# Is there ever a reason to cross breed??



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

I don't believe there is. 

We have breeds of dogs which suit any purpose. So why would we need more?

Is it fair to our dogs in rescue to breed for no reason other than "because I want to"


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> I don't believe there is.
> 
> We have breeds of dogs which suit any purpose. So why would we need more?
> 
> Is it fair to our dogs in rescue to breed for no reason other than "because I want to"


*To be totaly honest i can't see how breeding crossbreeds any different to breeding pedigree dogs.Having said that,i do find it very sad to see so many unwanted animals of any kind in rescues.I wish i had the answer to make things better.*


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I don't see anything wrong with crossbreeders who fully health test, use good breeding stock, make sure the puppies go to the best homes possible. Not the ones who just throw any two dogs together with no consideration for health, conformation or temperment though


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

Contrversial topic :smile:

Surely all 'Pedigree' dogs were crossbred at some point in history to produce the breed?


I dont believe in some of these rediculas named crossbreeds and being sold as 'rare' breeds! But nowt wrong with a good ol Mongral - Just ask my Millie


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

I personally think there are enough breeds already available to suit everyone and heaven knows more than enough mongrels languishing in kennels ... so why do we need to create more "cross breeds" ... if not to fuel the pet trade and make a fast buck?

Just my thoughts.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Milliepoochie said:


> Contrversial topic :smile:
> 
> Surely all 'Pedigree' dogs were crossbred at some point in history to produce the breed?
> 
> I dont believe in some of these rediculas named crossbreeds and being sold as 'rare' breeds! But nowt wrong with a good ol Mongral - Just ask my Millie


Agree.

But we have plenty of "mongrels" in rescue though..


----------



## ballybee (Aug 25, 2010)

Isn't it thanks to a cross between a pointer and a dally yonks ago that some dallys have the LUA?

I'd say theres reason if it improves the breed's overall health/genepool. I'm not overly bothered about crossbreeds seeing as i own one as long as they were bred with plenty of thought as to the temperment/size/traits/how easy they'll be to get good homes to(thinking of all the staffy crosses i see needing rehomed everyday). Because Tummels a fairly rare cross up here(he was the first time i'd heard of a lab X ridgeback) all his littermates were snapped up, Tummel had to be rehomed 3 weeks after leaving his mum and we luckily got him  3 people called about him just while we were there so we decided to take him and never looked back really 

So i would say yes, there are good reasons for crossing breeds but it seems a few people only do it for the wrong reasons.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> I don't see anything wrong with crossbreeders who fully health test, use good breeding stock, make sure the puppies go to the best homes possible. Not the ones who just throw any two dogs together with no consideration for health, conformation or temperment though


But how can you be sure that 2 healthy dogs who have been health tested are not going to produce a heridatory problem.

I.e.. Is it not possible that cross breeding 2 dogs who are renound for hip problems are not going to produce an even bigger problem?

Far from being an expert...


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

You could argue the same about breeding two labradors together for example even with hip scoring how do you know the puppies aren't going to end up with HD? You can't create a bigger problem but you can try to reduce the possibility same with a pedigree with the same problem


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> You could argue the same about breeding two labradors together for example even with hip scoring how do you know the puppies aren't going to end up with HD? You can't create a bigger problem but you can try to reduce the possibility same with a pedigree with the same problem


But labs are already in existence.

Your point is one of the reasons why I dont see the need to cross breed..


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I have a cross breed and I see no difference to having him and having any other dog that has been specifically bred to be sold.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Jobeth said:


> I have a cross breed and I see no difference to having him and having any other dog that has been specifically bred to be sold.


I too have cross breeds. All of them rescues..

I understand why people buy a certain dog and not choose to rescue. But why cross breed?


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

hawksport said:


> You could say the same about pedigree dogs


I agree

I'm trying to be understanding.. Lol


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

hawksport said:


> You could say the same about pedigree dogs


But without doubt, surely outnumbered by mongrels? ... Unless you consider the number of Staffies


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

hawksport said:


> You could say the same about pedigree dogs


This exactly.

Remember Maya is a purebred Alaskan Malamute and she's from a rescue, she is not alone and I have seen many other purebreds in rescue.

Not everyone wants a rescue and not everyone wants a purebred, people are not sheep.

It is not just cross breeds in shelter but many of the are actually purebreds often staffies, collies, greyhounds etc

There will always been cross breeding as there will always be new breeds.

There's many breeds today that are nothing more than companion dogs or something that had no necessity being bred but they still were and still are, they are now even registered as breeds.

It's no excuse to just single cross breeds out, purebreds are in the same situation.

Untill something is done by the government about the breeding of dogs then rescue shelters will always be full and there will always be homes need for both pure and x's.

If someone wants a x from a breeder the same as a pedigree then that is their choice, I know many people who are not able to travel very far and are not able to comply with local rescue's rules. I would probably fail their home tests because of my back gate not being secure, I just happened to have friends traveling to the same kennels where Maya was.

I have nothing against x's being bred as long as it's done responsibly.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

some people who want a pet just want a cross, I happen to know quite a few who won't own a purebred just want a mongrel just like I prefer moggies to purebred cats....Jill


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Milliepoochie said:


> Surely all 'Pedigree' dogs were crossbred at some point in history to produce the breed?


Some were - but with specific reasons for producing a breed to do a certain type of dog - what purpose is there for most so called BYB breeders who do no health tests, seldom have any consideration for the dogs, and do it for no other reason that to charge the public large sums of money for often, unhealthy pets - using the much maligned and increasingly disproved argument of 'hybrid vigour' being the reason for the cross.

Some of the assistance dog organisations deliberately breed goldies and labs - very similar type dogs, and there must be a reason for this, i.e. the qualities they offer as assistance dogs, but note they haven't stopped producing / taking certain pedigrees either.

There are also, as we know, some breeds out there with similar 'type' dogs in their ancestry, included in an attempt to remove certain health conditions from a breed, or to stop a breeds extinction. As we know from one of our own members, there has been a crossover in types of BSD with permission.

There are around 250 KC registered breeds, plus an increasing number of import breeds, many of whom will probably at some point, join the KC register - to argue that there isn't a breed to suit someone's needs if futile - because the crossing of two breeds simply cannot guarantee temperament, coat, size, behaviour or requirements - and while there will be exceptions to the rule within most breeds - in the main, the traits expected from the breed, when bred correctly and responsibly will be inherent.

Only yesterday, a number of us witnessed a dog (not show bred) 'sightseeing' with his owner at a show - the number of dogs he had a go at was quite shocking - it was testimony to the show bred dogs (who so many people have a go at) that on an extremely hot day, not a single one, dog or bitch, responded to him, despite there being around 400 of them present.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

goodvic2 said:


> Agree.
> 
> But we have plenty of "mongrels" in rescue though..


And an ever increasing amount of pedigree's to.

Sorry im not against pedigrees but I love Mongrels for obvious reasons. There are also plenty of single breed dogs in kennels (Staffies) and I dont believe by trying to eliminate Mogrels it would solve the kennel problems.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

canuckjill said:


> some people who want a pet just want a cross, I happen to know quite a few who won't own a purebred just want a mongrel just like I prefer moggies to purebred cats....Jill


But why on earth would u breed when so many need a home.

Truly don't get it


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Amethyst said:


> But without doubt, surely outnumbered by mongrels? ... Unless you consider the number of Staffies


The vast majorities of staffys are not purebred but "crosses" anyway


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> The vast majorities of staffys are not purebred but "crosses" anyway


Sadly it's hard to tell the difference these days even the KC reg ones look dubious 

Unless bought from decent breeder ...


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Milliepoochie said:


> And an ever increasing amount of pedigree's to.
> 
> Sorry im not against pedigrees but I love Mongrels for obvious reasons. There are also plenty of single breed dogs in kennels (Staffies) and I dont believe by trying to eliminate Mogrels it would solve the kennel problems.


And unfortunately, the large majority of pedigrees come from the same type of breeder as the x-breeds, or are ex-breeding bitches who have outlived their usefulness - you won't find many well bred and responsibly homed pedigree dogs in rescue by comparison.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

hawksport said:


> I don't know because a lot of the pedigree dogs are in breed specific rescues where they aren't in the public eye like the mongrels at the local shelter are. My own breed has around six breed specific rescue groups and doubt mine is the only breed that has that many


Exactly this; I went to visit Kilo's breeder yesterday and we got to talking about temperment, puppy farming and eventually rescue. She said that a man in this area was trying every trick he could to obtain one of their dogs (and other breeders in the North) and was a well known puppy farmer. Apparently the Northern branch of the breed rescue had 92 dogs referred to it last year. She did make the point that not one of those dogs was from a reputable breeder; all were from BYBs and many were given up due to temperment. You cannot measure the numbers of dogs returned to their (responsible) breeders so who knows what the real total of rescue pedigree dogs is?


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

I dont understand why ppl have such a issue with crossbreeds im getting one tomorrow and no shes not from a rescue centre it was a personal choice


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

swarthy said:


> And unfortunately, the large majority of pedigrees come from the same type of breeder as the x-breeds, or are ex-breeding bitches who have outlived their usefulness - you won't find many well bred and responsibly homed pedigree dogs in rescue by comparison.


Which I guess suggests that so called 'pedigree' and Mongrels are both 'disposable' in todays society.

No matter if a dog is a mongrel or pedigree it depends on the breeder and conditions of sale / support as to whether said dog becomes another figure for the over stretched rehoming centres.

I think the issues with so many animals in need of a home/in shelters is due to our societies now disposable attitude to pet ownership and not necessarily directly linked to whether a dog is a single breed or mixture.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

julesmcc said:


> I dont understand why ppl have such a issue with crossbreeds im getting one tomorrow and no shes not from a rescue centre it was a personal choice


Because those of us that do are usually thinking about the dogs who need a home in rescue...

It's one thing getting a lab, because it has a good tempremant. Or getting a spaniel cause you want to do agility, or getting a specific breed to show.

What health testing has your breeder done? What are the parents like? Is there any risk of any genetic illness?


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

As i have said its a personal choice i have seen her mum, dad and grandma who all live together i do not at all have to justify why am getting a cross


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> I don't see anything wrong with crossbreeders who fully health test, use good breeding stock, make sure the puppies go to the best homes possible. Not the ones who just throw any two dogs together with no consideration for health, conformation or temperment though


but how many people who crossbreed actually do this? Not very many.

I can see your argument OP and I agree with you. Breeding a pedigree breed in order to better it's quality and to continue it's existence (as long as it's done properly) is fair enough, but I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to breed a dog that you can't even be sure of what it's gonna look like.

Even with SBT's, I know there are zillions of SBTs needing a home but as someone said - the 'real' staffy is so far removed from your average rescue dog that even I was surprised to see the SBT's at Crufts and how different they look to your every day rescue pet staffy..... so I say good on those breeders who are keeping the real heritage of the staff and only giving their pups to forever homes who may also keep the real staffy going. Although I must say, if I was a SBT breeder, i'd feel guilty and would always have to have a couple of rescue staffs too - and do all I could for the breed rescue


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

julesmcc said:


> As i have said its a personal choice i have seen her mum, dad and grandma who all live together i do not at all have to justify why am getting a cross


So how do u know that your dog may not suffer some heridatory illness or condition?

Or is it not important?


----------



## sailor (Feb 5, 2010)

It is not an issue of mongrel/cross breed or pedigree.... it is an issue of ethical breeding and being responsible enough to find decent homes for your puppies and not just sell them to the first person to hand you some cash.

If I got 2 diffrerent cross breeds and health tested them, made records of their history... then made their purpose to be a family dog, Microchipped all puppies in my details (if they ever found their way to a pound they could be traced straight back to me as the responsible breeder and I would take them straight back), then sought decent permanant homes for them and made the owners sign contracts ... what does it matter if they are cross bred ??

It is all down to the breeders of the dog... not the breed of the dog :nono:


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

I understand to a certain point, like I watched a programme where the bloke that first bred labradoodles was interviewed. His reasoning was to try and come up with a dog for the blind and the deaf that could still be owned by people with allergies to fur. Now that i do see the reasoning, so sometimes yes i agree, also if it is helping the breed then I can understand, if crossing pugs will help their medical issues moving forward i see no harm however if it is just to create the new 'designer' dog then no I disagree, there is no reason to plan to mate 2 different breeds.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Milliepoochie said:


> Which I guess suggests that so called 'pedigree' and Mongrels are both 'disposable' in todays society.
> 
> No matter if a dog is a mongrel or pedigree it depends on the breeder and conditions of sale / support as to whether said dog becomes another figure for the over stretched rehoming centres.
> 
> I think the issues with so many animals in need of a home/in shelters is due to our societies now disposable attitude to pet ownership and not necessarily directly linked to whether a dog is a single breed or mixture.


You are missing the point - not that I am disagreeing that yes, we do live in a so called disposable society.

However - the point is BYB and PF are solely interested in selling their pups, many responsible breeders will say no to far more people than they even consider to view their litters, never mind sell them to them - they will take great pains to ensure the homes they go to are correct and that the new owners understand both the positive and negative aspects of any breed - how the dog may be as a pup, what training issues they may face, and last, but not least, clauses in their sale of contract that the owner contact the breeder in the event they are unable to cope.

There are certain breeders which some owners seriously believe, because they are 'deemed' ideal family pets, that they come fully housetrained - have no awareness or bite inhibition, and that the puppy will be able to go on 10 mile hikes from the day it is allowed out after it's injections - believing that more exercise will result in a easier pup around the home, when in fact - the opposite is true - this is not withstanding of course the fact that the pup is then being placed at a higher than normal risk of hip dysplasia and other joint problems (made worse by the fact that many of certain breeder types don't test their breeding stock).

At 6 months, with no insurance secured, a dog that's psychotic in the home, because it's developed a level of stamina you really don't want in a young pup, it's chewed their house to pieces because they don't believe in crates, or think it is OK to leave a puppy home alone for 10 hours a day - all these amount to just some of the reasons why these dogs end up in rescue - most of these issues lay firmly at the foot of the breeder (and the people who chose these breeders) - and are far less likely to happen when a pup is bought responsibly with good advice on exercise, diet and how to deal with over exuberance (not to mention ensuring the owner has good quality insurance cover)


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Not really IMO but it does happen and i've got three beauty's because of it so i'm not complaining. Sometimes though the crosses are ridiculous and shouldn't be mixed for health or temperament reasons. 

Have to say i've had far more problems with my Mals than any of the crosses - maybe that's just the luck of the draw though!


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

goodvic2 said:


> So how do u know that your dog may not suffer some heridatory illness or condition?
> 
> Or is it not important?


 well done you have now upset me enough for me to want to leave this forum and as im aware there is a sticky about knocking cross breeds and upsetting crossbread owners ......... any way i think the best thing for me to do is unregister before im upset anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh and btw i care very much about her


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Two of my crosses are over seven years old and not a day's ill health, no temperament issues and no unstable characteristics - just for the record.  Who is going to stop people crossing anyway, I mean it's not illegal is it?

Don't leave the forum just report bad feedback to a mod if you find it derogatory to cross breeds, as you say it's not actually allowed.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

swarthy said:


> You are missing the point - not that I am disagreeing that yes, we do live in a so called disposable society.
> 
> However - the point is BYB and PF are solely interested in selling their pups, many responsible breeders will say no to far more people than they even consider to view their litters, never mind sell them to them - they will take great pains to ensure the homes they go to are correct and that the new owners understand both the positive and negative aspects of any breed - how the dog may be as a pup, what training issues they may face, and last, but not least, clauses in their sale of contract that the owner contact the breeder in the event they are unable to cope.
> 
> ...


I think you have hit the nail on the head - It's not so much is there a reason to crossbreed but is there a reason to buy from a byb / unethical breeder?

Its about responsible breeding and not directly linked to whether a dog is a single breed or crossbreed.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

julesmcc said:


> well done you have now upset me enough for me to want to leave this forum and as im aware there is a sticky about knocking cross breeds and upsetting crossbread owners ......... any way i think the best thing for me to do is unregister before im upset anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh and btw i care very much about her


I have no wish to upset you. I only asked if the future health of your pup is important.

Surely if you are going to bring/encourage new life in the world, you have a responsibility to do what you can to ensure it is healthy.

As a previous post said.. If the cross produces a pup who is behaviourally unmanageable, how will you cope? No doubt the dog will end up in rescue.

Upset is working in rescue with the dogs who need a home, who have been given up through no fault of their own. That's upsetting


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

julesmcc said:


> well done you have now upset me enough for me to want to leave this forum and as im aware there is a sticky about knocking cross breeds and upsetting crossbread owners ......... any way i think the best thing for me to do is unregister before im upset anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh and btw i care very much about her


Try not to take anything personally  From a crossbreed owner to another.

If your offended then report the material - Please dont leave the forum.


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

goodvic2 said:


> I have no wish to upset you. I only asked if the future health of your pup is important.
> 
> Surely if you are going to bring/encourage new life in the world, you have a responsibility to do what you can to ensure it is healthy.
> 
> ...


 you are unbelivable how dare you suggest that if my dog does have any behaviour problems or such that she would end up in a rescue home dont judge me when you do not know me!!


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Personally I think the people who can see the negative "issues" surrounding crossbreeding are those with some responsible dog breeding and/or rescue experience. The people who are all for it, see no harm as they have little experience of the results or idea of what can go wrong ...


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Amethyst said:


> Personally I think the people who can see the negative "issues" surrounding crossbreeding are those with some responsible dog breeding and/or rescue experience. The people who are all for it, see no harm as they have little experience of the results or idea of what can go wrong ...


Blanket generalization there then, as I had my start in rescue 30 years ago and still have ties (my son is currently volunteering), and do not have 'issues' with crossbreeding just on the fact that crossbreds are being produced instead of purebred specimens.

It strikes me as funny that where I live there are very few purebred dogs and club associated breeders, yet in our two large cities we home all of our healthy and adoptable dogs, and import more from far away places . . . . yet for some reason (AR inundated messaging maybe?) those that are in rescue in other places are often giving the message that the breeders of 'crossbreeds' and 'mutts' are to be targetted.

Not how I see it.

It has been said on this forum numerous times. It is not about 'what' a breeder is breeding, it is about the practices of the breeder themselves.

That's not rocket science.

CC


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2011)

I dont see a reason to cross breed no.....

I would have no issue with it however if it was done correctly. However I have yet to been given proof of a crossbreeder who health tests and does it to improve the dogs they have rather than just have a dog of one breed and a bitch of another and stick them together.

The type of breeder you need sadly is one that is not one that cross breeds. I know of many cross breed owners who have no contact with the breeder and IF they had to give the pup up the breeders would not be interested.

If done right I have no issue with it.

Also no one is having a dig at the dogs its the breeders.
Everyone on the forum loves dogs of all kinds.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> Blanket generalization there then, as I had my start in rescue 30 years ago and still have ties (my son is currently volunteering), and do not have 'issues' with crossbreeding just on the fact that crossbreds are being produced instead of purebred specimens.
> 
> It strikes me as funny that where I live there are very few purebred dogs and club associated breeders, yet in our two large cities we home all of our healthy and adoptable dogs, and import more from far away places . . . . yet somehow rescue in other places is giving the message that the breeders of 'crossbreeds' and 'mutts' are the problem.
> 
> ...


I agree with this 200%! Rep coming your way! I honestly think this is what this thread is about - Not the breed or breed mix but ethical breeding practices.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

There are rules on this forum on cross-breeds yes - but lets be VERY clear about one thing to anyone in any doubt.

The large majority, if not everyone on here, owners and breeders alike, love ALL dogs, irrespective of breed, type, size, pedigree or cross-breed.

The cross-breed itself is really NOT the main issue here - the issue is the people who more often than not breed them and their reasons for doing so (and many of these also breed pedigrees in similar circumstances).

It's a fact of life when you x-breed, in the main, you are doubling up on potential health problems from 2 breeds rather than lessening the risks - and because parents are invariably not health-tested and ancestry is not verifiable - so you have far less idea of what might and could happen to your dog.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Personally I see no reason for it.. I can however accept it as a good thing when done for health or for working purposes.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

swarthy said:


> . . . The cross-breed itself is really NOT the main issue here - the issue is the people who more often than not breed them and their reasons for doing so (and many of these also breed pedigrees in similar circumstances)..


Swarthy, when posters target breeders of 'pedigrees' why do threads get heated? . . . . because of sweeping generalizations.

It is well recognized (I believe) that it is not the dogs targetted. The problem IS the sweeping generalizations against crossbreed breeders, that some of us know some of and have great respect for.



swarthy said:


> . It's a fact of life when you x-breed, in the main, you are doubling up on potential health problems from 2 breeds rather than lessening the risks - and because parents are invariably not health-tested and ancestry is not verifiable - so you have far less idea of what might and could happen to your dog.


This is not fact, and on this sentence, then, you are being insulting with sweeping generalizations yourself. I can't imagine typing the above without the realization of how insulting it is.

If you have any understanding of the inheritance of recessives (and I believe that you do), then you will know that you are not necessarily 'doubling up' on potential health problems. You CAN be, and other times you won't be doing so, dependant upon the breeds put together, the problems, and their mode of inheritance.

On top of that you suggest parents are 'invariably' not health tested and ancestry is not verifiable.

What utter tosh to pretend that this is 'invariably' the case without allowance for the ones that do know parentage and ancestry and do health test.

What utter tosh to pretend/suggest that the situation is different with most purebred dogs that are bred as most have unverified pedigrees (with little to no parental DNA testing to prove parentage on most pedigrees).

CC


----------



## kirksandallchins (Nov 3, 2007)

I got a Labradoodle (then another a year later) as I waned the temperament of a Standard Poodle but with a more manageable coat. Maybe I was lucky but I have two dogs hat have turned out as I expeced (and more!!). I would love a Standard Poodle but could not afford £60 every 6-8 weeks o have it professionally trimmed.

My first Labradoodle was bred as a gundog - both her parents and a couple of her litter are used in a local shoot. I think this makes them fit for function, fit for life


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2011)

> If you have any understanding of the inheritance of recessives, the you will know that you are not necessarily 'doubling up' on potential health problems. You CAN be, and other times you won't be doing so, dependant upon the breeds put together, the problems, and their mode of inheritance.


So why am I health testing when I can just let them mate and have healthy dogs?

Sorry but I disagree with you.

Your telling me breeding a breed that has HD and a breed that has ED wont put pups at a higher risk of both? :glare:

Take Cockers for example....they are known to have PRA within the breed and Hip Dysplasia.

Mix in a poodle which is known to have skin problems and PRA your telling me that this mix is not then causing an increased risk of PRA, hip dysplasia and skin problems?

Or my fave mixed breed yet.....Sharpei cross basset.

Sharpei - Shar-Pei Fever, (in the USA Hip Dysplasia).

Basset - Hip Dysplasia, Elbow Dysplasia and Luxating Patella.

My point is, if breeders (cross and pedigree) test for these things you know what you are getting. Sadly this is not the case.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

God how many times have we had these threads????

They achieve nothing but discord.:

Half the time you get stereotypical answers and people responding who base a lot on feeling rather than facts and stats evidence.

To the OP:

I think in rescues you will find mongrels, crosses and purebreeds and don't forget the purebreed rescues.

So if your main concern is the amount of dogs in rescue perhaps you should re-title your thread: Is there ever a reason to breed more dogs?


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

What about all the working Lurchers?
A cross bred for a purpose and fit for function 

My cross breed was bred for a pet and a companion - I see no difference between her and a pedigree bred for the same reason.

A dog owner is just as likely or unlikely to give their pedigree up as their mongrel - there may be more mongrels in rescue because more mongrels are bred and more people own mongrels I don't know - but as a percentage of dogs in rescue against dogs bred I wonder if there's not much difference.

Just because I own Hienz 57's doesn't mean I'm more like to rehome them or abandon them to a rescue.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> So why am I health testing when I can just let them mate and have healthy dogs?
> 
> Sorry but I disagree with you.
> 
> Your telling me breeding a breed that has HD and a breed that has ED wont put pups at a higher risk of both? :glare


I'm not telling you anything of the sort. Read my words again if you think so.

HD and ED are both polygenetic, and both are problems that run in many/all breeds. There are other conditions that are not this way. Inheritance depends on the condition . . . which was my point. To type that 'doubling up' is on the main what happens, and ignore mode of inheritance, is giving misinformation.



shetlandlover said:


> Take Cockers for example....they are known to have PRA within the breed and Hip Dysplasia.
> 
> Mix in a poodle which is known to have skin problems and PRA your telling me that this mix is not then causing an increased risk of PRA, hip dysplasia and skin problems?


Depends on the type of PRA in each breed. If they are different, and the inheritance is recessive, then you are not risking PRA in that litter. With HD and skin problems, with polygenetic and unknown inheritance, it is anybody's guess.



shetlandlover said:


> My point is, if breeders (cross and pedigree) test for these things you know what you are getting. Sadly this is not the case.


By your say so only, this is not the case.

I have linked before OFA pages of Cockapoos with testing done, yet you claim to not know of testing crossbreeders . . . . speaks for itself. Some just don't want to see that some crossbreeders are testing.



> So if your main concern is the amount of dogs in rescue perhaps you should re-title your thread: Is there ever a reason to breed more dogs?


Wondering that myself.

CC


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> I have no wish to upset you. I only asked if the future health of your pup is important.
> 
> Surely if you are going to bring/encourage new life in the world, you have a responsibility to do what you can to ensure it is healthy.
> 
> ...


I think the bolded section was a little unfair. What knowledge have you got of that poster to base that remark on?

I've worked in rescue and had rescue dogs all my life but I would never say something like that to anyone, no matter how fed up I am with the rescue situation. That sort of 'holier than thou' attitude is what puts people off going to rescue in the first place. I honestly think that poster deserves an apology for that remark. It was uncalled for


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Verbatim said:


> I think the bolded section was a little unfair. What knowledge have you got of that poster to base that remark on?
> 
> I've worked in rescue and had rescue dogs all my life but I would never say something like that to anyone, no matter how fed up I am with the rescue situation. That sort of 'holier than thou' attitude is what puts people off going to rescue in the first place. I honestly think that poster deserves an apology for that remark. It was uncalled for


I'm sorry but in this day and age when you are given the option of going to a good breeder who health tests and puts the future of the pups above everything else, and you don't. Then I question the type of person who does this...

And could it not be said that if people do not put the time and effort into making sure they can give their pup everything, medically speaking, then perhaps they are the type of person who may not stick by dog?

You wouldn't smoke whilst pregnant. So why would you encourage the breeding of a pup who has not been health tested? And especially a cross breed when you don't know what your getting.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> I'm sorry but in this day and age when you are given the option of going to a good breeder who health tests and puts the future of the pups above everything else, and you don't. Then I question the type of person who does this...
> 
> And could it not be said that if people do not put the time and effort into making sure they can give their pup everything, medically speaking, then perhaps they are the type of person who may not stick by dog?
> 
> You wouldn't smoke whilst pregnant. So why would you encourage the breeding of a pup who has not been health tested? And especially a cross breed when you don't know what your getting.


Utter crap 

I have two crosses that came from breeders that health test and know of others too.

You really do not know everything and are making general sweeping statements.

You are making out that all crossbreeders are bad and that people who buy from them are of a "type".

You are being rude- you know nothing of the breeder that Jules MCC went to.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Utter crap
> 
> I have two crosses that came from breeders that health test and know of others too.
> 
> ...


Well done for going to breeders who health test. 

I certainly don't claim to know everything. It is just my opinion.

You were responsible. I'm just airing the view that everyone else should.

Do you advocate people buying and producing pups who are not health tested?


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> I'm sorry but in this day and age when you are given the option of going to a good breeder who health tests and puts the future of the pups above everything else, and you don't. Then I question the type of person who does this...
> 
> And could it not be said that if people do not put the time and effort into making sure they can give their pup everything, medically speaking, then perhaps they are the type of person who may not stick by dog?
> 
> You wouldn't smoke whilst pregnant. So why would you encourage the breeding of a pup who has not been health tested? And especially a cross breed when you don't know what your getting.


And what does that have to do with making horrible assumptions about people? I was talking about the bolded bit of your previous post, not asking for even more of your opinions 

ETA - I completely agree with what you say in that people should go to breeders who health test, nobody in their right mind would advocate breeding without health testing but that has got nothing to do with you saying that someone's dog will 'no doubt end up in rescue' - what a horrid thing to say about somebody you have no idea about.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Its not alright to breed pedigree dogs or support pedigree breeders failing to health test - Same should apply to them breeding crosses.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Verbatim said:


> And what does that have to do with making horrible assumptions about people? I was talking about the bolded bit of your previous post, not asking for even more of your opinions


God forbid an opinion on a forum 

My assumption is that people who CHOOSE not to go to a breeder who health test and therefore don't put the health of the pup first are UNLIKELY to make the best owner.

Why would you not make that assumption? You have a choice and u decide not to put the health of the pup first.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> Well done for going to breeders who health test.
> 
> I certainly don't claim to know everything. It is just my opinion.
> 
> ...


No I do not advocate people buying and producing pups who are not health tested in the main, though if someone made an error whilst purchasing a pup or for example was duped by her breeder, who am I to judge harshly?

I also do not advocate people judging others without the full facts.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Verbatim said:


> And what does that have to do with making horrible assumptions about people? I was talking about the bolded bit of your previous post, not asking for even more of your opinions
> 
> ETA - I completely agree with what you say in that people should go to breeders who health test, nobody in their right mind would advocate breeding without health testing but that has got nothing to do with you saying that someone's dog will 'no doubt end up in rescue' - what a horrid thing to say about somebody you have no idea about.


And just out of interest...

A breeder who doesn't health test, if that not bordering on an unethical irresponsible breeder?


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

goodvic2 said:


> God forbid an opinion on a forum
> 
> My assumption is that people who CHOOSE not to go to a breeder who health test and therefore don't put the health of the pup first are UNLIKELY to make the best owner.
> 
> Why would you not make that assumption? You have a choice and u decide not to put the health of the pup first.


So as you highlight once again the issue is breeding ethics, I really think you should re name this thread and stop making generalisations about specificly cross breeds when there are plenty of single breed dogs also being bred in the manor your thread refers to.

I believe the thread was only named this to achieve a reaction.


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> God forbid an opinion on a forum
> 
> My assumption is that people who CHOOSE not to go to a breeder who health test and therefore don't put the health of the pup first are UNLIKELY to make the best owner.
> 
> Why would you not make that assumption? You have a choice and u decide not to put the health of the pup first.


Yes you're absoloutely entitled to give as many of your opinions as you like but I don't see what it had to do with what I said? Did you quote me by accident 

I would not make that assumption because I try not to make assumptions about people.

However, I STILL don't get what any of that has got to do with you saying that the person won't adequately train the pup and that consequently it will end up in rescue. What is your basis for that? Just because that person hasn't gone to a top quality breeder, does that really mean that they will be bad owners?

There are a good few people on here who will say that they didn't do enough research and didn't get their puppy from a breeder that they would reccommend... or even from a puppy farm but still, their dogs have fantastic homes and are brilliantly trained. Yes, they have made a mistake but it's a lesson learned to them and it's a mistake they will never make again.

If you are trying to promote rescue, you are going about it in totally the wrong way - you need to EDUCATE people, not tell them off!


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> And just out of interest...
> 
> A breeder who doesn't health test, if that not bordering on an unethical irresponsible breeder?


Yes of course it is irresponsible, what's that got to do with anything I have said? I am sure you're reading something totally different to what i've written!!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> God forbid an opinion on a forum
> 
> My assumption is that people who CHOOSE not to go to a breeder who health test and therefore don't put the health of the pup first are UNLIKELY to make the best owner.
> 
> Why would you not make that assumption? You have a choice and u decide not to put the health of the pup first.


What 

There are many owners who have dogs that are not health tested and make great owners.

Lots of people are probably clueless about health testing not all have the capability or resources to do research or use internet and forums etc......

So all these people that get dogs from rescues that probably have come from untested parents they don't make good owners then?


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

As dogs are supposed to originate from wolves or jackals then it is fair to say no one has a true pedigree unless of course you own a wolf...

I think the argument seems to be whether or not you should buy any dog cross/pedigree that hasn't been health tested or should you pay for a dog when you can rescue one.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> God forbid an opinion on a forum
> 
> My assumption is that people who CHOOSE not to go to a breeder who health test and therefore don't put the health of the pup first are UNLIKELY to make the best owner.
> 
> Why would you not make that assumption? You have a choice and u decide not to put the health of the pup first.


That is so wrong IMO..your view but I don't agree...a hell of a lot of people don't know about these health test and how important they are, a lot of people think a vet check is Good to go...I was one of these people., but, I would think I was the best owner my lad could have ever had, he died when he was two, for the little time I had him he was very well looked after , very well indeed


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Verbatim said:


> And what does that have to do with making horrible assumptions about people? I was talking about the bolded bit of your previous post, not asking for even more of your opinions
> 
> ETA - I completely agree with what you say in that people should go to breeders who health test, nobody in their right mind would advocate breeding without health testing but that has got nothing to do with you saying that someone's dog will 'no doubt end up in rescue' - what a horrid thing to say about somebody you have no idea about.





Verbatim said:


> Yes of course it is irresponsible, what's that got to do with anything I have said? I am sure you're reading something totally different to what i've written!!


Any reply I make will lead on to debates about breeding.

The thread was about getting people's opinions on cross breeding, and if there is a need to it.

Somebody came on here saying that they had brought a pup who wasn't health tested, but they had seen the parents.

I have merely questioned the intentions of somebody, who comes on a forum where there is plenty of info. Including a sticky on buying puppy's and says they r buying an un health tested pup. If you post on a forum then you leave yourself open to be criticised. (look at the stick I have taken).

If you don't want to stick around to explain yourself, then assumptions maybe made. If you don't want anything to be said, then don't post


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

paddyjulie said:


> That is so wrong IMO..your view but I don't agree...a hell of a lot of people don't know about these health test and how important they are, a lot of people think a vet check is Good to go...I was one of these people., but, I would think I was the best owner my lad could have ever had, he died when he was two, for the little time I had him he was very well looked after , very well indeed


There is plenty of info on this forum.

People who don't know is one thing. Because as you say not everyone will
Know.

But if you are a member of the forum, how can you not know?


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

I have never once said she hasnt been health tested... you just ashumed coz i didnt say she had been that she hasnt!


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> There is plenty of info on this forum.
> 
> People who don't know is one thing. Because as you say not everyone will
> Know.
> ...


It just still does not guarantee that you will end up with a healthy dog though, I personally will never take the risk again, but even with a health tested dog there is still a risk...


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

julesmcc said:


> I have never once said she hasnt been health tested... you just ashumed coz i didnt say she had been that she hasnt!


You just enjoy your pup Hun xxxx I want pictures loads of them x


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Of course it isn't ethical to breed without knowing what the health of the progeny will be but so many people with genetic defaults still choose to have children so how do we expect people to feel guilty about breeding dogs?

Selfish people exist and don't care what others think. As for purchasing any dog without health tests, that's up to the buyer as that pup is already on the planet and the deed has been done. If it then suffers health problems the buyer should inform the breeder to try to halt future litters being bred but I doubt it will in most cases. This applies to pure breeds as well as crosses, the buyer then has to deal with the dogs health issues, one of the risks involved.
All a bit of a lottery really!

Remember, you don't have to justify your choice to anyone on here - I certainly wouldn't!


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

julesmcc said:


> I have never once said she hasnt been health tested... you just ashumed coz i didnt say she had been that she hasnt!


Really glad your back  Cant wait for piccies! :thumbup1:


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Malmum said:


> Of course it isn't ethical to breed without knowing what the health of the progeny will be but so many people with genetic defaults still choose to have children so how do we expect people to feel guilty about breeding dogs?
> 
> Selfish people exist and don't care what others think. As for purchasing any dog without health tests, that's up to the buyer as that pup is already on the planet and the deed has been done. If it then suffers health problems the buyer should inform the breeder to try to halt future litters being bred but I doubt it will in most cases. This applies to pure breeds as well as crosses, the buyer then has to deal with the dogs health issues, one of the risks involved.
> All a bit of a lottery really!
> ...


Love the pic of your pack by the way!


----------



## Linden_Tree (Jan 6, 2011)

I believe sensible and well researched outcrossing could be beneficial to a few breeds, especially those with smaller gene pools.

We justify the breeding of pedigrees by saying we show, or we need to carry on our lines. But for what purpose? Very few of the dogs bred are worked and used for their original purposes, so the preservation of breeds isn't as vital as it may have once been.

For all intents and purposes, dogs are bred for the hobby (be it showing, agility etc) and pet market, with only a small percentage being used for true work (think police/military). It's the responsibilty of man to ensure this is done as ethically and responsibility as possible, and with as much understanding of genetics and biology as one can.

I have no qualms against anyone breeding, as long as it's done in a responsible manner.

The rescue crisis is down to irresponsible ownership, more than bad breeding. People wouldn't breed, if there was demand.


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> Any reply I make will lead on to debates about breeding.
> 
> The thread was about getting people's opinions on cross breeding, and if there is a need to it.
> 
> ...


I know what cross breed threads end up as. I know what this thread is about. Plenty of people join the forum saying they are buying a puppy and don't say whether it's health tested or not because do you know what? It's actually got NOTHING to do with you. It's her choice and her money. Not your money. Honestly, what would you say if you came on here and said you were getting another rescue dog and all people did was slate you and say that rescue dogs are full of health and behavioural problems and that you won't be able to cope with it and that you will "without doubt" send it back to the rescue? Can you tell me how you would reply to that? Because that is basically what you have just done to someone else.

Nobody should have to explain themselves, what they do is their business. And nobody should have to not post because they're worried about replies. That person doesn't want to stick around because of the way you have treated him/her. Nothing to do with anything sinister.

Now you STILL haven't replied to what I was asking you - What basis do you have to assume that that particular member will not be able to cope with her dog & send it to a rescue. I am honestly interested in why you are so sure that she won't be able to train her puppy?



goodvic2 said:


> There is plenty of info on this forum.
> 
> People who don't know is one thing. Because as you say not everyone will
> Know.
> ...


The person only joined in the last few weeks.... perhaps they had seen/paid for this puppy before joining? Perhaps they didn't read these threads in advance? As you say yourself, "people who don't know is one thing." So perhaps this member didn't/doesn't know?


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

Milliepoochie said:


> Really glad your back  Cant wait for piccies! :thumbup1:


Ty  and when she is here with us tomorrow there will be plenty of pictures xx


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

julesmcc said:


> I have never once said she hasnt been health tested... you just ashumed coz i didnt say she had been that she hasnt!


Welcome back 

don't let anybody put you off - most of us are lovely and can't wait to see your puppy


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I thought this thread was : Is there ever a reason to crossbreed?

Didn't think it was to accuse a new member of not getting a health tested dog 


Wasn't the thread aimed at not producing more dogs to chose from as there is enough pedigrees to choose that should satisfy us all ?

Well I like both crossbreeds and pedigrees but prefer crosses a bit more:001_smile: and would hate to see a world where just purebreds existed.

As there are many crossbreed owners,sure they wanted a cross in preference to a purebreed.

So what does that tell ya?


----------



## foxyrockmeister (May 30, 2011)

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with cross breeds as long as you are not intentionally mixing two different breeds with similar health risk problems.

At the end of the day there are responsible pedigree breeders and there are irresponsible ones - there are responsible cross breeders and there are irresposible ones.
There are healthy pedigrees and there are unhealthy ones - same for crossbreeds. 

There are pedigrees in rescue centres desperate for homes and there are cross breeds.

I have owned both pedigrees and cross breeds. I have spenbt huge amounts of money buying a pedigree from a good line, health tested and from a responsible breeder and I have re-homed mongrels of unknown origin from rescue centres.

Surely if the dogs health and well being is the priority then what breed it is matters not one jot.

At the end of the day so many pedigrees have breed specific health problems due to breeding for specific traits, that you just dont get in cross breeds and mongrels.

I'm sure some people will disagree but the purpose of a forum is for people to voice their opinions and people can only speak from their own experiences. My personal experience is that mongrels have less health problems than pedigrees.......whoaaa sweeping statement I know, but like I say just speaking from personal experience, which wont be the same as everyone elses


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

One- not all rescues actually rehome or so it seems there is a huge lists of what you can/ can't have before getting a dog we tick all tje boxes not to get a rescue dog (kids under 5,cats, no garden!) 

Two- I don't want a Lab, collie or a poodle I want a cross I like crosses, i paid £100 for mine so breeder really didn't make any money then got one free a few months later (bogof!) 

Three- what's it got to do with anyone else what someone wants to own? There are loads of animals in rescues pedigrees, crosses, moggies, rabbits, mice rats the list goes on no animal should be bred then until all the animals in rescue are regimes then? And rescues should be more lacks on the military style rules 

Four- health testing it doesn't bother me none of my dogs have had it none had any major problems etc one rescue had mild HD 
I know a good few pedigrees who came from health tested parents with health problems, it can be luck of the draw sometimes

Not everyone wants the same looking dog, the same breed traits etc I love the luck of the draw you get Ive got two the same who are so very different in everyway


----------



## chianya (Feb 22, 2010)

i couldnt be bothered to read all this but your pures were crossed at 1 point to make them. I dont really like any pedigrees thats y i got my baby. Any dog can be badly bred no matter if cross or not. I visited my local rescue a few weeks ago. 7 dogs only 1 cross


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

chianya said:


> i couldnt be bothered to read all this but your pures were crossed at 1 point to make them. I dont really like any pedigrees thats y i got my baby. Any dog can be badly bred no matter if cross or not. I visited my local rescue a few weeks ago. 7 dogs only 1 cross


A rescue with only 7 dogs in it


----------



## chianya (Feb 22, 2010)

yer 7 lol its in suffolk there never seem to be over 15 dont think they have enough room or maybe they have a quick turn around. There always more cats ferrets and rabbits than dogs. The cross what a collie x jack looked just like a short collie. Only 1 staff which was hairless bless. And 3 of them were already reserved includin the staff


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

chianya said:


> yer 7 lol its in suffolk there never seem to be over 15 dont think they have enough room or maybe they have a quick turn around. There always more cats ferrets and rabbits than dogs. The cross what a collie x jack looked just like a short collie. Only 1 staff which was hairless bless. And 3 of them were already reserved includin the staff


Some areas do seem to have less of a problem. In many areas dogs are pts weekly in pounds as no rescues have a place for them. I know in some areas it's been so desperate, dogs are transferred to rescues in the South. Only chance the poor little souls have.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

chianya said:


> yer 7 lol its in suffolk there never seem to be over 15 dont think they have enough room or maybe they have a quick turn around. There always more cats ferrets and rabbits than dogs. The cross what a collie x jack looked just like a short collie. Only 1 staff which was hairless bless. And 3 of them were already reserved includin the staff


I dream of that happening in our rescue... X


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> As there are many crossbreed owners,sure they wanted a cross in preference to a purebreed.
> So what does that tell ya?


Well it kind of tells me they must be wanting very particular crosses ... or there surely would not be so many crossbreeds in rescue


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

goodvic2 said:


> God forbid an opinion on a forum
> 
> My assumption is that people who CHOOSE not to go to a breeder who health test and therefore don't put the health of the pup first are UNLIKELY to make the best owner.
> 
> Why would you not make that assumption? You have a choice and u decide not to put the health of the pup first.


I'm sorry but that statement is stupid. I rightly or wrongly chose a puppy for un health tested parents when yes i knew about health testing, no I shouldn't have gone to see the litter but it was a friend of a friend. Why did I pick Lexi when i knew she wasn't health tested...because she was here she already was born she already existed and i knew god forbid if there was anything wrong with her (which there is not genetic but allergies and IBS and various other digestive issues) I would give her every possible thing she could want in life. If i hadn't had her someone else would who would have cared less and chances are when their vet bills started rolling in like ours have she would have been left to suffer in pain when he skin blisters from her allergy to grass or when her stomach flares up and she has accidents in the house she would have been yelled at and maybe beaten and I put money on the fact she would have ended up in a rescue somewhere....as it is my gorgeous happy little girl is snoring her head off next to me. Do I regret buying a pup from unhealth tested parents? Not at all. Does it make me a bad owner? No way my dog well dogs now are the centre of my world. 
I'll brace myself for a flaming now because i bought a pup in those circumstances.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

with the dire rescue situation the way it is, i personally dont think anyone should be breeding if there only motive is to supply the pet trade...be that pedigree or crossbreed.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Just out of interest does the attitude against just breeding for the sake of it include working lurchers or gundogs? What about the millions, so it seems, of collie/toy dog or jack russel crosses for mini agility?


----------



## teddyboylove (Jul 31, 2010)

Sick, sick, sick of these ridiculous threads that just repeat ignorant opinions over and over again. Can we just give it a rest for awhile and enjoy our lovely dogs. Give it a break, PLEASE!


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> Just out of interest does the attitude against just breeding for the sake of it include working lurchers or gundogs? What about the millions, so it seems, of collie/toy dog or jack russel crosses for mini agility?


If an animal is bred to be a Gundog or a working Lurcher or even bred for Flyball/Agility then it is bred for a reason. I should think the parents of these kinds of dogs should ideally be health tested to be sure that their pups will be fit for their work.

I think the problem is your chav down the road that just mates his staffy with the neighbours mastiff to get some 'well ard' dogs. Or someone who breeds their Lhasa with their Chihuahua cos it'll be 'soooo cute', without any thought to the health of either parent or their subsequent litter, as well as making no effort to ensure the pups have homes before the mating, or caring what kind of homes they go to once their born.... you know, your proper scum of the earth BYB. A working dog bred for any purpose to me is okay - as long as parents are healthy and homes are ensured for the whole litter before their birth


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> Just out of interest does the attitude against just breeding for the sake of it include working lurchers or gundogs? What about the millions, so it seems, of collie/toy dog or jack russel crosses for mini agility?


working dogs are bred for a purpose and if everything is done responsibly then that to me yes its an ethical reason to breed.

tbh i dont know anything about millions being bred for mini agility but i know of plenty of rescue dogs who excell at this...so im not sure breeding them is necessary (but i dont know really know anything about the sport)


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> with the dire rescue situation the way it is, i personally dont think anyone should be breeding if there only motive is to supply the pet trade...be that pedigree or crossbreed.


AndI couldn't agree more - and have said such several times of late!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Ok maybe not millions but there are a lot being bred partially I guess because some people can't stand the idea there's a competition collies can't compete in and to get the speed with a smaller dog. I agree with that though there are plenty of purebreds that excel at it and lots of rescue terriers that do brilliantly without having to breed collie into them.

Like I said before I don't agree with people throwing any two dogs together I agree with crossbreeders who do everything right health tests etc


----------



## lewis_m15 (Mar 15, 2011)

I'm a little confused!

The thread was started about whether there was ever a need to crossbreed, and has gone on to a debate about crosses vs pedigree!

I've had both throughout my life....

My first dog as a child was a jack Russell x English bull terrier (hideous thing looked like rude dog!) the nicest sweetest dog you could ask for. We rescued him from a neighbour who had too many dogs. No health testing, no parents seen, just heart ruling head. He lived til he was 20, not a day sick in his life.

Another jack Russell from a rescue. Again no health checks, how can you with a rescue? She lived to 16

My first shar pei, purebred lovely pedigree, a rescue but brought by the original owners with all the research and checks they could do. Dead by the age of 4 from mast cell tumours (common in shar pei)

My 2nd shar pei, bought for me as a gift by people very knowledgable of the breed. One of the countries top breeders, boasting of many wins and cc's. Dead by six of amaloydosis, caused by shar pei fever. A hereditary disease, continued by bad breeding and breeders.

So, in my life, we've done things 'right' and we've done things 'wrong'. All my dogs have been loved and cared for no matter why they are. 

The one thing I really don't understand is, if no one ever got a dog without health testing parents, how would any of the poop dogs in rescues get a chance at a happy home?


----------



## Miss.PuddyCat (Jul 13, 2009)

I have a cross breed a Maltese cross Shih Tzu 

I have no regrets in buying her, shes a great little girl (minus the chewing) 

She takes after the Maltese in Body but has the Shih tzu colouring. Maybe its a turning point if shih tzu have breathing problems because Sophie has a long snout like Maltese not a pushed in nose but carries the shih tzu colour? Who knows!

And just because we didnt get a purebred dog who was health tested does not mean we will be horrible owners 

- Sophie eats the best food (royal canin), shes has treats that are all natural (chicken, duck, liver), chew bones by the dozen.

- Toys of all sorts from her favourite Soccer ball, treat ball, squawker toys.

- Shes gets an hour and half exercise I know shes a puppy but we got to a large field on her long line and I let her potter, run, walk about watching the world go by.

- Shes been introduced to dogs and people from the very first day, weve had our bad experience with dogs purebred and cross breed alike and with people. But I keep giving Sophie positive experience every day.

- Weve made day trips to places, taken buses to places, and have a few big day trips planned for the summer.

So just because we have a cross breed does not mean we treat her like crap. A rescue was not for us, a pure bred breeder was not for us at the time.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Well it kind of tells me they must be wanting very particular crosses ... or there surely would not be so many crossbreeds in rescue


Yes that is true some of us do want particular crosses that's why you won't find them in rescues which means that some of us are not contributing to the rescue problem :001_smile:

In rescues you find just as many mongrels and purebreeds as some crosses.

As has been said numerous times rescues are not for everyone for a variety of reasons.

But the question the OP raised was about is there ever a reason to crossbreed.
And as some of us have said these threads have been done to death and bring nothing but discord and go no-where so are pointless really.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

No one ever considers the health testing of rescue dogs because as you say how can they? Not the dogs fault it's had no health tests and if we decide to take that chance then it's our choice and ours alone. My cross breeds, fit as fiddles, my Mals one hypothyroidism (common in Mals) anal gland probs - not with the crosses - hip dysplasia and two hip replacements by three years old.

I am all for health testing as i've seen with Flynn what can happen without, all be it his parents don't actually show it, neither do any of his siblings. No one would want to see their dog go through what Flynn has had to this last op - truly heartbreaking. But what I absolutely hate is people saying all dogs should be health tested and looking at the BRS seeing "responsible" breeders breeding from dogs with hip scores of 28 (BMS 13) only to be told when I brought it up on the forum "It's okay to breed from high hip scores as long as you know what you're doing" So what's the point of health testing if breeders are going to take no notice of the score. I felt so guilty that Marts score was 28 but to find that breeders - and not BYB's by the way - purposely bred from this high score and studded their dogs out too is beyond me. Seems if you're known in the show world anything goes.

The whole business makes me sick and yet here we are again going on about the ethics of cross breeders when even some "responsible" breeders do it at times - the BRS is a real eye opener if you bother to look up the dogs and find out their scores. Don't be fooled into thinking it's just a BYB thing because it isn't!


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes that is true some of us do want particular crosses that's why you won't find them in rescues which means that some of us are not contributing to the rescue problem :001_smile:
> 
> In rescues you find just as many mongrels and purebreeds as some crosses.
> 
> ...


I agree Cockerpoo Lover.

And as people have highlighted in this thread a cross breed or Mongrel is no more likely to end up in a rescue just because of its breed, plenty of single breed dogs end up in rescues for various reasons. Although this may not always be so obvious as there are hundreds of breed specific rescues up and down the country helping specific breeds.

Some people will prefer Pedigrees, some Cross breeds and some Mongrels. Some may have rescues, some have had them as pups form 8 weeks and some may even of bought from a BYB without realising it until afferwards.

I know this thread could go in circles for weeks but I just wanted to say -What everyone on this forum has in common is that they love their dogs, are passionate about them and whatever our views on crossbreeds we should realise we are all on this forum because we care about our dogs and want the best for them.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Im actually very glad people cross breed! Leaving aside the issue of health testing there are many breeds that I think look better (and healthier) a hundred years ago then they do now. Bassetts and Pugs are 2 of my fav breeds, but I prefer the old fashioned look.......or when they are outcrossed to a Beagle for example.
I wish breeders would not look down on sensible outcrossing to improve their breeds. Part of what I love about Hannah is that while she looks very much like a Dashund her body type is less extreme which makes me worry less when she is going up and down steps (or doing kamakazi leaps off the sofa!!). I would def consider getting a Chiweenie again for this very reason.....not coz I think its cute/has a funny name/etc!
I also dont see why some people think a non health tested dog would automatically be given up for rescue?? Surely if you had a dog that developed a genetic problem you wouldnt throw it out with the trash, unless you were just that sort of person anyway?? When I got Adam all the websites and books I read only mentioned Luxating patellas being a problem not cardiac issues....doesnt mean I will trade him for a better model if he gets problems though!!


----------



## murphy21 (Dec 26, 2010)

Both my dogs are cross breeds.

I have a 9 month old husky cross labrador. It was purposelly bred. I was adament i wanted a pure s.husky...but read up on them and you caant let them offlead etc. that didnt fit into my lifestyle. Hence i went for a lab x husky; it has the beautiful looks of husky but it has the trainibility of a labrador - perfect recall and will retrieve all day long. I have met anumber of husky owners who think that it is a really good idea etc.

My other is an old english cross german shepherd; there wasnt really a main reason for this but ive always wanted an old english and he honestly is 1 know and has the most incredible temperament ever! Everyone loves him to bits  He was the easiest puppy ever!!!!

heres the two of them after their first ever beach trip last week


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

They are gorgeous - I too love cross breeds just as much as pures - they're all dogs and I love 'em all!


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> Is it fair to our dogs in rescue to breed for no reason other than "because I want to"


I think that applies to pedigrees, not just cross breeds.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2011)

Yeah! there's a reason - we like fluffy puppies


----------



## Honey Bee (Mar 29, 2011)

YES - Because Honey's incredible and I love her - Simples!!!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> My assumption is that people who CHOOSE not to go to a breeder who health test and therefore don't put the health of the pup first are UNLIKELY to make the best owner.


