiting for the right pedigree and then health test results and ensuring the dogs match each other conformationally, but it's been a waiting game worth playing - and then putting the dog to differently bred bitches and once again producing quality pups who have excelled in the ring despite their owners not being "faces".

The sire has always held his own in the ring, but the progeny have excelled - and THAT is how you prove your dog is worthy of being used irrespective of breed - if he does produce that well, then it's others loss if they chose not to use him - but then if everyone does, he will also become a victim of popular stud.

What exactly are you proving or achieving if you mate him to cross-bitches, this doesn't prove he can improve conformation, health or temperament - it's just breeding "because you can".

If word gets out of you doing this, then you are right, no-one will use your boy


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> what do you mean he won 1st place at Crufts 3 times in a row...in what?
> 
> and if he has been placed 1st that means he must have got placed highly at other CH shows aswell for him to qualify, so how can you claim its all about who is holding the lead, and who is friends with who?....


He won Post Graduate Dog twice and Limit Dog (and three 1st on Good Citizen Dog too but i dont count those)
Yes he is always placed 1st or 2nd at Championship shows.

Despite the fact he is so highly placed he isnt being used because his kennel name is not one of the big breeders and i am not a 'character' in the breed to get him noticed. Judges like my dog, consistently, but there are louder voices in the breed who are able to get their dogs used instead.

I was planning on buying in a bitch but i am not in the position to do so at the moment as I had a massive vet bill when my horse was taken incredibly unwell and I dont want to buy a dog if I am not 100% certain i have the funds for everything it will need. Also i dont want to buy a bitch just so i can use my dog at stud, that seems irresponsible to me.


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

swarthy said:


> What exactly are you proving or achieving if you mate him to cross-bitches, this doesn't prove he can improve conformation, health or temperament - it's just breeding "because you can".
> 
> If word gets out of you doing this, then you are right, no-one will use your boy


I'm not trying to prove anything by cross mating him, just the situation presented itself, bitch owner was very keen on using my boy so after discussion i allowed him to be used.

I dont mind at all if word gets out, i will happily converse with anyone in the breed as to why this mating in no way affected out breeds confirmation, temperament etc.

In fact to prove I dont mind what people in the breed think.......my dog is a Large Munsterlander......put to a Springer Spaniel.

We are a numerically small breed and anyone with any degree of common sense in the breed will know exactly who i am straight away. Bring it on


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

miljar said:


> Your problem being?


Seriously?? You cant see a problem with handing over cash to a total stranger in a car park for a dog ..With no idea where its from , what conditions its been kept in its parentage , no paperwork, no health checks, no vaccinations????

The mother may well have been kept in appaling conditions and used time and time again to churn out pups ,, Equally the breeder knew nothing about my SIL escept that she had a handful of cash..

That dog could have had parvo or distemper it could have turned out to be from a genetic line prone to problems any number of other things ...

If you cant 'see'the problems then you may need a white stick!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I own a zoo said:


> I'm not trying to prove anything by cross mating him, just the situation presented itself, bitch owner was very keen on using my boy so after discussion i allowed him to be used.
> 
> I dont mind at all if word gets out, i will happily converse with anyone in the breed as to why this mating in no way affected out breeds confirmation, temperament etc.
> 
> ...


OMG so you used your large munsterlander on a smaller breed!

do you not care that the poor bitch now has a greater chance of suffering whelping complications???????? im horrified at how irresponsible some people are when they want to breed!

.


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> OMG so you used your large munsterlander on a smaller breed!
> 
> do you not care that the poor bitch now has a greater chance of suffering whelping complications???????? im horrified at how irresponsible some people are when they want to breed!


She is a big springer and LMs are not as big as the name suggests. My LM bitch is the same size as the Springer spaniel bitch. So no different to using my dog to a LM bitch size wise. Hope that helps


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

dorrit said:


> That dog could have had parvo or distemper it could have turned out to be from a genetic line prone to problems any number of other things ...


But it didn't, did it? You say that it is a healthy and good natured dog.
Is it that SIL is looking to breed it that is rattling your cage?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I own a zoo said:


> She is a big springer and LMs are not as big as the name suggests. My LM bitch is the same size as the Springer spaniel bitch. So no different to using my dog to a LM bitch size wise. Hope that helps


ahh the oversized bitch claim'... well i knew you'd come out with that old checsnut!...ive seen it used a hundred times on here before.. folk always try to justify putting bitches lives at extra risk!....and i know how big LM's are, the breed standard says bitches stand 'from' 23 inches where as your ESS bitches are 20 inches tops!....no breeder worth their salt would ever use a larger breed stud on a smaller breed even an individual who might be over the standard, the risk of her carrying larger puppies than she can deliver is risk they would never take!

if you have any decency at all please dont put her at extra risk..do the right thing and take her for the mismate jab.

.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I don't know if I can agree with many things this poster is saying, but I do agree with some and I will speak to these two points on this thread and continue to read.



Kinjilabs said:


> Ok Ok BUT!!!theres far too many dogs out there already needing homes without breeding more! . . .


The numbers don't hold this emotional claim up as true. It is in fact false in the UK, in the USA and in Canada . . . I haven't run the numbers for other places.

If you'd like and disbelieve me just make a request and I'll find and post those for you.

What rescues have is many dogs mostly of a specific size and type - that is medium to large rambunctious youthful dogs - that need homes. Still, even all available for adoption can only support ~25% of the homes that are looking for dogs yearly.

The problem is the 'match' is often not made for rescue dogs for numerous reasons . . . and many of those have as much to do with those 'sheltering' the dogs as those looking for a pet. That problem has to be resolved with consideration of the obstacles which prevent 'matches' from being made. There is also a good amount of room to tackling this by education against getting a pup without due thought and care . . . and then dumping later. Putting the blame for the euthanization of healthy adoptable dogs primarily on breeders is ludicrous and does nothing to help solve the problem.

We still need to produce pups, from good caring breeders and homes. There are NOT too many. There is NOT an overpopulation.

You cannot dry up the supply of pups produced and pretend that the people wanting those pups will then go to rescue. That is fairy tale thinking and it works against the purpose of improving the situation in dogs to run with that idea.

What many of those people will do . . when they can't find a pup from a homebreeder and they don't want a rescue . . . is go to a broker or supplier from a commercial breeder, and usually one that is selling from a substandard kennel.

Do you wonder why there has been a substantial 'uptick' in the number of dogs produced from substandard kennels in and outside of your country (thousands are imported from mills)? It is greatly due to this idea that there are 'too many' dogs, when there are not. Uncaring businesses wanting to profit off of animals are not dumb and will happily rise to meet the demand and build 'operations' housing thousands of dogs. If you are unaware that is happening everywhere.

I don't believe the aim of the false 'overpopulation' message is to send others to puppymills . . . but that is proving out to be the way it is working and it is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. I don't like seeing dogs suffer like the "retired" moms I've taken in to foster from these places.



swarthy said:


> You REALLY believe that? you haven't been around the forums very long then - the response would have been pretty much identical :


Swarthy the observation that those crossbreeding get a harder time is absolutely true. I've been around this forum for a while. I can point out at least a couple of threads now where breeders of purebred litters (by memory a Shih Tzu and a Maltese litter come to mind) have not gotten half the questions or flack - or none at all - that anyone breeding a Shih Tzu cross or Maltese cross would have gotten.

I have to say as well though that it is much more tolerant than some.

CC


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

I don't think it's the 'designer name' (I don't think the Poodle x Shih Tzu I met could really have a designer name!) which has increased the price.

Cost of living, increased vet bills....I think most things probably cost a bit more than they did 20 years ago. 

All three of mine are cross breeds and the price of all of them combined wouldn't pay for a pedigree dog.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Gemmaa said:


> I don't think it's the 'designer name' (I don't think the Poodle x Shih Tzu I met could really have a designer name!) which has increased the price.
> 
> Cost of living, increased vet bills....I think most things probably cost a bit more than they did 20 years ago.
> 
> All three of mine are cross breeds and the price of all of them combined wouldn't pay for a pedigree dog.


I agree. Shihpoo is the common designer name for the mix you spoke of. I can't remember the name (Wallace Havens I believe) but the same business that put name to the 'Puggle' in the 80s created a bunch of these mixes and named, marketted and sold them. He continues to breed in demand registered purebred dogs and in demand mixes in a commercial operation that sells thousands a year.

CC


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Gemmaa said:


> I don't think it's the 'designer name' (I don't think the Poodle x Shih Tzu I met could really have a designer name!) which has increased the price.


The mind boggles :lol:



Gemmaa said:


> Cost of living, increased vet bills....I think most things probably cost a bit more than they did 20 years ago.
> 
> All three of mine are cross breeds and the price of all of them combined wouldn't pay for a pedigree dog.


They are very much the exception to the rule - Labradoodles often cost as much as THREE Times (and sometimes even more) the price of a well bred pedigree labrador - more often than not the cross's parents have no health-tests. There is absolutely NO justification for the price differential other than because "they can" 

It's not even feasible to argue that it is being done to produce "a healthier dog" because the conditions for which both breeds should be tested for are pretty much the same.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Malmum, surely your little shih tzu x yorkie is a shihtie? 

And I hope the OP won't be marketing their new cross as a minger, I don't think they'd get very far 

Showing can be a foregone conclusion, and sadly some judges do swap tickets, it happens. 

As far as breeding is concerned, having had the one litter and currently over £2k down in total, along with a load of heart ache and grief, despite trying to do the best I could given the circumstances, it's not something I will ever do lightly, and it's not something I ever hope to make any money from either. Sometimes I'm too honest and forthright for my own good, and hope to see the same in others, but you live and learn.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

SL, I think they averted the Shihtie name  and popularized 'Shorkie Zu'. The one I know I call a Shihtie though.

