# What's wrong with breeding cross breeds??



## DogLover62 (Feb 18, 2016)

I'm not intending on doing so just I've been reading threads and people are saying it's dangerous and not a good idea.
I'm just curious to why? 
I totally understand if it's a very large breed with a small one. 
And I hate all these "new breeds" like the cavapoo but why is it so bad for them to be bred? 
I always thought that cross breeds and mongrels would be healthier.


----------



## Katalyst (Aug 11, 2015)

My Logan is a lurcher so a cross he is from working lines where the dogs are specific crosses produced for a purpose. 
To me that is sensible cross breeding. 
Crossing dogs just to make a quick buck from a weird cross or because it can be called a jug or a pomsky, well, that is the height of unethical and thoughtless cross breeding.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Nothing wrong as such it is more that in my personal opinion there are very few ethical breeders and even fewer in the world of crossbreeding.
As much as the KC has it's faults and is not infallible at least you have a chance to check the database for pedigree history, health tests, and more chance that the bitch hasn't been over bred as hopefully all her litters will be registered and the number of litters is restricted.
That's not to say there aren't terrible breeders that KC register or brilliant breeders of crossbreeds.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

A lot of the time, people who purposely cross breed to create Pomskies etc are just doing it for a quick buck, so neither of the parents will be health tested and they don't care who they sell the dogs to, just as long as they get their money. That's just to start with. Then you have the proliferation of dogs in rescue already; so the general consensus tends to be that licensed, ethical breeders who are breeding healthy dogs and choosing the new owners carefully are doing their best for the breeds. The ByBs and puppy farms are just adding to a huge problem where over 100,000 dogs a year, in the UK, are put into rescue and over 7,000 are euthanised


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Nothing is wrong with it, if done right in the interest of the animal and future generations of it.

If anything is bred, be that 2 x pedigree Goldens to create more of the same or a jack and chi to create a Muttly for example, without going through the correct tests on the parents then how will you know that you are not reproducing bad genes that could contain joint problems, eye problems, digestive issues, the list goes on....

There are health screens, hip scores, eye tests etc out there for a reason. But a lot unscrupulous people who think it's as simple as mating 2 dogs, just want a quick buck and don't care that they are introducing genetic diseases and condtions etc through possibly new generations of this mongrel.

The reason there are more and more 'designer breeds' is because greedy people want to create the next craze. Last one I've heard about is the Pomsky (Pomeranian x Husky) just think for a minute on how that mating went. It's just disgusting.
Plus, those pups could be large or small, you just don't know. What happens to the pups when they don't turn out as promised?


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

This pretty much explains it
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-19/...ng-a-surging-puppy-farm-industry-says-report/

Not that puppy farming, BYB or unethical breeding is restricted to "designer dogs" (hate that phrase) our Bichon Frise was a rescue, probably had 10 litters in 5 years half of which were KC registered, kept in a cage and bought into the house when puppy buyers arrived and promoted as a loved pet being bred so others could be as lucky as they had been with her. The only reason her hell ended was because she was attacked by a Stud and became no longer financially viable.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Fleur said:


> This pretty much explains it
> http://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-19/...ng-a-surging-puppy-farm-industry-says-report/
> 
> Not that puppy farming, BYB or unethical breeding is restricted to "designer dogs" (hate that phrase) our Bichon Frise was a rescue, probably had 10 litters in 5 years half of which were KC registered, kept in a cage and bought into the house when puppy buyers arrived and promoted as a loved pet being bred so others could be as lucky as they had been with her. The only reason her hell ended was because she was attacked by a Stud and became no longer financially viable.


Oh my gosh, your poor girl. Stories like that are so heartbreaking and make me mad, all over again, that puppy farms are legal


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Muttly said:


> What happens to the pups when they don't turn out as promised?


They end up in rescue - I know 2 goldendoodles who are not all soft curly coated and cute - but rather scruffy (almost fat broken coated lurcher) moulting hair balls - both were handed into rescue because they moulted and didn't look right


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Fleur said:


> They end up in rescue - I know 2 goldendoodles who are not all soft curly coated and cute - but rather scruffy (almost fat broken coated lurcher) moulting hair balls - both were handed into rescue because they moulted and didn't look right


FFS


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> Oh my gosh, your poor girl. Stories like that are so heartbreaking and make me mad, all over again, that puppy farms are legal


She wasn't in what we think of a a Puppy Farm, she was in the garage of a very nice house in a very nice Street - so easy to trick unsuspecting buyers.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Muttly said:


> FFS


Both are in very happy homes now - one is Ludo's bestest friends and is the sweetest dog anyone could wish for.


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Fleur said:


> Both are in very happy homes now - one is Ludo's bestest friends and is the sweetest dog anyone could wish for.


Awww yey!! :Joyful


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Fleur said:


> She wasn't in what we think of a a Puppy Farm, she was in the garage of a very nice house in a very nice Street - so easy to trick unsuspecting buyers.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

DogLover62 said:


> I'm not intending on doing so just I've been reading threads and people are saying it's dangerous and not a good idea.
> I'm just curious to why?
> I totally understand if it's a very large breed with a small one.
> And I hate all these "new breeds" like the cavapoo but why is it so bad for them to be bred?
> I always thought that cross breeds and mongrels would be healthier.


Talk about opening the metaphorical can of worms .

The first thing to address - crossbreeds and mongrels are _not_ inherently healthier. Any dog, regardless of breed, when thrown together without prior for thought is going to have the chance of producing puppies with inherited diseases. Ethical breeders always know their lines and health test thus reducing the risks of producing dogs affected by these diseases.

For me, personally, I think there is a divide between ethical crossbreeders and unethical crossbreeders. A lot of designer dog breeders jumped on the bandwagon and viewed the new fad as a cash cow, as a few pedigree breeders have as well (one only has to look at the amount of non-recognised colours being churned out in Frenchies).

An ethical crossbreeder to me is either trying to seriously establish a breed (Silken Windhounds for example) or trying to improve a current breed (The GSP to Dalmatian outcross for the LUA gene, or the Irish Red and White to Irish Setter outcross) or producing dogs for a purpose (lurchers etc etc).

There is a massive difference between producing a line of well bred, well thought Lurchers who are healthy and capable of doing a job to a high standard to crossing a Pom x Husky, slapping the name Pomsky on them and calling them the new doggy Master Race, selling them at well over a £1K each to whoever has the cash in their pocket at the time and booking themselves a cruise.

So, no I don't have a problem with crossbreeders but I do have a problem with some of their motivations for breeding.

P.S. This may seem really disjointed but I am out with my own two boys at the minute and we are playing fetch


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

DogLover62 said:


> I'm not intending on doing so just I've been reading threads and people are saying it's dangerous and not a good idea.
> I'm just curious to why?
> I totally understand if it's a very large breed with a small one.
> And I hate all these "new breeds" like the cavapoo but why is it so bad for them to be bred?
> I always thought that cross breeds and mongrels would be healthier.


Probably nothing wrong with it, as long as like with any type of breeding be it pedigree or cross, its done with knowledge and ethically, and the parents are health tested,
compatible, are of good temperament, and the puppies are raised and socialised correctly. The breeder cares where the puppies end up, makes sure the owners know what they are taking on, and will give proper knowledgeable help and support for the pups lifetime, taking them back or assisting in rehoming if it really come down to it.

Cross breeds are not always heathier either. A lot of breeds have the same genetic and hereditary conditions and the same mode of inheritance to pass it on.
So just the same if its a health issue in both breeds, and the parents can pass it on and puppies can be affected just the same. Also depending on what you cross its still possible to get debilitating conformation issues too.

Also with crosses you never know exactly what you are going to get as regards to looks, coat and size a lot of the time, or what the cross is going to resemble the most as regards to temperament, personality and breed traits. They can resemble one more then the other.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

I don't see any issues with breeding two different breeds as long as its not a ridiculous different in breeds - such as a Pom and a husky!
I also find its useful if you want to crossbreeds to cross those who have similar traits. I know people who own Husky X GSD and I personally think its a silly mix as they're completely different dogs. Least crosses a Springer and a Cocker is more reasonable.