That is such rubbish, not to mention downright rude.  my first pups were KC reg and I thought that was the only necessary proviso. Obviously not. I adore my dogs and they come first, financially, morally, whatever it takes. Unlikely to make the best owner? Oh shut up, what absolute crap. I'd do anything for my boys.

Take your opinion elsewhere: I guarantee if you did a poll, the very small minority on here will have used a breeder who health tests. Let me bow down to ye of great wisdom. Whatever. 

I knew nothing about health tests when i got my last pups in August but now I do and I think, as I said on another thread recently, that all KC reg dogs should be health tested or not allowed to be KC reg.



Malmum said:


> Of course it isn't ethical to breed without knowing what the health of the progeny will be but so many people with genetic defaults still choose to have children so how do we expect people to feel guilty about breeding dogs?


Extremely well said. I refuse to 'breed' as I don't think I have good genes and I'm constantly amazed at people who know they have illnesses still deciding to have kids. (See the documentary the other day 'I'm pregnant and I have AIDS'? Nice.)

I think the trend for breeding 'non-shedding' dogs is fading, as people are more aware that it's not a given that the pups won't shed just because one parent doesn't. I understand that some previously popular and trendy x breeds are not so popular now, but there will always be unethical byb who persist in producing untested pups and they will persist in making unfounded claims re temperament and coat etc.

I believe that outbreeding is a good idea if it eliminates undesirable genetic issues such as deafness in dallys or 'sloped back cripples' in the GSD breed (not my words!)


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

I wouldn't worry about it, you know your dogs are happy health and you are a brilliant owner just as most owners are it's narrow minded to
Think otherwise it's a bit like saying someone buying a second hand car is risking their families life but if they buy new they aren't! 

Any owner can be crap it doesn't matter what/who/how the dog was brought health tested or not a dog can end up neglected and left but a cheap unhealthy byb dog could bs the most loved dog in the world


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

murphy21 said:


> Both my dogs are cross breeds.
> 
> I have a 9 month old husky cross labrador. It was purposelly bred. I was adament i wanted a pure s.husky...but read up on them and you caant let them offlead etc. that didnt fit into my lifestyle. Hence i went for a lab x husky; it has the beautiful looks of husky but it has the trainibility of a labrador - perfect recall and will retrieve all day long. I have met anumber of husky owners who think that it is a really good idea etc.
> 
> ...


hope i dont offend but if you hadnt said i wouldnt have known he had any husky in him and im usually very good at spotting husky crosses, he looks very much like my cousins old dog who was a pointerX, hes very sweet tho, they both are, and im afraid you wont find anyone whos passionate about sibes will think crossing them is a good idea for lots of reasons... one being you have absolutley no idea which traits the pups will inherit from the mix its very much a lottery....im glad your boy has good recall but the breeder couldnt have known this would be the case, i know husky crosses who have inherited sibe traits so certainly not a good reason to be crossing them with more subservient breeds, also i'd be very surprised if people who breed such crosses do any health testing or know any thing about conformation etc.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

murphy21 said:


> Hence i went for a lab x husky; it has the beautiful looks of husky but it has the trainibility of a labrador - perfect recall and will retrieve all day long. I have met anumber of husky owners who think that it is a really good idea etc.


Firstly - as has already been pointed out - the breeder would have absolutely NO knowledge of what traits the pups would inherit - they could have been just like a Lab - or just like a Husky - and you can pretty much guarantee characters and types in both directions within the litter - and could just as easily got a dog that resembled a labrador with all the traits of a Husky - visa versa - or something inbetween - you got lucky - nothing to do with 'breeding this cross for a reason' (just as the non-shedding coat types of Labrador x Poodle is a load of rubbish  )

I hope at 9 months old the 'retrieve all day' was your perception of what it MIGHT do, rather than a reality. If it's a reality - I hope you have very good insurance in place because of the increased risks you are putting your pup under of Hip and Elbow Dysplasia, shoulder and patella problems, and general all round arhtiritis through excessive wear and tear on developing bones and joints.

There is increasing empirical and anecdotal evidence to indicate that first generation crosses are actually MORE prone to joint issues than their pedigree counterparts.

I assume the breeder who did the 'deliberate' cross conducted all the required health tests for both breeds - on Labs, Hip scoring, Elbow Scoring, PRA (ideally DNA for CNM), and a current clear eye certificate - and as far as I can see, hipscoring, clear eye certificates and DNA testing for PRA in Huskies.

You basically have straight off matching genes from both breeds which means that the offspring can suffer from all the conditions of both breeds - coupled with the additional risks to joints from crossing - the tests are even more important when deliberately producing such puppies.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

well said Swarthy.

i didnt realise the dog was only 9 months, i must read posts more carefully,...i just want to point out that once your boy reaches adoloscence his recall might just go out of the window, so please be aware Murphy....many sibes and sibe crosses pay the ultimate price through owners becoming complaicent, as pups they arnt so independant then adolescence kicks in and everything can change.


----------



## mstori (May 22, 2009)

i dont normally like to comment on threads like this where emotions run high.

i have had both pedigrees and mongrels.

My first mongrel i got when i was 17 (to the day he died my stepdad never took to him because he was a cross. that was very hurtful) Now I had no intention on getting a dog, had not long moved into my flat but got a knock on the door from a neighbour. Some puppies were getting drowned down the river could i take one. To cut a long story short we managed to save 2. I couldnt get him a place in a rescue and kept him, and it was the best unplanned thing I ever did. yes, it was extremely hard work, but also i found a true companion. What should i have done? let him be drowned because he was a cross and i didnt know his history?

After losing my beloved naz, i got a pedigree.. again long story but the most heartbreaking decision was we had to send her to a rescue to be rehomed after she became very aggressive and had extreme seperation anxiety. We got her at 5 and a half months and had her a year. We were her 3rd or 4th owners, I almost lost everything because of it and You probably wont believe me, but we tried everything we could, and even sent her to the other side of the country in a pet taxi so she would get the best possible chance of being rehomed. This was in August and it still tears me apart. I felt I had failed her.

We now have a new pup, i had the option of a purebred but didnt. I love him to bits and yes, he is young and it could all change but he will have a home with me for life. (and please no one be nasty and say the other didnt. You have no idea what i lostthrough my decision to try with her for so long)

I could get a pedigree or cross dog from another rescue and not know a thing about the history, and have the perfect dog, or a dog from hell, but same stands with getting from a reputable breeder. things can still go wrong, dogs can still get incurable deseases.

Surely what we all have in common, despite thoughts on breeding, is that we love our dogs and would love to see them all in happy homes, and i feel sometimes people can be a bit quick to jump. I dont often post for this exact reason.

Anyway the point is ive been so lucky to have had the opportunity of having dogs in my life since i was a little girl, and always will. No matter what other pets I have, it never seems right without a mutt.. be that a cross or a pedigree

Tori x


----------



## Little_em00 (Jun 14, 2011)

Like tori I also have a pedigree and a cross, I badly wanted a pug but our other dog is a gsd and whatever we got would have to keep up with us on our walks. Thought it would be unfair to walk a pug for 6 miles sometimes in warm weather so decided to go for a pug cross after speaking to my vet who is also a dog behaviourist. Looked for months then spotted pug cross jack russel. He fits into our family like the missing jigsaw piece! He can keep up on walks but also loves a snuggle and fussed. What I don't agree with however, is breeders charging ridiculous prices some were £600 as at the end of the day these are muts and it's obviously people making money. Luckily the lady we bought Hugo from loved her dogs and wasn't charging stupid money


----------



## ballybee (Aug 25, 2010)

so because i have a cross and have no idea if his parents were health tested(i seriusly doubt they were) i'm going to be a bad owner? Tummel gets minimum 1 hour of exercise a day, lots of cuddles/play/training, good food and as much of it a he needs to maintain his condition, trips to loads of beautiful places for fun and socialisation and is loved more than i ever thought possible.

Now lets compare to someone i know who has a pedigree, health tested cocker spaniel. She's never walked and hasn't been for at least the last 4 years, she's had no training/play ever and only gets attention late at night when the owners can't be bothered ignoring her anymore, gets shouted at when she wants a cuddle during the day, doesn't get let out for the loo so often has to go indoors then gets shouted at more, has never been socialised and as a result hates the car, children, strange people, dogs, cats, animals...everything really. She's never been anywhere just for a walk and is fed crap food and not very much of it.

example number 2. Pedigree, health tested ex show rough collie(won something in crufts when he was a pup but can't remember what). Get approximately 30 minutes of onlead exercise a day, was fed pedigree until he became intolerant, has had no socialisation and is aggressive towards other people and dogs who come into his house, hardly gets any attention, has never been trained/played with and when his owners are going somewhere nice he gets put into kennels as they can't be bothered with him.

hmmmm......yeah i'm the terrible owner 

I'm not saying it's ok to get a pup from untested parents but back in August i never knew about pet forums, i'd been brought up with pedigrees all my life and Tummel was something different, as soon as we met him we knew he was coming home with us. Now i know better but i would still have rescue dogs where theres no way of knowing if the parents were tested or not. This thread has gone way too far now and appears to be upsetting a few people including me. Tummel has been a very trying dog and still is at times but have i given up? NO, because he's my dog and for every bad day he has, we get far more good days.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

ballybee said:


> so because i have a cross and have no idea if his parents were health tested(i seriusly doubt they were) i'm going to be a bad owner? Tummel gets minimum 1 hour of exercise a day, lots of cuddles/play/training, good food and as much of it a he needs to maintain his condition, trips to loads of beautiful places for fun and socialisation and is loved more than i ever thought possible.
> 
> Now lets compare to someone i know who has a pedigree, health tested cocker spaniel. She's never walked and hasn't been for at least the last 4 years, she's had no training/play ever and only gets attention late at night when the owners can't be bothered ignoring her anymore, gets shouted at when she wants a cuddle during the day, doesn't get let out for the loo so often has to go indoors then gets shouted at more, has never been socialised and as a result hates the car, children, strange people, dogs, cats, animals...everything really. She's never been anywhere just for a walk and is fed crap food and not very much of it.
> 
> ...


Good points, i never get the x breed=bad owner theory either tbh.


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

Just really riles me that there are small minded ppl out that think coz we have a x breed where guna be bad owners and our dogs will end up in rescue homes im sure there are pedigrees in rescue as well


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

julesmcc said:


> Just really riles me that there are small minded ppl out that think coz we have a x breed where guna be bad owners and our dogs will end up in rescue homes im sure there are pedigrees in rescue as well


I wouldn't worry, it seems the OP has disappeared from the thread now that everyone has pointed out what rubbish she was talking


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

Verbatim said:


> I wouldn't worry, it seems the OP has disappeared from the thread now that everyone has pointed out what rubbish she was talking


Indeed the OP has gone quite quiet.


----------



## murphy21 (Dec 26, 2010)

swarthy said:


> Firstly - as has already been pointed out - the breeder would have absolutely NO knowledge of what traits the pups would inherit - they could have been just like a Lab - or just like a Husky - and you can pretty much guarantee characters and types in both directions within the litter - and could just as easily got a dog that resembled a labrador with all the traits of a Husky - visa versa - or something inbetween - you got lucky - nothing to do with 'breeding this cross for a reason' (just as the non-shedding coat types of Labrador x Poodle is a load of rubbish  )
> 
> I hope at 9 months old the 'retrieve all day' was your perception of what it MIGHT do, rather than a reality. If it's a reality - I hope you have very good insurance in place because of the increased risks you are putting your pup under of Hip and Elbow Dysplasia, shoulder and patella problems, and general all round arhtiritis through excessive wear and tear on developing bones and joints.
> 
> ...


No he doesnt play fetch all day long. I was emphasising a point that he probably would if i allowed it. Yes he is young but ive put alot of work into his training especially recall. I didnt get a husky pedigree because i didnt feel i could keep up with how hard it is etc surely it would be worse if id rushed in and would now be rehoming it as i cant look after it....?

And both parents were fully heath checked/tested thank you. I did go into it with my eyes open and he has fit in perfectly to my household whereas a pure husky wouldnt have. I also happen to think that having a dog that looks different is lovely 

I really am off now as to be honest i hate arguing. they are my dogs and i got them because i thought about it and wanted them. They are incredibly loved and very well behaved. I happen to think that twho cares whether they are a mongrel or pedigree but if id rushed in to getting a pedigree or another mongrel then it could well have ended differently.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I cant speak for other people but i dont i think that because people have a cross they will be bad owners.....some will be just like some who own pedigrees will be..it all depends who the individual is, 

ive had crosses and pedigrees and loved and cared for them all equally, on the otherhand i know someone who to me is just a horder she has pedigrees and a couple of mongrels(also cats,rabbits,etc!!)....and is a terrible owner her dogs are fed well but never get walked, she breeds her bitches Far too often they are kc registered but this means nowt!... but people who buy pups from folk like her are just going to peretuate the suffering of their bitches who are little more than breeding machines!.....and i can understand peoples frustrations when folk support [email protected] breeders like her and sometimes things get said because of their frustration especially when they see day to day the aftermath of these irresponsible breeders languishing in rescues.

the problem with cross breeders is its not easy to find one who does everything ethically and responsibly the way the best pedigree breeders do, and you will rarely find a pedigree bred my these good breeders in any rescue because they try to do everything they can to protect their puppys with endorsements and contracts etc

I dont think anyone is cross breed owner bashing or trying offend its just people are so despairing of the rescue situation and feel that only the very best breeders should be supported.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> But without doubt, surely outnumbered by mongrels? ... Unless you consider the number of Staffies


Not just poor old staffs. There's plenty of pure breed collies in there too (I believe somewhere around 6 months old is when most people start to feel they can't cope/be *rsed). I'm sure there are many more breeds people here can name in similar circumstances


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

lewis_m15 said:


> The one thing I really don't understand is, if no one ever got a dog without health testing parents, how would any of the poop dogs in rescues get a chance at a happy home?


I don't think I get it either, I'm a reject collector too


----------



## ballybee (Aug 25, 2010)

haeveymolly said:


> Good points, i never get the x breed=bad owner theory either tbh.


After reading this thread i think it's because we might not be buying from health tested adults which is fair enough but in everyday peoples defense i knew literally nothing about health testing until i came on here. Actually i knew labs could be hip/elbow scored as my uncle did it to both his labs to ensure they were healthy(they were mum and son, mum had been bred once and the son was used as a stud once...they were both well known working dogs on the island) but PRA? CNM? DNA testing? nope couldn't have told you what those were before pet forums(still don't know what PRA/CNM are).

If it turns out Tummel does gets problems in the future i will of course deal with them but he's been completely healthy and happy while i've had him and i may decide to hip score him in the future so i can be prepared for any problems.

We're away upto Pitlochry on Thursday with Tummel  We took him when he was 3 months old so will have some then and now pictures which will be nice  and now he can go offlead(providing it's quiet) and play in Loch Garry :laugh:

Theres no way you can specify a bad owner because of the dog, it's a stupid thing to say and very hurtful to those in the negative light. Would i get another cross? Absolutely, if it was breeds i liked and felt i could handle.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

I was recycling second hand dogs all my life...mutts&crosses...



I would just say if ever to breed..make sure that you really have healthy dogs..and that you have people who definitely will take care of the puppies....

Thre is lots of problems in breeding pure blood dogs..and there are other issues in breeding fashion crosses...

I just love dogs...love them all..and wish they were bred healthy..with proper life span...15 years..not 7!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Verbatim said:


> I wouldn't worry, it seems the OP has disappeared from the thread now that everyone has pointed out what rubbish she was talking


The opening post from the OP was aimed at saying that Crossbreeds shouldn't be bred as there are enough pedigrees to chose from.

Well the answer is obviously not as there are many crossbreed owners so there is a huge market. People prefer crosses for all sorts of reasons.

But as always these type of threads move on to a pedigree v cross debate and all the stuff has been said so many times it's getting boring and goes no-where.

So once again in response to the OP's opening question is there ever a reason to crossbreed: *Yes*

Reasons why: Just ask the numerous crossbreed pet owners all over the UK and you will find a variety of reasons


----------



## Phoenix&Charlie'sMum (Oct 12, 2009)

As cockerpoo has stated, this has been covered so many times, which is why there is a sticky asking people not to post these topics.

*http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/36419-important-rule-regarding-crossbreeds.html *

If im honest these type of questions I find offensive, why do you think you are eligable to judge if there shouldnt be crossbreeds?

to answer your question: *Yes*

We got our crosses for working reasons. Without my crosses then i dont think they would work as well as they do.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Milliepoochie said:


> Indeed the OP has gone quite quiet.


The OP Is watching the thread and hasn't disappeared.

But to be honest there is nothing I could say that would change people's mind ... That I'm nasty, full of opinions and don't know what im talking about.

Therefore I bow out of the thread....


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I saw this thread when I was away, and didn't have chance to respond on the computer I was on, but so very much wanted to. 

Is there every a good reason to cross breed? Yes, I can think of a few typical cross breeds for working purpose, lurchers, sprockers, springadors etc. One thing I find 'odd' when this topic comes up, is that it's ok to cross breed to obtain a working variety, but not a companion variety of dog, and I'm not sure why this is? Both are being bred for a purpose, and it's actually, more likely to be the working one that perhaps doesn't quite turn out exactly how the owner wanted, where as with a companion dog, even if they don't turn out as an exact template, they are more likely to turn out as a good companion nonetheless.

If you think about the number of pedigrees we have, we have a variety of retrievers, do we need them all? The Labrador Retriever is the most successful retriever of all, why not just stick to that one, since it's proven itself the best all round retriever. Some of the more obscture spaniel breeds are only worked infrequently, because they can't compete overall with springers and cockers, so, do we need them? 

I'd argue yes we do, I love seeing the variety and number of breeds working, and I see no problem with people who want a particular cross breed as a worker, or companion, as long as all breeders abide by the same high standard of ethics across the board. There are people who breed pedigrees and appear ethical that I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, personally, I think it's time to start to break down the barriers a little, as long as there's this mystique about the rare cross breed, or the rare pedigree, they will be puppy farming victims, because of their rarity factor. Fox red Labradors are the latest must have in Labrador colours, and puppy buyers are willing to drop their standards to buy a pup, rather than wait, or even do without. Until that sort of attitude is stopped, it will always be the dogs that are the victims, no matter what their breeding.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2011)

i have bred crossbreeds for years never health tested never had any problems


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

borderer said:


> i have bred crossbreeds for years never health tested never had any problems


until this post I recon.....:yikes::yikes::yikes:...

RUN and HIDE!....


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

borderer said:


> i have bred crossbreeds for years never health tested never had any problems


& like you have been told every time you make the same comment! Problems cant be seen by the naked eye in most cases, hence us responsible lot pay alot of money to make sure our dogs are in tip top condition


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> & like you have been told every time you make the same comment! Problems cant be seen by the naked eye in most cases, hence us responsible lot pay alot of money to make sure our dogs are in tip top condition


Border: Re: 'Is there ever a reason to cross breed??
i have bred crossbreeds for years never health tested never had any problems'

So ignorant. 

And then we pay fortunes to fix the dogs we adore because people are breeding indiscriminately. Disgusting, frankly.

Where's the dislike button?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> One thing I find 'odd' when this topic comes up, is that it's ok to cross breed to obtain a working variety, but not a companion variety of dog, and I'm not sure why this is?


I stated the above, as that is the opinion I hold. I find it totally acceptable to breed crosses for working purposes, or to out cross to improve an already established breed..However I do and always have disagreed with cross breeding as companions alone, but like wise I disagree with breeding pedigree dogs as soley compaions - so it has nothing to do with the breed/cross its to do with the purpose behind the litter. I find it unacceptable to be breeding dogs for the pet market while so many suffer in rescue. we all have what we see as vaild reasons, for a litter to be bred..we cant all agree but theres mine - although as long as a breeder, breeding for the pet market was up most responsible, passionate and dedicated I could accept them, although wouldnt/couldnt agree fully.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

cinammontoast said:


> And then we pay fortunes to fix the dogs we adore because people are breeding indiscriminately. Disgusting, frankly.
> 
> Where's the dislike button?


Exactly. I couldnt sleep at night knowing I had bred puppies that 'could' go on to suffer, tests are there for breeders to take advantage of!

we need one, dont we


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I saw this thread when I was away, and didn't have chance to respond on the computer I was on, but so very much wanted to.
> 
> Is there every a good reason to cross breed? Yes, I can think of a few typical cross breeds for working purpose, lurchers, sprockers, springadors etc. One thing I find 'odd' when this topic comes up, is that it's ok to cross breed to obtain a working variety, but not a companion variety of dog, and I'm not sure why this is? Both are being bred for a purpose, and it's actually, more likely to be the working one that perhaps doesn't quite turn out exactly how the owner wanted, where as with a companion dog, even if they don't turn out as an exact template, they are more likely to turn out as a good companion nonetheless.
> 
> ...


Looking at using crossbreeds for working with the exception of a few maybe they haven't yet been used and are an untapped resource?

Not saying all would be suitable but when you can in some instances get the best working traits from both breeds could well be worth exploring??

The other week I went to a fun dog show in aid of Canine Partners who train dogs to assist people with disabilities.
They did a demo in the ring and the lady said that the best dogs they have found for the role were labs, retrievers and poodle crosses.

I said to mine are you listening coz your going be learning how to do the washing etc... but think they were far to interested in all the other doggies and people around to take notice


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

murphy21 said:


> And both parents were fully heath checked/tested thank you. I did go into it with my eyes open and he has fit in perfectly to my household whereas a pure husky wouldnt have. I also happen to think that having a dog that looks different is lovely


Health checked or health tested - massive difference - *very few * cross-breeders invest the thousand or so pounds with each parent from quality breeding to produce cross breeds - that's not being vindictive - that's a fact. 

You have missed my point completely - firstly - it has been made VERY clear that the large majority of us have NOTHING against cross-breeds or mongrels - more often than not, it's the breeders are the problem.

You have been incredibly lucky that your dog fits your lifestyle where a husky wouldn't - because you would have absolutely NO idea of what traits in either looks or appearance your dog would have inherited from each breed - you could quite as easily have ended up with a dog that looks like a Labrador, the size of a husky with all the husky traits - again a fact.

Labradors can be head-strong - they can mis-behave and boy, when they hit adolescence (particularly males), they have driven more than a few experienced owners to tears - causing many owners to have no option than to go back to the very basics of training from recall to most other elements.

You bought a cross-breed in the belief you would get what you have (although not hit adolescence yet - and many traits don't appear until the dog is older) - but if you believed this is what you would get from this cross - then your perceptions were misguided and misinformed.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Looking at using crossbreeds for working with the exception of a few maybe they haven't yet been used and are an untapped resource?
> 
> Not saying all would be suitable but when you can in some instances get the best working traits from both breeds could well be worth exploring??
> 
> ...


I've posted about it before, at a gundog scurry last year where I sponsored the event with prizes, there was a guy who entered his purpose bred cross breed, I think it got put in the retriever class in the end, although it was a bit of a decision to arrive at; this dog was a poodle x Lab x spaniel - I'm not sure in which proportions, but it had been bred specifically to work. It didn't win, and it didn't come close to winning, and it wasn't the dog with the most 'spark' about it by far.

I think the problem comes in where the known traits of a pedigree can be seen and almost quantified to some extent. Someone experienced in a breed will see something in a particular pedigree dog, that catches their eye because it's got whatever it is in bucketfuls. So whether that's some aspect of their working ability, or their conformation is showing promise, it's there. You can't do the same with a cross breed, you can guess where certain traits come from, and you may end up with a very useful dog in terms of working ability, but I doubt you could say for certain 'that reminds me of such and such a dog in the third line of his/her pedigree' - although, I'm not sure just how accurate people are when they say these things in any case, whether it's half rose tinted glasses remembering a sunny afternoon at a show/competition, five or ten years previous.

There are definitely some proven cross breeds, where you are bound to get a certain type of character for working, but I'm surprised at the opposition to companion dogs. By far the largest percentage of dogs will be companions, I would have thought showing/working or any other competition, such as agility, flyball, working trials, even heelwork to music, will be in the minority. Some people may choose to do things like their KC good citizen award, to try and understand more about how to train themselves and their dogs, but I would think even they are in the minority. If responsible breeders turn their back on the companion dog market, they leave it open to everyone else. Not every dog bred will make a fabulous worker, nor show dog, nor whatever other competition dog, but the people who breed for those reasons, are best placed to know what type of dog they can produce. Whether it's popular or not, creeping into the equation and by far the area that could make the largest impact in *responsibility* are those who breed for pet homes solely, whether pedigrees or cross breeds; those *we* class as responsible breeders, can either turn our noses up and create a divide, them and us, or try to help educate so that at the very least, if someone wants to buy pet dog, not interested in showing or any competition, would like to support a responsible breeder etc, there may be more of them to choose from. They won't be misled into believing their dog is likely to be of showing/working quality, particularly when it comes to cross breeds, where some are still diddled into thinking they've bought a pedigree, or a dog they can enter into KC competitions/shows without registering them on the companion dog register at the very least; at the moment, I feel the world of pedigree dogs doesn't always do itself the most favours, some pedigree breeders are snobby, before I go on, definitely no-one I know off here and I know loads of lovely people who are involved with numerous breeds, but have (sadly) come across some right cases; and in other areas of pedigree dogs, it's very much closed off to *outsiders*.

You will always get people who don't want to be educated about buying a puppy/dog responsibly, but the messages are currently so divided - each one is clear, but imagine yourself as a member of Joe Public who knows nothing, which message do you believe? That depends entirely on who you speak to, as they will influence you a great deal, and I can think of numerous cases where people have been swayed into buying a pup that is from someone unscrupulous, because that's who they spoke to first, and that's who they believe.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Maybe labrador/poodle mixes and golden retriever/poodle mixes could do well as working dogs. Poodles originally did the same kind of job didn't they? Water retrievers


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> Maybe labrador/poodle mixes and golden retriever/poodle mixes could do well as working dogs. Poodles originally did the same kind of job didn't they? Water retrievers


So why not use poodles?

I think poodles were more of a hunting dog, although I could be wrong, they weren't bred to retrieve but to hunt and keep quarry at bay, the standard poodle that is.

Have to get out to work but will catch up with this later....


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Apparently they were used as water retrievers and with hawks. The smaller ones were truffle hunters
French Poodles from the Languedoc, South of France: Working Standard Poodles
The Kennel Club

I know the coat is why irish water spaniels went from being popular bird dogs to losing favour to labradors when they became widespread so I would guess a poodle's coat would put people off even more and if the cross had an easier to manage coat that was still water repellent, not a guarantee I know, then they could become popular


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> Apparently they were used as water retrievers and with hawks. The smaller ones were truffle hunters
> French Poodles from the Languedoc, South of France: Working Standard Poodles
> The Kennel Club
> 
> I know the coat is why irish water spaniels went from being popular bird dogs to losing favour to labradors when they became widespread so I would guess a poodle's coat would put people off even more and if the cross had an easier to manage coat that was still water repellent, not a guarantee I know, then they could become popular


Thanks for that link, I had it in my head for some reason that they were more hunting dogs, but I am easily confused. The KC website gives a bit more information as well, but to be honest, I don't think it's the coat alone that has made other retrievers lose their popularity, so much as the success of the Labrador retriever, above all other kinds of retriever. They are the most versatile, easily trained of all the retriever type breeds, and I think that has led to the demise of other breed types, rather than just the suitability of their coat, although I could be wrong.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

What _would_ concern me re any indiscriminate cross breeding is that so many people still promote the myth that

a) the pups will inherit the best of both breeds and

b) a non-shedding sire or dam throws all non-shedding pups-such rubbish. Even the Australian man who first made a big song and dance about the lab/poodle cross for use as a non-shedding guide dog now regrets this, particularly as most of the pup weren't non-shedding.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> . . . I know the coat is why irish water spaniels went from being popular bird dogs to losing favour to labradors when they became widespread so I would guess a poodle's coat would put people off even more and if the cross had an easier to manage coat that was still water repellent, not a guarantee I know, then they could become popular


I'm just going to support this observation - I believe the poodle coat puts people off, not because of the cut, but because it is so curly.

Personally, I really really dislike a curly coat on a dog. I don't like the texture and feel of it, don't like the look of it (unless it is clean shaved) and don't like the care. (I care for my neighbor's toy poodle often, and as well my MIL's Bichon, and like the dogs but not their coat).

I don't have the same dislike for a wavy coat (still not a fan though). Smooth is my favorite, or medium/long but sleek. I would never adopt or purchase a curly coated dog - just on that factor alone.

I can't help but believe there are others like me, especially when I know some, (my neighbor often says she will never get a toy poodle again - because of the coat) and have read this from others on forums as well.

I have a co-worker with allergies that prefers to manage those and have a breed with a medium length sleek coat, than one of the touted breeds that would be better for allergies (he actually has a Golden Retriever). As his Golden is very old, and he's looking at future options I have suggested the Poodle, and he isn't the tiniest bit kind about what he thinks of that idea. It doesn't matter how it is styled/cut - he dislikes the curly coat (and I have asked). He actually has even less wiggle room about this than I do.

So there are people who like curly coats, and there are people who just do not. I don't think those that do not are readily inclined to change that preference, and for some it holds a lot of weight in their choice of pup to get (as it probably should due to the increased care needs for a curly coat).



> . . . If responsible breeders turn their back on the companion dog market, they leave it open to everyone else. Not every dog bred will make a fabulous worker, nor show dog, nor whatever other competition dog, but the people who breed for those reasons, are best placed to know what type of dog they can produce. Whether it's popular or not, creeping into the equation and by far the area that could make the largest impact in *responsibility* are those who breed for pet homes solely, whether pedigrees or cross breeds; those *we* class as responsible breeders, can either turn our noses up and create a divide, them and us, or try to help educate so that at the very least, if someone wants to buy pet dog, not interested in showing or any competition, would like to support a responsible breeder etc, there may be more of them to choose from. . .


That's how I see it too.

CC


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Well my cockapoo has a poodle coat which we keep short.

But it is ever so soft- when he is first done he is like velvet and afterwards it's just baby soft.

Most of the cockapoos we know have the wavy coat but my dudes a curly one.

He is clipped every 8 wks and his coat is no bother.

My Cavapoo has a wavy coat and is similar to a Cavalier just a bit more wavy. Hers grows fast and she is a scruff bag at times  but she too is clipped every 8 weeks.

Out of the two Monty has the softest coat.

Both don't moult apart from the odd knot from Monty when his coat is getting ready for a cut or if madam has been play fighting with him.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

And just for CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I'm just going to support this observation - I believe the poodle coat puts people off, not because of the cut, but because it is so curly.
> 
> Personally, I really really dislike a curly coat on a dog. I don't like the texture and feel of it, don't like the look of it (unless it is clean shaved) and don't like the care. (I care for my neighbor's toy poodle often, and as well my MIL's Bichon, and like the dogs but not their coat).
> 
> ...


I think in modern times, yes, but the demise of many of the retrievers wasn't down to their coat type, it was down to the success of the Labrador retriever, the same with some of the lesser known and very specialist spaniels. When you have breeds that are good all rounders, and a breed that's bred for a very specific purpose, the all rounder is likely to suit many more environments. So, for example, clumber and sussex spaniels are much heavier set, to go through very thick cover, and wouldn't be a patch on a springer or cocker working lighter cover, or even open ground. Not everywhere is completely overgrown with very dense cover, so springers and cockers are bound to be more popular overall. Labradors are, as I said before, the easiest to train of all the retrievers, they are pretty much born half trained compared to some dogs, it's just the knowing how to put it all together that most people (including myself) muck up. When you compare that to some of the other retrievers, flatcoats are notoriously slow to mature, curly coats can be a little difficult to persuade to do what you want, they tend to have their own ideas (apparently); so back when dogs were bred and kept by those who worked them, for the most part, the popularity of some breeds far outstripped others because of their all round working ability. Fast forward to modern day, and some of those breeds are still incredibly numerous, but less people work their dogs now, although it seems to be becoming more popular, so those breeds that were overtaken by the popular breeds, are less likely to be numerous, I hope that makes some sort of sense, it's a bit long and waffley, but that's how I see it and how it seems to be generally accepted when you start reading into the history of some of the working breeds. I can see in modern times people discounting a difficult coat, but not back when they were bred to work, ability was pretty much paramount.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I hope you didn't take insult from my statement of preferences!

The first thing I noted looking at Monty was that he does have just wave on his head/muzzle.

I happen to really like most Cockapoos that I have known, and long ago knew that IF that were ever to be my choice in a mix (considered them), the wavy coat would be my preference. I actually spoke to a breeder I knew well, at one point, and questionned if she EVER got straight coats. Didn't get the answer I wanted.

As it is I stick to my smooth faced shedding dogs - that many others wouldn't own, cuz they shed (including a Husky that spreads shed hair from here to Alaska).



> I hope that makes some sort of sense, it's a bit long and waffley, but that's how I see it and how it seems to be generally accepted when you start reading into the history of some of the working breeds.


It does.

CC


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

I always wonder why some people say they breed for improving the breed, or for a good show dog/stock/line - then say their dogs are first and foremost pets. Surely then, the prority should be making a good litter of companion dogs, with some being lucky enough to make it as show dogs, not breeding a litter of show dogs with some 'not good enough' and must go to pet homes.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I hope you didn't take insult from my statement of preferences!
> 
> The first thing I noted looking at Monty was that he does have just wave on his head/muzzle.
> 
> ...


No didn't take offence hence why I posted picture just for you 

In fact we prefer the wavy cockapoos but we ended up with our curly dude and love him to bits curls and all.


----------



## Mistyweather (Jan 11, 2009)

Well, not quite an answer to the original question but I am glad that there are cross breeds. I have in the past owned 1 westie and 2 mini schnauzers, but now we are on a reduced income (pension) I was glad to be able to afford a lovely little dog to keep us (2 humans and 1 old schnauzer) company. I don't think that I would have been able to justify the cost of a pedigree at the moment. And before anyone thinks that we are not suitqble owners for a puppy, we have help from our daughter for longer walks than my hubby wants to do and she would take the dogs if something happened to us both. Also, being a JR x Chihuahua she is a lovely size for us, with the cutest little ways


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Mistyweather said:


> Well, not quite an answer to the original question but I am glad that there are cross breeds. I have in the past owned 1 westie and 2 mini schnauzers, but now we are on a reduced income (pension) I was glad to be able to afford a lovely little dog to keep us (2 humans and 1 old schnauzer) company. I don't think that I would have been able to justify the cost of a pedigree at the moment. And before anyone thinks that we are not suitqble owners for a puppy, we have help from our daughter for longer walks than my hubby wants to do and she would take the dogs if something happened to us both. Also, being a JR x Chihuahua she is a lovely size for us, with the cutest little ways


I think the problem is with that sort of thinking, not what corners you may cut as an owner, but what corners the breeder has cut. It's rare to find people who breed cross breeds who health test, I'm sure there are likely to be problems with both chihuahua's and JR's, and who's to say what a mix of both will bring together. Bringing together two more more breeds doesn't guarantee all the best components, health, conformation or temperament wise; the worst by far of the four dogs I've owned, was a cross breed, she was awful, but a loveable old collie wobble. And I think that's the gripe many of the apparently snobby pedigree people have, cross breeding shouldn't be an excuse at all to cut corners, if breeders can afford to sell pups for less than the average price of a well bred pedigree, after health testing, bringing pups/mum up on good quality food, using the best quality breeding stock available, etc, etc, that's their business, but we need to encourage anyone cross breeding to approach it in this way, not just to put two dogs together and hope for the best, if that makes sense?

Anyway, good luck with your pup, she sounds lovely


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think the problem is with that sort of thinking, not what corners you may cut as an owner, but what corners the breeder has cut. It's rare to find people who breed cross breeds who health test, I'm sure there are likely to be problems with both chihuahua's and JR's, and who's to say what a mix of both will bring together. Bringing together two more more breeds doesn't guarantee all the best components, health, conformation or temperament wise; the worst by far of the four dogs I've owned, was a cross breed, she was awful, but a loveable old collie wobble. And I think that's the gripe many of the apparently snobby pedigree people have, cross breeding shouldn't be an excuse at all to cut corners, if breeders can afford to sell pups for less than the average price of a well bred pedigree, after health testing, bringing pups/mum up on good quality food, *using the best quality breeding stock available*, etc, etc, that's their business, but we need to encourage anyone cross breeding to approach it in this way, not just to put two dogs together and hope for the best, if that makes sense?
> 
> Anyway, good luck with your pup, she sounds lovely


Therein lies a lot of the problem.

I have yet to find on this forum for example anyone who will say that they would happily let one of their pedigree dogs be used to breed crossbreeds even if the crossbreeder was going to approach breeding in the way you outlined.

What an up hill struggle a decent crossbreeder has. They want to breed good quality pets from two healthy parents and provide good homes etc..... what do they get a lot of the time? negativity- people abhorrent that they would even consider using one of their pedigrees.

Then they too are up against breeders out to make a quick buck - being tarred with the same brush.

There are snobby attitudes about concerning pedigree v crossbreed we all know it exists.

Be a crossbreeder- my god you would need thick skin wouldn't you?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I have yet to find on this forum for example anyone who will say that they would happily let one of their pedigree dogs be used to breed crossbreeds even if the crossbreeder was going to approach breeding in the way you outlined.


I totally see what your saying here, and do understand! The problem is the decent pedigree dog breeders, will be breeding to maintine and protect their choosen breed, therefore would be a little bit 'two faced' shall we say to claim their doing that, while studding dogs out to other breeds! For the most part its not about being snobby its about only ever breeding to continue what you set out for.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Tapir said:


> I always wonder why some people say they breed for improving the breed, or for a good show dog/stock/line - then say their dogs are first and foremost pets. Surely then, the prority should be making a good litter of companion dogs, with some being lucky enough to make it as show dogs, not breeding a litter of show dogs with some 'not good enough' and must go to pet homes.


Of course it stands to right that dogs should be first and formost pets. However there is a BIG difference between loving a dog as a pet, and it being pet quality. You wouldnt breed two pet quality dogs and hope for a good litter of show/working worthy puppies.
However you may breed your two show/working family pets with the aim to maintaine your line and produce puppies that you can run on. Its never a case of 'not good enough' its a case of choosing the best to run on, and finding the others five star homes, others could also be run on by others and some will go to pet homes! If your aim is to maintaine the breed for a set purpose, why would the main aim be breeding a litter of dogs as companions, when you and others on your list will want a healthy, well adjusted example of the breed.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I totally see what your saying here, and do understand! The problem is the decent pedigree dog breeders, will be breeding to maintine and protect their choosen breed, therefore would be a little bit 'two faced' shall we say to claim their doing that, while studding dogs out to other breeds! For the most part its not about being snobby its about only ever breeding to continue what you set out for.


But it happens, top stud dogs from the show world, are used to produce cross breeds, they are most certainly from the Labrador world. So, do we support the minority of *ethical* cross breeders, by helping them produce nice healthy examples? Cross breeders who want to try and be ethical are currently driven underground, and the pedigree world retains it's snobbish facade, yet all the while, some owners of top pedigree show dogs are willing to just accept the cash and sweep it under the carpet, surely complete openess is a better option?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I totally see what your saying here, and do understand! The problem is the decent pedigree dog breeders, will be breeding to maintine and protect their choosen breed, therefore would be a little bit 'two faced' shall we say to claim their doing that, while studding dogs out to other breeds! For the most part its not about being snobby its about only ever breeding to continue what you set out for.


I understand what you say too especially when you have worked hard to preserve a good line.

Just it's a bit of a stale- mate isn't it? how on earth can we move it forward unless there is some compromise 

If you have produced some puppies to protect your breed -you are still doing that but then can it not be thought that by allowing a % of the puppies to be bred as crossbreeds you will also be producing new lines with good parentage. Also restrict to say one cross rather than lots.

A bit like lets spread all the good 

Obviously I'm talking about good cross match not just a random, as even I agree that some dogs shouldn't be mated together.

It is hard- see I just love crosses but do agree with a lot of issues raised regarding the breeders but am just trying to see both sides and wanting a happy balance.

At the end of the day just want healthy happy dogs produced


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Maybe labrador/poodle mixes and golden retriever/poodle mixes could do well as working dogs. Poodles originally did the same kind of job didn't they? Water retrievers


Well, they were supposed to be used as gundogs, but there were better breeds.. and the best without doubt is the labrador. Why would you want to go back a step and get a dog less good by crossing it with a dog that was not so good at the job?



> Originally Posted by Sleeping_Lion
> One thing I find 'odd' when this topic comes up, is that it's ok to cross breed to obtain a working variety, but not a companion variety of dog, and I'm not sure why this is?


I think the main difference is that when breeding a working dog you have a good idea of what you want from the dog, what traits it requires. When breeding a companion dog then this becomes much more vague and muddled and in most cases no thought goes into it anyway (particularly when you consider some of the ridiculous crosses you see advertised). There is no reason behind the crossbreeding, no purpose and no benefit except to fulfil the current trend for having something a bit different and unique.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But it happens, top stud dogs from the show world, are used to produce cross breeds, they are most certainly from the Labrador world. So, do we support the minority of *ethical* cross breeders, by helping them produce nice healthy examples? Cross breeders who want to try and be ethical are currently driven underground, and the pedigree world retains it's snobbish facade, yet all the while, some owners of top pedigree show dogs are willing to just accept the cash and sweep it under the carpet, surely complete openess is a better option?


Yes I imagined that going on.

At the end of the day what also happens is that a crossbreeder who wants to produce healthy dogs of good quality probably gets a purebreed saying it's just for a pet.

As crossbreeds won't be KC reg any breeding endorsements are not an issue and then goes on to breed.

It may be sneaky but the what choice do they have if so many barriers are put up?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But it happens, top stud dogs from the show world, are used to produce cross breeds, they are most certainly from the Labrador world. So, do we support the minority of *ethical* cross breeders, by helping them produce nice healthy examples? Cross breeders who want to try and be ethical are currently driven underground, and the pedigree world retains it's snobbish facade, yet all the while, some owners of top pedigree show dogs are willing to just accept the cash and sweep it under the carpet, surely complete openess is a better option?


I know it happens.. I know a breeder within our breed that allows her dogs to stud to other breeds. Her dogs do very well within the ring!

I personally wouldnt allow my dogs to go to stud to another breed, even if I felt differently about pet breeders let that be of crosses/pedigrees. To me its against everything I believe in and have worked for. I would only ever breed with the aim to achieve something, or I couldnt justify the litter. To me, letting my lad to stud to another breed would be achieving nothing, it has nothing to add to either breed, and the like..Of course the pet market would beneifit but as that would never be my aim for a litter, its not something I would even consider!

I have a stunning BC that I could put to stud to anything, get some cash - if I tested or not there would be a market for him..but what would I achieve for allowing this? nothing!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I know a breeder within our breed that allows her dogs to stud to other breeds. Her dogs do very well within the ring!


Are they members of your breed club? I know our breed clubs don't allow this and being found out would probably result in being thrown out of the breed club.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Are they members of your breed club? I know our breed clubs don't allow this and being found out would probably result in being thrown out of the breed club.


Ours frown upon it too, and I believe they are a member!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I know it happens.. I know a breeder within our breed that allows her dogs to stud to other breeds. Her dogs do very well within the ring!
> 
> I personally wouldnt allow my dogs to go to stud to another breed, even if I felt differently about pet breeders let that be of crosses/pedigrees. To me its against everything I believe in and have worked for. I would only ever breed with the aim to achieve something, or I couldnt justify the litter. To me, letting my lad to stud to another breed would be achieving nothing, it has nothing to add to either breed, and the like..Of course the pet market would beneifit but as that would never be my aim for a litter, its not something I would even consider!


Within the ranks of pedigree breeders, we have those who are incredibly, stringently ethical, those who let slip a little as suits them, and those who do the utmost to win within the pedigree world.

Personally, I'd rather see a crestiecav from someone who health tests, who has collaborated wtih both breed clubs, than someone who has just churned out their umpteenth litter of chinese crested, or ccks pups, under the ethical hat of a pedigree breeder.

I don't see the companion breeds going away, they've been here for generations in the form of pedigree breeds, and I think the modern day demands new breeds, we'd be ignorant to turn a blind eye to that, and expect Joe Public to suddenly respond to ethical messages, they won't. The way to catch up is to embrace the companion dog market, and (as much as it's an abhorrent thought to some) plan with those who want to go about cross breeding ethically, to help supply the market with well bred companions - that would spread the message a helluva lot more than just the current divide between pedigree dog owners/breeders, and the rest of the world.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Personally, I'd rather see a crestiecav from someone who health tests, who has collaborated wtih both breed clubs, than someone who has just churned out their umpteenth litter of chinese crested, or ccks pups, under the ethical hat of a pedigree breeder.


& I personally would rather see neither..as both (in my eyes!!) are bred for no vaild reason! This is what I mean about us all having different standards! To me both situations above include two unethical breeders.

The pet market isnt going no where, and as a result for each buyer is 100 waiting pups - to many breeders on the bandwagon and I (selfish) or not, cant be apart of supporting that.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> & I personally would rather see neither..as both (in my eyes!!) are bred for no vaild reason! This is what I mean about us all having different standards! To me both situations above include two unethical breeders.


If I had to twist your arm, if the crestie breeder was cutting corners, and the crestiecav breeder wasn't, ie health tests, temperament, conformation of parents was good etc, which one would you choose to support?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If I had to twist your arm, if the crestie breeder was cutting corners, and the crestiecav breeder wasn't, ie health tests, temperament, conformation of parents was good etc, which one would you choose to support?


Puts me in such a hard corner, even more so as you use the breed I care for the most! 
But it would have to be the crestiecav - on the basis alone, they would be producing less puppies that went on to suffer through health and tempermant issues! 
(But I shall NEVER support either!)
- we test for a number of diseases, although as a breed there are no set required tests!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

SL have you changed your views on crossbreeding?

I know when we had a debates earlier this year, we had some heated times though at the end we came to an agreement, and hopefully I believe a mutual respect for one another 

Just lately I feel you have been saying a lot of what I have over the course of many a debate!!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

so SL are you now saying that if one of your girls was a male, perfect health test results, conformations and tempermant you would have no problem letting him be apart of a cross breeding programme, asking only for the breeder to be ethical ..


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Puts me in such a hard corner, even more so as you use the breed I care for the most!
> But it would have to be the crestiecav - on the basis alone, they would be producing less puppies that went on to suffer through health and tempermant issues!
> (But I shall NEVER support either!)
> - we test for a number of diseases, although as a breed there are no set required tests!


But that's surely where we are as regards Joe Bloggs, demands for companion breeds, ie rock and a hard place?



Cockerpoo lover said:


> SL have you changed your views on crossbreeding?
> 
> I know when we had a debates earlier this year, we had some heated times though at the end we came to an agreement, and hopefully I believe a mutual respect for one another
> 
> Just lately I feel you have been saying a lot of what I have over the course of many a debate!!


No, no, no, no, no! I have not changed my opinion one bit of the fad fashion cross breeders, but I do think and have thought all along, we may well have to reach some compromise, and agree to disagree politely with regards to some of the cross breeds. The problems are, as I've said, and you've agreed, finding a way forward, no pedigree breeder wants their best stock bought and bred from. It's easy enough to be anonymous, or fairly, if you own a stud dog 

But, to balance that out, I am equally vehemently against bad breeding of pedigrees!



Devil-Dogz said:


> so SL are you now saying that if one of your girls was a male, perfect health test results, conformations and tempermant you would have no problem letting him be apart of a cross breeding programme, asking only for the breeder to be ethical ..


I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, it would depend on the entire situation, I certainly wouldn't ever allow a dog to be used whether pedigree mating or not, without a huge degree of consideration beforehand.

Just as an aside, one of my business facets, is producing contracts/pedigrees for people, and I do make them as stringent as absolutely possible, talking breeders through them. So far, I haven't done one for a cross breeder, and so far, I've stuck to my ethics, ie I wouldn't do an order for contracts/pedigrees, for a litter I didn't agree with.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

we shall have to agree to disagree then, I can understand what your saying and almost accept it..but fully agree with it, never - and nothing will convince me other wise!
I couldnt ever allow any of my dogs to be apart of something I dont agree with, and breeding for no other purpose than to supply a pet market is something I happen to disagree with..Therefore no dog of mine, show dog or pet will be put to stud to someone breeding for the pet market alone, crosses or pedigrees.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> we shall have to agree to disagree then, I can understand what your saying and almost accept it..but fully agree with it, never - and nothing will convince me other wise!
> I couldnt ever allow any of my dogs to be apart of something I dont agree with, and breeding for no other purpose than to supply a pet market is something I happen to disagree with..Therefore no dog of mine, show dog or pet will be put to stud to someone breeding for the pet market alone, crosses or pedigrees.


But, you agreed?  So it's not so much that you agree to disagree, but that you disagree with agreeing


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

Here are three reasons that are good enough for me.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But, you agreed?  So it's not so much that you agree to disagree, but that you disagree with agreeing


confused? agreed to what?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> we shall have to agree to disagree then, I can understand what your saying and almost accept it..but fully agree with it, never - and nothing will convince me other wise!
> I couldnt ever allow any of my dogs to be apart of something I dont agree with, and breeding for no other purpose than to supply a pet market is something I happen to disagree with..Therefore no dog of mine, show dog or pet will be put to stud to someone breeding for the pet market alone, crosses or pedigrees.


 DD have you always felt like that about the pet market? do you think your mum breeding has helped you form that opinion?

If you came from a background when breeding/showing wasn't in your family do you think your views may be different?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

garydogz said:


> Here are three reasons that are good enough for me.


Sorry Gary, but you could equally post that picture as three rescue pups needing a home, it's no reason to breed.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

garydogz said:


> Here are three reasons that are good enough for me.


You would have been better putting a picture up of the cash you gained from these three puppies! :thumbsup:
Yep most on the forum have seen your website, and what a disgrace of a puppy farmer you are, litter after litter, no tests, terrible cross breeding with breeds that shouldnt even be thought of being mixed!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> DD have you always felt like that about the pet market? do you think your mum breeding has helped you form that opinion?
> 
> If you came from a background when breeding/showing wasn't in your family do you think your views may be different?


I think mum being a breeder helped form my opinion to some extent, as a few years ago I didnt agree with breeding what so ever! I grew up with rescue dogs, we always had our own and always had fosters in and out..dumped pregnant females, cruelty cases, all sorts.
I havent come from a back ground of showing, or breeding - we got into CCs through rescue and have only been involved showing/breeding wise since 2006. I have learnt alot in that time, and for the last 2/3 years have accepted there are good breeders - before then, there was no such thing as a good breeder.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Are they members of your breed club? I know our breed clubs don't allow this and being found out would probably result in being thrown out of the breed club.


They can't be that stringent then!



Devil-Dogz said:


> Puts me in such a hard corner, even more so as you use the breed I care for the most!
> But it would have to be the crestiecav - on the basis alone, they would be producing less puppies that went on to suffer through health and tempermant issues!
> (But I shall NEVER support either!)
> - we test for a number of diseases, although as a breed there are no set required tests!





Devil-Dogz said:


> confused? agreed to what?


See above, you agreed that in this instance of individual ethical situations, the crestiecav would be a more welcome addition. 

Yes, you also stated you don't support any unethical breeding as you see it, but then that does leave the door wide open for anyone and everyone who wants to supply the pet market.

I help anyone who wants to find a Lab pup, you'd imagine that's easy, it ain't. There are over 55,000 registered pups with the KC year on year, so how many of those are unethicallyl bred? So the more we push people away, the more we push them to the unethical breeders. If we can educate puppy buyers to only buy ethically, there have to be ethical breeders to supply that demand?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> See above, you agreed that in this instance of individual ethical situations, the crestiecav would be a more welcome addition.
> 
> Yes, you also stated you don't support any unethical breeding as you see it, but then that does leave the door wide open for anyone and everyone who wants to supply the pet market.
> 
> I help anyone who wants to find a Lab pup, you'd imagine that's easy, it ain't. There are over 55,000 registered pups with the KC year on year, so how many of those are unethicallyl bred? So the more we push people away, the more we push them to the unethical breeders. If we can educate puppy buyers to only buy ethically, there have to be ethical breeders to supply that demand?


I also said that I would never support either, but out of the two..The one producing puppies less likely to suffer would be the better option! Doesnt mean I will ever agree with it! 

There are many ethical breeders around, just depends what ethical is to each person. For me its someone breeding for a reason, but also taking into account health, tempermant and comformation - while also asking themselves if the litter has anything to offer the breed and breeders lines - producing good examples, while trying in alot of cases to better the parents.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I also said that I would never support either, but out of the two..The one producing puppies less likely to suffer would be the better option! Doesnt mean I will ever agree with it!
> 
> There are many ethical breeders around, just depends what ethical is to each person. For me its someone breeding for a reason, but also taking into account health, tempermant and comformation - while also asking themselves if the litter has anything to offer the breed and breeders lines - producing good examples, while trying in alot of cases to better the parents.


Ok, another question for you, if fifty ethical breeders could supply the 1/2 of the local market for companion/competition dogs, who supplies the rest of the pups?

Off to bed, but will catch up with this tomorrow....


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, another question for you, if fifty ethical breeders could supply the 1/2 of the local market for companion/competition dogs, who supplies the rest of the pups?
> 
> Off to bed, but will catch up with this tomorrow....