For the devil's advocate side re prices - because I absolutely do not favor either way the production of crosses or pures or mutts if all those are done with due care and see many sides to this - isn't the Labradoodle the exception to the rule of what prices are charged for mixes?

Most mixes - except for the popular ones - cannot command the sum or their purebred counterparts. 

I don't know about the UK, but here the common market price for a 'decently bred' Cavalier is $2500 (that is without MRI testing on parents most often). Registered but from untested parents the pups fetch $1000 on free ad sites. Mixes of Cavaliers (with Poodles or Bichons) are usually less than half that. Often they go in the $500-600 range.

A Tibbie here - no health testing but shown parents - is $800 (higher for breeding rights). A Tibbie mix might go for $350. A Tibbie imported from a health testing breeder - $1000 - 1200 (higher for breeding rights).

CC


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I own a zoo said:


> My dog has won 1st place at Crufts three years in a row but because i am not a 'big name' in the breed or buddies with influential breeders I doubt he will ever get a second look, which will be a massive loss to the breed.
> It's sad really


Which classes? Which breed?

Hope you don't mind me asking, it's just that it seems rather odd that your dog has a first at Crufts three years running and yet no-one in your breed is interested in him as a stud. Even in a numerically large breed like mine, winning dogs from new owners are noticed - especially ones who must have been winning at champ shows (as yours must have been otherwise you wouldn't have been at Crufts) 

ETA - Having read further I see which breed. My first thought was that in such a numerically small breed, people will be crying out for studs that are not over-used, so there must be some reason for people not wanting to use your dog other than the fact that you are not a big name .......... and then I read further and I can see why. You are the kind of breeder who puts a larger dog to a small bitch. Even if your dog was at the top of it's show career, I (and I suspect many others) wouldn't want to enter into any kind of breeding realtionship with someone like that.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> For the devil's advocate side - because I absolutely do not favor either way the production of crosses or pures or mutts if all those are done with due care and see many sides to this - isn't the Labradoodle the exception to the rule of what prices are charged for mixes?
> 
> Most mixes - except for the popular ones - cannot command the sum or their purebred counterparts.
> 
> ...


In the UK it seems that people associate some cross breeds as being more unusual, so therefore the price tag increases, it's the same for the hideous miniature dogs people are breeding and calling tea cup sized dogs, they sell for thousands of pounds, quite literally. If you trawl the UK dog sites where they sell pups, you will quite often see wording that associates cross breeds as being 'rare', and they will try to charge as much as possible despite often having no health tests in place and not having any reason to breed at all other than to try and sell all the pups to make money.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> In the UK it seems that people associate some cross breeds as being more unusual, so therefore the price tag increases, it's the same for the hideous miniature dogs people are breeding and calling tea cup sized dogs, they sell for thousands of pounds, quite literally. If you trawl the UK dog sites where they sell pups, you will quite often see wording that associates cross breeds as being 'rare', and they will try to charge as much as possible despite often having no health tests in place and not having any reason to breed at all other than to try and sell all the pups to make money.


We have the same thing here . . . just that the 'rare' tag is just as likely to be associated with a pure and registered dog. Same with the t-cup and 'imperial' sizes of all breeds/mixes that can command $5000.

Unfortunately I have an acquaintance that picked up a t-cup Cavalier for that price that was supposedly from a 'reputable' breeder (I ran the pedigree and the pup was from well recognized dogs but the buyer - a retired teacher - had no clue what she was looking for obviously in finding a breeder that marketted a 't-cup' pup) and she then ended out spending $8000 on skull surgery on it two years later.

These occurances run more rampant than I find acceptable in all areas of breeding (mixed/pure/working) I'm afraid as people do not know how to identify a decent breeder, and lots make a good show of disguising themselves that way.

Currently there is a trend toward getting the 'Japanese' produced and exported miniatures (mixed and pure) by some with high income that seek attention through their miniature dog ownership. It is quite disgusting but some just have no clue. I have a sister that learned the hard way once already but still has had the gall to send me a link to the 'cute' pups . . . that I think look deformed with domed heads and bulging eyes.

Those, however, are not the common crossbreed. Most crossbreeds don't command high price (just as many common breeds do not). They do command a higher price than they used to which seems to pee some people off.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> We have the same thing here . . . just that it is just as likely that the 'rare' tag is just as likely to be associated with a pure and registered dog. Same with the t-cup and 'imperial' sizes of all breeds/mixes that can command $5000.
> 
> Unfortunately I have an acquaintance that picked up a t-cup Cavalier for that price that was supposedly from a 'reputable' breeder (she had no clue what she was looking for obviously) and she then ended out spending $8000 on skull surgery on it two years later.
> 
> ...


Very true, most of the tea cup sized dogs I see are supposedly pedigrees, I don't know if they are, but they're certainly not acceptable. Far too often the poor things look fragile beyond belief and appear to have problems with their eyes.

I've often said it before, the best genetic test they could ever develop would be one to test the level of ethics of the breeder


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . . I've often said it before, the best genetic test they could ever develop would be one to test the level of ethics of the breeder


I've a couple of sons in the sciences in University . . . . I'll set them to work.

CC


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

Cockapoo Puppy For Sale
Just seen this - Cockapoo bitch advertised for £1200!!!


----------



## tinamary (Aug 17, 2008)

I don't understand with all the problems we have at the moment with dogs in rescues why people would want to breed any dog.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

. . . because the problems of dogs not being adopted by rescues are not solved by good and caring breeders stopping breeding.

The reason . . . there are always substandard commercial breeders willing to fill that gap and the same people who buy and dump pups will just get them there.

Do you believe caring breeders should be discouraged whilst there is nothing in place to stop substandard breeders from producing pups by the thousands yearly?

Please explain how that helps.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

tinamary said:


> I don't understand with all the problems we have at the moment with dogs in rescues why people would want to breed any dog.


Because those who don't give a [email protected] about the pups they produce will breed anyway. So why should others stop? I've just bred a litter of Labrador pups, all of the pups are endorsed, including the one I kept back for myself, and they were all sold under contract (checked by my solicitor) so that they shouldn't ever end up in rescue, but are ultimately my responsibility. I'm in regular contact with all of them, we have our own facebook group where owners post photos of how they are doing, and ask for opinions/advice. I could have sold the litter two or three times over, and turned down more people than actually enquired as unsuitable puppy owners, believe it or not there is a demand, as I've found, for pups from health tested parents from breeders who do appear to care. I've had great feedback from all the puppy owners who are thrilled with their new additions, two of them plan to show their pups when they are old enough as well.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

tinamary said:


> I don't understand with all the problems we have at the moment with dogs in rescues why people would want to breed any dog.


this comment reminds me of another thread a few days ago..

so what about my dog Chester who's breed is on the vulnerable breed list...just over 120 born a year..should they also not breed?

you did say any dog


----------



## hazel pritchard (Jun 28, 2009)

To all those who are thinking of crossing breeds , here are my 2 dogs , both x breeds, no doubt someone thought it would be good to breed from their parents, and make many £££££,

But both my dogs are rescues, the little 1 (Jack) was left in a box on a street aged about 6 wks old,,,,
My other dog (Charlie) came to us last August aged 13 months old, we are his 4th owner,,,,, I would love to meet the people who thought it was good to let a bitch get pregnant and to show them just what had happened to these dogs before they came to me.


----------



## charlearose (Sep 18, 2011)

we have 5 dogue de bordeauxs and a bullmastiff 
we could have breed from our two girls in at some point in the future our boys are cracking big lads we have all there papers and they were hip scored when we bought them both have brilliant temperaments and are good examples of the breed our youngest boy is 8 months and we have just had him neutered 

we have 2 lovely girls we could breed from the both and probably make in excess of 20grand easily if we bred them both at the same time in one year 
However one of the first things we did was get our older boys balls cut off :cornet: 
I wouldn't be improving the breed as i don't show them, it would be pure greed on my part so i did what i think is the right thing for my dogs and have them neutered 
one of my girls has just been spayed only last week and i will get the other one done probably in a month or so time


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> To all those who are thinking of crossing breeds , here are my 2 dogs , both x breeds, no doubt someone thought it would be good to breed from their parents, and make many £££££,


Hazel, I have in my home currently two purebred dogs - both fairly uncommon breeds here - that 'someone' thought it would be good to produce and sell (for dollars) to someone else who just passed them along. One has been trained to table stand and walk in the ring, but has outgrown his standard (by height). I took him for foster from a broker who ran into problems selling him and then got caught out having too many in his home/filthy conditions. I believe the broker had him becuz the previous owner is hiding that they wanted to be rid of him when he didn't work out. I've seen a few show dogs imported through this broker to sell here (as small purebreds in most breeds are fairly uncommon so brokers are bringing them up from the Southern USA).

How is that any different from your situation?

The two mutts/mixes I purchased, however, from a wonderful and caring breeder that I know well have a permanent home. She made sure of that.

Why single out the crossbreeds that go through rescue or get rehomed as examples of $$$ breeding? Tons and tons of purebreds do as well.

CC


----------



## tinamary (Aug 17, 2008)

There are far too many breeders that don't give a damn about what they are passing on to other people and the rescues out there are struggling to cope as we see on a daily basis. Im sorry but i do not want to offend the caring people out there who breed sensibly but i stand by what i have said and i believe that breeding should now be scorned upon until the situation is better. 
Paddyjulie i do understand what you mean and maybe had not thought about the situation with rare breeds before i spouted off. What is it you have, Why are they a rare breed, are they not popular.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

I own a zoo said:


> I wasn saying crossbreeding is bad, just saying that designer trends have led to over population and greedy breeding.
> 
> As for enough dogs in rescue - there is a MASSIVE proportion of the population who will not get a dog from rescue, for whatever reason, no matter how many litters people stopped breeding there will still be rescue centers full of dogs sadly.
> 
> But as i stated breeding a litter of crossbred dogs immediately got a negative response. Had i come on and said i had just bred a pure bred litter the reception would be different - and after all, a dog is a dog.