Given that both breeds used have been health tested, are of sound temperament, good mature ages then I see no problem and that the breeders are knowledgeable and care about where their puppies go to. Generally also if they possibly have homes already lined up. I keep seeing 'Colliepoos' for sale on a website, seems no one is buying them but then they're unhealth tested and overally expensive.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

In the old days when I was but a nipper myself, crossbreeds were called mongrels, and were a multi- mixed cross of pretty unknown genetics. No one asked us what breed they were. So mixed was the cross, so wide was the potential gene pool that indeed I suspect that some of those mutts may have been quite healthy (which is quite possibly where the idea that cross-breeds are healthy came from).

Nowadays mongrels are called cross breeds and need a name. But the gene pool has shrunk. Don't get me started on Puppy Farms and BYB's but even ethical breeders need to take care. You may test the Labrador and the Poodle before creating the F1 Labradoodle but what about subsequent litters. You are selling them to people who may breed on. Cross breeds don't have pedigrees. The KC advices breeders know the genetic line of any dog they are thinking of breeding because inbreeding is taking place unwittingly when Cockerpoos are bred with Cockerpoos who may indeed be related.

And lastly there is concern that breeding two breeds together to make a third because it looks good without any though of the dogs innate instinct is a recipe for disaster. I always remember the KC quote that ' If you cross a dog that has one instinct, with another that has an entirely different instinct, it will not know if it is coming or going and it has the potential to develop mental health problems''



> I keep seeing 'Colliepoos' for sale on a website,


All the health testing in the world is not going to make that a great combination. Very sad.

I simply think breeding cross breeds does come with big responsibilities and I am not sure that people take it seriously enough.

J


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Pappychi said:


> Talk about opening the metaphorical can of worms .
> 
> The first thing to address - crossbreeds and mongrels are _not_ inherently healthier. Any dog, regardless of breed, when thrown together without prior for thought is going to have the chance of producing puppies with inherited diseases. Ethical breeders always know their lines and health test thus reducing the risks of producing dogs affected by these diseases.
> 
> ...


they are using GSP to cross with Dalmatians to remove the LUA gene?

Really?

That is news to me.

I thought it was the Pointer?
http://www.dalmatianheritage.com/about/nash_research.htm


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

smokeybear said:


> they are using GSP to cross with Dalmatians to remove the LUA gene?
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


I must have got my breeds mixed up, thanks for the link I'll have a read after dinner


----------



## DogLover62 (Feb 18, 2016)

Thanks for all the replys! 
I understand it more now I always had thought that pedigrees have all these genetic problems but that cross breeds or mongrels didn't because they had genes from 2 different breeds at least it mean't they got cancelled out haha xD 

I actually have a mongrel myself and she's got so many breeds in her I guess she is what some people would call a mutt.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

In answer to your original question, nothing at all. To differentiate between pedigree, cross-breed and mongrel is a bit false, as every pup adds one to the population. It is really all down to the buyers of the puppies, and what they want. Despite what people may say, breeders have very little control over public taste - I am not sure that anyone does.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

DogLover62 said:


> Thanks for all the replys!
> I understand it more now I always had thought that pedigrees have all these genetic problems but that cross *breeds or mongrels didn't because they had genes from 2 different breeds at least it mean't they got cancelled out* haha xD
> 
> I actually have a mongrel myself and she's got so many breeds in her I guess she is what some people would call a mutt.


There's some truth in that. If a dog has a gene for a health issue, a dog from an unrelated breed is less likely to have the other gene to pair up with it and cause the fault to affect the pups. And take PRA - both border collies and Labradors can get PRA but it's caused by different genes in each breed (the fact that you can test Labs but not collies demonstrates that). Therefore if you bred a carrier border collie with a carrier Labrador, the genes shouldn't pair up so pups should be not affected though may carry faulty genes from both parents. 
My vet says he sees far fewer inherited health problems in crossbreeds than he does in pedigrees, though of course most pedigree dogs are healthy and testing is important - as is not cross-breeding dogs of incompatible sizes, coat types or breed character traits.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

miljar said:


> In answer to your original question, nothing at all. To differentiate between pedigree, cross-breed and mongrel is a bit false, as every pup adds one to the population. It is really all down to the buyers of the puppies, and what they want. *Despite what people may say, breeders have very little control over public taste - I am not sure that anyone does*.


No, but the backyard breeders & puppy farms definitely 'sniff the air', so to speak, & then run in the general direction of where trends are heading so they can make money off the back of it.

It's served them well so far, they are rubbing their grubby hands with glee at the gullibility of the general public.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> No, but the backyard breeders & puppy farms definitely 'sniff the air', so to speak, & then run in the general direction of where trends are heading so they can make money off the back of it.
> 
> It's served them well so far, they are rubbing their grubby hands with glee at the *gullibility of the general public*.


It is too easy to just dismiss people as gullible - they just have a different view to you. They make their decision, based on their own circumstances, and pay their own money. If they decide that they want a crossbreed then who are we to say that they are wrong? Make no mistake - it is they who are in charge. If crossbreeds are what they want then crossbreeds should be bred. There is no difference to someone who decides that they want a KC registered dog. All of this segregating into different "types" is spurious - they are all pets. There is no right and wrong - only choices.


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> You wouldn't believe the vitriol and pure hatred that comes from some dog people when it comes to things like cockapoos. They'll call them "pointless" "ugly" "wrong" etc etc. Even though they are the most popular 'breed' in the UK!


Given that Cockapoos can't be Registered, there really is no accurate way of recording how many are born each year.

How do you know they are the most popular dog in the UK?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

miljar said:


> It is too easy to just dismiss people as gullible - they just have a different view to you. They make their decision, based on their own circumstances, and pay their own money. If they decide that they want a crossbreed then who are we to say that they are wrong? Make no mistake - it is they who are in charge. If crossbreeds are what they want then crossbreeds should be bred. There is no difference to someone who decides that they want a KC registered dog. All of this segregating into different "types" is spurious - they are all pets. There is no right and wrong - only choices.


It's always about human 'wants' & 'choices' with you isn't it?

And until I see less examples of peoples' poor decisions in 'pet' dumped at shelters or advertised for rehoming I'll continue to dismiss people as 'gullible'.

And believe me, that's one of the more charitable words I'd use to describe them.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Given that Cockapoos can't be Registered, there really is no accurate way of recording how many are born each year.
> 
> How do you know they are the most popular dog in the UK?


Probably from a poll on a tabloid newspaper website 

Even though one that was done recently was shared on a popular 'doodle' page where the members were then encouraged to 'vote doodles to the top'.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> You wouldn't believe the vitriol and pure hatred that comes from some dog people when it comes to things like cockapoos. They'll call them "pointless" "ugly" "wrong" etc etc. Even though they are the most popular 'breed' in the UK!


Ehh?? the most popular breed in this country by registration is the Labrador with over 30k+ being registered each year.


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> *It's always about human 'wants' & 'choices' with you isn't it?*
> 
> .


Of course it is - what else is there? The whole dog world, in this country, is made and run on peoples wants and choices. 
If you are looking to bring what is, in effect, a new family member into your home then who the hell is better placed to make that choice than you yourself?
The alternative to making your own decision is to be told. Who is going to put up with that?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

miljar said:


> Of course it is - what else is there? The whole dog world, in this country, is made and run on peoples wants and choices.
> If you are looking to bring what is, in effect, a new family member into your home then who the hell is better placed to make that choice than you yourself?
> The alternative to making your own decision is to be told. Who is going to put up with that?


I never said people should be 'told', I said that you personally seem more concerned with what people want than animal welfare.

And since you mention it, I do think some 'choices' should be taken away from the buyer- farmed dogs for instance.

I can't see any 'downside' to closing down each & every one of these establishments, can you?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> The stats I remember were either from vets, or from pet insurance companies as far as I recall. Obviously they are not a recognised breed, so it's not going to be 100% accurate. Perhaps I remember wrongly or the data itself was flawed. In any event, they're certainly popular.


I feel certain the data, (wherever it came from), is flawed.