The problem is, the ethical breeders can only supply them that sought an ethical breeder in the first place. If someones not researched and not prepared to wait then they will continue to support the unethical, by compromising to allow more ethical breeders does nothing but create more breeders! as there will always be them that want now, and will support anyone in order for that - and then the circle continues, the more unethical breeders supported the more litters born, which creates more demand, which then results in more unethical breeders jumping on the bandwagon, pushing these ethical breeders out the way in alot of cases.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Thanks for your reply DD- tried to reply but keep getting server msg 

Just to say I understand being involved with rescues could affect your feelings towards breeding and the pet market.

So best go to bed before it crashes for me again!!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

computers ay..night folk.


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry Gary, but you could equally post that picture as three rescue pups needing a home, it's no reason to breed.


I was just trawling around, at silly-o'clock, waiting for a video to finish uploading. I did not realise how far into the thread this was.
Nonetheless, I thought that it was quite an eloquent way of describing my own personal reasons for cross-breeding. I just love 'em.

Still, I suppose that one mans reason is another mans folly. It's what makes the world go round, apparently.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> The problem is, the ethical breeders can only supply them that sought an ethical breeder in the first place. If someones not researched and not prepared to wait then they will continue to support the unethical, by compromising to allow more ethical breeders does nothing but create more breeders! as there will always be them that want now, and will support anyone in order for that - and then the circle continues, the more unethical breeders supported the more litters born, which creates more demand, which then results in more unethical breeders jumping on the bandwagon, pushing these ethical breeders out the way in alot of cases.


Yes but the difference is, a good breeder will stay in touch with puppy buyers, and take back any pups to rehome (or should do) if the owners are ever in that situation.

I don't think for one minute that all unwanted dogs will disappear overnight, and bad breeding will too, but I'd prefer to see the ratio of good to bad breeders increase, and if that means accepting that cross breeding can be done in an ethical way, as long as they follow pretty much the same set of rules about producing a litter that a good pedigree breeder would, then it gives people a choice of supporting more good breeders, doesn't it? And that, for me, can only be a good thing, even if it only makes a small dent, it's making a dent and hopefully helping continue the message to educate puppy buyers.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Nonetheless, I thought that it was quite an eloquent way of describing my own personal reasons for cross-breeding. I just love 'em.


And clearly make a nice living out of breeding them  Unfortunately a glance at your website shows a lot of poor examples of how not to breed, and your strange experimentation with different crosses has clearly led to rather bizarre puppies that doen't look healthy.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

garydogz said:


> I was just trawling around, at silly-o'clock, waiting for a video to finish uploading. I did not realise how far into the thread this was.
> Nonetheless, I thought that it was quite an eloquent way of describing my own personal reasons for cross-breeding. I just love 'em.
> 
> Still, I suppose that one mans reason is another mans folly. It's what makes the world go round, apparently.


Sorry Gary, I wasn't aware of your previous posts, and can see you advocate choice and the right to breed dogs, should people want to. Can I just ask whether you health test any of your breeding stock, and what sort of example of a breed you would want to use, and why?


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

garydogz said:


> I was just trawling around, at silly-o'clock, waiting for a video to finish uploading. I did not realise how far into the thread this was.
> Nonetheless, I thought that it was quite an eloquent way of describing my own personal reasons for cross-breeding. I just love 'em.
> 
> Still, I suppose that one mans reason is another mans folly. It's what makes the world go round, apparently.


You dont love them you breed for money......thats not love.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry Gary, I wasn't aware of your previous posts, and can see you advocate choice and the right to breed dogs, should people want to. Can I just ask whether you health test any of your breeding stock, and what sort of example of a breed you would want to use, and why?


He's not, he's had if I remember correctly about 6 litters in 6 months mixing things like a sharpei and a basset :angry:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> He's not, he's had if I remember correctly about 6 litters in 6 months mixing things like a sharpei and a basset :angry:


Yes, I've seen the 'sham bulls' and 'ba shars', no mention of health tests or reasons why those particular crosses have been done though, which is why I was asking


----------



## Little_em00 (Jun 14, 2011)

There are also breeders who breed pedigree who don't care an inch about their puppies. I went to see several puppies, one was barely 6 weeks another couldn't even stand and these were pedigree dogs or so I was told. Just because people cross breed doesn't mean they don't love them. Most breeders breed for money all you have to do is look at the pet ads.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Most breeders breed for money all you have to do is look at the pet ads.


I never look at the pet ads (too depressing), would never use them to advertise a litter and would never buy a puppy from someone who advertises there either.  You'd be lucky to find an example of a good breeder there. Unfortunately, love alone doesn't mean good breeding. Many poor breeders love their pets but don't make good breeders.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Little_em00 said:


> There are also breeders who breed pedigree who don't care an inch about their puppies. I went to see several puppies, one was barely 6 weeks another couldn't even stand and these were pedigree dogs or so I was told. Just because people cross breed doesn't mean they don't love them. Most breeders breed for money all you have to do is look at the pet ads.


You've obviously not read much of this thread, nor been a member long enough to read previous threads on this and similar topics.

Have you looked at the website of the member referred to? If you have, would you say their main purpose is to promote the welfare of dogs, or to promote sales?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Little_em00 said:


> There are also breeders who breed pedigree who don't care an inch about their puppies. I went to see several puppies, one was barely 6 weeks another couldn't even stand and these were pedigree dogs or so I was told. Just because people cross breed doesn't mean they don't love them. Most breeders breed for money all you have to do is look at the pet ads.


im sure no one would dispute that the majority of pedigree breeders are breeding for the wrong reasons...namely money!...but you can at least amongst this group easily find breeders who arnt breeding to exploit their dogs to make £££....and i would never buy a puppy advertised in the pet ads the vast majority of breeders who advertise on there are the ones breeding for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Little_em00 (Jun 14, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You've obviously not read much of this thread, nor been a member long enough to read previous threads on this and similar topics.
> 
> Have you looked at the website of the member referred to? If you have, would you say their main purpose is to promote the welfare of dogs, or to promote sales?


And what effect are you having by shouting about it on here? He's not going to stop breeding just because you've told him a few home truths. No one can stop him breeding why waste your time?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes but the difference is, a good breeder will stay in touch with puppy buyers, and take back any pups to rehome (or should do) if the owners are ever in that situation.
> 
> I don't think for one minute that all unwanted dogs will disappear overnight, and bad breeding will too, but I'd prefer to see the ratio of good to bad breeders increase, and if that means accepting that cross breeding can be done in an ethical way, as long as they follow pretty much the same set of rules about producing a litter that a good pedigree breeder would, then it gives people a choice of supporting more good breeders, doesn't it? And that, for me, can only be a good thing, even if it only makes a small dent, it's making a dent and hopefully helping continue the message to educate puppy buyers.


The problem (for me is) what is classed as an ethical reason to breed - every ethical breeder, has to have an ethical reason, supplying a pet market alone isnt..There are alot of decent breeders out there, its taking the time to find them. I also think it depends on who you are in contact with. around the show world I know just as many good breeders, as I do bad!



Little_em00 said:


> There are also breeders who breed pedigree who don't care an inch about their puppies. I went to see several puppies, one was barely 6 weeks another couldn't even stand and these were pedigree dogs or so I was told. Just because people cross breed doesn't mean they don't love them. Most breeders breed for money all you have to do is look at the pet ads.


Of course there will be bad breeders of pedigree dogs, have you read different?
every breeder will have a different reason for a litter, money will be in the mind of some..but there will be alot that dont even consider money other than to make sure theres enough to cover medical matters.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Little_em00 said:


> And what effect are you having by shouting about it on here? He's not going to stop breeding just because you've told him a few home truths. No one can stop him breeding why waste your time?


Its by far a waste of time, even if one member learns something from the posts! Going on to avoid such breeders! 
If everyone had your mind set I am sure a whole load less people would understand the importance of ethical breeding.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Little_em00 said:


> And what effect are you having by shouting about it on here? He's not going to stop breeding just because you've told him a few home truths. No one can stop him breeding why waste your time?


As this is an open forum that can be read by members and none-members alike, decrying people who breed for the wrong reasons is never a waste of time


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Little_em00 said:


> And what effect are you having by shouting about it on here? He's not going to stop breeding just because you've told him a few home truths. No one can stop him breeding why waste your time?


well some people care! they care when dogs are exploited, they care that puppies could inherit genetic conditions and they care about the rescue crisis!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Little_em00 said:


> And what effect are you having by shouting about it on here? He's not going to stop breeding just because you've told him a few home truths. No one can stop him breeding why waste your time?





Devil-Dogz said:


> Its by far a waste of time, even if one member learns something from the posts! Going on to avoid such breeders!
> If everyone had your mind set I am sure a whole load less people would understand the importance of ethical breeding.





Spellweaver said:


> As this is an open forum that can be read by members and none-members alike, decrying people who breed for the wrong reasons is never a waste of time


My lips didn't even move!


----------



## Little_em00 (Jun 14, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Its by far a waste of time, even if one member learns something from the posts! Going on to avoid such breeders!
> If everyone had your mind set I am sure a whole load less people would understand the importance of ethical breeding.


Yes and I'm sure loads of people get the message


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

How depressing, I haven't been on this forum for months, and when I do there's yet another 20 page thread on crossbreeds despite it being a banned topic 

Come on people, dogs are dogs are dogs. I've never 'got' why people care so much about whether the KC 'recognise' them or not. And what about all the non-registered 'pedigree' dogs. Are they any 'better' than crossbreeds to the purists?

Surely what we all should be campaigning for is responsible breeding, and leave it to owners to decide whether they want a registered pedigree, crossbreed or anything else; where they get it from whether a breeder or rescue; and what purpose they want it for as long as it is well looked after.

Unfortunately so-called 'designer dogs' get a really bad press as some people tried to make a fast buck. Well doesn't that happen with any 'trendy' breed, whether pure-bred or cross? Thankfully there is a lot now being done by some very good people to encourage responsible breeding of 'doodles' (just the 'breed' I know about as it's what I have).

All of my dogs are my pets first and foremost. But they are also highly intelligent and love to work. So one competes at agility (we have just won into grade 3), and I am training the other too with a view to compete one day. So my crossbreeds are fab companion dogs and work too. But if someone doesn't want to work a dog then surely it's fine for the dog just to be a companion as long as it is getting everything it needs?

Rant over lol


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

freddies_mum said:


> How depressing, I haven't been on this forum for months, and when I do there's yet another 20 page thread on crossbreeds despite it being a banned topic
> 
> Come on people, dogs are dogs are dogs. I've never 'got' why people care so much about whether the KC 'recognise' them or not. And what about all the non-registered 'pedigree' dogs. Are they any 'better' than crossbreeds to the purists?
> 
> ...


i love ALL dogs whether theyre KC registered, 'non registered pedigrees',cross breed or mongrel!!!! but i cant support breeders who's main motive is to make money from their dogs! look at my breed ,the Siberian husky,for example its being churned out by all and sundry, crossed with everything!!!....i love my breed with a passion and i fear they are going the way of the staffy, rescues are inundated with them

yes and ALL my dogs are 1st and foremost pets too.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> i love ALL dogs whether theyre KC registered, 'non registered pedigrees',cross breed or mongrel!!!! but i cant support breeders who's main motive is to make money from their dogs! look at my breed ,the Siberian husky,for example its being churned out by all and sundry, crossed with everything!!!....i love my breed with a passion and i fear they are going the way of the staffy, rescues are inundated with them
> 
> yes and ALL my dogs are 1st and foremost pets too.


I love all dogs too but its alot easier to find a ethical pedigree breeder who health tests and breeds when they want a pup than it is to find a cross breeder who health tests and only breeds when they want a pup.:closedeyes:

Maybe BY talking about it on here someone will one day come along and decide to health test their cross breeds before breeding them and then in a few years we can say well there are ethical cross breeders.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I think there have been some well made points on this thread, and it's nice to debate *the* topic without people getting their feathers ruffled for the most part. I think the day I don't think it's worth debating the ethics of dog breeding, and allow issues relating to poor breeding ethics to just get swept under the proverbial carpet, is the day I don't deserve to own a dog. I will always push and debate ethical breeding of dogs, my opinion may differ from others, but that's no reason not to post about it, and as has been said, at least this way anyone searching the internet and coming across this thread, will see the arguments for and against posted about in a civilised way.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes, I've seen the 'sham bulls' and 'ba shars', no mention of health tests or reasons why those particular crosses have been done though, which is why I was asking


All you have to do is look at his website to see that breeders like him are the reason discussions like this happen. He says he's breeding for love of cross breeds but doesnt love them enough to health test the parents. And on his site has admitted twice of genetic problems with 2 of the pups. Yet has bred the parents again.


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes I imagined that going on.
> 
> At the end of the day what also happens is that a crossbreeder who wants to produce healthy dogs of good quality probably gets a purebreed saying it's just for a pet.
> 
> ...


They have the choice of being patient and building a good reputation, rather than being sneaky and going behind the breeders back then breeding the dog and charging more for the puppies than the breeder did .


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Posting this as an example of where responsible cross-breeding is getting to. The owner of this site has a lot to be proud of in my opinion.

Labradoodles


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Little_em00 said:


> There are also breeders who breed pedigree who don't care an inch about their puppies. I went to see several puppies, one was barely 6 weeks another couldn't even stand and these were pedigree dogs or so I was told. Just because people cross breed doesn't mean they don't love them. Most breeders breed for money all you have to do is look at the pet ads.


In my experience, the really good breeders, the ethical ones don't need or would want to advertse in the pets ads ...


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Cay said:


> They have the choice of being patient and building a good reputation, rather than being sneaky and going behind the breeders back then breeding the dog and charging more for the puppies than the breeder did .


In relation to my response- it was aimed at a reply to SL post saying that crossbreeders need to get the best breeding stock and therefore as I have said lies the problem.

How can they get good breeding stock if pedigree breeders will not allow their pups to be sold to them or stud dogs used.

As already highlighted by Sleeping Lion it's common knowledge that stud dogs are used and a lot of crossbreeding is done " underground" so that these pedigree breeders reputations are not marred.

So when talking about building a reputation how on earth do you expect a level playing field?

Crossbreeders already disadvantaged because in most cases not permitted to get the best breeding stock.

You can tell from comments from here that most are abhorrent that a crossbreeder would breed from their dogs without even discussing it so I imagine that was also transpire to the outside world too.

So tell me then how do crossbreeders get the best breeding stock other than what's been outlined?


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> So tell me then how do crossbreeders get the best breeding stock other than what's been outlined?


They shouldn't be getting any breeding stock. In my opinion ...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> I love all dogs too but its alot easier to find a ethical pedigree breeder who health tests and breeds when they want a pup than it is to find a cross breeder who health tests and only breeds when they want a pup.:closedeyes:
> 
> Maybe BY talking about it on here someone will one day come along and decide to health test their cross breeds before breeding them and then in a few years we can say well there are ethical cross breeders.


agree with your 1st paragraph, i really cant agree with your 2nd tho... im sorry but i dont think its ever ethical to cross my breed with another purely to supply the pet market, they are considered a specialist breed who knows what traits or health issues the the cross will inherit.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> agree with your 1st paragraph, i really cant agree with your 2nd tho... im sorry but i dont think its ever ethical to cross my breed with another purely to supply the pet market, they are considered a specialist breed who knows what traits or health issues the the cross will inherit.


I agree with you, I dont agree with cross breeding UNLESS its to benefit the health of the breed even then I am not sure. BUT cross breeders will cross breed no matter what so imo the least they could do is health test their dogs.

I dont agree with breeding for money and because they cant breed to better the breed ect they are having litters without keeping back they are breeding for money....even more so when they charge £700 + a pup. I have yet (with my own eyes) to meet a cross breeder who health tests and only breeds when they want a pup.

Like I said I dont agree with pedigree breeders not health testing so why should cross breeders get away with it? And still get to use the "cross breeds are healthy" statement. Garydogz has done it...as do many cross breeders who dont test.

I dont think ANYONE can claim a dog is healthy without the correct tests.


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

freddies_mum said:


> Posting this as an example of where responsible cross-breeding is getting to. The owner of this site has a lot to be proud of in my opinion.
> 
> Labradoodles


The first paragraph makes no sense, they refer to them as a breed and then say they don't want them to become recognised breed .


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cay said:


> The first paragraph makes no sense, they refer to them as a breed and then say they don't want them to become recognised breed .


Glad I wasn't the only one confused, although the sentiments of the website are great, and after a quick look through, it seems their members are adhering to the code of ethics


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> In relation to my response- it was aimed at a reply to SL post saying that crossbreeders need to get the best breeding stock and therefore as I have said lies the problem.
> 
> How can they get good breeding stock if pedigree breeders will not allow their pups to be sold to them or stud dogs used.
> 
> ...


you see this is the thing, when someone buys a show potential puppy they dont automatically think they will breed that dog once its matured because it may not turn out to be a good enough representative of the breed...also i really dont know anyone personally in my breed who would be pro Xbreeding them, this is not snobbery this is because we are passionate about the breed and want to protect not only the pup and their breeding but the breed in general...most ethical breeders endorse registrations to try prevent them being bred irresponsibly with the same breed nevermind a different one.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

So no-one has answered my question.???

How do crossbreeders get the best breeding stock and become "ethical" ?

Statements such as they shouldn't be breeding etc... go no-where and does nothing to improve breeding practices, which everyone on here says they are passionate about. That's just a cop out statement IMO.

Otherwise we can all continue this merry-go-round of knocking crossbreeders without ever giving them the opportunity to meet "your "standards.

As has been said it's not going away- far too many people want to own crossbreeds in preference to pedigrees.

So if people on here truly want ethical breeding to happen then it needs to be for all types of breeders does it not?

So what is the answer then?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> So no-one has answered my question.???
> 
> How do crossbreeders get the best breeding stock and become "ethical" ?
> 
> ...


The answer is simple, either we support people who breed to supply the pet market, or we don't. There are not enough people who match the stringent ethical reasons for breeding, which I can fully understand and see the reasoning for, but if the only choice were to buy a pup from someone who was breeding ethically, and keeping a pup back from that litter for themselves, there would be nowhere near the pups bred to meet the demand. So what? I don't necessarily think it's the best solution, but the only solution as I see it, is to support people who choose to breed cross breeds, and make use of health tests and other criteria we deem acceptable generally for those breeding good quality pedigree dogs.

If we don't agree that there needs to be a supply to meet the pet market, that just leaves it to puppy farmers and the likes to fill the gap. By no means would ethical pet breeders fill the demand, but they would fill part of it, and perhaps help to educate people that there is a better way to go about buying a pup.

Right, I'm off to sort out house work and stuff, back later!


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> So no-one has answered my question.???
> 
> How do crossbreeders get the best breeding stock and become "ethical" ?
> 
> ...


No good pedigree breeders will let their dogs be used or go to an intended cross breeder. Why would they? I am not being rude, but when you cross breed you lose some traits from each breed used no breeder would want the good traits to be lost nor risk them breeding to a dog with problems that would only make the pups unhealthy example is breeding a dog that is not prone to HD to a breed that is prone to HD would add the risk of HD where as if just the first breed had been used the risk of HD would not have increased.

I dont think there is anyway to get good breeding stock.

Health tests and not breeding for profit should be a given.

I love cross breed but I dont think its okay to breed them.

Why double the risk of health problems by mixing breeds when you can get many pedigree dogs that can be "good pets" just like a sham-bul ect.

I dont even know if this made sense I know it did in my head.:laugh:


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> So no-one has answered my question.???
> 
> How do crossbreeders get the best breeding stock and become "ethical" ?
> 
> ...


If you actually put yourself in a Show Breeders shoes that has been campaigning their breed for years then maybe you would understand how they may feel selling their dogs to someone who only wishes to cross breed for the pet market.
It sort of woprks both ways.
If you were able to campaign your cockerpoo, spend a lot of money year in and year out, driving up and down the country, breeding it and managing to further your lines with other amazin cockerpoos that go on to win etc... Would you then waste your credibility and reputation by letting your cockerpoo mate with a totally unsuitable Sire/ Dam of a different breed for the pet market only???

It is a difficult decision imo if you are a ethical/ responsible breeder/ owner

As for the link that was posted re Labradoodle site and Code of Ethics---Its nice to see that the members are adhering to it But I was a bit Mmmmm when I noted a breeder who is now mating Merle Collies in with the Australian Oodles that at best have false history imo


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

gladass said:


> If you actually put yourself in a Show Breeders shoes that has been campaigning their breed for years then maybe you would understand how they may feel selling their dogs to someone who only wishes to cross breed for the pet market.
> It sort of woprks both ways.
> If you were able to campaign your cockerpoo, spend a lot of money year in and year out, driving up and down the country, breeding it and managing to further your lines with other amazin cockerpoos that go on to win etc... Would you then waste your credibility and reputation by letting your cockerpoo mate with a totally unsuitable Sire/ Dam of a different breed for the pet market only???
> 
> ...


Yes do understand as I posted a few pages back:

I understand what you say too especially when you have worked hard to preserve a good line.

Just it's a bit of a stale- mate isn't it? how on earth can we move it forward unless there is some compromise 

If you have produced some puppies to protect your breed/line -you are still doing that but then can it not be thought that by allowing a % of the puppies to be bred as crossbreeds you will also be producing new lines with good parentage? Also restrict to say one cross and ensure other dog used is of course to the best standard.

A bit like lets spread all the good 

Obviously I'm talking about good cross match not just a random, as even I agree that some dogs shouldn't be mated together.

It is hard- see I just love crosses but do agree with a lot of issues raised regarding the breeders but am just trying to see both sides and wanting a happy balance.

At the end of the day just want healthy happy dogs produced.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> If you have produced some puppies to protect your breed/line -you are still doing that but then can it not be thought that by allowing a % of the puppies to be bred as crossbreeds you will also be producing new lines with good parentage? Also restrict to say one cross and ensure other dog used is of course to the best standard.
> 
> A bit like lets spread all the good


Why on earth would any decent breeder even consider doing that 

So that another breeder can produce pups simply for the pet market


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes do understand as I posted a few pages back:
> 
> I understand what you say too especially when you have worked hard to preserve a good line.
> 
> ...


Why would they need to compromise? There are plenty of healthy happy pedigree's out there that are pets but come from good ethical breeders.

Like for example why would you want to cross a sheltie and a poodle? Both Shetland sheepdogs and poodles are good the way they are...no need to mix them.

I would never allow one of my dogs to stud or be mated to another breed. The breed is fine it doesnt need mixing.

That's the only bit about cross breeding I dont get.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The answer is simple, either we support people who breed to supply the pet market, or we don't. There are not enough people who match the stringent ethical reasons for breeding, which I can fully understand and see the reasoning for, but if the only choice were to buy a pup from someone who was breeding ethically, and keeping a pup back from that litter for themselves, there would be nowhere near the pups bred to meet the demand. *So what? I don't necessarily think it's the best solution, but the only solution as I see it, is to support people who choose to breed cross breeds, and make use of health tests and other criteria we deem acceptable generally for those breeding good quality pedigree dogs.
> *
> If we don't agree that there needs to be a supply to meet the pet market, that just leaves it to puppy farmers and the likes to fill the gap. By no means would ethical pet breeders fill the demand, but they would fill part of it, and perhaps help to educate people that there is a better way to go about buying a pup.
> 
> Right, I'm off to sort out house work and stuff, back later!


Exactly 

At least your looking at solutions like me too.

No good people sticking their heads in the sand thinking it will all go away. If people truly want to see better breeders then lets see what solutions they have. Anyone?????

After all as has been said numerous times on this forum your not against the crossbred dogs but the breeders.

Or are you all advocating a world just of purebreeds???


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Why would they need to compromise? There are plenty of healthy happy pedigree's out there that are pets but come from good ethical breeders.
> 
> Like for example why would you want to cross a sheltie and a poodle? Both Shetland sheepdogs and poodles are good the way they are...no need to mix them.
> 
> ...


Because without compromise this endless debate about crossbreeds just goes on and on and nothing changes and you are all advocating that you want "ethical" breeders.

Just because you don't like to see two breeds mixed together doesn't mean others don't and there are a vast amount of crossbreed owners in this country.

Without crossbreeding and outcrossing how many of your purebreeds do you think would have existed?

I wouldn't be surprised either if that some-where down the line that some breeds will have to be crossbred with a very close ancestor to eradicate some of the health problems.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Or are you all advocating a world just of purebreeds???


That would be my ideal 

Healthy, happy well bred pedigrees from people who were more interested in improving thier breed on all levels than producing pups simply to feed the pet market :thumbsup:

There will always be mongrels available, but that's not really what the "crossbreed" devotees want is it? Not looking for your average looking mongrel dog.

They are after cute purposefully bred dogs with "names" ... Or that is how it appears.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Because without compromise this endless debate about crossbreeds just goes on and on and nothing changes and you are all advocating that you want "ethical" breeders.
> 
> Just because you don't like to see two breeds mixed together doesn't mean others don't and there are a vast amount of crossbreed owners in this country.
> 
> ...


We have the dogs we have now from long breeding practices with an aim for a breed, for years and years. As you, and others who have crosses keep saying you dont want doodles to become registered by the KC so what are you trying to achieve? What can doodle, poo, bull, ect do that another full breed that has been CAREFULLY bred to get the best temperament, health ect not do?

Its not that I dont like to see cross breeds Its that I dont see the point in them when there are already enough breeds out there that do the exact same as the cross except they have been carefully bred for generations and are from a breeder who genuinely cares for the breed.

Scorchers a GSD cross collie (apparently) and was bred that way to be a working farm dog....do I see the point in it? No...since they kept both GSD's and collies on the farm what could she do that they didnt? Nothing. Except now she has HD and AF which her collie side would not have had.:closedeyes:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Why on earth would any decent breeder even consider doing that
> 
> So that another breeder can produce pups simply for the pet market


Yep because we need a pet market as the majority I would think buy a dog for a pet.

If you are all advocating you want to ensure only the best and healthiest pups are bred then what more accolade does a breeder need than knowing he is producing the best pups he can 

There are not enough show breeders to supply the market for people wanting pets and some people would not want to go to a show breeder.

So does everyone just get a dog to show or work?? I think not.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> We have the dogs we have now from long breeding practices with an aim for a breed, for years and years. As you, and others who have crosses keep saying you dont want doodles to become registered by the KC so what are you trying to achieve? What can doodle, poo, bull, ect do that another full breed that has been CAREFULLY bred to get the best temperament, health ect not do?
> 
> Its not that I dont like to see cross breeds Its that I dont see the point in them when there are already enough breeds out there that do the exact same as the cross except they have been carefully bred for generations and are from a breeder who genuinely cares for the breed.
> 
> Scorchers a GSD cross collie (apparently) and was bred that way to be a working farm dog....do I see the point in it? No...since they kept both GSD's and collies on the farm what could she do that they didnt? Nothing. Except now she has HD and AF which her collie side would not have had.:closedeyes:


It's like me asking you why did you get a sheltie and not another breed?

It's about peoples preferences.

There are obviously not enough breeds out there otherwise people would only be buying pedigrees.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Scorchers a GSD cross collie (apparently) and was bred that way to be a working farm dog....do I see the point in it? No...since they kept both GSD's and collies on the farm what could she do that they didnt? Nothing. Except now she has HD and AF which her collie side would not have had.:closedeyes:


That is sad and I also wonder why on earth they bred this litter, was it an accident? Poor scorcher 

I do think many people are ignorant (and I mean that in the truest sense of the word ... before I am banned) about health issues and crossbreeding. I know a few people who think their dogs will not develop any of the health issues common in the breeds of dam and sire ... one has already found this not to be so unfortunately 

Buyer beware I guess ...


----------



## Myanimalmadhouse (Mar 6, 2011)

goodvic2 said:


> But labs are already in existence.
> 
> Your point is one of the reasons why I dont see the need to cross breed..


So are shar pei's but alot of vets want to see the breed banned until its crossbred out enough to breed out shar pei fever!

There are reasons to crossbreed but its the designer "in thing" that I disagree with.

Now i shall go back and read the other 23 pages lol


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Myanimalmadhouse said:


> So are shar pei's but alot of vets want to see the breed banned until its crossbred out enough to breed out shar pei fever!
> 
> There are reasons to crossbreed but its the designer "in thing" that I disagree with.


Well one thing for sure, those breeding crosses to sell as pets, won't be interested in any responsible schemes like this.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Well one thing for sure, those breeding crosses to sell as pets, won't be interested in any responsible schemes like this.


She was saying thatsome vets have said that shar-pei's need to be crossed to breed out the SP fever.

What responsible schemes are you on about??? and how does it relate to a crossbreeder or are you talking about breeders who x breed shar-peis?


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> It's like me asking you why did you get a sheltie and not another breed?
> 
> It's about peoples preferences.
> 
> There are obviously not enough breeds out there otherwise people would only be buying pedigrees.


If that was the case why would you need labradoodle, cockerpoo, sham-bull, ect and not what they are? Which is a cross of two breeds.

I picked a sheltie because its one of many BREEDS that suits my lifestyle.

Labradoodle's, cockerpoo's where made as a anti-shed dog, which they then gave a "name" to get them sold for the prices they sell their pedigree counter parts for.

Apart from money I cant see why they would breed cross breeds.

Alaska, the litter she came from 3 of the 5 went to pet homes.
Aiden's litter 2 were kept by the breeder (which she later sold one to a pet home sooo) 3 went to pet homes and 1 to a show home (aiden) and 1 was kept by the breeder as a potential show and breeding bitch.
Kai's litter all went to pet homes.

Out of most breeders litter 1-2 will go to show homes the rest to pet homes, the only difference is you have to wait for a good breeder to breed for themselves to get a pup not go to a free ad site and go pick it up the next day.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> That is sad and I also wonder why on earth they bred this litter, was it an accident? Poor scorcher


It was purposely done.....

They wanted a better farm dog. Resulted in Scorcher suffering.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I'm quite shocked to see that Amethyst and Shetland lover want a world where only purebreeds exist.

You are entitled to your opinions of course.

I suppose I like diversity and class myself as pretty open-minded.

Iv'e seen enough evidence where people think one race is better than another- look at the 50's where blacks were segrated from whites and Hilter and his master race ambitions 

I know we are talking dogs here but to me wanting only pure breeds to exist :thumbdown:


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Why would they need to compromise? *There are plenty of healthy happy pedigree's out there that are pets but come from good ethical breeders. * . . . . .


I'm still trying to get my head around this thinking, so could you please explain.

Do you have the numbers to back up your claim here?

In Canada, we need 600,000+ pups produced to keep up the number of dogs in this country (by attrition more than that die every year as we have a dog population of ~7 million).

Our registry producers only supply ~67,000 . . . and most of those are not from 'good ethical breeders'. That is all that are registered here yearly. That means we are more than 530,000 pups short - and our shelters/rescues intake ~68,000, so they are not going to make up those numbers.

So, please make sense, for me, of how a tiny number of dogs bred by 'good ethical breeders' becomes 'plenty'.

The numbers run much the same in the USA, and I've yet to see a single UK poster say how many pups are bred in there.

The UK numbers I have gathered are these. There are 6.1 million dogs - by attrition that means 540,000+ dogs are dying yearly (average age of 11.3 years - not taking into account accidental death).

Just as a start off point, for basic ballpark figures, how many does the KC register? (I'm off to look it up myself as well).

Anyone can claim there are plenty of 'healthy happy pedigrees' being bred, but I'd like to see that backed up with some numbers, as I've heard that false claim from people here much too often.

CC


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> If that was the case why would you need labradoodle, cockerpoo, sham-bull, ect and not what they are? Which is a cross of two breeds.
> 
> I picked a sheltie because its one of many BREEDS that suits my lifestyle.
> 
> ...


I picked my two because they suited my lifestyle too. There were others on my shortlist which were all purebreeds and we also went down the rescue route and looked at mongrels but sadly it didn't work out.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I'm quite shocked to see that Amethyst and Shetland lover want a world where only purebreeds exist.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinions of course.
> 
> ...


If wanting ethical breeders with healthy health tested dogs, with traceable history who breed for love of the breed and ONLY breed when they want a pup rather than for money makes me like hitler then so be it. Though the German half of me resents the bloke.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> If that was the case why would you need labradoodle, cockerpoo, sham-bull, ect and not what they are? Which is a cross of two breeds.
> 
> I picked a sheltie because its one of many BREEDS that suits my lifestyle.
> 
> ...


Ok, let's assume that's true, but it's also then true for the majority of those who breed pedigrees, I can't think how on earth between the show and working fraternity, they could breed anywhere near like 55000 KC registered Labrador pups per year, so where are the rest coming from? And that's without guesstimating just how many unregistered Labradors are also bred year on year.

It will be a minority of breeders overall, who produce litters bred in the way we would like to see, ie for a good reason. And that's the moot point, there will never be enough *good* breeders to satisfy the demand for puppies, and by turning our backs on those who at the very least want to health test, and try to produce healthy pups, whether they happen to be pedigree or not, we are effectively driving people towards bad breeders. Because you can tell people until you're blue in the face that a particular breeder isn't really the best example of an ethical breeder, but because they want that particular breed, cross breed, colour etc, they will still buy a pup from them, I know because I've got that particular t-shirt in several sizes. I was most disheartened recently when I asked for help from someone within my own breed, and they refused, because they didn't want that particular strain to become *popular*, the sad fact is, it already is popular, and by denying access to nicely bred pups, ok, not top show or field trialling champions, we are driving people to the puppy farmers who are already one up on us, and saw the demand starting to rise a couple of years ago. Personally, I'd rather Mr & Mrs Bloggs down the road had a nice bitch, did all the health tests, went and used a nice stud dog, had a whopping litter of twenty pups and ended up making a bit of money, had their bitch spayed after realising what such hard work that one was, than ever indirectly support the income of puppy farmers and the likes, by denying access to nicely bred pets. The problem isn't going to go away just because we say it isn't ethical, the problem will just shift elsewhere


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> If wanting ethical breeders with healthy health tested dogs, with traceable history who breed for love of the breed and ONLY breed when they want a pup rather than for money makes me like hitler then so be it. Though the German half of me resents the bloke.


I never said you was Hitler?

I said I have seen what wanting one race over another can do with humans.

We all want ethical breeders- tell me apart from Garydogz ( who has yet to answer about his breeding ethics) where else on this thread has anyone said they didn't want ethical breeding and healthy pups 

You "liked" Amethyst post about saying that a world of just purebreeds would be ideal and in my opinion I think that is insulting to the many crossbreed owners especially those who use this forum.

If I said I think a world of just crossbreeds would be ideal would that not shock you? sure you would say something too.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> You "liked" Amethyst post about saying that a world of just purebreeds would be ideal and in my opinion I think that is insulting to the many crossbreed owners especially those who use this forum.


Actually the bit I liked was.



Amethyst said:


> Healthy, happy well bred pedigrees from people who were more interested in improving thier breed on all levels than producing pups simply to feed the pet market :thumbsup:
> 
> There will always be mongrels available, but that's not really what the "crossbreed" devotees want is it? Not looking for your average looking mongrel dog.
> 
> They are after cute purposefully bred dogs with "names" ... Or that is how it appears.


Which I fully agree with.

The way I see it is, if you want a cross get a cross there are plenty of oops litters out there and REAL mixes in rescues all over the country.

But these designer cross breeders are not doing any favors. Breeding from non health tested dogs, sticking funny names on the (sham-bull, jackadoodle ect) then selling them for a small fortune is not doing any favors to the dogs.

Apparently there are good breeders out there but since I have yet to meet one in the flesh I will go by this. Find me a breeder who ONLY breeds when they want a pup, health tests their dogs, vets the homes the pups are going to and is willing to take the pup back if anything goes wrong and I will bend on my stance on cross breeding.

But I certainly cant see any cross breeder willing to pay a bit of money to health test their own dogs let alone are willing to take their dogs back if anything goes wrong.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I think it has been said countless times that rescues are not suitable for everybody 

You have been told of good crossbreeders before- but until you meet them you are not convinced- that's up to you.

I do agree there are lot of bad crossbreeders out there have never denied this.

But as this thread has moved on, what SL and myself were trying to do was have a healthy debate about how we can move forward with "Ethical " breeding to include rather than exclude crossbreeders.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> The UK numbers I have gathered are these. There are 6.1 million dogs - by attrition that means 540,000+ dogs are dying yearly (average age of 11.3 years - not taking into account accidental death).
> 
> Just as a start off point, for basic ballpark figures, how many does the KC register? (I'm off to look it up myself as well).
> 
> ...


Just came back from looking, and in 2010 there were 257,062 dogs registered when you total up the seven groups. The MINORITY will be from club affiliated breeders - Breed Registration Statistics - The Kennel Club

The Dogstrust report shows strays picked up to be 107,000, and unclaimed and euthanized strays in 2010 to be 9,310.

http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/_resources/annualreview2010.pdf

Added up and those numbers don't begin to touch 540,000. David Cavill suggests the number is really 600,000. -http://davidcavill.wordpress.com/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics/

This reflects, very much, a similar situation to what we have in North America. A tiny percentage of pups are being bred by breeders most of us would support. Regarding most that want dogs, they are being forced to choose between rescue and many other breeders which can be assessed/ranked in many ways (some better than others). Rescues, however, cannot make up the remaining demand - they are simply in the competition.

It also shows that there is a defeatist message, eminating from our rescues, claiming something that is not true. Being in competition for homes does not mean there are no homes available. When buyers are often choosing to go to substandard commercial breeders, before rescue, this means that rescues need to embrace their communities and market better. Shelter/rescue systems that utilise their communities, rather than alienate them, (and I have examples if asked) show the most success.

This is a blog post that speaks to that, with some very good comments following.

Fixing our nation's shelters: Yes, there ought to be a law | PetConnection.com



> The reason animals die in shelters TODAY is not rampant pet over-population nor the irresponsibility of pet owners. It is that our animal control and shelter system is mired in a failed paradigm.
> 
> Of course we can do better to help people keep their pets and have good lives with them. We can best do this by providing free, low-cost and incentivized and accessible spay/neuter programs (part of the no-kill equation).
> 
> ...


CC


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> . . . But as this thread has moved on, what SL and myself were trying to do was have a healthy debate about how we can move forward with "Ethical " breeding to include rather than exclude crossbreeders.


And I believe that, for the sake of dogs, it would be kindest to do this.

CC


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I wonder why we only get this argument about dogs and not about horses or cats for example, where in the main most are crossbreds, moggies or Heinz57s.

I find breeding to "improve a breed" a strange idea myself, but I don't really understand showing either so perhaps that's where I'm falling down on that one.

My crossbreed was bred for a purpose from the breeders two favourite working dogs. One happened to be a cocker, the other a springer. Mind you I hardly think a working line sprocker is much of a crossbreed anyway since working cockers and springers are basically the same!

My only concern with crossbreeding is when two dogs with very different morphology are crossed - I worry about how the competing genetics will fit together. Dogs should be bred with temperament, health and confirmation in mind whether pedegree or not.

I'm actually not sure the rescue situation relates as directly to the breeding situation as some seem to think. Between breeding and rescue there is a home. Unless boat loads of unsold puppies end up in rescue every month then the demand for puppies is there and supply will meet demand. The only way to reduce supply is to reduce demand. And that means people realising they don't want a dog BEFORE they buy one. AND it means people making an effort to train their dogs so they don't end up in a situation where they can't handle it.

Cross-breeders are not responsible for the rescue situation. Neither are pedigree breeders. Neither are people who buy a puppy, pedigree or cross, and keep it for life. The people contributing to the rescue situation are the people giving the dog to rescue. And they didn't necessarily buy their dog from a "bad breeder".

I'm not saying people should breed willy-nilly, far from it - thought must go into matching the sire and dam and research should be done to ensure there will be home for the pups to go to - but it's much more complex than "cross-breeding should stop because it fills up the rescues".

And yes there are reasons to cross breed, same reasons as there are to breed any dog really - most dogs end up in pet homes anyway, why shouldn't dogs be bred to suit being a pet - many pedigree breeds only suit being a pet, but of course you can parade them around a ring and get someone's opinion on them so that makes it all ok.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I'm quite shocked to see that Amethyst and Shetland lover want a world where only purebreeds exist.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinions of course.
> 
> ...


Good heavens, I can't belive someone is bringing Hitler and his ethos into this :laugh:


----------



## Cassia (May 28, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, let's assume that's true, but it's also then true for the majority of those who breed pedigrees, I can't think how on earth between the show and working fraternity, they could breed anywhere near like 55000 KC registered Labrador pups per year, so where are the rest coming from? And that's without guesstimating just how many unregistered Labradors are also bred year on year.
> 
> It will be a minority of breeders overall, who produce litters bred in the way we would like to see, ie for a good reason. And that's the moot point, there will never be enough *good* breeders to satisfy the demand for puppies, and by turning our backs on those who at the very least want to health test, and try to produce healthy pups, whether they happen to be pedigree or not, we are effectively driving people towards bad breeders. Because you can tell people until you're blue in the face that a particular breeder isn't really the best example of an ethical breeder, but because they want that particular breed, cross breed, colour etc, they will still buy a pup from them, I know because I've got that particular t-shirt in several sizes. I was most disheartened recently when I asked for help from someone within my own breed, and they refused, because they didn't want that particular strain to become *popular*, the sad fact is, it already is popular, and by denying access to nicely bred pups, ok, not top show or field trialling champions, we are driving people to the puppy farmers who are already one up on us, and saw the demand starting to rise a couple of years ago. Personally, I'd rather Mr & Mrs Bloggs down the road had a nice bitch, did all the health tests, went and used a nice stud dog, had a whopping litter of twenty pups and ended up making a bit of money, had their bitch spayed after realising what such hard work that one was, than ever indirectly support the income of puppy farmers and the likes, by denying access to nicely bred pets. The problem isn't going to go away just because we say it isn't ethical, the problem will just shift elsewhere


VERY well said Sir


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Werehorse said:


> I wonder why we only get this argument about dogs and not about horses or cats for example, where in the main most are crossbreds, moggies or Heinz57s.
> 
> I find breeding to "improve a breed" a strange idea myself, but I don't really understand showing either so perhaps that's where I'm falling down on that one.
> 
> ...


well i feel the same about people who deliberatly breed moggies, who breed rodents,rabbits etc etc without even knowing their ancestry just to supply pets... i dont support any of it.

bad breeders are the ones who sell to their puppies to whoever turns up with the £££, they dont bother to vet buyers out, they dont try to protect pups with contracts and endorsements...and they dont take back dogs they have bred at any time in their lives should the need arise.....so ultimately [email protected] breeders are responsible for the rescue crisis!

and without people 'parading their dogs around a ring' and striving to produce quality puppies the majority of pedigrees would be poor representatives of the breeds....and imo that would be a tragedy.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Tapir said:


> I always wonder why some people say they breed for improving the breed, or for a good show dog/stock/line - then say their dogs are first and foremost pets. Surely then, the prority should be making a good litter of companion dogs, with some being lucky enough to make it as show dogs, not breeding a litter of show dogs with some 'not good enough' and must go to pet homes.


Some seem to miss the point completely that dogs bred for show and working have to have flawless temperaments - so it goes without saying that their 'use' as a companion dog is paramount.

Show dogs simply cannot afford to have poor temperaments - they get ferried long distances, taken into strange environments with lots of other dogs, are shown and have the judge go over them, and often, many random members of the public making a fuss over them - and then they go home again.

Through all this, they have to retain a pleasant and tolerant demeanour.

Equally, the same applies when a dog is out working, it needs to an even temperament and to be unphased by pretty much everything.

Show me many pet dogs that can do this, because I suspect many from solely pet breeding would struggle with it.

And before anyone jumps and says - oh - it's cruel to show a dog and they don't enjoy it - RUBBISH - in addition to maintaining their pleasant nature throughout - they HAVE to enjoy it - you simply cannot show a dog who doesn't enjoy it.

My lot go absolutely nuts when the showbag comes out, and get more excited and wound up when off to a show than when they go for a trip to the beach or the park.

So in answer to your question - they are bred for show quality companions that, in the majority of instances, take into equal consideration, health and conformation.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> well i feel the same about people who deliberatly breed moggies, who breed rodents,rabbits etc etc without even knowing their ancestry just to supply pets... i dont support any of it.
> 
> bad breeders are the ones who sell to their puppies to whoever turns up with the £££, they dont bother to vet buyers out, they dont try to protect pups with contracts and endorsements...and they dont take back dogs they have bred at any time in their lives should the need arise.....so ultimately [email protected] breeders are responsible for the rescue crisis!
> 
> and without people 'parading their dogs around a ring' and striving to produce quality puppies the majority of pedigrees would be poor representatives of the breeds....and imo that would be a tragedy.


Who said anything about [email protected] breeders? I said cross-breeders.

I just think we are getting angry at the wrong people. It is the people who create and maintain a have-it-all, throw-away society that should really be the focus of the rescue-based anger.

IMO far too many pedigrees are already poor representitives of their breed. Either characutures or badly bred.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Werehorse said:


> Who said anything about [email protected] breeders? I said cross-breeders.
> 
> I just think we are getting angry at the wrong people. It is the people who create and maintain a have-it-all, throw-away society that should really be the focus of the rescue-based anger.
> 
> IMO far too many pedigrees are already poor representitives of their breed. Either characutures or badly bred.





Werehorse said:


> Cross-breeders are not responsible for the rescue situation. Neither are pedigree breeders. Neither are people who buy a puppy, pedigree or cross, and keep it for life. The people contributing to the rescue situation are the people giving the dog to rescue. And they didn't necessarily buy their dog from a "bad breeder".
> .


you said neither cross breeders nor pedigree breeders were responsible for the rescue situation.....i disagreed... because i believe whoever bred these dogs is ultimately to blame(hence [email protected] breeders)....as i said if breeders protected their pups and took them back at any point in their lifetime if the need arose then there would be no rescue crisis.

well my breed is natural,unspoiled and healthy and rescues are full to bursting because of all the [email protected] breeders churning them out and crossing them with owt.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> as i said if breeders protected their pups and took them back at any point in their lifetime if the need arose then there would be no rescue crisis.


. . . and this type of thinking takes the responsibility away from those that are making the 'bad' decision to get a dog they aren't prepared to take care of, and then allows them to 'dump' the dog without thought.

. . . . and promoting that idea helps how?

I think that the idea of allowing buyers off scott free is wrong. That is the wrong way to go about teaching 'responsibility' to the community.

On top of that it is magical thinking, because we all know there will always be numerous substandard commercial breeders willing to supply pups that won't be backing anything they sell past the time they get payment.

Breeders have some of the responsibility, but the responsibility for the 'wanted' pup, that is dumped is PRIMARILY that of the adult who made the decision to get the dog in the first place.

Rescue and shelter systems that have focused on getting the message of 'responsibility' out to the community are the ones that ARE reducing intake numbers and ARE SEEING success - not killing healthy and adoptable animals.

CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> . . . and this type of thinking takes the responsibility away from those that are making the 'bad' decision to get a dog they aren't prepared to take care of, and then allows them to 'dump' the dog without thought.
> 
> . . . . and promoting that idea helps how?
> 
> ...


blimey is it unusual in Canada for 'good' breeders to take responsibility for dogs they have bred should circumstances change and the dog needs to be rehomed?:eek6:....because over here ethical breeder draw up contracts which state the dog must go back to them.

yes its the buyers fault but imo if you breed a dog you have a lifelong responsibility to that dog and you would NEVER see it end up in any rescue so imo bad breeders are Primarily responsible for the rescue crisis.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

I don't believe cross breeders are responsible for the rescue crisis - I believe that honour goes to the crap breeders, and the crap buyers - of both pedigress, crosses and genuine mongrels.

The crap breeders are to blame IMO for the following reasons:

1) They often breed far too many (in some cases clearly exceeding demand)

2) They do not vet new owners, so many pups inevitably end up in crap homes, and eventually end up dumped / surrendered / sold on, dead, or abused / neglected.

3) They breed dogs without a thought for temperament, and often are often lacking in good rearing, early training and socialisation etc. As many dogs in rescue are put there due to behaviour problems, I think this is should be a major cause for concern.

4) They don't take dogs back if the owner can't / won't keep them - meaning someone else has to pick up the pieces.

The buyers are to blame for these reasons:

1) They support the crap breeders, funding and encouraging poor practices. This is made worse in the case of pedigrees and "designer" crosses, where buyers pay ridiculous money for badly bred, badly raised pups - providing a msasive financial incentive to breed more. (This is less of an issue when it comes to mongrels, or common crosses like lurchers, where huge sums of money are not involved).

2) They buy for the wrong reasons, don't bother to research / train / exercise etc - then wonder why things go wrong and they can't cope.

My point is that these crap breeders and buyers exist for all types of dogs, pedigrees and crosses alike. Breeders cashing in on a trend, and potential owners jumping on the latest bandwagon. There are many arguments against crossbreeding - but I think blaming the rescue crisis on it is a little far fetched.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Colette said:


> I don't believe cross breeders are responsible for the rescue crisis - I believe that honour goes to the crap breeders, and the crap buyers - of both pedigress, crosses and genuine mongrels.
> 
> The crap breeders are to blame IMO for the following reasons:
> 
> ...


if your last sentence is aimed at me.. i blame all the bad pedigree breeders aswell:tongue_smilie:


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Tapir said:


> I always wonder why some people say they breed for improving the breed, or for a good show dog/stock/line - then say their dogs are first and foremost pets. Surely then, the prority should be making a good litter of companion dogs, with some being lucky enough to make it as show dogs, not breeding a litter of show dogs with some 'not good enough' and must go to pet homes.


I specifically bought from a show breeder for many reasons, not least of which was that I knew that her dogs were bred for temperment; they have to have stable temperments to enable them to do well in the ring and also because I knew that, to breed a poor example of the breed or one with a questionable temperment would affect her reputation as a reputable breeder. The pups were matched to buyers according to temperment bar those that the breeder kept back for herself, not sold as 'not good enough'.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Noushka - no, it wasn't aimed at you. It was actually your comment about your own breed that got me thinking more about it...

Its easy for people to look at all the ads for deisgner crosses and blame them for the rescue crisis, but trying to find second hand ones isn't always easy, despite the huge number of litters advertised. On the flip side, the number of unwanted huskies, collies, GSDs, rottweilers, staffies, etc. is through the roof.

And then you have the lurchers, that seem to buck the trend. Often bred for a purpose (work) and often by people who want to keep a pup themselves. Not currently a fashionable cross to own, so no breeders or owners jumping on any bandwagon, nor are they sold for high prices so minimal financial incentive - yet thousands of them in rescue, almost as common as the staffies.

I just think the whole issue is extremely complex, and if we want to improve the situation I think it will take a sort of holistic approach, looking at various factors.

Edited to add:

We were the same when we bought Solo. No intention of showing, breeding etc. but we deliberately went to a show breeder. Why? Because we know her dogs are good examples of the breed, have outstanding temperaments, are highly trainable etc because they have to be in order to show. Plus they are kept in great conditions, health tested etc. As it happens, Solo has a wonky tail and wouldn't stand a chance in the ring - but that is beside the point. Aside from that he's a decent quality bichon, with a fab temperament and *touch wood* good health.


----------



## LexiLou2 (Mar 15, 2011)

I haven't read all the pages so apologise if I am going over old ground. My thoughts, if you stop the cross breeding you aren't going to solve the rescue crisis because people will still go out and buy a puppy on a whim. Its not as if crosses are cheaper than pedigrees now a days anyway many labradoodles cost more to buy as a pup than a standard lab or poodle.
Surely the way to help the rescue situation is to make it harder to breed your dog on a whim, make it harder to just buy a puppy on a whim and just abandon a dog on a whim.
If it is harder to do the above three it shouldn't matter than the litter was pedigree or crossbreed they would have been thought behind the litter thought by the prospective owners and thought before the pups ended up in rescue.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Not to disagree with most of your post, as I believe much was well said, but I did pick up on this.



LexiLou2 said:


> . . . Surely the way to help the rescue situation is to make it harder to breed your dog on a whim, make it harder to just buy a puppy on a whim and just abandon a dog on a whim. . . . .


There are many communities in North America that have managed to encourage their communities to be more responsible, and therefore have lightened their intake numbers and no longer kill healthy and adoptable animals.

Their formula for achieving this has never involved "making it harder to breed or buy a puppy on a whim". Of course they discourage the irresponsibility of unwanted and unplanned litters, but the formula primarily involves turning the animal control models around from intake and kill models to community outreach models.

We have many communities in North America where that is working - from large urban areas, to small rural ones.

That's mostly because they understand the fruitlessness of peeing into the wind or banging your head against a brick wall. It is a wasted effort, and more than that it distracts time and effort away from solutions that really work.

http://www.ndn.org.au/files/SummitProceedings/Nathan Winograd - Saving All Animals.pdf



> "Can We Save All the Lives at Risk in Shelters?
> 
> Nathan J. Winograd
> Executive Director, No Kill Advocacy Center (U.S.A.)
> ...


I have a catalogue of links on this same topic for those that are interested. These are a few.

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/nokillequation.html

http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/02/12/what-are-animal-shelters-for/

http://yesbiscuit.blogspot.com/2009/03/no-kill-movement-and-pet-population.html

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/upaws-doing-it/

http://www.doodlerescuecollective.com/forum/topics/no-kill-nation-a-no-kill

CC


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I understand what you say too especially when you have worked hard to preserve a good line.
> 
> Just it's a bit of a stale- mate isn't it? how on earth can we move it forward unless there is some compromise
> 
> If you have produced some puppies to protect your breed/line -you are still doing that but then can it not be thought that by allowing a % of the puppies to be bred as crossbreeds you will also be producing new lines with good parentage? Also restrict to say one cross and ensure other dog used is of course to the best standard.


