# Why against cross breeds?



## champagneannie (Jan 15, 2009)

I have been reading so mnay negative comments about breeding cross breeds. Why? To be honest, I am as open to owning a mongrol as a pedigree???

a few members in particular apear to have a real problme with breeding dogs that aren't purebred or crossing breeds. I just can't understand it. If the dog and bitch are healthy and ready, and the same steps taken as breeding a pedigree e.g health tests/findg homes first - i really can't see a real issue...


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

champagneannie said:


> If the dog and bitch are healthy and ready, and the same steps taken as breeding a pedigree e.g health tests/findg homes first - i really can't see a real issue...


...neither can I.


----------



## rottiesloveragdolls (Nov 2, 2007)

*I dont think thats the Issue here with Cross breeds I think it is when theres no Health tests done and breeding purely for money that is the problem I think folk have?*


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Because people seem to think that crossbreeds are healthier than purebreds. this is wrong, crossbreeds can get all the health problems from both parent's breeds, the same as a purebred. if the crossbreed's parents are health tested, then this is fine in my opinion. but what gets me annoyed is that because people think crossbreeds are healthier than purebreds, they don't health test the parents, which is as dangerous as buying a purebred with no health testing.

and there's this designer dog craze going on, breeding from bad stock, not health testing etc etc, all for money.


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

its because when your breeding crossbreeds your not breeding to a standard so you dont know what your going to get, and neither is the new puppy owners, which is why so many end up in shelters, they're not bred for a specific size, shape, look or temperament. 

plus you cant register the pups so then if the pup's owners decide to breed they're going to be doing it blind as there'll be no papers so they cant study the lines and find out the health problems within them

i'm happy owning crossbreeds but i wouldnt breed them


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

champagneannie said:


> I have been reading so mnay negative comments about breeding cross breeds. Why? To be honest, I am as open to owning a mongrol as a pedigree???
> 
> a few members in particular apear to have a real problme with breeding dogs that aren't purebred or crossing breeds. I just can't understand it. If the dog and bitch are healthy and ready, and the same steps taken as breeding a pedigree e.g health tests/findg homes first - i really can't see a real issue...


when health tests been done and the dogs matched to each other aint a ridiculous cross such as dachshund with a dane (if u know what i mean) then i personally rather it being done this way than any other way....

but most crossbreeds arent bred responsibly and with the design names and the large market for those design dogs these days dogs are being exploitet, sold for high prices though bred despite bad temperament , health and endorsements are being ignored.... and often false claims are being made about the coat types, temperamets etc...

breeding crosses often is done also for the wrong motivations which isnt in the best of interest of the two dogs involved and the resulting pups....


----------



## casandra (Aug 1, 2008)

You can never truely know the parentage behind a cross breed. Therefore you wont know what breed specific health tests need to be done in order to prevent those disorders from cropping up in puppies.

With Cross breeds you also have the potential of temperament issues, not knowing what could happen between two different breeds coming together...it's just not worth the risks.


----------



## rottiesloveragdolls (Nov 2, 2007)

*Not to start arguements here BUT where do all the pedigree dogs come from origanly  Iv had cross breds in the past and would again in the furture if i see one i like. Im not into breeding dogs only my cats,  *


----------



## MDF (Sep 29, 2009)

I started a thread like this a few weeks ago and it opened a HUGE can of worms.

We own a beautiful 15 week old jrt x chi who is obviously a cross breed who we love VERY much.

I just hope that this thread doesn't start the same problems I had.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

rottiesloveragdolls said:


> *Not to start arguements here BUT where do all the pedigree dogs come from origanly  Iv had cross breds in the past and would again in the furture if i see one i like. Im not into breeding dogs only my cats,  *


some have been crossed obviously but with an aim and not to produce a random dog because there is a market for its funny name


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

MDF said:


> I started a thread like this a few weeks ago and it opened a HUGE can of worms.
> 
> We own a beautiful 15 week old jrt x chi who is obviously a cross breed who we love VERY much.
> 
> I just hope that this thread doesn't start the same problems I had.


Yep thats what i was just about to put, how long till it kicks off I will say page 3
Thought these type of threads were banned anyway?
Juliex


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> ...they're not bred for a specific size, shape, look or temperament.


That's a bit of a generalisation, I'm sure those breeding crosses for working purposes would dispute that.


----------



## MDF (Sep 29, 2009)

paddyjulie said:


> Yep thats what i was just about to put, how long till it kicks off I will say page 3
> Thought these type of threads were banned anyway?
> Juliex


Nah, when I started my thread on this subject, it was fine and arguement free untill page 8! then it went mad.

I asked for it to be closed in the end


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

MDF said:


> Nah, when I started my thread on this subject, it was fine and arguement free untill page 8! then it went mad.
> 
> I asked for it to be closed in the end


why are u discussing closing threads now? its only ruining the thread for the OP


----------



## MDF (Sep 29, 2009)

Natik said:


> why are u discussing closing threads now? its only ruining the thread for the OP


oh here we go!  why are you even asking? I was answering someone else's question!

Sorry OP x


----------



## Sypher (Sep 29, 2008)

In the current financial climate, if cross breeds are more desirable then there is a higher chance they will find homes and not add to the rescue crisis.

So ethically, cross breeds are the way to go.

(Runs and hides.)


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Sypher said:


> In the current financial climate, if cross breeds are more desirable then there is a higher chance they will find homes and not add to the rescue crisis.
> 
> So ethically, cross breeds are the way to go.
> 
> (Runs and hides.)


they are more desirable hence alot of BYB and puppyfarms breeding them with bad temperaments and producing sick puppies due to not health testing the parents and so the dogs end up in rescue anyway due to illness the new owner cant afford to get treated or due to temperament issues such as fear or aggression or other.... 

so no, its not the ethical way...

the ethical way is to buy dogs only from breeders which ensure the best health (by health tetsing) and uses the best tempered dogs without any major faults and exagerations despite of its breed, cross or pure ....

(no need to hide  )


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

Sypher said:


> In the current financial climate, if cross breeds are more desirable then there is a higher chance they will find homes and not add to the rescue crisis.
> 
> So ethically, cross breeds are the way to go.
> 
> (Runs and hides.)


And they're healthier.


----------



## majortom (May 7, 2009)

Sypher said:


> In the current financial climate, if cross breeds are more desirable then there is a higher chance they will find homes and not add to the rescue crisis.
> 
> So ethically, cross breeds are the way to go.
> 
> (Runs and hides.)


that is a pathetic reply 
rescues all over the country are full with crossbreeds
the thing wrong with the currant climate is far too many people 
are breeding with out no thought for the dogs
just with the cash being added up in their heads
and that includes crossbreeds and pedigrees


----------



## majortom (May 7, 2009)

HighPr00 said:


> And they're healthier.


another pathetic reply
i give up


----------



## Sypher (Sep 29, 2008)

majortom said:


> another pathetic reply
> i give up


From the smiley I think it can be assumed that the reply was in jest as was mine. But this is what the general public think. Last year just 10% of dogs came from registered breeders. 35% came from what people on hear would describe as byb's.

Of Course getting health tested dogs is the way to go and most people on here know that but the general public does not. Arguing here about health testing is preaching to the choir, it's not doing anything to change the perception outside what is a small group of dog owners.


----------



## rottiesloveragdolls (Nov 2, 2007)

*OK OK calm down keep this on topic no insults or digs at eachother or it will be locked or deleted and we dont want that, Simple question simple replies  *


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

majortom said:


> another pathetic reply
> i give up


Are you disputing crossbreeds are healthier?

Is that fact or opinion?


----------



## majortom (May 7, 2009)

where is the insult
where is the prove that crossbreeds are healthier
same old thing
you got your views
i got mine


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

majortom said:


> where is the insult
> where is the prove that crossbreeds are healthier
> same old thing
> you got your views
> i got mine


Where is the *proof* they're not healthier?


----------



## majortom (May 7, 2009)

HighPr00 said:


> Are you disputing crossbreeds are healthier?
> 
> Is that fact or opinion?


there is no prove that crossbreeds are healthier than pedigrees
both get health problems


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

I always ask myself "why breed crossbreeds"?

The majority of dogs that are being crossed imo are dogs that have not been health tested and in fact are owned by people who do not even know or wish to know that these tests even exist.

I feel it also goes down to the old wives tale that crossbreeds are "healthier" than pedigrees and of course they are not. These pups will have or carry genetic problems from both breeds.

For those that do health test both the parents and then decide to cross, I just cannot understand the logic in wanting to cross 2 beautiful breeds......to get what??

The only answer I can fathom is trend. Look at all the ads at the moment. Pug x, Chi x, Pei x. etc etc it is all about the so called designer name and then the breeder can finacially gain due to the extortiate prices they can charge. 

Why would a family want to buy Chi x King Charles for example?? You would hopefully have researched the breeds and found a breed that suits you and your family lifestyle. Or does 2 come out on top of the questionaire and you decide to look for a cross with both??! Surely not.

Media hype doesn,t help either and web sites where you can "register" these designer breeds. I really do think that Joe Public are thinking that a Juggle, a Poochi, or O I don't know ....a Dachidane are actually "breeds".

Why do people actually want to cross??? Kerfuffles my little Brain!!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

I had a look at some of the crossbreed puppies for sale just out of curiosity & very few sellers stated whether the parents had been health tested, plus rather than being 'recession friendly' prices, they were charging nearly as much as for purebred pups. I won't slate crossbreeds as our dog is one, he is the best thing that ever happened to me & he is a lovely dog BUT we know nothing of his history (he came from a chap who didn't want him any more that my OH met during a night of fishing on a local pier) so we could have problems in years to come, although I'm prepared for this & he has regular vet checks & I've done my research into the potential problems that both breeds (Rottweiler & Husky) can have. I think potential owners of crossbreeds should do plenty of homework
Oh, & please don't argue everyone, maybe just agree to disagree?!
V xx


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Sypher said:


> *Of Course getting health tested dogs is the way to go* and most people on here know that but the general public does not. .


i agree hence why educating and informing people is so important these days !


----------



## champagneannie (Jan 15, 2009)

woah woah woah!

I didn't want to start ANOTHER argument thread but it's heading that way already 

rather than having a go at other peoples oppinions can people not just take their views, post their views and have a civilised discussion - rather than a blood bath!!! 

Is that too much to ask? I just wanted peoples oppinions, not fights.


----------



## Sypher (Sep 29, 2008)

Natik said:


> i agree hence why educating and informing people is so important these days !


Totally agree. But the problem is that when new members join and so much as hint about breeding, people jump down their throat, they leave, the thread gets locked and no one benefits.

After the BBC program (and before to a lesser extent) many people think pure bred kc reg dogs are unhealthy and cross breeds are not.

Doesn't matter if it's true or not, if that's what the majority think, then it's fact.


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

champagneannie said:


> woah woah woah!
> 
> I didn't want to start ANOTHER argument thread but it's heading that way already
> 
> ...


No arguuement...just a view and opinion.

Discussions from both sides are healthy

x


----------



## kayz (Jan 18, 2009)

I don't have anything against cross breeds. My first dog is a gorgeous boxer x labrador. 18 years old and still going strong!! His parents were both KC reg health tested show dogs. But unknown to their owners(neighbours) they had got to each other. The pups were handed to the RSPCA and we rescued one.

But when they are just bred for money and no health tests are done I don't agree with it. Whether they are pure bred KC reg Crufts champions or Mr Jones from number 32's Toy poodle and Mrs Smith from number 47's Jack Russell.

If you health test and make sure you have 2 dogs with good temperments then go ahead. Also try and have a list of potential owners.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2009)

I do feel that some people that cross breed feel that its a excuse not to get health tests done, not have to pay out for a quality kc registered dog with no endorsements, not needing to register the resulting pups and do it to make money as some charge as much as a pedigree and sometimes more. 

Lets face it to buy a KC unendorsed dog from a reputable breeder for breeding and then to have to pay for health test etc.. Cost alot of money and I feel that cross breeding is an excuse to not have to go to that expense and make money.

On the other hand there is some beautiful cross breeds that have given people with fur alleges a wider choice of dogs to love and have in there lives and if the breeder has both parents health tested then why not, but again I think this has got out of hand and now any cross matting seems to go and any tom dick and harry is having ago.

I don't think that people on here have a problem with cross breeds, I certainly haven't and have had them in the past, I think the problem we have is that the vast majority of cross breeds come from people that have no idea about what there doing and just do it to make money, so the issue lies with the people not the dogs.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Lately the ONLY case of responsible crossbreeding i have come across is that of the dallies who have had pointer bred into them to remove the health problem that dallies suffer which forms stones in their bladders.

NOW THAT IS ETHICAL AND RESPONSIBLE CROSSBREEDING!

I can also see some argument for the working breeds and types however i have no experience in that field to be able to justify why a mix would better suit a particular job over another pedigree counterpart.

I see no point in me posting again about what i feel makes a responsible breeder... go back and read it...

But as specifically for mongrels (above and beyond the temperament/type/health tests/motivation/rearing etc) the biggest thing that galls me is the price!

Why are dogs of mixed parentage sold (in some cases) for hundreds of pounds more than their pedigree counterparts?

Now I have a mongrel, Billy and I have a pedigree rescue, Miso... I love them both the same, but I wouldnt pay hundreds of pounds to purchase a mutt. It doesnt mean i value billy any less now. I would walk over hot coals for him and bancrupt myself if needed, BUT i wouldnt buy a mutt puppy for the amounts some people charge.

edit: Billy is a Yorkie and Scottie mix. He is also Tiny, and under hands of an unethical breeder could have been sold for hundreds of pounds, and probably classed as the fictional "teacup". Ive had many offers to breed him, because people see pound signs! - his furry plums are coming off!

By the way... yes ive called crossbreeds mongrels. According to the colins dictionary a Mongrell is a dog of mixed parentage, A crossbreed is a hybrid, the only dog hybrids i know of are the wolfdog types. Therefore in my eyes all mixed breeds of dogs, whether from known or unknown parentage are mongrels.


----------



## ad_1980 (Jan 28, 2009)

I have nothing against cross breeds exactl. I mean i owned a x dachshund years and years and years back. But i wouldn't own one again - for one reason only - and that's health problems.

Otherwise i have nothiing against cross breeds.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> And they're healthier.


says who????


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

I love dogs. Cross breed or purebred it doesn't matter to me.

There will always be those who see two completely different breed of dog and put them together thinking up a 'cool' name and selling them on for profit. I'm hoping this trend dies out soon but I doubt it.

Then you have those who are health testing their dogs before they breed them - no problems there.

And then there are the accidental litters. Your average dog owner will not know everything we know - they probably wouldn't want to go too far to find it either. They have 3 options when the pups come into the world. Give them to a rescue, pass them on for free or sell them. I wonder which one they'd pick.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Someone stated that mongrels are the way to go because they are more desireable? guess someone didnt tell the 300+ at the rescue I work at. at least with a kc pedigree dog, even if the breeder is not an ethical one and refuses to take back any of their breeding if problems arise, there will be a breed rescue to assist, mongrels dont have that safety net, they have to go into general rescues that take all types of dogs, these places tend to have greater numbers, and so the poor mongrel that someone thought was a great idea to produce is stuck in kennels a hell of a lot longer. 

Mo


----------



## Jules11 (Jun 16, 2009)

I am a new dog owner and dont really know enough to have an opinion...
However i do have a wondering/question...

Assuming all health checks are done etc (which seems sensible and obvious)
when you mix 2 breeds together how do you know what you are going to get?

Meaning it could be 10% one breed and 90% the other, vise versa or anything in between.

Applying the above, what happens if you for example cross a dog that likes lots of exercise with a dog that has a short snout (say a pug) that is not up for lots and lots of exercise and running about?

Could you not get a dog that is physically not able to run about (90% short snout) but has the desire to go for hours (10% high energy dog) and could this be bad for that dog?

I dont want to start any rows about anything, like i said i am a dog novice and have been wondering.

(OP........ hope this isnt seen as a thread hi-jack but reading your thread got me thinking about cross breeds )

PS I love all dogs


----------



## majortom (May 7, 2009)

moboyd said:


> Someone stated that mongrels are the way to go because they are more desireable? guess someone didnt tell the 300+ at the rescue I work at. at least with a kc pedigree dog, even if the breeder is not an ethical one and refuses to take back any of their breeding if problems arise, there will be a breed rescue to assist, mongrels dont have that safety net, they have to go into general rescues that take all types of dogs, these places tend to have greater numbers, and so the poor mongrel that someone thought was a great idea to produce is stuck in kennels a hell of a lot longer.
> 
> Mo


so true
tottally agree


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2009)

Jules11 said:


> I am a new dog owner and dont really know enough to have an opinion...
> However i do have a wondering/question...
> 
> Assuming all health checks are done etc (which seems sensible and obvious)
> ...


I would hope that if a breeder has gone to the trouble of health testing the dogs that they would be responsible enough to have a good enough reason to cross breed and therefore not put two total opposite together and think and plan long and hard as to the benefits for the dogs for doing so.

As for the example you gave above its a very good point, and that's the reason why just because there crosses does not make them healthy, because some people don't care what they put there dog to just as long as it produced pups and therefore that's why crosses are NOT healthier than pedigrees and will come with there own human created health problems.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

moboyd said:


> Someone stated that mongrels are the way to go because they are more desireable? guess someone didnt tell the 300+ at the rescue I work at. at least with a kc pedigree dog, even if the breeder is not an ethical one and refuses to take back any of their breeding if problems arise, there will be a breed rescue to assist, mongrels dont have that safety net, they have to go into general rescues that take all types of dogs, these places tend to have greater numbers, and so the poor mongrel that someone thought was a great idea to produce is stuck in kennels a hell of a lot longer.
> 
> Mo


That is true, and many who go to rescue to find a dog are far more impressed with those that "Look pedigree" than those that look like common or garden mutts or those from crosses of what are perceived scarier breeds.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

Cross bred or pure bred doesn't really matter as long as parents were health tested. The breed actually only matters if 1) you're going to do KC shows 2) you need a particular for work 3) you like one breed more than any other otherwise all dogs are capable of being a great pet and all dogs should have some training eg obedience. If you want to breed that is a whole different can of worms study study study your breed and test for all known problems within the breed . have a non biased person who knows the breed look your dog over. With a non purebred do the preceding except skip the last sentence...Jill


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> its because when your breeding crossbreeds your not breeding to a standard so you dont know what your going to get, and neither is the new puppy owners, which is why so many end up in shelters, they're not bred for a specific size, shape, look or temperament.
> 
> plus you cant register the pups so then if the pup's owners decide to breed they're going to be doing it blind as there'll be no papers so they cant study the lines and find out the health problems within them
> 
> i'm happy owning crossbreeds but i wouldnt breed them





SEVEN_PETS said:


> Because people seem to think that crossbreeds are healthier than purebreds. this is wrong, crossbreeds can get all the health problems from both parent's breeds, the same as a purebred. if the crossbreed's parents are health tested, then this is fine in my opinion. but what gets me annoyed is that because people think crossbreeds are healthier than purebreds, they don't health test the parents, which is as dangerous as buying a purebred with no health testing.
> 
> and there's this designer dog craze going on, breeding from bad stock, not health testing etc etc, all for money.





casandra said:


> You can never truely know the parentage behind a cross breed. Therefore you wont know what breed specific health tests need to be done in order to prevent those disorders from cropping up in puppies.
> 
> With Cross breeds you also have the potential of temperament issues, not knowing what could happen between two different breeds coming together...it's just not worth the risks.


exactly 

i owna crossbreed and shes brilliant.... i would never ever breed her for reasons listed above (plus shes been done lol)!..

she wasnt bred intentionally btw.


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

majortom said:


> you got your views
> i got mine


Make your mind up, your previous post said...



majortom said:


> that is a pathetic reply


So is everyone allowed their own view or are they just pathetic?



dexter said:


> says who????


Not me, it was said in jest as was the post before mine but no one got that either.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

There is nothing wrong with breeding health tested animals imo, Aslong as the breeds are a similar size e.t.c 



I think they real problem with cross breeding is how different all the pups can be i know pedigree ones can be aswell but you have a pretty good idea how they will be e.t.c 

My two boys are totally different from each other ones more of one breed and the other is more like the other breed! 

Ive been asked to stud zeb (my larger one) to a springer female i refused hes way to big for her, hes got no so fab hips. The owner just wanted money and loved the fact hes big she wanted chunky springer pups and im sure would pass them off as pure breed with papers e.t.c 

I wouldnt ever breed from a cross breed,


----------



## terriermaid (Nov 5, 2007)

at the risk of being attacked !!!!!! i have the occasional litter of first crosses  but yes the parents are health tested and tested in the field and show ring ,but i must admit its a age old proven cross and as long as its a 50% cross the pups turn out the same ,after a summer showing and competing i usually have a waiting list and i absolutly love the cross


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

deb53 said:


> Why do people actually want to cross??? Kerfuffles my little Brain!!


Why do people actually want to breed pure?

What's the difference?

What's so bad about breeding a cross responisbly?

Crosses are bred for a number of reasons; some good reasons, some bad reasons.

Same as pedigrees.

Lurchers are crossbreeds and there are many other crosses bred for working purposes. A far better reason than breeding for the show ring, in my opinion.


----------



## champagneannie (Jan 15, 2009)

HighPr00 said:


> Why do people actually want to breed pure?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> ...


these are my thoughts EXACTLY!


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

I dont have a real problem with crossbreeds as such but i will say i think it has hit a new/different level, the crossbreeds or sjould i say breeder and purchaser i have a problem with are the ones with the fancy names which puts them into the "designer catagory" where people pay huge ammount of money for example a sprocker a pure bred cocker or a springer could be half the cost what i do wonder if some would give them the time of day if the name didnt sound good if it has ocker, doodle or ita at the end of the name your on a winner because people will pay the huge price tag.


----------



## terriermaid (Nov 5, 2007)

my lurcher pup has 3 breeds in her a deliberat cross and also came with a five generation family tree ,there can be a lot of thought put into crossing and skill


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Again we get onto the lurcher versus show debate.

Basically there is nothing wrong with breeding crosses, if it is well thought out and the dogs involved are compatible and there is health testing done.

HOWEVER, the vast majority breeding crosses have no thought brought into the matter, are breeding totally unsuitable dogs together as regards structure, health or temperament and doing it for the totally wrong reasons and often *only* for money.

I am not saying that *all* pedigree breeders are any better, many are doing exactly the same things as I stated above.

At the moment in the middle of a credit crunch, when rescues are overflowing, often with cross dogs, then the justification for *anyone* breeding their dog needs to be super-ethical, and just because "I want to" or "I have the right" or other such self righteous twaddle is not a good enough reason in my view


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> I dont have a real problem with crossbreeds as such but i will say i think it has hit a new/different level, the crossbreeds or sjould i say breeder and purchaser i have a problem with are the ones with the fancy names which puts them into the "designer catagory" where people pay huge ammount of money for example a sprocker a pure bred cocker or a springer could be half the cost what i do wonder if some would give them the time of day if the name didnt sound good if it has ocker, doodle or ita at the end of the name your on a winner because people will pay the huge price tag.


I have no problem with responsibly bred crosses but a massive problem with designer dogs.


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> At the moment in the middle of a credit crunch, when rescues are overflowing, often with cross dogs, then the justification for *anyone* breeding their dog needs to be super-ethical, and just because "I want to" or "I have the right" or other such self righteous twaddle is not a good enough reason in my view


There's plenty of pedigrees in rescue too, or we wouldn't have breed rescues.

I agree there needs to be super-ethical reasons to breed at the moment.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

HighPr00 said:


> I have no problem with responsibly bred crosses but a massive problem with designer dogs.


Thats what i think and i do believe thats what is happening a lot.


----------



## Colsy (Oct 3, 2008)

I own 3 poodle crosses all have fantastic temperaments,maybe we are just very lucky.
I will be breeding one of my bitches in the future,and she will be fully health tested.
I already have a waiting list for her puppies so i am very lucky.
But if her health tests do not come back with good results i will get her spayed.
I think no matter what type of dog you are going to breed, they all should be health tested.
At the end of the day its our responsiblity to do whats right for the dog before breeding.


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

HighPr00 said:


> Why do people actually want to breed pure?
> 
> What's the difference?
> 
> ...


What's the difference?...
To improve on their breed Standard and produce good healthy pups

What's so bad about breeding a cross responisbly?
Crosses are bred for a number of reasons; some good reasons, some bad reasons....

Yes I agree there are crosses bred (ie Lurchers) for some good reasons ie work and personally I feel that If this is done in a responsible way and for the right purpose then it is acceptable. But I DO NOT agree with crossing 2 breeds to see what they will look like and to put a designer name on them.

Whether for the ring or for work, responsible owners would not cross willy nilly and just for trend.


----------



## staceydawlz (Jun 8, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> Because people seem to think that crossbreeds are healthier than purebreds. this is wrong, crossbreeds can get all the health problems from both parent's breeds, the same as a purebred. if the crossbreed's parents are health tested, then this is fine in my opinion. but what gets me annoyed is that because people think crossbreeds are healthier than purebreds, they don't health test the parents, which is as dangerous as buying a purebred with no health testing.
> 
> and there's this designer dog craze going on, breeding from bad stock, not health testing etc etc, all for money.


iv not yet read a post stating crossbreeds are healthier?!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

No "breed" or cross breed has any real purpose other than as a companion so it really makes no difference. Health testing must a be a priority (the priority) and the fact that paretns are KC registered means nothing (although some buyers think it does).


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

deb53 said:


> To improve on their breed Standard and produce good healthy pups





deb53 said:


> But I DO NOT agree with crossing 2 breeds to see what they will look like and to put a designer name on them.


Neither do I but aren't you contradicting your first point there?

A breed standard is just a list of physical attributes, i.e. looks.



deb53 said:


> Whether for the ring or for work, responsible owners would not cross willy nilly and just for trend.


Responsible breeders wouldn't breed willy nilly within the same breed either. So where's the difference between pedigrees and crosses?

Is it not possible to draw a line between crosses bred ethically and "designer dogs"?


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> No "breed" or cross breed has any real purpose other than as a companion so it really makes no difference.


Working dogs have a purpose other than as a companion.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> No "breed" or cross breed has any real purpose other than as a companion so it really makes no difference.


well, my breed has a purpose and thats guarding my property and warning me about any intruders.... Hence why i chose a guarding breed looking exact for those traits


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> A breed standard is just a list of physical attributes, i.e. looks.


a breed standard includes temperament as well, so ur wrong there ...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> Working dogs have a purpose other than as a companion.


But only because we want them to... we don't need to hunt, use dogs to search for drugs etc... we choose to.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> well, my breed has a purpose and thats guarding my property and warning me about any intruders.... Hence why i chose a guarding breed looking exact for those traits


I agree but that is a choice.. you could use an alarm system


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I agree but that is a choice.. you could use an alarm system


u want to go that route then everything in life is a choice.... 

but it does make a difference if a dog has a purpose and if that qualities are predictable rather then chanceable


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> There's plenty of pedigrees in rescue too, or we wouldn't have breed rescues.


certainly not true in my breed or a lot of other breeds.

Poor SBT rescue is over run with dogs that vaguely look like SBT's. who bred them?? ethical breeders ? doubt it.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> u want to go that route then everything in life is a choice....
> 
> but it does make a difference if a dog has a purpose and if that qualities are predictable rather then chanceable


I have no issue with dogs being bred with a purpose in mind and agree that traits/temperment are important but everything (as you say is a choice). Different people make different choices and the same goes with breeding. Some are happy with the breeds that the KC supports others are not.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Can someone define ethical (in breeding terms) ?