No doubt there are a fair few Cockapoos around, but they're by no means the most popular Breed in the UK.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

DogLover62 said:


> I'm not intending on doing so just I've been reading threads and people are saying it's dangerous and not a good idea.
> I'm just curious to why?
> I totally understand if it's a very large breed with a small one.
> And I hate all these "new breeds" like the cavapoo but why is it so bad for them to be bred?
> I always thought that cross breeds and mongrels would be healthier.


Well, in truth, nothing is wrong with breeding cross breeds. What is wrong is irresponsible breeding without thought and planning and having some sort of criteria to breed towards.
There are many successful and purposeful cross breed breeders and probably the largest is GDBA. Cross breeds can be breed for work, sport as well as pets, however, the latter is more risky because being a 'pet' has a much wider parameters than when breeding with a specific aim. The main benefits of a pure breed is that they have breed traits so that you know the type and character of the dog you are looking to get and the breed which will most suit your way of life and they can be tested for health issues. A cross breed is more of a lottery and some of the 'pet' crosses are absolute disasters where it makes no sense to cross two such diverse breeds. At a time when there is more indiscriminate breeding and more people giving up their dogs because they can't cope with them, then getting a 'lottery' puppy is not the best way to success.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> I never said people should be 'told', I said that you personally seem more concerned with what people want than animal welfare.
> 
> I do think some 'choices' should be taken away from the buyer


Really? And where would that end? And who is to decide what choices are taken away from people?

There is not a choice/welfare question. Why should choice come at the expense of welfare?


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2016)

miljar said:


> It is too easy to just dismiss people as gullible - they just have a different view to you. They make their decision, based on their own circumstances, and pay their own money. If they decide that they want a crossbreed then who are we to say that they are wrong? Make no mistake - it is they who are in charge. If crossbreeds are what they want then crossbreeds should be bred. There is no difference to someone who decides that they want a KC registered dog. All of this segregating into different "types" is spurious - they are all pets. There is no right and wrong - only choices.


No, not all dogs are "pets". Many dogs have specific jobs that they are bred and trained to do and very much loved and appreciated for those jobs. 
No dog should be bred based solely on "wants" especially given the fickle wants of the general dog owning public. If the public wants a dog so small and delicate he can't run without breaking a leg, that dog should not be bred. There has to be a line somewhere - at least if you have any semblance of ethics there must be....



komondor_owner said:


> You wouldn't believe the vitriol and pure hatred that comes from some dog people when it comes to things like cockapoos. They'll call them "pointless" "ugly" "wrong" etc etc. Even though they are the most popular 'breed' in the UK!


Aren't you the same poster who had your own vitriol to share about mutts in shelters? But now mutts are okay? Or at least the popular ones that aren't in shelters perhaps?

There is not a thing wrong with cross breeds, mutts, mongrels, or heinz 57 dogs. Not a thing.
Nor is there even anything wrong with breeding crossbreeds so long as it is done intelligently, responsibly, and with the best interest of the dogs produced in mind.
The sooner the public becomes better educated about what to demand of breeders, the better it will be for all dogs. And I do hold out hope that it will happen. Most people now know not to buy a dog from a pet shop, most people now know of the horrors of puppy farms, it's just a matter of time before people start wising up to responsible, ethical breeding practices as well.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

ouesi said:


> No, not all dogs are "pets". Many dogs have specific jobs that they are bred and trained to do and very much loved and appreciated for those jobs.
> No dog should be bred based solely on "wants" especially given the fickle wants of the general dog owning public. If the public wants a dog so small and delicate he can't run without breaking a leg, that dog should not be bred. There has to be a line somewhere - at least if you have any semblance of ethics there must be....
> 
> .


The first bit is fine - if you want a dog to do a specific job, be it working, showing or whatever, then you are the one limiting your own choices. That is just common sense.
The second bit - what?

Edited to add...
On thinking about it, we do have dogs that can't breathe, reproduce and who's skulls are too small for their eyes, so maybe you have a point.


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> Not at all. And if you got that from my comments on the subject then I clearly didn't communicate well - sorry! My problem is with people who push "rescuing" on everyone like it's some sort of cult and demonise people who buy puppies, and also hide, or deny the risks involved taking on dogs with unknown histories, unknown health problems, and of unknown breeding.
> 
> Of course cross breeds are great! As long as they make sense in terms of size, potential health issues etc, and as long as people know what they are getting.


Well, you've changed your tune.

Your previous comments about rescuing a dog were to steer clear of it as most dogs in rescue are "just mutts" or are Breeds with aggression problems.

Now, suddenly, Crossbreeds are "great".

Well, well.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2016)

komondor_owner said:


> Not at all. And if you got that from my comments on the subject then I clearly didn't communicate well - sorry! My problem is with people who push "rescuing" on everyone like it's some sort of cult and demonise people who buy puppies, and also hide, or deny the risks involved taking on dogs with unknown histories, unknown health problems, and of unknown breeding.
> 
> Of course cross breeds are great! As long as they make sense in terms of size, potential health issues etc, and as long as people know what they are getting.


You listed dogs in shelters being mutts as the first reason not to get a dog from a shelter. Now you're saying mutts are great? If mutts are great, why not get one from a shelter?


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

komondor_owner said:


> You wouldn't believe the vitriol and pure hatred that comes from some dog people when it comes to things like cockapoos. They'll call them "pointless" "ugly" "wrong" etc etc. Even though they are the most popular 'breed' in the UK!


Are they? Where are the stats to support this allegation?

they would have to be going some to be in a par with the most popular pedigrees in the UK, bear in mind that as well as the KC registered animals there are plenty of non registered recognised breeds too................http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/350279/2013_-2014_top_20.pdf


----------



## kirksandallchins (Nov 3, 2007)

I have both pedigrees and crossbreeds. I got a Labradoodle as I wanted a poodle temperament with a sensible coat. I must have picked the right breeders as I am now on my third! 
It is no point blaming puppy owners if they no longer want rarer breeds of dogs, I put some of the blame on breeders and judges who have exaggerated the coat and/or physical features of some breeds so that they are not wanted as pets. 
When I was young Corgis had legs and I always wanted my own but they are now so low and squat they no longer appeal.There were other breeds I admired growing up that are now just a mass of hair!
I choose dogs that suit me and my lifestyle, and if the dog that fits me best is a designer dog then so be it! It is my decision and nobody else's


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

miljar said:


> Really? And where would that end? And who is to decide what choices are taken away from people?
> 
> There is not a choice/welfare question. Why should choice come at the expense of welfare?


If you're going to quote me at least do it in its entirety rather than selecting choice portions you would like to pick apart 

How can the type of choice you know I'm referring to (ie: a readily available, wide selection of cheap puppies to buy, there & then, all year round- AKA: PUPPY FARMER) NOT impact on welfare?

The demand for peoples' right to 'choice' at all costs has impacted heavily on welfare- well-rounded, well cared for, healthy dogs _cannot_ feasibly be farmed.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

kirksandallchins said:


> I have both pedigrees and crossbreeds. I got a Labradoodle as I wanted a poodle temperament with a sensible coat. I must have picked the right breeders as I am now on my third!
> It is no point blaming puppy owners if they no longer want rarer breeds of dogs, I put some of the blame on breeders and judges who have exaggerated the coat and/or physical features of some breeds so that they are not wanted as pets.
> When I was young Corgis had legs and I always wanted my own but they are now so low and squat they no longer appeal.There were other breeds I admired growing up that are now just a mass of hair!
> I choose dogs that suit me and my lifestyle, and if the dog that fits me best is a designer dog then so be it! It is my decision and nobody else's


You can still get working Corgis that have a half-decent leg on them. They've got a lot heavier in the body too in recent years, from what I remember of them.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> If you're going to quote me at least do it in its entirety rather than selecting choice portions you would like to pick apart
> 
> How can the type of choice you know I'm referring to (ie: a readily available, wide selection of cheap puppies to buy, there & then, all year round- AKA: PUPPY FARMER) NOT impact on welfare?
> 
> The demand for peoples' right to 'choice' at all costs has impacted heavily on welfare- well-rounded, well cared for, healthy dogs _cannot_ feasibly be farmed.