It's certainly a dilemma. Why would any purebreed breeder want all their thoughtful, careful breeding be lost by using one of their dogs to breed cross breeds? They wouldn't except for those who put profit first. I'd also add that they tend to have the same feelings towards poorly thought out purebreed matings too. The qualities that a breeder has carefully bred into their dogs by careful and thoughtful breeding can be lost in a generation or two.

I think the added difficulty with breeding cross breeds is that there is nothing to aim for, or at best, very loose aims. I don't know much about it, but one of the largest breeders in europe (GBDA) breeds plenty of cross breeds (as well as pedigrees) and do so ethically. Although, again, they are breeding for specific traits and therefore have something to aim for. I don't know, but it would be interesting to know how and why they make the breeding decisions they do.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> It's certainly a dilemma. Why would any purebreed breeder want all their thoughtful, careful breeding be lost by using one of their dogs to breed cross breeds? They wouldn't except for those who put profit first. I'd also add that they tend to have the same feelings towards poorly thought out purebreed matings too. The qualities that a breeder has carefully bred into their dogs by careful and thoughtful breeding can be lost in a generation or two.
> 
> I think the added difficulty with breeding cross breeds is that there is nothing to aim for, or at best, very loose aims. I don't know much about it, but one of the largest breeders in europe (GBDA) breeds plenty of cross breeds (as well as pedigrees) and do so ethically. Although, again, they are breeding for specific traits and therefore have something to aim for. I don't know, but it would be interesting to know how and why they make the breeding decisions they do.


See, this is the kind of thinking that I just don't get . . . I'll try to elaborate. Maybe because we are so removed from the purebred world here and many of us are, by culture and nature, extremely proud of independence of thought and individual achievement, as that independence is what helped our pioneer ancestors achieve what they did.



> Why would any purebreed breeder want all their thoughtful, careful breeding be lost by using one of their dogs to breed cross breeds?


I don't understand how a dog coming from one of yours, if he/she was good and the breeding was well planned - could be considered a 'loss' simply because the bitch was from another breed. I would think a good dog from yours would be a gain, no matter if it was a cross or pure. If a breeder on forward from you appreciates some of the qualities you've bred in, but not others, and wants to change things up, how is that any worse a dog? It is simply a different dog, but would be appreciated (maybe not by you) just as much by his/her breeder/owner.



> I think the added difficulty with breeding cross breeds is that there is nothing to aim for, or at best, very loose aims.


Of course there is something to aim for - a good dog. That 'goodness' would be something a breeders sees in trait combinations in their own experienced head . . . don't need a group or club to define that for you.

CC


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I don't understand how a dog coming from one of yours, if he/she was good and the breeding was well planned - could be considered a 'loss' simply because the bitch was from another breed. I would think a good dog from yours would be a gain, no matter if it was a cross or pure. If a breeder on forward from you appreciates some of the qualities you've bred in, but not others, and wants to change things up, how is that any worse a dog? It is simply a different dog, but would be appreciated (maybe not by you) just as much by his/her breeder/owner.


OK, I'll try to explain - although make not promises that it will make sense 

My breed is a working labrador - good quality working dogs that are what I consider a lab should be. Generally speaking - biddability, keen stylish hunter, agile, good nose etc.... and IMO good lookers too (although they won't be in the show ring ) I could be more specific, but think that should give an overview. My aim is to breed these qualities in the pups I produce. My aim that I produce quality pups that are a good representative of what a quality working labrador should be. If any of those pups are bred from in the future I would hope that all those qualities that I have tried to maintain in my pups - in effect, what makes them quality labradors - will be something that those breeders will be looking to maintain. If cross breeding (or mating to any old purebreed labrador come to that) then none of those qualities will be maintained (or if they are it will be purely by chance).
Does that make sense?



> Of course there is something to aim for - a good dog. That 'goodness' would be something a breeders sees in trait combinations in their own experienced head . . . don't need a group or club to define that for you.


Yes, but that's my point... the 'goodness' that I am aiming for would not be the 'goodness' that a crossbred breeder is aiming for.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Just thinking about this while writing my reply, I wonder if it is necessary to use the best quality dogs when cross breeding. Yes, good temperament and health is important, but as far as other qualities go, does it matter? Because you will be losing those qualities through the cross breeding anyway?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I understand what you have written, but I do not get it, especially this part.



> If any of those pups are bred from in the future I would hope that all those qualities that I have tried to maintain in my pups - in effect, what makes them quality labradors - will be something that those breeders will be looking to maintain.


I cannot understand how anyone could insist on wanting others to commit to their ideals and appreciate only what they would - to control what others do or appreciate with the future generations like that.

I fully admit to being a more ad-hoc type of person. I love change and have a great appreciation for the unpredictable.



> Just thinking about this while writing my reply, I wonder if it is necessary to use the best quality dogs when cross breeding. Yes, good temperament and health is important, but as far as other qualities go, does it matter? Because you will be losing those qualities through the cross breeding anyway?


Are you talking 'best qualities' as in 'best traits for a specific breed'?. If so, I would think not. The breeder would be looking for the traits that they wanted in a dog whether those were a fit for that breed or not.

CC


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I cannot understand how anyone could insist on wanting others to commit to their ideals and appreciate only what they would - to control what others do or appreciate with the future generations like that.


I didn't say anything about 'insisting' or 'control'. I think if you read my post I said 'hope'.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

The 'insisting' or 'controlling' idea comes from the idea that - as has been mentioned - many/most would restrict their dogs from use if there is a hint that people going forward don't share the same goals . . . . possibly crossbreed.

CC


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Are you talking 'best qualities' as in 'best traits for a specific breed'?. If so, I would think not. The breeder would be looking for the traits that they wanted in a dog whether those were a fit for that breed or not


Exactly. If you take my breed, the most popular cross seems to be with a poodle. What benefits would the traits that I hold highly in my dogs be to a labradoodle? Can't see any so there would be no need. I'm not sure what labradoodle breeders are looking for or what they are hoping to breed but can't believe it is the ideal companion gundog because if they were, they'd stick to a purebred lab


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> What benefits would the traits that I hold highly in my dogs be to a labradoodle? Can't see any so there would be no need.


The lab offers wonderful traits to the labradoodle - some phenotypic, and some through temperament. As someone that is not much a fan of poodles, and is a fan of labradors, I see those very clearly.

CC


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> The lab offers wonderful traits to the labradoodle - some phenotypic, and some through temperament. As someone that is not much a fan of poodles, and is a fan of labradors, I see those very clearly.


The breed in general, but they maybe (although as someone else who's not much a fan of poodles can't understand why they don't just get a lab) but no need for the best quality ones. (I'm really referring to cockerpoo's post about top breeders allowing their dogs to be used for crossbreeding)


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Exactly
> 
> At least your looking at solutions like me too.
> 
> ...


Oh it will never go away as too many crossbreed breeders have jumped on the "Wow look what people are willing to pay for a made up name" market.
What I always asked myself was WHY the Poodle. Most crossbreeds that you see advertised are all crossed with a poodle!!!! I do not perticularly know a lot about poodles but do know they do have health issues so why a poodle
Any Crossbreed owner willing to inform me why??


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2011)

gladass said:


> Oh it will never go away as too many crossbreed breeders have jumped on the "Wow look what people are willing to pay for a made up name" market.
> What I always asked myself was WHY the Poodle. Most crossbreeds that you see advertised are all crossed with a poodle!!!! I do not perticularly know a lot about poodles but do know they do have health issues so why a poodle
> Any Crossbreed owner willing to inform me why??


For the non malt sometimes hypo-allergenic coat....or so I believe from the ads I have seen advertising 98% of them are"hypo-allergenic" or "suitable for allergic people".


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> or so I believe from the ads I have seen advertising 98% of them are"hypo-allergenic" or "suitable for allergic people".


don't believe everything you read


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> For the non malt sometimes hypo-allergenic coat....or so I believe from the ads I have seen advertising 98% of them are"hypo-allergenic" or "suitable for allergic people".


See that still does not make sense to me as there are a lot of breeds Non Moulting. So any crossbreed owners or breeders on here asble to tell me what did the poodle bring to the mix for their dogs??
See I know a few owners of so called named popular crossbreeds and they can not exactly tell me why their cross was bred with a poodle rather than a different breed. Surely a poodle cannot improve all the dog breeds it has indeed been crossed with to supply the pet market and if indeed it magically makes most breeds great pets then why not just get poodles lol


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> don't believe everything you read


Oh I dont but that seems to be the advertising ploy if you will.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> don't believe everything you read


lol exactly as contrary to popular belief, it's actually the dander that people are allergic to, not the hair.


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2011)

gladass said:


> See that still does not make sense to me as there are a lot of breeds Non Moulting. So any crossbreed owners or breeders on here asble to tell me what did the poodle bring to the mix for their dogs??
> See I know a few owners of so called named popular crossbreeds and they can not exactly tell me why their cross was bred with a poodle rather than a different breed. Surely a poodle cannot improve all the dog breeds it has indeed been crossed with to supply the pet market and if indeed it magically makes most breeds great pets then why not just get poodles lol


I dont think any breed can make a breed better. By mixing two breeds you have just as much chances of getting the bad traits of both breeds as you are the good.

My mother wanted a dog, she asked me about labradoodle as she is a fan of the lab but is cant deal with the coat. I explained to her about the doodle and how its not 100% proven and can go either way now she's decided IF shes ever well enough to have a dog for company she wants a little maltease (sp?)

I love Shetland sheepdogs, I could not have a cross. I love the breed as they are! Hair and all. A cross would just dilute what I love about them.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> My mother wanted a dog, she asked me about labradoodle as she is a fan of the lab but is cant deal with the coat. .


I know the Lab coat would be far less work to deal with than a Labradoodles. My aunt has a grooming parlour and I help out at times and the sights I have seen re Poodle crosses would bring a tear to a glass eye. Matted is an understatement. 
You do get the owners who bring their poodle crosses in regularly as well though as they cannot deal with the work involved but imo what an extra cost to dog ownership when they have to pay ££££ every 6-8 weeks just so their dogs can be presentable.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> I dont think any breed can make a breed better. .


. . . . throughout the history of man and dogs, breeders have made the decision to change breeds up by adding a bit here and there. They wouldn't have done so if they thought they couldn't achieve improvement. Why would that change, suddenly, now?



shetlandlover said:


> By mixing two breeds you have just as much chances of getting the bad traits of both breeds as you are the good. .


. . . . and throughout history breeders have been able to make the decision to take those chances. My grandfather was one. My mom did as well but her passion was cattle. My uncle was one of the first Beefalo breeders in Alberta. I don't believe, in the past, breeders were as castigated for making their own decisions as they are now . . . . and that is down to the promotion of 'purebred only'.



shetlandlover said:


> I love Shetland sheepdogs, I could not have a cross. I love the breed as they are! Hair and all. A cross would just dilute what I love about them.


I love many breeds as they are . . . and I love many crosses as well. I don't see those crosses as a 'dilute' of one or the other breed. I usually see them as their own dog.

CC


----------



## mstori (May 22, 2009)

has anyone read this?
Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: Hybrid vigour... fact or fiction?


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> . . . . throughout the history of man and dogs, breeders have made the decision to change breeds up by adding a bit here and there. They wouldn't have done so if they thought they couldn't achieve improvement.
> 
> CC


Agree but they did do it a lot different from what some crossbreeders are doing now.
They tended to breed to get a type, kept the best from that type and then bred forward and so thus lies the problem nowadays with doodle breeders. IMO Its all 1st generation breeding that is mostly advertised even from a few of the etghical crossbreed breeders or as I read earlier 1 crossbreed breeder 2 and 3 generations down her line but now thowing in a merle collie to create merle doodles!!!


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2011)

comfortcreature we are not on about "history" now we are on about a group of people breeding to supply an income. They dont pick the best dogs with the best abilities they pick what ever dog is the easiest for them to get hold of. They dont even health test their dogs.....

We are not on about a select group who are passionate about a new "breed" as cockerpoo lover has pointed out many times they dont want them to be a breed....or registered at any point. Or have a standard....

This isnt about wanting the best of the best to have the best dog of its ability. (reason for breeding different types of collies together to create what we have now) its about breeding whatever goes.

Labradoodles, cockerpoo's, jackadoodles, jackachi, puggle, sharpei x basset, springadore, the list goes on.....

Anyway best get off to bed....will read the rest int he morning.


----------



## Jonesey (Dec 30, 2010)

gladass said:


> Oh it will never go away as too many crossbreed breeders have jumped on the "Wow look what people are willing to pay for a made up name" market.
> What I always asked myself was WHY the Poodle.* Most crossbreeds that you see advertised are all crossed with a poodle!!!! I do not perticularly know a lot about poodles but do know they do have health issues so why a poodle
> Any Crossbreed owner willing to inform me why??*


Because you have poo and then oodle. Add either to another breed and you get a super cute name! Goldendoodle, cockapoo, schnoodle, maltipoo etc.

They are also very cute dogs and mixing breeds with poodles just seems to produce a good temperament most of the time.

To the OP is there ever a reason to breed any breed? It seems to me that there are too many dogs and not enough people wanting them.

I would support making all breeders require a license and go through routine inspections whether they're breeding pedigrees or mutts. Any accidental matings would require the assistance of a licensed breeder who would be paid a fee. Any repeat accidental matings would receive fines. That's the only way to solve it imo.



> I know the Lab coat would be far less work to deal with than a Labradoodles. My aunt has a grooming parlour and I help out at times and the sights I have seen re Poodle crosses would bring a tear to a glass eye. Matted is an understatement.
> You do get the owners who bring their poodle crosses in regularly as well though as they cannot deal with the work involved but imo what an extra cost to dog ownership when they have to pay ££££ every 6-8 weeks just so their dogs can be presentable.


I so hear you on that one. My little dog has only an undercoat now, it's a chance you take when you get a poodle cross. I realize now that she'll only be able to have a full coat in winter and that we are going to have to be far more vigilant with the brushing or pay out more to the groomer to do it for us.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

gladass said:


> Agree but they did do it a lot different from what some crossbreeders are doing now.
> They tended to breed to get a type, kept the best from that type and then bred forward and so thus lies the problem nowadays with doodle breeders. IMO Its all 1st generation breeding that is mostly advertised even from a few of the etghical crossbreed breeders or as I read earlier 1 crossbreed breeder 2 and 3 generations down her line but now thowing in a merle collie to create merle doodles!!!


I'm glad you made allowances (the word some) for those crossbreeders who have an aim.

Are you aware of the new breeds that have started in North America over the last 30 years?

The Mi-Ki is one, and some within the breeding ranks are outstanding, and some are charlatons - as can be expected in any breed.

There is also the Alaskan Klee Kai, and the Ganaraskan.

Of course these aren't 'the main' of crossbreeders, but nor are 'the main' of purebred breeders those with an aim of any kind.

CC


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> I'm glad you made allowances (the word some) for those crossbreeders who have an aim.
> 
> Are you aware of the new breeds that have started in North America over the last 30 years?
> 
> ...


I know that the Alaskan Klee Kai is a sort of new breed but not without problems so not such an improvement in bringing in new breeds imo


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> comfortcreature we are not on about "history" now we are on about a group of people breeding to supply an income. They dont pick the best dogs with the best abilities they pick what ever dog is the easiest for them to get hold of. They dont even health test their dogs......


No, that is what YOU are on about. I choose to talk about those crossbreeders that have an aim, and it is my choice to speak to that if I so choose.

The thread is, afterall, titled "is there ever a reason to cross breed".

One new breed that looks very promising to me is the Markeisje - a dutch breed created from mutts!

CC


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> No, that is what YOU are on about. I choose to talk about those crossbreeders that have an aim, and it is my choice to speak to that if I so choose.
> 
> The thread is, afterall, titled "is there ever a reason to cross breed".
> 
> CC


The thing is if you are a member of your breed club then you are also going against their rules example taken from AKK Club site
12. I agree to breed my Alaskan Klee Kai only to other UKC Registered Alaskan Klee Kai which are an asset to the breed, demonstrated by being structurally and temperamentally sound, and displaying no disqualifying faults.

So why would anyone who has bred their dog to the Cod eof Ethics of said club and also to the American Standard then go and let their dog/ bitch get used to create a cross for the pet market


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> One new breed that looks very promising to me is the Markeisje - a dutch breed created from mutts!
> 
> CC


Aha but the Dutch Tulip Dog here is also known as spoodles lol as they are spaniel/ poodle mixes


----------



## mistysmom (Apr 10, 2011)

My Misty's a mongrel. You can see a few different breeds in her....a lot of short haired gun-dog predominates. She wasn't "bred" as such, I believe, she was just the outcome of some dog-on-dog action in the streets, where people don't spay and neuter.
But she is a lovely girl. She is strong and fit, has no allergies, no problems. She is 13 and runs around like a young 'un. And has a sweet temperament and is well socialized obviously from a young age (she was a rescue)

So raise your glasses for mongrels!:thumbsup:


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> I know that the Alaskan Klee Kai is a sort of new breed but not without problems so not such an improvement in bringing in new breeds imo


I betcha the AKK owners and fans would dispute your opinion on that!



> The thing is if you are a member of your breed club then you are also going against their rules example taken from AKK Club site


I don't quite get why you posted this. I will say, though, that many breeders are not members of their breed clubs and therefore haven't agreed to a code of ethics.

(One of the very most ethical Cavalier breeders I know of is not a breed club member.)



> Aha but the Dog here is also known as spoodles lol as they are spaniel/ poodle mixes


Do you think they are behind some of the Markeisje lines? (Markeisje have a spaniel type coat). My mom had a Terrier mix from a Cockapoo dam when I was a teen. She was an incredible dog.

Found a Markeisje photo to post for those that are unfamiliar 










http://dogbreeds.bulldoginformation.com/markiesje.html

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

mstori said:


> has anyone read this?
> Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: Hybrid vigour... fact or fiction?


Yes, that's Jemima Harrison's blog, the infamous PDE creator who did so much damage to those who breed pedigree dogs, whether or not they were good or bad, they were all lumped into one basket. What followed was a backlash with people believing all pedigrees are 'inbred mutants' as unhelpfully described by the then RSPCA chief vet, who has since gone on to pastures new, some would say he was pushed out of the door. So everyone wanting to buy a new puppy, decided that as pedigrees were unhealthy, because the BBC says so, they'd just buy their puppy from someone who was breeding non-pedigree dogs, and all the puppy farmers and byb's cashed in on it big time. I still get told that pedigree dogs are unhealthy, Labradors, don't they all have horrible hip problems? 

And, if you happen to write a comment on Jemima's blog that doesn't agree with what they're saying, it gets removed, no balanced debates allowed 



mistysmom said:


> My Misty's a mongrel. You can see a few different breeds in her....a lot of short haired gun-dog predominates. She wasn't "bred" as such, I believe, she was just the outcome of some dog-on-dog action in the streets, where people don't spay and neuter.
> But she is a lovely girl. She is strong and fit, has no allergies, no problems. She is 13 and runs around like a young 'un. And has a sweet temperament and is well socialized obviously from a young age (she was a rescue)
> 
> So raise your glasses for mongrels!:thumbsup:


Thank you so much for that, I'm just about to tackle filling in my timesheet, and needed a chuckle!

Can everyone stop posting till I've had chance to read through properly, there are some really good posts but I haven't got time to read thoroughly and inwardly digest until later on, and I'm worried when I come back it'll be up to page 50 :yikes: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

gladass said:


> What I always asked myself was WHY the Poodle. Most crossbreeds that you see advertised are all crossed with a poodle!!!! I do not perticularly know a lot about poodles but do know they do have health issues so why a poodle
> Any Crossbreed owner willing to inform me why??


Because any crossbreed with "poo" at the end of their name will attract attention and hopefully a sale? That's always been my assumption.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Because any crossbreed with "poo" at the end of their name will attract attention and hopefully a sale? That's always been my assumption.


I think it has more to do with historical reasons, the Labradoodle and cockerpoo are two of the older cross breeds. Add to that the sales point that these cross breeds are hypo-allergenic (honest guvnor) and it gives a very good reason to use a poodle crossed with something.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think it has more to do with historical reasons, the Labradoodle and cockerpoo are two of the older cross breeds. Add to that the sales point that these cross breeds are hypo-allergenic (honest guvnor) and it gives a very good reason to use a poodle crossed with something.


You are probably right, though I still like my theory best 

The sillier the name the more popular the pups seem to be


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> You are probably right, though I still like my theory best
> 
> The sillier the name the more popular the pups seem to be


That's down to the sillier the puppy buyer, the more easily fooled they are, and it can happen just as much with the sales gimmicks for pedigrees, rare, tea-cup, blue, silver  , merle, those sort of phrases make a pedigree (or cross breed) dog sound unusual, and increases the desirability. It's happened with all sorts of breeds for years, the number of colours of Labradors I've heard of must be into double figures at least, and yet there is only the three, with one darker shade of yellow, but it's still yellow.

Right, I really must go and get ready to get off to work! :yikes:


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> I betcha the AKK owners and fans would dispute your opinion on that!
> Much the same way as the oodle owners then
> 
> 
> ...


Well you was the one who mentioned spaniel/ poodle lines me thinks when posting about the breed


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

I heard of a breeder that was going to breed her dog with a really bad zoo...she was going to call the pups sh!t zoo


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

If the price of cross breeds went back to a maximum of £300 overnight, how many people would be left breeding them :001_unsure:.


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2011)

Cay said:


> If the price of cross breeds went back to a maximum of £300 overnight, how many people would be left breeding them :001_unsure:.


It still depends how many litters they are pumping out.

Anyway,

cockerpoo's, labradoodle's what aim is it? I mean, the owners I have spoken to on this forum dont want it to become a breed or have a standard. Without a standard the dogs can vary in temperament and looks.

So why breed them? What is it they can do that a labrador cant? At what stage will the silly mixing stop?! Mixing a sharpei and a basset?! why?

I will never agree with cross breeding. I believe it should only be done if teh breed is in dire need of help and has the kennel club and breed club backing of BOTH breeds involved.

Thankfully within my breed alot of the breeders feel the same way as I do, I can only name 1 person who allows her dogs to be used to anything and everything but they have dropped off the face of the earth since people cottoned on.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Because any crossbreed with "poo" at the end of their name will attract attention and hopefully a sale? That's always been my assumption.


Yes your right probably would get attention and a sale think people have realised that a lot of poodle crosses make fantastic pets.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think it has more to do with historical reasons, the Labradoodle and cockerpoo are two of the older cross breeds. Add to that the sales point that these cross breeds are hypo-allergenic (honest guvnor) and it gives a very good reason to use a poodle crossed with something.


Yes you are correct. From what I have seen Cockapoos were bred as early as the 1950's in America.

So if people want to query the name perhaps it has nothing to do with a fashion trend but was given to identify a cross.

Said this many times though - but folk don't want to listen.

They would just rather make their silly comments


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Cay said:


> If the price of cross breeds went back to a maximum of £300 overnight, how many people would be left breeding them :001_unsure:.


The same could be said I wonder how many people would be breeding pugs or chis for example if the max was £300.

No difference really


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> But how can you be sure that 2 healthy dogs who have been health tested are not going to produce a heridatory problem.


Surely the same question should be posed for pedigrees though? 

Not read the whole thread so going to go back and have a look but initial thoughts, personally for me is that there's as much a reason to cross breed as to pedigree breed if health testing etc is done.

There are plenty of mutts, crosses and pedigrees in rescues though, that's a given. Singling out crosses as the core problem is wrong.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> So how do u know that your dog may not suffer some heridatory illness or condition?
> 
> Or is it not important?


I don't, to be frank. Roo's mum was health tested but his dad wasn't.

If he suffers some illness or condition then so be it, i'll do what I can to give him a happy and good life for as long as he is with me. Same as you couldn't be sure about a pedigree dog not suffering them. You can health test all you want, it doesn't make it 100% certain your dog will be ok.

I fail to see WHY you single out cross breeds as the problem. There are plenty of dogs, full stop, in rescues. personally, I'm not a fan of breeding at all after I've had my eyes opened, be it pedigree or not.

However, I appreciate that not everyone wants a rescue dog for whatever reason, and not everyone wants a pedigree.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> And could it not be said that if people do not put the time and effort into making sure they can give their pup everything, medically speaking, then perhaps they are the type of person who may not stick by dog?
> 
> You wouldn't smoke whilst pregnant. So why would you encourage the breeding of a pup who has not been health tested? And especially a cross breed when you don't know what your getting.


Rubbish.

I have a terrier cross, I knew what I was getting. A terrier mix. A rascall. But to infer that because I got a cross breed, I'd dump him in a rescue if he had "issues" is bang out of order.

What about those people with pedigrees that have behavioural problems? Would you make such a sweeping generalisation abotu them.

Apologies for the various responses, working through about 50 pages, but having read this thread so far, same sh*t, different thread. :dita:



mistysmom said:


> My Misty's a mongrel. You can see a few different breeds in her....a lot of short haired gun-dog predominates. She wasn't "bred" as such, I believe, she was just the outcome of some dog-on-dog action in the streets, where people don't spay and neuter.
> But she is a lovely girl. She is strong and fit, has no allergies, no problems. She is 13 and runs around like a young 'un. And has a sweet temperament and is well socialized obviously from a young age (she was a rescue)
> 
> So raise your glasses for mongrels!:thumbsup:


Amen!!!!!!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> It still depends how many litters they are pumping out.
> 
> Anyway,
> 
> ...


I have been through this so many times with you in the past my reasons for wanting my crosses. Why do you keep on?

At the end of the day you may not agree with people choosing a crossbreed over a pedigree but at least show some maturity and respect towards people who make this choice.

I have never questioned your choice of dogs? why do you feel it is acceptable to do that to other's is such a snidey way?

How many times do you keep stating all crossbreeders don't health test when I and others have given you details in the past of our dogs health tests??

You know I think it's disgusting that some of you on here feel it's ok to take a pop at poodle crosses when a main contributor to this thread owns two of them.

By all means have a polite debate about crosses but when you are targeting one cross with no aim other than to provoke people it's not on.

I don't do that to your dogs.

I shall leave this thread now because apart from a couple of interesting debates and info provided it's all based on peoples assumptions.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

I'm not a fan of a lot of dogs out there to be honest but if people want them then people want them, personal choice and all that.


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

We were not in a situation to have a rescue dog other wise it probally would have been a consideration, we live in a ground floor flat yes we have a garden but it is shared so going for our Lola from someone we knew was the best solution for us


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

julesmcc said:


> We were not in a situation to have a rescue dog other wise it probally would have been a consideration, we live in a ground floor flat yes we have a garden but it is shared so going for our Lola from someone we knew was the best solution for us


I hope you enjoy your puppy!!! Just like I enjoyed mine, and still do enjoy them every day!

I've not been on here for weeks, this thread has actually reminded me why!

I'm off now to take my ill bred, no good cross for a walk! :dita:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> I hope you enjoy your puppy!!! Just like I enjoyed mine, and still do enjoy them every day!
> 
> *I've not been on here for weeks, this thread has actually reminded me why!*
> 
> I'm off now to take my ill bred, no good cross for a walk! :dita:


Yep same old same old:frown2:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> I'm off now to take my *ill bred, no good cross *for a walk! :dita:


This is what annoys me, no one thinks this and its sad that people try and make us that disagree with certain things look like we have said such!  dogs are dogs, we are all dog lovers - hence we all have strong opinions on whats wrong and right..we cant all agree, but we also cant put words in others mouths.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> This is what annoys me, no one thinks this and its sad that people try and make us that disagree with certain things look like we have said such!  dogs are dogs, we are all dog lovers - hence we all have strong opinions on whats wrong and right..we cant all agree, but we also cant put words in others mouths.


well said DD! i couldnt agree more! i too get fed up to death when folk imply that we dont like the dogs! just because we have differing views on what constitutes an ethical breeder.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> I have a terrier cross, I knew what I was getting. A terrier mix. A rascall. But to infer that because I got a cross breed, I'd dump him in a rescue if he had "issues" is bang out of order.
> 
> ...


I think that's a bit harsh really, in fact it's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, there have been some well debated points, and yes, differing opinions from both sides, but that's usual.

Right, I'm off to take my inbred mutants out for a walk, with their dodgy hips and hope they don't kill everyone we meet 

(please note the wink at the end there)


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> well said DD! i couldnt agree more! i too get fed up to death when folk imply that we dont like the dogs! just because we have differing views on what constitutes an ethical breeder.


Wasn't going to reply anymore but hey ho 

You may like the dogs Noushka but some on here don't.

Stating that a world of only purebreeds should exist is not solely aimed at the breeders but the dogs and owners too.

Asking people why did they get a poodle cross and not just a poodle is not aimed at the breeders but the owner and indirectly the dog too.

Stating people buy them for silly names is not aimed at the breeders but the owners

Implying that getting a crossbreed means you don't care about your dogs health is aimed at the owner not the breeder.

Saying there is no point in crossbreeds is aimed at the breeder, owner and the dogs too

Saying that people who buy crosses are wrong as they should be going to rescues is aimed at the owner.

Berating people for taking poodle crosses to groomers is aimed at the owners and dogs not the breeder

Questioning peoples choices is aimed at the owners and not the breeder.

So yes I too get fed up by the comments when people imply they are only on about the breeders.


----------



## archielee (Jan 30, 2009)

gladass said:


> I know that the Alaskan Klee Kai is a sort of new breed but not without problems so not such an improvement in bringing in new breeds imo


No breed is without problems.. but we breed to improve and match dogs to get better (heath and temperament )


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

But its never aimed at the dogs cockerpoo lover..Its aimed at the breeders and of course the owners in some ways! I personally blame the buyers/owners just as much as the breeders..for continuing to support them breeding from non health tested dogs, creating a demand. Of course if someone goes to a breeder that health tests and is above board I couldnt knock them, although wouldnt personally have to agree with the reasoning behind the litter.

so for me it depends what kind of buyer you are...like wise with pedigree dogs..


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

For once (don't all die of shock!) I'm going to agree with some of the points raised by Cockerpoo lover and some of the others.

Whist I don't really see the point of crossing a nice non-shedding lap with another nice non-shedding lap dog, or indeed many crosses, nor do I see the point in many pedigree breeds.

(Honesty alert guys - no offence intended, just trying to explain my feelings on this).

I personally don't see the "point" in any breed that is bred with a phenotype with a high potential to be in some way debilitating. For me this includes the likes of pugs and bulldogs that frequently struggle to breathe, exercise, mate and whelp naturally. Now, I am fully aware that not all dogs of these breeds suffer as a result of their phenotype, and of course proper health testing etc is vital, but my very personal viewpoint is why on earth would you want a dog that is largely incapable of being a dog?

Before I get myself lynched, I want to clarify the point I'm (very badly) trying to make - does it matter if crossbreeds serve no obvious purpose other than being cute pets? Does it matter if some people don't see the point of them?

I don't think it does.

How many pedigrees are bought for the purpose they are designed for? MOST dogs in the UK are kept for companionship - and many breeds are obsolete in terms of their original function. 

Applying the principle of certain dogs being "pointless" is exactly what the folks trying to get guarding / fighting / livestock guarding etc breeds banned do. Dog fighting is illegal here - should we stop breeding all the dogs with fighting heritage because they are pointless? Livestock guarding is pretty much non existent over here - let's scrap all the Pyreneans and similar.

Again - I am very much against "crap" breeders, whatever they breed. But I do not believe the argument that crossbreeds serve no real purpose is anything more than a personal preference.

On the flip side, for the sake of being unbiased:

Cockerpoo - I don't think people mean to come across as making sweeping statements, but some of the things said are true for some people. There ARE crap breeders churning out crossbreeds with cute names purely to turn a profit. Breeders who deliberately use cute names and terms like "hypoallergenic", "designer" or "rare" to con people out of their hard earned cash. 
And its not just the breeders - there ARE owners who buy a dog because they "its cute", without a thought to the breeds involved or the care the pup will need. There ARE owners who are lured in by marketting ploys and fall for the cute names. 

I'm not saying you are such a person - nor anybody else on the forum - but these idiots (breeders and buyers alike) do exist, and are a big part of the problem.

I just think you need to take such remarks less personally - if you're not one of those idiots being referred to you have no reason to be offended.

And once again, I don't believe anyone thinks any less of the dogs themselves. We object only to the idiots who breed and buy them for the wrong reasons, and in an irresponsible manner.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> But its never aimed at the dogs cockerpoo lover..Its aimed at the breeders and of course the owners in some ways! I personally blame the buyers/owners just as much as the breeders..for continuing to support them breeding from non health tested dogs, creating a demand. Of course if someone goes to a breeder that health tests and is above board I couldnt knock them, although wouldnt personally have to agree with the reasoning behind the litter.
> 
> so for me it depends what* kind of buyer *you are...like wise with pedigree dogs..


Had to put my two penneth in. Anyone can buy a dog DD - that is the easiest part of dog ownership....looking after, caring after the dog and meeting that dogs needs for the entirety of its life is another thing.

Also not all owners are clued up as to what 'tests' should be done,,,nor are they always aware they are buying from a puppy farmer...a lot of people buy with trust and belief in whom they are buying from - I don;t think we should be blaming or criticizing buyers.....for instance if I never found PF I would not have looked at breeders credentials, health tests etc,,,,,and could well have been a buyer whom bought from a less than desirable breeder.

There are good breeders and bad breeders...seems to me to be more bad breeders than good ones....if all breeders - whether of pedigree or cross bred dogs were as ethical as the breeder of Lily then the rescue centres would not be as full as they are now.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Colette said:


> For once (don't all die of shock!) I'm going to agree with some of the points raised by Cockerpoo lover and some of the others.
> 
> Whist I don't really see the point of crossing a nice non-shedding lap with another nice non-shedding lap dog, or indeed many crosses, nor do I see the point in many pedigree breeds.
> 
> ...


Eloquently and well put!

Just to add a little bit to where you say about pugs and bulldogs etc, I completely agree, and this is one danger that some show people do stick their heads in the sand with. I know with Labradors, I've seen the debate time and time again about just how broad does a head have to be for that dog to be a good representative, can it be too broad? How short coupled etc. Some breeds have definitely suffered because one or more exaggerations have been rewarded in the ring, and I think if you're ever willing to put winning before the welfare of a dog, and breed examples that suffer health wise, you shouldn't own dogs, pure and simple.

But again, part of the driving force for the appearance and popularity, is down to puppy buyers. Show people a picture of a basset with it's droopy eyes and wrinkly skin, long ears dangling to the ground, and folded wrinkles over it's wrists, and most people would go 'awwwwwww', and that cute factor will be why some people want one. It actually turns my stomach, the same as with other exaggerations, which obviously leave some breeds prone to difficulties and health problems.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Thanks for your comments Colette.

I have said on many a thread that I agree with lots of comments regarding crossbreeding and I have also said that I don't agree to just sticking any old two breeds together.

However what sort of owner would it make me if I just let people come out with assumptions all the time?

Whilst the comments are said not to be aimed at me personally when you are a main contributor to a thread who owns poodle crosses and people start making comments about them it's difficult not to take it personally.

The people who have made comments are always the same ones. So for e.g if I have already explained the reasons on a past thread why I wanted my dogs why does the same person have to question it again?

I'm sure if I and other posters was making comments about some-one else's breed when they were the only ones on this thread with that type of dog they too would feel it was personal.

Also you may look at this thread in isolation- however I have had to endure lots of threads like these and it does get tiresome.

I think maybe people need to word things a bit better.

If people said in _some_ cases rather than _all_- I wouldn't have a problem with that.

If people could provide stats or evidence rather than assumptions that would be better too.

I also have tried to see what can be done to make crossbreeding "ethical" but got shot down for that too.

I consider myself fair and am trying to see if both sides could work together to improve breeding practices.That's what I was hoping for in this thread.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

gorgeous said:


> Had to put my two penneth in. Anyone can buy a dog DD - that is the easiest part of dog ownership....looking after, caring after the dog and meeting that dogs needs for the entirety of its life is another thing.
> 
> Also not all owners are clued up as to what 'tests' should be done,,,nor are they always aware they are buying from a puppy farmer...a lot of people buy with trust and belief in whom they are buying from - I don;t think we should be blaming or criticizing buyers.....for instance if I never found PF I would not have looked at breeders credentials, health tests etc,,,,,and could well have been a buyer whom bought from a less than desirable breeder.
> 
> There are good breeders and bad breeders...seems to me to be more bad breeders than good ones....if all breeders - whether of pedigree or cross bred dogs were as ethical as the breeder of Lily then the rescue centres would not be as full as they are now.


I agree its the easiest part, anyone can buy a dog (thats the scariest thing of all!)
I understand that not all potential buyers are aware of certain things, like health testing and this is why I personally find it important for such information to be out there. If a buyer was being the responsible type of owner, they would research their choosen breed as much as possible and this should bring up information on health tests and the like. That said I do understand that at times even the most responsible owners will be duped, we are only human.
There are alot of good breeders and bad breeders around, just the bad get more attention it would seem to me..The good breeders dont actually (in alot of cases) do themselves any favours, as will not advertise planned litters ect where BYB are known to advertise, therefore a buyer will find it harder to find a more ethical breeder - however they are around and when looked for can be found.

I truely believe that some buyers are just as much to blame as the breeders. after all if people didnt buy, there would be no market so would be less people supplying.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Thank you SleepingLion - I'm actually quite relieved that someone understood what I was trying to say!

I just think when it comes to owning a nice pet dog, I can see far more "point" to a cockerpoo or labradoodle than I can many pedigree breeds (the exaggerated ones in my case). 

Something else I've been thinking about (I believe I got the idea from Terriermans article in Dogs Today a couple of months back) is that in some breeds at least certain traits are too strong for a normal pet owner. I guess border collies are probably the prime example of this. 

As a result of selective breeding for a specific function (not including dogs bred purely as companions here) some breeds have very intense drives. This may be problematic in pet homes - as is seen with many breeds, particularly from working lines, including many of the herding and working breeds. They can be just too much for the average pet owner. 

A well considered cross, or indeed a complete mongrel, is unlikely to have such intense traits - crossbreeding can "take the edge off" so to speak. 

I think this is why I've always had a thing for lurchers. I have never in my life wanted to own a collie, just too much for me, while greyhounds I like - but they're not quite enough. Lurchers, IME, do seem to get the best of both worlds. A fun, active, dog, but without the intensity of the collie. A chilled out dog happy to relax for hours at a time, without being quite so sofa obsessed as a greyhound.
And in terms of personal preference, whilst I really like a few of the pedigree sighthounds I do actually prefer the lurchers.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Could it be argued that perhaps for the quest of the 'perfect' pedigree dog to look in a certain way,,all the crossbreeding, inbreeding etc has caused the health problems that now have to be tested for?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

gorgeous said:


> Could it be argued that perhaps for the quest of the 'perfect' pedigree dog to look in a certain way,,all the crossbreeding, inbreeding etc has caused the health problems that now have to be tested for?


For some breed releated issues I would hazard a guess at the answer being yes. Breeders have played apart in creating such 'issues' hence the responsible folk wish to see things changed and breeders take steps to ensure puppies dont suffer.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Colette said:


> Thank you SleepingLion - I'm actually quite relieved that someone understood what I was trying to say!
> 
> I just think when it comes to owning a nice pet dog, I can see far more "point" to a cockerpoo or labradoodle than I can many pedigree breeds (the exaggerated ones in my case).
> 
> ...


This is one reason why many people who breed working dogs won't sell to purely pet homes, they want a home that will challenge and stimulate the dogs they breed, and they want their dogs to do well either working, and/or in competition. Many will sell to active pet homes that want to have a dabble at working/competing, or just even training gundog skills, but some won't even do that, preferring their dogs to go to a home where they will get the chance to do what they were bred for. Some people might think that is pure snobbery, but when you think about how pet breeding has come on, actually, the best working dogs were owned by those who purely worked them, pets, if you had one, were some sort of heinz 57, or the unwanted runts of a litter that may otherwise have been culled.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

archielee said:


> No breed is without problems.. but we breed to improve and match dogs to get better (heath and temperament )


But this is so untrue for many so called ethical breeders, that breed for the show ring, what they have done to many breeds is just criminal, pug, bulldog, gshd springs to mind and i know there are many more.There are good and bad in pedigree and cross breeds, what makes people think its the crossbreed owners that constitutes more to the rescue crisis, you only have to look at breed rescues to see there are plenty of unwanted pedigree dogs, its the owners not the breeds or breeders.
Ive heard it said that dogs that are bred for the showring or field shouldnt go to pet owners, isnt this then encoraging people to either breed unethically or crossbreed.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

gorgeous said:


> Could it be argued that perhaps for the quest of the 'perfect' pedigree dog to look in a certain way,,all the crossbreeding, inbreeding etc has caused the health problems that now have to be tested for?


Yes and no from me. It's obvious with some pedigree breeds that they either have issues because of some sort of physical trait, such as wrinkly skin, ingrown eyelids, squashed noses etc, and then you have genetic issues that can affect a large proportion of a gene pool, and this *can* be down to popular stud dog syndrome, where people just use a dog because he's won lots of stuff, or it can be a condition that's just generally there in the background, the mode of inheritance and whether a dog will clinically develop it are quite complex, and so it's just a part of the dogs make up really.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Ive heard it said that dogs that are bred for the showring or field shouldnt go to pet owners, isnt this then encoraging people to either breed unethically or crossbreed.


working dogs in pet homes I can understand, but 'show' dogs in pet homes...never heard anything like that


----------



## MrsZeb (Feb 3, 2011)

Thanks for reminding me why I hardly use this forum!
 :bored:


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Agree with SleepingLion about the health issues. 

Certainly in some breeds it IS their phenotype that causes some problems. But there are many disorder that do not directly relate to phenotype, which is why they are so easily missed, even now we don't have health tests for everything and many tests are inconclusive.

Agree with DD about pet homes - I can understand working line dogs being placed in working homes, for the reasons SL and I have mentioned (namely the welfare of the dogs and the sanity of the owners!). But I have never personally heard anyone - breeder, buyer, or other, suggest that show bred dogs shouldn't go to pet homes. Certainly some breeders will give preference to show homes, or at least give them first pick of the pups (after they've picked their own of course), but I've yet to find a single one that doesn't want show dogs in pet homes. Makes no sense.


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> The same could be said I wonder how many people would be breeding pugs or chis for example if the max was £300.
> 
> No difference really


What I meant was the price of cross breeds seemed to be around the £300 mark at most, suddenly the price of some cross breeds shot up to £900, what suddenly made some pups worth more than the parent breeds? The amount of breeders who started breeding these specific crosses when the price rose suggests that the majority of them breed them for money :001_smile: .


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

MrsZeb said:


> Thanks for reminding me why I hardly use this forum!
> :bored:


  

I'm not sure if it's intentional that some people have just posted one liner comments like this, but having contributed to much of the thread, and read a lot of it, yes, there are various opinions on both sides and in the middle, and it's a good debate, so why slate it? Surely this is what forums are all about??


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> , and it's a good debate, so why slate it? Surely this is what forums are all about??


I am enjoying reading everyones opinions. Even if not shared by myself I still enjoy them.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

MrsZeb said:


> Thanks for reminding me why I hardly use this forum!
> :bored:





shetlandlover said:


> I am enjoying reading everyones opinions. Even if not shared by myself I still enjoy them.


Ive been following this thread quite closely and am finding it an interesting read  as im sure plenty other are.

It has turned into a thread which interesting opinions from both sides.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I am enjoying reading everyones opinions. Even if not shared by myself I still enjoy them.


Exactly! I think many of the members on here know the score ie there are good breeders and bad breeders of all kinds, and we all have different standards as regards *exactly* what we would call an ethical breeder, doesn't stop us having a good debate about it though, and some of the newer members may find it interesting if they've not seen this sort of topic discussed before (even though it is banned :yikes: )


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Exactly! I think many of the members on here know the score ie there are good breeders and bad breeders of all kinds, and we all have different standards as regards *exactly* what we would call an ethical breeder, doesn't stop us having a good debate about it though, and some of the newer members may find it interesting if they've not seen this sort of topic discussed before (even though it is banned :yikes: )


Exactly, we all love dogs on here regardless of breed, cross breed, fat, thin, naked, fluff balls ect.

Its interesting to see people's different views, my view is no more valid than someone who's for cross breeding. Its just good to give our opinions and see the discussion in return.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Wasn't going to reply anymore but hey ho
> 
> You may like the dogs Noushka but some on here don't.
> 
> ...


i still honestly dont believe anyone dosent like the actual dogs CPL and your 2 pupsters are Adorable!

a lot of people dont agree with pet breeders breeding say their own breed for money to supply the pet market, also they know the majority of such breeders cut corners in one way or another...so its sort of hypocritical if they thought it wrong for pet breeders to breed pedigrees but okay if they breed crosses...if you get my drift lol

but as ive said before putting aside motive...if cross breeders did everything as ethically and responsibly as the best pedigree breeders than im sure for one thing the rescue crisis would be much improved.

do you feel that breeders should take back dogs that they have bred should the need ever arise?

only i was shocked that Comfortcreature dosent agree that breeders should take responsibility for them....to me the breeder should always be there as a safety net at any time in that dogs lifetime.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> Ive heard it said that dogs that are bred for the showring or field shouldnt go to pet owners, isnt this then encoraging people to either breed unethically or crossbreed.


ive never heard that dogs bred for show shouldnt go to pet homes either HM


----------



## MrsZeb (Feb 3, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> ......some of the newer members may find it interesting if they've not seen this sort of topic discussed before (even though it is *banned* :yikes: )


The ban is ridiculous as the moderators do nothing to stop the crossbreed (particularly poodle crosses) bashing. :incazzato:
I refuse to get wound up by this pointless (in my opinion) debate. All dogs have a 'point' and yes my dog is a much loved poodle cross (from health checked parents). I'll stick to my usual friendly, supportive, non-judgemental forum thanks.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i still honestly dont believe anyone dosent like the actual dogs CPL and your 2 pupsters are Adorable!
> 
> a lot of people dont agree with pet breeders breeding say their own breed for money to supply the pet market, also they know the majority of such breeders cut corners in one way or another...so its sort of hypocritical if they thought it wrong for pet breeders to breed pedigrees but okay if they breed crosses...if you get my drift lol
> 
> ...


I think you've misinterpreted that bit Noushka, I think what CC meant more, was that owners shouldn't be given an easy option of getting rid of their dog if they want to swap it to get one that matches their new carpet type of thing. Anyone would agree that a breeder should take back a pup, even under those circumstances, because, let's face it, if you find an owner is so fickle they want a dog to match their carpet you would want your pup out of there asap. But prospective puppy buyers can and do fool good breeders, and of course there are always times when a change in circumstances, tragedy etc, could mean an owner coming back to you. But I think it was more a comment that puppy buyers should be aware of the huge responsibility they are taking on buying a pup, it *should* be a for life thing, not an until I get fed up and the breeder can take it back off my hands whenever I want thing, hope that makes sense


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> working dogs in pet homes I can understand, but 'show' dogs in pet homes...never heard anything like that


Ive had 4 working dogs have 3 at the moment all pets.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> ive never heard that dogs bred for show shouldnt go to pet homes either HM


Dont think thats the norm it was once mentioned on here on a thread regarding pet homes and showhomes think it was breeding section there was a few that agreed although the minority.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MrsZeb said:


> Thanks for reminding me why I hardly use this forum!
> :bored:


I've not posted much on here but I'm enjoying the debate - and quite frankly, the only posts which have annoyed me on here are posts like this one. Why on earth bother to write a post like this? If you're not enjoying the debate, why continue reading? Why not just go to a different debate that is more to your taste?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think you've misinterpreted that bit Noushka, I think what CC meant more, was that owners shouldn't be given an easy option of getting rid of their dog if they want to swap it to get one that matches their new carpet type of thing. Anyone would agree that a breeder should take back a pup, even under those circumstances, because, let's face it, if you find an owner is so fickle they want a dog to match their carpet you would want your pup out of there asap. But prospective puppy buyers can and do fool good breeders, and of course there are always times when a change in circumstances, tragedy etc, could mean an owner coming back to you. But I think it was more a comment that puppy buyers should be aware of the huge responsibility they are taking on buying a pup, it *should* be a for life thing, not an until I get fed up and the breeder can take it back off my hands whenever I want thing, hope that makes sense


i often do get the wrong end of the stick! but i still got the impression that CC dosent think its the breeders responsibility once the pup has been sold and the owners no longer want it

and to me its not about making it easy for the owner to dump the dog, but if an owner is in that frame of mind then surely its better to take a dog back out of a home where its not wanted.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i often do get the wrong end of the stick! but i still got the impression that CC dosent think its the breeders responsibility once the pup has been sold and the owners no longer want it
> 
> and to me its not about making it easy for the owner to dump the dog, but if an owner is in that frame of mind then surely its better to take a dog back out of a home where its not wanted.


You're not the only one hun, I've made some corkers in my time, but that's how I read it, not that good breeders shouldn't take pups back, but that it shouldn't be taken for granted that crap owners can dump unwanted pups back with a breeder at any point. Of course you'd hope that when good breeders vet puppy buyers, they'd discount that type of person, but it does happen, and *if* the message is there that a puppy isn't just for Christmas (sounds familiar) hopefully it makes it a more serious proposition for potential puppy buyers, if you see what I mean


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

A balanced debate? Honestly, as the owner of two cockerpoos and a labradoodle it doesn't feel that way. 

I tried about 15 pages back to show how a growing number of people are trying to promote responsible cross-breeding and educate the public about issues like the 'hypo-allergenic' myth, yet have checked in to read another 15 pages of stereotypes. 

There are ethical pedigree breeders, there are ethical cross breeders. 

There are really bad pedigree breeders, there are really bad cross breeders. 

Wouldn't it be better to stop this ridiculous 'crossbreeds are bad' thread and start an 'unethical breeders are bad' thread. Although I'm sure it will be just as long deciding what is and isn't ethical!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You're not the only one hun, I've made some corkers in my time, but that's how I read it, not that good breeders shouldn't take pups back, but that it shouldn't be taken for granted that crap owners can dump unwanted pups back with a breeder at any point. Of course you'd hope that when good breeders vet puppy buyers, they'd discount that type of person, but it does happen, and *if* the message is there that a puppy isn't just for Christmas (sounds familiar) hopefully it makes it a more serious proposition for potential puppy buyers, if you see what I mean


haha i bet DT holds the record tho

i dont dispute that good breeders do all they can to place their pups in permanent loving homes by vetting out potential owners and making them aware of the responsibilty of taking on a dog...but good breeders also protect pups with contracts and the way i read it is that CC didnt agree with this....but there you go i probably got it wrong again


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> I think you've misinterpreted that bit Noushka, I think what CC meant more, was that owners shouldn't be given an easy option of getting rid of their dog if they want to swap it to get one that matches their new carpet type of thing. Anyone would agree that a breeder should take back a pup, even under those circumstances, because, let's face it, if you find an owner is so fickle they want a dog to match their carpet you would want your pup out of there asap. But prospective puppy buyers can and do fool good breeders, and of course there are always times when a change in circumstances, tragedy etc, could mean an owner coming back to you. But I think it was more a comment that puppy buyers should be aware of the huge responsibility they are taking on buying a pup, it *should* be a for life thing, not an until I get fed up and the breeder can take it back off my hands whenever I want thing, hope that makes sense


Yup, but power went out here for a while so I couldn't get back on to clarify.



noushka05 said:


> do you feel that breeders should take back dogs that they have bred should the need ever arise?
> 
> only i was shocked that Comfortcreature dosent agree that breeders should take responsibility for them....to me the breeder should always be there as a safety net at any time in that dogs lifetime.


I did not suggest that breeders should not take responsibility for their pups. I support the idea that they should . . . but with a caveat.

It is magical thinking to believe that touting this idea is of any help to the rescue situation as, unfortunately, there are too many breeders who will not back their pups and so far I've not seen any headway into ways of changing that. Emphasizing this as a rescue 'solution', I believe, is actually of harm as it gives buyers the message they can get off scott free from their decision to purchase a pup. On boards I've seen some actually rely on this with what I thought was a very lazy attitude about 'well it didn't work out so the breeder took him back".

The prevaling attitude being fostered seems to be to point all at the breeder. I believe that is completely wrong.

What needs to be emphasized, if interest is in diminishing shelter intakes, IS the idea that owners NEED to be aware of and take on the responsibilities if they are to make a decision to purchase.

CC


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Ive had 4 working dogs have 3 at the moment all pets.


Ok..But some breeders dont allow working bred dogs into pet homes.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Ok..But some breeders dont allow working bred dogs into pet homes.


I really dont understand why, especially if its bought as a pup, no one knows for certain whether it will make the grade or not and i do wonder if a pup bought for working, fails what happens to it, bet many dont keep it. If a pet home is vetted correctly the breeder should have some idea whether a prospective owner would cope and do the right thing by working dog.

Going off topic now sorry.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

freddies_mum said:


> A balanced debate? Honestly, as the owner of two cockerpoos and a labradoodle it doesn't feel that way.
> 
> I tried about 15 pages back to show how a growing number of people are trying to promote responsible cross-breeding and educate the public about issues like the 'hypo-allergenic' myth, yet have checked in to read another 15 pages of stereotypes.
> 
> ...