The reception would have been no different. Pedigree dogs should not be bred because they are pedigree dogs, they should be bred to improve the breed.

There is nothing wrong with crossbreeds, but why do it on purpose if not for money? All the dogs we had growing up were crossbreeds, got off the market where the owners were practically giving them away because their bitch had got caught by accident.



I own a zoo said:


> I am sure they wont like it but in my opinions one litter of crossbreeds aimed at working or pet homes will do far less damage than some of the shocking overuse of certain stud dogs, breeders using dogs with known health problems in their line and blatant use of aggressive stud dogs is currently doing to our beloved breed. It's no longer about the conformation or temperament of your dogs but on who is holding the lead and who is friends with who.
> My dog has won 1st place at Crufts three years in a row but because i am not a 'big name' in the breed or buddies with influential breeders I doubt he will ever get a second look, which will be a massive loss to the breed.
> It's sad really


In which group did your dog win first place at Crufts three years running?


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

tinamary said:


> There are far too many breeders that don't give a damn about what they are passing on to other people and the rescues out there are struggling to cope as we see on a daily basis. Im sorry but i do not want to offend the caring people out there who breed sensibly but i stand by what i have said and i believe that breeding should now be scorned upon until the situation is better.
> Paddyjulie i do understand what you mean and maybe had not thought about the situation with rare breeds before i spouted off. What is it you have, Why are they a rare breed, are they not popular.


he is a Manchester terrier..the decline in the breed was due at first to the banning of ear cropping...but then the first World War happened and as they were already a struggling breed, things became more difficult


----------



## tinamary (Aug 17, 2008)

Is he in the picture paddyjulie. he is a beauty. My sister in law had a lancashire terrier for 22 years. Are they similar. Im not familiar with the breed


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

tinamary said:


> Is he in the picture paddyjulie


yes  the black and tan terrier !! 

there is quite a few dogs on the list ..the english toy terrier.. and the newly added otterhound..


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

tinamary said:


> There are far too many breeders that don't give a damn about what they are passing on to other people and the rescues out there are struggling to cope as we see on a daily basis. Im sorry but i do not want to offend the caring people out there who breed sensibly but i stand by what i have said and i believe that breeding should now be scorned upon until the situation is better.
> Paddyjulie i do understand what you mean and maybe had not thought about the situation with rare breeds before i spouted off. What is it you have, Why are they a rare breed, are they not popular.


First - the situation IS better, both in North America AND in the UK. This is a url to a graph from the UK showing the consistent downward trend from the last 20 years. - http://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/Microsites/Pledges/images/infographic2.png

This chart covers the USA.










Only 2% of Dogs Die in Shelters Yearly

I can find similar content for the Netherlands and for Australia and for Canada. Being involved as a shelter volunteer in Canada starting 30 years ago I KNOW the situation is better.



> Year-----------Total Pet Population ------- # Euthanized in Shelters*** -------- % of the pet population
> 1973* ------------- 65 million ------------------------- 13.5 million ----------------------- 21%
> 1982* ------------- 92 million ------------------------- 8-10 million ------------------------ 9%-11%
> 1992* ----------- 110 million --------------------------- 5-6 million ------------------------ 5%
> ...


resources over population

For every good breeder that leaves breeding there is at least one more mill momma producing for substandard commercial kennels.

Right now there are approximately 50 thousand puppies trafficked out of Wales to the U.K. yearly. source - http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.ca/2012/06/in-defence-of-friend.html#comment-form

Is that what you call better?

Thats not what I call better. Throwing scorn and spite towards caring breeders makes things for dogs worse and I'll continue to stand by that fact.

CC


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

tinamary said:


> There are far too many breeders that don't give a damn about what they are passing on to other people and the rescues out there are struggling to cope as we see on a daily basis. Im sorry but i do not want to offend the caring people out there who breed sensibly but i stand by what i have said and i believe that breeding should now be scorned upon until the situation is better.
> Paddyjulie i do understand what you mean and maybe had not thought about the situation with rare breeds before i spouted off. What is it you have, Why are they a rare breed, are they not popular.


Not breeding won't drive people to rescue - sadly, it will drive many of them to Puppy Farmers and BYB - both of which are predominantly responsible for the majority of dogs in rescue - pedigrees and crossbreeds.

The difference is, good breeders care about where and with whom they home their pups, BYB and PF don't

Consequently, people end up with badly behaved dogs possibly through lack of socialisation - a bold dog could probably overcome this - more sensitive pups may not - similarly - they get hit with health problems - can't afford (or not interested) in supporting the pup - it grows to big - it moults when the breeder said it wouldn't - there is a huge list of reasons why these pups end up in rescue.

Responsible breeders make up a small proportion of all pups bred in the numerically large breeds - it will be different for the rare breeds unless a PF or BYB can see a market for them.

Pups of good breeders do occasionally end up in rescue - but again, they make up a miniscule proportion of the dogs that do end up there, because by their very nature, their breeders care - they care before they breed by using the health-schemes - they care when they sell them - with good homes being more important than seeing them all leave by 8 weeks.

I've been breeding 5 years tomorrow (my first litter of pups were born) and during that time, I've placed just 18 pups (and kept 4 myself) out of approximately 220,000 Labradors registered with the KC during the same time (and estimates of around a further 50% not registered).

It puts the numbers into some sort of perspective - 0.0082% of all KC registered pups - I breed only when I want a pup to run on myself.

Thankfully, in most rare breeds, the numbers of pups registered and bred by responsible breeders should be close up to the 100% range - and lets pray for everyone's sake they stay that way - yes - these dogs need bigger numbers and broader gene pools, but certainly not from BYB and PF.

Please don't tar everyone with the same brush - demand not being met by good breeders WILL be met by BYB and PF - I know what I would rather see each and every time.


----------



## tinamary (Aug 17, 2008)

Thanks for the stats comfortcreature. I would not say that the situation is easier if you look at the amount of dog in 1973 to the amount now.
I still think that the situation is dire and something needs to be done. What is it that you suggest we need to do to bring the population down to a manageable level.

I meet people everyday of my life that tell me they have been to a rescue and seen the dogs sat in them either for a home or put to death. While we still have such a problem what is the answer?.

If we carry on at this rate so many dogs will still suffer the fate of being rehomed and euthenised. I for one do not like hearing of dogs suffering at the hands of unscrupulous breeders and people who think that their dog should have a litter because its a dog and thats what they do.
I love puppies as many people do but there has to be something that regulates the industry.

Do you know the full reason for the downturn in the figs for euthenasia. It could be due to a number of reasons. Do we know how many rescue centres there were in 1973 compared to today. Do we know how many people volunteer nowadays compared to then or how many homes now have a dog compared to then. Stats can be taken many ways and without the full picture we don't really know how they can be read.

If you knew me you would not believe that i am thowing spite and scorn at caring breeders but on the same score do the unscrupulous breeders realise that they are adding to the problem for the sake of money. I am not against the breeders who breed to protect the breed. But it is not in my nature to sell any animal for money.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

TinaMary there is a lot of information at your fingertips through google with regard to all your questions.



tinamary said:


> Thanks for the stats comfortcreature. I would not say that the situation is easier if you look at the amount of dog in 1973 to the amount now. . .


Looking at the amounts of dogs then to now we had less dogs back then and were euthanizing a TON more of them. Those rates are percentage rates, which takes population size then and now into full account. How can improvement be denied? We do have a full picture of the past and the improvement in the situation and the reasons for are obvious - especially for those of us that were there watching euthanasia in those numbers. I know some are determined to see a cup half empty but denial of facts doesn't ever sit well with me as it usually reveals an aim at just seeing things from one side.

Unfortunately what many that care and involved continuously hear is the gloom and doom, and that is because of the propoganda machine that revolves around those whose living is made on the backs of animals through animal rights organizations.

I have ALWAYS been involved in animal welfare, and for a short time, at the beginning, in animal rights . . . until I saw up front and personal the evil that is so apparent there.

But away from that rant and tangent . . . and to 'what do we do' . . . there are PROVEN methods that work in communities to get numbers down to MANAGEABLE levels. Many communities in North America no longer kill healthy and adoptable dogs.

I know the Calgary Humane Society well - as it was the first place I volunteered. Calgary has taken its own approach and achieved 'no-kill' rates for dogs for over a decade. Bill Bruce is the animal control leader there that has made this work, and these are comments from a talk he gave. His focus has been getting the community on board with licensing (90%+ licensing rate) and for that many services are offered - like returning your pet straight to your home (no intake) if it is microchipped and licensed. He also established incredible education packages that are curriculum rated and available as lesson plans for schools - can be included in Social Studies or Health from grade one on up.



> (2:50) Focusing on animal services tonight -* a lot about our public education.* I give that its own category because it is so important.
> 
> (3:19) So what do we at animals services do? *We encourage responsible pet ownership. * We do that with licensing, with public education, and when it's necessary, enforcement.
> 
> ...


Other communities have achieved no-kill of healthy and adoptable by following different tactics. There are websites devoted to the 'no-kill' movement and their methods. (Please be aware the euthanasia of irremediably suffering is acceptable for those involved in the 'no-kill' movement.) Shelter reform is at the core with a *minimum *of ALL of these programs in place.