You seem to be losing track of the question, which was 
*What's wrong with breeding cross breeds??*
My argument, in a nutshell, is that all dog breeding is the same, and that there are good and bad breeders - no matter what it is that they are breeding. It is a "big picture" sort of question.
Unless you can show that ALL cross breeders are bad, and ALL pedigree (or whatever) breeders are good, then you do not have much of a case on the welfare front.
Personally, I would think that there are all sorts in all camps - and therefore there is nothing wrong, in itself, with breeding crosses.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Well you would say that wouldn't you 
What more can we expect from our very own BYB of whatever stupidly named cross that is possible :Bag
Funny how you only pop up on threads like this to defend your right to slap any two dogs together


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> Well you would say that wouldn't you
> What more can we expect from our very own BYB of whatever stupidly named cross that is possible :Bag
> Funny how you only pop up on threads like this to defend your right to slap any two dogs together


Good Morning.
Do you disagree with what I said? If so, I would be gad to hear your argument.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I disagree with your slapping two dogs together just to make you a profit margin...I disagree with your lack of morals...I disagree with your statement that breeding dogs is about the buyers "wants"

Heck, lets just say I disagree with most of what you say..your fancy footwork with regards to any answers you give is pretty boring these days!

It will be a good morning when we have a way to clamp down on puppy farms and the likes..until then, it is just morning


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

No argument then?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

miljar said:


> No argument then?


She's just put her (perfectly valid) argument forward.

Are your ethics really that low, or do you just delight in being deliberately obtuse?


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

I'll rehash what I said in my post which has now been lost on Page 1.

I don't necessarily have a problem with people breeding (both breeding pedigrees and crosses) but I do have an issue with the motivations behind some of the breedings done.

Breeding to fill a gap in the market seems a wee bit callous to me, breeding to exclusively make some cash doesn't sit right and breeding two dogs because they're like, so adorbs and would make super-special-Mc Fluffy Pants babies isn't right either.

So, I would ask any breeder the same questions - Why are you breeding? What are you motivations? What are your end goals?


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

I do like to stick to the question asked, I will say, and I thought that I had put together a reasoned argument in support of my views.
To get sidetracked into a slagging match, where you just hurl abuse, is not really my thing. I can do it, it just seems childish. A sign that you are losing the argument, my dad used to say.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

miljar said:


> I do like to stick to the question asked, I will say, and I thought that I had put together a reasoned argument in support of my views.
> To get sidetracked into a slagging match, where you just hurl abuse, is not really my thing. I can do it, it just seems childish. A sign that you are losing the argument, my dad used to say.


I offered you a reasoned counter to your argument- the latest 'trend' in dogs, be they pedigree or crossbreed, is rapidly picked up by unethical breeders & then 'marketed' by them- you only have to see the spiel on a lot of the websites & adverts, much of it lies or at best half-truths.

The 'industry' is in desperate need of tougher regulating, because scandalous breeders are churning out thousands of poorly bred, unhealthy, temperamentally unsound puppies.

To me, & many others, the lives of the constantly pregnant or lactating bitches behind the scenes are infinitely more important than the 'rights' of puppy buyers.

The majority of us have nothing against decent breeders (cross or pedigree) who put their all into their dogs & who bring healthy, well balanced puppies into the world, but the majority of breeders don't, & too many see it as a profitable enterprise.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

miljar said:


> I do like to stick to the question asked, I will say, and I thought that I had put together a reasoned argument in support of my views.
> To get sidetracked into a slagging match, where you just hurl abuse, is not really my thing. I can do it, it just seems childish. A sign that you are losing the argument, my dad used to say.


This is a forum where a discussion (as in real life) will wander about...nothing I have said has been off topic and it most certainly is not a "slagging match"...nor have I hurled any abuse!
If you wish to call me childish so that it makes you feel better about what you do, then go for it...you won't be the first to call me childish, and you most certainly won't be the last I am sure...

If you are happy with what you do then there isn't much I can do about that...but you can bet your last penny that I will warn as many new puppy owners about BYB's and puppy farms as I can until my last dying breath - if that is childish then so be it :Mooning


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> :Mooning


SNORK


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

miljar said:


> You seem to be losing track of the question, which was
> *What's wrong with breeding cross breeds??*
> My argument, in a nutshell, is that all dog breeding is the same, and that there are good and bad breeders - no matter what it is that they are breeding. It is a "big picture" sort of question.
> Unless you can show that ALL cross breeders are bad, and ALL pedigree (or whatever) breeders are good, then you do not have much of a case on the welfare front.
> Personally, I would think that there are all sorts in all camps - and therefore there is nothing wrong, in itself, with breeding crosses.


Well, actually, all dog breeding is not the same.

The big difference between the breeding of Pedigrees versus Crossbreds is why those pups are being bred.

I'm aware that there are bad Breeders of Pedigrees as well as Crossbreeds, but many Pedigree dogs are bred to be shown, so that the Breeder can keep a pup to run on and show, that's the reason I used to Breed. Some Pedigrees such as the Gundogs, Collies or Shepherds are bred to work.

Such a cross as Cockapoos cannot be KC Registered, so can't be shown, nor are they in demand as a Working Dog, so why would anyone breed them?

It can only really be for profit.


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

komondor_owner said:


> Maybe (gasp) they enjoy it. What evil selfish people. Clearly vets are also only in it for the profit and couldn't care less about animals, or else they would do it for free!


What a fatuous comment. Vets are there for the health of animals; the BYBs most definitely aren't, it's purely about profit


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> Maybe (gasp) they enjoy it. What evil selfish people. Clearly vets are also only in it for the profit and couldn't care less about animals, or else they would do it for free!


Oh, I see.

You breed from the same bitch several times because YOU enjoy it? If that's the reason, then you're absolutely correct when you say "evil, selfish people".

Your comment about Vets is highly irrelevant and completely ridiculous.

Vets are Professionals and all of us who own an animal need them. Nobody needs Backyard Breeders.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

komondor_owner said:


> If you're going to argue against things I'm not saying, carry on on your own. I was talking about "people who breed cross breeds". Not BYBs.


The majority of whom are BYBs or puppy farms


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

komondor_owner said:


> Maybe (gasp) they enjoy it. What evil selfish people. Clearly vets are also only in it for the profit and couldn't care less about animals, or else they would do it for free!


Is 'enjoyment' enough of a reason to breed a dog?

I personally don't think so.

Just because a dog is gifted with a working set of genitals doesn't mean they should be used. With some breeders (please note, I never said pedigree nor did I say crossbreeders) a working set of genitals is the only requirements they desire from their breeding stock.

I have absolutely no shame in saying I have been an elitist when choosing my next dogs breeder and if more people were elitist we probably wouldn't have the overwhelming majority of these BYB and Puppy Farmers.


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

You can not compare living breathing sentient beings to perfume...that is all :Cigar


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

komondor_owner said:


> I'd love you to provide some evidence for that.
> 
> There's a massive amount of counterfeit perfume sold on markets. Does that mean perfume is a bad thing?


I have a personal anecdote, there is a 'breeder' not far from where I live. She openly admits she picked the cross she breeds because there was a market for them, making them easier to sell and thus bringing in more profit.

So, this is a breeder which hasn't chosen a breed because they love that breed and want to ensure the genetic future of that breed. No, they've chosen that cross because it sells.

That is not ethical breeding, that's a calculated sales and marketing scheme in order to turn over more revenue.

For me, it isn't crossbreeders vs pedigree. It's ethical vs unethical, and breeding a dog just to sell isn't ethical.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

komondor_owner said:


> I'd love you to provide some evidence for that.
> 
> There's a massive amount of counterfeit perfume sold on markets. Does that mean perfume is a bad thing?


http://www.battersea.org.uk/endbackstreetbreeding

"Less than 12% of puppies born in Great Britain every year are bred by licensed breeders, meaning 88% of puppies born in the UK are born to unlicensed breeders"


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> You can not compare living breathing sentient beings to perfume...that is all :Cigar


I didn't know what to say to that, just stunned really.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> I'd love you to provide some evidence for that.
> 
> There's a massive amount of counterfeit perfume sold on markets. Does that mean perfume is a bad thing?