And I think I posted to say it's nice to see some people are actually making an effort? There are comments frequently made about pedigrees that are less than positive, I don't complain, it's true, there are some pedigree breeders that need a good slapping (can you tell I've had a glass of wine  ) just as much as there are people who are either intentional, or unintentional cross breeders etc, that could do with similar treatment. The good thing about these debates, is it allows for discussion about the ins and outs of possibly moving things forward. I for one, think it would be a good idea to have a broader membership site than the one you posted for Labradoodles, to include only ethical breeders of known cross breeds. And I think this could/should be linked with KC pedigree people, who are willing to allow their stock to go on to be used for breeding should they turn out to be good enough, so that there's some where for people to go who want certain types of cross breeds, just an idea that formulated earlier today when I was thinking about the thread. A sort of registry of those who support ethical cross breeding?



noushka05 said:


> haha i bet DT holds the record tho
> 
> i dont dispute that good breeders do all they can to place their pups in permanent loving homes by vetting out potential owners and making them aware of the responsibilty of taking on a dog...but good breeders also protect pups with contracts and the way i read it is that CC didnt agree with this....but there you go i probably got it wrong again


I'm sure DT would hold most records on PF to be honest!! But that was definitely my interpretation of what CC posted, just goes to show how things can be interpreted differently on open forums.



Devil-Dogz said:


> Ok..But some breeders dont allow working bred dogs into pet homes.


Very definitely, I know of a few who wouldn't consider homes that wouldn't work or compete their dogs.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> For the non malt sometimes hypo-allergenic coat....or so I believe from the ads I have seen advertising 98% of them are"hypo-allergenic" or "suitable for allergic people".


It's utter rubbish - the vet in Australia who came up with the idea of crossing Labs and Poodles quickly recognised it wouldn't work - there's an interesting article about how saddened he was by what happened next 

You only have to look at Lab x poodles - some have long shaggy hair, some are like labs, some are like poodles and then everything inbetween in terms of temperament and type.

I've seen comments how x puppies suit their lifestyle - where one of the main breeds won't - yet ALL dogs change post adolescence - and that could just as equally mean taking more of the other parent's traits to those they displayed as a puppy - what happens to the dog then when it becomes of the type that no longer meets the owners needs, requirements and lifestyle?

If someone wants the traits of a Lab, get a lab - if they want the traits of a whippet, get a whippet, if they want a chinese crested - then get one - but don't assume that if you want specific traits in a dog you will get them from a cross-breed - you probably have more chance of winning the lottery.

Those who love their dogs will love them whatever and will adapt their lifestyles to accommodate that dog, whether it be a pedigree or cross-breed - those are people that have gone into it with their eyes wide open - but many of those who don't and are basically 'conned' into believing they are getting a specific type or temperament and less likelihood of health issues could be in for some far nastier surprises than those who bought responsibly bred pedigrees.

Cross-breeds aren't responsible for the whole rescue problem no - but the types of breeders who usually produce them, along with the similar type of breeder who produces poor quality pedigrees usually account for the majority of the rescue issue


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2011)

swarthy said:


> It's utter rubbish - the vet in Australia who came up with the idea of crossing Labs and Poodles quickly recognised it wouldn't work - there's an interesting article about how saddened he was by what happened next
> 
> You only have to look at Lab x poodles - some have long shaggy hair, some are like labs, some are like poodles and then everything inbetween in terms of temperament and type.
> 
> ...


I think you summed it up beautifully as usual.:001_wub:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Yup, but power went out here for a while so I couldn't get back on to clarify.
> 
> I did not suggest that breeders should not take responsibility for their pups. I support the idea that they should . . . but with a caveat.
> 
> ...


thank you for clarifying CC ......seems SL is on the ball tonight!

I do agree with what you say but im sure good breeders already do try to make potential new owners aware of their responsibilities....but do you think breeders should state within a puppy contract that the dog must be returned to them if the dog for whatever reason is no longer wanted?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> thank you for clarifying CC ......seems SL is on the ball tonight!
> 
> I do agree with what you say but im sure good breeders already do try to make potential new owners aware of their responsibilities....but do you think breeders should state within a puppy contract that the dog must be returned to them if the dog for whatever reason is no longer wanted?


Yay, I got one right!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Cross-breeds aren't responsible for the whole rescue problem no - but the types of breeders who usually produce them, along with the similar type of breeder who produces *pure quality pedigrees *usually account for the majority of the rescue issue


 - I had to re read that. I assume you meant POOR quality pedigrees rather than PURE quality pedigrees


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yay, I got one right!


rrr:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yay, I got one right!


rrr:

* yes you deserve some rep for that! im in a very generous mood*


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

sorry i dont know how my amended post managed to stay on SL:sosp:


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> thank you for clarifying CC ......seems SL is on the ball tonight!
> 
> I do agree with what you say but im sure good breeders already do try to make potential new owners aware of their responsibilities....but do you think breeders should state within a puppy contract that the dog must be returned to them if the dog for whatever reason is no longer wanted?


I have read up lots on different contracts, as I have found, when questionning, that some buyers would refuse to buy a pup with a breeder that insists they ship it back (here pups are often flown in) if they run into dire circumstances where they can not keep it. The buyers ALSO are interested in wanting to know where their dog might go (as some are fighting cancer etc. and really did not plan on the event that makes them give up their pup).

There are some contracts that have a wording something along the line of the "breeder must be informed of" and "the buyer must seek approval from the breeder" if a dog is to be rehomed, and as well that the breeder is always to take the dog back if a home cannot be found.

I like those as they allow the buyer to know that they continue to hold most of the responsibility - and some really want this.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> sorry i dont know how my amended post managed to stay on SL:sosp:


Too many glasses of red, chuckle, that'd be my excuse anyway


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

These are two of the standard clauses I use in contracts I do for breeders:

_The Purchaser(s) agree that if, at any stage in the Dogs life, the Purchaser(s) need to rehome the Dog, the Breeder will be the first to be informed and the Purchaser(s) will, if the Breeder requests, return the Dog to the Breeder. The Breeder will offer every reasonable assistance to find a new home.

In the event of a change of address, the Breeder will be notified in writing within one calendar month of the date of moving.
_
Both are something I think anyone who cares about their dogs would include as part of a contract of sale for a pup, whether they are pedigree or not.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> as I have found, when questionning, that some buyers would refuse to buy a pup with a breeder that insists they ship it back (here pups are often flown in) if they run into dire circumstances where they can not keep it. The buyers ALSO are interested in wanting to know where their dog might go (as some are fighting cancer etc. and really did not plan on the event that makes them give up their pup).


I think the shipping thing is not really relevant here, but I do think the buyer wanting to know where the go might go is a valid reason. However, surely, by this time you would expect to have developed a good enough relationship with a puppy buyer that this is not an issue.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> I have read up lots on different contracts, as I have found, when questionning, that some buyers would refuse to buy a pup with a breeder that insists they ship it back (here pups are often flown in) if they run into dire circumstances where they can not keep it. The buyers ALSO are interested in wanting to know where their dog might go (as some are fighting cancer etc. and really did not plan on the event that makes them give up their pup).
> 
> There are some contracts that have a wording something along the line of the "breeder must be informed of" and "the buyer must seek approval from the breeder" if a dog is to be rehomed, and as well that the breeder is always to take the dog back if a home cannot be found.
> 
> ...


i prefer the wording on SL's examples... basically its what is on my contracts.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> These are two of the standard clauses I use in contracts I do for breeders:
> 
> _The Purchaser(s) agree that if, at any stage in the Dogs life, the Purchaser(s) need to rehome the Dog, the Breeder will be the first to be informed and the Purchaser(s) will, if the Breeder requests, return the Dog to the Breeder. The Breeder will offer every reasonable assistance to find a new home.
> 
> ...


i have no wine SL SO i'll have to blame the baileys ive just had in my coffee


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> - I had to re read that. I assume you meant POOR quality pedigrees rather than PURE quality pedigrees


I did -  duly edited  put it down to the medication I'm on - DOH!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I think the shipping thing is not really relevant here, but I do think the buyer wanting to know where the go might go is a valid reason. However, surely, by this time you would expect to have developed a good enough relationship with a puppy buyer that this is not an issue.


Interesting perspective there.

Shipping to me is darned important. I hate the idea of a dog stuck in a crate for up to 16 hours for shipping . . . . then the cost of it on top, when, personally, I'd be perfectly capable of finding a home for that dog closer so that all wouldn't have to be gone through. I understand why a buyer would balk at the thought of breeders insisting a pup be shipped back.

In regards to the relationship with the puppy buyer, I don't think I get what you are saying. No matter the relationship the buyer has with a breeder, they are always going to think the home they pick is best (over the opinion of the breeder) . . . . at least I would as even selfishly, if I were in the situation of being terminal, I'd still want to have that dog placed with someone close so that I could see it until my dying breath. My first two rehomes were taken in for that reason . . . not so much that I was the best home (I was only 22 and worked full time), but their owner, a friend, understood that I was a plenty good enough home and that I'd have them to visit her until her end. One was a purebred Pom, and I believe most Pomeranian breeders today would have vetoed me as a home because of my age and work hours.

CC


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i still honestly dont believe anyone dosent like the actual dogs CPL and your 2 pupsters are Adorable!
> 
> a lot of people dont agree with pet breeders breeding say their own breed for money to supply the pet market, also they know the majority of such breeders cut corners in one way or another...so its sort of hypocritical if they thought it wrong for pet breeders to breed pedigrees but okay if they breed crosses...if you get my drift lol
> 
> ...


Yes I do think that breeders should take back pups if there are genuine reasons to do so and not just those who bought on a whim, although hopefully the breeder would want to re-home those as well, and both of my breeders have said they would take back pups if need be.

When I make comments about crossbreeds it's from my own perspective and from those who I have met either in person or from another forum I frequent.

I don't agree with all crossbreeding and I do admit that crossbreeders need to improve however they need to be given the chance and some are trying their very best.

You can't knock crossbreeders on one hand if you disagree that they are not allowed to acquire the best breeding stock.

If you want things to improve then at least give the decent crossbreeders a chance.

Also apart from one puppy that was quickly snapped up I have yet to find any of my crosses in rescues.

Having looked at getting a rescue and looking all over UK I found them to be of pures, crosses and mongrels.

I dont think you can attribute the rescue situation on crossbreeding but on all types of breeding and irresponsible owners and also some that have no option but to re-home via rescue.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Also apart from one puppy that was quickly snapped up I have yet to find any of my crosses in rescues.


That's a very bold statement to make, you are in regular touch with every single rescue in the UK on a regular basis? Wow - that must take some doing - I take it your whole life is tied up with speaking to rescues on a daily basis to know this fact  



Cockerpoo lover said:


> Having looked at getting a rescue and looking all over UK I found them to be of pures, crosses and mongrels.
> 
> I dont think you can attribute the rescue situation on crossbreeding but on all types of breeding and irresponsible owners and also some that have no option but to re-home via rescue.


Once again, you really must have been kept VERY busy contacting every single rescue across the UK.

Not one person on this forum or thread has claimed that the rescue situation is purely down to cross-breeds, Labrador rescue has a massive network of regional locations aside from those that end up in places such as RSPCA outlets, Many Tears and probably many more small local initiatives - however, what is pretty obvious from those involved is that, in the main, these dogs are frequently poorly bred, have had pretty sh*t lives being used as baby making machines until they outlive their usefulness or had owners who have bought on a whim believing they are getting a ready trained ideal family pet at 6/7 weeks, only to discover, through poor research and no advice from the breeder that they end up with an untrained, difficult to handle adolescent at 10 months who wrecks the house, is completely unmanageable, or through bad exercise regime has a dog requiring thousands of pounds worth of surgery where the owner cannot fit the bill.

There will undoubtedly be well bred dogs ending up in rescue; but they will be in the minority -

How many times have we seen people post on here that they won't go to rescue because so many of the dogs have 'issues' - which again is a bold and inaccurate statement to make, but another misconception - yes - there will be some with issues, but there will be others who've arrived there as a victim of circumstance, bereavement, family break up etc

The fact does however remain that a large proportion of rescues are from poor breeders or poor owners who have bought from these breeders with no idea what they were getting themselves into.

A lot of these dogs might be 'pure breeds' on paper - but to be quite frank - visually - you would struggle to accept that - and living in the heart of the puppy farming world which can be a right royal PITA at times for all sorts of reasons.

One look at the Many Tears website is testimony to the fact that out of the pedigree dogs they have up for rehoming, only a small proportion of them are marginally recognisable as the breeds they are actualy supposed to be 

Dogs looking for homes - Many Tears Animal Rescue

Jo and Chubby are Lizzies Barn are prime examples of how related crosses can be - in this instance they are similar sizes - but where breeds are 'ill-matched' - that won't always be the case - you won't, as some expect, get something inbetween the size of the two parents, just as you won't with two human parents with large variations in height.

Lizzie's Barn Animal Sanctuary

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

Not so long ago - we met a lovely young couple on their beach with their collie and their fully grown 'pedigree pup with papers' they had bought from West Wales - lovely dog - anyone care to take a guess what breed it is?




























It's the dog laying on it's back in this photo










And in mid air in this one


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes I do think that breeders should take back pups if there are genuine reasons to do so and not just those who bought on a whim, although hopefully the breeder would want to re-home those as well, and both of my breeders have said they would take back pups if need be.
> 
> When I make comments about crossbreeds it's from my own perspective and from those who I have met either in person or from another forum I frequent.
> 
> ...


me too, i think its one of the many requirements that make a good breeder

i couldnt see many in my breed happily allowing their quality dogs to be used to produce crosses....most you will find are very choosy what sibe bitch they stud their dogs out to nevermind use him on a different breed, and most place breeding endorsements on pups registrations to prevent any litters being registered should the dog not make the grade or not pass health tests...then theres the other reasons already been mentioned...so i hope you can try to understand why many good breeders couldnt support it.

heres Dillon a poodle cross whos in the local rescue where we help, hes been in for ages now and i dare say rescues will be seeing more and more poodle crosses the way they are being churned out sadly.



and ive never blamed crossbreeding for the rescue situation, i know full well there are plenty of pure breeds and mongrels in rescue aswell, but take the dire staffy crisis for example, the vast majority of staffys in rescue are not show bred, its the pet breeder and byb who are churning them out and crossing them with everything who are primarily to blame....and my fear is that other breeds are heading the same way...mine for one


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Not so long ago - we met a lovely young couple on their beach with their collie and their fully grown 'pedigree pup with papers' they had bought from West Wales - lovely dog - anyone care to take a guess what breed it is?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm guessing chocolate Lab, and I'm saying that because the size of his tail discounts other breeds I was thinking he could possibly be.



noushka05 said:


> me too, i think its one of the many requirements that make a good breeder
> 
> i couldnt see many in my breed happily allowing their quality dogs to be used to produce crosses....most you will find are very choosy what sibe bitch they stud their dogs out to nevermind use him on a different breed, and most place breeding endorsements on pups registrations to prevent any litters being registered should the dog not make the grade or not pass health tests...then theres the other reasons already been mentioned...so i hope you can try to understand why many good breeders couldnt support it.
> 
> ...


Dillon is gorgeous!

Yes, the crap byb's etc and owners who just couldn't care less and breed despite the best advice add huge amounts of unwanted dogs to rescue, and they're pretty much untraceable


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

Hi all. Just caught up with this thread, and you have certainly chased it around a bit! 
One point that I have noticed, with regard to the OP, is that most of the debate seems to be from the breeding point of view. What about this train of thought :-

more cross-breeds are being bred because there is a demand for them from people looking for a pet dog.

If this statement is true then would that count as a "reason"? It is, after all, the pet owners that will buy and look after these dogs for the vast majority of their lives. If they want a cross-breed then shouldn't they have that desire met?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

garydogz said:


> It is, after all, the pet owners that will buy and look after these dogs for the vast majority of their lives. If they want a cross-breed then shouldn't they have that desire met?


Certainly NOT by breeders like you! who churns out litter after litter! crosses anything with everything:rolleyes5:.... hell you dont even know what breed one of your poor bitches is!


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> Certainly NOT by breeders like you! who churns out litter after litter! crosses anything with everything:rolleyes5:.... hell you dont even know what breed one of your poor bitches is!


Oh, you know so little. Even that which you think you know is wrong.
Have you any sensible point to make?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

garydogz said:


> Oh, you know so little. Even that which you think you know is wrong.
> Have you any sensible point to make?


yeah i know enough ive read your threads seen your website

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-photo-galleries/21957-what-hell.html


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm guessing chocolate Lab, and I'm saying that because the size of his tail discounts other breeds I was thinking he could possibly be.


The 'claim' was he was meant to be a chocolate lab - but having seen this dog 'in the flesh' and dry - he has a Vizsla head and a wire haired vizsla coat - yet he has been sold (and registered - although who with not confirmed) as a Lab 

Don't get me wrong, he was a lovely friendly chappy - but the point is - his owners were well and truly conned - and when they saw mine, realised it pretty much immediately


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

swarthy said:


> The 'claim' was he was meant to be a chocolate lab - but having seen this dog 'in the flesh' and dry - he has a Vizsla head and a wire haired vizsla coat - yet he has been sold (and registered - although who with not confirmed) as a Lab
> 
> Don't get me wrong, he was a lovely friendly chappy - but the point is - his owners were well and truly conned - and when they saw mine, realised it pretty much immediately


i thought he had the look of a vizzy


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I thought vizzy initially, but it was the tail that gave it away.

Noushka hun, don't rise to the bait, Gary's been asked to join in but chooses not to respond to any questions, instead posting responses he knows will wind members up


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I thought vizzy initially, but it was the tail that gave it away.


He may have Lab in him, but I can assure you, he isn't full Lab


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion;1061172912
Noushka hun said:


> Asked to join in??? If I want abuse I can just go and see the OH.
> I am willing to dicuss the thread though. I do find it quite interesting.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

swarthy said:


> He may have Lab in him, but I can assure you, he isn't full Lab


No, he doesn't look like a Labrador from the head/body shots you can see, but that tail looks too thick to be a vizla, hence me guessing they'd been sold him as a chocolate Lab


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes I do think that breeders should take back pups if there are genuine reasons to do so and not just those who bought on a whim, although hopefully the breeder would want to re-home those as well, and both of my breeders have said they would take back pups if need be.
> 
> When I make comments about crossbreeds it's from my own perspective and from those who I have met either in person or from another forum I frequent.
> 
> ...


2 minute search got me these ones Poodle Cross Dogs for Adoption and Rescue


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

And this:

Welcome to the Labradoodle Trust - Education, Rescue & Welfare

and this

 UK Cockapoo Rescue  ADOPTIONS  RescueMe.Org


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Having looked at getting a rescue and looking all over UK I found them to be of pures, crosses and mongrels.
> 
> I dont think you can attribute the rescue situation on crossbreeding but on all types of breeding and irresponsible owners and also some that have no option but to re-home via rescue.


You can't totally atribute the horrendous rescue situation to those that simply breed crosses to supply the pet market, but it can't be denied they are doing a cracking job contributing to it 

Certainly doing their bit to add to the sad situation.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

gorgeous said:


> And this:
> 
> Welcome to the Labradoodle Trust - Education, Rescue & Welfare
> 
> ...




I don't know if I am doing something wrong but I can't see any UK rescue Cockapoos on this link?


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

It's important to remmeber that the number and type of crossbreed that appears on rescue web sites is not representative of number actually in rescue or having been in rescue. Smallish cute breeds and crossbreeds are soon snapped up in most cases and never make it onto the internet ... unless they have problems perhaps.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

gladass said:


> 2 minute search got me these ones Poodle Cross Dogs for Adoption and Rescue


They are not cockapoos or Cavapoos are they? They are beardie crosses.

I'm not talking about any poodle cross 
I said my type.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> It's important to remmeber that the number and type of crossbreed that appears on rescue web sites is not representative of number actually in rescue or having been in rescue. Smallish cute breeds and crossbreeds are soon snapped up in most cases and never make it onto the internet ... unless they have problems perhaps.


Well as they are getting snapped up what's the problem then?

It means more room for other dogs.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> They are not cockapoos or Cavapoos are they? They are beardie crosses.
> 
> I'm not talking about any poodle cross
> I said my type.


in a lot of rescues they will just be called a poodleX as its not always obvious what theyre crossed with


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

sezra said:


> [/B]
> 
> I don't know if I am doing something wrong but I can't see any UK rescue Cockapoos on this link?


No I couldn't either and it's an American site.

Hey Sezra maybe you could adopt one from America eh?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> in a lot of rescues they will just be called a poodleX as its not always obvious what theyre crossed with


Yes I know I spent a year looking at rescues


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I thought vizzy initially, but it was the tail that gave it away.
> 
> Noushka hun, don't rise to the bait, Gary's been asked to join in but chooses not to respond to any questions, instead posting responses he knows will wind members up


okay i'll try:001_unsure:....

infact it might be time to push that ignore button


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

I can't believe this thread is still going, even I gave up on it ages ago :lol:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Verbatim said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going, even I gave up on it ages ago :lol:


youve got no stamina you!:001_tt2:


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

Hey Gary.....

RSPCA Preston Animal Adoption District Branch Lancashire

Hyndburn Stray Dogs In Need

Its amazing how many dogs in those two rescues look like the staff x you produce. And thats just two rescues I know of.

Sadly, you do not have any right to say you are a cross breeder! You are not a breeder you are a puppy farmer.....Breeders are loving people....

When you dont know what breed your bitch is, allow your other bitch to either become underweight while whelping OR allowing her to become underweight then breeding her...its vile.

Anyway,

As far as poodle crosses in rescues I have seen a few over the past couple of years they are usually under "poodle cross" because they dont know what they are crossed with.

I met a lovely poodle cross called Barney last year at a rescue. He was one leggy dog!


----------



## Linden_Tree (Jan 6, 2011)

Breeders, regardless of what they produce, are not responsible for the rescue crisis, the lack of commitment and research by new owners is, as proven by a few threads i've read on here lately.

As with anything, all the time there is a demand, there will be a supply. 

Of course thats a rather simplistic view, and there are many factors that contribute to the overpopulation of dogs within the UK, but ultimately its piss-poor ownership thats the problem. 

If people did more research, and weren't so selfish and greedy with their I WANT attitudes, then maybe so many dogs wouldn't have to die.

People need to realise that not every lifestyle suits dog ownership.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

swarthy said:


> *That's a very bold statement to make, you are in regular touch with every single rescue in the UK on a regular basis? Wow - that must take some doing - I take it your whole life is tied up with speaking to rescues on a daily basis to know this fact
> 
> Once again, you really must have been kept VERY busy contacting every single rescue across the UK.
> *
> ...


There is no need to be sarcastic is there ? but hey not surprised

How do you know what I did? I happen to be a lady of leisure with plenty of free time.

I never said every single rescue did I? I said I looked all over the UK meaning not just my area.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Well as they are getting snapped up what's the problem then?
> 
> It means more room for other dogs.


Oh dear, this says volumes about your lack of understanding over the way dog rescue works 
Rescue kennels are not run like a kennel business that simply sells dogs.

When any dog comes into a good rescue it is quarantined, vaccinated, spayed and acessed for temperament etc ... even for the most desirable crossbreed, this can take a couple of weeks ... before dog can be placed in home.

During the time the ... say for the sake of it ... a "cockerpoo" is being prepared for a new home, other desperate dogs are waiting for that kennel ... even dying in pounds, because THAT dog has taken up kennel space or a foster home.

No decent rescue takes a dog in one day and rehomes it the next.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> me too, i think its one of the many requirements that make a good breeder
> 
> i couldnt see many in my breed happily allowing their quality dogs to be used to produce crosses....most you will find are very choosy what sibe bitch they stud their dogs out to nevermind use him on a different breed, and most place breeding endorsements on pups registrations to prevent any litters being registered should the dog not make the grade or not pass health tests...then theres the other reasons already been mentioned...so i hope you can try to understand why many good breeders couldnt support it.
> 
> ...


aww poor Dillion

He looks like a Bichon cross to me though rather than poodle.

A terrier x bichon perhaps?


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

OK guys .. I haven't had chance to read all 40 pages but can we please remember the rules.. Here is a link..

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/36419-important-rule-regarding-crossbreeds.html


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> There is no need to be sarcastic is there ? but hey not surprised
> 
> How do you know what I did? I happen to be a lady of leisure with plenty of free time.
> 
> I never said every single rescue did I? I said I looked all over the UK meaning not just my area.


I am NOT being sarcastic - I don't do sarcasm - I say it as I see it (then again, they do say it is the lowest form of wit and the highest form of intelligence- so maybe I should just say thanks )

Your post intimated that you know for a fact that there are not crosses 'of your type' in rescue other than one puppy who was snapped up quickly (as unsurprisingly are most puppies from rescue if the rescue are comfortable with the fact that the prospective owners can offer them a good home and why so many people who come on here with unplanned litters - particularly those who have had pregnant bitches literally dumped on them are advised to contact rescue for help with homing puppies - because their capacity to vet owners is always going to be stronger than that of a breeder whichever way you look at it)

There was NO sarcasm intended - read your post - you made a very bold statement that clearly indicates you *know the situation across all rescues and that there are no problems with your 'type of cross' *- _the danger of the written word._


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> aww poor Dillion
> 
> He looks like a Bichon cross to me though rather than poodle.
> 
> A terrier x bichon perhaps?


youre half right... hes actually suppose to be a poodle/westie cross


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwh!!

Prince - Battersea Dogs & Cats Home

He does look like a cockapoo.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Oh dear, this says volumes about your lack of understanding over the way dog rescue works
> Rescue kennels are not run like a kennel business that simply sells dogs.
> 
> When any dog comes into a good rescue it is quarantined, vaccinated, spayed and acessed for temperament etc ... even for the most desirable crossbreed, this can take a couple of weeks ... before dog can be placed in home.
> ...


I know exactly how rescues work 

You said the main reason I probably wouldn't have seen my crosses in rescues is because those types of dogs are snapped up quickly.

So whilst they may be in rescues initially at least they are not languishing like so many other types of dogs which cost more, have more effect on the dog and take up valuable space.

I'm sure rescues aims are to move dogs on quickly to suitable loving forever homes is it not? so in your words " being snapped up quickly" isn't so much of a problem then is it? compared to the poor dogs nobody wants

I think every rescue would love their dogs to be "snapped up" then left in kennels unwanted.

Also any dog in a rescue is taking up another dogs place including pedigrees.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I know exactly how rescues work


Then I find your "thinking" even less understandable 

But there you go ...


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwh!!
> 
> Prince - Battersea Dogs & Cats Home
> 
> He does look like a cockapoo.


Prince is a terrier x 

He doesn't look like a cockapoo to me.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> youre half right... hes actually suppose to be a poodle/westie cross


I have seen "Westiepoos "( have one in my town) and he certainly doesn't look like one at all. But not to say that he isn't as we all know crosses can turn out different 

See his colouring suggests to me a Bichon x westie and he has a Bichon look to him.

I'm not 100% but usually most of the poodles are black and apricots used- I think whites are much harder to find.

Anyway just my opinion hun. He is cute and sad he has not found a home.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Then I find your "thinking" even less understandable
> 
> But there you go ...


 You have never understood my thinking- so I'm not surprised.

With the exception of dogs/cats we do have a lot of similar "likes"-strange how we just don't get on???


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Prince is a terrier x
> 
> He doesn't look like a cockapoo to me.


If you read 1 of the comments below. And compare the picture you can tell. 
As said before rescues regularly get things wrong. 1 rescue I know of had a collie in and had it down as a "sheepdog cross corgi".....it was a collie that was 2 inches undersized. :lol:

Also you have to think, go onto pets4homes or PL (cant say the name of the site now) and type in poodle into pets4homes, more poodle crosses come up than poodles. And type in cockerpoo and cockapoo (both come up with a different 4 pages of dogs) then labradoodle and then cavapoo.

Where are all these puppies going?

Over populated breeds like labs ect are ending up in rescues so are poo, doodles. They may not be in the resuces under their designer name but they are there.

And even though they dont have a standard they all look alike so they are easy to spot in rescues so they do get taken.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

swarthy said:


> I am NOT being sarcastic - I don't do sarcasm - I say it as I see it (then again, they do say it is the lowest form of wit and the highest form of intelligence- so maybe I should just say thanks )
> 
> Your post intimated that you know for a fact that there are not crosses 'of your type' in rescue other than one puppy who was snapped up quickly (as unsurprisingly are most puppies from rescue if the rescue are comfortable with the fact that the prospective owners can offer them a good home and why so many people who come on here with unplanned litters - particularly those who have had pregnant bitches literally dumped on them are advised to contact rescue for help with homing puppies - because their capacity to vet owners is always going to be stronger than that of a breeder whichever way you look at it)
> 
> There was NO sarcasm intended - read your post - you made a very bold statement that clearly indicates you *know the situation across all rescues and that there are no problems with your 'type of cross' *- _the danger of the written word._


Do misinterpret my words: I never said I knew the situation across all rescues 

I said I have yet to find any Cockapoos or Cavapoos in Rescues and it's true I haven't so that's a fact.

I didn't say I scoured every rescue every minute of the day_ I'm not superwoman 

Yes I don't look so much now as no need but I still do visit rescues and look on the internet but not as much as when I was trying to get a rescue.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Not read every post - but have been trying to follow this thread, however felt I didn't have much knowledge to be able to contribute much 
The thread seems to be moving towards poodle crosses in paticular.

Looking at Dogsblog (I know this is just one example) - there are poodle crosses in rescue - However there are a lot more Labradors and labrador crosses.
Even on the Labradoodle trust site there was only 3 dogs listed.

I'm not saying Doodles aren't in rescue or doodle breeders/owners don't contribute to the rescue situation.
However I feel it's unfair to single them out.

As said before irrisponsible and ill prepared owners and bad breeding practices are the main causes of dogs being in rescue - wether pure bred or mixed.

As for the original question - yes there is a reason to cross breed in my opinion.
Lurchers, agility dogs and plain old companion pets - now the real question is how do we monitor and control breeding so that all breeders and owners make more ethical choices.
Microchipping, registering with local councils, legally binding contracts etc I don't know the solution but one thing I do know is every member on here agrees something must be done.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

momentofmadness said:


> OK guys .. I haven't had chance to read all 40 pages but can we please remember the rules.. Here is a link..
> 
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/36419-important-rule-regarding-crossbreeds.html


Sadly that rule is not enforced.

It should have perhaps been applied when the thread was first started. If you look at the early posts it was terrible.

We had one new member who wanted to leave over it- luckily she is staying.

Talking about crosses is one thing but to keep singling out poodle crosses is disgusting.

But hey I'm not allowed to say anything as it's not aimed at me or the dogs 
and must not take it personally.

Well blinkered and naive I'm not.

There are some who are interested in a healthy debate and others who quite frankly are just out to cause friction.

For those who say it's not about the dogs but only the breeders:

If you say you like crossbreeds then why do you not find it acceptable that a good crossbreeder who produces healthy pups from healthy parents who ensure good homes blah.. blah... is breeding?

and why is it also acceptable to make comments about people who own crossbreeds?

And if you like the dogs is it just to look at ? but still they shouldn't be here?

I can't understand how people can say they like crossbreed dogs yet won't allow them to be bred.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I have seen "Westiepoos "( have one in my town) and he certainly doesn't look like one at all. But not to say that he isn't as we all know crosses can turn out different
> 
> See his colouring suggests to me a Bichon x westie and he has a Bichon look to him.
> 
> ...


i believe he was brought in by his owners so they will have said hes a westie/poodleX ,but i will double check his history when we get over....but its funny you should mention apricot poodles being more commonly used than whites because he does have an apricot tinge to his coat... which isnt perhaps so obvious in that pic.

i really hope he finds a lovely home soon along with the rest of them in there....we very nearly adopted this adorable EBT X bitch that we had transported from the pound to the rescue a couple of weeks ago...she is the sweetest,lovable,most well behaved dog ever! and we just fell for her, but ive a lot of things going on at the moment so it isnt the right time to get another dog...but good news that within a week of being at the rescue she found a wonderful home with a massive garden for her to run around in...i cried i was so happy lol ...and then i just think of all the ones like her who dont get that 2nd chance so sad.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Sadly that rule is not enforced.
> 
> It should have perhaps been applied when the thread was first started. If you look at the early posts it was terrible.
> 
> ...


because, motive for breeding aside, the majority of cross breeders do cut corners in one way or another, and because of that dogs will suffer....I LOVE all dogs i cant say that anymore plainly!...and next time im im in a position to have another dog i wont be buying a puppy so i can continue my showing hobby, i will be rescuing ...and it will quite possibly be a cross.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> If you say you like crossbreeds then why do you not find it acceptable that a good crossbreeder who produces healthy pups from healthy parents who ensure good homes blah.. blah... is breeding?
> 
> and why is it also acceptable to make comments about people who own crossbreeds?
> 
> ...


NO-ONE is making comments about people who own cross-breeds - BUT - it is very true that a lot of people who buy them (and poorly bred pedigrees) frequently do so on a whim and rehome equally on a whim - because more often than not, the breeders want to get rid of the pups and earn the income that goes with getting rid - I've been looking at some of the cross-breed litters this morning - most are charging way above well bred pedigree litters from health tested parents - yet few, if any, have health tested their stock - please tell me how that is in any way acceptable? not from where I am sitting it isn't.

If people are cross-breeding, even if doing it responsibly - what are they aiming for? the only chance you have of producing a specific 'type' is by breeding dogs of similar type - otherwise, you have absolutely no idea of what you will get in terms of size, temperament, nature - not to mention the evidence that so called 'hybrid vigour' is rubbish and that 1st generation crosses are more prone to joint problems than their pedigree counterparts - so why would anyone want to produce dogs with an increased likelihood of problems EVEN when health-testing?

I love all dogs, whatever their size, shape or breeding providing they have a good temperament to go with it - what I don't, and will never do, is support or encourage cross-breeding without very good reason - and to produce puppies you can sell for a lot of money is not a good enough reason in my eyes.

It's not the dog's fault they were born - but each time someone buys a puppy from BYB and PF - they are setting the scene for the next litter and so the cycle continues and until people stop supporting them, nothing will change.

If you have a cross from fully health tested parents, you really are the exception to the rule - and even then - what exactly is the purpose of the breeding? as there is absolutely NO foundation for how those pups will turn out.

Some breeders have started testing Lab x Poodles for HD - invariably because problems are cropping up in their lines, and in the dogs tested to date - the situation is worse than it is with either of their pedigree counterparts - yet the breeders will scream health-testing from the roof despite the fact that if they produced health-tested poodle or Lab litters, there would be less likelihood of problems (but sadly - a much lower income from the litters  )


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i believe he was brought in by his owners so they will have said hes a westie/poodleX ,but i will double check his history when we get over....but its funny you should mention apricot poodles being more commonly used than whites because he does have an apricot tinge to his coat... which isnt perhaps so obvious in that pic.
> 
> i really hope he finds a lovely home soon along with the rest of them in there....we very nearly adopted this adorable EBT X bitch that we had transported from the pound to the rescue a couple of weeks ago...she is the sweetest,lovable,most well behaved dog ever! and we just fell for her, but ive a lot of things going on at the moment so it isnt the right time to get another dog...but good news that within a week of being at the rescue she found a wonderful home with a massive garden for her to run around in...i cried i was so happy lol ...and then i just think of all the ones like her who dont get that 2nd chance so sad.


I regularly visit a well known rescue and there dogs do go quickly.

A couple of time I have been really drawn to a boy Rottie called Rocky ( now rehomed) and a girl Rottie called Holly ( re-homed) sadly both had to be only dog.

Holly was when we were looking for our 2nd dog. Can just imagine walking down the RD with a Rottie and Monty 

Another time I didn't want to leave this Pointer- he loved having a foot massage. There he was with his paws through the bars whilst I was massaging it for him. Sadly not the right dog for us.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I regularly visit a well known rescue and there dogs do go quickly.
> 
> A couple of time I have been really drawn to a boy Rottie called Rocky ( now rehomed) and a girl Rottie called Holly ( re-homed) sadly both had to be only dog.
> 
> ...


ooh a pointer would have pulled on my heart strings ...i'd love another

i wish i could win the lottery we could save them all then hey:yesnod:


----------



## tashaA (May 24, 2011)

Crossbreeds are the best looking dogs out there IMO!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

swarthy said:


> NO-ONE is making comments about people who own cross-breeds - BUT - it is very true that a lot of people who buy them (and poorly bred pedigrees) frequently do so on a whim and rehome equally on a whim - because more often than not, the breeders want to get rid of the pups and earn the income that goes with getting rid - I've been looking at some of the cross-breed litters this morning - most are charging way above well bred pedigree litters from health tested parents - yet few, if any, have health tested their stock - please tell me how that is in any way acceptable? not from where I am sitting it isn't.
> 
> If people are cross-breeding, even if doing it responsibly - what are they aiming for? the only chance you have of producing a specific 'type' is by breeding dogs of similar type - otherwise, you have absolutely no idea of what you will get in terms of size, temperament, nature - not to mention the evidence that so called 'hybrid vigour' is rubbish and that 1st generation crosses are more prone to joint problems than their pedigree counterparts - so why would anyone want to produce dogs with an increased likelihood of problems EVEN when health-testing?
> 
> ...


People have made comments about the owners- refer to my list to Nouska 

I have always agreed that crossbreed prices are high and should be no more than parent breed and have done so numerous times.

What is the aim of breeding crosses? depends on the cross.

But I would say it is for producing a pet for a companion same as any other dog bred.

Crossbreed owners like diversity and not having strict aesthetics to adhere to like the KC breed standards.

I'm not talking about joints etc... but that we like the differences in coat colour and length and that they may be one inch taller than another. Or resemble a poodle more than a cocker etc....

Different strokes for differnet folks and all that


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> No I couldn't either and it's an American site.
> 
> *Hey Sezra maybe you could adopt one from America eh? :rolleyes*:


Sorry, been out shopping for last minute Fathers days gifts, just caught up! 

No, I certainly wouldn't be prepared to go to the States to rescue a Cockapoo!  I have however been searching my local rescues and looking online as I would happily 'rescue' one. I have to say that I have had no luck finding one and I have been looking under Poodle x and Cocker spaniel x. I can't explain why that is but it does mean that I will be buying my puppy from a breeder that health tests her parents etc etc. If anyone is still searching for a homeless Cockapoo to prove CPL wrong I will happily consider it (and I am not just saying that). 

Yes, some owners of crosses like the fact that they are all different but equally there are some very passionate breeders of Cockapoos that would like to take the cross forward so that there was more consistencey in the breeding. They are also looking to adopt a breeders club similar to the US where buyers are given information on the cross, what to look for e.g health tested parents etc and a list of breeders that meet a minimum standard.

I am not saying that any of this is perfect, I guess I am just trying to say that alot of people are very passionate about their cross and are not just buying because of the name. I for one have researched other non moulting types of pedigree dogs but I still feel that the Cockapoo cross is right for me and my family so I for one am glad that it exists. I just feel saddened when we are all 'lumped' together, it seems to come across that all breeders of crosses are grouped with BYB, puppy farms, and irresponsible owners and I can promise you that we are not :smile:.

IMHO which is very humble as I am not very knowledgeable crosses will not go away. We therefore need to educate the buying public and we need tighter controls on dog breeding such as stricter rules on health testing before a dog can be bred from and limits in the numbers of litters. But we also must respect people for the choices that they have made and realise that some of us are very careful about where we get our dogs from, crosses or pedigrees.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

sezra said:


> Sorry, been out shopping for last minute Fathers days gifts, just caught up!
> 
> No, I certainly wouldn't be prepared to go to the States to rescue a Cockapoo!  I have however been searching my local rescues and looking online as I would happily 'rescue' one. I have to say that I have had no luck finding one and I have been looking under Poodle x and Cocker spaniel x. I can't explain why that is but it does mean that I will be buying my puppy from a breeder that health tests her parents etc etc. If anyone is still searching for a homeless Cockapoo to prove CPL wrong I will happily consider it (and I am not just saying that).
> 
> ...


I agree about educating the public, which is why threads like this are so useful for anyone using the internet, if they're thinking about buying a cross breed, or even breeding themselves, they can hopefully see all the different points of view put across about it.

I don't agree with limits placed on breeding or health testing however, there is already legislation in place to deal with commercial dog breeding, it's not enforced properly as it is, and any further restrictions would only be adhered to by those who are already breeding responsibly. Enforcing health testing wouldn't be possible either, if you enforce certain tests, where do you draw the line? There's no way it could be done, you'd have to start setting out exactly what tests and results are acceptable, and that's just not practical I don't think.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

sezra said:


> Sorry, been out shopping for last minute Fathers days gifts, just caught up!
> 
> No, I certainly wouldn't be prepared to go to the States to rescue a Cockapoo!  I have however been searching my local rescues and looking online as I would happily 'rescue' one. I have to say that I have had no luck finding one and I have been looking under Poodle x and Cocker spaniel x. I can't explain why that is but it does mean that I will be buying my puppy from a breeder that health tests her parents etc etc. *If anyone is still searching for a homeless Cockapoo to prove CPL wrong I* will happily consider it (and I am not just saying that).
> 
> ...


Well you will get one today I'm sure after all I have been told numerous times by lots of peeps on this forum that rescues are full of poodle crosses including cockapoos 

It's not the first time this has happened and people tried to prove me wrong- a few gave links to dogs but none of them were cockapoos.

Yes they may find one perhaps, but why people think I would lie and make out I never found any when I was looking 

It's like a vendetta - hey let's find a cockapoo in a rescue to prove CPL wrong.
And now you too have been looking and haven't found any. OMG do you think that we might be telling the truth


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I agree about educating the public, which is why threads like this are so useful for anyone using the internet, if they're thinking about buying a cross breed, or even breeding themselves, they can hopefully see all the different points of view put across about it.
> 
> I don't agree with limits placed on breeding or health testing however, there is already legislation in place to deal with commercial dog breeding, it's not enforced properly as it is, and any further restrictions would only be adhered to by those who are already breeding responsibly. Enforcing health testing wouldn't be possible either, if you enforce certain tests, where do you draw the line? There's no way it could be done, you'd have to start setting out exactly what tests and results are acceptable, and that's just not practical I don't think.


I think Sleeping Lion has spelled out fairly well why the focus has to be on changing the attitude of communities in regards to what the responsibilities of pet ownership are.



> Keeping animals out of the shelter and in homes in the first place seems to me to be a better way to invest resources than trying to solve the puzzle after the animals have landed in already crowded shelters.*


Here, where the shelter/rescues have taken up this as their focus, they have seen success.

Please, those concerned, there are models that have proven themselves to work when followed, and that will save lives starting right now if more pushed those in leadership toward using them.

. . . and pushing can be very hard, and very defeating, but is still a worth while effort - http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/

If anyone want the Calgary success and no-kill links again, just ask.

This quote is from Bill Bruce from Calgary, the most successful AC director in North America, that has lead his city to the lowest euthanasia rates for an open admission AC, in North America, and I believe, in the World. They adopt out all healthy and adoptable, and have a 90% return to home success rate on strays - and have maintained this for a decade.



> (5:55) *When I came into animal control ten years ago . . . the definition of insanity is continuing to do things the same way we always have and thinking we are going to get different results this time* - that is what I saw happening up in my jurisdiction with animal control.


It is not down to slating breeders, or slating breeders specifically on the fact that they might breed types of dogs you might not like. That negativity does so little. That is doing what has always been done, and hoping for different results . . . . insanity IMHO.

*Bill Bruce brings shelter expertise to the NMHP Conference | The Best Friends Blog

CC


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

sezra said:


> Sorry, been out shopping for last minute Fathers days gifts, just caught up!
> 
> No, I certainly wouldn't be prepared to go to the States to rescue a Cockapoo!  I have however been searching my local rescues and looking online as I would happily 'rescue' one. I have to say that I have had no luck finding one and I have been looking under Poodle x and Cocker spaniel x. I can't explain why that is but it does mean that I will be buying my puppy from a breeder that health tests her parents etc etc. If anyone is still searching for a homeless Cockapoo to prove CPL wrong I will happily consider it (and I am not just saying that).
> 
> ...


If you genuinely want a rescue cockerpoo try registering with the Labradoodle Trust. They occasionally take in other poodle crosses, and a lot of the dogs they rescue never make it on to the website as they are matched with homes.

Also keep an eye on Many Tears, we got Darcey from there in April 09, and I have seen probably another 2 or 3 cockerpoo pups pass through there since. They tend not to be there for long though.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Well you will get one today I'm sure after all I have been told numerous times by lots of peeps on this forum that rescues are full of poodle crosses including cockapoos


Where has anyone said "rescues are full of poodle crosses including cockapoos" 

It is a long thread so I may have missed it of course.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

tashaA said:


> Crossbreeds are the best looking dogs out there IMO!


There are some lovely dogs in our local pouns at the moment, beauties, but some won't get out alive I am afraid, just too many of them and simply not the right crossbreeds ... Not the type people want or that catch people's eyes.

Staffy crosses are never in high demand ... not by the right people


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

One point that I have noticed, with regard to the OP, is that most of the debate seems to be from the breeding point of view. What about this train of thought :-

more cross-breeds are being bred because there is a demand for them from people looking for a pet dog.

If this statement is true then would that count as a "reason"? It is, after all, the pet owners that will buy and look after these dogs for the vast majority of their lives. If they want a cross-breed then shouldn't they have that option?

I have re-posted this as there are no answers that I can find. Also, it is relevant to this next bit.

No answer is required for this, but how many of you, on reading the question, had a voice shouting NOOOOOO! inside your head before you got to the question mark at the end?
I would guess that for those who did it then became apparent that if they answered no the next question would be Why? An altogether trickier proposition to answer without appearing to be some sort of dog taliban.
If it was, and almost certainly still is, your opinion then why not put it out there. This is just a forum for discussion, after all.COLOR]


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

garydogz said:


> more cross-breeds are being bred because there is a demand for them from people looking for a pet dog.




Or they are cheaper than a pedigree, one friend refers to them as "poor man's pedigrees" 

I know what they mean in a way I guess, many people do not want a mongrel, but can't afford a a well bred pedigree so go for the inbetween option ... though I have seen some sold for VERY silly prices 

Not in my opinion justification for cross breeding though ...


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

freddies_mum said:


> If you genuinely want a rescue cockerpoo try registering with the Labradoodle Trust. They occasionally take in other poodle crosses, and a lot of the dogs they rescue never make it on to the website as they are matched with homes.
> 
> Also keep an eye on Many Tears, we got Darcey from there in April 09, and I have seen probably another 2 or 3 cockerpoo pups pass through there since. They tend not to be there for long though.


Thank you for advice. I hadn't considered them as I thought they only had Labradoodles.

The Staffie situation makes me very sad however most places wont place staffies with families with young children. Getting a dog is such a big decision for us and we have thought about it very carefully. I wont be made to feel guilty for the rescue situation though as I feel I am being sensible and my choice is right for my family. I know four families locally who have Cockapoos, I have spent time with them and their dogs like anyone should when deciding on a type of dog, and personally I love them (the families are alright aswell! !


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

Amethyst said:


> Or they are cheaper than a pedigree, one friend refers to them as "poor man's pedigrees"
> 
> Thank you. A sensible point at last, and one that I had not considered.
> Opens up a whole new can of worms though, doesn't it? Dogs by the size of your wad. I suppose that it has always been the case, but it is a bit stark when put down in black and white.
> Like your car?


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

garydogz said:


> more cross-breeds are being bred because there is a demand for them from people looking for a pet dog.


Gary since I think you missed my earlier post so here it is.



shetlandlover said:


> Hey Gary.....
> 
> RSPCA Preston Animal Adoption District Branch Lancashire
> 
> ...


Now, your breeding staff crosses as well as other breeds but lets focus on the staff crosses first.

Go on dogstrust, go on battersea dogs home, go on any RSPCA site....what do you see?

Obviously the market isnt big enough for them otherwise they would not be in rescues they would be with their families. Maybe there is room for doodles, poo's but not obviously for staff crosses so why are you producing them whilst 1000's are waiting to die?

I will never understand breeding for profit nor will I understand breeding for NO REASON when dogs exactly like what you are breeding are on death row.

There is a reason for cockerpoo's, cavapoo's, doodles, ect people want them. People want cute staff's until they get to old or until they show aggression because they have been poorly bred or poorly trained. At least cockerpoo's are being homed.

I will never understand why you are producing pups for a selfish reason (money) of a breed that is suffering. Pedigree staff breeders are being careful and only breeding to keep a pup. Why are you not doing the same?

/////end rant.

And yes I stuck up for poo's and doodles. They are obviously sought after, not that I agree with breeding them but I do agree that they are not in rescue crisis at this point.


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Gary since I think you missed my earlier post so here it is.
> 
> Now, your breeding staff crosses as well as other breeds but lets focus on the staff crosses first.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry if I missed this. I did skim a bit, to tell the truth.
I am not sure if I have this right, but here goes. Yes, I do breed Staffy crosses for people who want one as a pet dog. These people come to me and buy a puppy. I have no reason to suppose that they would go to a rescue if I did not have the puppy they wanted. If that was the case, then why come to me in the first place? It is their choice to make, is it not?
How do you breed to keep a pup without being exactly the same as me? What about the rest of the litter? Is this somehow different? If it is then please explain to me how so.
I am not really the issue here. The OP was about a much more general subject.
I hope I got hold of the right end of the stick here. If I did not then I am sure you will let me know.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

garydogz said:


> I'm sorry if I missed this. I did skim a bit, to tell the truth.
> I am not sure if I have this right, but here goes. Yes, I do breed Staffy crosses for people who want one as a pet dog. These people come to me and buy a puppy. I have no reason to suppose that they would go to a rescue if I did not have the puppy they wanted. If that was the case, then why come to me in the first place? It is their choice to make, is it not?
> How do you breed to keep a pup without being exactly the same as me? What about the rest of the litter? Is this somehow different? If it is then please explain to me how so.
> I am not really the issue here. The OP was about a much more general subject.
> I hope I got hold of the right end of the stick here. If I did not then I am sure you will let me know.


The difference is by breeding the way you do you are adding to the rescue problem. I am planning to keep at least 1 pup back from my litter, however me and my OH have discussed keeping 2 so its no suprise if we do.

Out of an average litter of 4 thats 2 homes in a breed that is not over populating rescues. All the pups that leave us will be chipped with the breeders (ours) details and the owner can add their details on. (its a new petlog scheme that hopefully will be out by the time our litter arrives if nto we will use another type of chipping company that DOES breeder info) anyone who buys a pup from us will be vetted (home checked, meet us and our dogs so we know how they are with dogs and have contact iwth their vet if they have one) IF one of mine ended up in a rescue I would know, and would pay any amount to get it back.

If one of yours ended up in a rescue would you know? Since there are many staff crosses out there?

You are breeding for money not to continue a healthy line. You breed when you want money. You have either bred from an underweight bitch or allowed her to become so whilst feeding pups.










And have bred from a bitch you even admit you dont know what she is.








http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-photo-galleries/21957-what-hell.html

The difference is the care involved.

My bitch.








Not underweight and can tell what she is.

A dog of ANY breed cross or not is likely to end up dumped if its riddled in health issues. If you are breeding from stock that you have NO idea what they are you have no idea at all what you are dragging those poor pups through later in life. At least cocker x poodles you know what they can get.

So this family, you have not vetted come pick up their pup from your cold kennel floor and take it home.....10 months later it starts getting sick. They pay for hte vet to look it over and tell them its a genetic condition, this family cant pay that much....they certainly cant bring it back to you...so what do they do?

Kill it? Dump it? Give it to a rescue? Sell it on a free ad site?

I have a dog that this happened to, we took scorcher in with 2 genetic conditions, the owners didnt tell us because they didnt treat her for it....they couldnt afford it. They however did tell me if I didnt take her they would put her down.

That's the difference.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

tashaA said:


> Crossbreeds are the best looking dogs out there IMO!


There are some beautiful and not so beautiful dogs (aesthetically - not taking into account their characters which can make you fall in love with any dog!!), both pedigree and crossbreed depending on your own personal taste!


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> The difference is by breeding the way you do you are adding to the rescue problem. I am planning to keep at least 1 pup back from my litter, however me and my OH have discussed keeping 2 so its no suprise if we do.
> 
> Out of an average litter of 4 thats 2 homes in a breed that is not over populating rescues. All the pups that leave us will be chipped with the breeders (ours) details and the owner can add their details on. (its a new petlog scheme that hopefully will be out by the time our litter arrives if nto we will use another type of chipping company that DOES breeder info) anyone who buys a pup from us will be vetted (home checked, meet us and our dogs so we know how they are with dogs and have contact iwth their vet if they have one) IF one of mine ended up in a rescue I would know, and would pay any amount to get it back.
> 
> ...


Hell boy, there was quite a bit to digest there.

You breed, I breed - nett result is the same. More puppies in the world. What you, or I, have inside of our heads is irrelevant to the actual result. It is a straight numbers thing. Reasons have nowt to do with it.

The picture of Angel, the skinny girl, you only have because I was on this very site seeking advice on what I could try for her as the vets remedy had failed to produce a weight gain. I was hoping for a bit of an "experience" remedy. As it turns out it is just what she did. There was nothing that worked, she certainly was not short of different diets, and she just sorted herself out in her own time. It is a bit cheeky to try and portray that situation as some sort of mis-treatment.
The picture of Dutch - well, as it says really. We still have not gotten past the American Bulldog and something answers. Dutch is a somewhat more complicated thing than you realise. I am not going into it here as it's a long story but best just leave that one alone.

Just got to the cold kennel floor bit - you really are taking the mick. :nono:


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

garydogz said:


> You breed, I breed - nett result is the same. More puppies in the world.


My breed rescue is not up to the eye balls in dogs that need homes. Why breed more?



garydogz said:


> The picture of Angel, the skinny girl, you only have because I was on this very site seeking advice on what I could try for her as the vets remedy had failed to produce a weight gain. I was hoping for a bit of an "experience" remedy. As it turns out it is just what she did. There was nothing that worked, she certainly was not short of different diets, and she just sorted herself out in her own time. It is a bit cheeky to try and portray that situation as some sort of mis-treatment.