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

I don't like it because my breed seems to get crossed with anything that can move


----------



## Nicky09 (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm not against crossbreeds I have 3 but its the random throwing together of two completely different breeds, thats in some cases almost guaranteed to cause health or temperment problems, then giving them some stupid name so they can make more money I don't like. As long as they breed responsibly heealth test, have two compatible breeds etc then I don't mind as long as they don't put some stupid name on it and sell it for £1000 to people who just want the newest strange mix.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I have no issue with dogs being bred with a purpose in mind and agree that traits/temperment are important but everything (as you say is a choice). Different people make different choices and the same goes with breeding. Some are happy with the breeds that the KC supports others are not.


sadly the purpose of a lot of dogs being bred is money which i dont count this personally as a good choice... but then choices, heh... different people make different choices but still i wouldnt consider them all as good


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

Natik said:


> a breed standard includes temperament as well, so ur wrong there ...


Okay, a breed standard is a long list of physical attributes and a brief mention of temperament.


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But only because we want them to... we don't need to hunt, use dogs to search for drugs etc... we choose to.


Using that logic being a companion isn't a purpose either then.


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

dexter said:


> certainly not true in my breed or a lot of other breeds.


I thought the comparison was between pedigrees and crosses, not specific breeds and all crosses?



dexter said:


> Poor SBT rescue is over run with dogs that vaguely look like SBT's. who bred them?? ethical breeders ? doubt it.


I doubt there's any ethically bred crossbreeds in rescue either, it's exactly the same.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> Okay, a breed standard is a long list of physical attributes and a brief mention of temperament.


maybe brief but very important part of the breed standard...


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

HighPr00 said:


> Neither do I but aren't you contradicting your first point there?
> 
> A breed standard is just a list of physical attributes, i.e. looks.
> 
> ...


The Op started the thread as why against cross breeds and i gave my reasons.

As re the breed standard it may be "just" a list but it is the blu print of each breed and responsible ethical breeders would aim through years of research to breed their dogs to this standard combined with excellant health test result.

I just cannot see the justification of putting 2 different breeds together to produce an unknown type of pup, add a ridiculous name and sell for a ludicrous amount of money to the Joe Public who are being mislead into thinking they have a "new" breed.

Ok...maybe I am not coming across very clear...

here goes...
Health tested Chi bitch
Pet owner wants to mate her.
Does she put her too health tested Chi Stud or too Health tested Pug stud?

Surely to a Chi stud. Why on earth would she want to mate to a pug and spoil two beautiful breeds?

But we are seing this far too often and why??? As I said I just do not get it?

BUT I can see the other side of the coin where some breeds are being deliberatly crossed by health tested parents to produce pups that it has been proven to improve their field of work.

This may sound contradicting but I can see why this is done


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> Using that logic being a companion isn't a purpose either then.


I didn't actually say it was... it is a reason for breeding that is simply a human wish. Exactly the same as every other reason for breeding - I don't think it is a bad reason or an "unethical" reason.

I would consider unethical reasons (for breeding) to be, inter alia, for fighting, to make money (solely), to conform to a breed standard where that standard is shown to be be unhealthy.

I wouldn't agree that breed standards are necessarily (or in some case at all) anything to do with health and in some cases, the exact opposite.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

but even though people look for dogs as companionship even that varies....

there are the active owners who loves the outdoors...

there are the more quiet owners who rather have short walk....

there are the owners who love certain activities etc.....

there are owners who need an easy going dog and those who rather have an challenging dog...

Those sort of lifestyles require certain temperamant traits....

So how can someone without a breed standard say my cross will suit this and this lifestyle???? or doesnt it matter for the crossbreeders who breed for companionship and just place pups into homes _hoping _the new owners will fit their dogs temperamant rather then their looks and if not then what then???


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

deb53 said:


> I just cannot see the justification of putting 2 different breeds together to produce an unknown type of pup, add a ridiculous name and sell for a ludicrous amount of money to the Joe Public who are being mislead into thinking they have a "new" breed.
> 
> Ok...maybe I am not coming across very clear...
> 
> ...


So we agree then. 

I just hate to see all crosses being lumped in the same category.

I dispise the designer dog trend as much as anyone but there are many people breeding crosses for the right reasons too.


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

Natik said:


> maybe brief but very important part of the breed standard...


To some, not others. I've seen plenty of bad temperaments in the show ring.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> To some, not others. I've seen plenty of bad temperaments in the show ring.


so did i... but those dogs are bad examples of the breed standard or are simply untrained....


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

But there is an assumption that a breed standard guarantees temperment which it does not. I have numerous dogs from "active" breeds that are not... dogs from "working" breeds that will not work, at all... dogs from "quiet" breeds that bark all day.

My concern is that buyers assume that a breed standard gives them a guarantee of a healthy dog, that will have a consistent look and a consistent temperment and that is not the case.

There are too many "bad" examples of the breed. I posted some pictures of English Setters on here .. no two looked the same and I was told they were "bad" examples (they were, in fact, all show winners).


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But there is an assumption that a breed standard guarantees temperment which it does not. I have numerous dogs from "active" breeds that are not... dogs from "working" breeds that will not work, at all... dogs from "quiet" breeds that bark all day.
> 
> My concern is that buyers assume that a breed standard gives them a guarantee of a healthy dog, that will have a consistent look and a consistent temperment and that is not the case.


it all depends on the breeder.... a good breeder aims towards the breed standard which includes the temperament so the chance of the dog is alot higher of being predictable....

then there are breeders who breed for looks and miss out on the temperament...

it is the case if u go to a good breeder.... not 100% as nothing in life is guaranteed but ur chances of getting what ur looking for are *alot higher* ...


----------



## Murphyandfi (Oct 9, 2009)

I have no problems with breeding crossbreeds in principle

As long as the following apply....

Both parents are the healthiest of dogs with excellent temperaments
It is being sensibly with dogs whose body type and mentality is similiar
It isn't being done for money
The breeder will always take back the dogs they breed
There are more than enough good, checked homes for a planned litter

oh, and the most important one of all - there are no dogs sitting in rescues or pounds still looking for a home.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Murphyandfi said:


> I have no problems with breeding crossbreeds in principle
> 
> As long as the following apply....
> 
> ...


and do you apply this to KC registered breeds as well?


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> and do you apply this to KC registered breeds as well?


Why should she/he have to?

Its her opinion after all...

She is doing/applying what SHE wants!

Isnt that what you keep saying about mongrel breeding? Its all about CHOICE?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> Why should she/he have to?
> 
> Its her opinion after all...
> 
> ...


Evening...... nothing on the telly?


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Evening...... nothing on the telly?


Ive been on and off this week elmo

My dad had a minor heart attack last saturday, although i didnt realise i had to account to you for my whereabouts and activities. I'll send a sick note next time! ut:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> Ive been on and off this week elmo
> 
> My dad had a minor heart attack last saturday, although i didnt realise i had to account to you for my whereabouts and activities. I'll send a sick not next time! ut:


OK, thanks.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> OK, thanks.


out of order elmo and you know it


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Murphyandfi said:


> I have no problems with breeding crossbreeds in principle
> 
> As long as the following apply....
> 
> ...


so my question was, do you apply this to KC registered as well as crossbreeds?


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> Ive been on and off this week elmo
> 
> My dad had a minor heart attack last saturday, although i didnt realise i had to account to you for my whereabouts and activities. I'll send a sick note next time! ut:


sorry to hear that... hope ur dad is ok xx


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

thanks natik he's ok now after treatment. Came home late this morning


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> so my question was, do you apply this to KC registered as well as crossbreeds?


elmo

Perhaps you could list here some FACTUAL reason why you seem hell bent against pedigrees?


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> OK, thanks.


MMMMMM......not good!!!!!!

Billysboymammy.....I hope your Dad is feeling a lot better xx


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

champagneannie said:


> I have been reading so mnay negative comments about breeding cross breeds. Why? To be honest, I am as open to owning a mongrol as a pedigree???
> 
> a few members in particular apear to have a real problme with breeding dogs that aren't purebred or crossing breeds. I just can't understand it. If the dog and bitch are healthy and ready, and the same steps taken as breeding a pedigree e.g health tests/findg homes first - i really can't see a real issue...


I agree with this post


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Glad your dad is home thats a good sign.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I'll not rise to this if you don't mind. If the intention was to solicit sympathy from me then your opening aggressive post (to my legtimate question) wasn't exactly the way to do it. I'm sure you do not want my sympathy and whilst I have genuine sympathy for your father, using him as a way to take a shot at me was a little uncalled for. 

I'll put you on ignore then we can't ruin the thread... you may wish to do the same.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I'll not rise to this if you don't mind. If the intention was to solicit sympathy from me then your opening aggressive post (to my legtimate question) wasn't exactly the way to do it. I'm sure you do not want my sympathy and whilst I have genuine sympathy for your father, using him as a way to take a shot at me was a little uncalled for.
> 
> I'll put you on ignore then we can't ruin the thread... you may wish to do the same.


i dont see any aggression at all... where do u get that from?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> i dont see any aggression at all... where do u get that from?


BBM's opening post. I asked a question of another poster and "her" response was to put down the reasoning behind the question without justification.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I'll not rise to this if you don't mind. If the intention was to solicit sympathy from me then your opening aggressive post (to my legtimate question) wasn't exactly the way to do it. I'm sure you do not want my sympathy and whilst I have genuine sympathy for your father, using him as a way to take a shot at me was a little uncalled for.
> 
> I'll put you on ignore then we can't ruin the thread... you may wish to do the same.


elmo

I couldnt be bothered to put you on ignore, your insensetive uncaring sarcastic and disrespectful attitude is of great amusement to me. You cannot intimidate me.

I care very deeply about ethical breeding, and like you i am not a breeder, although unlike you i have absoloutly no plans to enter into the breeding world either.

My post to you was a valid comment, you constantly mention that its down to a breeders choice about what types of dogs they produce, YET it seems its unacceptable for someone else to have a different opinion than you own?

Yes your comment was a valid.. as was mine!


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> BBM's opening post. I asked a question of another poster and "her" response was to put down the reasoning behind the question without justification.


and where is the aggression ur on about exactly ..... ????


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> BBM's opening post. I asked a question of another poster and "her" response was to put down the reasoning behind the question without justification.


oh please elmo

read back... its not my opening post on this thread!


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

The impression i get is that pedigree breeders have a problem with the motivation behind crossbreeding.

I often read the phrases "to better a breed" and " to keep a pup". With crossbreeding theres nothing to "improve" on, and i dont know the percentage of those who breed in order to keep a pup. So its assumed that its done for monetary gain. Rightly or wrongly, thats known only to the one doing the breeding.

I do think there is a sense of snobbery. I get sick of hearing "oh my dog has many champions in his pedigree". I find it sad that people think a dog needs a purpose, or have to be of a certain quality to be of any worth to them.
Some do look down on crossbreeds/mongrel as lesser dogs.

IMO, aslong as a crossbreeder takes all the steps that a pedigree breeder does, then i dont see a problem.

There are just as many crap pedigree breeders as there are cross breeders.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> The impression i get is that pedigree breeders have a problem with the motivation behind crossbreeding.
> 
> I often read the phrases "to better a breed" and " to keep a pup". With crossbreeding theres nothing to "improve" on, and i dont know the percentage of those who breed in order to keep a pup. So its assumed that its done for monetary gain. Rightly or wrongly, thats known only to the one doing the breeding.
> 
> ...


I agree with 99% of the post but I still question (on the basis of the argument about the amount of dogs in rescue) as to why KC registered breeders still breed. If the argument is to reduce the amount of dogs in rescue then should there be no breeding of crosses or KC registered?


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I agree with 99% of the post but I still question (on the basis of the argument about the amount of dogs in rescue) as to why KC registered breeders still breed. If the argument is to reduce the amount of dogs in rescue then should there be no breeding of crosses or KC registered?


As far as I understand it if we want to keep the breeds (or crosses) we love we have to keep breeding. If everyone stopped and there were only rescue dogs within a few years the rescues would be empty (great) but the dogs would be too old to be bred from.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> The impression i get is that pedigree breeders have a problem with the motivation behind crossbreeding.
> 
> I often read the phrases "to better a breed" and " to keep a pup". With crossbreeding theres nothing to "improve" on, and i dont know the percentage of those who breed in order to keep a pup. So its assumed that its done for monetary gain. Rightly or wrongly, thats known only to the one doing the breeding.
> 
> ...


I havent read anything about champions on this thread yet and i find mostly BYB bang on about champions in the dogs lines to be able to cash in more on the pups ....

All dogs are the same worthy as pets, but to maintain good health and good conformation its obvious that only healthy dogs without any major faults should be bred from.... and thats for pure bred or cross bred...

I dont think its bad people want to improve on certain things, its their aim .... there are things to improve as perfect dogs dont excist ....


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

But some of us love crosses, so should we also not be allowed to continue breeding?


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But some of us love crosses, so should we also not be allowed to continue breeding?


good point.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

If in a future world, they stop all breeding of pedigree breeds then they will just die out as breeds, to be replaced by a free for all of an assortment of basically mongrels, if there is no KC registration and noting of pedigrees.

In this credit crunch I do believe that all breeding should be curtailed until the recession improves and people are more able to care for the dogs they have, whether pedigree or crosses.



Elmo the bear said:


> But some of us love crosses, so should we also not be allowed to continue breeding?


Back to the "I just want to" reason for breeding dogs which these days I feel is very selfish and uncaring. It is saying "I have homes for *my* pups so I care not one jot for those in rescue."


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Natik said:


> I havent read anything about champions on this thread yet and i find mostly BYB bang on about champions in the dogs lines to be able to cash in more on the pups ....


Ive actually read about 3 people today in other threads going on about champions etc.

I didnt mean in this thread, just in general and in real life. Like it somehow makes their dog far more superior to my lowly mongrel.



> All dogs are the same worthy as pets, but to maintain good health and good conformation its obvious that only healthy dogs without any major faults should be bred from.... and thats for pure bred or cross bred...


I dont think all dogs are worthy in the eyes of some people. And faults according to who? The breed clubs? 
For people like myself, breed standards mean nothing. I dont think all of them have the dogs best interests at heart.
Id also know who writes them, why they get changed (and they do - maybe not often, but nearly all breeds standards have changed since breeds were recognised), for what purpose and how they benefit the dog and its health/movement/general physical wellbeing.

There very much is a case of "my dog is better than yours" in some instances.



> I dont think its bad people want to improve on certain things, its their aim .... there are things to improve as perfect dogs dont excist ....


I dont like the word improve. I think they want to obtain the perfect dog according to a standard. I think whats best for the dog sometimes gets pushed to the side.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> If in a future world, they stop all breeding of pedigree breeds then they will just die out as breeds, to be replaced by a free for all of an assortment of basically mongrels, if there is no KC registration and noting of pedigrees.
> 
> In this credit crunch I do believe that all breeding should be curtailed until the recession improves and people are more able to care for the dogs they have, whether pedigree or crosses.
> 
> Back to the "I just want to" reason for breeding dogs which these days I feel is very selfish and uncaring. I have homes for *my* pups so I care not one jot for those in rescue.


Sorry, I forgot I need to put minute detail to avoid anyone deliberatey misconstruing my posts.

A poster above, on my suggestion that maybe no breeding (inlcuding KC registered) should take place, replied saying that the "breeds we love" would soon cease to exists. If "we love" is a reason to to breed KC registered dogs then why should it not be a reason for crossbreeding?

I did not mention "pedigree" as my crosses have pedigrees and I did not wish the issue to be confused.


----------



## Murphyandfi (Oct 9, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> so my question was, do you apply this to KC registered as well as crossbreeds?


I would apply the same standards, yes - but I have to accept that breeders of Kc reg dogs will continue to breed and maybe they should? I for one would be sorry to see lots of breeds disappear although there are a few that in my opinion, should.

Breeding while the rescues are in crisis is a selfish thing to do but some people breed dogs as a hobby - thats what the dog show-world ultimately is and that's how they get their kicks. If the Kc reg breeders continue to breed their show-dogs and are permitted to sell non-show quality excess pups then I don't have a huge problem with them continuing but only when they need a pup for their own purposes and always take full responsibility for the dogs they breed.

I do have a problem with people breeding pets whether pedigree or cross-breeding *at the moment* as it can only be for money I do not for the life of me understand how someone can put out a litter of pups when there are young, healthy and well-behaved dogs being put to sleep.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry, I forgot I need to put minute detail to avoid anyone deliberatey misconstruing my posts.
> 
> A poster above, on my suggestion that maybe no breeding (inlcuding KC registered) should take place, replied saying that the "breeds we love" would soon cease to exists. If "we love" is a reason to to breed KC registered dogs then why should it not be a reason for crossbreeding?
> 
> I did not mention "pedigree" as my crosses have pedigrees and I did not wish the issue to be confused.


I also put crosses in brackets if you didn't notice!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

sequeena said:


> I also put crosses in brackets if you didn't notice!


Sorry, you did indeed, my apologies.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry, you did indeed, my apologies.


Thanks, don't want anyone to think I'm prejudice, got 2 crosses myself :001_tt2:


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> Ive actually read about 3 people today in other threads going on about champions etc.
> 
> I didnt mean in this thread, just in general and in real life. Like it somehow makes their dog far more superior to my lowly mongrel.
> I dont know, i find i only read it if people advertise their litters and often unhealth tested BUT champions in their lines
> ...


to me improve is to breed out any small faults like for instance the length of a tail (i know silly example lol) or improve on breed traits such as confidence or the ability to retrieve etc etc

it would be worse if people wouldnt put any thoughts at all when breeding and just putting 2 dogs together because they can to create companions where there is an overflow of companions out there already and the numbers are rising .... and again this is for both cross and pure bred


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

> so u would breed a dog with cow hocks? Or a dog with an undershot or overshot jaw? A dog with heredertity missing teeth? etc etc etc


Of course not. But some things that are considered faults are just plain petty imo.



Natik said:


> to me improve is to breed out any small faults like for instance the length of a tail (i know silly example lol) or improve on breed traits such as confidence or the ability to retrieve etc etc
> 
> it would be worse if people wouldnt put any thoughts at all when breeding and just putting 2 dogs together because they can to create companions where there is an overflow of companions out there already and the numbers are rising .... and again this is for both cross and pure bred


I think we pretty much agree. The same rules should apply, regardless as to whether the dogs are cross or pure breeds.

Theres an overflow of dogs full stop. I think its unfair that crosses take the brunt and blame.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> Of course not. But some things that are considered faults are just plain petty imo.
> 
> I think we pretty much agree. The same rules should apply, regardless as to whether the dogs are cross or pure breeds.
> 
> Theres an overflow of dogs full stop. I think its unfair that crosses take the brunt and blame.


i think because the majority breeding crosses doesnt do it responsible and with the right aims... there is a tiny tiny minority which does it the right way but they sink down under all the other ones...

i could point u to loads of websites with health tested pure breds... how many websites of health tested cross breeds could u or someone else come up with ? ( if u know what i mean)


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Natik said:


> i think because the majority breeding crosses doesnt do it responsible and with the right aims... there is a tiny tiny minority which does it the right way but they sink down under all the other ones...
> 
> i could point u to loads of websites with health tested pure breds... how many websites of health tested cross breeds could u or someone else come up with ? ( if u know what i mean)


There are an awful lot of bad cross breeders out there, i dont think anyone is denying that.

There is a huge amount of ignorance when it comes to breeding. This applies to cross and pure. There are a HUGE amount of people that are unaware of health testing.
There are also those that truly believe that cross breeding is healthier and requires no testing.

Not sure about the website thingy. Cant say ive ever googled. Im not sure if responsible cross breeders would breed on a level where they require a website. I do know they are few and far between, and if the trend continues, i hope the number increases.

This doesnt mean they shouldnt be able to breed though, as long as they take the necessary measures.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

From my experience

Its around a 99/1 split of bad vs good breeders of mongrels

and a 70/30 split of bad vs good breeders of pedigrees

There is still thousands of badly bred pedigrees out there, some registered with the kc (because some members of the public think registration = health), some just raised en masse in puppy farms.

What i never wanted to see was mongrels being produced en masse in puppy farms because they are currently a fashionable hot comoddity. Noone who cares deeply about their dogs would want to see one who has come from a PF. 


Unfortunatly with the bad (and sometimes deserved) press that the registered pedigree world has recieved, and the misinformed attitudes of unresponsible mongrel breeders, then the mongrels have grown in popularity. Demand outstrips supply for cute little mongrel pups. Therefore the demand is now being supplied by irresponsible breeders and puppy farmers. NOONE here surely wants that?

Any dog bought from a rescue centre is unfortunatly often considered inferior to a dog bought from a breeder. Buying a dog from a breeder intimates purposeful healthy breeding, well raised stock of good temperaments. Unfortunatly this is too often not the case. There is no difference in homing a mongrel puppy from a rescue centre as buying one from an unresponsible breeder. But the general public dont see that.

I know a couple of breeders of more uncommon breeds. They actually breath a sigh of relief that their dogs are not the most popular of breeds, and therefore have much less chance of ending up on the list of a puppyfarmer!

Surely we can all agree that this is whats happened? The bad press pedigrees have had, combined with the misinformed mongrel breeders giving out false information, has led to a HUGE rise in demand for these mixes. These dogs are now amongst the most popular to be produced en mass by irresponsible breeders and puppy farmers, to line their pockets!


----------



## jackieladbroke (Oct 31, 2009)

There have been numerous studies that show that the health of cross-breeds is on average better than that of pedigrees.

'Several studies have shown that mixed-breed dogs have a health advantage. A German study finds that "Mongrels require less veterinary treatment".[4] Studies in Sweden have found that "Mongrel dogs are less prone to many diseases than the average purebred dog"[5] and, referring to death rates, Mongrels were consistently in the low risk category.[6] Another study reports that The median age at death was 8,5 years for all mixed-breed dogs and 6,7 years for all pure breed dogs... For each weight group, the age at death of pure breed dogs was significantly less than for mixed-breed dogs,[7] and a study in Denmark finds that "Higher average longevity of mixed-breed dogs (grouped together).[8]

I cannot believe how aggressive some people are in attacking those who want to buy cross breeds? It seems ridiculous to me. And many arguments seem to suggest that those who deliberately cross breed are after money - a bit of a strange argument really considering that pedigree dogs are also sold for money..

There also seems to be belief that buying from a 'reputable breeder' ensures there will be little risk of ill health - not so. I just read a really sad story in Dogs Today magazine, about a woman whose Pug (brought from a reputable breeder and thoroughly checked) was plagued with ill health and had to have numerous operations on various breed-specific conditions.

I'm not here to criticize pedigree dogs or breeders - I just really am shocked at how annoyed some people get with those who are interested in or own cross breeds.. I really can't understand it.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

So on the basis of the above your saying we should cross as many dogs as we can, thereby having no distict breeds ?


----------



## jackieladbroke (Oct 31, 2009)

I think that dogs are pretty 'distinct' as individuals anyway, to be perfectly honest.

I don't have anything against pedigree dogs- I just could not understand the hostility that any mention of cross-breeds seemed to evoke.. It's as if anyone interested in a mixed breed dog was an idiot who had no concerns for animal welfare (I've seen numerous condescending and aggressive comments on this and other forums, regarding this issue) and it did puzzle me.

However, I've actually just this second finished watching the Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary on Youtube - and I have to say I think I now understand the politics of this situation a little better.


----------



## tillysdream (Sep 23, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> Again we get onto the lurcher versus show debate.
> 
> Basically there is nothing wrong with breeding crosses, if it is well thought out and the dogs involved are compatible and there is health testing done.
> 
> ...


Fantastic post...especially the part in red!!!


----------



## tillysdream (Sep 23, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> If in a future world, they stop all breeding of pedigree breeds then they will just die out as breeds, to be replaced by a free for all of an assortment of basically mongrels, if there is no KC registration and noting of pedigrees.
> 
> In this credit crunch I do believe that all breeding should be curtailed until the recession improves and people are more able to care for the dogs they have, whether pedigree or crosses.
> 
> Back to the "I just want to" reason for breeding dogs which these days I feel is very selfish and uncaring. It is saying "I have homes for *my* pups so I care not one jot for those in rescue."


I couldn't agree more!  Do you think they will listen......????? Doubt it....its all me me me me me in this world.... 

It seems there is no greater scheme of things, which is sad!!! It SHOULD be about the animals, not the humans need....


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

blueget said:


> In the current financial climate, if cross breeds are more desirable then there is a higher chance they will find homes and not add to the rescue crisis.
> 
> So ethically, cross breeds are the way to go.


An interesting point...

I am firmly of the belief that a puppy from a RESPONSIBLE breeder will NOT add to the rescue crisis, regardless of breed or type.

However Fashion dictates trends in dogs. Staffy types are highly fashionable at the moment however due to their "fashionable" status, thousands have been bred badlywith mainly money as a motivation. Rescue centres are OVERFLOWING with staffy type dogs, so your argument doesnt hold up!

Not many years ago due to film and advertising Weimeranas became fashionable, as did dalmatians, puppy farmed puppy populations of these breeds exploded, and so rescues became full.

Current trends seems to point to toy breeds or toy sized mongrels, anything mixed with poodles/bichon (mixed with more common curly coated or non shedding breeds), staffys, and some of the husky/akita/malamute breeds and mixes. Unfortunatly these are readily available now in rescue centres. As soon as someone realises that there is a "market" for selling these pups in large quantities then the puppy farmers step in and begin to produce these dogs in huge numbers .

Sadly they are bought often by people who havent put the time, reasearch or effort into looking for their pup, they dont realise just what they are buying. So when the fad has finished, these dogs are disgarded like last years christmas toys. Still more then do not undertake proper training, and so this is another reason why "teenage" dogs so often end up in rescue.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

I would imagine most of the statistics are taken from pet insurance companies regarding pedigree verses mongrels/cross breeds, but I feel (and I dont want this taking the wrong way), ususally when a pedigree is bought the owners are given some form of puppy insurance, which in many cases is continued by the owners because they paid £..... for the pup, mongrels etc unless from a rescue dont usually come with insurance as pups, and in many cases unless something crops up the owners dont think of getting insurance. so to me the information given by the insurance companies may not be comprhehensive, and because many pedigrees have insurance the owners are more likely to take the dog to the vets and possibly claim over what may be considered minor things, where as someone that does not have insurance may take the attitude of lets wait and see and those health problems are obviously not recorded because the dog has not attended a vets or made a claim on the insurance?

Mo


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

moboyd said:


> I would imagine most of the statistics are taken from pet insurance companies regarding pedigree verses mongrels/cross breeds, but I feel (and I dont want this taking the wrong way), ususally when a pedigree is bought the owners are given some form of puppy insurance, which in many cases is continued by the owners because they paid £..... for the pup, mongrels etc unless from a rescue dont usually come with insurance as pups, and in many cases unless something crops up the owners dont think of getting insurance. so to me the information given by the insurance companies may not be comprhehensive, and because many pedigrees have insurance the owners are more likely to take the dog to the vets and possibly claim over what may be considered minor things, where as someone that does not have insurance may take the attitude of lets wait and see and those health problems are obviously not recorded because the dog has not attended a vets or made a claim on the insurance?
> 
> Mo


One of the accusations against crossbreeds is that they highly priced. I can't see anyone who spends that much money on a dog not continuing with insurance.

All the pups we have bought (with the exception of most of the collies who were normally from the local farmer) have come with insurance etc and in the last case far more than the normal 6 weeks puppy insurance.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> One of the accusations against crossbreeds is that they highly priced. I can't see anyone who spends that much money on a dog not continuing with insurance.
> 
> All the pups we have bought (with the exception of most of the collies who were normally from the local farmer) have come with insurance etc and in the last case far more than the normal 6 weeks puppy insurance.