Seriously? Is that the best you can do?

You think it's okay for someone to churn out litter after litter of pups for no reason other than profit because there are some who make counterfeit perfume?

If you buy a bottle of fake perfume, all you've lost is your money, it isn't going to cause you years and years of heartache and expense, as often happens with a poorly bred pup from non health tested parents.


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

komondor_owner said:


> Is this what you lot do all day? Pick arguments other people on here didn't make, and argue against them? If you're not even reading there's no point. Bye!


You seem to make a point, get cross that we refute it and then tell us that's not what you said. If what you're writing is not what you meant, you really need to learn to clarify


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> Is this what you lot do all day? Pick arguments other people on here didn't make, and argue against them? If you're not even reading there's no point. Bye!


No, we do other things. We respond to people who make pointless and stupid comments.

Bye dear.


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> http://www.battersea.org.uk/endbackstreetbreeding
> 
> "Less than 12% of puppies born in Great Britain every year are bred by licensed breeders, meaning 88% of puppies born in the UK are born to unlicensed breeders"


And your point is?

An unlicensed breeder is not necessarily a BYB, most reputable breeders do not NEED licences according to the current legislation!

Breeding Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999

*Breeders who breed five or more litters per year must be licensed by their local authority*. Breeders with fewer litters must also be licensed if they are carrying out a *business *of breeding dogs for sale. Licensed breeders must:

a) Not mate a bitch less than 12 months old.
b) Not whelp more than six litters from a bitch.
c) Not whelp two litters within a 12 month period from the same bitch.
d) Keep accurate records.
e) Not sell a puppy until it is at least eight weeks of age, other than to a keeper of a licensed pet shop or Scottish rearing establishment


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> http://www.battersea.org.uk/endbackstreetbreeding
> 
> "Less than 12% of puppies born in Great Britain every year are bred by licensed breeders, meaning 88% of puppies born in the UK are born to unlicensed breeders"


Taken from Battersea's report:



> Although few in number, large establishments are responsible for a disproportionate
> amount of breeding. Small establishments (those with 10 or fewer bitches) keep just
> 25% of all the breeding bitches, while 14% are kept by just 3% of establishments (those
> with 50 or more bitches)


'Licensed' definitely doesn't necessarily equate to 'good'- many puppy farms are licensed but provide the bare minumum care standards (legal yes, ethical- highly debatable), as has been exposed many times in the past, & according to this report one of those kennels has 200 breeding bitches!

Licensing is also only required if the premises breed more than 4 litters a year, so excludes any illegal puppy farms, illegally trafficked puppies coming in from abroad, backyard breeders not declaring the number of dogs kept/litters produced, or any breeders breeding only a small number of litters per annum.

On the flip side it also doesn't include the breeders who are doing things right.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

simplysardonic said:


> Taken from Battersea's report:
> 
> 'Licensed' definitely doesn't necessarily equate to 'good'- many puppy farms are licensed but provide the *bare minumum care standards* (legal yes, ethical- highly debatable), as has been exposed many times in the past, & according to this report one of those kennels has 200 breeding bitches!


Just as a side note, wasn't there a kennel in Ireland which was challenging new dog breeding laws? I remember seeing it on The Dog Factory, I think they formed something called Canine Breeders Ireland which they claimed was to help protect Commercial Dog Breeders - their report had things in it like 'dogs do not need to be walked daily', 'dogs do not need to be fed every day' and 'dog do not need daily contact' (I'm paraphrasing but will see if I can the actual quotes later today). Shocking that these people were classed as being at the 'height of their game' and most of all, legal .


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Pappychi said:


> Just as a side note, wasn't there a kennel in Ireland which was challenging new dog breeding laws? I remember seeing it on The Dog Factory, I think they formed something called Canine Breeders Ireland which they claimed was to help protect Commercial Dog Breeders - their report had things in it like 'dogs do not need to be walked daily', 'dogs do not need to be fed every day' and 'dog do not need daily contact' (I'm paraphrasing but will see if I can the actual quotes later today). Shocking that these people were classed as being at the 'height of their game' and most of all, legal .


Yes they were featured on that programme, & it was revealed that they'd been regularly trafficking dogs over to the mainland UK with false documents, in unquantifiable numbers.

Because they are in Eire they don't fall under UK legislation although they are legally subject to all the importation laws of other EU countries.


----------



## kirksandallchins (Nov 3, 2007)

One of the reasons why they are bred is because they make good pets - is that a less valid reason for breeding than to produce show dogs or agility dogs? If they were not good as pets, why are the "designer dogs" still around and popular?

It annoys me when people think breeding for a hobby like showing is more important or ethical than producing a litter of healthy pets.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

kirksandallchins said:


> It annoys me when people think breeding for a hobby like showing is more important or ethical than producing a litter of healthy pets.


Not one single person has said, or implied that


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

komondor_owner said:


> Perhaps you missed this gem:


Nope, nowhere does that comment imply: "breeding for a hobby like showing is more important or ethical than producing a litter of healthy pets"


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> Perhaps you missed this gem:


The point I was making, which I didn't think needed spelling out, is this.

Breeding a litter of pups, if done properly, can involve a lot of expense, travelling, worry, stress, sleepless nights, washing, cleaning up, Vet visits and very hard work.

Some do it because they show. They want to produce pups which are better examples of the Breed than their Parents. Some are trying to produce better and better working dogs.

I question why anyone would breed pups just for the fun of it, for their personal enjoyment, as you suggest. There is no fun in it.

Therefore, what could possibly be the motive for all that work and worry? Couldn't be money, could it?

I have nothing against anyone who breeds and does it conscientiously, attempting to produce the healthiest pups possible.

Backyard Breeders tend not to fall into that category.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Some of the arguments on these pages makes me go.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2016)

The question - what's wrong with breeding cross breeds has been answered repeatedly. Nothing. 
There is nothing wrong with breeding cross breeds so long as it is done ethically, intelligently, and responsibly. That second part - particularly the ethics aspect is the sticking point. Breeding *any* dog, purebred, crossbreed, pet, performance, it should all be done ethically, not only considering the dogs being produced, but the bigger picture of dog ownership in general. 

Pets are indeed the biggest market, and breeders need to be cognizant of what makes a good pet, which means not just health testing, but keeping up with the dogs for the life of the dogs in order to have a clear picture of what kind of health and temperament they're producing. 

A cockerpoo bred for the pet market who ends up having weird RG issues (which we know have a hereditary component) is not a good pet. Something the breeders would not know unless they're paying attention to what temperaments they're breeding and what temperaments they're producing. 

What if a breeder is producing golden doodles who are regularly dying at a young age of cancer or bloat? Again, unless the breeder is keeping up with their puppies, they wouldn't know what the dogs they're producing are dying of. This is where ethics and responsibility come in. 

The breeders of cross breeds who are not only health testing, paying attention to temperament, and keeping up with the dogs they produce for the life of those dogs are virtually non-existent. Therefore it's fairly easy to say that if someone is crossing breeds they're probably not breeding responsibly. It's a statement of correlation, not causation, in that it is possible to do it right, but the reality is that few (if any) do.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

A woman who lives close to me, and whom I try very hard not to speak to, bought herself a Staffy bitch.

When the bitch was three years old, said woman decided it would be a lovely idea to breed a litter from her. "It will be lots of fun" she said.

Her search for a stud dog took her all of two houses away from her own, where she knew a male Staffy had recently taken up residence with the owners. She went and enquired if he was entire and what good fortune - he was.

The mating took place, six pups were born and eventually were sold off.

A month after, the male Staffy, father of the pups, attacked and killed a Cocker Spaniel in the park and shortly after attacked and killed next door's cat.

The owner was told to muzzle the dog in public. He didn't bother and it all came to a horrible end when he was walking the dog, offlead, on a local playing field and he attacked a little boy who had simply run past him.

I don't know why the dog was like that, but the worry surely would be the potential for poor temperament in his pups.