1.TNR Program
2.High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter
3.Rescue Groups
4.Foster Care
5.Comprehensive Adoption Programs
6.Pet Retention
7.Medical and Behavior Prevention & Rehabilitation
8.Public Relations/Community Involvement
9.Volunteers
10.Proactive Redemptions
11.A Compassionate Director

the no kill solution -- No Kill Advocacy Center | A No Kill nation is within our reach... -- No Kill Advocacy Center | No Kill Equation

NONE of these programs revolve around getting good breeders to stop . . . and that is because people who are experienced know that that does absolutely nothing to improve, and usually makes things worse. In our communities where we have had success the largest problems for rescue are with substandard operations that are growing in size which many times produce ex-breeding dogs that are too often in horrible states.

What they DO revolve around is changing the attitude communities have about the responsibility of care that they need to have to own pets.

The status dog problem is another that has to be addressed specifically for each community, as in every era there has been a popular 'status' dog that ends out on the high end of euthanasia stats.

To be clear as well, it will ALWAYS be work. There will ALWAYS be a need for some of us to be dealing with the mess made from others, because we are, after all, dealing with imperfect human beings. The hope is to get things manageable everywhere. If the expectation is to continue to declare 'problems of epidemic porportions' until all rehomes are prevented from ever occuring or until even the lives of the most unhealthy are always saved (an expectation I have found some to have) then a reality check is what is needed as we don't even do that for humans.

CC


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

tinamary said:


> Thanks for the stats comfortcreature. I would not say that the situation is easier if you look at the amount of dog in 1973 to the amount now.
> I still think that the situation is dire and something needs to be done. What is it that you suggest we need to do to bring the population down to a manageable level.
> 
> I meet people everyday of my life that tell me they have been to a rescue and seen the dogs sat in them either for a home or put to death. While we still have such a problem what is the answer?.
> ...


To breed responsibly, in some breeds (well actually many breeds - and particulary so when cross-breeding if done properly) costs a LOT of money.

There has been another interesting thread this week where potential profits for a small number of breeds are seemingly nothing short of ludicrous.

Similarly where no health-tests are required for a breed, there is potential for sizeable profits if puppy prices are high.

Thankfully - there are many more breeds where the incentrive is to produce, develop and improve your lines.

In numerically large breeds with broad gene pools, it is somewhat arrogant to say "improve the breed" - because the impact such breeders are likely to have on the wider breed is miniscule to non-existent.

Sadly, the same cannot be said for large scale puppy farmers who potentially can have a very negative effect on a breed, particularly a medium sized one where they are churning out a large proportion of the pups bred.

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

Regulation is an emotive issue - the Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies have draft regulations out for consultation - sadly, these are often produced by people who don't have the first clue about dogs or dog breeding,

In wales, this is their second attempt - the first one would have had absolutely NO effect on puppy farmers, but could very easily have seen the demise of the small scale hobby breeder potentialy making the problem worse 

The revised legislation has (I believe) recently closed for consultations, but there is no doubt it is fairer on hobby breeders - but in all truthfulness, I don't believe it will have any major impact on puppy farmers or BYB 

In all this - there is one question that remains unanswered - how will it be enforced?

We do have adequate laws in place at present (that's not to say there aren't areas that could do with revising) - but the simple fact is, they can't enforce what we already have - so how will they enforce new regulations which do not allude in any shape or form to the use of health-testing


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

We also have adequate monetary donations to easily fund any programs necessary for saving all those that are killed unnecessarily . . . unfortunately much of those funds are directed to groups that pretend to be collecting for that cause while most of their money is spent on other political agendas and topping up retirement funds.

PETA and the HSUS are examples of these, where PETA has an abismal 95% kill rate (as they don't even try to rehome) and for the HSUS, less than 1% of donations go towards local animal rescues/shelters.

HumaneWatch -- http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

I believe from what I've read the RSPCA seems to be headed in this direction as well - mostly political action and forgetting to care for the actual animals it claims to raise funds for.

Please donate locally to a real rescue instead of the big groups.

CC


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Radinasa33 said:


> The advantages of purchasing combine dog breeds also consist of much much better wellness and longer age expectancy. Pure dog breeds are generally extremely inbred putting them at many far more wellness risks than combine dog breeds. Due to the fewer wellness problems discovered in Bichon Frise combine breeds, mix breeds are expected to have longer life expectancies than the pure dog breeds.


Crosses are just as much as risk of genetic conditions as their pedigree parents - moreso because the large majority of crosses will have the same or similar originating conditions but one may have more than the other.

The minute you get to a second generation cross - then actually, you have a HIGHER level of genetic conditions than with either of the pedigree parents - you effectively introduce new conditions to that cross-breed from which one of the originating pedigree dogs may not have been affected.

ETA - there are some instances where type to type crosses have been permitted to prevent breed extinction - Labradors nearly 100 years ago have both Flatcoats and Interbred retrievers in their ancestry.

More recently, the dalmations with a pointer in their pedigree for health reasons.

Type to type can be used for many reasons but usually under managed conditions, and not just because the breeder thought "it might be a good idea".


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

swarthy said:


> Crosses are just as much as risk of genetic conditions as their pedigree parents - moreso because the large majority of crosses will have the same or similar originating conditions but one may have more than the other.
> 
> The minute you get to a second generation cross - then actually, you have a HIGHER level of genetic conditions than with either of the pedigree parents - you effectively introduce new conditions to that cross-breed from which one of the originating pedigree dogs may not have been affected.


While I agree that crosses - second generation and forward - are at a similar genetic risk for recessive conditions as their pedigree grandparents, this idea of HIGHER *level* of genetic conditions makes no sense what-so-ever. They might be at risk of a higher total number, but even those would be at marked *lower prevalence rates* - with overall prevalence rates *still diminished* even in the F2 generation.

So, to me, saying that a second gen cross has a higher 'level' of genetic conditions is very misleading.

If you are speaking about a higher risk of ill health - by percentage and not sheer numbers of conditions one might be exposed to, please explain how you have come to this thinking.

As living creatures we ALL have a huge NUMBER of conditions we might carry and be exposed to. That matters very little if the prevalence rates are low, and crosses will have diminished prevalence rates to purebred dogs IF there is similar knowledge and testing behind.

We can debate all day about the how often this knowledge is sought by those that are crossbreeding, but that doesn't matter in the least with regard to statements of fact about genetic risks. The fact is that breeding from ever smaller gene pools (as is what is obligated in closed registry breeding) will eventually result in new health problems emerging, even in currently healthy lines. That is WHY there is SO much focus with purebred breeders on health testing - their favored breeding method BRINGS issues to the fore. At the same time it IS favored BECAUSE of the predictability it brings.

INBREEDING AND GENETIC DRIFT

This is the trade off between pedigrees and crosses . . . . temperamentally, phenotypically and health wise purebred dogs are more predictable. That is of benefit for many who like that predictability.

Crosses and mutts are less predictable . . . temperamentally, phenotypically and health wise. For the vast majority in the past that has been quite fine. For many today that is still fine . . . . but there seems to be a push to make us believe that it shouldn't be fine.

I will debate all day back and forth about the fact that there is not one method of breeding that should be favored. The structure around the purebred breeding method is terribly flawed toward creating heightened prevalence rates of a lower number of conditions - but breeders attempt to offset the heightened risks with health testing. The non-structure around cross and mutt breeding allows slack and *different* sorts of *risks* that some are uncomfortable with - especially those that favor structured breeding.

But when it comes down to it there is no one method that can guarantee health in a pup. That is because man cannot control nature and what she can produce despite all the trying in the world.



swarthy said:


> ETA - there are some instances where type to type crosses have been permitted to prevent breed extinction - Labradors nearly 100 years ago have both Flatcoats and Interbred retrievers in their ancestry.


Labradors had other breeds brought into their stud books way less than 100 years ago. (The Chesapeake probably contributing genes for what now shows as 'silver' coloring in Labradors).



> Breeding and interbreeding
> 
> In our database *I found 480 unregistered Labrador retrievers*, born in the U.K. *between 1897 and 1962*.
> 
> ...


source of above quote - LABRADORNET - Labrador Typecasting

Many breeds did not have closed stud books until well after the war years. Until that point a dog could be a purebred . . . and registered . . . even with a mixed dog in its heritage just a few gens back.

The definition of a purebred simply meant it was a dog of recognizable type. It has only been in the last 60 years that that has changed (and in some parts of the world it still has not).



swarthy said:


> More recently, the dalmations with a pointer in their pedigree for health reasons.
> 
> Type to type can be used for many reasons but usually under managed conditions, and not just because the breeder thought "it might be a good idea".


Type to type was exactly how ALL our original breeds were created. It is what I was taught as a breeder from my grandfather and aunts/uncles who bred working collies. It is still used by some clubs, the JRT and the Chinook breeds being examples. Type to type did/does include leaving the breeder the discretion to decide what is and is not a good idea. The level of refinement that some want would be hard to achieve with type to type breeding. I question the benefit of that level of refinement, myself.

The currently promoted purebred registry system, pushed by factions within, seems to want to 'impose' the idea that breeders should only have limited discretion. That is because to promote the purebred dog there has been a goal of 'more refinement' favored. 'Clubs' rely on the back and forth agreement on how to go forward in a breed and need that agreement to keep type refined and therefore going in an individual direction is discouraged. This is about the club, though, and type, not about the overall health of what is produced. I will argue that is the not the only way to breed ethically. It is the favored and politically correct way however.

I think we are all aware that many 'breeds' had mavericks in the beginning, people with an INDIVIDUAL vision, that got them started. I will even comment that there have been mavericks in the crossbreeding world that have found tried and true combinations that have found favor over decades - the Cockapoo being an example that has continued to rise in popularity since the 60s and suits many just fine as an F1 cross. These same people, if starting today, would be slammed royally by the politically correct breeding police currently set up. I have seen this in action against some legitimately working toward a goal and I find it incredibly sad and I think of the people that do it as ignorant.