I was thinking more on the line of mongrels rather than designer dogs, the poos/sibermals/huskamutes etc. you know your average mutt who everyone likes to think are healthier.

Mo


----------



## kelseye (Aug 16, 2009)

right i dont know how you see it but cross breeding f!cks up a dogs true breed so why would you want to do it for????? people who cross breed well most are poorpers who need quick money cross breeding should be banned!!!!! and so should morons be banned from having dogs,it will cut the population down of some breeds.....


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

kelseye said:


> right i dont know how you see it but cross breeding f!cks up a dogs true breed so why would you want to do it for????? people who cross breed well most are poorpers who need quick money cross breeding should be banned!!!!! and so should morons be banned from having dogs,it will cut the population down of some breeds.....


Do you have anything to back this statement up ?


----------



## kelseye (Aug 16, 2009)

what do you mean ......i was giving my point of veiw if you dont like it then ignore it!!!!!


----------



## Colsy (Oct 3, 2008)

kelseye said:


> right i dont know how you see it but cross breeding f!cks up a dogs true breed so why would you want to do it for????? people who cross breed well most are poorpers who need quick money cross breeding should be banned!!!!! and so should morons be banned from having dogs,it will cut the population down of some breeds.....


While you are entitled to your opinion can you please be more sensitive to people's feelings thank you.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

kelseye said:


> what do you mean ......i was giving my point of veiw if you dont like it then ignore it!!!!!


Kinda defeats the object of a discussion forum doesn't it?

I won't repeat what you said but you put it across as a statement of fact, which it isn't. What is the basis for you believing that most breeders of crosses are paupers?

Why do you think the owners are of a lower than average mental age?


----------



## kelseye (Aug 16, 2009)

ok give me 5 good reason why you should cross breed ?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

kelseye said:


> ok give me 5 good reason why you should cross breed ?


I'll swap you... you give me five for breeding at all ?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Here's my five reasons


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Here's my five reasons


*OMG i wish you hadn't shown those......i want one.*


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I'll swap you... you give me five for breeding at all ?


1. to produce a dog with the best possible health
2. to produce a dog with a temperament to suit the breed
3. to breed out any major faults, temperament, conformation and health wise
4. to continue a line of best possible health and conformation and temperamant (and) working ability
5. to produce a companion which suits the new owners lifestyle or for working purposes depending on breed


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Here's my five reasons


i dont get ur reasons... is it looks?  fill me in


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> i dont get ur reasons... is it looks?  fill me in


5 beautiful (IMO), healthy dogs. Exactly the same as your reasons.... I won't get back into the purpose or aspirations of KC registered breeders as the "improving the breed" issue is simply a human aspiration the same as with any aspiration.

I'll never be convinced of the "working" issue as their is no requirement; I also don't think I'll ever be convinced of "improving the breed" (according to a breed standard which is simply a list of human aspirations). I could argue that the purpose of crossing is to get the best of both breeds but I won't, as that, again is simply a human aspiration.

Temperment varies so wildly across all "breeds"... despite years of breeding, many breed still have serious health issues, some made worse by continual breeding and the "to suit the breed" is another human aspiration.

All of us want healthy dogs but breeding the "KC way" has proved not to be foolproof, far from it.


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Here's my five reasons


Elmo ..your pics are gorgeous yes

But why take 2 beautiful breeds and cross them??


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

deb53 said:


> Elmo ..your pics are gorgeous yes
> 
> But why take 2 beautiful breeds and cross them??


*The labradoodle was bred for a very good reason, well i thought so.*


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> 5 beautiful (IMO), healthy dogs. *Exactly the same as your reasons*.... I won't get back into the purpose or aspirations of KC registered breeders as the "improving the breed" issue is simply a human aspiration the same as with any aspiration.
> 
> I'll never be convinced of the "working" issue as their is no requirement; I also don't think I'll ever be convinced of "improving the breed" (according to a breed standard which is simply a list of human aspirations). I could argue that the purpose of crossing is to get the best of both breeds but I won't, as that, again is simply a human aspiration.


maybe reread my reasons as they are not the same at all....


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

deb53 said:


> Elmo ..your pics are gorgeous yes
> 
> But why take 2 beautiful breeds and cross them??


For the same reason all of the "founder" breeds came into existence. Humans can do things so they do. Without getting into the "yes but poodle were bred as huting dogs as were retrievers"... which I agree with but I also don't see the need to go hunting in south London. So the founder breeds still exist despite the fact their original reason for coming about has long since past.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> maybe reread my reasons as they are not the same at all....


I think they are but as a "breed standard" exists, this is seen as justification... I don't agree it is, it is simply a human aspiration exactly the same as mine. Shall we agree to disagree?

I believe your dog/s are great but they have no more right to exist or be bred than mine... the breed standard is no longer relevant other than for showing (which I don't agree with). I know very few on here agree with that view but then I also know literally hundreds of people who disagree with that view. They believe that the KC way has no more substance than a golf club.. it is there for the humans not the dogs.

So my list is a list of wants (some of which are similar to yours) and we agree on the health issue. Your list (in relation to breeding to type being important... I still don't actually believe this to actually work) is also a list of wants.


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *The labradoodle was bred for a very good reason, well i thought so.*


Yes I agree Janice I think originally it was. Correct me if I am wrong..The guide dog association bred them to work and found they worked better???

And to produce a non moulting breed?

Whilst I do agree with the working reason I do not agree with the reason to produce non moulting breed. I think we all know this cannot be guaranteed.

There are non moulting breeds out there if you need that type of coat so why not choose one of those?

Elmo,I know how passioniate you are about your dogs and health testing etc but surely you also get riled when you see so many ads where people have crossed any breed with a poodle, charge an extortiate price with the emphasis on non moulting. O and also add some ridiculous name.

Poodles are getting crossed with anything in this current trend just to add a "POO" to the end of a already wonderful breed.

Surely these breeds poo enough without adding more!!

I just feel it is wrong and will never understand the trend of crossing with a wee chi too.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

deb53 said:


> Yes I agree Janice I think originally it was. Correct me if I am wrong..The guide dog association bred them to work and found they worked better???
> 
> And to produce a non moulting breed?
> 
> ...


*I think i'm right in saying it was a guy in Australia that was 1st popular for the crossing of poodles with labs..And i think now its become popular to cross poodles because of the "none shedding coat".*


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> 5 beautiful (IMO), healthy dogs.


just to add that going by those reason of urs most of the uk population of pet owners should be breeding assuming the health part is only ur opinion as well unless all 5 of those dogs are health tested  ... now that would be fun hmy:


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I think i'm right in saying it was a guy in Australia that was 1st popular for the crossing of poodles with labs..And i think now its become popular to cross poodles because of the "none shedding coat".*


But non shedding cannot be guarenteed in a cross.

So why not buy a poodle.

You hear so many times someone has bought a "poo x" because they need a breed that does not shed because their child has an allergy. These crosses do not guarenttee a non moulting coat.

I know somone who has just bought (well he is 7 months old now)a "cockerpoo", a really darling but with a moulting coat. They trvelled from Kent to Devon and paid £750 for him. Yes he is worth his weight in gold to them for the love and enjoyment he brings but he was advertised as "will be non-moulting" and is not.

To me £750 is crazy amount to pay for a cross. IMO that is where people are cashing in on trend.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

deb53 said:


> But non shedding cannot be guarenteed in a cross.
> 
> So why not buy a poodle.
> 
> ...


*Just for the record as most of you know i have 2 black poodles and yes they do shed their coats,i see it on my cream carpet.
On a serious note though,i still think that the poodle is seen as a lap dog,or yappy dog, or an old persons dog which is so not the case.For this reason i think the crosses apeal to people more because they can have the best of both worlds.*


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

non shedding maybe but NOT non matting lol.

i know someone who paid £950 for a labradoodle . at a year old it collapsed £4000 later turns out it has a nurological problem!!

Janice lol ,, why do you never see man walking a poodle do you??? lol


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Just for the record as most of you know i have 2 black poodles and yes they do shed their coats,i see it on my cream carpet.
> On a serious note though,i still think that the poodle is seen as a lap dog,or yappy dog, or an old persons dog which is so not the case.For this reason i think the crosses apeal to people more because they can have the best of both worlds.*


Well they are not doing their reseach properly before they choose their breed or cross then.

Don't get me wrong I have a poodle cross and she is adorable. But its the reason to bring the crosses into the world and the way the majority ( not all) try and sell them with this "designer" tag to them that I cannot agree with. Whether its a poodle or any other breed.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

deb53 said:


> Well they are not doing their reseach properly before they choose their breed or cross then.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I have a poodle cross and she is adorable. But its the reason to bring the crosses into the world and the way the majority ( not all) try and sell them with this "designer" tag to them that I cannot agree with. Whether its a poodle or any other breed.


*but what wrong if say, you like the charactors of 2 breeds and they would compliment each other? i honestly don't see the problem with crossing them.*


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *but what wrong if say, you like the charactors of 2 breeds and they would compliment each other? i honestly don't see the problem with crossing them.*


i do if its ONLY the breeder who thinks like that.


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *but what wrong if say, you like the charactors of 2 breeds and they would compliment each other? i honestly don't see the problem with crossing them.*


Well I like the Character of the St Bernard (used to have them) and was bought up with Weimaraners and adore their character too.

But to cross??? No sorry I disagree


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

dexter said:


> non shedding maybe but NOT non matting lol.
> 
> i know someone who paid £950 for a labradoodle . at a year old it collapsed £4000 later turns out it has a nurological problem!!
> 
> Janice lol ,, why do you never see man walking a poodle do you??? lol


*HAHAHA my hubby walks our 2 and gets loads of attention.*


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

deb53 said:


> Yes I agree Janice I think originally it was. Correct me if I am wrong..The guide dog association bred them to work and found they worked better???
> 
> And to produce a non moulting breed?
> 
> ...


I wasnt anything to do with them working better it was a lady in oz that needed a guide dog but was alergic to dog hair so they crossed the lab for the guide dog and the poodle gor the non shedding. . . . . it didnt work the dog still shed hair not as much as the lab but enough to be able to say they cannot be bred with non shedding in mind. So what purpose is there in crossing them?


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> I wasnt anything to do with them working better it was a lady in oz that needed a guide dog but was alergic to dog hair so they crossed the lab for the guide dog and the poodle gor the non shedding. . . . . it didnt work the dog still shed hair not as much as the lab but enough to be able to say they cannot be bred with non shedding in mind. So what purpose is there in crossing them?


There you go I stand corrected.

So as you say..."why"???


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Here's my five reasons


Thats the best 5 reasons I've seen. I know alot of dog owners pure and cross and both. No one is better than the other the dogs are in fantastic shape and are taken care of. Thanks for the wonderful pics Elmo ....Jill


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I think this subject will always go round and round in circles as there are some that don't agree with crossbreeding and those that do.Perhaps this is just one of those subjects where we need to disagree.*


----------



## ad_1980 (Jan 28, 2009)

dexter said:


> non shedding maybe but NOT non matting lol.
> 
> i know someone who paid £950 for a labradoodle . at a year old it collapsed £4000 later turns out it has a nurological problem!!
> 
> Janice lol ,, why do you never see man walking a poodle do you??? lol





JANICE199 said:


> *HAHAHA my hubby walks our 2 and gets loads of attention.*


yeh my dad walks our boy too. well he has no choice really - its either constant nagging from me or just take the dogs out and enjoy the piece and quiet.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *I think this subject will always go round and round in circles as there are some that don't agree with crossbreeding and those that do.Perhaps this is just one of those subjects where we need to disagree.*


Isn't that the truth. I had a German Shepherd wolf cross and so many people wanted a pup from her. I probably could have sold 2 or 3 litters. I got her when she was 2 with 2 puppies left out of a litter of 6 (the owner couldn't afford to feed any of them) and she died at 12. How many puppies did I sell 0 she was never bred from in my home. Why I don't believe in Hybrids think its wrong so she enjoyed her life as a much loved pet and protector and hopefully I talked people out of getting a Hybrid Wolf. I was lucky with mine she was wonderful. Other cross breeds or mongrels I don't have an issue with as long as the people are doing it the right way IE: testing were required....Jill


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

ok here goes my views:

if humans didn't cross breed we wouldn't have the variety of breeds that we do today 

for generations dogs have changed from wolves to domestic breeds of today by:

natural selection/adaption
selective breeding 
and cross breeding.

there are probably more but they are the ones i can think of off the top of my head.

without these things we would be living with varying breeds of wolves.

crossbreeds are no better or worse than pure breds they are just different.

as for making money from crossbreeding then yes sure there will be unscrupulous people who will breed just to make money but that can be said of pure breeds too.

in fact many of the pf's dealt in pure breeds as until the onset of doodles becoming fashionable as cross breeds would not have made much money.

it is a natural fact of life that when ever science or genetics/breeding makes a break through there will be humans who will exploit it for financial gain. science may come up with a way of modifying dna to eradicate hereditary diseases but someone will then possibly take that technology to cash in on 'designer babies'. but the good thing is not all humans will do that just like not all humans that have or breed crossbreeds will be in it for the money and it is not fair to judge everybody by the behaviour of the few.

as for dogs in rescues i volunteer in rescue and yeah it would be great if there were no dogs there but to say that only pet breeders, cross breeders should stop breeding is rather unfair as pure breeds end up in rescues to otherwise there would be no 'breed rescues' just rescues.

whether cross breeds or pure breeds it is up to the individual what they own.

wendy


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

reddogsX3 said:


> ok here goes my views:
> 
> if humans didn't cross breed we wouldn't have the variety of breeds that we do today
> 
> ...


good post.....Jill


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

UK Labradoodle Association • View topic - Can we always tell the difference? - please vote

This is a interesting poll as regards the difference between labradoodles, and standard poodles. Result revealed on page two.

I am sure if Labradoodle owners and breeders cannot tell the difference then I am sure the General Public cannot either, which makes a mockery of the fact that men supposedly do not want to be seen with poodles but are quite happy walking Labradoodles.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Murphyandfi said:


> I would apply the same standards, yes - but I have to accept that breeders of Kc reg dogs will continue to breed and maybe they should? I for one would be sorry to see lots of breeds disappear although there are a few that in my opinion, should.
> 
> Breeding while the rescues are in crisis is a selfish thing to do but some people breed dogs as a hobby - thats what the dog show-world ultimately is and that's how they get their kicks. If the Kc reg breeders continue to breed their show-dogs and are permitted to sell non-show quality excess pups then I don't have a huge problem with them continuing but only when they need a pup for their own purposes and always take full responsibility for the dogs they breed.
> 
> I do have a problem with people breeding pets whether pedigree or cross-breeding *at the moment* as it can only be for money I do not for the life of me understand how someone can put out a litter of pups when there are young, healthy and well-behaved dogs being put to sleep.


super post!

I have a huge problem breeding cross -breeds.

The only excuse, in my opinion to keep breeding through this rescue crisis, is to improve the lines.

Yet again, it is a case of "I want, I get!"

Selfish people breed cross breeds, with no thought to our dogs being put to sleep.

Shame on any of you doing this!- bloody disgrace!


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> The only excuse, in my opinion to keep breeding through this rescue crisis, is to improve the lines.


That's more important than breeding dogs to work?


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> That's more important than breeding dogs to work?


No. WE need working dogs as well


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

but as said on a previous thread not all puppies that are from a litter that was bred to work will become working dogs many will become pets which will then take a home away from a rescue dog or may even become a rescue dog.

so in the end no-one wins unless everybody stops breeding all together which will then lessen the dogs in rescue but may do damage to working or show numbers. and until there is enforcable regulation on breeding (whether crossbreeds/purebreeds, working/show) then this debate will never end.


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

reddogsX3 said:


> but as said on a previous thread not all puppies that are from a litter that was bred to work will become working dogs many will become pets which will then take a home away from a rescue dog or may even become a rescue dog.


I'm not denying that, all I was getting at is that producing working dogs is a good reason to breed in the first place.

I personally don't think anyone should breed unless they have a very good reason; for work, show or sports (I personally don't agree they're all important but for arguments sake will include them all). Those that don't make the grade from those litters would be more than enough to supply the pet market without over populating rescues.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Murphyandfi said:


> I would apply the same standards, yes - but I have to accept that breeders of Kc reg dogs will continue to breed and maybe they should? I for one would be sorry to see lots of breeds disappear although there are a few that in my opinion, should.
> 
> Breeding while the rescues are in crisis is a selfish thing to do but some *people breed dogs as a hobby - thats what the dog show-world ultimately is and that's how they get their kicks.* If the Kc reg breeders continue to breed their show-dogs and are permitted to sell non-show quality excess pups then I don't have a huge problem with them continuing but only when they need a pup for their own purposes and always take full responsibility for the dogs they breed.
> 
> I do have a problem with people breeding pets whether pedigree or cross-breeding *at the moment* *as it can only be for money* I do not for the life of me understand how someone can put out a litter of pups when there are young, healthy and well-behaved dogs being put to sleep.


You impose the thought that people breeding pets are breeding only for the money. I disagree. I do live where only 10% are registered though, so there are a lot of mutts bred on from here.

What if a pet breeder of mutts has a few health tested generations (and I know at least two that do) and want to continue their line? How is that any less viable a reason than breeding dogs as a hobby and getting kicks out of showing?

Please keep in mind BOTH of our large cities in this province have rescues or human societies that IMPORT small dog into rescue from far away (by flight as they are too far for ground transport), as there is such a demand.

http://www.edmontonhumanesociety.com/images/stories/pdfs/2008_EHS_Annual_Report_1.pdf

_"#4 California Canine Cuties
The EHSs California Canine Cuties Program launched in late 2008 proved to be a major success.

The program was initiated to meet three main objectives:

1. Put a dent in the puppy mill/puppy broker industry. We want the public to turn to us first before heading to pet
stores or answering on-line or newspaper ads for the adorable and irresistible small-breed dogs. Few
people realize that many ads are placed by puppy brokers selling puppy mill dogs to unsuspecting
customers. The EHS plans to bring more dogs from the Central California SPCA in 2009."_​
I will note that I object to shelters "competing" instead of educating. In my eyes, they become brokers when they do this, as these programs are not focused on solving the problem (getting to the basis of it) - but just on band-aiding it (letting the source continue), and of course bring revenue in.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Please keep in mind BOTH of our large cities in this province have rescues or human societies that IMPORT small dog into rescue from far away (by flight as they are too far for ground transport), as there is such a demand.


That is in fact a good thing as the rescue dogs that are imported, have now got homes. Had they not been needed elsewhere then they would have been put down. 
Distributing the dogs from high density places to places where there is no rescue problem is great.

This is an answer, not an excuse to breed more.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> That is in fact a good thing as the rescue dogs that are imported, have now got homes. Had they not been needed elsewhere then they would have been put down.
> Distributing the dogs from high density places to places where there is no rescue problem is great.
> 
> This is an answer, not an excuse to breed more.


I do not agree. This does nothing to get to the source of the problem, which is that puppymills are proliferating because there IS a demand for small breed dogs. If you don't strike at the source, the problem will never be solved by simply moving dogs about. What will happen is eventually, with all the anti breeding rhetoric and breeders being driven out, is that the mills in Mexico, where they are out of reach from legislation, will be supplying all of North America with small dogs.

Currently California (where we are getting these dogs from) is having trouble with people getting pups from Mexican puppymills . . . then when tired of them, discarding them in their shelters. Their shelters, then overloaded are sending them to us.

The money Edmonton used to get these dogs here (flights were sponsored) would be much better spent educating those in the area they came from . . . perhaps helping their shelters develop better programs.

Rescues need to educate against puppymills and argue toward getting from rescue OR buying from breeders who health test, who care for and socialize their pups, and who follow up their puppies for a lifetime.

I have found many rescues that give money to mills to take a dog off their hands . . . and so it continues. They ARE in the brokering game now.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> UK Labradoodle Association • View topic - Can we always tell the difference? - please vote
> 
> This is a interesting poll as regards the difference between labradoodles, and standard poodles. Result revealed on page two.
> 
> I am sure if Labradoodle owners and breeders cannot tell the difference then I am sure the General Public cannot either, which makes a mockery of the fact that men supposedly do not want to be seen with poodles but are quite happy walking Labradoodles.


thats really interesting that link...

i couldnt tell the difference , they all look much the same which throws the question to me why cross when u can get a standard poodle which looks exact the same


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Natik said:


> i couldnt tell the difference , they all look much the same which throws the question to me why cross when u can get a standard poodle which looks exact the same


That was my point too, poodles are known to have low shedding coats, so why introduce the complication of getting a cross which may in fact not have any of the poodle qualities to its coat.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> super post!
> 
> I have a huge problem breeding cross -breeds.
> 
> ...


You don't NEED to "improve" lines and you don't NEED working dogs... you want them.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You don't NEED to "improve" lines and you don't NEED working dogs... you want them.


working dogs are needed... unless the human has a better nose in sniffing out drugs for instance... or police dogs finding guns in an large area ....

so how can u say we dont need working dogs? They are a MASSIVE benefit helping to find lost people etc etc etc etc etc etc


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> That was my point too, poodles are known to have low shedding coats, so why introduce the complication of getting a cross which may in fact not have any of the poodle qualities to its coat.


Which leads to the question why have many different breed of hunting dogs, gun dogs etc.. why not just stick with the one type?


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Which leads to the question why have many different breed of hunting dogs, gun dogs etc.. why not just stick with the one type?


because they are all bred to carry out different jobs in hunting... there are those who actually hunt, those who retrieve, those who retrieve in bushy areas, those who retrieve from water etc etc ....


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> because they are all bred to carry out different jobs in hunting... there are those who actually hunt, those who retrieve, those who retrieve in bushy areas, those who retrieve from water etc etc ....


So there is one type of retriever, one type that retrieves from water etc etc?


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

I have never owned a registered dog

Drym is a pure Welsh Collie from working parents and he himself has worked with cattle and sheep when he was younger,

I have had cross breeds since I was 6 years old  my uncle won the pools and asked me what I would like as a gift and I said a dog, he bought me one that very day and he was, what was then called a heinz 57  I called him Shandy, then there was Tiger he was a lab x alsation, then there was a rescue Dobe then I trained lurchers for myself and other people 

Next came Mirain she was awesome with sheep but didn't like being a pet lol then came Drym Mirains brother from the next litter (about 2 years later, same parents) he is a pure unregistered welsh collie (his style with the sheep is, head up tail up driving away) I could have registered him years ago but I didn't see the point

Now I have Drym and his sons Tyler and Alfie both are collie with a tiny bit of NZ Huntaway

I love cross breeds


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> working dogs are needed... unless the human has a better nose in sniffing out drugs for instance... or police dogs finding guns in an large area ....
> 
> so how can u say we dont need working dogs? They are a MASSIVE benefit helping to find lost people etc etc etc etc etc etc


Both drugs and explosives now have a higher detection rate by technology. The dogs are fantastic and do a great job but needed? cost maybe the only thing..


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So there is one type of retriever, one type that retrieves from water etc etc?


i thought it was the poodle the one who retrieves from water... i dont know if there are any more but in the past when people created those breeds they had an aim and that was to make their work easier ....


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You don't NEED to "improve" lines and you don't NEED working dogs... you want them.


The police,army,raf dont "need" them? They "want" them?

Unfortunate people with no eye sight don't "need" them? They just "want" them

etc etc

Sorry Elmo we DO need working dogs we don't just want them


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> i thought it was the poodle the one who retrieves from water... i dont know if there are any more but in the past when people created those breeds they had an aim and that was to make their work easier ....


But my point is that all of the uses (or the majority if we put aside drugs and explosives) are past tense so the purpose of maintaining each breed (and I think the maintenance is a good thing BTW) is purely because "we" want to.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Both drugs and explosives now have a higher detection rate by technology. The dogs are fantastic and do a great job but needed? cost maybe the only thing..


they are needed... just ask the police force or army urself ... i recently was lucky enough to see what an amazing job they are doing and both police and military are more than thankfull for having them...

U mention alot whats needed or not needed... u dont need a dog either, u can get a computer toy which walks about and barks and does some tricks...so


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

deb53 said:


> The police,army,raf dont "need" them? They "want" them?
> 
> Unfortunate people with no eye sight don't "need" them? They just "want" them
> 
> ...


The Police etc use dogs (sniffers) as the technology, whilst more reliable, is expensive. I'm glad you mentioned service dogs as the original Labradoodle (now referred to as an ASD) was bred as a service dog.

So yes, we "need" service dogs.

I don't agree with Police dogs / guard dogs etc... personal opinion.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> they are needed... just ask the police force or army urself ... i recently was lucky enough to see what an amazing job they are doing and both police and military are more than thankfull for having them...
> 
> U mention alot whats needed or not needed... u dont need a dog either, u can get a computer toy which walks about and barks and does some tricks...so


But the point is that; I have never said I *need* a dog, I want one.

My point is aimed at those who say that "maintaining the breed" and "continuing lines" is a reasons to breed other that simply wanting to... if it is more than want then the logic says they are professing to "need" a particulat breed. I don't believe this to be the case... no particular breed is "needed" anymore than a cross breed is.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I don't agree with Police dogs / guard dogs etc... personal opinion.


i talked to a police officer which after a break his dog came back on duty and caught in a matter of a week 10 criminals.... so JOB well done i would say


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I don't agree with Police dogs / guard dogs etc... personal opinion.


What about sheep/cattle herding? (Just curious!)


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I don't agree with Police dogs / guard dogs etc... personal opinion.


Why not? Before I moved I was living in not a very nice area. One night I came home and there was a team of police and 2 dogs. It turned out there were drugs in the house that the police could not find themselves but the dogs sniffed them out.

These police dogs potentially saved peoples lives (god knows what was in the drugs...anyone who took them could have died) and because of them 3 drug dealers are in prison.

They do good work I reckon


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But the point is that; I have never said I *need* a dog, I want one.
> 
> My point is aimed at those who say that "maintaining the breed" and "continuing lines" is a reasons to breed other that simply wanting to... if it is more than want then the logic says they are professing to "need" a particulat breed. I don't believe this to be the case... no particular breed is "needed" anymore than a cross breed is.


but they are there, we know their problems, we know what they do, we know who they are, we know what to test for etc etc....

by crossing ur just creating something new, something u dont know nothing about as u simply wont know what will come out, u can only guess and if life is just that to play games with a living creature "lets see what comes out this time" then its a real shame....


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

Natik said:


> i talked to a police officer which after a break his dog came back on duty and caught in a matter of a week 10 criminals.... so JOB well done i would say


Exactly ...They do a tremendous job. There are some things technology however expensive can do.



HighPr00 said:


> What about sheep/cattle herding? (Just curious!)


They too do a wonderful job. Remote farmers would never be able to run without their dogs


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Natik said:


> but they are there, we know their problems, we know what they do, we know who they are, we know what to test for etc etc....
> 
> by crossing ur just creating something new, something u dont know nothing about as u simply wont know what will come out, u can only guess and if life is just that to play games with a living creature "lets see what comes out this time" then its a real shame....


Any breeder worth their salt will know what to look for in a sire and a dam to know - basically - what temperaments they will be producing, even if they use mutts or are breeding two different breeds together.

Not all cross breeders are breeding with no idea of what will come out.

Many are, but I will not paint them all with one brush.

You will not get terrier temperament breeding an Aussie to an English Shepherd.

Some English Shepherd/Rough Collie cross puppies are absolutely amazing dogs, and THAT is predictable.

So is the fact that every Cockapoo I've met has been fantastic . . . could be that I've just met ones from breeders who care and socialize.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> but they are there, we know their problems, we know what they do, we know who they are, we know what to test for etc etc....
> 
> by crossing ur just creating something new, something u dont know nothing about as u simply wont know what will come out, u can only guess and if life is just that to play games with a living creature "lets see what comes out this time" then its a real shame....