The woman who bred the pups knew of all these incidents but was unconcerned.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> The question - what's wrong with breeding cross breeds has been answered repeatedly. Nothing.
> There is nothing wrong with breeding cross breeds so long as it is done ethically, intelligently, and responsibly. That second part - particularly the ethics aspect is the sticking point. Breeding *any* dog, purebred, crossbreed, pet, performance, it should all be done ethically, not only considering the dogs being produced, but the bigger picture of dog ownership in general.
> 
> Pets are indeed the biggest market, and breeders need to be cognizant of what makes a good pet, which means not just health testing, but keeping up with the dogs for the life of the dogs in order to have a clear picture of what kind of health and temperament they're producing.
> ...


I've been looking at websites of some of the breeders of the better known named crosses, there do appear to be some (they are very much in a monority though) who at least talk the talk, of course a website can make any claims it wants & it's actually meeting the breeder, their dogs, looking at hard copies of the paperwork for health tests, pedigrees of the parents etc & asking questions (which IMO any decent breeder of a cross or pedigree would be happy to answer) that should count.

More & more people are expecting transparency with regards to health & temperament of purebreds & the good breeders will be happy to share this, there's no reason why crossbreeders shouldn't be expected to do the same.

On a side note, a family member added a doodle puppy from what they said was a good breeder 2 weeks ago,they were told the dog would be 'non shedding' & have an 'easy care coat'....


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> I've been looking at websites of some of the breeders of the better known named crosses, there do appear to be some (they are very much in a monority though) who at least talk the talk, of course a website can make any claims it wants & it's actually meeting the breeder, their dogs, looking at hard copies of the paperwork for health tests, pedigrees of the parents etc & asking questions (which IMO any decent breeder of a cross or pedigree would be happy to answer) that should count.
> 
> More & more people are expecting transparency with regards to health & temperament of purebreds & the good breeders will be happy to share this, there's no reason why crossbreeders shouldn't be expected to do the same.
> 
> On a side note, a family member added a doodle puppy from what they said was a good breeder 2 weeks ago,they were told the dog would be 'non shedding' & have an 'easy care coat'....


Ridiculous.

I once saw a website advertising Irish Black & Tan Jack Russells.

These highly priced pups come with a wonderful guarantee though.

They are, (and I quote), "Guaranteed never to leave your side and to never bark".


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Ridiculous.
> 
> I once saw a website advertising Irish Black & Tan Jack Russells.
> 
> ...


Oh my daughter has one of those, here's a photo:









They were right though, he never barks!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> Oh my daughter has one of those, here's a photo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, he's stunning.

Surely she plans to offer him at stud?

After all, doesn't he he have a right to be a Dad?


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Well, actually, all dog breeding is not the same.
> 
> The big difference between the breeding of Pedigrees versus Crossbreds is why those pups are being bred.
> 
> ...


Or to provide nice, well tempered, healthy pet dogs and break even?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Burrowzig said:


> Or to provide nice, well tempered, healthy pet dogs and break even?


I wish they were common, I really do!
But the sad fact of reality is those breeders are so few and far between that they don't even make a dent...I am not saying that ped breeders are better, but at least with dogs that can be registered the buyer has a chance of keeping an eye on certain lines and being able to check testing...

Unfortunately, most cross breeders like to pump out gems such as the Bar-Shar:









Two completely incompatible breeds (conformationally and temp wise), but hey, Joe Bloggs wants one so best knock them out hey?


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> I wish they were common, I really do!
> But the sad fact of reality is those breeders are so few and far between that they don't even make a dent...I am not saying that ped breeders are better, but at least with dogs that can be registered the buyer has a chance of keeping an eye on certain lines and being able to check testing...
> 
> Unfortunately, most cross breeders like to pump out gems such as the Bar-Shar:
> ...


Is that Shar Pei with Bassett Hound? Awful.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Burrowzig said:


> Is that Shar Pei with Bassett Hound? Awful.


Yes it is...and the pic I used was a good example of one


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> I wish they were common, I really do!
> But the sad fact of reality is those breeders are so few and far between that they don't even make a dent...I am not saying that ped breeders are better, but at least with dogs that can be registered the buyer has a chance of keeping an eye on certain lines and being able to check testing...
> 
> Unfortunately, most cross breeders like to pump out gems such as the Bar-Shar:
> ...


Thank you for spoiling my day! The thought of a Basset Hound being crossed with a Shar-Pei makes me feel quite ill!

Not very good photos but this is how a Shar-Pei from a reputable breeder should look like.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

You should be very careful about ripping things of of other peoples web-sites - particularly as you then edited it to try and make some sort of childish point. You aren't right, in the head, are you? That is someones much loved pet, someone who is not even part of this forum.

So, here is the FULL version.................

Hello to all!
I hope things are going well for you. I've seen that you have new ba-shar pups and thought I would send an update on Maslow. She is now 17 months old and 25kg. She is a delightful dog who still retains her puppy playfulness and still turns heads on walks. She does really well with other dogs and really seems to be a 'dogs dog'. She definitely loves to sleep but she is also keen on going on a big walk. We've started to let her off lead on the beach and in the woods for short periods, she is doing well with coming back. 
She seems to be a very 50/50 mix as she has the vocal range, front legs, weight and body length of a basset. She has the sharpei wrinkles, independence, stubbornness, and brain (she is pretty clever).
We couldn't be happier with her as a family pet as she is well adjusted with other animals, never shows signs of aggression, and has a nice temperament. I wish those who say negative things about the breeding of these dogs would just get to know them a bit more. We met a very nice basset hound x springer spaniel the other day on a walk and it was a lovely dog as well. We've not had any skin issues with Maslow and knock on wood everything is going well.
Thank you for providing us with an A class dog!


















Maslow again. She is a big girl now! Sound like she is well loved, and doing very nicely.

View Submissions


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Just because she is 'well loved' doesn't make her breeding right.

In fact, even with the words of her owner, I think these dogs shouldn't be crossed together - if this is the best of this cross, I dread to think what the worst is.


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2016)

miljar said:


> You should be very careful about ripping things of of other peoples web-sites - particularly as you then edited it to try and make some sort of childish point. You aren't right, in the head, are you? That is someones much loved pet, someone who is not even part of this forum.
> 
> So, here is the FULL version.................
> 
> ...


What point are you making?
First off, a guardian breed's temperament at 17 months doesn't say much. Social maturity isn't until 3 to 4 years in some dogs, so that she gets along with other dogs at 17 months doesn't mean much.
More worryingly though, have you had a look at how many puppies they have on the ground? 3 litters in December, 2 litters in January and one litter in February, and that's just the last 3 months! That's an obscene amount of breeding!! How can they possibly be properly caring for the dams of these litters?!
Are you seriously supporting what is obviously a puppy mill?!


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

ouesi said:


> What point are you making?
> First off, a guardian breed's temperament at 17 months doesn't say much. Social maturity isn't until 3 to 4 years in some dogs, so that she gets along with other dogs at 17 months doesn't mean much.
> More worryingly though, have you had a look at how many puppies they have on the ground? 3 litters in December, 2 litters in January and one litter in February, and that's just the last 3 months! That's an obscene amount of breeding!! How can they possibly be properly caring for the dams of these litters?!
> Are you seriously supporting what is obviously a puppy mill?!


Jesus. H. Christ.

I didn't even look on the website, that is just disgusting. I had a mooch and they have no mention of health tests and are incorrectly labelling their crosses as 'hybrids'. This place seems to be driven by the concept of money making.

I think I'm going to have a cup of tea and a nutella toastie after looking at that glaringly pink monstrosity


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

komondor_owner said:


> It's very easy to find examples of pedigree dogs that shouldn't have been bred (inbred in some cases) either. They are caricatures of their breed standard, with some traits exaggerated to the extreme in the name of "conforming to the breed standard". Whether or not the dog can actually breathe or walk seems like an afterthought as long as they win that rosette!
> Several breeds have whole catalogues of health issues. There's plenty of irresponsible breeding going on with pedigree dogs as well.