You bred a dog that clearly was not ready to cope with a litter....and obviously had no idea of her temperament and how a litter would affect her. A bitch needs to be sound in temperament and body in order to have a litter.



garydogz said:


> The picture of Dutch - well, as it says really. We still have not gotten past the American Bulldog and something answers. Dutch is a somewhat more complicated thing than you realise. I am not going into it here as it's a long story but best just leave that one alone.


You bought in a bitch, you have no idea what she is...she could even be a mix of an banned breed. And you bred her........what age did you get her? You cant butter up breeding a dog that you have NO IDEA about. If you dont know what she is how can you say her pups will be healthy? Or even if she is? (temperament and body).



garydogz said:


> Just got to the cold kennel floor bit - you really are taking the mick. :nono:


You run a boarding kennels dont you? Or do you use the boarding dogs on your bitches? Since I noticed you dont have pictures of any of your breeding dogs on your site. But manage to pump out litter after litter.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

And for anyone who wants proof of Shelties in rescues.

Here are the figures from the English Shetland sheepdog rescue.

Shelties rehomed:

2010: 25 
2009: 28
2008: 32

ESSC - Contingency Fund & Sheltie Rescue


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> You can't knock crossbreeders on one hand if you disagree that they are not allowed to acquire the best breeding stock.


But that was my point earlier - why would they need the best breeding stock when they are going to cross it and lose all the qualities anyway. Healthy stock yes, stock of good temperament yes, but the best breeding stock would to me be a waste.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

garydogz said:


> Hell boy, there was quite a bit to digest there.
> 
> You breed, I breed - nett result is the same. More puppies in the world. What you, or I, have inside of our heads is irrelevant to the actual result. It is a straight numbers thing. Reasons have nowt to do with it.
> 
> ...


But you still claim to have bred from her at least once anyway, despite her turbulent history
I think your breeding ethics & the ethics of people like SL are poles apart:frown2:


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

garydogz said:


> Hell boy, there was quite a bit to digest there.
> 
> You breed, I breed - nett result is the same. More puppies in the world. What you, or I, have inside of our heads is irrelevant to the actual result. It is a straight numbers thing. Reasons have nowt to do with it.


Difference being that she gives a damn about the lineage and betterment of the pups, where you blatantly don't. To breed from an unknown bitch from God knows what mix is just dumb, in my opinion. Do you health test? Why do you breed staffie x when that is the most common breed in rescues in the UK?

Shetlandlover is breeding carefully and because she wants a pup, not purely for money, which is what you appear to do.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

garydogz said:


> One point that I have noticed, with regard to the OP, is that most of the debate seems to be from the breeding point of view. What about this train of thought :-
> 
> more cross-breeds are being bred because there is a demand for them from people looking for a pet dog.
> 
> ...




I was one of the ones who was shouting "NO!" before I even got to the question mark. People may want the latest fashionable crossbreed - but that is no justification for anyone to breed and supply them. These are living, breathing beings we are talking about. Putting two breeds together with no thought whatsoever as to health and conformation of the resulting litter _just because people want it_ is absolutely ludicrous. I've seen the deformities on some of the dogs on your website - and on some that you have posted on here. Do you think it is acceptable to produce deformed dogs just because people want them?

And can I ask anyone who believes it is ok to dice with health and temperament just because some people want crosses - how do you feel about GSDs? Some GSD owners want dogs with roach backs - do you believe it is acceptable for breeders to breed them just because there is a demand? It's exactly the same.


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I was one of the ones who was shouting "NO!" before I even got to the question mark. People may want the latest fashionable crossbreed - but that is no justification for anyone to breed and supply them. These are living, breathing beings we are talking about. Putting two breeds together with no thought whatsoever as to health and conformation of the resulting litter _just because people want it_ is absolutely ludicrous. I've seen the deformities on some of the dogs on your website - and on some that you have posted on here. Do you think it is acceptable to produce deformed dogs just because people want them?
> 
> And can I ask anyone who believes it is ok to dice with health and temperament just because some people want crosses - how do you feel about GSDs? Some GSD owners want dogs with roach backs - do you believe it is acceptable for breeders to breed them just because there is a demand? It's exactly the same.


Hi there. I take it that your answer to the OP is no then.Fair enough.
Your bit about not breeding just because people want them is interesting. It is doomed to failure, of course, but is interesting despite that. The scenario you are putting forward here is that people should be told what sort of dogs they can have - from a list of "approved" breeds ar somesuch - and that would be the only choices that they have. I personally, no surprise here, would not go with such an authoritarian approach to dog ownership. Surely it is up to the people to choose which type of dog they want.
You should not put too much store in the pictures on the web-site. They are stills taken from video footage and so frequently catch limbs etc at odd angles whilst a dog is turning etc. I have never had a deformed dog here - and even if I did I doubt that I would put pictures of it on the web-site.
Talking of the web-site, have you seen the testimonials on there? Can they all be wrong or do you think that, just maybe, I might get it right sometimes.

To try and kill two birds with one stone :-
I did not buy Dutch. I did not breed Dutch, although she was bred from whilst she was here, and I do have one of here puppies (now grown) that is such a good dog. I said it was a long story. I know it, you don't.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

garydogz said:


> Hi there. I take it that your answer to the OP is no then.Fair enough.
> Your bit about not breeding just because people want them is interesting. It is doomed to failure, of course, but is interesting despite that. The scenario you are putting forward here is that people should be told what sort of dogs they can have - from a list of "approved" breeds ar somesuch - and that would be the only choices that they have. I personally, no surprise here, would not go with such an authoritarian approach to dog ownership. Surely it is up to the people to choose which type of dog they want.
> You should not put too much store in the pictures on the web-site. They are stills taken from video footage and so frequently catch limbs etc at odd angles whilst a dog is turning etc. I have never had a deformed dog here - and even if I did I doubt that I would put pictures of it on the web-site.
> Talking of the web-site, have you seen the testimonials on there? Can they all be wrong or do you think that, just maybe, I might get it right sometimes.
> ...


You know testimonials can be fake and most are written as pups so no time for genetic problems to appear.

Also so you bred from Dutch....who's obviously a rescue dog if you didnt pay nor breed her.

Lovely.........nice to see you would breed from a dog that has had a bad life to start with. You disgust me.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

> I did not buy Dutch.* I did not breed Dutch, although she was bred from whilst she was here*, and I do have one of here puppies (now grown) that is such a good dog. I said it was a long story. I know it, you don't.



Quoted from your post from the other thread


> some sort of bulldog for the frame, bit of EBT? *pit somewhere*, some staffy, dalmatian (spots i suppose) Bit of a mix
> Dutch has very little going on upstairs. Lights are on but no-one home sort of thing. She has a really nice temprement, she just does not care about most things - even if they are biting her (which a lot of things do).
> She has no idea of proportion - everything is done at max. That makes her a bad mum
> Oh look, a puppy, I'm going to love it and love it and oh! it's broken, never mind there's another one over there, I'm going to love it ......etc
> ...


firstly you state you believe there may be a banned breed in her mix & secondly, the way you have worded this sounds very much like you have bred from her yourself


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> Quoted from your post from the other thread
> 
> firstly you state you believe there may be a banned breed in her mix & secondly, the way you have worded this sounds very much like you have bred from her yourself


I took it as he didnt buy her or "breed" her as in have her mum and dad.


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> You know testimonials can be fake and most are written as pups so no time for genetic problems to appear.
> 
> Also so you bred from Dutch....who's obviously a rescue dog if you didnt pay nor breed her.
> 
> Lovely.........nice to see you would breed from a dog that has had a bad life to start with. You disgust me.


WHAT? 
Please re-read the post. You have that just so wrong I don't even know where to start.


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> Quoted from your post from the other thread
> 
> firstly you state you believe there may be a banned breed in her mix & secondly, the way you have worded this sounds very much like you have bred from her yourself


What can I say? Just poor wording, open to mis-interpretation. Sorry.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I took it as he didnt buy her or "breed" her as in have her mum and dad.


Oh I think I get you now, sorry, bit tired & the posts on here are somewhat convoluted


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> Oh I think I get you now, sorry, bit tired & the posts on here are somewhat convoluted


Too true.
As I recall, way back when, we were trying to thrash out why someone could breed pedigree and be fine whereas for me to cross-breed was somehow wrong.
At least, I think thats where we were.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

garydogz said:


> Too true.
> As I recall, way back when, we were trying to thrash out why someone could breed pedigree and be fine whereas for me to cross-breed was somehow wrong.
> At least, I think thats where we were.


You dont cross breed.....you cross breed and breed beagles. You breed to supply an income, you breed from dogs you have no idea about. I could go on.....but for my own sanity I shall give you the term "puppy farmer" that way it describes what you do without me having to list it.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

garydogz said:


> Your bit about not breeding just because people want them is interesting. It is doomed to failure, of course, but is interesting despite that. The scenario you are putting forward here is that people should be told what sort of dogs they can have - from a list of "approved" breeds ar somesuch - and that would be the only choices that they have.


Hmmmm. And I suppose that it's just coincidence that the hundreds of different breeds and accidental crossbreeds were always enough of a choice until some unscrupulous breeders such as yourself suddenly realised that they could make huge amounts of money by putting ridiculous crosses together and calling them cute names instead of poodle crosses or shar-pei croses or whatever? 



garydogz said:


> Surely it is up to the people to choose which type of dog they want.




Do you really understand what you are saying here? Are you really advocating that the ethics don't matter, that all that matters is people want something so it is ok for you to supply it? If you extended that into the wider world, would you run a sweat shop in a third world country, paying children pennies to make clothes just because there is a demand for cheap clothes here in the UK?



garydogz said:


> You should not put too much store in the pictures on the web-site. They are stills taken from video footage and so frequently catch limbs etc at odd angles whilst a dog is turning etc. I have never had a deformed dog here - and even if I did I doubt that I would put pictures of it on the web-site.
> Talking of the web-site, have you seen the testimonials on there? Can they all be wrong or do you think that, just maybe, I might get it right sometimes.




I have seen many photos of dogs caught at odd angles. I have seen photos of deformed dogs. I know the difference. As for testimonials - even if they are all true, you are unlikey to put the letters you receive from dissatisfied customers on there, are you?



garydogz said:


> To try and kill two birds with one stone :-
> I did not buy Dutch. I did not breed Dutch, although she was bred from whilst she was here, and I do have one of here puppies (now grown) that is such a good dog. I said it was a long story. I know it, you don't.




You stated you bred from Dutch in another thread. Were you telling the truth then, or are you telling the truth now?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

garydogz said:


> Too true.
> As I recall, way back when, we were trying to thrash out why someone could breed pedigree and be fine whereas for me to cross-breed was somehow wrong.
> At least, I think thats where we were.


dosent matter if you bred pedigrees Gary, it'd still be wrong...because all youre interested in is making money by exploiting your dogs, you are the very worst type of breeder imo...and should be avoided like the plague.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

cinammontoast said:


> To breed from an unknown bitch from God knows what mix is just dumb, in my opinion. Do you health test? Why do you breed staffie x?


And again-going to respond?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Where has anyone said "rescues are full of poodle crosses including cockapoos"
> 
> It is a long thread so I may have missed it of course.


I said on this forum not thread. Has happened a few times now when these type of threads appear including some links sent to me.

In fact I do believe you yourself have mentioned this to me in the past


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> You dont cross breed.....you cross breed and breed beagles. You breed to supply an income, you breed from dogs you have no idea about. I could go on.....but for my own sanity I shall give you the term "puppy farmer" that way it describes what you do without me having to list it.


I breed, I am a breeder. Mostly crosses now, although we do some pures as well. Personal choice.



Spellweaver said:


> Hmmmm. And I suppose that it's just coincidence that the hundreds of different breeds and accidental crossbreeds were always enough of a choice until some unscrupulous breeders such as yourself suddenly realised that they could make huge amounts of money by putting ridiculous crosses together and calling them cute names instead of poodle crosses or shar-pei croses or whatever?
> 
> There is nothing new in what I do, that is for sure. Huge amounts of money? I wish. Nobody who has ever bought one of my puppies has ever been of the idea that it was anything other than a cross-breed. They see the parents, for god sake.
> 
> ...


As stated earlier - poor wording a couple of years back. To be crystal - Dutch was bred from while she was here, and I have one of her pups, but that was nothing to do with me.


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

Messed that up, didn't I?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> But that was my point earlier - why would they need the best breeding stock when they are going to cross it and lose all the qualities anyway. Healthy stock yes, stock of good temperament yes, but the best breeding stock would to me be a waste.


Yes I agree with you actually healthy stock is just fine and lots are all ready doing that- so am confused now as to what people want when they accuse crossbreeders of using poor quality dogs to breed from?? ( in some cases yes this does apply)

So one minute people are berating crossbreeds because they do not use good stock like the pedigree breeders and then when I say their hands are tied because it's difficult to get them- the next breath your now saying well healthy stock is ok??

Well lots do use healthy stock with good temperament- but people are still not happy.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

garydogz said:


> To be crystal - Dutch was bred from while she was here, and I have one of her pups, but that was nothing to do with me.


So if Scorcher (my 11 year old cross) mated and had pups with my boy.....that would have nothing to do with me? Despite it being in my care?

You really are appalling.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

garydogz said:


> I breed, I am a breeder. Mostly crosses now, although we do some pures as well. Personal choice.
> 
> Jeezus! how many dogs are you breeding on your 'farm'
> 
> As stated earlier - poor wording a couple of years back. To be crystal - Dutch was bred from while she was here, and I have one of her pups, but that was nothing to do with me.




hmmm very 'crystal'.....NOT!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

garydogz said:


> Are we talking ethics or control here. The basic premise behind a lot of the arguments seems to be that people are fools and need to be told what to have/think by some elitist band of dog "leaders". Usually the same bunch whose enlightened leadership resulted in the interest in cross-breeds in the first place. We are just the general public, you know.


Really? I suggest you take off your blinkers and read my replies to you again. The premise behind my argument is that no breeder should exploit animals to make money just because someone wants something. If I said to you I wanted a roach-backed GSD, would you breed it? If you would, how would you justify it other than "because there is a market"? And if you wouldn't breed it, why not? Your view is, after all, that if there is a market then it is ok to supply that market, irrespective of the animals involved.


----------



## Kinjilabs (Apr 15, 2009)

Just my opinion but...

Theres loads of people that shouldnt be breeding right now, cross breeds or pure breeds, theres far too many dogs needing homes without more being bred

IF and its only an IF cos it aint gonna happen, breeding "willy nilly" was stopped for sometime maybe the poor dogs in rescue would find homes


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

Do you really understand what you are saying here? Are you really advocating that the ethics don't matter, that all that matters is people want something so it is ok for you to supply it? If you extended that into the wider world, would you run a sweat shop in a third world country, paying children pennies to make clothes just because there is a demand for cheap clothes here in the UK?

My earlier reply to this point was somewhat off beam. Thought it best to give it another go.
Why do you think that ethics and supplying demand are incompatible. If we were talking pedigree dogs then I assume there would be no such conflict. The alternative to supplying a demand is rationing - by what? Price? Dogs only for those with a disposable income above £***** p.a. What sort of world would that be?

Happier with this.


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> So if Scorcher (my 11 year old cross) mated and had pups with my boy.....that would have nothing to do with me? Despite it being in my care?
> 
> You really are appalling.


See, be careful about making assumptions. Who said that Dutch was in my care?


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

garydogz said:


> See, be careful about making assumptions. Who said that Dutch was in my care?


You said she was your dog on a previous thread. There for YOU are responsible for her.


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> You said she was your dog on a previous thread. There for YOU are responsible for her.


For Gods sake woman, let Dutch go!!!!!! :w00t: :w00t:

It is not a story I intend to tell. It is personal and not very edifying. Leave it PLEASE.


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

garydogz said:


> For Gods sake woman, let Dutch go!!!!!! :w00t: :w00t:
> 
> It is not a story I intend to tell. It is personal and not very edifying. Leave it PLEASE.


I will leave it when you leave breeding litter after litter after litter after litter to fund your lifestyle. Kthx:hand:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Stop wriggling Gary and answer my point.

I said:


Spellweaver said:


> Do you really understand what you are saying here? Are you really advocating that the ethics don't matter, that all that matters is people want something so it is ok for you to supply it? If you extended that into the wider world, would you run a sweat shop in a third world country, paying children pennies to make clothes just because there is a demand for cheap clothes here in the UK?


to which you replied:



garydogz said:


> Are we talking ethics or control here. The basic premise behind a lot of the arguments seems to be that people are fools and need to be told what to have/think by some elitist band of dog "leaders". Usually the same bunch whose enlightened leadership resulted in the interest in cross-breeds in the first place. We are just the general public, you know.


But when I replied


Spellweaver said:


> Really? I suggest you take off your blinkers and read my replies to you again. The premise behind my argument is that no breeder should exploit animals to make money just because someone wants something. If I said to you I wanted a roach-backed GSD, would you breed it? If you would, how would you justify it other than "because there is a market"? And if you wouldn't breed it, why not? Your view is, after all, that if there is a market then it is ok to supply that market, irrespective of the animals involved.


you dodged the question completely by re-writing your earlier reply:



garydogz said:


> My earlier reply to this point was somewhat off beam. Thought it best to give it another go.
> Why do you think that ethics and supplying demand are incompatible. If we were talking pedigree dogs then I assume there would be no such conflict. The alternative to supplying a demand is rationing - by what? Price? Dogs only for those with a disposable income above £***** p.a. What sort of world would that be?
> 
> Happier with this.




So I'll put it to you again:

If I said to you I wanted a roach-backed GSD, would you breed it? If you would, how would you justify it other than "because there is a market"? And if you wouldn't breed it, why not? Your view is, after all, that if there is a market then it is ok to supply that market, irrespective of the animals involved


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Or they are cheaper than a pedigree, one friend refers to them as "poor man's pedigrees"
> 
> I know what they mean in a way I guess, many people do not want a mongrel, but can't afford a a well bred pedigree so go for the inbetween option ... though I have seen some sold for VERY silly prices
> 
> Not in my opinion justification for cross breeding though ...


 Regarding your friends description- snobby attitudes like that are sooo funny :lol: Does she make judgements about people too 

I think there is a very broad spectrum of prices for all types of dogs which is a good thing as it means that a wider variety of people can afford one.

You can get some breeds of pedigree dogs quite cheap and of course there are our so called designer dogs that are expensive.

Some people may consider my dogs expensive but that's up to me what I paid and can afford- they are worth every penny.

Yes I could have got a pedigree cheaper but didn't want one.

Talking of dogs- you quick to pass comments of other peoples choices why don't you tell people about your dogs?

After all this is a petforum and most of us have pictures and talk about our dogs where as you don't have pictures, never mention them or share any stories at all.

I find this very strange- makes me think do they actually exist ??? or are you really hiding a couple of poodle crosses:001_tongue:


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> I will leave it when you leave breeding litter after litter after litter after litter to fund your lifestyle. Kthx:hand:


Oh God  

Hows about a picture of a Dutch pup?









Is that good enough to get you off the case?


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

I actually cant believe this thread is still going on


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Stop wriggling Gary and answer my point.
> 
> I said:
> 
> ...


Sorry about that, I was actually doing the re-write when your reply came in.
You do me a disservice with your assumption that I have an anything is Ok providing it pays philosophy. I have no such attitude and, assuming that you are one of those who have visited the web-site, I am at a loss to understand where you got the idea from. Basically it boils down to the fact that I am opposed to KC breed standards etc having anything to do with dogs outside of the show ring. I regard it as an enthusiasm. If you have it than fine - go for it. Outside of that I see little relevance to the real world of pet ownership. Lets face it, many people with KC dogs know no more than that it is KC registered and that they have a bit of paper to say so. Yet this dog commands a higher price than it's un-papered sibling. Breed Standard is someone else telling me what sort of dog I should like, or that this Staffy is better than my Staffy when I know damned well that mine is the best Staffy that there has ever been. And as for when they just"revise" a Breed Standard - what is that about? I would not breed anything that I did not feel was right Roach back is a bad thing (I think) and so no I would not do it. My personal interest is pet dogs. That is what I do. If I get it wrong then that is me done. It's honest.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

garydogz said:


> Sorry about that, I was actually doing the re-write when your reply came in.
> You do me a disservice with your assumption that I have an anything is Ok providing it pays philosophy. I have no such attitude and, assuming that you are one of those who have visited the web-site, I am at a loss to understand where you got the idea from. Basically it boils down to the fact that I am opposed to KC breed standards etc having anything to do with dogs outside of the show ring. I regard it as an enthusiasm. If you have it than fine - go for it. Outside of that I see little relevance to the real world of pet ownership. Lets face it, many people with KC dogs know no more than that it is KC registered and that they have a bit of paper to say so. Yet this dog commands a higher price than it's un-papered sibling. Breed Standard is someone else telling me what sort of dog I should like, or that this Staffy is better than my Staffy when I know damned well that mine is the best Staffy that there has ever been. And as for when they just"revise" a Breed Standard - what is that about? I would not breed anything that I did not feel was right Roach back is a bad thing (I think) and so no I would not do it. My personal interest is pet dogs. That is what I do. If I get it wrong then that is me done. It's honest.


Your argument up to now has been that if there is a demand, then why shouldn't there be a supply. Supplying a demand for roach back GSDs is no different to supplying a demand for crossbreeds. If you think supplying roach back GSDs is wrong because of health reasons, how can you justify some of the crosses you have done on health reasons?

I am not surprised you try to dismiss breed standards. A breed standard is written by breed clubs - not the KC - and breed clubs are made up of members who have pets and members who have working dogs, as well as members who have show dogs. It is not merely something for the show fraternity - is a blueprint of how a healthy, fit for function dog of that breed should be constructed, as decided upon by the very people who know most about that breed. In other words, it describes the epitome of each breed. Why, to use your example, would you not want your staffy to be the epitome of its breed?


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

garydogz said:


> Oh God
> 
> Hows about a picture of a Dutch pup?
> 
> ...


OMG I CANZ NOT BELIEVEE U DINT SELL DAT PUPZ FOR £400 INIT

No seriously now, its a puppy wooohooo wonder if it will suffer from HD when it gets older....or maybe it will be taken under the DDA and put to sleep....because you cant "not" breed every dog that comes through your door.

I could provide pictures from your site of 1 of the pups you bred that can bearly see through its roles of skin.

Maybe some pictures of your breeding stock would surfice?
But then again....not because clearly you breed anything regardless of breed.

£400 for your sham=bulls wasnt it?
£650 for your cockerpoo's....

1 pup from the pitbull cross's litter really doesnt equal much when you are pumping out 6-8 litters in 6-7 months.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I said on this forum not thread. Has happened a few times now when these type of threads appear including some links sent to me.
> 
> In fact I do believe you yourself have mentioned this to me in the past


You believe wrongly 

I would not have said kennels were full of poodle crosses and cockerpoos and I personally cannot seeing anyone else say so.

But ...

That they DO appear in rescue yes ... and given the number churned out now, that number will without doubt increase


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> You believe wrongly
> 
> I would not have said kennels were full of poodle crosses and cockerpoos and I personally cannot seeing anyone else say so.
> 
> ...


Of course it will. Soon homes will run out and if the numbers carry on the way they are there will be no doubt in my mind they could become the new common dog in rescues.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I was one of the ones who was shouting "NO!" before I even got to the question mark. People may want the latest fashionable crossbreed - but that is no justification for anyone to breed and supply them. These are living, breathing beings we are talking about. Putting two breeds together with no thought whatsoever as to health and conformation of the resulting litter _just because people want it_ is absolutely ludicrous. I've seen the deformities on some of the dogs on your website - and on some that you have posted on here. Do you think it is acceptable to produce deformed dogs just because people want them?
> 
> And can I ask anyone who believes it is ok to dice with health and temperament just because some people want crosses - how do you feel about GSDs? Some GSD owners want dogs with roach backs - do you believe it is acceptable for breeders to breed them just because there is a demand? It's exactly the same.


I don't know if you have managed to read through much of the thread, but there has been talk of health testing and using good quality breeding stock for cross breeds, the difficulty there though is sorting out what health tests, and whether the conformation of certain crosses is compatible. I'll be honest, the only cockerpoo I've seen I just didn't like, but then I'm used to the movement of cockers, and having seen them working this one just looked 'wrong' somehow, but it made a perfectly lovely cute little companion. Yes they could have had a cocker, or a poodle, but neither of those dogs fits the scruffy little inbetween thing, and I would hope no-one would suggest a working cocker for a companion :yikes: The problem is, where you get people randomly sticking two breeds together that just aren't suitable, like a shar pei, and a basset, who on earth would mix two breeds that are prone to hereditary and conformation problems? Oh yes, anyone out to make a quick buck with a daft name 



Kinjilabs said:


> Just my opinion but...
> 
> Theres loads of people that shouldnt be breeding right now, cross breeds or pure breeds, theres far too many dogs needing homes without more being bred
> 
> IF and its only an IF cos it aint gonna happen, breeding "willy nilly" was stopped for sometime maybe the poor dogs in rescue would find homes


True, but if there were a ban on breeding tomorrow, it would affect the responsible breeders, as we well know. There'd be a helluva lot of 'oops' litters from byb's and puppy farmers still going on. The market would be devoid of quality bred pups, and everyone else would have a field day lining their pockets. The only option is to battle on, and try and educate people to do their homework, which seems an endless and thankless task at times, but every time one person listens and chooses to buy a pup from a good breeder, where as before they may have unknowingly supported someless less ethical, is a victory for the dogs.



garydogz said:


> Sorry about that, I was actually doing the re-write when your reply came in.
> You do me a disservice with your assumption that I have an anything is Ok providing it pays philosophy. I have no such attitude and, assuming that you are one of those who have visited the web-site, I am at a loss to understand where you got the idea from. Basically it boils down to the fact that I am *opposed to KC breed standards etc having anything to do with dogs outside of the show ring*. I regard it as an enthusiasm. If you have it than fine - go for it. Outside of that I see little relevance to the real world of pet ownership. Lets face it, many people with KC dogs know no more than that it is KC registered and that they have a bit of paper to say so. Yet this dog commands a higher price than it's un-papered sibling. Breed Standard is someone else telling me what sort of dog I should like, or that this Staffy is better than my Staffy when I know damned well that mine is the best Staffy that there has ever been. And as for when they just"revise" a Breed Standard - what is that about? I would not breed anything that I did not feel was right Roach back is a bad thing (I think) and so no I would not do it. My personal interest is pet dogs. That is what I do. If I get it wrong then that is me done. It's honest. [/COLOR]


That just shows how little you know, the breed standard isn't written to make one dog better than another one without a breed standard, it's written to describe how a dog should look for it's function. There have been problems with the interpretation of some breed standards, but that's not the fault of the wording itself. The conformation of a dog affects it's health, you are breeding some oddly conformed dogs with your experiments, I hope you have some good insurance policies in place because you may well need them in the future when one of your puppy buyers sues you for knowingly producing a dog with poor conformation.

You still haven't answered one question about health testing, or don't you believe in that either?

I may have got this wrong, but you said one pup had survived from Dutch, and that was your avatar? Doesn't look anything like the pup you posted a picture of, but I've been skip reading, so apols if I've misread that.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

I think what stuns me is the fact that Gary cant resist breeding ANY dog of any mix and temperament. I can honestly say I have never come across a human being so selfish. 

I hope you are not using the dogs that come to you for boarding as stud dogs because again my request to see your breeding stock has been ignored. 

You are the very type of breeder that destroys lives, upsets children and leaves a family with heartache for many years and for that I dont believe you should be allowed to run a boarding kennels and have access to dogs.

Its a bad life if you have to breed to fund your life or your kennels. I hope one day a puppy owner clocks onto you and sue's you for every penny you have bred out of those poor dogs that you see as cash cows.

You are a puppy farmer regardless of how you butter it. You treat those dogs like farmer treats his chickens and see puppies as a product rather than a living creature. Hence why you sell to anyone who's willing to pay the price. 

I am usually a level headed person but YOU and breeders like you are vile. YOU are the reason when any decent breeder states they are a breeder people roll their eyes and say for the money. 

I just hope that any pups that suffer because of you dont suffer for to long.

And I dont care if this post results in a ban for me, this forum is for animal lovers and HE is the exact reason rescues are full and why people have to put their dog down early due to a genetic condition.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Your argument up to now has been that if there is a demand, then why shouldn't there be a supply. Supplying a demand for roach back GSDs is no different to supplying a demand for crossbreeds. If you think supplying roach back GSDs is wrong because of health reasons, how can you justify some of the crosses you have done on health reasons?
> 
> I am not surprised you try to dismiss breed standards. A breed standard is written by breed clubs - not the KC - and breed clubs are made up of members who have pets and members who have working dogs, as well as members who have show dogs. It is not merely something for the show fraternity - is a blueprint of how a healthy, fit for function dog of that breed should be constructed, as decided upon by the very people who know most about that breed. In other words, it describes the epitome of each breed. Why, to use your example, would you not want your staffy to be the epitome of its breed?


I wouldn't waste your breath - the same poster has already made it clear on another thread that breeding is about making money and where would we be if everyone thought like us - IMO - in a much better place.

Having seen the deformities on some of these dogs and the hell, pain and agony they must suffer before an undoubtedly premature death (assuming the owner knows when it is right to call time) - - what a life to intentionally subject them to 

If breeders and puppy buyers alike believe it is acceptable to produce these dogs, I'm afraid I am quickly losing faith in the world we live in.

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

If the concept behind producing crosses is that they are intended to be healthier than their pedigree counterparts - then clearly the large majority of these so callled breeders are failing miserably


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Your argument up to now has been that if there is a demand, then why shouldn't there be a supply.
> Yes, pretty much sums up my thoughts.
> 
> Supplying a demand for roach back GSDs is no different to supplying a demand for crossbreeds. If you think supplying roach back GSDs is wrong because of health reasons, how can you justify some of the crosses you have done on health reasons?
> ...


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Garydogz ... can you show us some pictures of your breeding bitches and stud dogs please? And which health tests done and results


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I may have got this wrong, but you said one pup had survived from Dutch, and that was your avatar? Doesn't look anything like the pup you posted a picture of, but I've been skip reading, so apols if I've misread that.


The Dutch post was so long ago that I have changed avatar in the period between then and now. The current avatar is a Stinger.


----------



## garydogz (May 16, 2008)

Amethyst said:


> Garydogz ... can you show us some pictures of your breeding bitches and stud dogs please? And which health tests done and results


No. I came on here to join in a discussion on a thread that interested me. All I seem to be doing is talking about myself and the OP seems to have totally disappeared. I cannot even type quickly enough to keep up with the questions coming in. If you want to know about me than look at the web-site. All the public information I am going to give out is on there.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> Garydogz ... can you show us some pictures of your breeding bitches and stud dogs please? And which health tests done and results


He wont because he's hiding the fact they are either not in good condition OR the stud dogs are actually boarders...I cant think of any other reason to hide something that breeders are usually more than happy to show off.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

OMG! I have woken up this morning and caught up with this thread again. I feel a sense of deja vue..has the puppy farming thread been re-opened? Although this is an interesting debate I think it is getting personal again and may be in danger of being closed? 

Somewhere around the middle (I really can't remember ) I had thought how well this debate was going, despite disagreements on crosses I felt people were being polite and logical with their arguements. Unfortunately it is now focussing on one person's breeding ethics and the thread has changed. Could we maybe rewind a bit???


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

sezra said:


> OMG! I have woken up this morning and caught up with this thread again. I feel a sense of deja vue..has the puppy farming thread been re-opened? Although this is an interesting debate I think it is getting personal again and may be in danger of being closed?
> 
> Somewhere around the middle (I really can't remember ) I had thought how well this debate was going, despite disagreements on crosses I felt people were being polite and logical with their arguements. Unfortunately it is now focussing on one person's breeding ethics and the thread has changed. Could we maybe rewind a bit???


Breeders like Gary are the reason many believe cross breeders are 1) in it for the money. 2) Dont health test and 3) are adding to the rescue crisis.

Since he breeds cockerpoo's and other "designer" crosses I think it very much has purpose to be in this thread.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

garydogz said:


> No. I came on here to join in a discussion on a thread that interested me. All I seem to be doing is talking about myself and the OP seems to have totally disappeared. I cannot even type quickly enough to keep up with the questions coming in. If you want to know about me than look at the web-site. All the public information I am going to give out is on there.


Are there pictures of dams and sires on there? As well as your approach to health testing and results?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

garydogz said:


> No. I came on here to join in a discussion on a thread that interested me. All I seem to be doing is talking about myself and the OP seems to have totally disappeared. I cannot even type quickly enough to keep up with the questions coming in. If you want to know about me than look at the web-site. All the public information I am going to give out is on there.


Your website doesn't have any references to health tests for breeding stock. I'll ask again, do you believe cross bred dogs should come from health tested parents, and if not, why not? This is a discussion about whether there is ever a reason for cross breeding, and if you agree there is, then surely the discussion of how that should be done will include things like conformation, health testing and temperament?


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Breeders like Gary are the reason many believe cross breeders are 1) in it for the money. 2) Dont health test and 3) are adding to the rescue crisis.
> 
> Since he breeds cockerpoo's and other "designer" crosses I think it very much has purpose to be in this thread.


I am not agreeing with anyone's breeding ethics especially if they do not health test and are only in it for the money. The debate is 'Is there ever a reason to cross?'

Gary - What are your reasons to cross two breeds? What is it that makes you prefer a cross to a pedigree? What considerations do you make before putting two breeds together? Do you health test before breeding so that your pet buyers will have a happy healthy pet?

The reason I am asking is because the question is 'is there ever a reason to cross?' You have stated that you believe that there is, to supply the pet market. I believe that the pet market should be supplied but only by careful breeding. I am about to buy a 'pet' puppy that is a cross but I would not buy from anyone who did not health test. If I was not aware about health issues from places like this forum and others I would be naively be putting my faith in breeders, who I would believe to be the experts.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Gary, all anyone wants to know is do you health test & to see pictures of your stud dogs & breeding bitches, the fact that it has been asked by several people on here but you have gone off on tangents rather than replying makes you appear evasive


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

I am not going to be around for a few hours. I HOPE I get back and there are a lovely set of test results and pictures of healthy happy doggies but I know this unlikely. 

Another question is, Gary if you are so pro-cross breed as you keep re-fairing to cross breeds as good pet companions ect why do you also breed pedigrees?

I think I already know the answer but I shall ask anyway.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

This thread has not produced anything new and has all been said before countless times and usually by the same people.

Totally happy with my healthy crossbreed dogs and yes would still choose the same crosses again, and happy to know others who have the same opinion.

Maybe even I should have left it at my first post on this thread which has had 18 "likes" and pretty much says it all.


----------



## sailor (Feb 5, 2010)

The original question was simply put as... "is there ever a reason to cross breed?" and Gary answered it... infact Gary answered it perfectly.

Yes there is a reason... there is a demand for cross breeds/designer dogs and it is cheap to produce these dogs, with high profits to be had.

Soo the questions been answered ... the debate on whether the demand can be met in an ethical way is proberly best started in another thread, with a better and more specific question... one that Gary might not decide to participate in.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> This thread has not produced anything new and has all been said before countless times and usually by the same people.
> 
> Totally happy with my healthy crossbreed dogs and yes would still choose the same crosses again, and happy to know others who have the same opinion.
> 
> Maybe even I should have left it at my first post on this thread which has had 18 "likes" and pretty much says it all.


Just because you are not interested in the discussion or because its not going your way anymore doesnt mean others are not enjoying it.

There's no harm in discussing it in depth as to WHY cross breeders breed since the threads called "Is there ever a reason to cross breed"


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

sezra said:


> OMG! I have woken up this morning and caught up with this thread again. I feel a sense of deja vue..has the puppy farming thread been re-opened? Although this is an interesting debate I think it is getting personal again and may be in danger of being closed?
> 
> Somewhere around the middle (I really can't remember ) I had thought how well this debate was going, despite disagreements on crosses I felt people were being polite and logical with their arguements. Unfortunately it is now focussing on one person's breeding ethics and the thread has changed. Could we maybe rewind a bit???


Unfortunately - that is because one person has decided to over-justify themselves - yet appears unable to answer any of the questions posed to them - I suspect there was never any intention for it to go this way - but the 'personal' element has pretty much been instigated by the said person 

Personally - whilst I agree with most of what has been posted - it is evolving into a 'bun-fight' and no amount of posting back and fore is going to achieve anything.

Our energies would be better spent trying to educate people that you shouldn't buy puppies on a whim, if you want a puppy of unknown origins go to rescue - there seem to many litters available - or rescues supporting these breeders who have unexpectedly found themselves with pups (and there is no way this can be likened to rescuing an older dog for all those claiming 'rescues aren't for everyone') -

If they want to buy a pup from a breeder - they need to be aware of the health tests, use common sense when visiting in that health test alone do not make a good breeder and understand that terms such as 'hybrid vigour' has been superceded by new evidence that in fact, the opposite is true and first generation crosses are likely to be MORE prone to joint problems than their pedigree counterparts - facts being borne out by the results of those cross-breeders now hipscoring 

From where I am sitting, the only reasons for cross-breeding are if they can correct an inherent genetic health problem, or create a dog better able to perform a specific job in a manner superior to it's pedigree parents.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> This thread has not produced anything new and has all been said before countless times and usually by the same people.
> 
> Totally happy with my healthy crossbreed dogs and yes would still choose the same crosses again, and happy to know others who have the same opinion.
> 
> Maybe even I should have left it at my first post on this thread which has had 18 "likes" and pretty much says it all.


I dunno, I think it's been a good debate (except for the antagonistic posts, which seem to have been few and far between).

I do think there have been some useful posts, particularly from CC regarding the rescue situation, and the myth that there are too many rescue dogs to ever be rehomed. Obviously there will be some dogs that are sadly unsuitable for many pet homes, but having read a little bit from the links (apols as I haven't had chance to read through it all) it does make sense.

I think there is an argument for well bred companion cross breeds, but there should be a lot of aspects taken into consideration before that happens, and it shouldn't be a supply on a whimsical demand, oooh, that one sounds nice, sort of thing. Cockerpoos and Labradoodles have been around for quite a long time, as have some of the working type crosses, lurchers, sprockers, springadors etc, and they're generally known about, ie Labradoodles are varying shaped big clownish oafs with hair from long and shaggy to Labrador like, cockerpoos are small scrufties somewhere inbetween the two, seem to have a bit less variation than the Labradoodles, but perhaps that's down to the two pedigrees used looking a little more similar??

Maybe there should be something like a 'Cross Breed Council' - that could keep a register of the different breeders, advise on health testing in a similar way that the KC does with pedigree breeds, and keep a register of those going about it the right way, similar to the ABS but hopefully getting off to a better start than that scheme. They could advise on whether a particular cross breed is recommended, and refuse to list certain crosses where health issues could well be an obvious problem because of unsuitable conformation/health test matches, and also keep a database of registered dogs?

Still waiting to hear if garydogz health tests his dogs, and if he doesn't believe they need testing, why not, because I do think that's an important point. A lot of people think that cross breeds will always be healthier, than the pedigree breeds used to make up a particular cross.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Just because you are not interested in the discussion or because its not going your way anymore doesnt mean others are not enjoying it.
> 
> There's no harm in discussing it in depth as to WHY cross breeders breed since the threads called "Is there ever a reason to cross breed"


This thread has never gone my way but hey I stuck it out so get your facts right.

I think you will find that I have had in the main a healthy debate aimed at trying to encourage better cross breeding.

It's not me who has turned it into a personal dig at poodle crosses and Garysdogz.:nono:

The thread should never have been started in the first place really since their is a crossbreeding rule and other such threads have been shut down for less.

But hey if you want your pound of flesh from Garysdogz, be prepared for a long wait because I don't think he will provide that info.

If you want to continue this discussion wouldn't it be better to move it on and provide some delightful new insights? rather than hound some-one who clearly isn't interested in your opinions and whilst we all would like to know it's going no-where with him.

So I look forward to reading what fresh new insights you have on this topic rather than stuff I have read countless times.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I dunno, I think it's been a good debate (except for the antagonistic posts, which seem to have been few and far between).
> 
> I do think there have been some useful posts, particularly from CC regarding the rescue situation, and the myth that there are too many rescue dogs to ever be rehomed. Obviously there will be some dogs that are sadly unsuitable for many pet homes, but having read a little bit from the links (apols as I haven't had chance to read through it all) it does make sense.
> 
> ...


Yes I have enjoyed reading CC posts too and glad they joined this discussion.

You will have a long wait for Garydogz to provide info- you have all tried that before and the thread got closed.

Cross breed council could be an idea that could be investigated


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Still waiting to hear if garydogz health tests his dogs, and if he doesn't believe they need testing, *why not*, because I do think that's an important point.


I think Borderer should be asked the question in bold too. Here is what he said a few pages ago, in this thread.



borderer said:


> i have bred crossbreeds for years never health tested never had any problems


*why not?* I asked Bordie this ages ago, but my question was deleted by moderators. :nonod:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> I think Borderer should be asked the question in bold too. Here is what he said a few pages ago, in this thread.
> 
> *why not?* I asked Bordie this ages ago, but my question was deleted by moderators. :nonod:


Whilst I don't necessarily agree with breeding without health tests, there's a world of difference between the two people who have been asked re health tests, from what I can make out of the way Borderer breeds. He has a knowledge of many generations of his dogs, and has worked them for many years. Personally, I believe he should also make use of the relevant health tests available, but then I also believe people using health tests shouldn't rely solely on them either, but gain a more in depth knowledge of a breed or cross breed. Then you get people who know nothing about the parentage of their dogs, except the direct parentage of the ones they've bred, and they also don't bother to health test.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Whilst I don't necessarily agree with breeding without health tests, there's a world of difference between the two people who have been asked re health tests, from what I can make out of the way Borderer breeds.


I absolutely agree that there is a world of difference between the two people. But the question is still the same. Why not health test?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> I absolutely agree that there is a world of difference between the two people. But the question is still the same. Why not health test?


Stubborness to move with the times? Or possibly believes that the test recommended isn't a problem within the breed? Who knows??

I am skeptical about health tests, as I've said many times before, not because I don't think they're necessary, but because I think too many people don't use them properly ie those who just think a clear for this and low score for that is enough. Definitely for another thread, but worth saying at least the once, health testing is great, but in a short space of time we are going to end up with over ten health tests for some breeds, and will find it increasingly difficult to breed completely clear of some conditions. So do we either stop breeding, or do we accept that dogs will always have genetic defects and conditions? And that's just for pedigrees, very little is known about some of the more popular long standing crosses, and nothing is known about the fashionable (and I use that word hopefully knowing that members know I'm not making a sweeping generalisation about all cross breeds) cross breeds bred purely for the cash at that point in time.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Whilst I don't necessarily agree with breeding without health tests, there's a world of difference between the two people who have been asked re health tests, from what I can make out of the way Borderer breeds. He has a knowledge of many generations of his dogs, and has worked them for many years.


You could argue that for any long standing breeder in that case and the people who buy pups from those same breeders - yet the large majority use all the health tests and won't permit their pups to be bred from unless they meet the criteria laid down for lifting the endorseements - so that argument doesn't 'wash' in the slightest - and as you well know - nature still has the capacity to throw the odd surprise at us.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

swarthy said:


> You could argue that for any long standing breeder in that case and the people who buy pups from those same breeders - yet the large majority use all the health tests and won't permit their pups to be bred from unless they meet the criteria laid down for lifting the endorseements - so that argument doesn't 'wash' in the slightest - and as you well know - nature still has the capacity to throw the odd surprise at us.


Not suggesting it does wash  just coming up with ideas of why someone *would* refuse, despite health tests being available, to make use of them. There are tests I haven't made use of for Labradors, Narcolepsy being one, and EIC another - although the latter one I'm watching with interest, and hoping they make a breakthrough; currently I don't have enough confidence in the test, nor how the condition is diagnosed, or even is triggered.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

Whether we agree in should crosses exist or not, they do and I don't believe that is going to change unless some kind of 'dog breeding police' big brother styley  comes into existance :w00t: and I don't think anybody wants that (or most people anyway!  ).

So, if crosses are not going to go away then surely the issues are;

1) Improving breeding practices

2) Educating the buying public

Am I wrong? Maybe we could start a new thread on how we can improve the above two points rather than going round in circles?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

sezra said:


> Whether we agree in should crosses exist or not, they do and I don't believe that is going to change unless some kind of 'dog breeding police' big brother styley  comes into existance :w00t: and I don't think anybody wants that (or most people anyway!  ).
> 
> So, if crosses are not going to go away then surely the issues are;
> 
> ...


Actually I suggested this in a PM to Sleeping Lion pages and pages back 

That's when they was some healthy interaction between her ,myself and Devil-Dogz.

However I have also in the past tried to encourage an open and fair discussion to the points you mentioned- but you will find that no-one on here really wants crossbreeding to be done at all.

Some may reluctantly accept that it exists but most see no benefit especially if is only to supply the pet market.

I think the division on this forum between people who love crossbreeds and those who don't think they should be bred is vast.

How many times on these types of threads have I used the words" working together- trying to reach compromises- trying to improve breeding practices- allowing crossbreeders the chance to meet standards" etc...

Sezra I wish you luck if you do start a new thread but you may be better off just going outside and banging your head on a brick wall


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Actually I suggested this in a PM to Sleeping Lion pages and pages back
> 
> That's when they was some healthy interaction between her ,myself and Devil-Dogz.
> 
> ...


I agree, I am already standing by the back door ready for headbanging! 

It is a very emotive subject but I do think that if people are as passionate as they say there is no reason why postive things can't come out of this situation. I for one would gladly be a part of something that educated the public in how to approach getting a dog. It has been a massive learning curve for me and I consider that I am still learning new things all the time. Without positive help things will never change and these threads will just be recycling the same old opinions!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Unfortunately - that is because one person has decided to over-justify themselves - yet appears unable to answer any of the questions posed to them - I suspect there was never any intention for it to go this way - but the 'personal' element has pretty much been instigated by the said person
> 
> Personally - whilst I agree with most of what has been posted - it is evolving into a 'bun-fight' and no amount of posting back and fore is going to achieve anything.
> 
> ...


I think the jury is still out on "hybrid vigour" and would be interested if you could perhaps provide the link/info to this evidence that has disproven it?

WOW that must have been a huge study of crosses to say that first generation crosses are MORE prone to joint problems than their pedigree counterparts. How long has the evidence been collected? was it a cross section of crosses or just one or two types? Who collected the evidence was it vets?

Whom conducted this research? was it based on BMS? or is your statement just pertaining to Lab crosses as Labs are your area of knowledge?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> *Actually I suggested this in a PM to Sleeping Lion pages and pages back *
> 
> That's when they was some healthy interaction between her ,myself and Devil-Dogz.
> 
> ...


I was still trying to think of a catchy title 



Cockerpoo lover said:


> I think the jury is still out on "hybrid vigour" and would be interested if you could perhaps provide the link/info to this evidence that has disproven it?
> 
> WOW that must have been a huge study of crosses to say that first generation crosses are MORE prone to joint problems than their pedigree counterparts. How long has the evidence been collected? was it a cross section of crosses or just one or two types? Who collected the evidence was it vets?
> 
> Whom conducted this research? was it based on BMS? or is your statement just pertaining to Lab crosses as Labs are your area of knowledge?


I posted about this a while ago, the BMS for Labradoodles is worse than for either parent breed - I had to have it all explained to me as I'm rubbish at working these things out, the post should still be lurking around somewhere if only I knew how to search for these things


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

another one of my many worries lol is that when someones reason to breed is to supply pets for other people to make money then they are likely to overbreed, i think bitches should have no more than 1-2 litters in their lifetime...3 for exceptional circumstances, so i dunno it just dosent sit easy on me breeding animals to supply the pet trade....now this dosent just go for cross breed dogs but for pedigrees aswell... infact for All animals...im not just trying to be argumentative but how hypocritical would i be if was opposed to the majority of pet breeders breeding pedigrees but i was okay with someone cross breeding

maybe folk like CPL could steer those wanting a cross towards the better breeders those who fully health test etc and who only rarely breed their dogs, because ive been looking on line and its not easy to find what looks to me like a half decent cross breeder anywhere


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> However I have also in the past tried to encourage an open and fair discussion to the points you mentioned- but you will find that no-one on here really wants crossbreeding to be done at all.
> 
> Some may reluctantly accept that it exists but most see no benefit especially if is only to supply the pet market.
> 
> ...


I think you are stretching it a bit when you write that no-one on this forum wants crossbreeding done at all - come on now, be fair! There are quite a few posters who have crossbreeds and who see nothing at all wrong with crossbreeding. I agree there are also quite a few against it - but to pretend that no-one supports it is just not true.

I also disagree that there is a vast gap between those who love crossbreeds and those who don't. It has been stated many times, by many of those who are against crossbreeding for profit, that they have nothing at all against crossbreeds - they merely do not agree with purposefully crossbreeding.

However, I do agree with you that the gap between those who do agree with crossbreeding on purpose, and those who don't, is vast. And that is because most people who are against it can see no purpose in it other than, "because someone wants it". For me, that can never be a good enough reason. If that is ever used as a justification for doing something, then we are on a very slippery slope indeed. For example, as I said to Garydogz, if you accept that someone wanting something is a valid reason for producing something, then you would have to agree that it is ok to breed roach-backed GSDs because there are people out there who want them. Once you use poeple's whims as a criterion for doing anything, then anything is acceptable.

And whilst I applaud your efforts to try to work towards a compromise between those who advocate crossbreeding and those who don't, I think that unless this vast gap can be bridged, any sort of compromise is doomed to failure. Unless you can come up with a valid, ethical reason for crossbreeding, you are never going to convince breeders to allow their best stock to be used for crossbreeding - and hence crossbreeding is doomed to always be from inferior stock.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I was still trying to think of a catchy title
> 
> I posted about this a while ago, the BMS for Labradoodles is worse than for either parent breed - I had to have it all explained to me as I'm rubbish at working these things out, the post should still be lurking around somewhere if only I knew how to search for these things


As long as it isn't to complex for my oodle brain to understand 

I did look up on internet a while ago for BMS for labradoodles - could find 2010 and it was 14 I think??? is this right?and is that worse than labs then?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> another one of my many worries lol is that when someones reason to breed is to supply pets for other people to make money then they are likely to overbreed, i think bitches should have no more than 1-2 litters in their lifetime...3 for exceptional circumstances, so i dunno it just dosent sit easy on me breeding animals to supply the pet trade....now this dosent just go for cross breed dogs but for pedigrees aswell... infact for All animals...im not just trying to be argumentative but how hypocritical would i be if was opposed to the majority of pet breeders breeding pedigrees but i was okay with someone cross breeding
> 
> maybe folk like CPL could steer those wanting a cross towards the better breeders those who fully health test etc and who only rarely breed their dogs, because ive been looking on line and its not easy to find what looks to me like a half decent cross breeder anywhere


I can only advise people on the types of crosses I own Noushka and have done so in the past.

It is difficult too that I agree and sadly I think that some of the more decent breeders are not doing so now because of so many jumping on the bandwagon.

I can't even recommend my own breeder for my cockapoo as they have stopped breeding. Shame


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Maybe even I should have left it at my first post on this thread which has had 18 "likes" and pretty much says it all.


It says nothing more than 18 people liked what you posted ... Hardly "says it all" Hun. Think about it.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I think you are stretching it a bit when you write that no-one on this forum wants crossbreeding done at all - come on now, be fair! There are quite a few posters who have crossbreeds and who see nothing at all wrong with crossbreeding. I agree there are also quite a few against it - but to pretend that no-one supports it is just not true.
> 
> I also disagree that there is a vast gap between those who love crossbreeds and those who don't. It has been stated many times, by many of those who are against crossbreeding for profit, that they have nothing at all against crossbreeds - they merely do not agree with purposefully crossbreeding.
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about people who own crossbreeds- I like to think that they would support it!!!

I'm talking about people who have joined these type of discussions who don't own them. I actually said nobody _really_ wants it- some may have conceded to it in parts.

So for example excluding crossbreed owners and people in process of buying one how many on this thread has expressed a positive opinion that 
they happily accept crossbreeding?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> It says nothing more than 18 people liked what you posted ... Hardly "says it all" Hun. Think about it.


I meant my post said it all for me  and it's 18 more likes than any of your posts have got on here 

Also still waiting to hear all about your dogs


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Also still waiting to hear all about your dogs


You'll have a long wait


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Some crossbreeding is fine IMO, even if done purposefully. All the labradoodles I have met have been fantastic dogs. I can not fault that crossbreed at all. The common crossbreeds, like cockapoos, cavapoos, labradoodles, goldendoodles etc are fine IMO to breed responsibly (looking carefully at both parent's conformation, doing health tests where possible). However this random mixing of any breed which takes your fancy (bulldog x shih tzu, yorkie x poodle, staffy x GSD). IMO they are just not suited conformationally and sometimes temperament-wise. To breed such different breeds is immoral IMO, and shouldn't be done. Both breeds should be similar in size, shape and temperament and ideally, from the same group/background, such as springer x cocker. 

What I dislike is the common finding of owners wanting to breed their mix to another mix. Just because you have a female dog, doesn't mean you have to breed it and mix it back. Unfortantely, random crossbreeding and pet breeders have made breeding seem very easy to do, so even more people are breeding their bitches to whatever takes their fancy, and that is dangerous IMO.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I think the jury is still out on "hybrid vigour" and would be interested if you could perhaps provide the link/info to this evidence that has disproven it?
> 
> WOW that must have been a huge study of crosses to say that first generation crosses are MORE prone to joint problems than their pedigree counterparts. How long has the evidence been collected? was it a cross section of crosses or just one or two types? Who collected the evidence was it vets?
> 
> Whom conducted this research? was it based on BMS? or is your statement just pertaining to Lab crosses as Labs are your area of knowledge?