Which suggests that years of KC breeding has produced knowns... which it hasn't. If you think back when the breeds were introduced there was little or no genetics (other than the theory of eugenics).. no hip scoring or testing or x-rays etc etc. So the KC regsitered breed are guesses and have proved (through the ruination for profit and shows of some breeds) that they are worse.. they are not unknowns but purposely bred badly for show.

All of the "jobs" dogs do can and in some case are, undertaken by mongrels and crosses. I know of no farmer in our area who uses anything other than mongrelx collie something... no KC certificates in sight.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Any breeder worth their salt will know what to look for in a sire and a dam to know - basically - what temperaments they will be producing, even if they use mutts or are breeding two different breeds together.
> 
> Not all cross breeders are breeding with no idea of what will come out.
> 
> ...


u have an aim and u have an idea but u cant know by crossing.... obviously the aim will be easier if u cross similar temperaments and looks but not if the breeds are totally the opposite of each other....


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Which suggests that years of KC breeding has produced knowns... which it hasn't. If you think back when the breeds were introduced there was little or no genetics (other than the theory of eugenics).. no hip scoring or testing or x-rays etc etc. So the KC regsitered breed are guesses and have proved (through the ruination for profit and shows of some breeds) that they are worse.. they are not unknowns but purposely bred badly for show.
> 
> All of the "jobs" dogs do can and in some case are, undertaken by mongrels and crosses. I know of no farmer in our area who uses anything other than mongrelx collie something... no KC certificates in sight.


like i said, its the thought behind the breeding that matters the most....

im sure though the farmer wont call his cross which probably does his job fantasicly a monro-coo or whatever if u know what i mean


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

deb53 said:


> Exactly ...They do a tremendous job. There are some things technology however expensive can do.
> 
> They too do a wonderful job. Remote farmers would never be able to run without their dogs


There is no way that the sheep would be kept safe without the dogs, they will find abandoned lambs in the snow, find ewes that are in trouble during lambing, fetch the sheep from a mountain in the winter so that they are all checked and fed, find lost or ill sheep that are hidden in the bracken, find sheep that are stuck in ditches or bogs, will find lambs that are fading due to a ewe having mastitis, that is just the tip of the iceburg, the sheep on the mountains are checked twice a day throughout the winter months each individual check would take three or four days to carry out without the dogs -

The best shepherd I ever worked with was Ben he saved more lambs and sheep than any other dog I have ever met, he would stand on his back legs in snow drifts that would have covered him and bark until we came - there at his feet would be a lamb that was fading and facing certain death had he not found it, there is no way any of us would have reached that lamb in time to save it, we possibly wouldn't have ever found it - (by the way I carried that lamb off the mountain in my coat and kept it warm all the way back to the lower farm where I bottle fed it every two hours until it was strong again)


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Natik said:


> like i said, its the thought behind the breeding that matters the most....
> 
> im sure though the farmer wont call his cross which probably does his job fantasicly a monro-coo or whatever if u know what i mean


Then don't tar all crossbreeders with the same brush. There are purposefully bred cross dogs. This thread was about cross breds - not just dogs bred and sold uncaringly with deliberately catchy designer names - was it not?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> like i said, its the thought behind the breeding that matters the most....
> 
> im sure though the farmer wont call his cross which probably does his job fantasicly a monro-coo or whatever if u know what i mean


so you assume that all cross owners use "made up" names?


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Then don't tar all crossbreeders with the same brush. There are purposefully bred cross dogs. This thread was about cross breds - not just dogs bred and sold uncaringly with deliberately catchy designer names - was it not?


i think u have the wrong impression, i never did tar anyone with same brush, pure bred nor cross nor mongrels .... thats not my style


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> so you assume that all cross owners use "made up" names?


i assume nothing  i just made an statement to ur example


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> i think u have the wrong impression, i never did tar anyone with same brush, pure bred nor cross nor mongrels .... thats not my style


I don't think you did either but I do think your view is that continuing to breed already recognised KC breeds is a good thing and breeding crosses is a bad thing?... unless I've missed the point?


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I don't think you did either but I do think your view is that continuing to breed already recognised KC breeds is a good thing and breeding crosses is a bad thing?... unless I've missed the point?


yes, u did 

read my very first post ... i said as long done responsibly with an aim then i have no issues with it and i always stand up for those ...

BUT i just dont understand the reasoning for certain crosses being bred other than crossing them just for fashion and we all know that thats not the right way to play with living creatures ....


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Natik said:


> thats really interesting that link...
> 
> i couldnt tell the difference , they all look much the same which throws the question to me why cross when u can get a standard poodle which looks exact the same


Sorry that I got the wrong impression Natik.

Missing a few pages, I came into this thread on the above comment, which was then followed by posts which supported the breeding of purpose bred dogs.

I would suggest that the reason for the cross would NOT be about the looks, but be about the temperament. Standard poodles have a sharper temperament than a lab or a golden, which they are most often crossed with for the "doodles."

Multigeneration "doodles" will come out looking more poodly, but a good breeder will be continuing with pups that are more golden or lab in temperament.

I, frankly, really truly dislike the sharp, smart temperament of poodles, and have a good friend who owns three that he adores. He just doesn't get why I don't like 'em . . . but that is what people are about, isn't it. He thinks the dogs I like are dumb (probably write about that). We all have different likes and dislikes.

Because of this I would not gamble a doodle unless it was grown, or from a breeder who truly could read the puppies . . . but for others who like both breeds, I totally get their want of one.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> yes, u did
> 
> read my very first post ... i said as long done responsibly with an aim then i have no issues with it and i always stand up for those ...
> 
> BUT i just dont understand the reasoning for certain crosses being bred other than crossing them just for fashion and we all know that thats not the right way to play with living creatures ....


So we'll continue to disagree as I cannot believe that all KC breeds have a purpose and that anything more than a minority that do, that purpose is still relevant today.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So we'll continue to disagree as I cannot believe that all KC breeds have a purpose and that anything more than a minority that do, that purpose is still relevant today.


i dont understand...so if u breed an cross u would have no aim whatsoever only than create a random companion?


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

Changes said:


> There is no way that the sheep would be kept safe without the dogs, they will find abandoned lambs in the snow, find ewes that are in trouble during lambing, fetch the sheep from a mountain in the winter so that they are all checked and fed, find lost or ill sheep that are hidden in the bracken, find sheep that are stuck in ditches or bogs, will find lambs that are fading due to a ewe having mastitis, that is just the tip of the iceburg, the sheep on the mountains are checked twice a day throughout the winter months each individual check would take three or four days to carry out without the dogs -
> 
> The best shepherd I ever worked with was Ben he saved more lambs and sheep than any other dog I have ever met, he would stand on his back legs in snow drifts that would have covered him and bark until we came - there at his feet would be a lamb that was fading and facing certain death had he not found it, there is no way any of us would have reached that lamb in time to save it, we possibly wouldn't have ever found it - (by the way I carried that lamb off the mountain in my coat and kept it warm all the way back to the lower farm where I bottle fed it every two hours until it was strong again)


Worth their weight in gold.

Lovely story about Ben,

Which clarifys the point that we do need working dogs and not just want them


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Natik said:


> i dont understand...so if u breed an cross u would have no aim whatsoever only than create a random companion?


What is wrong with that aim? I consider a well bred companion, bred for health, bred for temperament (not necessarily pure) the ultimate aim. Working is another aim, but not a superior one.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Sorry that I got the wrong impression Natik.
> 
> Missing a few pages, I came into this thread on the above comment, which was then followed by posts which supported the breeding of purpose bred dogs.
> 
> .


no probs


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> What is wrong with that aim? I consider a well bred companion, bred for health, bred for temperament (not necessarily pure) the ultimate aim.


but temperament is an aim ... i didnt know it would be associated with companionship 

what type of temperament exactly do the breeders aiming at the labradoodle? the pure temperamnt of the labrador with the looks of an poodle?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> i dont understand...so if u breed an cross u would have no aim whatsoever only than create a random companion?


I've put up many posts as to the aim, all have been dismissed so you'll pardon me if I don't open myself up to another onslaught. My point was simply that many/most KC registered breeds have no aim, prupose etc yet it seems to be an accepted to view that to breed without purpose or aim is OK... yet if I say.. "well I kind of like standard poodles but I reckon the breeders have made a bit of a hash of the temperment... and I really like the temperment of a golden retriever but can't live with the hari everywhere... so....."

the result?... outrage !!


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> What is wrong with that aim? I consider a well bred companion, bred for health, bred for temperament (not necessarily pure) the ultimate aim. Working is another aim, but not a superior one.


good post...............


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I've put up many posts as to the aim, all have been dismissed so you'll pardon me if I don't open myself up to another onslaught. My point was simply that many/most KC registered breeds have no aim, prupose etc yet it seems to be an accepted to view that to breed without purpose or aim is OK... yet if I say.. "well I kind of like standard poodles but I reckon the breeders have made a bit of a hash of the temperment... and I really like the temperment of a golden retriever but can't live with the hari everywhere... so....."
> 
> the result?... outrage !!


so are u not answering the question then becasue others have dismissed them in the past? u can pm me if u like though? i am really interested.... 
i find it speaks only against ur motivations then if u are reluctant to answer...
if u believe in something and ur absolutely sure ur doing it for the right reasons then others shouldnt bother u too much???

they have an aim though.... purebred breeders... u just dont like their aims but thats ur personal opinion


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> so are u not answering the question then becasue others have dismissed them in the past? u can pm me if u like though? i am really interested....
> i find it speaks only against ur motivations then if u are reluctant to answer...
> if u believe in something and ur absolutely sure ur doing it for the right reasons then others shouldnt bother u too much???
> 
> they have an aim though.... purebred breeders... u just dont like their aims but thats ur personal opinion


But their aim is no more noble a purpose than me wanting a dog that has the temperment of a golden retriever with some of the coat related attributes of a poodle.. that is (one) of my reasons.

So then "purebred" people say... "well that's not guaranteed... with a purebred you're guaranteed consistency" which is of course far from the truth and the cycle continues...


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Natik said:


> *but temperament is an aim ... i didnt know it would be associated with companionship *
> 
> what type of temperament exactly do the breeders aiming at the labradoodle? the pure temperamnt of the labrador with the looks of an poodle?


I don't know what you mean with the sentence I have bolded (this is why I like my dogs dumb.) Please explain.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But their aim is no more noble a purpose than me wanting a dog that has the temperment of a golden retriever with some of the coat related attributes of a poodle.. that is (one) of my reasons.
> 
> So then "purebred" people say... "well that's not guaranteed... with a purebred you're guaranteed consistency" which is of course far from the truth and the cycle continues...


Thanks for answering .... 

but its not guaranteed though and the percentege to acgieve what u want is not so high either.... u can get either or something in the middle or more of this or more of that if u know what i mean....

With a purebred ur not guaranteed consistency and we all know that, with a pure bred ur percentege is ALOT higher to get what u want though... obviously all dogs are individualls and the bringing up a dog plays a part as well...

I know so many labradoodles and not one of them has any temperament attribute from the labrador, how is that?


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> I don't know what you mean with the sentence I have bolded (this is why I like my dogs dumb.) Please explain.


im kinda confused about it myself :blushing:

u said companionship and temperament are a good aim....

u meantiond both where i just mentioned companionship which to me aint a good aim on its own but temperamant is ...

hmy: if that makes any more sense :blushing:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> Thanks for answering ....
> 
> but its not guaranteed though.... u can get either or something in the middle or more of this or more of that if u know what i mean....
> 
> ...


Not sure but my aim, if I breed at all, is the retriever/poodle cross. We have two... both have similar (non-shedding) coats. Both are completely unrelated (another aim... widening the gene pool) evidenced by lengthy pedigrees on either side. Both have similar temperments (more retriever).

And I know a lot (I mean a a lot BTW) of people who own GR/SP crosses with the same or similar attributes with little variation.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Natik said:


> Thanks for answering ....
> 
> but its not guaranteed though.... u can get either or something in the middle or more of this or more of that if u know what i mean....
> 
> ...


That would depend on the breeder.

There are crossbred breeders who know a helluvalot about temperament and picking great matches in their sires/dams . . . and those that do not and are in it for the money.

Same goes for purebred breeders.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Not sure but my aim, if I breed at all, is the retriever/poodle cross. We have two... both have similar (non-shedding) coats. Both are completely unrelated (another aim... widening the gene pool) evidenced by lengthy pedigrees on either side. Both have similar temperments (more retriever).
> 
> And I know a lot (I mean a a lot BTW) of people who own GR/SP crosses with the same or similar attributes with little variation.


not sure either, but do u know how the rest of the litter turned out? are they all much the same temperament and looks wise?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Natik said:


> im kinda confused about it myself :blushing:
> 
> u said companionship and temperament are a good aim....
> 
> ...


To clarify, a well temperamented working dog - like a Shepherd, would not suit me, or a lot of other people because he has been bred to work - to have drive - not to be a solely a companion.

I don't care HOW GREAT that temperament is, the drive and exercise needs of any working dog is more than I would ever deal with at this point in my life. Even a cocker spaniel - bred for its original job, is too much (and I KNOW that.) I walk my dogs two half hour - 45 minute daily walks. I play with them in the yard and then they hang with me doing dull stuff. Working dogs need much, much more than that, and being a former foster home for many, I would not sell them short with less.

For myself, I want dogs that are bred to be SOLELY companions, such as the many varieties of Toy Spaniels, and Japanese Spaniels, and Happa dogs (forebearers of the Pugs and the Peke) were bred for centuries, with a good temperament and also now, for good health.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> not sure either, but do u know how the rest of the litter turned out? are they all much the same temperament and looks wise?


We did that exact exercise.. kept track of the litter and whilst I appreciate that the traits of animals don't transfer as human ones do (you can spot someone's sister or brother) the looks are "consistent" although they obviously don't look like clones. A litter from the same father with a different dam also produced similar pups.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> That would depend on the breeder.
> 
> There are crossbred breeders who know a helluvalot about temperament and picking great matches in their sires/dams . . . and those that do not and are in it for the money.
> 
> Same goes for purebred breeders.


obviosuly...

but how they know what genetics mother nature chooses to come out to surface is difficult for me to understand....

Labrador and poodles are so different in their ways... it could result in a dog with high energy tending to get bored easily or a very easy dog eager to please ....

in purebred u breed, choose the one which meets ur aims the best and use this dog again with another one to make up for what u still want to improve on temperament wise or what ever ....

in crosses u cross the parents and if ur aim is not fullfilled u either cross them again or u choose other parents  Thats more of a win or loose breeding 

i think i need a break lol my thought are getting all confused  :blushing:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> obviosuly...
> 
> but how they know what genetics mother nature chooses to come out to surface is difficult for me to understand....
> 
> ...


But part of the problem here is that you use the same again and again with the unavoidable genetics difficulties associated with inbreeding.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But part of the problem here is that you use the same again and again with the unavoidable genetics difficulties associated with inbreeding.


no, u just make sure that u dont use related dogs obviously hence why pedigrees are of an importance .... it also doesnt mean that only one dog of the whole litter is good to be bred from...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> no, u just make sure that u dont use related dogs obviously hence why pedigrees are of an importance .... it also doesnt mean that only one dog of the whole litter is good to be bred from...


So why do KC registered breeders use the same sire over and over and over again ? It seems that a dog which is a "good" example can be put out to stud to relations both near and far?


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So why do KC registered breeders use the same sire over and over and over again ? It seems that a dog which is a "good" example can be put out to stud to relations both near and far?


not all do...

and because it can be doesnt mean that necesseraly that all of them do so... a responsible stud owner is very very picky about the dam the stud is used on and is as much interested into the pedigree like the dam owner is or should be


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> not all do...
> 
> and because it can be doesnt mean that necesseraly that all of them do so... a responsible stud owner is very very picky about the dam the stud is used on and is as much interested into the pedigree like the dam owner is or should be


Sorry it was a sweeping generalisation... this is exactly what I'm faced with... sweeping generalisations.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

I met a Doodle on holidays last year I knew right away it was a Doodle to be sure I did ask if it was a labra or a golden doodle or if I was out to lunch. The guy laughed and said no your not a lunch bucket its a labradoodle, The dog was such a sweety it was still young and so was boistourous but well behaved the man said he and his wife would never own anything but a Doodle now because of its personality and temperment. Previously they had owned poodles but liked labs so when they were ready for another dog their kids bought them the Doodle. ...Jill


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

canuckjill said:


> I met a Doodle on holidays last year I knew right away it was a Doodle to be sure I did ask if it was a labra or a golden doodle or if I was out to lunch. The guy laughed and said no your not a lunch bucket its a labradoodle, The dog was such a sweety it was still young and so was boistourous but well behaved the man said he and his wife would never own anything but a Doodle now because of its personality and temperment. Previously they had owned poodles but liked labs so when they were ready for another dog their kids bought them the Doodle. ...Jill


We have a labradoodle as well. Her temperment is as you described and I've also found this to be consistent. In goldendoodles the retriever seems to come through more and it also seems to do this consistently.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> We have a labradoodle as well. Her temperment is as you described and I've also found this to be consistent. In goldendoodles the retriever seems to come through more and it also seems to do this consistently.


not the ones i met and i seem to meet more and more of them ....


----------



## jackieladbroke (Oct 31, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> super post!
> 
> I have a huge problem breeding cross -breeds.
> 
> ...


In what way do your objections not apply to breeders of pedigree dogs?

Surely your argument only makes sense if it's also directed at breeders of pure-breds? I don't understand why people get so angry about cross breeds, I really don't! Unless it's pure snobbery.

There are numerous studies that show that the health of cross breeds is better, on average, than that of pedigrees.

I do agree that it is better to adopt a rescue dog, yes. But if one wants to BUY a dog, then there is no difference. As has correctly been pointed out here by others- there are unscrupulous breeders of both cross breeds AND pure breeds.


----------



## jackieladbroke (Oct 31, 2009)

Natik said:


> yes, u did
> 
> BUT i just dont understand the reasoning for certain crosses being bred other than crossing them just for fashion and we all know that thats not the right way to play with living creatures ....


Surely it is 'fashion' that has driven KC breeders to inbreed animals until they can no longer walk. Look at the problems with breeds such as Pugs, Cavalier King Charles spaniels, French bulldogs, dalmatians etc etc. Out of interest, have you seen the Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary? Is the behaviour of those registered breeders 'the right way to play with a living creature' ?

It was only after the documentary highlighted certain issues that, for example, the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club stopped advocating the culling of perfectly healthy puppies born without a ridge.

I just don't understand why there is this assumption that all pedigree breeders care for the welfare of their animals, whilst those who cross breed are cruel. This simply isn't the case.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I've put up many posts as to the aim, all have been dismissed so you'll pardon me if I don't open myself up to another onslaught. My point was simply that many/most KC registered breeds have no aim, prupose etc yet it seems to be an accepted to view that to breed without purpose or aim is OK... yet if I say.. "well I kind of like standard poodles but I reckon the breeders have made a bit of a hash of the temperment... and I really like the temperment of a golden retriever but can't live with the hari everywhere... so....."
> 
> the result?... outrage !!


No it's not ok to breed for no good reason.

I am dead set against breeding unless it is for a purpose, other than "because I want to".

I do not agree with bringing even more dogs into the world and for the life of me, I cannot see what an amateur person, with no scientifc/vetinairy experience feels that they can add to our breeds?

For the record anybody breeding, because "I want to"and with nothing else to add, is tarred with the same brush.

You do not truly care about dogs, if (and I say this to everybody who falls under this umbrella), you did then you would not be breeding!

I have no pedigree dogs, only "mutts", for want of a better turn.

You keep producing and meanwhile, those of us who do genuinely care about ALL dogs, will try to do what we can.

Harsh - yes it is. As I always say, I make no apologies for speaking out so bluntly. If one person reads this and has second thoughts on bringing yet another litter into an over populated world (especially a cross breed), then I have helped the crisis.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

jackieladbroke said:


> In what way do your objections not apply to breeders of pedigree dogs?
> 
> Surely your argument only makes sense if it's also directed at breeders of pure-breds? I don't understand why people get so angry about cross breeds, I really don't! Unless it's pure snobbery.
> 
> ...


It applies to all breeders, see post below.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> No it's not ok to breed for no good reason.
> 
> I am dead set against breeding unless it is for a purpose, other than "because I want to".
> 
> ...


I'll let most of that post pass me by as the statements are made without knowing the individuals or circumstances, but I will ask one question if I may...
... what do you consider a "purpose" for breeding?


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

*At the moment* with rescues full and people having to give up their dogs through no fault of their own due to the credit crunch, there are probably very, very few real "purposes" to justify breeding at all.
Perhaps those with an endangered breed, or for a working purpose or to continue lines of dogs that have a special talent.



Murphy and Fi said:


> I do have a problem with people breeding pets whether pedigree or cross-breeding at the moment as it can only be for money *I do not for the life of me understand how someone can put out a litter of pups when there are young, healthy and well-behaved dogs being put to sleep.*


I do not understand either, in the vast majority of cases.

How many "breeders" of all types of dogs both pedigree or cross-bred would pass the Jeremy Kyle Lie Detector Test if they answered "No" to the question "*Are you breeding your dog(s) to try and make some money?*"


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I'll let most of that post pass me by as the statements are made without knowing the individuals or circumstances, but I will ask one question if I may...
> ... what do you consider a "purpose" for breeding?


working dogs and keeping the lines going. Clearly we do not want to stop breeding labradors, GSD etc etc. But I doubt there is any thought from these breeders either, as to whether they need to breed another litter of pups.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> *At the moment* with rescues full and people having to give up their dogs through no fault of their own due to the credit crunch, there are probably very, very few real "purposes" to justify breeding at all.
> Perhaps those with an endangered breed, or for a working purpose or to continue lines of dogs that have a special talent.
> 
> I do not understand either, in the vast majority of cases.
> ...


Nice to see other people who really seem to genuinely care about dogs x


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

My opinion on this is people breed cross breeds for money, you see so many cross breed/mongrels in shelters because of people who breed litter after litter. Many have health issues such as inherited problems from both parents. Take a Labradoodle for examples sake, they have many issues with there health including hip and elbow dysplasia, Progressive Retinal Atrophy, dwarfism, muscle myopathy, megaesophagus, skin allergies, and hypothyroidism, then mix all of that with a poodles health issues of epilepsy, hypothyroidism, corneal dystrophy, addisons disease, cushings disease, Von Willebrand's Disease, sebaccous adenitis, bloat, liver shunts, juvenile renal disease, mitral valve disease, entropian, autoimmune disease, and ocd, mix that with a breeder who has no idea and you end up with a dog with problems for the rest of its life. 

Health tests should are in place for pedigree dogs to stop genetic traits being passed on through dogs.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

RachyBobs said:


> My opinion on this is people breed cross breeds for money, you see so many cross breed/mongrels in shelters because of people who breed litter after litter. Many have health issues such as inherited problems from both parents. Take a Labradoodle for examples sake, they have many issues with there health including hip and elbow dysplasia, Progressive Retinal Atrophy, dwarfism, muscle myopathy, megaesophagus, skin allergies, and hypothyroidism, then mix all of that with a poodles health issues of epilepsy, hypothyroidism, corneal dystrophy, addisons disease, cushings disease, Von Willebrand's Disease, sebaccous adenitis, bloat, liver shunts, juvenile renal disease, mitral valve disease, entropian, autoimmune disease, and ocd, mix that with a breeder who has no idea and you end up with a dog with problems for the rest of its life.
> 
> Health tests should are in place for pedigree dogs to stop genetic traits being passed on through dogs.


A sweeping generalisation again.. "they" do not have the problems you outlined. Some do and some don't the same as "pedigree" (my crosses have long pedigrees). If you mean KC registered dogs then unfortunately there are no compulsory health tests in place but "some" breeders use the fact that there pups are KC to tell unsuspecting buyers that they are healthy because they are KC registered when in actual fact the registration gives nothing.

As an aside... the great long list of diseases present in "pedigree" (KC registered) dogs is not exactly a good argument against crossing. It's clear that many years of "purebreeding" has not created healthy dogs and using your list, quite the reverse.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> A sweeping generalisation again.. "they" do not have the problems you outlined. Some do and some don't the same as "pedigree" (my crosses have long pedigrees). If you mean KC registered dogs then unfortunately there are no compulsory health tests in place but "some" breeders use the fact that there pups are KC to tell unsuspecting buyers that they are healthy because they are KC registered when in actual fact the registration gives nothing.
> 
> As an aside... the great long list of diseases present in "pedigree" (KC registered) dogs is not exactly a good argument against crossing. It's clear that many years of "purebreeding" has not created healthy dogs and using your list, quite the reverse.


As I've said before on the forum, Health testing didn't start until 1965, it must have taken several years if not a couple of decades for these to be accepted as a requirement for a good breeder.
The majority of the health problems in pedigree dogs, most likely appeared long before health test were the norm, and as a result of breeding for aesthetic reasons rather than as a useful working dog.
One would hope that within a few more dog generations and improving tests, we will again have a healthy pedigree gene pool. (some have achieved this already).
A lot depends on the heads of the breed clubs unfortunately 
I just hope the people who are at the heart of the Doodle and cross breeding of other dogs, do not fall into the same mindset. I have a feeling that this will not be the case. Everyone thinks that they are right


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> Nice to see other people who really seem to genuinely care about dogs x


Your assumption that everyone breeds for money is wrong.

So is your accusation that those who breed from KC registered dogs do care about dogs and those that crossbreed don't care about dogs?


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

God will this never end? As Elmo said - a sweeping and innaccurate statement about Labradoodles.... this person who says about shelters being full of crossbreeds and mongrels obviously hasn't been to one recently- there are more Staffies, Labs, Lurchers, Collies in there. Any shelter will tell you that you have your facts wrong about their residents. I am telling you you are well off the mark with your comments about Doodles and going to the health list problems posted let's break it down.... many of the traits suggested are from the Pedigree Poodles and the Elbow and Hip Dysplasia etc. are carried from the Labradors. All dogs can suffer bloat, hyper or hypo thyroidism; cushings, Entropian etc. especially pedigrees so you're not very accurate there! It is commonly known that cross/mongrels are much healthier than pedigrees and having had both, I and my family agree. I am sure this was an innocent thread again hijacked by the "KC Brigade" - are these the same people who bleat when we crossbreed owners defend our choice of dogs? Do we make derogatory comments about other breeds of dogs? Yet we've had insults made about our dogs being abnormal; deformed; unhealthy; all bred from untested stock; and really insulting comments made to some in particular. Please get a life or realise we all have choices - as to the poster who commented that they should be banned, look back in history where you will see crossbreeds were here first and to stay - pedigrees are all man-made and designed by breeders and KC recommendations, so don't be so insulting please. Do you have any common decency or have no historical knowledge of dogs???


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Your assumption that everyone breeds for money is wrong.
> 
> So is your accusation that those who breed from KC registered dogs do care about dogs and those that crossbreed don't care about dogs?


Elmo can i ask a question?
this is NOT aimed at you.

I've always wondered Why do people pay £950 for a labradoodle when you get can a poodle for say £550 and a labrador from £350..................


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rona said:


> As I've said before on the forum, Health testing didn't start until 1965, it must have taken several years if not a couple of decades for these to be accepted as a requirement for a good breeder.
> The majority of the health problems in pedigree dogs, most likely appeared long before health test were the norm, and as a result of breeding for aesthetic reasons rather than as a useful working dog.
> One would hope that within a few more dog generations and improving tests, we will again have a healthy pedigree gene pool. (some have achieved this already).
> A lot depends on the heads of the breed clubs unfortunately
> I just hope the people who are at the heart of the Doodle and cross breeding of other dogs, do not fall into the same mindset. I have a feeling that this will not be the case. Everyone thinks that they are right


My concern is an echo of this post regarding health testing. Those who are producing crossbreeds now (as opposed to those crossing pre 65 to produce what are now considered purebreds) did not have access to many of the tests we do... most notable the the DNA testing.