Have you seen anyone on here supporting irresponsible breeding of pedigree dogs? Most of us are totally opposed to the breeding of dogs be they pedigree or crosses unless they are from suitably health tested parents and from a breeder who offers lifetime support which should include taking back any pups they produce should the need arise rather than adding to the rescue problem we already have.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

komondor_owner said:


> It's very easy to find examples of pedigree dogs that shouldn't have been bred (inbred in some cases) either. They are caricatures of their breed standard, with some traits exaggerated to the extreme in the name of "conforming to the breed standard". Whether or not the dog can actually breathe or walk seems like an afterthought as long as they win that rosette!
> Several breeds have whole catalogues of health issues. There's plenty of irresponsible breeding going on with pedigree dogs as well.


And no one has disputed that - what we have all said is that there is a _massive _difference between ethical and unethical breeding.


----------



## komondor_owner (Jan 19, 2016)

deleted


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> Good! So we're in agreement! You get ethical and unethical breeders in both pedigree and crossbreeds. To label either of them as "bad" would be as bigoted and disgusting as labelling all people of a particular race as "bad".


Well theyre not exactly good are they.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

komondor_owner said:


> Good! So we're in agreement! You get ethical and unethical breeders in both pedigree and crossbreeds. To label either of them as "bad" would be as bigoted and disgusting as labelling all people of a particular race as "bad".


I've said that all along  in my earlier posts I said something along the lines of that I don't like to think of pedigree vs crossbreed, but of ethical vs unethical.

I will say this, I hate the eugenics and racist argument with the passion of a thousand burning suns. You really cannot compare preferring pedigrees over crossbreeds to racism, they're not on the same level. At all.

For the record, the breeders of that Bassett x Shar Pei are unethical in my opinion, they don't appear to have a clear breeding goal other than producing puppies with even more ridiculous names.

ETA - They had 32 litters last year, 32?!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> Or to provide nice, well tempered, healthy pet dogs and break even?


Yes, in an ideal World.

Sadly though, there are many who produce these crosses simply because they're in demand and change hands for big sums of money.

Where money is the motivator, then there's the temptation, in order to make as much as possible, to not spend any on such things as health testing for the Parents.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I did not edit anything...I merely googled Bar-shar and that pic came up...A bit defensive there Miljar...very telling lol


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2016)

komondor_owner said:


> Good! So we're in agreement! You get ethical and unethical breeders in both pedigree and crossbreeds. To label either of them as "bad" would be as bigoted and disgusting as labelling all people of a particular race as "bad".


What the hell are you talking about?
Repeatedly on this thread we have talked about RESPONSIBLE breeding, whether that applies to purebreds or crossbreds, doesn't matter, what matters is the ETHICS behind the breeding. 
Now you're trying to bring in racism? And AGAIN I need to point out, you were the one just on the other thread labeling all shelter dogs a certain way weren't you? The irony....


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

komondor_owner said:


> Good! So we're in agreement! You get ethical and unethical breeders in both pedigree and crossbreeds. To label either of them as "bad" would be as bigoted and disgusting as labelling all people of a particular race as "bad".


I can't believe you said that.

In the years I've been a member of this forum, I have only ever seen one person make derogatory remarks about Crossbreeds and, oh yes, that was you.

We have had many come to the forum who have mated their pedigree bitch to a dog of the same breed, without having had any health tests done, and many of whom have done no research whatsoever. They haven't exactly been welcomed with open arms.

What most here, myself included, have an issue with is irresponsible breeding - NOT crossbreeds.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Goodness, this has gone better than I expected.



Burrowzig said:


> There's some truth in that. If a dog has a gene for a health issue, a dog from an unrelated breed is less likely to have the other gene to pair up with it and cause the fault to affect the pups. And take PRA - both border collies and Labradors can get PRA but it's caused by different genes in each breed (the fact that you can test Labs but not collies demonstrates that). Therefore if you bred a carrier border collie with a carrier Labrador, the genes shouldn't pair up so pups should be not affected though may carry faulty genes from both parents.
> My vet says he sees far fewer inherited health problems in crossbreeds than he does in pedigrees, though of course most pedigree dogs are healthy and testing is important - as is not cross-breeding dogs of incompatible sizes, coat types or breed character traits.


What do you mean, you cannot test border collies for PRA. They have to be tested to be registered on the ISDS register.



Sweety said:


> Given that Cockapoos can't be Registered, there really is no accurate way of recording how many are born each year.
> 
> How do you know they are the most popular dog in the UK?


They are certainly a popular pet and have been around in America since the 1950s. I can remember looking them up in the 70s with a fellow vet nurse at work and falling about laughing a their name. I would love to have one with the right coat.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Goodness, this has gone better than I expected.
> 
> What do you mean, you cannot test border collies for PRA. They have to be tested to be registered on the ISDS register.
> .


That's CEA, not PRA.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> That's CEA, not PRA.


From the Border Collie Club
*Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA) Eye testing*
Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA) is an inherited eye disease of the retina. These dogs have eyes which are genetically programmed to go blind.
A PRA test is routinely performed by a BVA eye panellist to check for PRA (Progressive Retinal Atrophy) at 12 monthly intervals.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Burrowzig said:


> That's CEA, not PRA.


CEA is tested with DNA samples. Eye panellists detect PRA during appointments and it should be checked yearly.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

Just in case any one is interested I had an Assured Breeders check today and passed. Not that I am breeding anything or have in the last three year but like to keep a note of interest.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Firedog said:


> Just in case any one is interested I had an Assured Breeders check today and passed. Not that I am breeding anything or have in the last three year but like to keep a note of interest.


Well done you!


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Firedog said:


> Just in case any one is interested I had an Assured Breeders check today and passed. Not that I am breeding anything or have in the last three year but like to keep a note of interest.


Wow, well done


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

It is the second one I have passed now. Lady said the dogs were well cared for and she could see I was passionate about them. She did say my front garden could do with a bit of a tidy ( I have some fire wood that needs moving) I will attend to that when the weather is a bit drier.


----------



## JenKyzer (Jun 25, 2013)

miljar said:


> You should be very careful about ripping things of of other peoples web-sites - particularly as you then edited it to try and make some sort of childish point. You aren't right, in the head, are you? That is someones much loved pet, someone who is not even part of this forum.
> 
> So, here is the FULL version.................
> 
> ...


People are actually breeding this cross breed on purpose? :Vomit :Yawn

I particularly love this bit..

'' I wish those who say negative things about the breeding of these dogs would just get to know them a bit more. '' 
I'm pretty sure they have a 'lovely dog' .. But I think the original poster of this needs to take their own advice & 'get to know' the two completely different breeds their dog is made from then maybe they'd understand why people don't want to agree with the breeding of this mix. As a lover of shar-peis I say this mix is horrendous.. The owner of the pei crossing it with the hound simply can not have any respect for the shar pei breed at all (probably not for the hound either actually). What is the actual reason for this cross??  
Well, that's got me going at 2am! :Shifty Read some threads to get me off to sleep, I thought


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

JenSteWillow said:


> What is the actual reason for this cross??


Because the Gen public want them apparently...there can literary be no other valid reason for this cross. both conformationally, or personality wise!

Beagles crossed with Pei's also worry me...although they don't look as bad conformationally, they are not a good match either...IMHO
They even have Am bulls crossed with Pei's  Essentially they breed anything with testicles and a womb to Shar peis, knocking out countless litters a year...yet they want us to believe that there is nothing wrong with what they do?????

It sickens me quite frankly...I try to ignore when this poster pops up usually so that trouble doesn't start, but this thread was too much when they popped their 2 cents in.....


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Blitz said:


> From the Border Collie Club
> *Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA) Eye testing*
> Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA) is an inherited eye disease of the retina. These dogs have eyes which are genetically programmed to go blind.
> A PRA test is routinely performed by a BVA eye panellist to check for PRA (Progressive Retinal Atrophy) at 12 monthly intervals.