No it wasn't based on BMS - although the figures are there for anyone to see - and unfortunately - as with all tests pretty much across the board - something won't be used until there is a recognised problem - the PRA gene was isolated for a number of breeds when dogs started to go blind - Hip scoring was brought in initially because of the issues with (as then) Alsations.

Breeders don't chose to put their dogs at the risk of these tests unless they recognise a problem with a breed (or cross breed) (and there IS a risk, albeit a low one - I do know of a dog who died having hips and elbows done - but that has to be offset against the risk of producing puppies who suffer a lifetime of pain and surgery ).

Lab x Poodle testing (the only significant cross being tested at the moment) -is pretty recent in terms of breeders adopting it.

In terms of the empirical evidence I've found, it was quite some time ago, but I found it interesting because it completely contradicted the argument of 'hybrid vigour' - in addition to this, the amount of people who again stumble across these forums with cross-breeds with hip dysplasia and other joint problems, - while probably disproportionate to the number of cross-breeds out there - clearly demonstrates there are more than a few crosses developing joint problems - again, something which hybrid vigour intimates is far LESS likely to happen.

This is a subject very close to my heart having a girl with very poor hips from outstanding breeding, and a subject which I tried in vain for about three years to find a PhD Supervisor to enable me to take my research to the next level - sadly - I couldn't find anyone eith either enough experience, or mad enough to take someone on whose more recent background and qualification are in IT and Business as opposed to genetics


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> As long as it isn't to complex for my oodle brain to understand
> 
> I did look up on internet a while ago for BMS for labradoodles - could find 2010 and it was 14 I think??? is this right?and is that worse than labs then?


No, it's not that simple, here's what I put on another thread, the information isn't collated by me but by someone incredibly knowledgeable about numerous breeds, particularly Labradors 

_Its interesting that the latest figures have just been released Someone asked me about Labradoodles. This was what I wrote:-

The latest Breed Mean Hip Scores are now on the BVA web site and show that the Labrador mean score has dropped from 15 to 14. But the BVA has added new information onto the list this year, a mean of the last 5 years, which gives us a better guide to what dogs are scoring in recent years. This shows that Labs present average is 12!! Without being complacent we are not doing a bad job!

One other interesting point is Labradoodles. These have only been scored recently so their average is directly comparable to the Labrador 5 year average are in fact one point worse than Labradors at 13 compared with the Lab's 5 year average of 12. So much for hybrid vigour!_


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, it's not that simple, here's what I put on another thread, the information isn't collated by me but by someone incredibly knowledgeable about numerous breeds, particularly Labradors
> 
> _It's interesting that the latest figures have just been released Someone asked me about Labradoodles. This was what I wrote:-
> 
> ...


The main point as well which many people will miss from this Jo is that, a breed (or x-breed) - doesn't start testing for a condition until it becomes evident the condition exists - therefore some Lab x Poodles MUST have been developing issues to prompt breeders to start testing - as historically they did with GSD / Alsations and Labs, and the many other breeds to follow suit, including interestingly, small breeds you simply would not automatically associate with developing hip problems.

Labs, particularly when you consider just how many are actually bred, are in the main, an extremely healthy breed - so you could argue why mess around with a breed that really is 'getting there' in terms of managing the majority of health issues - resulting in potentially creating new problems by cross-breeding 

The number of Labs being hip and now elbow scored continues to rise, the number of dogs being scored from two parents scored continues to rise - yet the overall average continues to fall - it will plateau (and even rise again) if we start squeezing too tight in terms of what we breed from - and that always makes me slightly apprehensive when I know how some will interpret these figures - but the fact remains, there is not a breed that comes close to Labs in terms of having such a comprehensive health testing history - yet both types, working and show, while they have diverged in terms of substance, still, in the main, retain the retrieving instinct and easy going, versatile qualities which make them the breed that so many of us fell in love with.

ETA - it should also be remembered that during that same 5 year period, some 15K Labs have been hipscored - and historically, if you look at breed averages when they start out, they rise before they fall - so it's likely we will see a higher Lab x Poodle score before it starts to fall.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

swarthy said:


> The main point as well which many people will miss from this Jo is that, a breed (or x-breed) - doesn't start testing for a condition until it becomes evident the condition exists - therefore some Lab x Poodles MUST have been developing issues to prompt breeders to start testing - as historically they did with GSD / Alsations and Labs, and the many other breeds to follow suit, including interestingly, small breeds you simply would not automatically associate with developing hip problems.
> 
> Labs, particularly when you consider just how many are actually bred, are in the main, an extremely healthy breed - so you could argue why mess around with a breed that really is 'getting there' in terms of managing the majority of health issues - resulting in potentially creating new problems by cross-breeding
> 
> The number of Labs being hip and now elbow scored continues to rise, the number of dogs being scored from two parents scored continues to rise - yet the overall average continues to fall - it will plateau (and even rise again) if we start squeezing too tight in terms of what we breed from - and that always makes me slightly apprehensive when I know how some will interpret these figures - but the fact remains, there is not a breed that comes close to Labs in terms of having such a comprehensive health testing history - yet both types, working and show, while they have diverged in terms of substance, still, in the main, retain the retrieving instinct and easy going, versatile qualities which make them the breed that so many of us fell in love with.


Completely agree, and I'm sure you most likely know which friend I phoned for that info  It wasn't you, so that leaves one other person I know with a pretty large database of Labrador info :lol: :lol: :lol:

And, this is what I alluded to in my post earlier about the way health test results are used, and one bit that will always be missing from cross breeds unless they form some sort of centralised information holding centre. I can go online and see every dog (nearly) in the pedigree of both my girls, and what their scores were, and I know if I ask you, you could give me even more information relating to litter siblings, half siblings, aunties, uncles etc, etc. That just doesn't exist for cross breeds, and is more head knowledge for some of the breeds where there isn't the equivalent information gathering, where a certain line will be associated with this, that or the other. Without that knowledge, either in a database, or having the experience of someone who's been in a breed for umpteen years, you are breeding blind to a certain extent, that goes for people breeding pedigrees who look no further than the end of their nose as well.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I'm talking about people who have joined these type of discussions who don't own them.


I own one. And my parents had cross breeds (as well as ped's) growing up. Because of a selfish breeder like Gary my Scorcher is suffering. Gary doesnt see anything wrong with it because he still gets paid....its the poor families that get the dogs that end up heartbroken.

If it wasnt for Scorchers breeder no I wouldnt have her right now but I would rather she had never had the pain she has been through!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I'm not talking about people who own crossbreeds- I like to think that they would support it!!!
> 
> I'm talking about people who have joined these type of discussions who don't own them. I actually said nobody _really_ wants it- some may have conceded to it in parts.


That might have been what you meant, but what you actually wrote was:



Cockerpoo lover said:


> but you will find that no-one on here really wants crossbreeding to be done at all.





Cockerpoo lover said:


> So for example excluding crossbreed owners and people in process of buying one how many on this thread has expressed a positive opinion that
> they happily accept crossbreeding?


They will never do that unless you can provide them with a reason to do so - as I posted in my last post and which you have chosen to ignore.

You keep asking this sort of question, but when the reason for the status quo is explained to you, you ignore it. I'll repeat for you:



Spellweaver said:


> However, I do agree with you that the gap between those who do agree with crossbreeding on purpose, and those who don't, is vast. And that is because most people who are against it can see no purpose in it other than, "because someone wants it". For me, that can never be a good enough reason. If that is ever used as a justification for doing something, then we are on a very slippery slope indeed. For example, as I said to Garydogz, if you accept that someone wanting something is a valid reason for producing something, then you would have to agree that it is ok to breed roach-backed GSDs because there are people out there who want them. Once you use poeple's whims as a criterion for doing anything, then anything is acceptable.
> 
> Whilst I applaud your efforts to try to work towards a compromise between those who advocate crossbreeding and those who don't, I think that unless this vast gap can be bridged, any sort of compromise is doomed to failure. Unless you can come up with a valid, ethical reason for crossbreeding, you are never going to convince breeders to allow their best stock to be used for crossbreeding - and hence crossbreeding is doomed to always be from inferior stock.


So, in the interests of moving the debate onwards a step and trying to work towards a compromise between those who don't advocate crossbreeding and those who do, can you furnish breeders with any valid, ethical reasons to allow their best stock to be used for crossbreeding?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, it's not that simple, here's what I put on another thread, the information isn't collated by me but by someone incredibly knowledgeable about numerous breeds, particularly Labradors
> 
> _Its interesting that the latest figures have just been released Someone asked me about Labradoodles. This was what I wrote:-
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if it is comparable at this stage.

If labradors have gone from 15-14 and then 12 over a 5 year period then what's not to say that labradoodles will do the same?

If there figures are only recent then surely they too may see a drop?

So how about the comparable being let's compare labradors when they were first scored and their BMS was 15 well labradoodles at 13 are doing far better than they were


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I also disagree that there is a vast gap between those who love crossbreeds and those who don't. It has been stated many times, by many of those who are against crossbreeding for profit, that they have nothing at all against crossbreeds - they merely do not agree with purposefully crossbreeding.
> 
> However, I do agree with you that the gap between those who do agree with crossbreeding on purpose, and those who don't, is vast. And that is because most people who are against it can see no purpose in it other than, "because someone wants it". For me, that can never be a good enough reason. If that is ever used as a justification for doing something, then we are on a very slippery slope indeed. For example, as I said to Garydogz, if you accept that someone wanting something is a valid reason for producing something, then you would have to agree that it is ok to breed roach-backed GSDs because there are people out there who want them. Once you use poeple's whims as a criterion for doing anything, then anything is acceptable.
> 
> And whilst I applaud your efforts to try to work towards a compromise between those who advocate crossbreeding and those who don't, I think that unless this vast gap can be bridged, any sort of compromise is doomed to failure. Unless you can come up with a valid, ethical reason for crossbreeding, you are never going to convince breeders to allow their best stock to be used for crossbreeding - and hence crossbreeding is doomed to always be from inferior stock.


I used to think a lot of what you said made sense but this post proves me wrong.

All dogs have been bred because people "want" them.... not because they needed to exist or because of natural selection. The "valid" reasons you have or breed dogs is because you want to... even if you you work them (which I don't think you do) its not because you need to... its because you want to.

I think you can do better then this.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> That might have been what you meant, but what you actually wrote was:
> 
> *So as you haven't provided anybody I was right to say nobody really wants crossbreeding*
> 
> ...


Well actually Sezra is still waiting for her questions to be answered by you all first.

But sure you will get back to her 

So for you question:

Well Sleeping Lion was the person who said :

Originally Posted by Sleeping_Lion 
And I think that's the gripe many of the apparently snobby pedigree people have, cross breeding shouldn't be an excuse at all to cut corners, if breeders can afford to sell pups for less than the average price of a well bred pedigree, after health testing, bringing pups/mum up on good quality food, using the *best quality breeding stock available,* etc, etc, that's their business, but we need to encourage anyone cross breeding to approach it in this way, not just to put two dogs together and hope for the best, if that makes sense?

SO it was in response to that that I said how do crossbreeders get the best stock then to which I am stlll waiting my answer.

You're the ones that are breeders so how do you expect me to have all the answers??

Actually as I have said on here to Rocco I agree with her that I think as long as breeders are using the healthy/good temperament examples that's fine by me.

However it's the anti-cross peeps who say to be "ethical" it should only be the best breeding stock.

So you might be better placed to answer your own question.

I'm only a pet owner hun and try my best to have reasoned discussions- I don't have the knowledge of you pet breeders.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I used to think a lot of what you said made sense but this post proves me wrong.
> 
> All dogs have been bred because people "want" them.... not because they needed to exist or because of natural selection. The "valid" reasons you have or breed dogs is because you want to... even if you you work them (which I don't think you do) its not because you need to... its because you want to.
> 
> I think you can do better then this.


i think you know exactly what Spellweaver means Elmo:hand:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> i think you know exactly what Spellweaver means Elmo:hand:


Oh I know exactly what she means.... its just a shame she didn't say it


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Well actually Sezra is still waiting for her questions to be answered by you all first.
> 
> But sure you will get back to her
> 
> ...


The problem is that there is an assumption that breeders do not allow their dogs to be crossbred and that the "stock" is of good quality. Many "good" breeders breed crosses but will not publicise the fact as they would be subject to the vitriol and self protectionist onslaught seen so often on here.

So many crosses do come from good "stock"... whatever "good" means.

Firstly, the dogs cannot be classed as stock becuase there is no control (as there is for say, sheep or pigs). There is no regulation so the basis of "good stock" is who won a show etc. The show is not judged on the basis of any type of stock control so you have no gauge of what is good or bad.

Your point on HD scores (however unreliable the method) is well made. If crosses (as is assumed by many posters) inherit the worst traits of the parents then who is to blame ? (the breeder of the KC dogs... not the crossbreeder)

So my point ? (nothing... I'm pointless ;-) is don't assume "good stock" using KC breeds as none of them came from a managed background (certainly on a scientific level) which is why many breeds, after years of breeding, still have continuing health issue known about by the breeders.... so I guess the question should be "Is there ever a reason to continue breeding many of the KC breeds?"


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I used to think a lot of what you said made sense but this post proves me wrong.
> 
> All dogs have been bred because people "want" them.... not because they needed to exist or because of natural selection. The "valid" reasons you have or breed dogs is because you want to... even if you you work them (which I don't think you do) its not because you need to... its because you want to.
> 
> I think you can do better then this.


I have never thought that anything you said made sense - and this post proves me right.

People "wanting" something is never a valid reason to supply. Some people want GSDs with roach backs. Some people want bulldogs that can't breathe. To extend it past the dog world, some people want people in third world countries to work for pennies making cheap clothes so that they can make huge profits selling them in the UK. If you advocate "wanting" is a valid enough criterion for supply, then you would have to agree to all the above.

I would like to say that I think you can do better than this - but I don't think you can, sadly.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I'm not sure if it is comparable at this stage.
> 
> If labradors have gone from 15-14 and then 12 over a 5 year period then what's not to say that labradoodles will do the same?
> 
> ...


Not sure where you get the idea from that Labradors started off at 15 - their average was very low in the early days (around 8) and then rose before it fell as the number of dogs being scored started to increase.

The more dogs scored, the more representative of a breed the figure becomes - there are over 70,000 Labradors hipscored - around *17,800* of those in the last *3 years* as compared to *603 Lab x Poodles in total.*

Any research needs a significant sample size before it can be taken as representative of the wider audience - just as exit polls are conducted after general elections and typically found to be pretty close to the actual outcomes of an election.

As with any statistic - the more dogs scored, the more representative the statistics become - so you need a LOT more Lab x Poodles scored before you can claim 'they are doing better' - and if they follow the pattern of other breeds in the early days, their average will rise before it falls.

I have conducted a year on year average analysis of the hipscoring database since records began back in 1979.

I have studied in depth the influences of unscored parents, low scored parents, high scoring parents, age of scoring - the influence of sideways scoring in assessing a dogs viability of developing problems and have a database of well over 100K labradors with health tests results, colours, line influences, dogs who are hip improvers - and the routes back for Optigen PRA, HC and Elbows.

I can tell you how many dogs from 0/0 parents have produced 0/0 offspring in Labradors - 1 dog - and that's from four generations of one parent scoring 0/0 in hips - I can tell you the dogs kennel name, pet name and it's breeding.

My records stand at around 60K of all the Labs scored in total if you want to come back and challenge it with equivalent facts.

The findings of the extensive research I conducted on the data correlated closely with a comprehensive official study conducted in the States of a further 35K labradors.

95K Labs -v- 603 Lab x Poodles - I know which figures I will rely on.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> SO it was in response to that that I said how do crossbreeders get the best stock then to which I am stlll waiting my answer.


You've been given your answer at least twice by me - just because you didn't like the answer does not mean it has not been given. Crossbreeders will never get the best stock from pedigree breeders unless they can come up with a valid and ethical reason for their crossbreeding - and the fact that the best they have managed to come up with so far is that they want to crossbreed "because people want to buy crossbreeds" is the reason no decent breeder is willing to let them have decent stock.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The problem is that there is an assumption that breeders do not allow their dogs to be crossbred and that the "stock" is of good quality. Many "good" breeders breed crosses but will not publicise the fact as they would be subject to the vitriol and self protectionist onslaught seen so often on here.
> 
> So many crosses do come from good "stock"... whatever "good" means.
> 
> ...




Thanks am a wee virgin when it comes to BMS of labs and doodles so tried to understand it objectively 

That's a good point although some might say what about the non-kc dogs used for crossbreeding. But yes if two KC reg parents are used then yes you would like to think that they have been produced by breeders who want to produce good healthy dogs with the best temperaments.

But sadly we all know that there are just as many bad pedigree breeders out there too


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, it's not that simple, here's what I put on another thread, the information isn't collated by me but by someone incredibly knowledgeable about numerous breeds, particularly Labradors
> 
> _Its interesting that the latest figures have just been released Someone asked me about Labradoodles. This was what I wrote:-
> 
> ...


I can't comment on hybrid vigour (don't think enough research has been done). But you can't just compare Labrador BMS with Labradoodles, then jump to sweeping conclusions! Standard poodle BMS is 14. I could say that as the Labradoodle is 13 it proves hybrid vigour is working - but I won't. What is good is that over 600 labradoodles have now been hip scored. Yes, some of these will be doodles with problems but a lot will be breeders who are breeding multi-gens and being responsible about it. I have seen some excellent low scores of doodles who are being tested in the hope of breeding.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I have never thought that anything you said made sense - and this post prioves me right.
> 
> People "wanting" something is never a valid reason to supply. Some people want GSDs with roach backs. Some people want bulldogs that can't breathe. To extend it past the dog world, some people want people in third world countries to work for pennies making cheap clothes so that they can make huge profits selling them in the UK. If you advocate "wanting" is a valid enough criterion for supply, then you would have to agree to all the above.
> 
> I would like to say that I think you can do better than this - but I don't think you can, sadly.


Ooooeerr.... a little handbaggish ?

Some people want dogs with no hair, some people want dogs with hair that matts or that needs matting... some people want a dog with spots and some people want a dog with no tail....

... all wants... not needs.

Third world country argument?... get a grip


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Third world country argument?... get a grip


ooo-er - touched a nerve, did I?

You may not like it, but exploiting animals by breeding crosses with no thought of anything other than the profit that can be made out of the people that "want" them is every bit as despicable as exploiting people in the third world.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I'm not sure if it is comparable at this stage.
> 
> If labradors have gone from 15-14 and then 12 over a 5 year period then what's not to say that labradoodles will do the same?
> 
> ...


Swarthy will explain better than me, her knowledge and the information she has on Labrador health tests is pretty much second to none 



Elmo the Bear said:


> The problem is that there is an assumption that breeders do not allow their dogs to be crossbred and that the "stock" is of good quality. Many "good" breeders breed crosses but will not publicise the fact as they would be subject to the vitriol and self protectionist onslaught seen so often on here.
> 
> So many crosses do come from good "stock"... whatever "good" means.
> 
> ...


It's unlike you to hijack a thread to stir, of course, you want to see mandatory health tests for pedigrees, if I remember rightly? If only you'd been so scrupulous about the purchases of your own dogs? 

PS, the amount of pm's and messages off forum after the last time you posted, and links to your posts on other forums, unbelievable!



freddies_mum said:


> I can't comment on hybrid vigour (don't think enough research has been done). But you can't just compare Labrador BMS with Labradoodles, then jump to sweeping conclusions! Standard poodle BMS is 14. I could say that as the Labradoodle is 13 it proves hybrid vigour is working - but I won't. What is good is that over 600 labradoodles have now been hip scored. Yes, some of these will be doodles with problems but a lot will be breeders who are breeding multi-gens and being responsible about it. I have seen some excellent low scores of doodles who are being tested in the hope of breeding.


It's not my information hun, just a breakdown of the statistics over five years. Trust me, the person compiling the information has a lifetime of knowledge about dogs, has kept dogs longer than I've been alive, and is just a lovely, lovely guy


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

freddies_mum said:


> What is good is that over 600 labradoodles have now been hip scored. Yes, some of these will be doodles with problems but a lot will be breeders who are breeding multi-gens and being responsible about it. I have seen some excellent low scores of doodles who are being tested in the hope of breeding.


That's not good - there isn't even a 5 year average available for the 'breed' yet - when you compare it to the numbers being bred - it's a pretty poor show - and still remains the only 'Poodle' cross being scored. Frequently, poor hips will only ever manifest themselves in the early / breeding years through scoring - looking at a dog does not in any way indicate there is a problem unless it is so severe the dog is unable to walk correctly.

Contrary to what people believe, and even if you hold with the perception that hybrid vigour does exist (and as dogs are all of the same species none of these cross are true 'hybrids') - the minute you go to a second generation cross - you have lost any advantage that may exist in a first generation as well as dominant genes, you now have matching recessive genes - hence, you now have the health conditions of TWO breeds rather than one 

Interesting issues highlighted by Joanne Reichertz DVM in her 2004 article "Oodles of Poodle Crosses for Sale"

_In virtually every newspaper classified section you can read, there are advertisements for Goldendoodles, Labradoodles, Cockapoos, Pekeapoos, Shihpoos, etc. In all the years I have bred poodles there have always been crossbreeds around. Most of these were accidents and the puppies were given away or sold for little more than the price of their care. Some Cockapoos were deliberately bred for Pet Shops, but the market was inconsistent, so they were not readily available. Labradors and Standard Poodles were also crossbred in Australia to produce a specific type of working dog. However in the previous few years the "fad" has been to produce crossbred poodles with many different breed and market them for considerable money as "designer breeds that are healthier and otherwise better than a purebred". In most cases these puppies are produced for monetary gains not to develop a new breed!

The Goldendoodle is one of these crossbreds. Goldendoodles were deliberately bred in North America as a larger version of the Cockapoo, beginning around ten to fifteen years ago. Most do not shed hair heavily, and some are hypoallergenic like the Standard Poodle. This crossbred gets its name from the mix of the two breeds - Golden Retriever and Poodle. Goldendoodles are considered a hybrid dog, a first generation cross between two breeds, and as such they are supposed to exhibit a quality called hybrid vigour by these breeders. This hybrid vigour is more correctly called heterosis. Crossbreeding in commercial beef cattle production improves feed efficiency through heterosis. Hybrid vigor or heterosis is the added performance boost in crossbred calves over the performance average of their purebred parents. This heterosis can be used to advantage where the end product is meant to grow faster and eat less feed while doing so - thus maximizing the farmer's profit. It is not necessarily useful in breeding dogs. In theory the puppies will take on the best traits of both breeds. In reality, this is often false.

True hybrids are the product of breeding two different species. Breeding a donkey and a horse produces a mule, breeding a lion and a tiger produces a liger or a tigon, while breeding a wolf and a domestic dog produces a wolf hybrid. Each of these hybrid breedings is a cross of two different species. The offspring are hybrids. Domestic dogs are the same species. When you cross breed domestic dogs you are not technically creating a hybrid. Wolf/dog hybrids often have behavioral problems as the domestic dog differs greatly in behavior from a wolf. A wolf/dog hybrid can be a behavioral disaster when they mature. (See Canine Hybrid Issues Surrounding the Wolf Dog , M. Sloan, J. Moore Porter, 2001)

A breed of dog is not a separate species, it is just a family of dogs bred to exhibit certain specific traits like the coat of a poodle. When you breed a litter of purebred dogs you get predictable puppies. With crossbred puppies you do not. It takes many generations to fix traits when developing a new breed. For example after a hundred years of breeding the Toy Poodle we still get the problems of oversized individuals, long backs/short legs and soft coats (particularly in white) - all leftovers from the breeds originally used to produce the Toy Poodle.

Crossbred dogs such as the Goldendoodle or Cockapoo are NOT hybrids nor are they a breed. Cockapoos may look like a Poodle, a Cocker or somewhere in between. A Cockapoo bred to a Cockapoo is not a breed. It takes decades or more to get a new breed to "breed true" without throwbacks occurring. People backcrossing Goldendoodles to Standard Poodles or crossing them on each other cannot predict the looks, coat and personalities of the resulting offspring. It will take many more generations before this will be possible. In addition when they breed them to each other they lose they slight health advantage which may have been gained through heterosis. These are still dogs and now we will have dogs with the health problems of both breeds. Hip dysplasia, being present in both breeds can show up in first generation Goldendoodles, so parents should be screened.

In conclusion, while I know it is possible to develop a new breed such as the Goldendoodle, with careful selective breeding practices and health testing, many people are breeding these dogs simply for monetary reasons. They often have no regard for the health and wellbeing of the puppy produced and as a result these breeds are becoming a common commodity in animal shelters as well as in newspaper classified advertisements."_

Written in 2004 - clearly NOT a new issue


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It's unlike you to hijack a thread to stir, of course, you want to see mandatory health tests for pedigrees, if I remember rightly? If only you'd been so scrupulous about the purchases of your own dogs?


I take it as a compliment when this particular poster comes onto a thread about crossbreeding - the people advocating not crossbreeding must be putting up some pretty good arguments in their favour for him to come on purely to stir things until a mod closes the thread


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I take it as a compliment when this particular poster comes onto a thread about crossbreeding - the people advocating not crossbreeding must be putting up some pretty good arguments in their favour for him to come on purely to stir things until a mod closes the thread


The thing is, people have said throughout this thread, that there is an argument for cross breeding, I know you're not convinced, but neither are you particularly abusive or antagonistic in your views, just putting across the point as you see it, and your point of view has been eagerly riposted by those who are pro cross breeding. I do firmly sit in the middle, I think I'd rather see cross breeding done ethically if at all, and that's why I chuckle when members like Elmo post to try and discredit my point of view


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The problem is that there is an assumption that breeders do not allow their dogs to be crossbred and that the "stock" is of good quality. Many "good" breeders breed crosses but will not publicise the fact as they would be subject to the vitriol and self protectionist onslaught seen so often on here.
> 
> the only type of breeder who breeds their dogs like this are the ones who care only about making money...funny if they are so secretive that you know of 'many' lol
> 
> ...


youre just too funny!... its the breeder of the KC dogs fault now if crosses suffer defects! lmao


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> You've been given your answer at least twice by me - just because you didn't like the answer does not mean it has not been given. Crossbreeders will never get the best stock from pedigree breeders unless they can come up with a valid and ethical reason for their crossbreeding - and the fact that the best they have managed to come up with so far is that they want to crossbreed "because people want to buy crossbreeds" is the reason no decent breeder is willing to let them have decent stock.


It's not a question of liking it's a question of trying to understand why people are against people breeding for the pet market and supplying a demand.

Unless people are giving away pups for free then most would be breeding because people want to buy them.

People who want show pups- buy them, apart from the breeder who may keep one back.

So what's the difference in people wanting to buy crossbreed pups 

What do you class as a valid and ethical reason then?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I take it as a compliment when this particular poster comes onto a thread about crossbreeding - the people advocating not crossbreeding must be putting up some pretty good arguments in their favour for him to come on purely to stir things until a mod closes the thread


lol Elmos certainly the master when it comes to getting a thread closed


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> youre just too funny!... its the breeder of the KC dogs fault now if crosses suffer defects! lmao


So if a cross inherits the poor conditions from the parents because years of breeding failed to address the issue....... who should stop breeding?

Your argument is that its OK to continue to breed "pedigree" dogs with health conditions?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> What do you class as a valid and ethical reason then?


I can't think of a valid and ethical reason. If I could - or if someone could present me with one - then I would be advocating crossbreeding. I just wondered if you could think of one - unlike someone else who shall remain nameless (  ) your posts are usually sensible and well thought out.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> lol Elmos certainly the master when it comes to getting a thread closed


Oh dear... all out of arguments again? You'd think the amount of time the little "group" had been working on this argument you'd have become quite good at it.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I can't think of a valid and ethical reason. If I could - or if someone could present me with one - then I would be advocating crossbreeding. I just wondered if you could think of one - unlike someone else who shall remain nameless (  ) your posts are usually sensible and well thought out.


It is the same valid, ethical reason as breeding a Labrador (or any other dog)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I don't come on to discredit your point of view as you do that well enough yourself. I had you on ignore but took you off because someone said you'd posted something interesting but they were obviously mistaken.
> 
> *I'm also sorry you feel the need to stalk me and use the PM system to slate me.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I take that sort of accusation seriously, I didn't say I'd pm'd anyone about you, I said I'd received pm's and off forum messages, which is true. I haven't stalked you at all, I was however sent links to other forums where you'd posted with information about yourself and your dogs.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The thing is, people have said throughout this thread, that there is an argument for cross breeding, I know you're not convinced, but neither are you particularly abusive or antagonistic in your views, just putting across the point as you see it, and your point of view has been eagerly riposted by those who are pro cross breeding. I do firmly sit in the middle, I think I'd rather see cross breeding done ethically if at all, and that's why I chuckle when members like Elmo post to try and discredit my point of view


I thoroughly agree that if crossbreeding is going to be done at all it should be done ethically - but nothing I've read on here so far has convinced me that it should be done in the first place. However, as I've just posted in reply to CPL. if someone could furnish me with a valid and ethical reason to crossbreed, then I would probably change my point of view. Up to now, though, that hasn't happened.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Elmo the Bear said:
> 
> 
> > I don't come on to discredit your point of view as you do that well enough yourself. I had you on ignore but took you off because someone said you'd posted something interesting but they were obviously mistaken.
> ...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I thoroughly agree that if crossbreeding is going to be done at all it should be done ethically - but nothing I've read on here so far has convinced me that it should be done in the first place. However, as I've just posted in reply to CPL. if someone could furnish me with a valid and ethical reason to crossbreed, then I would probably change my point of view. Up to now, though, that hasn't happened.


It is the same valid, ethical reason as breeding a Labrador (or any other dog)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I thoroughly agree that if crossbreeding is going to be done at all it should be done ethically - but nothing I've read on here so far has convinced me that it should be done in the first place. However, as I've just posted in reply to CPL. if someone could furnish me with a valid and ethical reason to crossbreed, then I would probably change my point of view. Up to now, though, that hasn't happened.


I've said it before on this thread, the problem isn't going to go away, people like cross breeds, so you can either work with them, and educate them about health testing, temperament, conformation etc, or you can just cut them off. I see working with them as a better option


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> It is the same valid, ethical reason as breeding a Labrador (or any other dog)


It cannot be. That breed of dog (whichever breed you choose) already exists. The traits of that breed already exists. Crossing it with another breeds and risking goodness knows what is neither a valid nor an ethical reason.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> It cannot be. That breed of dog (whichever breed you choose) already exists. The traits of that breed already exists. Crossing it with another breeds and risking goodness knows what is neither a valid nor an ethical reason.


So what is/was the valid ethical reason for breeding Labradors?

"They already exist"...

... so the reason for crossbreeding is that

"They don't' already exist"

... these are just surreal.

So you continue to breed Labradors knowing they have hip problems. So a known health issue is Ok to keep breeding but (using methods not available when Labs were first bred and with the massive advances in veterinary science etc) now is the wrong time to cross or create new breeds??... surely not, surely the wrong time to create breeds was when it really was all guess work resulting in the issues we have now.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've said it before on this thread, the problem isn't going to go away, people like cross breeds, so you can either work with them, and educate them about health testing, temperament, conformation etc, or you can just cut them off. I see working with them as a better option


Again you assume who needs to be educated. The parent breeds and their breeders:

"I don't need to health test, the dogs are registered with the KC"

"I've been breeding for years"

"This breed has been around since the 17th century"

etc etc etc etc


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So if a cross inherits the poor conditions from the parents because years of breeding failed to address the issue....... who should stop breeding?
> 
> Your argument is that its OK to continue to breed "pedigree" dogs with health conditions?


good breeders are doing all they can to produce healthy dogs, my breed for example is very healthy! which is one of the reasons i chose it!...but all responsible breeders health test breeding stock if tests are recommended and they should have knowledge of the health of other dogs behind their lines...if a puppy did go on to develop a genetic condition how could they blame anyone?? they chose to breed the dog no one made them

so if a cross inherits a condition then its the breeders fault of course! lol


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I can't think of a valid and ethical reason. If I could - or if someone could present me with one - then I would be advocating crossbreeding. I just wondered if you could think of one - unlike someone else who shall remain nameless (  ) your posts are usually sensible and well thought out.


We are coming from complete opposite sides though.

See I agree with breeding for the pet market- but am wanting better breeding practices applied across the board.

I hate to see such discord I really do  the worlds bad enough without people arguing over whether crossbreeds should be bred.

See I stand up for what I believe in because I love my 2 and I know of others who have the same crosses and I would hate to think that people think they shouldn't be here.

I try and understand all about genetics and such like and try my hardest to sound like I'm talking some sense 

I don't think I can say anymore really :nonod:

Best leave to those with more knowledge and experience than me- although normally when I disappear you don't have many other crossbreed owners to debate with.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Again you assume who needs to be educated. The parent breeds and their breeders:
> 
> "I don't need to health test, the dogs are registered with the KC"
> 
> ...


It'd be easier to ignore you if you make sense?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So what is/was the valid ethical reason for breeding Labradors?
> 
> "They already exist"...
> 
> ...


Your argument is circular. You seem to be saying:

all pedigree breeds today are flawed
the flaws have come about through indiscriminate breeding
so we will start some more indiscriminate breeding

Following your argument, in 20 years time, we will end up with different "breeds" with just as many health problems as the original breeds.

Of course, the reality is far different. Apart from a very few breeds, most pedigree dogs are healthy and fit for function. Hence there is no need for any new indiscriminate crossbreeding at all.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> ooo-er - touched a nerve, did I?
> 
> You may not like it, but exploiting animals by breeding crosses with no thought of anything other than the profit that can be made out of the people that "want" them is every bit as despicable as exploiting people in the third world.


Your whole point is one big assumption. "by breeding crosses with no thought of any other than profit"... that's just your (baseless) point, A little conceited to use your own assumptions as a factual basis to another of your own arguments.

You really do live up to all that is bad about forums... can't produce a fact so try and tar the poster with some spurious accusation... "you like crossbreeds so you're responsible for the oppression of sub Saharan workers"... what a pack of old..... c****


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Your argument is circular. You seem to be saying:
> 
> all pedigree breeds today are flawed
> the flaws have come about through indiscriminate breeding
> ...


Sweeping old nonsense again... I didn't say anything of the sort but you know that.

"No need"... but you haven't given any valid, ethical reason for continuing to breed any dog.. the argument is why do you get the dogs you want (I stress want) but other have to obey your (self imposed and baseless) rules?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Following your argument, in 20 years time, we will end up with different "breeds" with just as many health problems as the original breeds.


But you still have breed that have the same health problems they've had since inception... so my argument is proved by history.

The big difference is that now (unlike when many of the current breeds were introduced) there is a wealth of science to help with healthy breeding. The fact that may breed clubs and the large parts of the KC oppose the use of these methods and will not even enforce them in breed standards, means that new breeds that do not suffer from such prejudice and protectionism, will benefit. The only thing stopping such progress towards better health is dogs is the Luddite attitude of a few.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It'd be easier to ignore you if you make sense?


Read it again slowly.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> good breeders are doing all they can to produce healthy dogs, my breed for example is very healthy! which is one of the reasons i chose it!...but all responsible breeders health test breeding stock if tests are recommended and they should have knowledge of the health of other dogs behind their lines...if a puppy did go on to develop a genetic condition how could they blame anyone?? they chose to breed the dog no one made them
> 
> so if a cross inherits a condition then its the breeders fault of course! lol


I wish this were true. Show me a breed standard that requires health testing.

But you're right on one point. Breeders breed because they want to, not because they need to.

All responsible breeders health test... including those who breed crosses. The trouble is that many of the health conditions are there , have been for generations and no one will do anything to stop them being bred.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The thing is, people have said throughout this thread, that there is an argument for cross breeding, I know you're not convinced, but neither are you particularly abusive or antagonistic in your views, just putting across the point as you see it, and your point of view has been eagerly riposted by those who are pro cross breeding. I do firmly sit in the middle, I think I'd rather see cross breeding done ethically if at all, and that's why I chuckle when members like Elmo post to try and discredit my point of view


What interests me is that, to date, I've not seen one constructive reason / explanation in favour of crossbreeding - it seems to me it's either "we want" or "we can" - when there are so many constructive arguments for not doing so.

If someone can put forward a valid argument, then I will be the first to listen and contrary to popular belief, can and have changed my views on things when a reasoned argument is presented.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> We are coming from complete opposite sides though.
> 
> See I agree with breeding for the pet market- but am wanting better breeding practices applied across the board.
> 
> ...


I don't think you should disappear - just because we have different views on this subject does not mean that either my views or your views are right. You have as much right to argue your point of view as I have to argue mine - and even though we are coming at this from diametrically opposed positions, it does not mean we cannot debate our point of view with each other. You never know, one of us just might come up with something that convinces the other  - and at the very least it is insightful to understand where people with different views are coming from.

And please don't take any of my remarks to mean your wonderful dogs shouldn't exist - none of this is about individual dogs, merely the ethos behind the breeding. I also happen to think that certain pedigree breeds need selective breeding in order to breed out some undesirable characteristics, but that does not mean that I think any of the existing dogs of those breeds should not be here.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Actually... I've done all this before. Hopefully as many people will listen to y'all as normally do...


.... hopefully people will be progressive and not regressive so we can move forward. Once the KC and the breed clubs are gone and we concentrate on health and not history then the dogs will benefit.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I don't think you should disappear - just because we have different views on this subject does not mean that either my views or your views are right. You have as much right to argue your point of view as I have to argue mine - and even though we are coming at this from diametrically opposed positions, it does not mean we cannot debate our point of view with each other. You never know, one of us just might come up with something that convinces the other  - and at the very least it is insightful to understand where people with different views are coming from.
> 
> And please don't take any of my remarks to mean your wonderful dogs shouldn't exist - none of this is about individual dogs, merely the ethos behind the breeding. I also happen to think that certain pedigree breeds need selective breeding in order to breed out some undesirable characteristics, but that does not mean that I think any of the existing dogs of those breeds should not be here.


I have been on this thread from the start and have run out of steam.....

Plus I'm really suffering with bad stomach pains -so much so I don't want my dinner :cryin:

But I don't feel I can contribute anything else to the debate- unless some new revelation appears 

I don't have anything against you hun- we may disagree on this subject but not to say we don't agree on other subjects.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Oh dear... all out of arguments again? You'd think the amount of time the little "group" had been working on this argument you'd have become quite good at it.


no you just seem to bring out the worst in me....'little group' who??!:lol:

doya know ive had some pretty heated debates with Sleepinglion but we've always kept it amicable and never held grudges, we just moved on....but i dont think you know how to get your point across without getting childish.

and as for Spellweaver i think ive agreed with pretty much everything on all sorts of subjects


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Your whole point is one big assumption. "by breeding crosses with no thought of any other than profit"... that's just your (baseless) point, A little conceited to use your own assumptions as a factual basis to another of your own arguments.
> 
> You really do live up to all that is bad about forums... can't produce a fact so try and tar the poster with some spurious accusation... "you like crossbreeds so you're responsible for the oppression of sub Saharan workers"... what a pack of old..... c****


:lol: :lol: :lol: Ah dear, it's funnier than "Mock the Week"! :lol :lol: :lol:

What can I say? Some people are intelligent enough to follow an argument, some are not ........... sorry you seem to be in the latter camp.

BTW - be as offensive as you want to be  - I won't be playing into your hands and reporting the thread so it gets closed. All you will achieve is making yourself look silly.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Actually... I've done all this before. Hopefully as many people will listen to y'all as normally do...
> 
> .... hopefully people will be progressive and not regressive so we can move forward. Once the KC and the breed clubs are gone and we concentrate on health and not history then the dogs will benefit.


how are you going to get rid of the KC and the breed clubs then? lol

my breeds is an ancient one..........and........ its healthy!!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But you still have breed that have the same health problems they've had since inception... so my argument is proved by history.
> 
> The big difference is that now (unlike when many of the current breeds were introduced) there is a wealth of science to help with healthy breeding. The fact that may breed clubs and the large parts of the KC oppose the use of these methods and will not even enforce them in breed standards, means that new breeds that do not suffer from such prejudice and protectionism, will benefit. The only thing stopping such progress towards better health is dogs is the Luddite attitude of a few.


Your ignorance of pedigree breeds, breed clubs, the kC and breed standards would be funny if it were not so appalling.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Actually... I've done all this before. Hopefully as many people will listen to y'all as normally do...
> 
> .... hopefully people will be progressive and not regressive so we can move forward. Once the KC and the breed clubs are gone and we concentrate on health and not history then the dogs will benefit.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Brilliant! What a comedian! Are you booked for the Edinburgh Festival yet?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> how are you going to get rid of the KC and the breed clubs then? lol
> 
> my breeds is an ancient one..........and........ its healthy!!!


Same as my breed (bergies) - been around for over 2000 years, and not one known health problem.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I wish this were true. Show me a breed standard that requires health testing.
> 
> But you're right on one point. Breeders breed because they want to, not because they need to.
> 
> All responsible breeders health test... including those who breed crosses. The trouble is that many of the health conditions are there , have been for generations and no one will do anything to stop them being bred.


1st sentence...i dont even know what you mean lol

without breeders who are passionate about our dog breeds we would lose them! and they they dont breed them for money to supply other people with pets either!

tbh if youre so against pedigrees because they have 'health conditions' why are you pro crossing them in the 1st place!....


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Read it again slowly.


See, stirring 



Elmo the Bear said:


> I wish this were true. Show me a breed standard that requires health testing.
> 
> But you're right on one point. Breeders breed because they want to, not because they need to.
> 
> All responsible breeders health test... including those who breed crosses. The trouble is that many of the health conditions are there , have been for generations and no one will do anything to stop them being bred.


Really, or is this just a post to justify your particular purchase of dogs? Are they all from health tested stock? Since you seem so keen on the subject, I'll post my parentage if you post yours 



Elmo the Bear said:


> Actually... I've done all this before. Hopefully as many people will listen to y'all as normally do...
> 
> .... hopefully people will be progressive and not regressive so we can move forward. Once the KC and the breed clubs are gone and we concentrate on health and not history then the dogs will benefit.


Ha! The most divise person I've met on this forum, and for some reason still allowed to be a member, wonder why that is.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I have not read the whole thread so sorry if I duplicate anything that has already been said.

My take on this is that there are arguments that can be raised on both sides.
The pedigree dog industry is very patchy in its quality. On one hand there are breeders who study pedigrees, chose the healthiest, best temperament dogs around and breed puppies that have the best chance of being healthy as regards current scientific thought.
Other breeders go through the health motions, though are not averse to using unhealthy animals as trial breedings in order to produce "better" animals as regards "type" or showing ability. They will happily closely inbreed and ignore huge COIs. They are aware of the risks but feel it is worth it "for the breed" - they can always sell the rejects as pets. 
Other breeders really do not understand health testing, so carry on regardless. They find out by trial and error and formulate "theories" as they continue to breed. Some of these theories are correct, others go onward for years with theories and some are very defensive when those theories are challenged no matter how wrong they may be. 
The bottom line is that breeders want to breed their dogs and if there is a get out clause that means they *can* breed an animal that others may consider a high risk, then many will take that risk as the alternative usually means a loss of money, or an unproductive dog taking up the space of a productive one.
Other breeders, breed "healthy" dogs with not a care in the world for health testing, they will argue black is white, when asked about the true health of their dogs, as none have had any heath issues whatsoever?????

The cross breed industry has all of the above types, but because there usually is little regulation of that industry then there tends to be more "amateurs", more people with a pet bitch who "needs" to have pups or whose bitch has had a happy accident with the dog next door, more people who are taken in by stories of great wealth generated by selling pups, more people who really do not know what they are doing as regards whelping, raising pups, health and the suitability of mates.

The motivations for selling pups on both sides can be similar, not all pedigree breeders are in it purely for the good of the breed and the dogs, and not all cross breeders are in it purely for the money, there is a good mix of all types of motivation on both sides.

I agree with Sleeping_lion, cross breeding is not going to stop any time soon, people like breeding cross breeds, they like the fact that a litter can have many different looks and colours, they like the cheapness of producing them, they are ecstatic when they can raise an elevated price for them with designer names. Pet owners like them as well as they are "healthier" than pedigree dogs??? They love the designer names and the rarity value and kudos that that generates. True mongrels can be bought very cheaply too and can make excellent dogs, so what is there not to like? 
Education of the general public and working with *all* breeders as regards health must be the way forward.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> tbh if youre so against pedigrees because they have 'health conditions' why are you pro crossing them in the 1st place!....


Yeah, If pedigree's are so messed up then why would you want to mix two messed up breeds?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Damn, gone quiet again,


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

wow has this thread moved on, and for once I canny be bothered to read it! aha :w00t: The only true FACT here is we all have different opinions, standards & morals - and we ALL lack knowledge in some areas.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> The common crossbreeds, like cockapoos, cavapoos, labradoodles, goldendoodles etc are fine IMO to breed responsibly (looking carefully at both parent's conformation, doing health tests where possible). However this random mixing of any breed which takes your fancy (bulldog x shih tzu, yorkie x poodle, staffy x GSD). IMO they are just not suited conformationally and sometimes temperament-wise. To breed such different breeds is immoral IMO, and shouldn't be done. Both breeds should be similar in size, shape and temperament and ideally, from the same group/background, such as springer x cocker.


Is it not true though that Labradoodle breeders are mating Labs to small poodles not Standard so how does that work conformation wise??


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Yeah, If pedigree's are so messed up then why would you want to mix two messed up breeds?


Exactly and the funny thing that a lot of Crossbreed owners that I know used to say " Well pet insurance is lower and that goes by health issues etc.." Cannot say that now lol as a quote for a doodle is far more than a quote for a crossbreed on some insurance sites


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Ok I'll give it a go...

Is there ever a reason to crossbreed?

Yes, because:
- The result of the crossbreeding is the perfect dog of choice for some people. Take the cockerpoo for instance. Mine have the intelligence and comedy of the poodle with the cheekiness and friendliness of the cocker spaniel. Plus they have non-shedding coats which are (a little) easier to care for than a poodle. My labradoodle sheds a little but nowhere near as much as a lab. And they're GORGEOUS!! In my opinion of course. 
- Crossbreeds widen the gene pool which can only be a good thing where some pedigrees are suffering from the impact of in-breeding. This is the main reason I wouldn't want doodles to be recognised by the KC, the 'breed' would have to breed true meaning no more first crosses. 
- If the demand is there why not meet it? Market forces govern just about everything else in life. 

I should add, the above is my opinion but it is qualified by saying that I only believe in crossbreeding where the conformation of both breeds makes them suitable for crossbreeding, that breeding is done ethically with health testing and contracts etc, and that only healthy dogs with good temperament are bred from. 

Right, now where's that tin hat...


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

580 replies  I am against any breeding at the moment! Even it all the pups are reserved - If anyone is planning the keep a full litter I could maybe change my mind.

But my reckoning is even if you are the most careful person in the world how can you ever be certain that you can stop any of you offspind being bred! and not everyone maybe has the standards and morals that you have!


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

freddies_mum said:


> Ok I'll give it a go...
> 
> Is there ever a reason to crossbreed?
> 
> ...


Reaching for my own tin hat..I am with you there! 

I have looked at all low to non shedding dogs including pedigrees and having met several Cockapoos locally I have decided that they are the right dog for my family situation. I completely adore them! 

I can't comment on gene pools but I also agree with your comments on breeding ethics.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> 1st sentence...i dont even know what you mean lol
> 
> without breeders who are passionate about our dog breeds we would lose them! and they they dont breed them for money to supply other people with pets either!
> 
> tbh if youre so against pedigrees because they have 'health conditions' why are you pro crossing them in the 1st place!....


so consequently potentially producing dogs with twice the problems!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> 580 replies  I am against any breeding at the moment! Even it all the pups are reserved - If anyone is planning the keep a full litter I could maybe change my mind.


Thats even worse, keeping a whole litter will just lead to welfare issues (with large litters!) cant give them all what they need, not enough hours within a day :hand:


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> 580 replies  I am against any breeding at the moment! Even it all the pups are reserved - If anyone is planning the keep a full litter I could maybe change my mind.
> 
> But my reckoning is even if you are the most careful person in the world how can you ever be certain that you can stop any of you offspind being bred! and not everyone maybe has the standards and morals that you have!


I agree with the breeding part. If the rescues and punds are so full to the brim at the moment, that healthy dogs are being PTS, I think there should be a temporary ban on breeding.

Additionally all litters of dogs should be registered and to breed, the breeder must sit a test.....after all you cannot drive a car without passing a test. In my mind bad breeding of dogs can be as dangerous if not done correctly and ethically.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

freddies_mum said:


> Ok I'll give it a go...
> 
> Is there ever a reason to crossbreed?
> 
> ...


Ok, I'll counter it, in a good hearted way 

* Cockers are already split into two types, which type would be suitable to be used for a cross breed? The working type, I'd argue, is healthier, but a bit of a handful, for pet homes. Sorry, but you can't guarantee a pup from a poodle cross will inherit a coat is as non shedding as a poodle, there is, of course, no such thing as a non shedding coat. If you want a gundog breed with a non-shedding coat, or as near as, go for a working bedlington 
* how do you know cross breeds widen any gene pool? Do you know how your breed came about that you plan to cross breed from? Many breeds were bred to type, and so are related, so the cross breed equals hybrid vigour is a myth, becuase they're usually already related.
* see my previous points about breeding cross breeds, it should be a proven combination, health tests, conformation and temperament taken inton account, then it may well start to gain some credibility 

Just my thoughts


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

- freddies_mum
Cross breeding can not produce the perfect dog in the true sense because when crossing you have no idea what you are going to get. not all poodles crosses are non shedding, and each pup from within the litter will take different traits from each parent/breed. Of course now that you own the dogs you find them 'perfect'..and so you should!
Meeting the demand is not an ethical reason to breed, fo pedigrees or crosses - not to me anyways..infact I think it can be one of the worst reason to breed..why breed to meet a demand, risking your own females life. Their dogs not a chocolate making factory.
widen the gene pool? but in the long run your not achieving anything, as you are not working towards anything. Plenty of pedigree breeders spend thousands doing such by importing dogs from overseas and the like. I think alot of people dont understand COI, line breeding and in breeding - hence such opinions on pedigree breeders - Im not saying it doesnt happen, breedes doing matings to close but its not as common as some would think.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Thats even worse, keeping a whole litter will just lead to welfare issues (with large litters!) cant give them all what they need, not enough hours within a day :hand:


This is a whole other thread DD, so not replying on this issue after this post,(shall stick to the topic - cross breeding) But no one will ever convince me100% that they can say that they can guarantee that none of the offspring they produce will of have been bred from!


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

*To sum up how I feel....*

Is there ever a reason to cross breed?

Of course loads of reasons depending on who you ask.
Acceptable reasons to me? Yes and no.

*Yes* to improve a breed already around. Although only if breed clubs were involved.

*No.*
Breeding for money and personal gain is selfish and breeding to supply a market is no better than a puppy farmer. I dont think looking at dogs as a product is acceptable...this product breaths and lives the choices you make as to which home it goes to will affect it for the rest of its life. Its not like supplying a new type of laptop that there is market for.

IF people had to wait for a pup from a decent breeder then it would widdle out those who see a pup in the park and 2 days later buy it with no idea about the breeds needs or temperament then either sell it on or leave it tied up in the garden because its to excited around the kids.

That's the way I look at it.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> This is a whole other thread DD, so not replying on this issue after this post,(shall stick to the topic - cross breeding) But no one will ever convince me100% that they can say that they can guarantee that none of the offspring they produce will of have been bred from!


I have'nt seen anyone try and say otherwise DT.. Breeders can only do so much, they are of course only human to.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> *To sum up how I feel....*
> 
> Is there ever a reason to cross breed?
> 
> ...


I hope you don't think we are all like that  Some of us do an awlful lot of research into our breeders. I am waiting until after Christmas for my puppy. It feels like a long time (especially for the kids!) but I know that it will be worth it in the long run.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Just to put that into context for you, I've been waiting over five years and may never take a litter from my girl, she has 0:0 hips, 0 elbows, and is genetically clear from pra and cnm. 

Some of us care incredibly about producing healthy pedigree pups, it's just others would like to skew those facts


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Some people want dogs with no hair, some people want dogs with hair that matts or that needs matting... some people want a dog with spots and some people want a dog with no tail....
> 
> ... all wants... not needs.


And you've just hit on the reason why I don't understand most crossbreeding and don't have time for it.

The list of 'wants' that you have given is not relevant to todays crossbreeding because these were not 'wants' in the same way - they were requirements because of the jobs that dogs had to do (the exception were perhaps companion/toy breeds) and these traits you list were not 'wants' as in desires, but necessary.

The thing I cannot understand about most crossbreeding is that there is no genuine purpose, only the desire to fulfill a market. Hence, I guess, why they have become known as 'designer' crosses, because that's what they are.
A mix of a bit of this and a bit of that because that's what the potential owners wants!
Compare that to the largest producer of crosses - the GBDA - they have real reasons (rather than just cosmetic desires) for wanting to produce a crossbreed. The lab/golden cross is there most successful cross and produces a taller dog than the popular labrador (important for taller people), it is more sensitive than the lab and so a pure golden benefits from the labrador temperament.... real reasons and thinking behind the breeding. TBH, if the labrador/poodle cross had been successful, I could certainly see the merits in producing a non-shedding assistance dog - sadly it wasn't.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I have'nt seen anyone try and say otherwise DT.. Breeders can only do so much, they are of course only human to.