With regard to the Large Munsterlander - I know nothing of the breed or its politics, and not enough has been described in this thread for me to even form an opinion of the breeding that has been done. I will say that the point made, originally, about the crossbreeding 'fad' and 'bandwagon' tarnishing the name of good old crosses that used to slip by mostly without notice, is one that I agree with. I dislike all these fads.

Current list of outcross projects that I have noted:

- Dalmations - of course

- Clumber Spaniels - outcrossed in 2001 through the SKK

- Tibetan Spaniels - outcrossed many times to the native population - the last three I know of being Arty, b. in '99 and brought in through China, Chotu b. in '99 and brought in through Germany through the Bhutan, and Leopoldo b. ? (no history) and brought in Kyrgizystan.

- In the German Pinscher, Schnauzer/Pinscher crosses have been done in Finland. They are already at fourth generation and achieving championship status - German Pinscher - All About - http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot....ou-get-if.html - kennel YARRACITTA - red german pinschers

- There was also one German Pinscher x Dobermann cross done in Germany with the progeny brought into Finland.

In F1 stage;

- The Barbet has been crossed with the Pont-Audemer Spaniel. The puppies are registered as Barbet. A litter was born in June 2011: http://www.nuutuksen.net/76

- The Brasilian Terrier has been crossed with the Danish-Swedish Farmdog. The puppies are registered as Brasilian Terriers. A litter was born in May 2011: Pirunsaaren

- I understand also that the rare Swedish hound breeds, the Smaland Hound, the Gotland Hound and the Schiller Hound can be crossed with each other and offspring can be registered as purebred by Swedish KC. I don't know the details.

- The Lapponian Herder has open breed books and there are new dogs registered nearly yearly. There have also been three crosses with the closely related Finnish Lapphund.

- The ongoing Chinook project is here - Chinook Cross Breeding Program

Then these are some projects in planning stages:

- In the Kromfohrlander, the most inbred breed in this world (at least if you believe pedigrees), as there were just TWO founders, crossing is about to start and at least the Finnish breed club is going to be active. Several potential partner breeds have been suggested and I'm not sure which crosses are going to be done.

- In the Lancashire Heeler, another with a small gene pool and some health problems, a cross with either the Pembroke Corgi or Swedish Vallhund (Vastgotaspets) has been planned.

- In the Lundehund (Norwegian Puffin Dog),another with a tiny gene pool and a nasty disease breeders have initiated the planning of crosses, but require the breed club of the country of origin to show a green light.

I'm sure there are more that are just not in the public eye. We all know some have been back-doored in following the closure of stud books.

CC


----------



## Howl (Apr 10, 2012)

OP I can see the issues with finding good bitches. Some unusual breeds are very difficult even to buy puppies without very questionable practices. Let alone develop their reputation for studs. One way I have seen work is when a new breeder uses known/trusted breeder's bitch and develop a relationship alongside respected breeders before going solo. Perhaps finding a breeder outside of the UK? 
You have an unusual breed dog. If you did find a good bitch any puppies I would imagine would very quickly have a good waiting list with a few people to spare. 
When E came up for rehoming there were many people offering homes. I have seen the same thing for other dogs through my breeder. Puppies returned to the breeder through changes in jobs have been snapped up. The breed rescue has many breed fans happy to scoop a dog out of a shelter and into homes. Often with paperwork as it's relatively easy to track, mine came with all hers. There aren't many crosses but those in rescue generally sadly don't get the same support.
Never say never a young good looking cross can find a home quickly but if they get rehomed when they are older or happen to have an illness or injury they struggle. 
On this forum I managed to get an english setter rehomed in a few days through their breed rescue to a good working home. If it was a cross sadly it wouldn't have been as easy. 
I hope if any of your pups are rehomed they go back to the breeder but it isn't always the case. If it was me I would worry more about a cross breed ending up in shelter even with all the best care as a breeder. 

Also I completly agree with comfortcreature to help support local shelters/groups they do the vast majority of the work from what I have seen locally. Rehoming on average a dog a day with good advice and home checking. 

In the past they have had welsh foxhounds, many variations of french hounds and otterhounds in their background. In the murky world of hunting on both sides of the channel I suspect this may still go on today although can't be certain. From a breed that has been defined by area not type for many years. 
Overal I feel very lucky to have a breed where genetic issues have been dealt with responsibly. As a pet owner I didn't appreciate fully what I had got with D until I looked out the window one day to see her at a distance, my OH walking her. Good gait, posture head held high, happy temperament. I don't agree with many aspects of how the breed are shown but I do respect whatever got them this far. I would like to see them being able to compete in clean boot or something that allows them to remain fit for purpose. 
I just wouldn't dream of crossing mine and finding it difficult to see why anyone would unless the genetics needed support as mentioned above.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

I own a zoo said:


> I'm not trying to prove anything by cross mating him, just the situation presented itself, bitch owner was very keen on using my boy so after discussion i allowed him to be used.
> 
> I dont mind at all if word gets out, i will happily converse with anyone in the breed as to why this mating in no way affected out breeds confirmation, temperament etc.
> 
> ...


Munsterlander, to a Springer ????? What on Earth for ??


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2012)

I own a zoo said:


> We are a numerically small breed and anyone with any degree of common sense in the breed will know exactly who i am straight away.


thankfully we`ll all know who to avoid then


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> While I agree that crosses - second generation and forward - are at a similar genetic risk for recessive conditions as their pedigree grandparents, this idea of HIGHER *level* of genetic conditions makes no sense what-so-ever. They might be at risk of a higher total number, but even those would be at marked *lower prevalence rates* - with overall prevalence rates *still diminished* even in the F2 generation.
> 
> So, to me, saying that a second gen cross has a higher 'level' of genetic conditions is very misleading.
> 
> ...


Brilliant post CC. Just says it all. I can go and walk the dogs now


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

pod said:


> Brilliant post CC. Just says it all. I can go and walk the dogs now


Me too, OP:confused5: .... but I can leave it to the sensible ones to sort out :thumbup1:


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

Couple of questions I have....

Why woud people in a breed turn their backs on someone who had one of their breed and used it to produce crossbreeds? If done responsibly of course, or would it be the same if was used for the same breed but not with healthchecks etc?



> I hope if any of your pups are rehomed they go back to the breeder but it isn't always the case. If it was me I would worry more about a cross breed ending up in shelter even with all the best care as a breeder.


Why? just curious - for me the difference would be between responsibly rehomed dogs and irresponsibly rehomed dogs....

And anyone who says there is not a rescue/stray dog crisis in this country is mad... or should I say a staffie bull breed problem is more true to form. I know one pound that has 10+ dogs (mainly staffies, but not all) dogs on its kill list. One pound, one week, one town. It goes on all day every day but many pounds won't publicise it

Am in great agreement though with the canadian stuff; education is definately the key to better and more responsible ownership; as I often say rare to see puppies in the pound/ rescue - 80% of the dogs are probably teenage?

Anyway veering away from the original point - I do think that there is nothing wrong with crossbreeds; my favourite type of dog is a crossbreed; but there are people giving them names as a selling point or pretending they are a breed and making a quick buck out of them.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

EmCHammer said:


> . . . And anyone who says there is not a rescue/stray dog crisis in this country is mad... or should I say a staffie bull breed problem is more true to form. I know one pound that has 10+ dogs (mainly staffies, but not all) dogs on its kill list. One pound, one week, one town. It goes on all day every day but many pounds won't publicise it .


I see a misinterpretation so I'll clarify. The point being is that the rescue situation is not in a 'crisis' as compared to the years before. The word 'crisis' means that things are getting worse, and not better. The numbers don't bare that out.

However, I agree, the problems are still large in many places, especially with status dog types.

The reason for the posts that show the improvement in percentages euthanized is not to suggest all is fine, but to suggest that emotionally hyping what is going on and looking for a quick blame without thinking through to the end goal is NOT the way to improve societal attitudes . . . which is what is necessary IF, long term, you want this tackled.

Looking at what has worked - around the world - and then utilising those tools IS the way to help improve the lot of dogs. I find the 'blame breeder' and emotionally hyped slogans a distraction from informed thought and efforts in this direction. I believe that is deliberate on the part of those that make money from pulling those emotional strings.



EmCHammer said:


> . Am in great agreement though with the canadian stuff; *education is definately the key to better and more responsible ownership;* as I often say rare to see puppies in the pound/ rescue - 80% of the dogs are probably teenage?.


CC


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

He He CC was not implying that you were mad.

I would say that Staffies definately as a breed are 'in crisis' my local dogs home which is a pound so has no control over the dogs in has 90% staffies or staffy types out of about 100 ish dogs. Its potentially the impact of all these dogs putting a straing on the pound dog and rescue system that slews the figures; constantly the dogs at our rescue are staffies; any non staffy is pretty likely to be helped very quickly (well apart from the rotties, maybe mastiffy types) or is likely to be killed after 7 days at the pounds.

Trouble is alot of the pounds don't let on that this goes on. Its not their fault really.

I am a firm believer in education about most things in life; with the staffies families do not want a staffie, often never having even met one, but just believing what they hear and then of coures people breed them not knowing about what goes on; then the vast majority of people who need to rehome a dog think that the dog warden will take it off to a nice rescue in the country side; then of course there are the people who don't care but my faith in human nature tells me there are far more good but uninformed people out there than nasty people. I could be wrong!

Thats were education comes in, alot of problems that cause dogs to be handed in or dumped could have been prevented with a bit of reserach and knowledge and training, or a different attitude to dog ownership. 

Its the same thing that I believe about things like drug addition; education, knowledge and seeing the impact of something first hand is a far better way of helping prevent an issue in the first place, rather than finding out the hard way that herion or something 'won't affect me'

Anyway I have rambled on! but agree, that in rescue its a constant mopping up of a situation which is not getting any easier (even if stats say it is, at the coal face it doesn't feel like it) and to make some headway the situation has to be tackled ffrom a different approach I definately agree.