I know. Obviously. It was the DNA test I was talking about in my post about BC's and Labs having a different genetic fault as the cause. The trouble with eye testing for PRA is that a) you don't detect carriers so 2 carriers can be bred together and b) the dogs that develop it may already have been bred by time it can be detected.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

OMG I have just noticed that the Am bull crosses are called "Sham-bulls"
Oh the irony hurts with that one!


----------



## JenKyzer (Jun 25, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> OMG I have just noticed that the Am bull crosses are called "Sham-bulls"
> Oh the irony hurts with that one!


Some of them claim its a pei with none of the health issues.. Hence the reason for their chosen mix.. I think the beagles x pei that have been named by the breeder as a Norfolk breed claim this  .. Yet willow is a real example of a shar pei cross that has 2 main health issues of a pei so how can they even make assumptions that their way of thinking is correct! 
It's obviously for the cute factor which in turn means more money.. bulldog x pei sell fast


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> OMG I have just noticed that the Am bull crosses are called "Sham-bulls"
> Oh the irony hurts with that one!


I did see that, and the only thought I had was 'Oh. How appropriate'


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

JenSteWillow said:


> Some of them claim its a pei with none of the health issues.. Hence the reason for their chosen mix.. I think the beagles x pei that have been named by the breeder as a Norfolk breed claim this  .. Yet willow is a real example of a shar pei cross that has 2 main health issues of a pei so how can they even make assumptions that their way of thinking is correct!
> It's obviously for the cute factor which in turn means more money.. bulldog x pei sell fast


They're also known as Sharp Eagles or Norfolk Mountain Dogs ????? And then there's the Ori-Pei which is a cross between a Pei and a Pug. Words fail me!


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

No Ori Pei here.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

miljar said:


> View attachment 263239
> 
> 
> No Ori Pei here.


??????? So what's the point you're trying to make?


----------



## JenKyzer (Jun 25, 2013)

Magyarmum said:


> They're also known as Sharp Eagles or Norfolk Mountain Dogs ????? And then there's the Ori-Pei which is a cross between a Pei and a Pug. Words fail me!


Yep that's the ones I meant! Just couldn't think at the time of writing  
I don't even want to know about pugs x peis :Bag as if each breed hasn't got enough problems on their plate without creating more! 
Whatever gets said, people will always cross breeds that aren't meant to be crossed.. Either on purpose or by accident. It's just really sad.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

JenSteWillow said:


> Yep that's the ones I meant! Just couldn't think at the time of writing
> I don't even want to know about pugs x peis :Bag as if each breed hasn't got enough problems on their plate without creating more!
> Whatever gets said, people will always cross breeds that aren't meant to be crossed.. Either on purpose or by accident. It's just really sad.


Given the middle bit, isn't crossing a way to help?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

miljar said:


> View attachment 263249
> 
> 
> Given the middle bit, isn't crossing a way to help?


No.


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

OK, just a thought.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

miljar said:


> View attachment 263249
> 
> 
> Given the middle bit, isn't crossing a way to help?


What "middle bit"?



miljar said:


> OK, just a thought.
> 
> View attachment 263252


That's a Bear Coat! Do you actually know ANYTHING about Shar-Pei?

i


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

I shouldn't try and multi-task. I know that, but I still do it. This, e-mails and the footy is too much to do at the same time.
I didn't mean Ori Pei, I meant in general - just in case I was mis-understood.

Of course it's a Bear Coat! I did know.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2016)

miljar said:


> Given the middle bit, isn't crossing a way to help?


No. Anyone with even the most simplistic understanding of genetics and heredity would understand that.

You don't take a dog with DCM, breed him to a bitch without DCM, and magically get rid of DCM. If you're lucky you'll end up with a few pups in the litter without the condition, you could very well end up with a litter full of DCM, Punnett squares are about probabilities, not what actually ends up on the ground. 
It's like taking a stew that has carrots in it and mixing it with a stew that doesn't have carrots, you're not going to end up with a stew without carrots, you'll just have fewer of them.

However, if you actually bother to do the genetic testing and keeping up with the puppies to avoid breeding dogs that have genetic disorders, you eliminate them - whether you're breeding purebreds or cross breeds. If you don't want carrots in your stew, start with one that doesn't have carrots to begin with.


----------



## JenKyzer (Jun 25, 2013)

miljar said:


> View attachment 263249
> 
> 
> Given the middle bit, isn't crossing a way to help?


What everyone else said :Happy

LOL at the bear coat. Nice...... You'll be showing us your flowers next.


----------



## JenKyzer (Jun 25, 2013)

Magyarmum said:


> What "middle bit"?
> 
> i


I assumed the 'middle' of the dog, might be the angle of the pic but quite bloated/chunky looking. 
I may be wrong  as in everything else is OK bar the middle?


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

I met another Shar Pei cross last week. Shar Pei x Border Collie. Clever and stubborn. The owner said he'd already been trying to catch it for 45 minutes when I came across them. But by time I went back about an hour later, there was no sign of them so I suppose he'd managed to catch it.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> No. Anyone with even the most simplistic understanding of genetics and heredity would understand that.
> 
> You don't take a dog with DCM, breed him to a bitch without DCM, and magically get rid of DCM. If you're lucky you'll end up with a few pups in the litter without the condition, you could very well end up with a litter full of DCM, Punnett squares are about probabilities, not what actually ends up on the ground.
> It's like taking a stew that has carrots in it and mixing it with a stew that doesn't have carrots, you're not going to end up with a stew without carrots, you'll just have fewer of them.
> ...


The most common genetic disorder in Shar-Pei is SPAID (Shar-Pei Autoinflammatory Disorder). You can read about it by going to Dr Jeff Vidt's website at drjwv.com and looking up his article on SPAID. As you will see the term SPAID covers a multitude of other disorders such as mast cell tumours, FSF and IBD to name a few.

Although it's been known for many years there is a correlation between the number of wrinkles and the incidence of SPAID it's only after 20 years of research to isolate the genes responsible there's finally hope of a DNA test being developed within the next few years to identify carriers. There's a very interesting article on the pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/new-hope-for-shar-pei-coming-soon.htm! which explains far better than I can! (hope the links work).

Until a DNA test becomes available the only advice one can give to potential Shar-Pei owners is to select a dog with as few wrinkles as possible. I can't speak for other countries, but my vet here has told me that when a Pei is found to be suffering from SPAID, the details are circulated to every vet in the country as well as to the relevant government department, who will then order the breeders to remove any suspect dogs from their breeding programme.


----------



## Magyarmum (Apr 27, 2015)

Burrowzig said:


> I met another Shar Pei cross last week. Shar Pei x Border Collie. Clever and stubborn. The owner said he'd already been trying to catch it for 45 minutes when I came across them. But by time I went back about an hour later, there was no sign of them so I suppose he'd managed to catch it.


Haha! The trick with Shar-Pei is to ignore them completely and pretend to be engrossed in looking at or doing something very interesting. Don't know about BC but if there's one thing my Pei hates its being ignored. (Her ignoring me is of course quite different in her mind at least)!

A few months ago at training she decided to go off and inspect the perimeter fences where she spent several minutes studiously studying the horses in the next field. I got so fed up with her ignoring me, I put Gwylim on his lead and walked towards the exit and shouted "Bye bye Georgina we're going home"! She was there like a shot!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> I wish they were common, I really do!
> But the sad fact of reality is those breeders are so few and far between that they don't even make a dent...I am not saying that ped breeders are better, but at least with dogs that can be registered the buyer has a chance of keeping an eye on certain lines and being able to check testing...
> 
> Unfortunately, most cross breeders like to pump out gems such as the Bar-Shar:
> ...


Dear god, cut and shut. Clear demonstration of pointless cross breeding and horrific forelegs. They're going to be a huge issue for that animal, appalling conformation and not fit for purpose. What a disgrace to do that to multiple pups. 32 litters? Purely for profit. Uncaring, unethical.



komondor_owner said:


> Good! So we're in agreement! You get ethical and unethical breeders in both pedigree and crossbreeds. To label either of them as "bad" would be as bigoted and disgusting as labelling all people of a particular race as "bad".


Omfg. Pointless responding to someone who can write this without about 50 'lol' emoticons immediately afterwards. :Banghead


----------