Surely now, if there was a body that would actually enforce health testing, it is possible to reduce the number of problems for both KC registered and non registered types. The reading I have done suggests that health problems have increased in KC registered breeds in recent years as opposed to decrease and this is mainly attributed to over emphasis of traits such as furnishings etc. The view seems to be that this will win shows / make the dog more desirable / wanted by others to breed / generates income (but narrows gene pool).

So as opposed to making unfounded statements that cross breeding increases health problems (there is no research to suggest this) we would be better off campaigning against bad breeding (of any sort).


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

dexter said:


> Elmo can i ask a question?
> this is NOT aimed at you.
> 
> I've always wondered Why do people pay £950 for a labradoodle when you get can a poodle for say £550 and a labrador from £350..................


I wonder too. We paid £650 for one of our dogs which is the most I've ever paid. I consider that expensive...but... the dog came with a very extensive pedigree, long insurance and an extremely good "contract"... with this in mind I considered the £650 (if you take into account the actual costs to the breeder) to be fair.

BTW, I also know of LDs sold in excess of £2000 but I also know of KC registered stud dogs where the owners charge in excess of £1000 a "go"..... (some also try to charge more if you want to cross...!!)


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> My concern is an echo of this post regarding health testing. Those who are producing crossbreeds now (as opposed to those crossing pre 65 to produce what are now considered purebreds) did not have access to many of the tests we do... most notable the the DNA testing.
> 
> Surely now, if there was a body that would actually enforce health testing, it is possible to reduce the number of problems for both KC registered and non registered types. The reading I have done suggests that health problems have increased in KC registered breeds in recent years as opposed to decrease and this is mainly attributed to over emphasis of traits such as furnishings etc. The view seems to be that this will win shows / make the dog more desirable / wanted by others to breed / generates income (but narrows gene pool).
> 
> So as opposed to making unfounded statements that cross breeding increases health problems (there is no research to suggest this) we would be better off campaigning against bad breeding (of any sort).


Agreed  That's a shock isn't it


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rona said:


> Agreed  That's a shock isn't it


I'm getting a beer


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Your assumption that everyone breeds for money is wrong.
> 
> So is your accusation that those who breed from KC registered dogs do care about dogs and those that crossbreed don't care about dogs?


Nope, as I've said..... Anybody breeding for any reason other than (1) continuining the lines (2) breeding working dogs

does not, in my opinion, care about dogs in general. Of course that is just my opinion.

Breeders make the choice to have a litter and add to the population or don't breed and don't add to the already over populated dog population.

I just query their motives at times . . . .


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> Nope, as I've said..... Anybody breeding for any reason other than (1) continuining the lines (2) breeding working dogs
> 
> does not, in my opinion, care about dogs in general. Of course that is just my opinion.
> 
> ...


So can I crossbreed to (1) continue the lines or (2) breed working dogs ?


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

I am finding this thread very interesting, but ask one question when we wnat to pick an example can we not pick something other than a Doodle for an example of a crossbreed. I only ask cause we have some very wonderful people with Doodles and if it was my breed being singled out it would eventually bother me. Same with purebreds if one example is used constantly it is eventually going to bug the owner(s) of that breed. Just a suggestion to keep this thread about crossbreeds in general...Thanks Jill


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The reading I have done suggests that health problems have increased in KC registered breeds in recent years as opposed to decrease and this is mainly attributed to over emphasis of traits such as furnishings etc.


Elmo, you are criticising the pedigree (KC registered) industry as being corrupt and having unhealthy dogs, if that is the case then how is your cross bred bitch from two "purebred" parents "with extensive pedigrees" going to be somehow superbly healthy?

Are her purebred parents KC registered?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> Elmo, you are criticising the pedigree (KC registered) industry as being corrupt and having unhealthy dogs, if that is the case then how is your cross bred bitch from two "purebred" parents "with extensive pedigrees" going to be somehow superbly healthy?
> 
> Are her purebred parents KC registered?


Did I say they would be superbly healthy ?

I can only do my best based on the tests available, I just think it is a shame that "purebred" breeders don't do the same/haven't done the same and simply say "they're registered with the KC" like its some sort of MOT !

Don't think I actually said corrupt... unregulated maybe.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Did I say they would be superbly healthy ?
> 
> I can only do my best based on the tests available, I just think it is a shame that "purebred" breeders don't do the same/haven't done the same and simply say "they're registered with the KC" like its some sort of MOT !
> 
> Don't think I actually said corrupt... unregulated maybe.


not all purebred breeders are like that, some are very good. again not all crossbreed breeders test their dogs. it works both ways.

were your dog's parents health tested?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> not all purebred breeders are like that, some are very good. again not all crossbreed breeders test their dogs. it works both ways.
> 
> were your dog's parents health tested?


I agree.

Our dog's parents, grandparents and great grandparents have hip, elbow, eye etc etc going back five generations. It was a very long search to find a breeder that did this and had this (verifiable) information.

Most breeders of KC dogs I meet are great... as are most breeders of crosses (in my experience) but I still think there needs to be an element of compulsion on testing for both.

Not all crossbreeders test and many are out simply to make a quick buck... but there are also KC registered breeders doing the same.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Did I say they would be superbly healthy ?
> 
> I can only do my best based on the tests available, I just think it is a shame that "purebred" breeders don't do the same/haven't done the same and simply say "they're registered with the KC" like its some sort of MOT !
> 
> Don't think I actually said corrupt... unregulated maybe.


tbh i dont understand why u keep going on about the kc registration constantly elmo... ur the only one on the whole thread which keeps mentioning it all the time in most of ur comments.... 

the are purebred breeders and there are cross breeders...

KC is an registry which has some rules set for registration (such as minimum age, limit of litters etc) and its an registry which people take advantage of but its byb or puppyfarmers who do so....


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

jackieladbroke said:


> Surely it is 'fashion' that has driven KC breeders to inbreed animals until they can no longer walk. Look at the problems with breeds such as Pugs, Cavalier King Charles spaniels, French bulldogs, dalmatians etc etc. Out of interest, have you seen the Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary? Is the behaviour of those registered breeders 'the right way to play with a living creature' ?
> 
> It was only after the documentary highlighted certain issues that, for example, the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club stopped advocating the culling of perfectly healthy puppies born without a ridge.
> 
> I just don't understand why there is this assumption that all pedigree breeders care for the welfare of their animals, whilst those who cross breed are cruel. This simply isn't the case.


Well, my dog can walk just fine and he is an gsd 

I have seen the programm yes....

there aint such an assumption that all kc breeders care for there dogs and i dont know where u read that, u will find that alot of byb and puppyfarms register with the kc to be able to sell their dogs for more money....

I dont agree with alot of things whioch registered byb do and those who breed for fashion, but just because there are bad breeders in between the kc doesnt make it a justification to breed crosses for fashion either....

and i honestly dont see any other reason to breed an boxer with a chi for instance than for fashion, as noone nor the new owner nor the breeder could tell u what they apprieciate about the cross as noone knows what characteristics it will have... it could turn out in so many different ways that u wont be able to comment on any characteristics of the pups as they simply could be anything in between or more of this or more of that (im sure i said that before lol)

to me breeding random crosses is seriously a win or loose game, and the new owners are taking a chance and the new pup will either suit their lifestyle or it wont (but what if it wont ????) , with a purebred u simply can prepare urself to what ur goung to own.... not with a crossbreed though...

some people like the surprise effect and i dont judge that and if people really have an aim to breed other than fashion then thats fine with me (as long done responsibly) but again in most crosses i cant see any other reasons to breed than only and only for fashion or the surpsise effect "lets see what comes out" ... but thats not the right way to play with living creatures in my eyes.....


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> tbh i dont understand why u keep going on about the kc registration constantly elmo... ur the only one on the whole thread which keeps mentioning it all the time in most of ur comments....
> 
> the are purebred breeders and there are cross breeders...
> 
> KC is an registry which has some rules set for registration (such as minimum age, limit of litters etc) and its an registry which people take advantage of but its byb or puppyfarmers who do so....


The reasons I keep mentioning it is because people keep using "to improve the breed" or "maintain the line" as a purpose to continue breeding KC registered breeds.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The reasons I keep mentioning it is because people keep using "to improve the breed" or "maintain the line" as a purpose to continue breeding KC registered breeds.


it aint nothing to do with kc to improve or to maintain the line... do u say that non kc registered breeders cant improve their lines breeding out faults? heh?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> it aint nothing to do with kc to improve or to maintain the line... do u say that non kc registered breeders cant improve their lines breeding out faults? heh?


Not me... but the accusation is that crossbreeding is just pot luck.. I don't agree, but that is the accusation.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Not me... but the accusation is that crossbreeding is just pot luck.. I don't agree, but that is the accusation.


because it is luck... u cant predict what will come out... nobody can tell or else they have some special abilities not known to the human race lol u can guess and have an idea and then hope u are right, but thats really it 

its starts getting different u when u start breeding a pugle with an pugle and so on.... but still to be able to predict u would need generations of breeding pugle to pugle as the genes from the past could always come out to surface....


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So can I crossbreed to (1) continue the lines or (2) breed working dogs ?[/QUOTE
> 
> You can, and will do what you want.
> 
> ...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> Elmo the Bear said:
> 
> 
> > So can I crossbreed to (1) continue the lines or (2) breed working dogs ?[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Why thank you
> 
> As breeders still have massive problems with the health of "purebreds", I'm thinking this may not be difficult.
> 
> BTW, is that what you consider a purpose or any purpose?


Are you insulting all pure breeds here :001_tt2::001_tt2:


----------



## scruffysmum (Sep 2, 2009)

Well we had a first when out walking with our boy today. He is a whippet Bedlington T cross we reckon (maybe with a dash of something else), and we spotted another doggie who could have been a cousin of his. Her owner informed us that she's a Bedspring!!! What a great name. That stands for a Bedlington Terrier Springer Spaniel cross. Maybe we could call our dog a Whippington? 

Crossing breeds produces some very attractive dogs. I'm no expert so I have no idea what sort of problems can be produced by irresponsible breeding, but as an observer of dogs I do enjoy seeing all the different crosses that emerge. If it done intelligently and ethically I see no harm.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

scruffysmum said:


> Crossing breeds produces some very attractive dogs. I'm no expert so I have no idea what sort of problems can be produced by irresponsible breeding, but as an observer of dogs I do enjoy seeing all the different crosses that emerge. If it done intelligently and ethically I see no harm.


ethically??????????


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

dexter said:


> ethically??????????


ok ethical cross to me would be when they introduced the pointer into a line of dalmatians, to help rid the breed of the disease which causes bladder stones. These dogs are now many generations away from the first cross and are due to be registered with the kc again soon.

This is an ethical reason to introduce another breed. imho


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> but the accusation is that crossbreeding is just pot luck.. I don't agree, but that is the accusation.


Even if you breed two almost identical dogs, it is still pot luck.
Litters although fairly uniform, as regards perhaps colour can have vast differences in the "quality" of the pups. As it really depends on what genes they carry and things like environment, infection, nutrition can also shape how they turn out. Very rarely do litters contain more than one or two exceptional pups with some litters producing none, but in the next mating you may get what you want.

As for breeding two entirely different breeds, that uniformity in the pups is a lottery. If you have studied pedigrees and have a fair idea of the genetics carried or have done DNA testing, you may be able to select for colour, but other than that it is probably in the lap of the gods. 
It is all in the genes as to what you will get.



Elmo the Bear said:


> As breeders still have massive problems with the health of "purebreds", I'm thinking this may not be difficult.


Also, I don't know why you are criticising pure-breds as they are the parents of the bitch you are going to breed from and I thought you were going to mate her to another pure-bred dog??? You were at one point anyway.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

Just wanted to say to the OP that I love mixes and thorough out and out Heinz 57 mongrels. The greatest dog I ever had the pleasure to know and own had no discernible parentage. She suffered horrible abuse and was still the most loving and loyal companion I could have hoped for. There is no higher, worthy or more noble a purpose than that for a dog IMO.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

jenniferx said:


> Just wanted to say to the OP that I love mixes and thorough out and out Heinz 57 mongrels. The greatest dog I ever had the pleasure to know and own had no discernible parentage. She suffered horrible abuse and was still the most loving and loyal companion I could have hoped for. There is no higher, worthy or more noble a purpose than that for a dog IMO.


That's a lovely story, luck dog finding you then x


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

Thanks! I posted her very long life story here- I miss her like nothing else. 
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/46275-rescue-dog-stories-5.html#post763487


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> As for breeding two entirely different breeds, that uniformity in the pups is a lottery.


Although less of one than it was when the current breeds were first crossed?

I am not criticising "purebeds", simply those breeders who justify breeding byt saying it has a higher purpose than cross breeding and make out that KC registration has some notable health implications.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Although less of one than it was when the current breeds were first crossed?


But we are living in the twenty first century, with all the extra knowledge that goes with it. Not the 19th century when a good deal of our breeds were created.
There is no comparison


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

rona said:


> But we are living in the twenty first century, with all the extra knowledge that goes with it. Not the 19th century when a good deal of our breeds were created.
> There is no comparison


some go as far as the 18th century back


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rona said:


> But we are living in the twenty first century, with all the extra knowledge that goes with it. Not the 19th century when a good deal of our breeds were created.
> There is no comparison


Absolutely... so there is no better time to cross breed than now as we have the knowledge that those who started most of the breeds we now recognise, di not have.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Absolutely... so there is no better time to cross breed than now as we have the knowledge that those who started most of the breeds we now recognise, di not have.


but the breeds created in the past had a purpose behind them, they were bred because people needed them ... to cross now has no purpose other than fashion imo , obviously with the exception of crossing dogs for working ...


----------



## Colsy (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> but the breeds created in the past had a purpose behind them, they were bred because people needed them ... to cross now has no purpose other than fashion imo , obviously with the exception of crossing dogs for working ...


I think all dogs serve as a purpose they are our pets.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Colsy said:


> I think all dogs serve as a purpose they are our pets.


thats not a purpose to breed purporsly though dogs with such unpredictable attributes imo... those pets might not even suit the owners lifestyles as they wont know what they are getting.....


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Natik said:


> but the breeds created in the past had a purpose behind them, they were bred because people needed them ... to cross now has no purpose other than fashion imo , obviously with the exception of crossing dogs for working ...


. . . and now, as time and human needs have changed, more need just pets. There is no reason I have ever heard given that the evolution of dogs should stop simply because some club/s decided to name and register breeds and close stud books. Especially, now, as societies needs in a pet have drastically changed, we need the evolution of pet dogs to continue.

Working bred dogs do not suit the vast majority of homes. Even if they are temperamentally sound, their needs are greater than most would offer . . . and that is why companion dogs (just bred for companionship) need to continue to be bred.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2009)

Natik said:


> but the breeds created in the past had a purpose behind them, they were bred because people needed them ... to cross now has no purpose other than fashion imo , obviously with the exception of crossing dogs for working ...


This is what I can't get my head around, in this day and age, why do dogs need a purpose?



Colsy said:


> I think all dogs serve as a purpose they are our pets.


But is that a good enough reason, whether pure or cross, to be breeding any pups at the moment?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Natik said:


> but the breeds created in the past had a purpose behind them, they were bred because people needed them ... to cross now has no purpose other than fashion imo , obviously with the exception of crossing dogs for working ...


Being a companion was also a reason for breeding in the past - a lot of the toy breeds were originally bred specifically to be companions, lap-dogs for rich ladies.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Colsy said:


> I think all dogs serve as a purpose they are our pets.


Ye i agree but you dont have to cross 2 breeds to get a pet. I dont dislike any dog and t.b.h i walk very often with someone who has a labradoodle and he is absolutely lovely his sister breeds them in scotland at a price of £1,000 thats what i cant understand and it does worry me that people are prepared to pay so much money and that these dogs will be bred with only money in mind.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> . . . and now, as time and human needs have changed, more need just pets. There is no reason I have ever heard given that the evolution of dogs should stop simply because some club/s decided to name and register breeds and close stud books.


no, the evolution shouldnt stop.... i never said that.... i am referring to random crossing


----------



## Colsy (Oct 3, 2008)

At the end of the day we all own the type of dog's we prefer true ?
If people like to continue breeding the dog's they like thats up to them.
I feel at the end of the day as long as any dog is loved whats the problem ?
We all pick the dog's we like,or we would not have them.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Being a companion was also a reason for breeding in the past - a lot of the toy breeds were originally bred specifically to be companions, lap-dogs for rich ladies.


if someone wants to "create" a companion thats fair enough, then u have a plan what u want and work towards it.... BUT random crossing 2 different breeds and just "lets see what comes out" "we will be either lucky or not so lucky" and then take the next set of 2 different breeds i dont see hows that of any benefit to the pet market...

There are already enough of those out there "accidently"... so how do they bred purporsly differ?


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

The reason I prefer the idea of pedigrees is because I know much more about my dog and where he came from, whereas if it is a cross bred I don't think you get the papers and as much info etc, I have found pedigrees much easier to trace back.


----------



## Colsy (Oct 3, 2008)

Tinsley said:


> The reason I prefer the idea of pedigrees is because I know much more about my dog and where he came from, whereas if it is a cross bred I don't think you get the papers and as much info etc, I have found pedigrees much easier to trace back.


Not true i have crossbreeds and can go back more than 10 generations and have paperwork.
But at the end of the day they are just my pets and we love them.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

Colsy said:


> Not true i have crossbreeds and can go back more than 10 generations and have paperwork.
> But at the end of the day they are just my pets and we love them.


Well I am afraid it is very true for the vast majority we have had 

I am against cross breeding to an extent because I think some people really don't look into things well enough like the sizing/health conditions of previous generations etc.

I have a problem with some breeders of golden doodles charging an absolute rip off claiming they are hypoallergenic when there isn't evidence to show each individual dog is


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2009)

I'm sure the Doodle people know about this.
Accredited Requirements - Welcome to the UK Doodle Club


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

rona said:


> I'm sure the Doodle people know about this.
> Accredited Requirements - Welcome to the UK Doodle Club


Unless the KC or people very similar run that I'm not interested in the least 

Why can't people offer homes to the breeds that already exist, I don't know why we need more...

I know four people who got lab/golden cross poodles and rehomed them as they did malt after all or weren't easy enough to train


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> Even if you breed two almost identical dogs, it is still pot luck.
> Litters although fairly uniform, as regards perhaps colour can have vast differences in the "quality" of the pups. As it really depends on what genes they carry and things like environment, infection, nutrition can also shape how they turn out. Very rarely do litters contain more than one or two exceptional pups with some litters producing none, but in the next mating you may get what you want.
> 
> As for breeding two entirely different breeds, that uniformity in the pups is a lottery. If you have studied pedigrees and have a fair idea of the genetics carried or have done DNA testing, you may be able to select for colour, but other than that it is probably in the lap of the gods.
> ...


Lauren, this is spurious thinking at best. Uniformity of TYPE might be pot luck, and therefore there might be no pups to go on for IF UNIFORM PHENOTYPE IS YOUR GOAL, but then, type does not have to be the consideration unless that is the hobby you enjoy.

Working dog breeders (of unregistered) know well how to choose sires/dams for their litters and get what they want in regards to a basic dog with a good temperament that'll do the job, without those sires/dams being of the same breed. Of course, they aren't so worried about type . . . and neither are the pet purchasers who want crossbred pups.

. . . it is not pot luck.

. . . and in the end, it is about choice.

Just as I have the choice to want a purebred with lots of predictable qualities, others must be allowed the choice to want a mix with some predictable qualities.

And, I know the question was not addressed toward me, but I will have a go. I also love purebreds, but will continue to criticise the breeding system that they are bred within . . . as, if continued without changes being made, it threatens the welfare of the very dogs bred within it.

Ask ANY Cavalier King Charles Spaniel breeder at this moment about that.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

rona said:


> I'm sure the Doodle people know about this.
> Accredited Requirements - Welcome to the UK Doodle Club


Will be interesting to see what kennels the poodles come from on the stud page. And if it's any of the bigger kennels then there will be some unhappy people! The poodle in the first picture looks like it could have been docked too


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Natik said:


> some go as far as the 18th century back


Not with closed stud books they don't.

How about try this. Find out when stud books were closed for the breeds you love.

Most every breed I love did not have closed stud books until into the mid nineteen hundreds . . . ie. they let in non-pedigreed dogs that looked like the breed, or did the job like the breed, but that could easily have had "mutt" behind them just a couple generations ago.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Not with closed stud books they don't.
> 
> How about try this. Find out when stud books were closed for the breeds you love.
> 
> Most every breed I love did not have closed stud books until into the mid nineteen hundreds . . . ie. they let in non-pedigreed dogs that looked like the breed, or did the job like the breed.


i dont deny that but still my point it all had a reason behind.... obviously dogs been crossed to create what we have now

but these days the majority of crossing is not to create a new breed as such with an aim behind (obviously the labradoodle used to have an aim, but that didnt work out ) its just to create a random pet/companion and charge money for it by giving it a special name ...


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Natik said:


> i dont deny that but still my point it all had a reason behind.... obviously dogs been crossed to create what we have now
> 
> but these days the majority of crossing is not to create a new breed as such with an aim behind (obviously the labradoodle used to have an aim, but that didnt work out ) its just to create a random pet/companion and charge money for it by giving it a special name ...


Natik, you seem to have made it clear that if a breeder has a goal, a purpose in mind, then you understand the breeding. You've already told me companionship is a fine purpose.

Am I wrong?

Now, "just creating a random pet/companion", that is where I lose you.

EVERY breed I like has been created just to be a random pet/companion, and the breeders that are continuing these breeds are just breeding "specialized" pets/companions simply because it is their hobby to compete with them.

I believe it is hugely hypocritical of me or anyone who likes the companion breeds to demand that others that want to breed should have a "better" aim than that.

If that is the case, and people shouldn't be crossing "for pets" then breeders of companion only purebreeds (Cavaliers, Pugs, Pekingese, Maltese, Shih Tzu, etc. etc.) shouldn't be breeding either - cuz all they are doing is making "specialized" pets.

. . and to carry it further, then, every working dog breeder who doesn't work their dogs and breed for the traditional purpose, are just then creating specialized pets as well, and shouldn't be breeding.

. . . cuz specialized pets are just a desire, not a need.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Natik, you seem to have made it clear that if a breeder has a goal, a purpose in mind, then you understand the breeding. You've already told me companionship is a fine purpose.
> 
> Am I wrong?
> 
> ...


To me new owners should be aware if they get a dog as a companion what they are getting.... 
to breed a companion and being able to tell the new owners what excersice, grooming, care, what the temperament the dog is likly to be, if he is most likly to be good with that and not so good with this etc etc etc the is of big big big importance (so the chances are less likly the dog ending up in rescue!! rather then the new owners discovered the collie x cavalier is far too active for them for instance but it looked so cavalier like) rather than breeding two different breeds as companions and just match them with new owners per luck and hoping for the best of suitability....

i hope i made the difference of purporsly bred companionship and random breeding of 2 dogs for companions a bit clearer


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I think there are quite enough "random pets" without deliberately breeding more of them, at the moment.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Natik said:


> i dont deny that but still my point it all had a reason behind.... obviously dogs been crossed to create what we have now
> 
> but these days the majority of crossing is not to create a new breed as such with an aim behind (obviously the labradoodle used to have an aim, but that didnt work out ) its just to create a random pet/companion and charge money for it by giving it a special name ...


Deliberately crossing two different breeds for their attributes is not random. If you argue that you don't know what you get, then the same can be said for two of the same breed (and is often the case...how many labs do you here about that don't like water or gun dogs that won't go into bushes).

Our dog's (well the doodles anyway) were deliberately crossed with aim.... I gave them a stupid Name.. Elmo, Freya and B (well not that stupid).

If someone asks me "what" they are I have a number of replies:

If they seem genuinely seem interested I say :

"They're retriever poodle crosses"_
_

If they are dismissive or patronising I say :

_"They're dogs"_

If they quote chapter and verse about "pedigree dogs" I say:
_
"They're Swaledales" _(you'd be surprised how many people then nod knowingly)

If they're driving an X5 and wearing green wellies I say:
_"They're Goldendoodles... wanna buy one...? ten grand to you squire" _ :001_tt2:

oh no sorry that's what people think we do... didn't want to ruin the myth


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Lauren, this is spurious thinking at best. Uniformity of TYPE might be pot luck, and therefore there might be no pups to go on for IF UNIFORM PHENOTYPE IS YOUR GOAL, but then, type does not have to be the consideration unless that is the hobby you enjoy.


Uniformity doesn't necessarily mean type exclusively it can very well be applied to a working context too. The two best working dogs in the world can still produce pups that are shy, timid guard dogs or sheepdogs that don't know one end of a sheep from the other, or gundogs that are scared stiff of guns..
It can also be used in the context of temperament too. Not all pups in a litter will have uniform temperaments either.

If you read my post I didn't mention the word type.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Deliberately crossing two different breeds for their attributes is not random. If you argue that you don't know what you get, then the same can be said for two of the same breed (and is often the case...how many labs do you here about that don't like water or gun dogs that won't go into bushes).
> 
> Our dog's (well the doodles anyway) were deliberately crossed with aim.... I gave them a stupid Name.. Elmo, Freya and B (well not that stupid).


no, u dont know but the chances are massivly higher and massivly more predictable than those to crossbreed (which to me is important if im going to look for potential homes before i breed for instance rather then pick and guess who will be suitable) but there aint such a thing as guarantee obviously..... 
and when u say there are labs which dislike water...true....
dogs are individualls and their raising up plays a part too... if u never allow ur dog anywhere near the water it might not like the idea of water as an adult ... obviously

But the majority does like water just like the majority of gsds will guard and ring alarm.... because thats what they were bred to do


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> ok ethical cross to me would be when they introduced the pointer into a line of dalmatians, to help rid the breed of the disease which causes bladder stones. These dogs are now many generations away from the first cross and are due to be registered with the kc again soon.
> 
> This is an ethical reason to introduce another breed. imho


That's out-crossing, not cross breeding.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

lauren001 said:


> I think there are quite enough "random pets" without deliberately breeding more of them, at the moment.


What are you calling a random pet? A thought out cross, cuz if that is the case then I have to ask who made you queen to decide that!

O.K. I'll bite and be queen.

I think there are quite enough "purebred dogs" without deliberately breeding more of them at the moment.

Thar'ya go. How's that?

. . . cuz you can either justify breeding when there are dogs being killed in shelters, or you cannot.

You cannot decide, arbitrarily, for reasons purely of your own likeing, that your group has the right to breed while others do not - that your reasons are better. You cannot pretend to know the reasons others might have to wanting something not offered by the purebred world.

Tell me how it is more justified to breed a Cavalier King Charles litter, which has 20 times more likelihood of developing heart trouble than a mutt, and even from an A x A mating approximately a one in four chance of having syrinxes down its spine, possibly painfully symtomatic . . . than to breed a mutt - lets say a Cockapoo.

How does my goal to have an exact type of dog (temperament and looks) make that litter more justifiable than a pedigreed well thought out Cockapoo litter.

I compare these two because they go to the same type of homes. Cavaliers are bred for companions only. Cockapoos are bred for companions only.

The quality Cockapoo would be cheaper to buy here at $700 - 1500, as opposed to the Cavalier price here of $2500 - $5000.

The Cockapoo has a helluva lot better a chance at longevity AND good health than the Cavalier, and has a 40 year history telling us that, when bred well, there is predictability in temperament.