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

I have probably wandered of topic, apols


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

springerpete said:


> Munsterlander, to a Springer ????? What on Earth for ??


Why indeed? 

OP, you said yourself that your breed is numerically small, so why on earth outcross? The breed needs supporting, not debilitating through outcrossing. And be quiet about the animals being of comparative size: utter tosh.  If the litter goes ahead, I hope the owner is financially solvent enough to afford a C section. 

Springers are one of the most common/popular breeds in the UK: never would I choose such an odd mix, I want a pure springer, as many people on here will testify for themselves.

I imagine that the springer is either unregistered or has already had her full complement of four litters register to the KC? Therefore the only reason I can see for the litter is to make money. Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Howl (Apr 10, 2012)

> EmCHammer said:
> 
> 
> > Couple of questions I have....
> ...


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

I own a zoo said:


> In fact to prove I dont mind what people in the breed think.......my dog is a Large Munsterlander......put to a Springer Spaniel.
> 
> We are a numerically small breed and anyone with any degree of common sense in the breed will know exactly who i am straight away. Bring it on


So as a show person, as I believe you have said your boy has done very well at shows, you will be a member of the club yes?

So your club is aware of you breaking the club code of ethics?

"6) Will agree not to breed from a dog or bitch which could be in any way harmful to the dog or to the breed"

http://www.largemunsterlanderclub.co.uk/Code of Ethics2.pdf

Since 
1) your male is between 23 and a half and 25 inches and a half inches.(has to be to be shown) and a springer bitch is 20inches I would say that does put the bitch in harms way. 
And 
2) I would say cross breeding, in such a small numbered breed is damaging the breed.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

The OP says a LM and a springer bitch are of comparative sizes-point? It's the LM dog we're talking about. Much like in horses, one does not put a much bigger stallion to a mare as you risk the foal being too big and damaging the mare.

And apparently the bitch owner couldn't find a decent springer stud as they're all too crazy...? Yeah, right. I'm afraid I find this to be an outrageous slur on springers. The bitch's owner can't have looked very hard! From a casual check on the KC website, there are plenty of very decent springer studs with championship lines and excellent temperaments. A shame to persist with the idea that springers are all 'mental'.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Sorry but your not in the 70s/80s anymore. We as pet owners were more ignorant then to the health problems arising from such cross breed litters with the knowledge of health and genetics that we have now it's a shame for you to stick your head in the sand about the very real problem.
> 
> "Back in the day" (I feel it sounds about right to say due to your start to the thread) when cross breeds were just that, it was also standard to leave your dog unfixed running around the town to please all the bitches, it was standard to whack your dog in the nose with a paper if it did anything wrong and rubbing his nose in his accident on the carpet.
> 
> ...


I am a bit late coming to this thread - but a few points jump out at me so I want to comment on a few posts.

For a start I have to disagree with pet owners having more knowledge than they used to. Those that go on forums learn things, yes. But your average pet owner does not give a damn about health testing, they just want a sensibly priced puppy of the breed or cross that they fancy and a good temperament. Most of them will never even have heard of health testing. And plenty still rub puppies noses in their mess and whack them with a rolled up newspaper. 
A big percentage of members on here will have bought their puppies 'irresponsibly' according to the fanatical few on here, and have been educated up to a point by the constant posts on here on the subject - but most ordinary pet owners who are not internet minded or mad enough about dogs to want to spend time on here will have no more idea than they would have 50 years ago - and vets are certainly not going to 'educate' them as on the whole they have little interest in that side of dog care (and why should they, it is not up to them to tell people how to buy a pup or breed from it.



swarthy said:


> Sadly then, there really are a lot of fools around who genuinely believe they are getting "a breed".
> 
> Only the other day in the vets, there was a lady with a small pup - the two ladies with their clearly pampered pedigree pooches asked her what breed it was and she replied "a jug" - their faces were a mass of confusion and bewilderment.
> 
> ...


I do agree with you here, people are easily conned.



noushka05 said:


> ahh the oversized bitch claim'... well i knew you'd come out with that old checsnut!...ive seen it used a hundred times on here before.. folk always try to justify putting bitches lives at extra risk!....and i know how big LM's are, the breed standard says bitches stand 'from' 23 inches where as your ESS bitches are 20 inches tops!....no breeder worth their salt would ever use a larger breed stud on a smaller breed even an individual who might be over the standard, the risk of her carrying larger puppies than she can deliver is risk they would never take!
> 
> if you have any decency at all please dont put her at extra risk..do the right thing and take her for the mismate jab.
> 
> .


I am confused as to why 3 or 4 inches would make any difference to risk to the bitch. There is easily that much range of size in many larger breeds and proportionally even an inch or so in a small breed would be the same. Also dogs are often significantly bigger than bitches.
And what about other accepted cross breeds. The standard poodle is usually far bigger than the labrador, though of course both breeds vary enormously in size. In fact a standard poodle can be 15 inches or 25 inches - a huge size range. I bred a dog that actually grew to 28 inches, my bitch was 24 inches and the dog was about 21 inches. Oh heck, there was a 3 inch difference in size! What about springer/cocker crosses, massive size difference. Lots of Lakeland cross borders around, big size difference in them.

I love munsterlanders, do not know enough about them to know what they would give to a springer and vice versa but I do know I would never own a springer as they are definitely not my sort of dog - maybe the bitch owner has pet homes lined up for these pups - it is none of our business anyway and the OP is the stud dog owner not the bitch owner so a lot of the comments on here have been aimed at the wrong person.



swarthy said:


> The mind boggles :lol:
> 
> They are very much the exception to the rule - Labradoodles often cost as much as THREE Times (and sometimes even more) the price of a well bred pedigree labrador - more often than not the cross's parents have no health-tests. There is absolutely NO justification for the price differential other than because "they can"
> 
> It's not even feasible to argue that it is being done to produce "a healthier dog" because the conditions for which both breeds should be tested for are pretty much the same.


I have noticed that labradoodles and cockerpoos are tending to be much cheaper now than they were a few years ago.
When I was looking for another dog and was very interested in getting a cockerpoo I went to a breeder who also bred labradors and she charged the same (£400) for all her pups as she said they cost the same to produce.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

EmCHammer said:


> Couple of questions I have....
> 
> Why woud people in a breed turn their backs on someone who had one of their breed and used it to produce crossbreeds? If done responsibly of course, or would it be the same if was used for the same breed but not with healthchecks etc?
> .


Breeders who are passionate about a breed will never cross them with another, those who do do it most certainly dont have the love for the breed at heart, they are motivated to cross them by something else...namely £££, so this is why reputable breeders turn their backs on them!

i have Siberian huskies, a breed with certain characteristics that make it unsuitable for your average dog owner ,how can anyone cross breeding them predict which traits any puppies will inherit?? rescues are inundated with sibe crosses because people cant cope with them!...i can see my breed is going the way of the staffy because of all these irresponsible breeders.

Whelping can be a risky time for any bitch.. but like the op of this thread '*I Love My Zoo*', we have people taking hugh risks with the lives of bitches by using a larger breed sire...in Siberian crosses they will often use an Alaskan Malamute stud!..so more bitches are suffering and dying in whelp, these people are ignorant when it comes to even the basics of breeding, good 1st time breeders within breeds will have experienced mentors to support them, so minimising the risk to bitches.


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Breeders who are passionate about a breed will never cross them with another, those who do do it most certainly dont have the love for the breed at heart, they are motivated to cross them by something else...namely £££, so this is why reputable breeders turn their backs on them!


Could it be that they just have a love of dogs?

I used to have this same quest, that the breed is all important, and this is most definitely appropriate in dogs bred for a specific purpose, for work of some sort. Although this is for human benefit, it does tend to ensure that the health of the individual is a priority. But when litters are bred primarily for the showring, 'breed improvement' may not be in the best interest of the individual dogs.

I'm not saying show breeders are less inclined to health test, that's actually not the case... but that selection for the showring is based on characteristics that are not generally dependent on health, whereas for a working purpose, it is.


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

ok here goes.

I made a mistake. 

I let my heart rule my head and I should have known better. My personal circumstances at the moment have compromised my normally red hot reasoning with regards to dog breeding, but I am not going to discuss my personal life on an open forum.

I have contacted the bitch owner this morning and advised that a mis-mating jab may be a good idea and have offered to pay for it myself. 

I am not the bitch owner, so what happens now it out of my hands. If the bitch owner wants to continue with the pregnancy despite my offer it is their right to do so, and i will of course remain on hand to support them.

For those who think it is all about ££££ - i didnt charge for the use of my dog at stud, and the bitch owner wants to keep a couple of the puppies themselves as family pets, hence the litter. None of it has been about money.

Again I admit what happened was not ideal, but what is done is done now and what will be will be.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Is this post for real. Why would an apparently knowledgeable dog person come on here, make an inflammatory post which they seemed to know would cause a problem then say they have changed their mind.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

> Breeders who are passionate about a breed will never cross them with another, those who do do it most certainly dont have the love for the breed at heart, they are motivated to cross them by something else...namely £££, so this is why reputable breeders turn their backs on them!


Well not necessarily. Think LUA Dalmatians. It depends why the cross is done. It may HAVE to be done if we keep breeding the way we do.

The advantage of a cross breed that no-one has yet mentioned is in MHC diversity. Keep breeds "pure" and continue to exclude all but the most "perfect" from breeding and there are going to be MASSIVE problems here. In some breeds there already are!

Replenishing a rare breed _should _be done by going back to the source breeds and breeding to type rather than over breeding every known member of a breed with a gene puddle.