Which do you think would be less unnerving for an owner to own, which IS part n' parcel to making it a better pet.

AND, I have to add, the Cockapoo has a catchier and easier to remember name that I happen to like a lot more than many of the stuffier names of already established breeds.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

What I cant understand is why people even with x-bred dogs dont realise the extremes to which this type of breeding takes place - theres a lot of 'its for the good of the breed' or 'good of their long term health' or 'they have done it in the past', but all you have to do is go on any pets-for-sale site and the variety of mixes available is extraordinary. 

Its not simply one breed being used, it is all any any which suggestes no structured approach whatsoever.

Im not against crosses in the least - I am against those with a blinkered view on the subject beceause they feel in some way responsible to defend cross breeding - when in fact, liberties have and are being taken as people will buy anything on spurr of the moment, looks or a good sales pitch... anything. 

Any two dogs can be paired by any onwer for any number of reasons - which is what happens for a vast majority of crosses I think. This shouldnt be supported or defended in anyway!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

And I have to ask, why there is even a question about allowing only the most justifiable of breedings?

The focus of this discussion should not be about the "kind" of dog that is justified to be bred, but it should be about where you get your dogs from - what your breeder does/does not do in regards to ensuring pups have a great chance at good health and a good home, at backing up those pups for life.

All the good breeders, the ones who care about dogs, all dogs, SHOULD be on the same side.

If you study the shelter population problems here, they are a pet retention problem, NOT an overpopulation problem.

I don't know the UK numbers, but in the USA, after years of being hounded by PETA and HSUS with the term "pet overpopulation", someone from within the shelter system got wise and ran the numbers. This is what they came up with.

_"Based on the number of existing households with pets, who have a pet die or run away . . . more than twice as many homes potentially become available each year for dogs than the number of dogs who enter shelters . . . If shelters increased their market share by just a few percentage points, we could be a no kill nation right now."​_
isaronline.org: Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation in America by Nathan J. Winograd

and because I can't say it better, from the same link,

_"the "overpopulation" mindset must be radically altered, and shelters must do "a better job at adoptions"--which is not impossible."​_
What we need to be doing, (and I have been fostering dogs off and on for 20 years now, including currently), is educating people toward getting their pups from breeders who care and follow up on those pups for life - and that does not necessarily mean just purebred breeders.

Because aiming all your grief at the breeders for producing pups does nothing to put a stop to the awful cycle that ends up with dogs in shelters. To stop that, there needs to be a different mindset at the shelters themselves.

Debunking Pet Overpopulation: Debunking Pet Overpopulation : Nathan J Winograd

I happen to agree with Christie Keith:

_Family pets should come from family homes. If we stop stigmatizing and demonizing breeding, and welcome and embrace home-based breeders, we can supply the demand for dogs in the United States without having to raise future family pets like livestock.

And before you say that's a tall order, yes, it is, but it can be done.

Unlike "fixing" high volume breeding, which is by definition impossible to do.​_
Pet Connection Blog » AKC plays good breeders for fools

Pet Connection Blog » Hate, fear and the politics of puppy-mills

Home-based breeders are the least of our concerns when you consider the suffering caused when all that the pet buyers have left to go to is the mills, and if you haven't got the mill stopped, then it is pointless to tackle home-based breeders, as you are just driving customers into the happy and open arms of the commercial breeders, who will in turn continue to send their ex-breeding stock into rescue (pure or crossed). . . the cycle continues.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Reputable breeders have contacts who want their pups for years before they are born; for the majority dont breed that often. Id think dogs in shelters rarely come from these breeders but come moreso from people who have 2 KC reg dogs and thought they'd mate them (if thery are pedigree). I think breeding has to be justified, otherwise this is what you get as your seeing on a daily basis which is just so sad. 

I still dont understand how so many extraordinary crosses can be defended


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

james1 said:


> I still dont understand how so many extraordinary crosses can be defended


Nobodies defending the extraordinary, or at least I hope not.

I totally agree that there are A LOT of stupid crosses about, a lot of poorly bred crosses about.

There's also A LOT of poorly bred pedigrees about.

I think the only points those defending cross breeding are making is that if it's done responsibly there's no more reason not to than there is for pedigrees, and that crossbreeds aren't inferior to pedigrees.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> Nobodies defending the extraordinary, or at least I hope not.
> 
> I totally agree that there are A LOT of stupid crosses about, a lot of poorly bred crosses about.
> 
> ...


very good piont.....Jill


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2009)

HighPr00 said:


> Nobodies defending the extraordinary, or at least I hope not.
> 
> I totally agree that there are A LOT of stupid crosses about, a lot of poorly bred crosses about.
> 
> ...


Exactly


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> I think the only points those defending cross breeding are making is that if it's done responsibly there's no more reason not to than there is for pedigrees, and that crossbreeds aren't inferior to pedigrees.


yes, there is... the unpredictability of what ur getting ... u can be lucky or u can end up with something which doesnt suit u at all...

with puredbred ur chance is massivly higher to get what suits u and ur lifestyle and what ur looking for...

but i agree, all dogs are the same worthy as pets and all are at the same level


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2009)

Natik said:


> yes, there is... the unpredictability of what ur getting ... u can be lucky or u can end up with something which doesnt suit u at all...
> 
> with puredbred ur chance is massivly higher to get what suits u and ur lifestyle and what ur looking for...
> 
> but i agree, all dogs are the same worthy as pets and all are at the same level


But that is an individuals choice.
How many inexperienced owners end up with a pedigree dog that is totally unsuitable?


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> Nobodies defending the extraordinary, or at least I hope not.


Ive read quite a bit of this thread and there seems to be a lot of defence of x breeds when the owner has one - no harm in that, but when the scale (variety) is apparent I think there is quite a blinkered view on the whole that only goes to perpetuate lax breeding as i recently said. 
There have been stats shown that they are healthier etc and views that you get a better animal - which is mittigating the general argument. I think its a huge disappointement to see some of the breeds for sale and only goes to show that in the long run we are doing breeds no good at all without responsibility


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

rona said:


> But that is an individuals choice.
> How many inexperienced owners end up with a pedigree dog that is totally unsuitable?


How true your last statement is Rona, and for that I blame some experienced breeders for not telling puppy people the real character of the breed OR just how much maintenance they take


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

rona said:


> But that is an individuals choice.
> How many inexperienced owners end up with a pedigree dog that is totally unsuitable?


but thats due the fact of them not researching the breed (irresponsible or naive imo) and irresponsible breeders not informiong the new opwners rather than not _being able_ to research a dog... and just trying their luck of suitability...


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2009)

tashi said:


> How true your last statement is Rona, and for that I blame some experienced breeders for not telling puppy people the real character of the breed OR just how much maintenance they take





Natik said:


> but thats due the fact of them not researching the breed (irresponsible or naive imo) and irresponsible breeders not informiong the new opwners rather than not _being able_ to research a dog... and just trying their luck of suitability...


Therefore a responsible breeder of said cross breeds, must be better than a bad breeder of pure breeds, surely?


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

rona said:


> Therefore a responsible breeder of said cross breeds, must be better than a bad breeder of pure breeds, surely?


how is that?

A cross breed breeder wont be able to tell the new owners about the pups characteristics as noone can possibly know what will be produced... 
nor the new owners arent able to reasearch the cross as it might have the attributes of either or mixed, or something in between... all they can do is research the both breeds involved indivudually and then just hope that it will turn out to suit them...


----------



## Becki&Daisy (Oct 22, 2009)

each to their own.
i chose a crossbreed as i wanted them to be less likely to inherit health problems associated with that breed but to begin with i was looking at yorkshire terriers (for a very long time!), so i now have a yorkie / shih tzu cross with a brilliant temprament.

i think people can go the wrong way about breeding both ways. but surely there would be more financial gain with breeding pedigrees?:idea:

i


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Becki&Daisy said:


> i think people can go the wrong way about breeding both ways. but surely there would be more financial gain with breeding pedigrees?:idea:
> 
> i


crosses are making just as much money as purebreds these days - youve got to ask how is such a variety of crosses mitigated if its not for money in the first place.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2009)

Natik said:


> how is that?
> 
> A cross breed breeder wont be able to tell the new owners about the pups characteristics as noone can possibly know what will be produced...
> nor the new owners arent able to reasearch the cross as it might have the attributes of either or mixed, or something in between... all they can do is research the both breeds involved indivudually and then just hope that it will turn out to suit them...


Depends on the mix really, and the breeding stock.
If it's a first cross, then research shouldn't be much more difficult than with pure bred dog.
I'm not defending the reasoning behind the vast majority of people who have jumped on the bandwagon of crossbreeds, but on the other hand I cannot make a sweeping statement condemning all crossbred breeders. Much the same as with pet breeders. Yes most are in it for the wrong reasons but not all


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

rona said:


> Depends on the mix really, and the breeding stock.
> If it's a first cross, then research shouldn't be much more difficult than with pure bred dog.
> I'm not defending the reasoning behind the vast majority of people who have jumped on the bandwagon of crossbreeds, but on the other hand I cannot make a sweeping statement condemning all crossbred breeders. Much the same as with pet breeders. Yes most are in it for the wrong reasons but not all


so u could find out if i go for a husky x boxer for instance if letting the dog off lead would be save?
Or will it guard?
Or what grooming will it require?
will it be easy to train or have the independence of the husky?

Responsible breeders have homes lined up ... how could u possibly line up suitable homes if u dont know what ur going to sell?


----------



## Becki&Daisy (Oct 22, 2009)

i think people breeding purely for monetry gain is wrong.
someone i know was trying to sell a un-neutered 9 month old staff for £1000 ono. over facebook of all places!! stating that he couldnt look after him anymore:

''he could potentially own his owners alot of money!!''

not only was he trying to get way too much for him he was trying to 
i found this disgusting and made sure he knew this too.


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

At the end of the day once the puppy whether pedigree or crossbreed leaves the breeder then other than genetic health issues (which will hopefully have been tested for) enviromental factors and training will influence the behaviour temperament and suitability of a dog more than the genetic blueprint that is came from and the only ones that will depend on the genetic traits etc are the show and they will look for specific physical and asthetic attributes.

those who work their dogs can not always guarantee that the pups bred from working stock will be excellent working dogs.

when puppies leave their litter at 8 weeks you can hazard a guess at how the pup will grow but ultimately it is part guesswork, part luck, part training. and that can be said of pedigree and crossbreeds alike

wendy


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2009)

Natik said:


> so u could find out if i go for a husky x boxer for instance if letting the dog off lead would be save?
> Or will it guard?
> Or what grooming will it require?
> will it be easy to train or have the independence of the husky?
> ...


I wouldn't say that that mix would be very responsible, but anyone buying a dog like that should be aware of all the possible traits that may appear much like a Staffy or terrier, loads of different little characters possible with both of these and many more breeds.
You can't tell me that all puppies from a litter of even Golden Retrievers all turn out the same!!! It just doesn't happen


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

rona said:


> I wouldn't say that that mix would be very responsible, but anyone buying a dog like that should be aware of all the possible traits that may appear much like a Staffy or terrier, loads of different little characters possible with both of these and many more breeds.
> You can't tell me that all puppies from a litter of even Golden Retrievers all turn out the same!!! It just doesn't happen


why not this mix but others though? i hought its about general crossing? that involves all breeds out there...

no, they dont turn out all the same... but again, the chances are massivly higher u get what u researched....


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

In dog breeding traits are selected for, they may be working traits they may be show/cosmetic or temperament or health traits but the good breeder has a goal in mind and chooses dogs accordingly.
As time goes on and the job is done well then less and less dogs will have the traits she doesn't want as in selecting dogs she has also "got rid of" the bad unwanted genes by not breeding dogs who have them or who pass them down to their offspring. She has also unwittingly selected a whole lot of polygenes which work to make that dog into the dog it is. Of course you may get mavericks or freaks who break the mould or environmental effects that cause issues but in general you get a dog who has the main characteristics of the breed.

Along comes the cross breed breeder who takes one of the first breeder's dogs and mates it to another breed. The other dog's breeder has selected for a completely different set of traits, she has also through breeding discarded a lot of genes and cultivated polygenes of her own.

Depending on which genes are recessive and which are dominant the genes will mould the whole genetic composition of the cross bred puppies. Instead of an orderly mix in which the offspring fairly well resemble their parents, there will be a more chaotic mix as some genes will be dominant and show a trait and others will be recessive and be overcome by the other breed's dominant traits. In each puppy this will happen so in some puppies some traits will show up and in others an entirely different set of genes will be dominant. If one parent has a dominant coat colour then they may all show that, but as regards structure, coat quality, temperament, ears, tails, length of leg, body length etc. all puppies will be an assortment of both breeds.

Until you do the individual mating you can never predict what the pups will turn out like and even if you repeat that mating you may get a completely different set of pups.


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

rona said:


> Therefore a responsible breeder of said cross breeds, must be better than a bad breeder of pure breeds, surely?


Of course they are.

Responsible breeding is responsible breeding.

Bad breeding is bad breeding.



Natik said:


> how is that?


How can you question if a responsible breeder is better than a bad breeder?

You've lost me on that one.



Natik said:


> A cross breed breeder wont be able to tell the new owners about the pups characteristics as noone can possibly know what will be produced...
> nor the new owners arent able to reasearch the cross as it might have the attributes of either or mixed, or something in between... all they can do is research the both breeds involved indivudually and then just hope that it will turn out to suit them...


They can't be that unpredictable or they wouldn't be bred for working purposes. It would be completely pointless to cross breed to produce working dogs if your prior statements were true.


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

james1 said:


> There have been stats shown that they are healthier etc and views that you get a better animal - which is mittigating the general argument. I think its a huge disappointement to see some of the breeds for sale and only goes to show that in the long run we are doing breeds no good at all without responsibility


Yup, I agree with that.

Crossbreeds being healthier as an overall population is irrelevant in my opinion. Bad breeders of crossbreeds are still risking the health and welfare of puppies regardless of what the statistics say, just as bad pedigree breeders are.

Some of the crosses you find on Pets4Homes etc. under the breed listings are a disgrace.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> Of course they are.
> 
> Responsible breeding is responsible breeding.
> 
> ...


u will find crossing for working purpose happens the way that the ones most suitable are used for working and the other rehomed for pets

also they cross similar breeds with similar attributes... not a boxer with a chi which are as different as day and night....


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> In dog breeding traits are selected for, they may be working traits they may be show/cosmetic or temperament or health traits but the good breeder has a goal in mind and chooses dogs accordingly.
> As time goes on and the job is done well then less and less dogs will have the traits she doesn't want as in selecting dogs she has also "got rid of" the bad unwanted genes by not breeding dogs who have them or who pass them down to their offspring. She has also unwittingly selected a whole lot of polygenes which work to make that dog into the dog it is. Of course you may get mavericks or freaks who break the mould or environmental effects that cause issues but in general you get a dog who has the main characteristics of the breed.
> 
> Along comes the cross breed breeder who takes one of the first breeder's dogs and mates it to another breed. The other dog's breeder has selected for a completely different set of traits, she has also through breeding discarded a lot of genes and cultivated polygenes of her own.
> ...


Have you an article on this that you can give us a link to, I would be very interested to read it


----------



## HighPr00 (Aug 9, 2009)

Natik said:


> read the ppost i quoted ... i was questioning how a crossbreeder can be more responsible than a purebred breeder


Rona said _"Therefore a responsible breeder of said cross breeds, must be better than a bad breeder of pure breeds, surely?"_ and you replied _"how is that?"_

I took that to mean you were questioning how responsible breeding of crossbreeds was better than bad pedigree breeding?



Natik said:


> u will find crossing for working purpose happens the way that the ones most suitable are used for working and the other rehomed for pets


Exactly the same as pedigrees.




Natik said:


> also they cross similar breeds with similar attributes... not a boxer with a chi which are as different as day and night....


No responsible breeder would cross a boxer with a chihuahua. I'm not arguing the case for stupid crosses, I'm arguing the case for responsible cross breeding.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

HighPr00 said:


> Rona said _"Therefore a responsible breeder of said cross breeds, must be better than a bad breeder of pure breeds, surely?"_ and you replied _"how is that?"_
> 
> I took that to mean you were questioning how responsible breeding of crossbreeds was better than bad pedigree breeding?
> 
> ...


what is a responsible cross in ur opinion then?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

quote >> Have you an article on this that you can give us a link to <<

i do not have an article, but this is basic genetics - not to do specifically with dogs, 
just genetics + breeding in the broad sense. 
here is a book on dog genetics that is excellent - 
<http://tinyurl.com/yen7q3q>

a hybrid is the product of 2 dissimilar lines, strains, breeds, etc - hybrid corn is corn with multiple-parents, and it was done to create a broader gene-base in THAT plant, and create hybrid-vigor. 
unfortunately, for the farmer it means that *all* seed-stock must now be gotten from the commercial corn-breeder, as maintaining 6 separate true-breeding strains of corn as parents requires an extreme amount of land - all of the corn on the edges must be 
assumed to be contaminated by un-wanted windborne pollen, and only the center is seed-stock for breeding + deliberate blending. (6 is the average number of strains used in hybrid-corn, as unlike a dog or cat, with each offspring having One dam + One sire, corn can have multiple parents per kernel.)

hybridizing dog-breeds is a similar process - 
all Puggles resemble other Puggles only b/c they are from the same cross of dissimilar strains, a Beagle x Pug; to cross F1 dogs (Puggle to Puggle) re-randomizes that whole set of genes that were given to each parent, and wildly varied pups can result in a sinlge litter - so for a consistent result in *looks* of a hybrid, one must maintain the separate parent-strains for a successful consistent appearance in the progeny.

Puggle x Puggle could produce any one of the phylogenetic or behavioral gene sets of either parent, who only got a subset of the Beagle genes, and a subset of the Pug genes, from each parent. so an F3 (progeny of an F2 to F2 Puggle-Puggle breeding) could be solid-coated, masked, ticked, have a curled tail, have a flag tail, have Irish marking (white bib, belly, legs, nose, tail-tip), be longer-bodied like a Beagle but on short bowed Pug-legs, be short-coupled like a Pug but on longer Beagle-legs, have long oval ears or short rose-ears, be tricolor, bi-color, have ticking INSIDE their colored splotches,... it would be anything that either parent had contributed, from the previous 2 or 3 generations on either parents side.

imagine a lemon-and-white dog with a foreshortened hound-face, oval ears, Irish markings, ticked hair badgering the colored areas, a slightly roached Pug spine and short coupling, Beagle legs and Beagle voice - baying in an apartment. 
that is just ONE possible expression - it is nearly as random as pure chance, except that any traits that are never found in Beagles or Pugs - like brindle coats - could not appear. 
IMO hybridization of breeds is rarely advantageous - and as population-pressure in the USA shelters and rescues is extreme, and all hybrids who are not suited to the task for which they were intended are expected to be absorbed by pet homes, it is hard to justify.

besides, who in their right mind would think a Border-Border would be an apropos pet for a burban family, with 2 or 3 kids under 10-YO, a small yard, both adults work, and all the kids have extracurricular activities? 
WHAT would they do with that level of activity + reactivity?

i do not think placing hybrids who are working-flops in pet-homes is a kindness, not to the dogs or to the APO/Average Pet-Owner who is left to deal with this dog. if Agility and other dog-sports aficianadoes can not find a suitable breed, they can find any number of wildly random dogs in shelters and rescues - many of whom would jump at the chance to be active and useful.

JMO, Ur mileage may vary! 
cheers, 
--- terry

terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, IPDTA, TDF


----------



## poodlemad (Feb 23, 2009)

the main problem is that choose what you think you are getting from the cross breed is not always the case,they can end up looking like anything and be bigger than you think and if not health tested like pedigrees they are just as likely to suffer the same pitfalls in health,i think some peole just blurt out they are healthier than pure breeds to stir the hornets nest and fire people up,a long long time ago the cross breed was deemed as healthier but that was before all the tests came in and the main thing that pops my blood vessels is greedy people that breed crossbreeds and charge way over the top for them more than that of a pure breed and effectively just rip people off in my eyes


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> quote >> Have you an article on this that you can give us a link to <<
> 
> i do not have an article, but this is basic genetics - not to do specifically with dogs,
> just genetics + breeding in the broad sense.
> ...


Sorry, this guy is a trainer, he has no qualifications regarding genetics as far as I can see. So his opinion is no more valid than ours


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

hey, maddie! :--)

quote - 
>> the main thing that pops my blood vessels is greedy people that breed crossbreeds and charge way over the top for them, more than (for) a pure breed and effectively just rip people off in my eyes. << - poodlemad

yup, i see it all the time - 
North Carolina is right across the state line here, and breeding to sell pups is a major home business there. designer-pups are higher profit than the usual purebreds, who are higher-profit than un-registered or random bred - so designer-hybrids are a hot commodity in NC. 
these ppl want to maximize their profit, and so investing in their adult-dogs or their pups is not what they are about - thre are NO pre-breeding screens done, not even the minimum (Brucellosis test negative on both M + F before breeding). they do not CARE if the Malti-Poodle they sold has crap knees, a bad heart valve and a kidney shunt - as long as they get their asking-price, that ends the transaction. (shrug)

an NC breeder offered to DELIVER a SIX-week-old Lab-Doodle to me, that night, sight unseen; all i had to do was choose a sex + a color, and have $1600 for her. 
this woman does not know me - but she was delivering ANOTHER under-age pup in Chesapeake that night, it would be no trouble to come by and drop off my puppy!

she also had the incredible chutzpah to claim while i had her on the phone that they Did not breed them for the money... *we breed b/c they are just so GOOD with people...* (grab that barf-bag now!) back to facts: 
her F had just whelped her SECOND litter, her bitch was 12-MO, and had thus far had TWENTY-One pups. one litter of 10, one of 11, 6 weeks of the dam doing the work and few if any stools to clean up... whats 21 x 1600?

breeding a 6-MO dog on her first estrus to a well-known, multi-sire AKC Lab (from Richmond, VA) to her virgin-F without so much as a Brucella blood-test? 
what could be more despicable and profit-driven?

this woman is a well-known AKC show-breeder - 
at the time, she was in Elizabeth City, NC. 
she also claimed the first litter (by the same sire) was *an accident*. 
what, did the M dog hitchhike to NC from Richmond? [snort]

the 2 biggies in all Poodle crosses - 
* no matter WHAT, every Poodle mix is mandatory-groom. 
* only 50% of hybrid-pups with a SHEDDING parent will have the touted no-shed Poodle coat - the other Fifty-Percent get the worst of both worlds, a shedding coat AND the mandatory-groom soft curly or waving Poodle-texture. But - heres the sweet part for the %$# breeder - The new-owner can only be sure which they have, the shedder every doggone day or the non-shed, when the pup is 6 to 7-MO and drops their pup coat! isn;t that convenient - as by that time, they love the dog, and do not want to give them back. >:--(

One-Half of all Lab-Doodles shed every day of their lives - a lot or a little, but they will drop hair - AND they must be combed regularly and clipped or scissored or kept in cords. (personally i would opt for cords! less maintenance.)

NC breeders send pups across state-lines as early as 5-WO - 
21-days before it is legal by Federal law + USDA interstate commerce regs. poor pups!

best regards, 
--- terry

terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, IPDTA, TDF


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

the book from which i got my facts is by a geneticist - 
and i have a dual of Ag Education and Animal Science. 
cheers, 
--- terry


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> the book from which i got my facts is by a geneticist -
> and i have a dual of Ag Education and Animal Science.
> cheers,
> --- terry


Apologies :blushing::blushing:


----------



## poodlemad (Feb 23, 2009)

thats tragic the should be shot,she should have her dogs taken from her for their own good and i hate it when people say they take on the none molt coat of the poodle knowing full well this is a big fat lie


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

i simply cannot imagine being that poor bitch - 
not a year old, and TWENTY-one kids nursing her down?! 
imagine what that did to her skeleton... nasty business. 
:--( 

-- terry


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

no harm done!  

the author of the Purebred-Dogs Genetics text is a darned good writer, i found it fascinating - there is a also an incredibly-useful ** table ** in the back of the book, 
listing the serious flaws found in dogs, and the breeds in which they occur. 
for THAT table alone, it is worth the purchase price! 
-- terry


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> no harm done!
> 
> the author of the Purebred-Dogs Genetics text is a darned good writer, i found it fascinating - there is a also an incredibly-useful ** table ** in the back of the book,
> listing the serious flaws found in dogs, and the breeds in which they occur.
> ...


Can't seem to find it anywhere 
Have found this one though
The genetics of the dog - Google Books


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

>> where (did) the pedigree dogs come from originally? << - lyn 


hey, lyn! :--) 

dogs around the world who are street-dogs or pariahs all look much alike - smallish, 25 to 40#, usually prick-eared, often with tails that are sabre or curl slightly above the back, medium coat, often patched. 

the dogs who are from very remote areas all tended to have a similar character in certain types, as even in the 1400s a pet dog and a guard-dog were not the same dog. so Tibetan Mastiffs were very recognizable as TMs - but if U abandon a TM on the streets of a poor village in southern India, in 4 years there will be few dogs who are obviously related to the TM, who may or may not live very long as a street dog. pariahs tend to be small in part b/c they scavenge for a living - and feeding a 90# body from trash and garbage is not easy. 

the huge development of European breeds was the 1890s to 1930s, when EUGENICS was all the rage - purebreds and pedigree meant a lot then, in dogs, horses, and humans. :---( Hitler began his *Aryan race* bigotry by capitalising on the current enthusiasm for *thoroughbreds* or pedigreed aristocrats, who were supposed to be genetic paragons. 

truth to tell, a lot of this was sheer class prejudice - a well-off family fed their children better, clothed and educated them better, and could afford a dentist. OF COURSE their kids were healthier, taller, and had better nurtrition, duh. 

eugenics was not just a scientific term - it was present in magazine stories, court rooms, books, all the popular media of the time. ppl were judged capable of a crime if they had eyes too close-set, or a small head, or ____ . 

WORKING dogs were chosen for their characteristics that made them good handy partners - pets were bred based on baby-like faces, soft coats, small size, etc. 
dogs are phenomenally plastic, genetically - only pigeons and chickens have been rearranged as much appearance-wise as dom-dogs. 

and of course, humans always took advantage of any sports - genetic oddities due to mutations, like the recent American Curl cat, the short-legged gene found in terrierists, Corgis, Bassetts, Vallhunds, et al, the Munchkin cat, American Hairless Terrier, etc. 

ppl like variety and novelty - so a sport is often very popular. 
remember when the Scottish Fold first appeared? i do! ;--) 

cheers, 
--- terry 

terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, IPDTA, TDF


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

i am SO sorry - i just went back and looked at my original post, 
and the - LINK - to the book on Amazon is not there! :--O

i will try again - i think framing it in brackets made it disappear! 
Amazon.com: Control of Canine Genetic Diseases (Howell reference books) (0021898050045): George A. Padgett: Books

Control of Canine Genetic Diseases (Howell reference books) 
by George A. Padgett
Appendix I is *Genetic disease predisposition by breed* 
Appendix II is *Brief defns of k9 genetic disorders with affected breeds*

(250 pgs, $19 with free shipping if U spend $25)
U can go to Amazon and look inside it - very very good book. 
informative tables, graphs, clear well-explained copy.

cheers, and sorry for the missing link! :blush2:
--- terry

terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, IPDTA, TDF


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> ppl like variety and novelty - so a sport is often very popular.
> remember when the Scottish Fold first appeared? i do!


Not the Scottish Folds, no - but I was slightly the first in the UK (+ only one other) to see the American Curl... and in the first five to see a Bengal - def the first to meet Jean Mill personally


----------



## jackieladbroke (Oct 31, 2009)

ally said:


> God will this never end? As Elmo said - a sweeping and innaccurate statement about Labradoodles.... this person who says about shelters being full of crossbreeds and mongrels obviously hasn't been to one recently- there are more Staffies, Labs, Lurchers, Collies in there. Any shelter will tell you that you have your facts wrong about their residents. I am telling you you are well off the mark with your comments about Doodles and going to the health list problems posted let's break it down.... many of the traits suggested are from the Pedigree Poodles and the Elbow and Hip Dysplasia etc. are carried from the Labradors. All dogs can suffer bloat, hyper or hypo thyroidism; cushings, Entropian etc. especially pedigrees so you're not very accurate there! It is commonly known that cross/mongrels are much healthier than pedigrees and having had both, I and my family agree. I am sure this was an innocent thread again hijacked by the "KC Brigade" - are these the same people who bleat when we crossbreed owners defend our choice of dogs? Do we make derogatory comments about other breeds of dogs? Yet we've had insults made about our dogs being abnormal; deformed; unhealthy; all bred from untested stock; and really insulting comments made to some in particular. Please get a life or realise we all have choices - as to the poster who commented that they should be banned, look back in history where you will see crossbreeds were here first and to stay - pedigrees are all man-made and designed by breeders and KC recommendations, so don't be so insulting please. Do you have any common decency or have no historical knowledge of dogs???


Excellent post.

BTW- did anyone just watch the documentary 'Is It Better To Be Mixed Race?'

Yes, the title does refer to humans, but it was interesting to note that there is compelling evidence that one is healthier if ones genes are mixed from as far as possible. Those born in areas of the world where inbeeding has occurred due to small populations were found to have a genetic disadvantage. There is a very interesting article on this which can be found if you Google 'Is It Better To Be Mixed Race, I think it's within the Channel 4 website (sorry, I'm not sure if posting links is allowed).

Anyway, as it states there- scientists have known for centuries that inbreeding results in weaker offspring.


----------



## jackieladbroke (Oct 31, 2009)

poodlemad said:


> the main thing that pops my blood vessels is greedy people that breed crossbreeds and charge way over the top for them more than that of a pure breed and effectively just rip people off in my eyes


But who is to judge what the worth of a dog is? Is a dog 'better' if someone chooses to pay £2,000 for it? Issues of money have nothing to do with animals in themselves. If someone gets a lovely dog who they adore and who gives them years of joy - who is to judge whether or not they've been 'ripped off'. How is it greedy for someone to charge for a cross breed, and not for a pedigree breeder to charge? What is the difference?

There also seems to be an assumption by several people, that if you choose a pedigree dog you will be buying a sort of uniform product that will definitely turn out in a specific way - dogs vary enormously, you'll find all sorts of different personalities across different breeds. I know breed is an indicator but it certainly isn't a guarantee.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I asked Elmo to come into the other room so I could tell him he had no purpose......





..... he said he'd be right with me as soon as he's finished glossing the door frames in the kitchen.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Reply to MerlinsMom - sue 

from a genetics standpoint, the Am-Curl is fascinating - 
the kittens ears first rise as they usually would from the neonate 
flat-eared squush, and then they begin to curve. so the breeder 
can never be sure just who will curl and who will not, in any 
given litter, until they are a bit older. 

one of the times it is possible to SEE the effects of gene-switching in action - 
as a function of age + development. an amazing thing. 

did anybody catch the TV-special on the epigenome? 
GREAT stuff, i was riveted - the DNA match from identical twins as children, and their NOT identical DNA as adults, was a real mind-blower. environment, experience, stress, illness, diet, etc, all alter the DNA - wow! 

last night NOVA re-broadcast the special about the Turkish family with 5 (adult) children who could not walk upright - heartbreaking as they are shunned in their home village, and when the family had moved further away from the village heart to satisfy the anger and dislike of some neighbors, they moved uphill. the next year, their well went dry, and NO ONE would help them by allowing them to use some of their water - oh my! :---( 
but the genetics were incredible. 

cheers, 
--- terry 

terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, IPDTA, TDF


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Was this not once a thread about why some people were against cross breeds?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

reply to * jackieladbroke * 

well, it depends... as usual! ;--) 

Arabian horses are intensively scrutinized, and have been bred as pure lines from Bedouin stock for at least 2k years - much longer than any *breed* of dog can claim to have been around, except possibly Tibetan Mastiffs and maybe Thai Ridgebacks or Xolo or one or 2 others. even the Pharaoh Hounds, when they pulled DNA, had modern markers - they are a reconstruction, not the original breed shown on pyramid murals. 

yet Arabs, who are often closely interbred, are among the most endurance tested and easy keepers in the equine world. Why? because the breeders CULL just as avidly as they breed them - rejecting animals who do not meet *all* of their standards. 
a particularly special mare would be kept in the family tent to protect her from being bred by another stud than the one they have planned, or to keep her from being bred too young. so TEMPERMENT and an affiliation for humans and tolerance of human idiocy and strange events is part of their breeding philosphy - 

contrast that with the American racing thoroughbred, where a monster like Northern Dancer is bred for thousands of dollars, to many, many mares - despite the fact that he was nicknamed the HAMMER for his well-known habit of rearing-up and trying to crush ppl with his forehooves, even as a youngster! his ** speed ** was all they wanted - but it was Not All That They Got. that nasty streak still comes out in his line, even today. 
sheesh - what eejit breeds to a stud who lives in solitary splendor, in a paddock all to himself, with a BREEDING * CRADLE to protect the mare, so that he can only reach her 
to mount the cradle, and never touches the mare?!?! they are literally afraid he will kill one of his mares, which is *not* normal stud-behavior! 
he cannot get to her with his teeth to bite, or kick her - only breed her. 
this is not what >> I << think of as responsible breeding! that stud was a nasty piece of work, and should have been neutered, not become a matador sire, IMO. 

no un-schooled Bedouin living in a goatskin tent in the 1930s would have bred that stud, had he belonged to him - nor would he have found anyone of his fellow Arab breeders eager to line up to get foal-rights from him. they would have cut him early, and as mean as he was, probably he would have had a short life - instead of founding a racing dynasty! 

i meet breeders who want to save every pup; i am sorry, but a pup born with severe deformities is pitiable, yes, but must we spend a grand or more to save that pup? what are we saving that pup FOR - a life of some appreciable quality, or an existence of a few unhappy years? no-one likes these choices, but we must make some hard decisions - and WHO we ought to breed is one of them. 

bad-genes tend to cluster - which helps in the culling process, as particular clusters become easier to weed out as we learn to recognize them as a sign of problems. 
BLUE dogs have a whole slew of skin, cardiac, etc, problems that go along with their color - yet we keep breeding them, and many breeders charge extra for the color because it is RARE. white tigers are rare in the wild because they are less likely to live long - not only is the white coat-color a recessive, but their beautiful orange + black camouflage is gone, and they are a flag to their prey. *rare* may be nifty and expensive, but that does not mean *healthy* or Fitted To Their Environs. 

PET PEEVE 
--------------- 
hearing *white tigers* described as ENDANGERED * SPECIES - 
a) they are a color - not a species 
b) they are COMMON in captivity, in fact they are a threat to the wild stock - as every captive white-tiger in a zoo is taking up cage-real-estate that could go to a wild type orange and black tiger, and tigers in the wild NEED their pigment. 

Arrgggh!! whew - ok, rant over and off my soap-box... 
;--) 


--- terry 

terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, IPDTA, TDF


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

As a follow-up to the above post may I point out that CULL doesn't automatically mean KILL it just means removing (or preventing) a certain animal/s from breeding. 

This is achieved by gelding, neutering or homing under endorsements or contracts. As such, it is practised in all animal breeding societies.

Decades ago it often did mean kill but not nowadays, not necessarily.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

thanks for that! :--) 

yes, i do mean who gets to breed - not 'who gets to live'. 
good to clarify that desex is now a simple thing. ;-) 

- terry


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

In regards to the original post:


I am not against Crossbreeds. I am against the fact the breeders don't health test, and choose a stud that compliments their bitch/dog.

And yes it happens in all breeds, pedigree or crosses.

If cross breed breeders health tested their dog (bitch and stud) and did all that should be done then maybe some people wouldn't be so harsh. 

A lot of cross breeders (and pedigree breeders) explain their reason's for not H/T.....like....they are crosses so therefore healthy, my dog had seen the vet, my dog has been to the vet every year, my vet had said my dog is healthy.............etc etc

What a load of tosh, proper H/T can not be done by vets.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

> yet Arabs, who are often closely interbred, are among the most endurance tested and easy keepers in the equine world. Why? because the breeders *CULL* just as avidly as they breed them - rejecting animals who do not meet *all* of their standards.


I agree, culling is very, very important and really the lack of it, is at the bottom of many of the problems we see in dogs.
People breed dogs because they are their beloved pet not because they have looked at their pet objectively and looked at what it can bring to the party.
They breed dogs that have been rejected by breeders and have endorsements on them.
They breed unhealthy animals and ones that have terrible temperaments.
They conveniently forget the funny looking, now dead puppies in the last litter or the dysplastic mother of their dog or its scabby skinned father.

They forget how Bobby from up the road, the father of the pups, bit two people but he is a "lovely" dog.

They forget that their Champion bitch is the product of a liaison that produced some very unhealthy dogs and her mother dropped dead at 2 years of age.

They conveniently forget the health tests as are they are irrelevant because of the reasons outlined by Acacia86 in her post.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> quote >> Have you an article on this that you can give us a link to <<
> 
> i do not have an article, but this is basic genetics - not to do specifically with dogs,
> just genetics + breeding in the broad sense.
> ...


reply by Rona post #340

Sorry, this guy is a trainer, he has no qualifications regarding genetics as far as I can see. So his opinion is no more valid than ours

Post #342

the book from which i got my facts is by a geneticist - 
and i have a dual of Ag Education and Animal Science. 
cheers, 
--- terry

Excuse me, Terry, but I have read, and reread post #338, and have to agree that the majority of your post is just opinion  especially the part that starts IMHO :001_tt2:

I do also have Padgetts book sitting on my knee at the moment and haven't quite figured out what parts you pulled out.

If it is the part about Puggles x Puggles not breeding true  well that is not rocket science and these two breeds hardly compliment each other do they?

There are some of us here speaking to responsible crossbreeding, and there are other breed combinations that WOULD be much more compatible for producing more predictability in the next generations. Then there is always the F1bs from which you can predict very much the variation that you might get in that litter  and find homes for those varied pups according to possibly Volhard puppy aptitude testing and matching to the expectations of the new owners.

In regards to the hybridization of corn comparison  what you have neglected to mention (OOPS ON YOU) is that you cannot maintain pure strains of dogs within a closed system, because, as you well know, the majority of pure strains of mammals become extinct along the way to accomplishing purity, and the remaining need to live in a protected environment . . . not a welfare issue regarding rats and mice *BUT WITH DOGS IT IS.*

This same method of hybridization IS used in cattle and sheep breeding. Pure lines, are kept so that hybrids can then be used for better production BUT those pure lines DO have allowances for outcrossing (some call it breeding up) so those purebred herds themselves dont genetically implode. As well, if one of those lines suffers a genetic meltdown  you can butcher and eat the failed line. Again, that would be a welfare issue in regards to our canine pets.

DBCA Breeding Up Program

New Zealand Highland Cattle Society

There is also a system for composite breeds, the constant creation of genetically replenished "new" breeds.

_Composite breeds
Crossbreeding is also used to form new or "composite" breeds. Once the crossbred base population has been formed, the flock is managed as a purebred flock. This is how many new breeds are created.​_
Sheep 201: Breeding systems

Canine Diversity FAQ - Canine Genetics Diversity Articles

_"Although highly inbred animal populations exist (mostly created by human intervention), it is questionable to say that any such populations thrive. More accurately, they manage to survive for awhile. Inbred laboratory animals (mice, beagles, cavies) exist in protected environments largely free from environmental stress or challenge. Isolated inbred wild populations like the celebrated wolves of Isle Royale or the Cheetah are in reality struggling and vulnerable, ripe for extinction. Very soon (by nature's timetable) they will no longer exist; nature is in no hurry either to create or to extinguish animal populations.

That extremely inbred lab mice exist comfortably even in a protected environment is due largely to the fact that surviving strains have been successfully purged of many deleterious genes; their natural genetic load has been reduced by careful selection. Part of that selection process necessarily involves the fact that many bloodlines have been culled or discarded, or have simply failed to survive the process. The purebred dogs that now display dramatic genetic diseases for which screening programmes are being developed, are simply a demonstration of the risks of the inbreeding/selection process. Is it right that ninety-five dogs should die for each five survivors of a stringent inbreeding/culling programme? Is it worth that just to purge some part of the natural genetic load? Our companion animals are not lab mice and we should value their lives more than that."_​
Since you mentioned basic genetics, here is just a little bit more:

What are the general effects of inbreeding

_Why do living things avoid inbreeding? Because in general, it is quite bad for a population or an organism to be very inbred. There is a well studied, although only partially understood phenomenon called inbreeding depression . . .

Inbreeding depression encompasses a wide variety of physical and health defects. Any given inbred animal generally has several, but not all, of these defects. These defects include:


Elevated incidence of recessive genetic diseases 
Reduced fertility both in litter size and in sperm viability 
Increased congenital defects such as cryptorchidism, heart defects, cleft palates. 
Fluctuating assymetry (such as crooked faces, or uneven eye placement and size). 
Lower birthweight 
Higher neonatal mortality 
Slower growth rate 
Smaller adult size, and 
Loss of immune system function.

Can you at least eliminate specific genetic defects through inbreeding?

Careful inbreeding to find and remove genetic problems *superficially sounds like a good idea,* although laborious, and problematic in terms of numbers. And undoubtably it IS useful in certain specific circumstances *when the genetic problem is clearly defined,* and its inheritance is known. However, test breeding to uncover recessive diseases is notoriously difficult, *and eliminating from breeding programs only those that have a disease is a very inefficient way of reducing a recessive disease's incidence. *

*Evidence indicates that inbred strains DO carry a smaller number of recessive genetic defects, but this is more than balanced out by the fact that they are more likely to suffer from the ones that they have.*​_
Isn't it interesting that this (final blue bolded part) is what is now said about dog breeds?

_"The breeding of purebred dogs is akin to (breeding laboratory mice)...(most breeds) are becoming progressively more inbred. My observation is that most are on the road to extinction, but most breeders do not even realize they are part of an experiment."​_Quoted from John B. Armstrong, Ph.D.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> reply to * jackieladbroke *
> 
> well, it depends... as usual! ;--)
> 
> Arabian horses are intensively scrutinized, and have been bred as pure lines from Bedouin stock for at least 2k years


This is not true. The Arabian horse stud book was not closed until 2004.

http://www.waho.org/Definition.html

_
. . . it soon became evident that the registering authorities of the world could no longer work with the old terminologies used to establish purity.* They were truly non-defining and every existing book appeared to have horses that did not fit the accepted phraseology that has historically been used to establish Arabian horse purity.*

. . . At the 2004 WAHO Conference in Warsaw, Poland, the Delegates passed a majority vote to close the world Arabian Stud Books to all new horses which do not trace to previously accepted horses under the WAHO Definition.
_


leashedForLife said:


> yet Arabs, who are often closely interbred, are among the most endurance tested and easy keepers in the equine world. Why? because the breeders CULL just as avidly as they breed them - rejecting animals who do not meet *all* of their standards.


Well, maybe they too don't know very well how to cull.

World Arabian Horse Organization - General Interest Menu

_
*It is important to understand that inherited genetic disorders in Arabian horses know no boundaries.* They have been reported in *all blood lines *of the Arabian breed and reported cases have come *from almost all countries* where Arabians are being bred today. It is also important to understand that there is nothing to be gained from pedigree witch-hunts.

GENETIC DISORDERS IN THE ARABIAN BREED: There are four known genetic conditions in Arabian horses, which usually result in death or euthanasia of the affected animal. All four are thought to be autosomal recessive conditions, which means that the flawed gene is not sex-linked and has to come from both parents for an affected foal to be born. A fifth genetic condition, Juvenile Epilepsy Syndrome is not usually fatal, but can be disabling if not treated.

These are: 
1.	Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Disorder (SCID); 
2.	Cerebellar Abiotrophy (CA); 
3.	Lavender Foal Syndrome (LFS); 
4.	Occipital Atlanto-Axial Malformation (OAAM). 
5.	Juvenile Epilepsy Syndrome (JES
_
But I do agree that Northern Dancer's legacy has been a bit of a nightmare for the Thouroughbred breed, and, in regards to dogs, that many, many dog breeders just do not use the proper care in deciding which dogs to breed forward from.

I cannot agree, though, that culling, in dog breeding, should bear the brunt of the blame for the genetic conditions we see coming to the fore (although it does deserve an amount of it). This is because SO MANY conditions are polygenic and/or late onset and/or with varied expression, and with no genetic test available. Those cannot be resolved through culling. The purebred closed registry breeding system has LOTS more problems than just breeders who don't know how to cull.

Do you have, perhaps, a suggestion what Cavaliers should be culled from breeding programs when 100% hold at least some genes for MVD (a late onset polygenic condition). How about for Syringomyelia (another late onset condition with variable expression, and as of yet an undetermined mode of inheritance - probably polygenic as well, oh yeah, and probably every Cavalier is a carrier of some of these genes too.)

If you do, I have the numbers of some researchers to give to you. Some have studied Cavalier lines and pedigrees right back to foundation, yet still cannot guarantee producing non-carriers.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Was this not once a thread about why some people were against cross breeds?


it was indeed lol.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Was this not once a thread about why some people were against cross breeds?





dexter said:


> it was indeed lol.


It still is I believe 
It's just moved on to genetics, which is an important consideration when breeding or researching any type of dog.
It's slightly beyond me however


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

i do not know what the rate of genetic defects is in dogs in the UK, but according to Padgett, *every dog in the USA, whether purebred or mixed-breed, carries an average of 5 bad genes*. they may be expressed or un-expressed.

genetic screening is frequently avoided altogether, even for conditions where there is a test available that is accurate and helpful. 
hip-dyspasia is one of those polygenic problems - but that does *not* make it impossible to select for good hips. Greyhounds tend to have excellent hips - Why? because a racing kennel has no desire to keep or pass on lousy running gear. so they selected dogs with good hips as parents. 
Penn-HIP, the Penna Hip Improvement Program, can be used on pups as young as 12-WO to predict their hip-joints as adults with 85% accuracy. that is pretty doggone good - but i do not see breeders using this to select which pups they will keep for breeding. Why?

the breeds that have been most-successful at ELIMINATING a specific problem within their breed have *required* that breeders TEST for that problem - Basenjis and their bleeding disorder is an excellent example. but a fatal bleeding disorder makes breeders sit-up and take notice; evidently a chronic and expensive, crippling problem like hip dysplasia does not.

it has been over 2 yrs since i last visited VetGens website - i note that under 
*Whats New* they list a TEST for coat-length in Akitas. what would U want to bet that in a decade, fluffies are still being whelped + sold? 
furnishings, satin-coat and curly-coat are also offered - but those are a convenience, not a health-risk. here is their list of current health tests for dogs:

pasted copy 
---------------------- 
Genetic Disease Tests
cord1 - PRA

Cone-Rod Dystrophy 1 - Progressive Renal Atrophy (cord1 - PRA) is an inherited disease of the eye that affects the cone and rod cells that make up the dog's retina and often leading to blindness. more
CNM-Centronuclear Myopathy

Centronuclear myopathy in Labrador Retrievers is a recessively inherited muscular disease. This disease was previously known as Labrador muscular myopathy. The disease is characterized by early onset muscular problems such as awkward gait, fatigue, and difficulty eating. Affected puppies generally begin displaying these problems within a few months after birth. Researchers in France, Drs. Tiret and Blot at The Alfort School of Veterinary Medicine discovered the mutation that is responsible for the disease. The test offered here is based on this discovery. As with other recessive diseases, animals with two copies of the mutation will be affected and display symptoms, whereas animals with one copy (carriers) and no copies (clear) will be symptom free. more
CT-Copper Toxicosis

Canine copper toxicosis ("CT") is an autosomal recessive disorder of copper accumulation which results in severe liver disease in several dog breeds. Unless specific anti-copper treatment is instituted, most affected dogs die at three to seven years of age. CT is, in particular, a severe problem in Bedlington Terriers.
more
Cyclic Neutropenia

Canine Cyclic Neutropenia Canine cyclic neutropenia, also known as 'gray collie syndrome' (GCS), is an autosomal recessive disease. Both parents must carry the abnormal gene for the offspring to be affected.
more
Cystinuria

Cystinuria in the Newfoundland dog is indicated by the presence of cystine stones in the kidney, bladder or ureter. Failure by the kidneys to reabsorb amino acids results in the formation of these stones.
more
Factor VII Deficiency

Factor VII deficiency is a generally mild bleeding disorder.
more
Hemophilia B

Hemophilia B is often a severe bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency of coagulation factor IX resulting in a severely affected blood clotting process. In response to an injury that causes bleeding, affected dogs fail to activate the coagulation process and experience uncontrollable breeding problems. The disease occurs in many different breeds and in mixed breed dogs as well.
more
Hereditary Cataract

There are several types of inherited cataract in the dog which vary in both their appearance and age of onset. The majority of these are inherited as autosomal recessive traits, but some are inherited as dominant or perhaps polygenic trait.
more
Hereditary Nephritis

more
NCL-Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis

A young-adult onset NCL occurs in American Bulldogs and a mutation in the cathepsin D gene (CSTD) responsible for NCL in this breed has been identified(Awano et al 2006)
more
NE-Neonatal Encephalopathy

more
PDP1

Pyruvate Dehydrogenase Phosphatase 1 deficiency
more
PFK-Phosphofructokinase deficiency

Canine Phosphofructokinase (PFK) deficiency is an autosomal recessive genetic disease which prevents the metabolism of glucose into available energy resulting in exercise intolerance and muscle disease in Cocker Spaniels. PFK deficiency also destroys red blood cells in affected dogs, leading to anemia. The PFK deficiency gene frequency in Cockers is estimated to be 10% of the population.
more
PK-Pyruvate Kinase deficiency

Pyruvate kinase (PK) deficiency in Basenji dogs is an inherited lack of an enzyme (pyruvate kinase) in the red blood cells of an affected animal. This enzyme is required for red blood cells to survive for a normal length of time in the blood of the animal, and when it is missing, the red blood cells break down and are destroyed prematurely.
more
PRA-Progressive Renal Atrophy

Irish setter progressive retinal atrophy (PRA) is an inherited disease that leads to blindness in affected dogs. It is inherited in a simple autosomal recessive fashion. more
RCND

Renal Cystadenocarcinoma Nodular Dermatofibrosis (RCND) is a naturally occurring canine kidney cancer syndrome that was originally described in German Shepherd dogs. more
vWD

von Willebrand's disease has been identified in a wide range of canine breeds, and is the most common of the inherited bleeding disorders. As with humans, there are three classifications of this disease, Types I, II, and III. These are based on the concentration and nature of plasma vWF.
more
Type I vWD

VetGen scientists, in collaboration with the University of Michigan and Michigan State University, proudly announce the discovery of the mutation that causes Type I von Willebrand's Disease (vWD) and the offering of a DNA test to detect vWD in the above breeds.
more
Type II vWD

Type II vWD is characterized by abnormal vWF, as opposed to low levels of normal vWF. This type is not as common as Type I, but a mutation causing it has been identified in some pointing breeds such as Deutch Drahthaar.
more
Type III vWD

Canine von Willebrand's disease (vWD) in Scotties is an autosomal recessive genetic disease with a gene frequency estimated to be 15% of the Scottie population. vWD also affects numerous other breeds of dogs.
more

Other Genetic Services
Profiling/Parentage/Storage

In addition to offering genetic testing services for the detection of color genes and of targeted canine diseases, VetGen offers other valuable services. These services, DNA Profiling, DNA Parentage and DNA Storage, can be ordered at the time a genetic test is requested, or at any other time, independent of other tests.
more

Other Services
OFA Registration of Disease Test Results

OFA Registry The OFA, Orthopedic Foundation for Animals, has created a voluntary registry for the results of all VetGen Direct and Linked Marker DNA disease tests. We encourage you to register your dog's test findings with the OFA.
more
top
Canine

* List of Services
o Canine Tests by Breed

o Breed Identification Test Mixed breeds
o Genetic Trait Tests Coat Color
o Coat Length
o &nbspGenetic Disease Tests Cord1 - PRA
o CNM
o CT
o Cyclic neutropenia
o Cystinuria
o Factor VII
o Hemophilia B
o Hereditary Cataract
o Hereditary Nephritis
o NCL
o NE
o PDP1
o PFK
o PK
o PRA
o RCND
o vWD
o vWD Type I
o vWD Type II
o vWD Type III
o Profiling/Parentage
o OFA Registry
* Breeding Strategies
* References
* FAQ's

Services
DNA Profiling
VetGen can conduct a DNA profile, or DNA "fingerprint", on your canine... DNA Storage
VetGen will store your dog's DNA sample for up to 10 years... Canine Genetic Registry
The results of the tests can be formally registered with the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA)...

Are you ready to place an order?
Tests and Services by BREED

Price List Sorted by BREED

Price List Sorted by TEST

Convert Currency

©2009 VetGen.