People who love pure breeds (who doesn't) may yet be grateful for the fact that the general public will buy the "impure". They may yet give loving homes to the early generations of the re-constituted pedigrees.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Again, I really think we need a 'mission statement' saying how this forum feels about certain things so people don't come on saying they're about to breed their Newfoundland to a teacup chi (ok, I'm exaggerating to convey a point ).

It _*is*_ inflammatory to say you're breeding a fairly unusual breed to a very very common breed and there needs to be a purpose, as mentioned re LUA dallys.

Although I dislike new members being shot down in flames, perhaps they need a reminder of what this forum is like. All puppies are cute, of course they are, but I do feel they should be more carefully bred and for a Crufts' winner to breed against the ethos of the breed club strikes me as wrong when it is not for a health purpose.


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

cinammontoast said:


> but I do feel they should be more carefully bred and for a Crufts' winner to breed against the ethos of the breed club strikes me as wrong when it is not for a health purpose.


If i were to breed Munster to Munster it would be a whole different story - selective about possible bitches would be an understatement! 

I have stated it was an out of character impulsive mating, that I will be honest i now regret, but i still dont think this one litter will have any implications of the pure LM as a breed. In fact when i am ready for another LM bitch of my own and I hoping to import one from abroad (i got duped with my first bitch by a very senior breeder who should have known better).


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Is this post for real. Why would an apparently knowledgeable dog person come on here, make an inflammatory post which they seemed to know would cause a problem then say they have changed their mind.


Maybe it's because they have now realized that their breed club doesn't agree with such breeding.


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

shetlandlover said:


> Maybe it's because they have now realized that their breed club doesn't agree with such breeding.


no, I checked the breed handbook for rule and regulations and found none that stated no cross breeding. I know the club chairwoman well so if she wants to give me a ring and discuss it i am happy to :biggrin:


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Maybe it's because they have now realized that their breed club doesn't agree with such breeding.


I am sure a crufts winner with a fairly rare breed was well aware of that and did not need telling. 

An example of how the general public think towards dog breeding - when I was looking for a stud dog for my standard poodle some years ago a friend told me she knew of a lovely dog that belonged to someone she knew. As soon as she told me who the person was I lost interest but then it turned out the dog was a labrador (no doubt unregistered too). She was a very intelligent, animal minded person and she truly thought she was helping me out by telling me about this wonderful potential stud dog!


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

I own a zoo said:


> no, I checked the breed handbook for rule and regulations and found none that stated no cross breeding. I know the club chairwoman well so if she wants to give me a ring and discuss it i am happy to :biggrin:


I think cross breeding comes under doing harm to the breed. Also putting the bitch at risk breeding her to a large male.

Which is against club ethics. :frown2:


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

shetlandlover said:


> I think cross breeding comes under doing harm to the breed. Also putting the bitch at risk breeding her to a large male.
> 
> Which is against club ethics. :frown2:


This is asked genuinely - how is it putting the breed at harm?

The risk to the bitch, as she is not a munster, is surely not governed by the LM club. It was also the bitch owners risk to take, they asked me and i made a mistake by agreeing.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

cinammontoast said:


> Again, I really think we need a 'mission statement' saying how this forum feels about certain things so people don't come on saying *they're about to breed their Newfoundland to a teacup chi (ok, I'm exaggerating to convey a point :rolleyes*.
> 
> It _*is*_ inflammatory to say you're breeding a fairly unusual breed to a very very common breed and there needs to be a purpose, as mentioned re LUA dallys.
> 
> Although I dislike new members being shot down in flames, perhaps they need a reminder of what this forum is like. All puppies are cute, of course they are, but I do feel they should be more carefully bred and for a Crufts' winner to breed against the ethos of the breed club strikes me as wrong when it is not for a health purpose.


Oh, I don't know. I read once of someone trying to cross a pug with a great dane!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

I own a zoo said:


> If i were to breed Munster to Munster it would be a whole different story - selective about possible bitches would be an understatement!


Which makes it all the more bizarre that you would even consider cross breeding.

Also, when you say it won't do harm, how do you know that? Who's to say that the potential progeny won't be bred as 'pure' springer or 'pure' LM and bought by some poor owner who is after a purebred? Plus, you can't endorse cross breeds so you'd have no say over the future of the pups.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

I own a zoo said:


> This is asked genuinely - how is it putting the breed at harm?


Firstly because any offspring are likely to be nothing like the breed in temperament and behavior yet will have a look of the breed, poorly representing the breed. Not to mention when the owner sells the pups and the new owners breed you are just adding the risk of one of this rare breeds offspring ending up in a rescue!

By breeding the way you have you also risk the offspring having health problems that your breed may not have had but Springers do.

You should be using your boy to help the breed.....increasing the risk of health problems in his offspring is not helping anyone.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> Oh, I don't know. I read once of someone trying to cross a pug with a great dane!


  No way! Too mental!


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

cinammontoast said:


> Which makes it all the more bizarre that you would even consider cross breeding.
> 
> Also, when you say it won't do harm, how do you know that? Who's to say that the potential progeny won't be bred as 'pure' springer or 'pure' LM and bought by some poor owner who is after a purebred? Plus, you can't endorse cross breeds so you'd have no say over the future of the pups.


So you think that someone who buys a clearly described lm x springer, that has no pedigree certificate, will suddenely forget this fact and think they have a pure lm?

So far none of the lm x collies, lm x shar pei or lm x gwp previously bred have transformed into pure lms, or been bred back to a pure lm.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Firstly because any offspring are likely to be nothing like the breed in temperament and behavior yet will have a look of the breed, poorly representing the breed. Not to mention when the owner sells the pups and the new owners breed you are just adding the risk of one of this rare breeds offspring ending up in a rescue!


This is something I see people say alot about crossbreeds, that they are going to have a wildly unpredictable temprement and behaviours. Surely in the example of a cross between an LM and a springer then you know you're going to get something with the varying gundoggy traits of either breed - you are not going to end up with something that acts like a terrier or a timber wolf.

I'm sure there are plenty of owners out there that are competant enough to handle traits from both breeds and I don't see why, as long as potential owners know what they are getting, such pups would be more likely to end up in rescue :confused5:



> By breeding the way you have you also risk the offspring having health problems that your breed may not have had but Springers do.


As long as the parents are health tested for there own breed specific conditions then I don't see how it would be more unethical health wise than breeding a pure litter of either breed. There is the issue of size but as someone has already pointed out it is common in many breeds to use dogs that are a few inches bigger than the bitch.

For me what it comes down to is whether it is right to breed a litter purely for the pet market. I don't know but I think if the dogs are fully health tested, of exceptional temprement and there is demand for such pups from good homes then they are already doing better than some that breed for a 'purpose'.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> I think cross breeding comes under doing harm to the breed. Also putting the bitch at risk breeding her to a large male.
> 
> Which is against club ethics. :frown2:


I'm really confused by this statement.

When a pup is of crossbred heritage - it cannot contribute back to either of its parent breeds unless through a purposeful outcross project . . . and then only by approval.

How then can it do 'harm' to the breed?



shetlandlover said:


> . . .By breeding the way you have you also risk the offspring having health problems that your breed may not have had but Springers do. .


The introduction of problems that Springers have can only happen if the Springer bitch used has a DOMINANT condition. That means a condition that she displays. Name one that Springers are known to be at risk of that are inherited in a dominant pattern. I know of none. Here is a list to start you on - so far all I've found have been recessive and/or multifactorial - http://www.essfta.org/essfta/health_research.htm



shetlandlover said:


> . . . You should be using your boy to help the breed.....increasing the risk of health problems in his offspring is not helping anyone.


There is NO evidense that crossbreeding INCREASES the RISK of health problems. As you refuse to acknowledge how this genetically plays out - as is apparent - why make this up? What is your aim here in spreading this misinformation?



lennythecloud said:


> This is something I see people say alot about crossbreeds, that they are going to have a wildly unpredictable temprement and behaviours. Surely in the example of a cross between an LM and a springer then you know you're going to get something with the varying gundoggy traits of either breed - you are not going to end up with something that acts like a terrier or a timber wolf.
> 
> I'm sure there are plenty of owners out there that are competant enough to handle traits from both breeds and I don't see why, as long as potential owners know what they are getting, such pups would be more likely to end up in rescue :confused5:.


I don't see why they would be more likely in rescue either.

Riddle me this. In Alberta, where I live, we do not euthanise dogs for space throughout our rescue system for our two main cities - of one million people each. In both cities, in fact, there is a high amount of importation from kill areas in the USA and elsewhere.

90%+ of our dogs are unregistered in Alberta . . . we favor types and mutts here as the purebred 'culture' has never caught on as it has in parts of Europe. In most of Alberta, and all of Northern Canada, we don't even have show venues.

So . . . by the reasoning given that crossbreeding/muttbreeding means unpredictability and people are too stupid to handle it which means more in rescue . . . then here we should have a huge problem . . . and our problems are no worse than elsewhere, and often much better.

That is because that reasoning is totally off base. If people make the decision that they can handle a little bit more unpredictability . . . usually they are up for it. I will argue that often the expectation OF predictability . . . and not getting it . . . ends up putting many dogs in rescue.



lennythecloud said:


> As long as the parents are health tested for there own breed specific conditions then I don't see how it would be more unethical health wise than breeding a pure litter of either breed. There is the issue of size but as someone has already pointed out it is common in many breeds to use dogs that are a few inches bigger than the bitch.
> 
> For me what it comes down to is whether it is right to breed a litter purely for the pet market. I don't know but I think if the dogs are fully health tested, of exceptional temprement and there is demand for such pups from good homes then they are already doing better than some that breed for a 'purpose'.


I agree . . . IF the health testing and breed knowledge on the parent dogs is up to par. Many times it is not but I know sometimes it is and I refuse to throw those breeders who crossbreed and do care under the bus with the idea of promoting only the 'club' system and the 'group think' that goes with that.