========== END pasted copy ===========

how many breeders are taking advantage of these tests? 
the point is NOT to avoid breeding any carrier - as Padgett stated, every dog carries an average of 5 deleterious genes (in the US-popn). if we stopped breeding every carrier, we would stop breeding every dog. 
breeding carrier to carrier, or expressed dogs (or those that *will become* symptomatic, as in PRA which in Akitas has an average onset of age 3 - 5) 
are both to be avoided, to avoid the actual expression of damaging genes.

many of the recent-tests ID not only that the gene is present, but carrier status. 
30, 40 years ago, breeders were praying for such tools - now that they are here, and available, very few use them. Why?

here is OptiGen, another testing corp: 
OptiGen - homepage headlines - genetic diseases in dogs - canine genetic testing - Ithaca, New York

from their home-page: 
>> Note: Additions to the United Kingdom Kennel Club registry reporting scheme
starting Nov. 1, 2009: Australian Shepherd - CEA/CH and PRA testing;
Newfoundland - Cystinuria testing and Portuguese Water Dog - PRA testing <<

their list of tests: (pasted) 
-------------------------------------- 
Tests

* Prices and Discounts 
* Patents and Licenses 
* OptiGen's Health Registry Reporting Policies

American Eskimo Dogs - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
American Staffordshire Terriers - OptiGen® NCL-A test
Australian Cattle Dogs - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Australian Shepherds - OptiGen® CEA/CH test & prcd-PRA test
Australian Shepherds, Miniature - OptiGen® CEA/CH test & prcd-PRA test
Australian Stumpy Tail Cattle Dogs - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Basenjis - OptiGen® PK test
Border Collies - OptiGen® CEA/CH & CL tests
Boykin Spaniels - OptiGen® CEA/CH test
Briards - OptiGen® CSNB test
Bullmastiffs - OptiGen® Dominant PRA & CMR tests
Cardigan Welsh Corgis - OptiGen® rcd3-PRA test
Chesapeake Bay Retrievers - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Chinese Cresteds - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Cockapoos - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Cocker Spaniels (American) - OptiGen® PFK test & prcd-PRA test
Collie - OptiGen® CEA/CH & rcd2-PRA tests
Coton de Tulear - OptiGen® CMR test
Dachshunds - OptiGen® NARC test
Doberman Pinschers - OptiGen® NARC test
Dogue de Bordeaux (French Mastiff) - OptiGen® CMR test
Dwarf Poodles - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
English Cocker Spaniels - OptiGen® prcd-PRA & Familial Nephropathy tests
English Springer Spaniels - OptiGen® PFK test
Entlebucher Mountain Dogs - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Fam Collies - OptiGen® CEA/CH, rcd2-PRA & prcd-PRA tests
Finnish Lapphunds - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
German Shorthaired Pointers - OptiGen® CD test
Goldendoodle - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Golden Retrievers - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Great Pyrenees - OptiGen® CMR test
Irish Setters and Irish Red & White Setters - OptiGen® CLAD & rcd1-PRA tests
Karelian Bear Dog - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Kuvasz - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Labradoodles - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Labradoodles, Australian - OptiGen® PFK & prcd-PRA tests
Labrador Retrievers - OptiGen® prcd-PRA & RD/OSD & NARC tests
Lancashire Heelers - OptiGen® CEA/CH test
Lapponian Herders - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Mastiffs (Old English) - OptiGen® Dominant PRA & CMR tests
Miniature Poodles - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Miniature Schnauzers - OptiGen® Type A-PRA test
Newfoundlands - OptiGen® Cystinuria test
Norwegian Elkhound - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers - OptiGen® CEA/CH & prcd-PRA tests
Portuguese Water Dogs - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Rough Collies - OptiGen® CEA/CH & rcd2-PRA tests
Samoyeds - OptiGen® XL-PRA & RD/OSD tests
Shetland Sheepdogs - OptiGen® CEA/CH test
Siberian Huskies - OptiGen® XL-PRA test
Silky Terriers - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Sloughis - OptiGen® rcd1a-PRA test
Smooth Collies - OptiGen® CEA/CH & rcd2-PRA tests
Spanish Water Dogs - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Swedish Lapphunds - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Toy Poodles - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test
Whippets: Longhaired - OptiGen® CEA/CH test
Yorkshire Terriers - OptiGen® prcd-PRA test

----------- END -------------------------

is this every possible problem? no - but we are not even taking advantage of those that we can test for, to prevent the problems that we can.

in addition, simply screening dogs *later* rather than the current REGISTER the entire litter, and let Heaven or the devil sort it out, is a straightforward means of preventing many, in fact most, of hereditary problems.

to reference Padgett again, *85% of heritable diseases or disorders will emerge by 24-mos age *. that is not a quote word-for-word, merely the stat - if we WAIT till the dog is 2-yrs old to breed, 85% of heritable problems become manifest. 
that is not that long to wait, for such an enormous pay-back.

and just to put on the ribbons, *by waiting till the dogs are at least 2 years old to breed, we can add an average of 2-years to the lifespan of their progeny.* 
that is a doggone good side-effect, is it not? 
that came from research within the last 6-mos, so Padgett's book will not include it.

here in the USA, the JRT/Jack Russell Terrier was the target of a power-struggle between the JRTCA, the original breed-club, and a breakaway group of breeders who wanted AKC-recognition. the JRTCA had maintained the breed as a *working breed*, not a pet, and had NEVER registered litters. the individual dogs were to be registered, if the owner desired, at no less than 12-mos age. they had to be screened by a vet for a list of potential-problems, have an all-clear there, and be seen and handled by a judge or a recognized breeder-mentor, to evalutate the dog to be sure they met breed-standards. NOT that they were champion ring-material, but that they were identifiably a JRT, and that they *could do the job for which they were bred*- enter a hole in the ground, or other small space, to eradicate vermin. 
ensuring that the dog had a small chest was one of the required tests - too big a rib-cage prevents the dog from getting into, or worse, getting OUT of, a small space.

the *JRT Breeders Assoc* which sought AKC-recognition, had no such requirements; they register pups wholesale, as litters. no minimum requirements are placed on any dog before they may be bred, not for age, structure, size, coat color, nothing; just that each of the parents be registered as JRTs. 
today who do U think has the healthier dogs? 
they have changed the breed *name* within the AKC to the Parson Russell Terrier - whoopee - but just as with the AmStaff (AKC) and APBT (UKC), a name does not change the traceable origins of a pedigree, nor the quality or lack thereof in the progeny.

i would lay money that if we did a random survey of 50 JRTs thru the JRTCA, and 50 Parsons via the AKC, all a minimum of 3-years age, that the JRTs would be the healthier set of dogs. they may not have a standard coat length or type, but they will be capable of earth-dog work and varminting, and worth considering as breeding stock. 
just my hunch - but i would play it.

it is time for breeders to put their money where their DOGs and their BREEDs best interests lie, and start requiring a minimum of genetic screening in order for their progeny to be registered, via kennel-registries - whether that is KC, FCI, AKC, UKC, Canada's Kennel Club (to avoid confusion with the novelty registry CONTINENTAL Kennel Club, who will register Ur one-off cross-breed as a *new breed* - humpf!), 
or any other recognized pedigree registry that requires a 5-generation pedigree for registering any dog, and any progeny.

more, i would suggest that *chipping every dog* be a mandatory requirement, and that *dna profiling* for parentage become a standard tool for detecting those breeders who use So-and-So's brother rather than the dog listed as sire on the paperwork, or who list their 3-YO champion bitch as the dam, when it was her half-sister who has never seen a ring because she has a bottle-brush tail, who actually whelped them - because BREEDING her champ-bitch would mean taking her off the show-circuit for too long.

i also think that genetic-screening should become open-registry, not closed - so that anyone who needs the info can access it. the OFA records are closed - so if my GSD has really lousy hips, no one but myself needs to know that. Penn=HIP records are open, and are also breed-specific for the angles of the joints; a normal hip for range-of-motion in an English Bulldog is not the same as a normal-hip in a Wire-Haired Fox Terrier, which is different from a Great Dane/Deutsche Dogge.

i think refusing to register the progeny of ANY dog of 12-mos age or younger, whether stud or dam, should become a global standard. working toward the minimum 2-yrs age for breeding would be a worthwhile effort, as it increases longevity and brings out into the open heritable conditions that may not be testable, simply because the dog is now old enuf to exhibit at least some of those problems.

that isn't everything i would like to see - 
but it's a start! ;--)

cheers, 
--- terry

terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, IPDTA, TDF


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

wow long post!

But all i can say is would this be a concise summary of your post?

EVERY dog should be health tested
Every breeding dog should be at least 2 years old and health tested
every breeding dog should be at least 2 years old, health tested, and screened as much as possible for other genetic faults.
pups born outside of the above... should not be registered


If thats correct... then i agree with you 100%


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

We used their facility to test for the longcoat gene in our dogs, 

Mo


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

yes, pretty much! :--) 

except that i would start out by denying registration to any pup of parents who 
are 12-mos age or less - no point in setting the bar too high for the first round. 

there are some tests that should be required of every breed and dog - 
Penn-HIP would be one that i would suggest, for hips + knees both. 
a current CERF certificate is another. 

breed-specific screens are all over the map - some breeds have many available, others none at all. for any breed, the wait-till-2-YO rule helps to flush-out the nasties that are hiding in the underbrush. so working toward a minimum age of 24-mos to breed would be a truly advantageous goal. 
i would LOVE to see Rotts age to an average of 12-YO before their death - which with the delay in breeding till 2-YO, is pretty easily achieved. i cannot think of anything else that is so simple, and has so many benefits. 

cheers, 
--- terry 

terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, IPDTA, TDF


----------



## Becki&Daisy (Oct 22, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> What are you calling a random pet? A thought out cross, cuz if that is the case then I have to ask who made you queen to decide that!
> 
> O.K. I'll bite and be queen.
> 
> ...


i like this 

its very hypocritical. some people think they're above and beyond others because their dog has champion in them.
to me a dog is a dog. my crossbreed is no better than your pedigree. and your pedigree is no better than my crossbreed. its personal choice. its personal desire and as long as the dog is well loved and looked after is there really a problem? maybe somewhere in you're pedigree's heritage there was a bitch that was bred purely for money....but the fact is you have your dog now and they're well loved and looked after.

i agree some people breed for the wrong reasons / too often etc. but its not just an issue for crossbreeds.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I think Comfortcreature that your eulogy regarding the horrors of inbreeding and its application to the dog breeding world is of course correct IMO and that in a perfect world we would all be introducing compatible total outcrosses to lines every few generations to augment the gene-pool and to reintroduce some hybrid vigour no matter how short lived that may or may not be.
I agree, with all that. Pedigree dogs are in the main a mess and pedigree breeders are also guilty of a "heads in the sand" attitude as regards culling or health testing of dogs or of the basic genetics involved. I also agree that not all pedigree breeders are "squeaky clean" either.

However I am at a loss as to where the deliberate or random mating of different pedigree breeds together for the sake of creating "new breeds" or in effect "making money" actually brings to the party.

This is the real world, this is the world of dodgy deals, puppy farmers, of back street breeding of bitches in small cages and filthy runs. Of larger breed puppies housed in small flats and sold at 5-6 weeks out of the back of vans, or down the pub. Of stacks of cages of smaller breed bitches bred back to back. Of dogs kept in back gardens merely for the purpose of breeding litter after litter. It is a world of falsifying documents and using dogs for their own ends. It is a world of those who haven't a clue, breeding their pet because they just want to. 
You must admit surely that most cross breeding is not some highly calculated health screened event, but merely the random matings of two dogs who perhaps only have the connection of being owned by the same owner or being owned by a circle of friends/relatives or being housed in a similar locality.

Unfortunately no matter how high and mighty your principles may be, this is the world of the cross-breeder in the majority of cases, and it is a world that is feeding the rescue industry with a steady stream of pups and dogs.

There are I am sure "perfect" cross-breeders and if that is the case then all credit to them, but at present they seem to be few and far between.

*At the moment* with rescues full and the credit crunch; with people giving up dogs through no fault of their own due to financial pressure, *there needs to be super-ethical reasons to breed any dog, whether pedigree or cross-breed*. (As I have said and posted before).


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I think Comfortcreature that your eulogy regarding the horrors of inbreeding and its application to the dog breeding world is of course correct IMO and that in a perfect world we would all be introducing compatible total outcrosses to lines every few generations to augment the gene-pool and to reintroduce some hybrid vigour no matter how short lived that may or may not be.
> I agree, with all that. Pedigree dogs are in the main a mess and pedigree breeders are also guilty of a "heads in the sand" attitude as regards culling or health testing of dogs or of the basic genetics involved. I also agree that not all pedigree breeders are "squeaky clean" either.
> 
> However I am at a loss as to where the deliberate or random mating of different pedigree breeds together for the sake of creating "new breeds" or in effect "making money" actually brings to the party.
> ...


absoloutly


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Can someone define ethical (in breeding terms) ?


HI, in another post different thread i have tried to introduce my first principle of ethical breeding

it reeads more or less as follows:
*"THOU SHALL NOT SELL NOR BUY DOGS"*​
so far, been living with this principle, my father before be, and a large group of friends and their family too...

it helps get a more humane perspective on what a dog is, should be and should be treated...and if it doen't line the pokets of ppl then pll (by not selling and not buying) will commit themself to make their life complete...and all the rubbish relating to the "this guy does it for the money" while "ethical breeder charge the right amount and sell to the right people and incur into costs" is avoidable...

afterall dogs are our best friend...only a deranged human being would go out buying a friend!


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> HI, in another post different thread i have tried to introduce my first principle of ethical breeding
> 
> it reeads more or less as follows:
> *"THOU SHALL NOT SELL NOR BUY DOGS"*​
> ...


I'm deranged :yikes::001_wub:


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

rona said:


> I'm deranged :yikes::001_wub:


roflmao

Mo


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Rona: 
do you go out to "buy a friend" say for a confidence? 



what is rof in the roflmao?


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> HI, in another post different thread i have tried to introduce my first principle of ethical breeding
> 
> it reeads more or less as follows:
> *"THOU SHALL NOT SELL NOR BUY DOGS"*​
> ...


I too must be deranged as I see no issue going out to buy a dog/pup of my choosing than I do to going to the grocery store to buy food instead of hunting my own. When I buy a dog I am looking for a person who has put their money where their mouth is ie testing parents, feeding well, reg vet visits, staying with the female during and after birth. I do believe their time that they have dedicated to my new pup is worth something. Esp. when I know most of the money generated is going back into that persons love for their dogs, whether that be in future testing, dog shows, working trails, food for owner and dog. It takes a village to raise a child and it takes good breeders to raise a good litter....Jill


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> Rona:
> do you go out to "buy a friend" say for a confidence?
> 
> 
> ...


I don't quite understand your question 
The dog is not a friend when I buy it 
People aren't worth buying


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> A sweeping generalisation again.. "they" do not have the problems you outlined. Some do and some don't the same as "pedigree" (my crosses have long pedigrees). If you mean KC registered dogs then unfortunately there are no compulsory health tests in place but "some" breeders use the fact that there pups are KC to tell unsuspecting buyers that they are healthy because they are KC registered when in actual fact the registration gives nothing.
> 
> As an aside... the great long list of diseases present in "pedigree" (KC registered) dogs is not exactly a good argument against crossing. It's clear that many years of "purebreeding" has not created healthy dogs and using your list, quite the reverse.


Yes I agree but they do still have problems in Labradoodles when not bred properly.. same with everything surley?


----------



## mel (Jul 19, 2008)

ive not read all the posts coz i cba the topic was enuff for me....why oh why wud u want to breed a mongrol there is soooooooooo many dogs in the dog homes who are mongrols over half are pts why wud u want to add to that :/ get ur girl spayed asap and reduce that number !


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> Rona:
> 
> what is rof in the roflmao?


roll On floor.

Mo


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> Rona:
> 
> what is rof in the roflmao?


Roll on the floor laughing my ass off


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

In reply to post 378, firstly your avatar dog is SO gorgeous. Secondly, I agree, there are good and bad breeders of all types and breeds of dogs; some people just assume that Labradoodle or other crossbreed breeders DON'T healthcheck (presumably because they think as they are not KC registered the breeders aren't bothered? I don't know). In the past one of our Labradors who was from one of the UKs best Lab Breeder and Cruft's Champion; all healthchecked etc. but that didn't help the poor dog who ended up with such bad health. Our Doodles breeders both fully healthchecked their dam and sire and we have the papers with all the evidence we need. We are very happy with our choices and love our dogs regardless anyway.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I love love crossbreeds hence why we have a cockerpoo.

I love the fact that you have the mixes of both breeds in looks and personalities.

Yes they are often bred for money and can be over priced- but then don't all breeders breed for payment?

At the moment we are loving the lhasa Apsho crossed with a poodle or cocker.

I also adore Lhasa as a pedigree too.

I am not getting into heated arguments about health checks but just giving my view on why I love cross breeds.

It's the same as pedigrees, people choose them for their looks, character or to fit into their lifestyle just the same as those that choose crossbreeds.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

post #187 - elmo 

Originally Posted by Natik: 
working dogs are needed... unless the human has a better nose in sniffing out 
drugs for instance... or police dogs finding guns in an large area ....
so how can u say we dont need working dogs? 
They are a MASSIVE benefit helping to find lost people etc etc 
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Both drugs and explosives now have a higher detection rate by technology. 
The dogs are fantastic and do a great job but needed? 
cost maybe the only thing.. 
-- elmo the bear 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

hey, elmo! :--) 

do U have a link for the info on better-detection-via-tech? 

there is a trout-farm in New England that uses Labs to herd their fish - 
yup, watched them do it on video - and the elder-dog taught HIMSELF 
to pick-out sick or damaged specimens; he puts them on the bank. 
(at first they were upset with him, then they realized that every fish 
he pulled was ill, injured or abnormal.) 

how about dogs who sniff mercury? no tech solution. 
dogs who detect rot in wooden power-poles? no tech solution. 
dogs who detect leaks in cross-country natural-gas lines? no tech soln. 
dogs who detect algae in farmed-catfish? (cause a musty taste) 
no tech solution. 
dogs who detect booby-traps + mines in combat zones? no tech-soln. 
(U cannot issue EVERY patrol with their own mine-detector, and PLASTIC mines, which are now 90% of the armamentarium, are not detected by the classic metal alarms.) 
nothing other than dog or human senses can detect a suspicious booby-trap. 

i have never in my life seen a tech-device that can search a car, cargo-container, ship, boat, luggage, etc, for drugs, agricultural-contraband, smuggled $$, hidden pests, smuggled wildlife, etc, etc, etc. DOGS can and do all of this, and more. 

i will be interested to see the tech solutions to detecting problems! 
Thanks in advance, cheers, 
--- terry 

terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, IPDTA, TDF


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

lol 

somehow i doubt you have proved your case 
but agree totally lol


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

re post 385 - james1

hey, james! :--)

i;m glad i gave U a giggle - and very happy to serve!

now i can die content (at some time in the future ;--) 
knowing that Un-Like our dear dogs, i served a purpose! 
not merely a pointless consumer of food, energy + oxygen, 
but i * DID * something! (puffs chest out, stands tall...)

comic relief, eh? could be worse... 
smiling, 
--- terry

terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, IPDTA, TDF 
'' for *this* i did 134 college credits?'' :001_tt2::smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> post #187 - elmo
> 
> Originally Posted by Natik:
> working dogs are needed... unless the human has a better nose in sniffing out
> ...


As I'm rude and "snarky" my answer is, yes I have a link and no, I'm not going to share it. As you are so vastly clever I'm sure you'll find it yourself... oh there I go again "snarky" as ever 

Oh BTW... not sure that slowly poisoning a dog with mercury is a particularly good idea and yes, there is electronic mercury detection equipment available.

Try googling "Jerome System"

BTW... most of the rest of your list has an alternate solution as well. The use of dogs for the points you make requires a dog and training - not a specific breed of dog.

""i have never in my life seen a tech-device that can search a car, cargo-container, ship, boat, luggage, etc, for drugs, agricultural-contraband, smuggled $$, hidden pests, smuggled wildlife, etc, etc, etc. DOGS can and do all of this, and more.""

I have seen one that sweeps an entire building in a few seconds using microwaves to test for just about any substance known (including high risk materials)... it does it every couple of seconds and sweeps the people in the building as well... It's actually on test not that far north of you.


----------



## tillysdream (Sep 23, 2009)

I am shocked this thread is still running and not closed....Its clearly upsetting alot of people


----------



## Elaine (Dec 15, 2007)

Alot of these designer dog breeders often mislead prospective buyers by putting things in the adverts like, "all pedigreed". Now I know all of you here know that that is just rubbish but to many looking for a dog or a cat for that matter are just looking for a cute baby animal. They also beleive that they are getting something special with these designer names. Many buy the animal before educating themselves, sadly.
I met a girl the other day with what looked like, from a distance, a cane corso. When I got closer I thought what a massive lab, it was actually a lab x Gt dane. Fatastic dog both in temperament and looks but was told that the mother was the lab, I then felt very sad for the mother of this huge, gorgeous beast.
Not against mixed breeds, I am against the fast growing amount of breeders.


----------



## birdjimmy (Feb 4, 2009)

I am trying to breed my cairn/westie cross and was trying to get either a cairn or westie to breed with but the owners I contacted didn't want to know because she wasn't a pure breed. I eventually had her covered with a miniature poodle who is a pure breed. The reason I picked a poodle was because they both don't molt, I looked into the breed and thought it would be a good match. I had my Holly checked out by the vet before I went ahead and the owner of the poodle showed me the checks she had done. I didn't know what the pups (If I am successful) would be called until after I picked the breed to cross with. I have had a mongrel in the past and he was the most loving friendly dog, I have had a pure breed cairn who was a nippy little bandit and you had to be on your toes with her, I took her to classes but the trainer said her temperment was inbreed from her parental stock.


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I am trying to breed my cairn/westie cross and was trying to get either a cairn or westie to breed with but the owners I contacted didn't want to know because she wasn't a pure breed. I eventually had her covered with a miniature poodle who is a pure breed. The reason I picked a poodle was because they both don't molt, I looked into the breed and thought it would be a good match. I had my Holly checked out by the vet before I went ahead and the owner of the poodle showed me the checks she had done. I didn't know what the pups (If I am successful) would be called until after I picked the breed to cross with. I have had a mongrel in the past and he was the most loving friendly dog, I have had a pure breed cairn who was a nippy little bandit and you had to be on your toes with her, I took her to classes but the trainer said her temperment was inbreed from her parental stock.


 Can't believe it and the sad thing is you're being serious :frown2:


----------



## tillysdream (Sep 23, 2009)

sequeena said:


> Can't believe it and the sad thing is you're being serious :frown2:


Agreed!

I find the whole thread distasteful to be honest!


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I am trying to breed my cairn/westie cross and was trying to get either a cairn or westie to breed with but the owners I contacted didn't want to know because she wasn't a pure breed. I eventually had her covered with a miniature poodle who is a pure breed. The reason I picked a poodle was because they both don't molt, I looked into the breed and thought it would be a good match. I *had my Holly checked out by the vet before I went ahead and the owner of the poodle showed me the checks she had done*. I didn't know what the pups (If I am successful) would be called until after I picked the breed to cross with. I have had a mongrel in the past and he was the most loving friendly dog, I have had a pure breed cairn who was a nippy little bandit and you had to be on your toes with her, I took her to classes but the trainer said her temperment was inbreed from her parental stock.


So you had holly checked for:

Pyruvate Kinase deficiency DNA
Eye tested (BVA)
Globoid Cell Leukodystrophy DNA

And had the studs owners had the dad tested for all the heriditary diseases and conditions found in poodles?

Why did you breed? You seemed undecided as to what sort of dog you wanted her to go with, from cairn to poodle. What made you decide this poodle was a good match?

Do you realise that if a pup she produces becomes ill with an heriditary disease that could have been tested for, the new owners can sue you?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Elaine said:


> Alot of these designer dog breeders often mislead prospective buyers by putting things in the adverts like, "all pedigreed".


Why is this misleading... a pedigree is simply a list of parents / grandparents etc.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Why is this misleading... a pedigree is simply a list of parents / grandparents etc.


It is misleading because it makes people think the dog is a "pedigree" dog, which is what most people refer to as a purebreed. It also intimates that the pups are registered purebreds, which again they are not.

I agree a pedigree is only a list of the generations, however people refer to

pedigree dogs

and

crosbreeds/mongrels

its not difficult to see why its misleading. Ive seen some deliberatly misleading adverts around lately, and not all about mongrels, many misleading pedigree dog adverts too.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

pedigree - the record of descent of an animal, showing it to be pure-bred. Oxford English dictionary.

Not a term applicable to cross-breeds it seems.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> pedigree - the record of descent of an animal, showing it to be pure-bred. Oxford English dictionary.
> 
> Not a term applicable to cross-breeds it seems.


Thats interesting!

I guess its like the peerage lists published.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> Thats interesting!
> 
> I guess its like the peerage lists published.


And we know what happens with peerage...

So the dictionary says my crosses are purebred.. oh... or the Oxford ED entry

"the history or provenance of a person or thing. "


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> It is misleading because it makes people think the dog is a "pedigree" dog, which is what most people refer to as a purebreed. It also intimates that the pups are registered purebreds, which again they are not.
> 
> I agree a pedigree is only a list of the generations, however people refer to
> 
> ...


No that'll just be you... most people refer to mongrels as dogs of unknown parentage and crossbreeds as a deliberate cross.

You refer to "pedigrees" because you want to mislead people that "pedigree" in some means "better" which it clearly does not. It also cons people into believing that "pedigree" in some way means healthy which in many case simply means inbred with narrow gene pools and consistently bred despite poor health.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I didn't know what the pups (If I am successful) would be called .


They too would be called mongrels I would imagine

"Mongrel refers to mixed ancestry: * Among pets, one whose parentage is of unknown or mixed breeds as opposed to purebred. ** Dogs are also referred to as a mutt (see mixed-breed dog). ** Cats are referred to as a moggy in Australia and the United Kingdom. ...

Mo


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

OK I'm going to try a compromise here... you keep the word pedigree and I'll have my own word which is :

"Alistofalloftheparentsandgrandparentsgoingbackoverfivegenerationswiththeresultsoftheirhealthtestsadnregistrationinformation"

SO, without fear of contradiction I have "Alistofalloftheparentsandgrandparentsgoingbackoverfivegenerationswiththeresultsoftheirhealthtestsadnregistrationinformation" for the bitch I may breed which (as this isn't a pedigree but simply "Alistofalloftheparentsandgrandparentsgoingbackoverfivegenerationswiththeresultsoftheirhealthtestsadnregistrationinformation) proves she isn't purebred.... but that's not a bad thing, unless you're just anti-crossbreed with no viable explanation as to why... other than you breed "purebreds" or simply want a row  and think that dictionary definition quoting isn't just simply gainsay :thumbup1:


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> No that'll just be you... most people refer to mongrels as dogs of unknown parentage and crossbreeds as a deliberate cross.
> 
> You refer to "pedigrees" because you want to mislead people that "pedigree" in some means "better" which it clearly does not. It also cons people into believing that "pedigree" in some way means healthy which in many case simply means inbred with narrow gene pools and consistently bred despite poor health.


I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT!

I do not view billy as worse than miso! I do not say that mongrels are worse than any other dog!

I DO say that many mongrel breeders are in the wrong due to their lack of responsibility, forethought and see the breeding as a money making scheme!

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/69732-pedigree-dogs.html

hmmm seems i'm amongst friends then that refer to purebred dogs as "pedigrees". I believe the programme that started many of the debates on here was called "pedigree dogs exposed". Hmmm and now you refer to your dog as a pedigree? 

Your post is yet again agressive offensive and innacurate.

oh and i thought you had me on ignore! 

oh and while were quoting dictionarys :

Mongrel = a dog of mixed parentage
crossbreed = hybrid a mix of two species

so any dog of mixed parentage is a mongrel


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT!
> 
> I do not view billy as worse than miso! I do not say that mongrels are worse than any other dog!
> 
> ...


I'm sorry and your post was polite and explanatory. I must test my reading skills... why don't you give me another red blob... I have famous writers giving them to me as well now so you'll be in good company.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> No that'll just be you... most people refer to mongrels as dogs of unknown parentage and crossbreeds as a deliberate cross.
> 
> You refer to "pedigrees" because you want to mislead people that "pedigree" in some means "better" which it clearly does not. It also cons people into believing that "pedigree" in some way means healthy which in many case simply means inbred with narrow gene pools and consistently bred despite poor health.


oh and again... I DONT BREED, and have ZERO intention of breeding

Therefore i cannot ever be sued for misleading!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT!
> 
> I do not view billy as worse than miso! I do not say that mongrels are worse than any other dog!
> 
> ...


There you go with your dictionary again... don't bothered reading it all... the ending is rubbish.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I'm sorry and your post was polite and explanatory. I must test my reading skills... why don't you give me another red blob... I have famous writers giving them to me as well now so you'll be in good company.


should have gone to specsavers!

:lol:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> oh and again... I DONT BREED, and have ZERO intention of breeding
> 
> Therefore i cannot ever be sued for misleading!


So why are you against crossbreeds then? That was the title of the thread.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So why are you against crossbreeds then? That was the title of the thread.


go back and read... if you can find your glasses.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> go back and read... if you can find your glasses.


la la la la la lalalalal la la lalalalal la ...... forgot the words.....


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Once again another thread gone to the toilet, whats all the hair splitting about, dogs of mixed or unknown parentage, has always been called mongrels as far as I am concerned, the whole " its a cross breed not a mongrel" argument has only come into fuishion the last couple of years when the breeders who like to cross dogs to make" a dog with the best of both breeds slogan being bantered about" whats the problem with calling a mongrel a mongrel and a pedigree a pedigree the way its always been, or is there some shame in owning a mongrel so much so that people want to try and cover up with the whole cross breed title? this is something that is going to go on and on til everyone accepts that they own one or the other.

Mo


----------



## Ladywiccana (Feb 24, 2008)

*So off topic guys, now being closed ...............*


----------