Through genetics conversations I have happened to have had personal correspondence with Bruce Cattanach (Boxer/Corgi outcross) and Robert Schaible (Dalmation/Pointer) when they were at times worried for the lives of their dogs and their families at the hands of those that have rigid thinking about this matter. I have had direct email threats to my dogs and family for defending the idea of these same types of backcross projects in breeds that show need of it.

Those promoting this type of thinking need to be called on it. It is not only ininformed and erroneous, it is dangerous.

So while my post here is not about the original thread topic, I am going to address the false blanket assertions being made about crossbreeding and the genetic implications.

CC


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

thanks you CC for the words of reason. I too couldnt understand why everyone was thinking these pups would be aggressive mutants either :frown2:

I have admitted i have made a mistake but I have offered to pay for the bitch to have the 'morning after' injection - what more can I do to make you stop attacking me? (maybe i could rip my heart out and send you all a piece  )

Please stop attacking me, i'm having enough personal problems as it is without this.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

I own a zoo said:


> So you think that someone who buys a clearly described lm x springer, that has no pedigree certificate, will suddenely forget this fact and think they have a pure lm?
> 
> So far none of the lm x collies, lm x shar pei or lm x gwp previously bred have transformed into pure lms, or been bred back to a pure lm.


But as you're the stud owner, not the dam's owner, how can you possibly say where the pups will end up? How do you know they or their progeny will be sold as crosses if they look enough like either breed? I'd suggest that most people who buy puppies do not buy them with pedigree certificates, but I'd also say they'd prefer a purebred dog, 9 times out of 10.

How do you know lm crosses haven't been bred back to a purebred? One presumes you don't know every breeder round the world?

No-one is 'attacking' you. I feel that's a touch dramatic. If you don't like what I or anyone else is saying, stick me or them on user ignore. It's odd how you come on here all seemingly happy about the proposed litter and the minute people start saying it's a bad idea, you're suddenly in poor personal circumstances.  I hope you're not, but I find it pretty indefensible to create this cross.


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

cinammontoast said:


> But as you're the stud owner, not the dam's owner, how can you possibly say where the pups will end up? How do you know they or their progeny will be sold as crosses if they look enough like either breed? I'd suggest that most people who buy puppies do not buy them with pedigree certificates, but I'd also say they'd prefer a purebred dog, 9 times out of 10.
> 
> How do you know lm crosses haven't been bred back to a purebred? One presumes you don't know every breeder round the world?


Because the bitch owner wants me to be active in the rearing and homing of these puppies.

I know all the breeders in the UK.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm confused, you were happy with your decision to let him cover this bitch, what's changed?


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm confused, you were happy with your decision to let him cover this bitch, what's changed?


to tell the truth i did have doubts, but am easily influenced and find it very hard to say no to people  
I justified it to myself at the time, let me heart rule my head, but in the cold light of day I made a mistake.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Hang on a sec - you said:



I own a zoo said:


> .
> My dog has won 1st place at Crufts three years in a row but because i am not a 'big name' in the breed or buddies with influential breeders I doubt he will ever get a second look, which will be a massive loss to the breed.
> It's sad really


and then you say:



I own a zoo said:


> I know all the breeders in the UK.


Which is true?

I must admit that after your first statement, and when you didn't reply to my question about which classes your dog had won, I looked at past Crufts results and ended up extremely puzzled. Going on the dogs which have won three classes at Crufts over the past three years, for your first statement to be true you would have had to have been a "big name" in the breed.


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Which is true?
> 
> I must admit that after your first statement, and when you didn't reply to my question about which classes your dog had won, I looked at past Crufts results and ended up extremely puzzled. Going on the dogs which have won three classes at Crufts over the past three years, for your first statement to be true you would have had to have been a "big name" in the breed.


both -i know all the breeders by name, would recognise them in a crowd but i am not buddies with any of them, not what i would class as friends, just showing acquaintances. My dog wasnt bred by one of the big names so i dont have them pushing us to do well. 
Have a look at the results again, by dog did win three 1st and i am NOT a big breeder. I have no reason to lie to you all.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I own a zoo said:


> to tell the truth i did have doubts, but am easily influenced and find it very hard to say no to people
> I justified it to myself at the time, let me heart rule my head, but in the cold light of day I made a mistake.


To be quite honest, as a stud dog owner, those are qualities I think you don't need. I'm not against people cross breeding, with all the health tests in place, but stud dog owners need to be incredibly choosy who they allow to use their dogs. After all, they are capable of producing many more progeny than a bitch could produce in their life time.

I'm sorry you've come under such a lot of criticism, I'm sure you meant well with your post, and it is a genuine question, everyone learns all the time. To be honest, my criticism with you wouldn't be that you allowed your dog to cover a springer bitch, it's your uncertainty about your decision, you need to know what you're doing is something you are 100% happy with, and have no problems defending, rather than changing your mind on forum after a discussion with people. That said, there's nothing wrong per se with changing your mind, all of us learn all of the time, and new information comes to light which makes us look at things differently, as long as you're always open and honest, go for it. But do expect criticism, even if you are open and honest about everything, people will judge.


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> To be quite honest, as a stud dog owner, those are qualities I think you don't need. I'm not against people cross breeding, with all the health tests in place, but stud dog owners need to be incredibly choosy who they allow to use their dogs. After all, they are capable of producing many more progeny than a bitch could produce in their life time.
> 
> I'm sorry you've come under such a lot of criticism, I'm sure you meant well with your post, and it is a genuine question, everyone learns all the time. To be honest, my criticism with you wouldn't be that you allowed your dog to cover a springer bitch, it's your uncertainty about your decision, you need to know what you're doing is something you are 100% happy with, and have no problems defending, rather than changing your mind on forum after a discussion with people. That said, there's nothing wrong per se with changing your mind, all of us learn all of the time, and new information comes to light which makes us look at things differently, as long as you're always open and honest, go for it. But do expect criticism, even if you are open and honest about everything, people will judge.


Thank you Sleeping Lion, yes everyone makes mistakes.

I have emailed the club Chairwoman to let her know what's happened and see if she can offer any advice.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I own a zoo said:


> Thank you Sleeping Lion, yes everyone makes mistakes.
> 
> I have emailed the club Chairwoman to let her know what's happened and see if she can offer any advice.


Take a step back off forum, and think about why you agreed to this in the first place, and see if it still sits well with you. If it doesn't, you know it's something to avoid for the future.

If you are friends at all with the springer bitch owner, then you could try and stay in touch with them, and new puppy owners.


----------



## I own a zoo (Jul 5, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Take a step back off forum, and think about why you agreed to this in the first place, and see if it still sits well with you. If it doesn't, you know it's something to avoid for the future.
> 
> If you are friends at all with the springer bitch owner, then you could try and stay in touch with them, and new puppy owners.


yes i think I will do just that, thanks for the advise.

I do know the bitch owners and they want me to be involved with the puppies and a friend of mine wants a pup so I dont intend to let them just disappear into the mist


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I own a zoo said:


> yes i think I will do just that, thanks for the advise.
> 
> I do know the bitch owners and they want me to be involved with the puppies and a friend of mine wants a pup so I dont intend to let them just disappear into the mist


I don't know if you've posted much on forums before, they can be fickle places, but they can also be incredibly supportive, and you make good friends here and there. So don't be put off by the negative responses you've had, breeding is an emotive issue, we all live and learn about these things.

I tried to do the best I could with my one litter, and still came under fire from some quarters, there was a whole long thread detailing all the health testing I'd done, coat colour testing etc, all removed because of a few trouble causers. Were things for me ideal, no, if I had my choice I'd have taken the litter a year prior, but then life doesn't always deal us the choices we want. If you do the best with the information you have to hand, and you have tried to be up to date with that information, then really you've done the best you can, still won't stop some folks from criticising though


----------



## HeartofClass (Jan 2, 2012)

So how come no one has replied to comfortcreature's long post? 

I've been reading this thread on and off, I find it pretty peculiar how most folks are so quick to judge someone that had bred a cross-breed (not just in this thread, but in general, especially pedigree dog breeders). Personally, I've always found claims suggesting that a random cross-breed is at greater health-risk than the random pedigree dog ridiculous - BUT, I do not have enough knowledge on this topic to claim that, it is just my personal view. Now it seems that someone who does know a lot on these things has come and expressed some fierce views of these claims and no one has replied to them yet - I wonder why? I am speaking from a point of sheer interest here, as I love reading-up on a good discussion and honestly was expecting quite a lot of outraged replies to that post.


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> I'm really confused by this statement.
> 
> When a pup is of crossbred heritage - it cannot contribute back to either of its parent breeds unless through a purposeful outcross project . . . and then only by approval.
> 
> ...


Oh indeed, an excellent point. So many times I've seen owners who are surprised at how their pedigree dog has turned out to be 'different' from the ones they saw previously, that convinced them this was the breed for them.

It never ceases to amaze me how the genetic basis for temperament development can be forgotten completely when BSL is discussed but when it comes to breed description it is the one contributing factor with environmental influence seemingly forgotten.



> I agree . . . IF the health testing and breed knowledge on the parent dogs is up to par. Many times it is not but I know sometimes it is and I refuse to throw those breeders who crossbreed and do care under the bus with the idea of promoting only the 'club' system and the 'group think' that goes with that.
> 
> Through genetics conversations I have happened to have had personal correspondence with Bruce Cattanach (Boxer/Corgi outcross) and Robert Schaible (Dalmation/Pointer) when they were at times worried for the lives of their dogs and their families at the hands of those that have rigid thinking about this matter. I have had direct email threats to my dogs and family for defending the idea of these same types of backcross projects in breeds that show need of it.
> 
> ...


----------