Unfortunately DD - that is the prombem - many breeder these days arn't human - met one today!

In all honestly I do not have a great problem with those breeders who maybe have an occasional litter! It is those that are breeding to make a living that I am dead against! Togerhter with them that put anything with anything!! Maybe contridicted myself there - but there ia vast difference with folk jumping on the band wagon of the next populat breed!
Wonder what it will be next time?


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

sezra said:


> I hope you don't think we are all like that  Some of us do an awlful lot of research into our breeders. I am waiting until after Christmas for my puppy. It feels like a long time (especially for the kids!) but I know that it will be worth it in the long run.


I dont believe everyones like that BUT waiting for a pup would widdle out those who are.

Impulse buying is the worst kind of buying.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just to put that into context for you, I've been waiting over five years and may never take a litter from my girl, she has 0:0 hips, 0 elbows, and is genetically clear from pra and cnm.
> 
> Some of us care incredibly about producing healthy pedigree pups, it's just others would like to skew those facts


I think we should breed you SL - we could do with more breeders like you!


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> - freddies_mum
> Cross breeding can not produce the perfect dog in the true sense because when crossing you have no idea what you are going to get. not all poodles crosses are non shedding, and each pup from within the litter will take different traits from each parent/breed. Of course now that you own the dogs you find them 'perfect'..and so you should!
> Meeting the demand is not an ethical reason to breed, fo pedigrees or crosses - not to me anyways..infact I think it can be one of the worst reason to breed..why breed to meet a demand, risking your own females life. Their dogs not a chocolate making factory.
> widen the gene pool? but in the long run your not achieving anything, as you are not working towards anything. Plenty of pedigree breeders spend thousands doing such by importing dogs from overseas and the like. I think alot of people dont understand COI, line breeding and in breeding - hence such opinions on pedigree breeders - Im not saying it doesnt happen, breedes doing matings to close but its not as common as some would think.


First of all I have never said that doodles don't shed, it just so happens that my cockerpoos don't although my labradoodle does shed a little. In fact when I meet people and they ask what breed my dogs are, the second thing they often say is 'oh they don't moult do they?', and I'm afraid they then get a bit of a lecture about the non-shedding/hypoallergenic myth!

Secondly, I don't breed and don't ever intend to, so don't look at selecting a dog based on an aim for the future of a line - I want a dog to be part of my life so right for me in the here and now.

SL - my personal preference is a working cocker or working lab cross as I do agility with them.


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

freddies_mum said:


> SL - my personal preference is a working cocker or working lab cross as I do agility with them.


You can do agility with practically anything
Well ALMOST!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Show me a breed standard that requires health testing


How can a breed standard require health testing 

Do you even know what a breed standard is 

Anyone else getting a sense of 'deja-vu'


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> You can do agility with practically anything
> Well ALMOST!


perhaps we could do agility with you DT,,,,give you a dodgy perm....then off ya go!

we could go on next years britain has got talent! DT jumping through loops...


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Unfortunately DD - that is the prombem - many breeder these days arn't human - met one today!
> 
> In all honestly I do not have a great problem with those breeders who maybe have an occasional litter! It is those that are breeding to make a living that I am dead against! Togerhter with them that put anything with anything!! Maybe contridicted myself there - but there ia vast difference with folk jumping on the band wagon of the next populat breed!
> Wonder what it will be next time?


DT you dont stand alone not wanting to support them that breed for a living. But there is a need for breeders, and I must admitt I do get annoyed to read comment that 'no one should be breeding'..


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

gorgeous said:


> perhaps we could do agility with you DT,,,,give you a dodgy perm....then off ya go!
> 
> we could go on next years britain has got talent! DT jumping through loops...


You obviously missed me on the show this year then!


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> You obviously missed me on the show this year then!


are you on your prescription drugs, with all that eye rolling again? no never saw you on britains got talent, or was it you, the woman shaking her bells?:nono:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

freddies_mum said:


> First of all I have never said that doodles don't shed, it just so happens that my cockerpoos don't although my labradoodle does shed a little. In fact when I meet people and they ask what breed my dogs are, the second thing they often say is 'oh they don't moult do they?', and I'm afraid they then get a bit of a lecture about the non-shedding/hypoallergenic myth!
> 
> Secondly, I don't breed and don't ever intend to, so don't look at selecting a dog based on an aim for the future of a line - I want a dog to be part of my life so right for me in the here and now.
> 
> SL - my personal preference is a working cocker or working lab cross as I do agility with them.


Without sounding superior, the people I know, that have working cockers, would basically tell you ya don't know what you're talking about. Don't take that personally, I also don't know what I'm talking about, and after seeing working cockers worked, trained, competed with, I honestly hold my hands up and say bugga me (p0liktely); now that's not to say I don't know the first thing about training, give me a min if you like, and I'll upload the best formal present from a Lab you're likely to see 



rocco33 said:


> How can a breed standard require health testing
> 
> Do you even know what a breed standard is
> 
> Anyone else getting a sense of 'deja-vu'


Yep, de ja vu a plenty here............


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> DT you dont stand alone not wanting to support them that breed for a living. But there is a need for breeders, and I must admitt I do get annoyed to read comment that 'no one should be breeding'..


DD - I think that everyone has to admit that ANYONE breeding today needs to think long and hard . As is life there are exceptions in everything but yes , as a whole I am against breeding. take my breed for example - litters of nine plus is NOT unusual - I could NEVERpolicethe upbringing and welfare of that amount of putsfor their entire life should I choose to breed. Two years ago my views were a little different!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Anyone else getting a sense of 'deja-vu'


Yes me! i feel like im stuck in a time warp


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> DD - I think that everyone has to admit that ANYONE breeding today needs to think long and hard .


I dont disagree DT. But I have faith that theres plenty out there doing a fab job, and long may it continue.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Apart from breeding for service dogs, are there any other valid reasons at the moment to breed?

I am not being facetious just curious, just trying to understand why breeding is till occurring whilst so many healthy dogs are being pts on a daily basis.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I do think, especially when so many breeds are so similar, that a "breed" is an artificial construct anyway (my how humans just LOVE to put things in boxes) and we are all arguing about nothing here!

Hell, biologists have enough trouble trying to define and deliniate _species_ at times and we are all getting het up about breeds! I really, really don't see the difference between crossing two healthy specimens of two compatible and similar breeds and crossing two healthy specimens within a breed, other than human whims and bits of paper.

I do not believe that ANY dog, whatever it's parentage, should be treated as a means to an end or a commodity but it is inescapable that supply and demand do come into dog breeding and education about how to breed well, and select a breeder well is the only way forward. The way forward is not damning cross-breeders or pedegree breeders, it is _all_ breeders looking to breed dogs that are healthy, with good temperaments that are fit for purpose (working or pet).


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Hope that link has worked, but yes, what do you think would happen if everyone who cared about dogs stopped breeding?

This is Iddie, doing a formal retrieve, sort of, after all the previous posts about pedigrees, if anyone, can come up with a closer present than Iddie for a Labrador, I'll give them a free portrait from my art business


----------



## Guest (Jun 19, 2011)

gorgeous said:


> Apart from breeding for service dogs, are there any other valid reasons at the moment to breed?
> 
> I am not being facetious just curious, just trying to understand why breeding is till occurring whilst so many healthy dogs are being pts on a daily basis.


Thats where I am coming from!


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> I don't believe there is.
> 
> We have breeds of dogs which suit any purpose. So why would we need more?
> 
> Is it fair to our dogs in rescue to breed for no reason other than "because I want to"


This Is VERY dangerouse grounds and your thoughtliess comments will upset alot of people. Icluding cross breed owners..

What you forget to realise that ALL pedigrees are a result of cross breeding. Who are you to decided that no new breeds should be made? Take my dobe breed it's only 100 odd years old. Very young compared to some....

I think you should wind your neck in and apologise!!


----------



## hope (May 25, 2011)

im not into cross breed i personally think people shouldent but thats just my thoughts


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> But why on earth would u breed when so many need a home.
> 
> Truly don't get it


The majority of corsses in the resuce are staffie cross... so by your theory we shoudl just stop breeding staffies?? lets see how popular this makes u?! ?


----------



## Miss.PuddyCat (Jul 13, 2009)

Ill be honest in saying if I bet a breeder of a breed I was interested in and they said they would not be breeding for the next few years well Id honestly say depending on how common the breed was I would move onto another breeder (that was up to my standards in health and care).

Also Im honest when people ask me questions

Does she shed : its minimal but her coat does take daily up keep, if you let it go a day you've got knots 

She doesnt seem to be very energetic : Weve just been out for a few hours/for a day trip, been to a couple of garden centers/went to the beach for run in the water


----------



## Linden_Tree (Jan 6, 2011)

stigDarley said:


> This Is VERY dangerouse grounds and your thoughtliess comments will upset alot of people. Icluding cross breed owners..
> 
> What you forget to realise that ALL pedigrees are a result of cross breeding. Who are you to decided that no new breeds should be made? Take my dobe breed it's only 100 odd years old. Very young compared to some....
> 
> I think you should wind your neck in and apologise!!


But your Dobermann was created with a role in mind, unlike many of the newer breeds today. This is one of the reasons so many people are against crossbreeding, as very few breeds have a true purpose any more apart from showing which i personally don't feel is the only reason/justification for breed, and question why more need to be created.

As i have said previously, i have no problems with cross breeding, but i can see why people are against it and respect their opinions on the matter.

I don't see why GoodVic should apologise. They have an opinion that they are free to voice.

I see no reason to argue about it though, as neither side will ever give in, so its a constant stalemate that has ended up descending into chaos with snide remarks passing between the two factions.

I have pure breeds as i work my dogs, and i need a specific type thats able to do the job both mentally and physically, but also reliably.

Dogs are first and foremost companions these days, regardless of if they are shown and worked, and i feel thats justification enough to breed. We hardly need working breeds these days, so the preservation of them is not as vital as it once was.

Of course it would be a shame if we lost them, but many many breeds have died out over the years, or evolved into others and the world has continued to revolve and life has gone on.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

stigDarley said:


> The majority of corsses in the resuce are staffie cross... so by your theory we shoudl just stop breeding staffies?? lets see how popular this makes u?! ?


well i for one think this would be an excellent idea!,...... if only the best staffy breeders bred, those who only breed occasionally to further their lines, who health test, who protect pups with endorsements and contracts then the staffy rescue crisis would be solved!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

So, no-one can beat Indie for a formal present, not that I'm surprised!!!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Now Noushka, make them rules first and foremost, Iddie b wil have to live up to your expecatations, not the other way around


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, I'll counter it, in a good hearted way
> 
> * Cockers are already split into two types, which type would be suitable to be used for a cross breed? The working type, I'd argue, is healthier, but a bit of a handful, for pet homes. Sorry, but you can't guarantee a pup from a poodle cross will inherit a coat is as non shedding as a poodle, there is, of course, no such thing as a non shedding coat. If you want a gundog breed with a non-shedding coat, or as near as, go for a working bedlington
> * how do you know cross breeds widen any gene pool? Do you know how your breed came about that you plan to cross breed from? Many breeds were bred to type, and so are related, so the cross breed equals hybrid vigour is a myth, becuase they're usually already related.
> ...


It's interesting you mention that, I see no point in crossing show type cockers with working type cockers even though the resulting pups would still be cockers. I would be against anyone using working cockers to produce puppies for the pet market as they aren't usually suitable for your average pet home :001_smile:.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Cay said:


> I see no point in crossing show type cockers with working type cockers even though the resulting pups would still be cockers. I would be against anyone using working cockers to produce puppies for the pet market as they aren't usually suitable for your average pet home :001_smile:.


So - are show cockers purely bred to be walked round a ring and to be pets? If the working cockers do the work, what are the show cockers bred for?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

This thread has had over 9k views


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Phew, this has taken some reading!




Devil-Dogz said:


> This is what annoys me, no one thinks this and its sad that people try and make us that disagree with certain things look like we have said such! dogs are dogs, we are all dog lovers - hence we all have strong opinions on whats wrong and right..we cant all agree, but we also cant put words in others mouths.


 
Saying that Id dump my dog in a rescue if he had problems because he is a cross and therefore I dont care enough about him is bang out of order. I do find it a slate on me as an owner and my dog to be bluntly honest with you. Hes no more worse behaved (or better behaved either for that matter) than any other dog in the world, in fact hes probably better behaved than a fair few because Ive worked hard with him.

Saying I didnt care enough to pay more money for a pedigree is bang out of order too. He may have only cost me £75 in total, but hes priceless to me and no one has the right to tell me otherwise, regardless of his breeding.

This has been inferred and said on this thread (not by you) and it gets my goat. Im sorry you feel the way you have said above. Im not making you try and disagree with anything, thats your opinion, but it is certainly how I feel Im being made to feel about my dog. People have said on here that crosses have no purpose? That crosses are ill bred? So how exactly am I meant to feel then, reading stuff like this?




Colette said:


> Before I get myself lynched, I want to clarify the point I'm (very badly) trying to make - does it matter if crossbreeds serve no obvious purpose other than being cute pets? Does it matter if some people don't see the point of them?





Colette said:


> I don't think it does.
> 
> How many pedigrees are bought for the purpose they are designed for? MOST dogs in the UK are kept for companionship - and many breeds are obsolete in terms of their original function.




Very well said and my argument to a lot on here. How many of your sheep dogs are used as sheep dogs, day in day out? Gun dogs as gun dogs? Dalmations that run at the side of carriages? Least my little westie x JRT does his job at my yard, ratting! (Id like to add that Harvey doesbut he tries to and then runs away)

You are also bang on with your comments, some people do breed for the wrong reasons, be it crosses and pedigrees a like. And I object strongly to the stupid idiots that are crossing dogs that are going to completely throw up something ridiculous. Ive never claimed otherwise. But like you, when the cross is something that works, and is done responsibly, then why not?




shetlandlover said:


> Shelties rehomed:





shetlandlover said:


> 2010: 25
> 2009: 28
> 2008: 32




What about the last 2 years, just out of interest. The numbers seem to be increasing there so be interesting to see if that carried on.

And that says rehomed, what about the ones still in shelter waiting?

At the end of the day you can be as ethical as possible and do all teh right things, the reason you are breeding is because you WANT to. WANT to better the breed, WANT a pup for yourself, WANT to produce a litter of show quality pups.

You WANT to do all of those things. To me doesn't make them any more valid a reason than someone WANTING to produce a litter of cared for, loved pups for pet homes.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> How many of your sheep dogs are used as sheep dogs, day in day out? Gun dogs as gun dogs? Dalmations that run at the side of carriages?


This is exactly what I was trying to get at when I asked about show cockers in my post above.


----------



## James Eade (May 16, 2011)

Well should pure bred dogs be bred anymore?

You say we already have pure breds for almost everything, But how many of you on here can honestly say that you use your dog for the purpose it was bred for. I'm guessing a very small percentage at best!

So that means your dog is for companionship, general excercise / play etc.

There is nothing wrong with responsible breeders breeding crosses tbh, of course key word being responsible.

Furthermore people should stop acting like its just crosses in Rescues, there are Plenty of pure breds in there also.

All dogs have been cross bred somewhere down the line!

Also yeah we do have dogs for pretty much everything now, But we have for a long time, But sometimes these can be improved.

Sibes used to be the fastest sled pulling dogs out there, until someone started crossing them and now we have alaskan Huskies (which isn't a breed, just sort of general Husky Mix) and the top Alaskan Huskies are now the fastest sled pulling dogs.

Theres also a fair few pure breds that were bred for the same purpose, just at different times or in different countries.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

James Eade said:


> Well should pure bred dogs be bred anymore?
> 
> You say we already have pure breds for almost everything, But how many of you on here can honestly say that you use your dog for the purpose it was bred for. I'm guessing a very small percentage at best!
> 
> ...


 i run my sibes in harness

Alaskan huskies are bred for a purpose, breeders dont just throw random dogs together they are bred with care and knowledge to produce good workers, they are faster than sibes but are not as resiliant to the arctic weather as the sibe, i dont consider them an improvement...just faster for racing!....and many show sibes are still worked. In this country sibes compete in rallys from october to march because its cooler , they cant do the distance theyre capable of again because temperatures arnt low enough and they would over heat.

and im sure everyone knows rescues are also full of pedigrees its been said plenty of times on this thread alone....but the vast majority of these pedigrees are again bred by folk breeding to supply the pet market


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Regarding valid and "Ethical" debate that has had no clear answers form either side that seems to actually answer the question.

I don't think it ever will be answered.

Everyone has their own interpretation on what they class as valid or ethical and that doesn't mean to say that one is more right than another.

At the end of the day all breeders breed dogs to supply people with pets whether they remain solely as companions or do a job such a service dogs or if people want to pursue a hobby such as "showing". I think all of you have stated at one time or another that your dogs are companions first.

As long as you the buyer feel that your breeder has met your requirements and standards then other's opinions are just that opinions. If some-one else doesn't agree with you then that's there opinion doesn't mean it's right though.

Regarding hybrid vigour:

I have very very very limited genetic experience so please bear with me on this.

The health problems we commonly test for such as PRA and HD how did they come about?

I know that certain breeds are more disposed to getting certain conditions over others. How did this happen? 

Did the inbreeding/ using restricted gene pools that has been done over time cause any of this?

If you randomly took one not health tested lab and mated with another you are doubling the chances that the offspring will either be born with a X condition or a carrier of X condition?

If you took same lab and crossed it with a breed that wasn't disposed to X condition then the offspring has the chance of either not having it or be a carrier? ( is that right?)

So is this where hybrid vigour comes in? If you are mating two different breeds that are not prone to the same predisposed conditions you weaken the chances of their offspring inheriting the faulty gene?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i run my sibes in harness
> 
> Alaskan huskies are bred for a purpose, breeders dont just throw random dogs together they are bred with care and knowledge to produce good workers, they are faster than sibes but are not as resiliant to the arctic weather as the sibe, i dont consider them an improvement...just faster for racing!....and many show sibes are still worked. In this country sibes compete in rallys from october to march because its cooler , they cant do the distance theyre capable of again because temperatures arnt low enough and they would over heat.
> 
> and im sure everyone knows rescues are also full of pedigrees its been said plenty of times on this thread alone....but the vast majority of these pedigrees are again bred by folk breeding to supply the pet market


I thought Alaskan huskies were crossbreeds? were they not thought to be cross of a huskie, Red setter and wolf???

They are bred as you say for the purpose of pulling sleds and racing sleds.
I see pulling sleds in Cold climate countries to be a necessary but the racing more of a hobby.

I think all dogs are bred for purpose and don't see breeding a dog for a pet to be any lesser a reason than one bred for racing for example.

Like I said we all have our own opinions and what one sees as a reason is different to anothers- doesn't mean to say that either one is wrong just _different _


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> So - are show cockers purely bred to be walked round a ring and to be pets? If the working cockers do the work, what are the show cockers bred for?


Show types can work, it's just that the people who get a dog to work go for the working types as they want to be fairly sure that the dog is going to do what they want it to. One of our pups has done gundog training. Show types are bred to look and act in a certain way, or at least they should be, most aren't. They haven't got the intense drive that working cockers should be bred to have. By mixing the two types you can't predict how the pups are going to turn out, you would need to find enough people who are prepared for their dog to be anything from really calm and not requiring much exercise to high energy and needing a lot of exercise .


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> But how many of you on here can honestly say that you use your dog for the purpose it was bred for.


Yes, mine are and you'd be surprised how many gundog are used in the UK. The sport is a popular one in all the different forms it takes.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Saying that I'd dump my dog in a rescue if he had problems because he is a cross and therefore I don't care enough about him is bang out of order. I do find it a slate on me as an owner and my dog to be bluntly honest with you. He's no more worse behaved (or better behaved either for that matter) than any other dog in the world, in fact he's probably better behaved than a fair few because I've worked hard with him.
> 
> Saying I didn't care enough to pay more money for a pedigree is bang out of order too. He may have only cost me £75 in total, but he's priceless to me and no one has the right to tell me otherwise, regardless of his breeding.
> 
> This has been inferred and said on this thread (not by you) and it gets my goat. I'm sorry you feel the way you have said above. I'm not making you try and disagree with anything, that's your opinion, but it is certainly how I feel I'm being made to feel about my dog. People have said on here that crosses have no purpose? That crosses are ill bred? So how exactly am I meant to feel then, reading stuff like this?


I would happen to agree with you, I havent myself seen anyone be personal. I understand that people choose to own cross breeds for various reason, and that I can accept, agreeing with the breeding of them or not..however I do not see a need to slate the owners 'unless' they knowingly choose so support a not so good breeder, same could be said for anyone buying a pedigree though.

I do get annoyed with people saying that pedigree owners/breeders are snobs and the like! My first dog was a rescued JRT. £100 we paid for her. I dont love her any less that my pedigree show lad.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

James Eade said:


> But how many of you on here can honestly say that you use your dog for the purpose it was bred for.


well we sure can say that our wee ones are still used for 'one' of their original purposes... 
Ill make it two...shall let you know how they taste in a few years :hand:


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> What about the last 2 years, just out of interest. The numbers seem to be increasing there so be interesting to see if that carried on.


Where are they increasing?



> 2010: 25
> 2009: 28
> 2008: 32


Also what about the last two years? Its 2011, they cant have the total count for the year because the years not over yet.

The Shetland sheepdog rescue take any Shelties in any rescues into their own rescue due to their waiting list of people wanting a sheltie.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

luvmydogs said:


> So - are show cockers purely bred to be walked round a ring and to be pets? If the working cockers do the work, what are the show cockers bred for?


 I think they must only have been bred as pets!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

sezra said:


> I think they must only have been bred as pets!


God breeding for only pets- who ever thought that would be a good reason 

Come on who was the bright spark who thought that dogs would make good companions and not just used to assist man in some of his pursuits?

Or more than likely they evolved into this- just like anything the world moves on... society changes......... people want different dogs.........

I wonder what dogs will still be here in the next hundred years or so?

Or will people still be having : regular crossbreeds V pedigrees debates :w00t:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Where are they increasing?
> 
> Also what about the last two years? Its 2011, they cant have the total count for the year because the years not over yet.
> 
> The Shetland sheepdog rescue take any Shelties in any rescues into their own rescue due to their waiting list of people wanting a sheltie.


These stats are they just from one rescue?

What about the numbers in other rescues or sadly those that have been PTS?

Also you need to look at the popularity of the breed. Comparing a dog that is not a popular breed rehoming stats with another's that is would give a false impression.

In isolation the stats are good but for me I would need to see that as a % of Shelties bred.

Can you provide that info ?


----------



## James Eade (May 16, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> God breeding for only pets- who ever thought that would be a good reason
> 
> Come on who was the bright spark who thought that dogs would make good companions and not just used to assist man in some of his pursuits?
> 
> ...


Haha of course there will still be the debate.

though by then half of the crossbreeds now will be considered pure breeds by then!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

James Eade said:


> Haha of course there will still be the debate.
> 
> though by then half of the crossbreeds now will be considered pure breeds by then!


Yep and so the cycle continues and then to replace the crosses that became pures along comes more crosses 

Hey isn't this how dog breeds all started!!! :lol::lol:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

James Eade said:


> Haha of course there will still be the debate.
> 
> though by then half of the crossbreeds now will be considered pure breeds by then!


how will they?? for a start the majority of them being bred are F1 crosses


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Not sure where you get the idea from that Labradors started off at 15 - their average was very low in the early days (around 8) and then rose before it fell as the number of dogs being scored started to increase.
> 
> *The more dogs scored, the more representative of a breed the figure *becomes - there are over 70,000 Labradors hipscored - around *17,800* of those in the last *3 years* as compared to *603 Lab x Poodles in total.*
> 
> ...




I got the 15 from Sleeping lions post.

For the bold: Exactly and you have answered your own question.

How on earth can it be comparable when the numbers are low for labradoodles and that labs have been studied for 3 years allowing the BMS to level out after periods of fluctuations.

You also can not only compare the labs for this you would also need to take into consideration the poodle part.

You will also need to take into account how reliable the method of diagnosis was- since you have said before that it depends on who is doing the x-rays with the plates etc... I think you have said in the past that it can be manipulated? ( may be wrong)

Also HD is not solely contributed to hereditary but also environmental factors. So how much of these findings is down to the actual dog and not the breeding practices and how it may be raised?

If an inexperienced owner for example put untold stress on a young pups joints?

Do a study now of x amount of labs compared with labradoodles and that would be a fair comparison.

A 3yr study of 95k labs with 600 odd labradoodles IMO isn't.

And also one whose evidence is collected from not completely reliable methods isn't really basis IMO to suddenly announce that labradoodles are unhealthy in comparison to their parents.

The best it does is given an indication and allows breeders to address their breeding practices and select the best breeding dogs.


----------



## James Eade (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> how will they?? for a start the majority of them being bred are F1 crosses


I was kidding! 

But some will inevitably will I guess, some crosses are now a recognised breed now.

and at one point or another all dogs were crossed at some point!


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> These stats are they just from one rescue?
> What about the numbers in other rescues or sadly those that have been PTS?


Those stats are for the rescue which is all the sheltie rescues in the UK. Whenever a sheltie comes into a rescue (that is not a club rescue) the club rescue will either take the dog on or work with the rescue to get it a home. As far as I know no Shetland sheepdogs have been put to sleep in rescues unless seriously ill or hurt.

I shall get the rescue lady to come on and tell you the exact way they work things if you like.

Infact a member on here PM'd me a few months ago about a sheltie that had landed in a rescue in London, one of those stray rescues. I went to the Club rescue who were very active and contacted the rescue straight away. The stray rescue refused to hand over the dog despite the club having a waiting list as long as its arm for people wanting a rescue sheltie. Within a day of being advertised on the stray site the Sheltie had found a home which the breed club ensured was vetted correctly.

Our breed rescue is very very active. As are the many members of teh club themselves who will take in a rescue dog from the rescues and drive them to the breed rescue.

I can point them this way too if you like.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I thought Alaskan huskies were crossbreeds? were they not thought to be cross of a huskie, Red setter and wolf???
> 
> They are bred as you say for the purpose of pulling sleds and racing sleds.
> I see pulling sleds in Cold climate countries to be a necessary but the racing more of a hobby.
> ...


they are a crossbreed often my other breed the GSP is behind the mix...i dont think many will have been crossed with wolves tho, there arnt many AH's over here but they were/are bred to race...its a sport.

as ive said before to me its not ethical to breed an animal for money to supply other folk with pets, there has to be a real reason imo its such a massive responsibility....seems to me that many people are looking at their pets with £££ signs in their eyes these days.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

James Eade said:


> I was kidding!
> 
> But some will inevitably will I guess, some crosses are now a recognised breed now.
> 
> and at one point or another all dogs were crossed at some point!


you need folk with an aim who breed to a standard before the KC will consider recognising them....so i cant see it happening with the 'designer' breeds somehow!

wellmy breed is Ancient,natural and healthy!...shame some think it better to cross it with anything and everthing!....just to line their pockets:nonod:


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> t...seems to me that many people are looking at their pets with £££ signs in their eyes these days.


I think that is sadly very true. Say twenty years ago, most of the people who had a litter were those either breeding to improve their line or owners with an accidental litter.

I used to get many calls from people looking for rescue places for their mongrel puppies ... now they will sell them online ... they want the £££'s 

As far as I can remember, it was pretty rare to get people having litters from their pets, but in those days a crossbreed was simply "just" another mongrel. People were not clambouring for them ... though of course cute puppies ... human nature being what it is, were always easier to re-home.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> wellmy breed is Ancient,natural and healthy!...shame some think it better to cross it with anything and everthing!....just to line their pockets:nonod:


Mine too. And I just actually thought about what if that happened to by breed - I would be mortified.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> I think that is sadly very true. Say twenty years ago, most of the people who had a litter were those either breeding to improve their line or owners with an accidental litter.
> 
> I used to get many calls from people looking for rescue places for their mongrel puppies ... now they will sell them online ... they want the £££'s
> 
> As far as I can remember, it was pretty rare to get people having litters from their pets, but in those days a crossbreed was simply "just" another mongrel. People were not clambouring for them ... though of course cute puppies ... human nature being what it is, were always easier to re-home.


That coupled with impulse buying.....its a disaster waiting to happen.

My OH's parents have a friend who wanted a sheltie, after saying that we cant say we will have a litter to give them and saying that we would not allow a pup to go to them without them re-searching correctly (they said they wanted a small collie type...) they went out the next day and bought a labradoodle.....why? Because they could ring and go get it.

This is what breeders should stop...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

luvmydogs said:


> Mine too. And I just actually thought about what if that happened to by breed - I would be mortified.


i know you would, because i can tell how passionate you are about your breed


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Those stats are for the rescue which is all the sheltie rescues in the UK. Whenever a sheltie comes into a rescue (that is not a club rescue) the club rescue will either take the dog on or work with the rescue to get it a home. As far as I know no Shetland sheepdogs have been put to sleep in rescues unless seriously ill or hurt.
> 
> I shall get the rescue lady to come on and tell you the exact way they work things if you like.
> 
> ...


Yes you can if you want.
Or alternatively you can just provide the stats to show % of rescues compared to those bred.

The point I was making which you have not addressed is not the working of the Sheltie Rescue but that in providing figures like you have demonstrates that Shelties rehomed is small but that does attribute to it being less of a popular breed than others.

I'm sure lots of the less popular breeds can provide the same stats.

I agree that you don't see Shelties in rescues but is that based on the amount being bred?

If they were more popular I daresay you would see more in rescues.


----------



## James Eade (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> they are a crossbreed often my other breed the GSP is behind the mix...i dont think many will have been crossed with wolves tho, there arnt many AH's over here but they were/are bred to race...its a sport.


This is what Wiki says: "The Alaskan husky is not a breed of dog rather it is a type or a category. It falls short of being a breed in that there is no preferred type of and no restriction as to ancestry; it is defined only by its purpose, which is that of a highly efficient sled dog. "

So yeah its sort of a cross breed, but a cross of no specific breeds as such


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

James Eade said:


> This is what Wiki says: "The Alaskan husky is not a breed of dog rather it is a type or a category. It falls short of being a breed in that there is no preferred type of and no restriction as to ancestry; it is defined only by its purpose, which is that of a highly efficient sled dog. "
> 
> So yeah its sort of a cross breed, but a cross of no specific breeds as such


I only looked briefly and found this:

As is evident from the name of this breed of dog, Alaska, in the United States, is where it originates. The Alaskan Husky was bred for pulling the sled as well as sled racing. They are thought to be a crossbreed of huskies, Irish Setters, and wolves. One of main characteristics of the Alaskan Husky is its speed. The Husky dates a long way back, with the North American natives using them as sled dogs since time immemorial.

The Alaskan Husky, however, is categorized amongst the group known as Working Dogs, and is not registered at present by the American Kennel Club, or AKC, and hence is classified in the dogs termed as Unrecognized and Rare Breeds.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

James Eade said:


> This is what Wiki says: "The Alaskan husky is not a breed of dog rather it is a type or a category. It falls short of being a breed in that there is no preferred type of and no restriction as to ancestry; it is defined only by its purpose, which is that of a highly efficient sled dog. "
> 
> So yeah its sort of a cross breed, but a cross of no specific breeds as such


altho wiki aint very reliable lol....i do know they use different breeds in the mix, but you'll find that the kennels that breed them know exactly what theyre aiming for and know the ancestry of the dogs...they dont just breed hapazardly.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes you can if you want.
> Or alternatively you can just provide the stats to show % of rescues compared to those bred.
> 
> The point I was making which you have not addressed is not the working of the Sheltie Rescue but that in providing figures like you have demonstrates that Shelties rehomed is small but that does attribute to it being less of a popular breed than others.
> ...


I am not saying that if they became an over night sensation they would not be blocking up rescues but the way it is is that the shetlie rescue deals with any needing homes. (infact some fo the top sheltie breeders have a rescue dog or two).

I shall try get some numbers on how many have been bred, as I dont have them I will speak to a good friend who no doubt does.

Breeders are careful who their pups go to. Because of that they are more likely to be placed in forever homes and every breeder I have met makes a contract that makes it clear the dog should come back to them if anything goes wrong.

Because the breed is a rather small breed IF a dog is being sold and other breeders pick up on it they will tell the breeder. I have seen MANY pay alot of money to get their pups back.

When I got Alaska I was questioned by email, I then went to visit and was questioned to within an inch of my life, I then put down money which I wouldnt get back if I pulled out, I then was given email's weekly with pictures and rang once a week as well as given 2 books to read while waiting for her to reach 8 weeks. Then we picked her up. I signed her contract, she drove with us to the vet near her house where she watched us vaccinate and chip adn worm Alaska.

With Kai, he was already fairly older (14 weeks I think) but I had a 3 and a half hour phone convo with his breeder went to get him and had another 2 hour convo she also asked for the details of Alaska's breeder to get reference.

Aiden....met his breeder at a show. She questioned me at the show as I didnt even know I wanted another but she asked me about them anyway. A few months later she called to say she had a litter and she wanted me to have one. She questioned me for a good two hours that night and exchanged emails with me everyday twice a day until it was time to get him. We still email weekly and we pass puppy enquires on to each other and meet at shows. She is a wonderful woman.

I think because of the breeders being so loving and helpful is the reason there is not a rescue problem with shelties.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I am not saying that if they became an over night sensation they would not be blocking up rescues but the way it is is that the shetlie rescue deals with any needing homes. (infact some fo the top sheltie breeders have a rescue dog or two).
> 
> I shall try get some numbers on how many have been bred, as I dont have them I will speak to a good friend who no doubt does.
> 
> ...


I totally agree Emma there is no problems with Shelties in rescues.

No way am I knocking your dogs- just saying that as stats when making rescue comparisions a breed not so popular will obviously show less figures then say Staffies for example.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> altho wiki aint very reliable lol....i do know they use different breeds in the mix, but you'll find that the kennels that breed them know exactly what theyre aiming for and know the ancestry of the dogs...they dont just breed hapazardly.


 What breeds are in your dogs mix?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I only looked briefly and found this:
> 
> As is evident from the name of this breed of dog, Alaska, in the United States, is where it originates. The Alaskan Husky was bred for pulling the sled as well as sled racing. They are thought to be a crossbreed of huskies, Irish Setters, and wolves. One of main characteristics of the Alaskan Husky is its speed. The Husky dates a long way back, with the North American natives using them as sled dogs since time immemorial.
> 
> The Alaskan Husky, however, is categorized amongst the group known as Working Dogs, and is not registered at present by the American Kennel Club, or AKC, and hence is classified in the dogs termed as Unrecognized and Rare Breeds.


i dont believe any modern day AH breeders use wolves and i wouldnt have thought even Irish setters?? the GSP seems popular because of their power,speed and stamina, but im not sure if breeders mostly keep to the Alaskan type these days, but then again they dont breed for looks its all about speed and endurance, hope Raindog sees this thread i think he's quite knowledgable on all things sled dog


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> altho wiki aint very reliable lol...


Thats true. The page for the English Shepherd says its country of origin is USA - which is rubbish. I keep changing it but they keep changing it back.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I totally agree Emma there is no problems with Shelties in rescues.
> 
> No way am I knocking your dogs- just saying that as stats when making rescue comparisions a breed not so popular will obviously show less figures then say Staffies for example.


The stat's where not to compare, Gary asked what the difference is between me and him and stated that we were both still creating more dogs. The rescue stats where one of the points I was putting across which was that the staff x dogs he has been breeding are the same type in rescues all over the UK and by breeding and selling the way he is (who evers got the money can have a pup) he is adding to the staff crisis.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i dont believe any modern day AH breeders use wolves and i wouldnt have thought even Irish setters?? the GSP seems popular because of their power,speed and stamina, but im not sure if breeders mostly keep to the Alaskan type these days, but then again they dont breed for looks its all about speed and stamina, hope Raindog sees this thread i think he's quite knowledgable on all things sled dog


I know I wondered about the Setter?? but as I said it does say thought....

Maybe no-one really knows for sure??? mind you if we all digged deep I bet a lot of breeds would have surprising ancestors.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> What breeds are in your dogs mix?


my breed is primitive possibly older than 3,000 years old.. and originates from the sled dogs used by the Chukchi people


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> The stat's where not to compare, Gary asked what the difference is between me and him and stated that we were both still creating more dogs. The rescue stats where one of the points I was putting across which was that the staff x dogs he has been breeding are the same type in rescues all over the UK and by breeding and selling the way he is (who evers got the money can have a pup) he is adding to the staff crisis.


I think the difference between him and you is that you are putting a lot of thought and wanting to do the best by your dogs by getting them health tested etc.. and vetting homes and he is producing a variety of crosses which even to me some of them make me go


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

luvmydogs said:


> Thats true. The page for the English Shepherd says its country of origin is USA - which is rubbish. I keep changing it but they keep changing it back.


omg how flippin annoying!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> my breed is primitive possibly older than 3,000 years old.. and originates from the sled dogs used by the Chukchi people


Oh shame you don't know what's in the mix yours might be the setter 

So on another post you said that certain kennels use different mixes- so depends on what kennel you use you get a different mix?

How fascinating!!!

Is there rivalry between the kennels? or do one kennel think their mix of breeds is better at producing the Alaskan Husky than another's?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Oh shame you don't know what's in the mix yours might be the setter
> 
> So on another post you said that certain kennels use different mixes- so depends on what kennel you use you get a different mix?
> 
> ...


no setters are far too young a breed to be in my dogs history, tbh i dont think sibes will have changed to much since they branched off from the wolf and became domesticated,they still have a very natural appearance much like wild canids of the Northern hemisphere.

tbh i dont know that much about Alaskans but i would think different kennels still use different breeds like hounds and GSP's...and yes there is great rivalry to breed and run the best teams...tis a very competative sport indeed


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

I think red setters are in the make up of golden retrievers?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

gorgeous said:


> I think red setters are in the make up of golden retrievers?


Was it not tweed spaniel and flat coat and then various other retriever breeds between the wars when they allowed interbreeding?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

gorgeous said:


> I think red setters are in the make up of golden retrievers?


oh i didnt realise that, Goldies do have a similar coat type to them dont they....and a kind gentle expression like them aswell


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> Was it not tweed spaniel and flat coat and then various other retriever breeds between the wars when they allowed interbreeding?


Definitely Red setter in their make up...

The Red Golden Retriever


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Red setters are beautiful and very elegant. 
Sometimes though they look sad 

You don't see many about really? well I haven't.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

That was interesting reading


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> That was interesting reading


I have a number of Golden Retriever books and found learnign baout their history really interesting


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> oh i didnt realise that, Goldies do have a similar coat type to them dont they....and a kind gentle expression like them aswell


They do have similar expressions yes, I have not ever met a REd Setter in the flesh and it would be good to do so...to compare lol


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> I think that is sadly very true. Say twenty years ago, most of the people who had a litter were those either breeding to improve their line or owners with an accidental litter.
> 
> I used to get many calls from people looking for rescue places for their mongrel puppies ... now they will sell them online ... they want the £££'s
> 
> As far as I can remember, it was pretty rare to get people having litters from their pets, but in those days a crossbreed was simply "just" another mongrel. People were not clambouring for them ... though of course cute puppies ... human nature being what it is, were always easier to re-home.


I don't really remember rescues years ago apart from large ones like Battersea.

Think those days most people got their dogs by knowing some-one who had bred their pet dog more often than not by accident or ignorance

But things change: pedigrees got cheaper and therefore more accessible to people and crossbreeding then became a match between two pedigrees rather than your dog having it's wicked way with all and sundry and producing baby heinz 57's with no idea who was the daddy.

In all honestly being a dog owner is a minefield.

Sometimes I think we can get too much info and often it's conflicting.

Maybe the older days were better? hmmm


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Hey isn't this how dog breeds all started!!!


No not at all. Most breeds came from 'types' of dogs that had traits that evolved due to their environment.

As it happens, there would be no cross breeds without pedigrees so cross breed breeders /owners rely on pedigree breeders for their dogs.

If some of the cross breeding practices that we see today were to continue (crossing any dog with any dog) or, dogs were simply allowed to breed indiscriminately, we would eventually end up with only one kind of dog - a medium sized dog, probably similar to the dingo or african wild dog - the only variations being colour. Not much choice then eh


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

James Eade said:


> I was kidding!
> 
> But some will inevitably will I guess, some crosses are now a recognised breed now.


Really?? Which ones?


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

Maybe the sheltie rescues should check preloved. I wish I hadnt looked. This poor mite is 'open to offers' (presumably from puppy farms given the write-up). :nonod:

"My lovely old Male Sheltie needs a kind pet home, where he can enjoy more attention than I can give him. He is 10 years old and in very good health. He is fed on a Barf diet, raw tripe and red meat mix, herbal biscuits and cod liver oil. He is eye clear and has a low hip score".

Preloved | sable and white shetland sheepdog for sale in Ledbury, Herefordshire, UK


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> wellmy breed is Ancient,natural and healthy!...shame some think it better to cross it with anything and everthing!....just to line their pockets:nonod:





luvmydogs said:


> Mine too. And I just actually thought about what if that happened to by breed - I would be mortified.


Have to agree with you two. My breed (the bergamasco) is over 2000 years old and is virtually unchanged since then - not surprisingly, it is a strong and heathy breed with no known health problems. The thought of anyone trying to use bergies in a cross is just abhorrent


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

The owners of the Sheltie are after "offers" which is (call me cynical) no doubt why they have not contacted Sheltie Rescue or a general rescue. If their dog goes into rescue they won't gey any money for him 

So sad ...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I agree that you don't see Shelties in rescues but is that based on the amount being bred?
> 
> If they were more popular I daresay you would see more in rescues.


Strange - going by the numbers I see at shows and being walked everywhere, I thought Shelties were one of the more popular breeds


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> and then various other retriever breeds between the wars when they allowed interbreeding?


There was certainly interbreeding between the retrievers (note dogs of similar TYPE) - my database takes it back to around 1917 to 1921 (although obviously dates for that period are far from 100% reliable).

I've got 8 Interbreds and 2 Flatcoats in my Database - and there was also a period of unregistered dogs using the pink paper scheme - around / after the war I believe.

Whilst looking for some old references I forgot to bookmark , I've been interested to see a very worthwhile post from a Labradoodle breeder highlighing *all* the health issues these dogs need screening for (which FAR outweight those required by the two breeds individually) - and the UK Labradoodle society and this particular breeder smashing all the myths about coat types and the issues that arise when getting to F2 types etc.

The issue is, a breed cannot be recognised as a breed until there is a 'type' and you are going to be looking at 4 to 5 generations before you can say this is a breed, this are it's characteristics, these are the health problems, the good points and the bad - THAT would be a true creation of a breed.

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

Valid reasons I can see for cross-breeding are limited and would typically be dogs of similar type, and include


Erradicating a health problem 
Preventing the extinction of a breed
Performing a specific job for which there is no breed currently suitable
Correcting over-exaggerations

Cross-breeding requires, if anything MORE knowledge of the health history than when dealing with a single breed - learning about one breed can take years - never mind having the knowledge and confidence to successfully and correctly cross 2, and be honestly and openly able to cope with the fallout.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Have to agree with you two. My breed (the bergamasco) is over 2000 years old and is virtually unchanged since then - not surprisingly, it is a strong and heathy breed with no known health problems. The thought of anyone trying to use bergies in a cross is just abhorrent


dosent bare thinking about:nonod:...and i think most folk who are involved with and care about their particular breed feel the way we do.



Spellweaver said:


> Strange - going by the numbers I see at shows and being walked everywhere, I thought Shelties were one of the more popular breeds


true, they always seem to have a very good entry at shows... i often go and check the little fellas out

luckily they dont seem to be popular with the sort of breeder who advertises on the free ads, ive just checked out a very popular site and there were only 13 litters of shelties advertised compared to 74 of my breed and approx 270 staffies....


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

No one would want to see the loss of the beautiful pedigree dogs that we have today. That would be very sad. :nonod: However, I think it would be wrong to say that no pedigrees came from crossing other breeds and were only bred by mixing types. I wonder how the owners and breeders of the pedigrees being crossed felt at the time when a new breed was being created such as the Doberman (lovely dogs by the way!  ) Would there have been the same debates as there are now? IMHO, not many pedigree owners have their dogs for the purpose for which they were bred either (although I appreciate that some do). I would be genuinely interested to know what led you to choose your particular breed. 

I personally believe that times have changed and that as most dogs are mainly used as companions/pets could it be possible that there might be room for a couple more new crosses that have proven to be popular over a longer period of time to *eventually* become a breed. Certain breeders of Cockapoos are trying to take the cross forward and produce healthy consistent F2 and F3 litters. There are a percentage of throwbacks in subsequent litters however I believe that happens whenever a breed is developed and the process if its going to happen has to start somewhere. It takes a long time for a breed to be consistent but I think it will happen one day with these two crosses due to the popularity of the dogs. I have my own reasons for wanting one and personally I would love this to happen so that it is no longer considered designer or the latest fad to own one. The people who I know who have them love them to bits and do not have them for any other reason than them being great family pets. I am completely against crossing irresponsibly, without health testing and I hate the fact that the actions of some breeders who will cross 'anything with anything' without any proper consideration give all crosses and those who want one a bad name .

p.s I am not an expert on breeding and the development of breeds so I will now expect to be told I am talking a load of old nonsense!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Strange - going by the numbers I see at shows and being walked everywhere, I thought Shelties were one of the more popular breeds


Maybe they are more popular in certain areas then. Just seen about 2 in my area and none when I visit friends and family that are spread out everywhere.

Oh and Noushka said that she has found them not to be popular amongst breeders who use free ads and popular sites.

So if they are popular as you say they are, are they all being bred by show breeders then? obviously the ones you see at shows probably are.

Could have sworn Shetland Lover had difficulty finding reputable studs for her Alaska as they were thin on the ground. So where do all these show breeders get their studs from?

So according to Shetland Lover not many in rescues, according to Noushka a quick check shows not very popular with the less desirable breeders.

So who are supplying this popular ( acccording to you) breed then?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

sezra said:


> No one would want to see the loss of the beautiful pedigree dogs that we have today. That would be very sad. :nonod: However, I think it would be wrong to say that no pedigrees came from crossing other breeds and were only bred by mixing types. I wonder how the owners and breeders of the pedigrees being crossed felt at the time when a new breed was being created such as the Doberman (lovely dogs by the way!  ) Would there have been the same debates as there are now? IMHO, not many pedigree owners have their dogs for the purpose for which they were bred either (although I appreciate that some do). I would be genuinely interested to know what led you to choose your particular breed.
> 
> I personally believe that times have changed and that as most dogs are mainly used as companions/pets could it be possible that there might be room for a couple more new crosses that have proven to be popular over a longer period of time to *eventually* become a breed. Certain breeders of Cockapoos are trying to take the cross forward and produce healthy consistent F2 and F3 litters. There are a percentage of throwbacks in subsequent litters however I believe that happens whenever a breed is developed and the process if its going to happen has to start somewhere. It takes a long time for a breed to be consistent but I think it will happen one day with these two crosses due to the popularity of the dogs. I have my own reasons for wanting one and personally I would love this to happen so that it is no longer considered designer or the latest fad to own one. The people who I know who have them love them to bits and do not have them for any other reason than them being great family pets. I am completely against crossing irresponsibly, without health testing and I hate the fact that the actions of some breeders who will cross 'anything with anything' without any proper consideration give all crosses and those who want one a bad name .
> 
> p.s *I am not an expert on breeding and the development of breeds so I will now expect to be told I am talking a load of old nonsense! *


*
*

You are entitled to your opinions.
You don't have to be an expert to express your views and if people tell you, that you are talking nonsense then :nonod:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> No not at all. Most breeds came from 'types' of dogs that had traits that evolved due to their environment.
> 
> As it happens, there would be no cross breeds without pedigrees so cross breed breeders /owners rely on pedigree breeders for their dogs.
> 
> If some of the cross breeding practices that we see today were to continue (crossing any dog with any dog) or, dogs were simply allowed to breed indiscriminately, we would eventually end up with only one kind of dog - a medium sized dog, probably similar to the dingo or african wild dog - the only variations being colour. *Not much choice then eh *


Yeah but would save a lot of arguments


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Have to agree with you two. My breed (the bergamasco) is over 2000 years old and is virtually unchanged since then - not surprisingly, it is a strong and heathy breed with no known health problems. The thought of anyone trying to use bergies in a cross is just abhorrent


I can't imagine what could be crossed with it to be honest 

It's great that it is healthy and I hope it stays that way. Do you think that because of only recently it has begun to gain popularity that has help to protect it's health status?

I mean once dogs become popular that's when demand sets in and that's when problems start,as more are being bred and with Bergies I presume their gene pool is small?

Or do you feel the current breeders have it under control and will not let them get over bred or be dictated to if demand increases?

From the little bit I have read " the Bergamasco sheepdog is a very ancient Italian breed. For many centuries it was commonly found in the Alpine valleys.
However, after the II world war, industrial expansion and the development of tourism brought about profound economic changes in the lifestyle of these valleys. The flocks with their dogs were inevitably affected by this process of modernisation, which led to their partial extinction.

It is only thanks to the efforts of a few enthusiastic breeders that it has been possible, after a long period of decline, to restore consistency and homogeneity to this Italian breed."

Do you think that being partial extinct and a long period of decline has protected them from outside interferences by man/elements/evolving and helped preserve their health status?


----------



## zigzoe (Jun 19, 2011)

I would say yes. If you find wonderful things about a cross breed and you breed it back to a pure bred that is equally wonderful and you have a waiting list of people who want one of the puppies then why not? 

I live in the US and all I can say is that if everyone stopped breeding because there were so many in shelters than there should be no lab breeders unless they are showing them. Because labs are the most common dog in our shelters. I think it is plain awful that we have to have shelters and rescues in the first place. You should breed only if you have responsible soon to be owners and you are willing to take them back if something happens because otherwise you are contributing to the problem. 

Breeding has turned into something that people do to make money that is the problem here. Personally I own a purebred Maltese and a Morkie. My maltese is adorable, I am stopped often to find out what kind he is and how people can get one, but he can be a stinker, he is nippy and yappy and he actually flunked out of puppy training school because he is so strong-willed. All I can say is at least he is only 5 lbs because it makes him easier to just pick up. My Morkie is an angel, from the day I brought her home at 8 weeks she came to her name, she does everything she is asked to do and is great with people and animals of all kinds. Once people do more than just look at her they are drawn to her sweet spunky personality. So really who's to say what animals should and should not be bred? Okay that being said really a big dog and a little dog what no brainer thinks that is a good idea?:nono:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Maybe they are more popular in certain areas then. Just seen about 2 in my area and none when I visit friends and family that are spread out everywhere.
> 
> Oh and Noushka said that she has found them not to be popular amongst breeders who use free ads and popular sites.
> 
> ...


i see quite a few in my area and theres one on my Mums street, so although they seem a popular breed(round here anyway) thankfully they dont seem to have been jumped on by the breeders who are in it for the money, and maybe their coat put off those who cross breeds...lets hope this remains the case and they dont go the way of my breed for example.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

sezra said:


> p.s I am not an expert on breeding and the development of breeds so I will now expect to be told I am talking a load of old nonsense!


You are not talking a lot of old nonsense at all - the trouble is - a lot of these do called 'breeders' don't want these crosses recognised as a 'type' or to have a breed standard and this is where it falls down.

You have recognised there are going to be issues with F2, F3 generations - and to do this properly to create a 'type' requires a huge amount of hard work and research - much more sadly, than your average cross breeder is prepared to put in - it also requires an increased level of health testing.

Take Labs - there are currently 5 common tests and around the same for Poodles - some of those tests are the same for both breeds, others differ.

So now - the minute you get to F2, you are looking at 8 or 9 tests because now your recessive genes have a matching pair (your dominant genes will be there whatever the cross and outcrossing / cross-breeding will make little or no difference).

The more tests you have to perform on a breed, by default, the smaller your gene pool becomes;

therefore as you continue to develop these new cross-breeds - and I do agree there are a few that look like there are here to stay whether we like it or not - you also run a much higher risk of tighter gene pools than we actually have with some pedigree breeds - this is something I know some cross-breed fans will struggle to get their heads around - but it's true.

You've then got not only the risk of in-breeding depression, but the additional risks from outcrossing depression - it's going to be a long haul for those who decide to stick with it - and will take a lot of time and effort to get them recognised as a 'breed' - if these dogs are so wonderful - then what have people got to fear from them being recognised as a breed and having a breed standard and set of recommended health tests for breeding?

People blame the breed standard for where some dogs have gone wrong, when in reality - just as with cross breeds - it is a combination of interpretation and customer requirements which will dictate the direction a breed goes, not the breed standard of the people who wrote it - usually focussed on ensuring that dogs bred have the conformation to undertake the job for which they were bred.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I would happen to agree with you, I havent myself seen anyone be personal. I understand that people choose to own cross breeds for various reason, and that I can accept, agreeing with the breeding of them or not..however I do not see a need to slate the owners 'unless' they knowingly choose so support a not so good breeder, same could be said for anyone buying a pedigree though.





Devil-Dogz said:


> I do get annoyed with people saying that pedigree owners/breeders are snobs and the like! My first dog was a rescued JRT. £100 we paid for her. I dont love her any less that my pedigree show lad.




100% agree with you (first time for everything) although I will point out that digs may not have named a person, but they do and are made personal and I can't help but take it that way.

I paif £75 for Roo and £150 for Harvey from the rescue. For someone to say that because I havn't paid £600 for him means that I would dump either of them as soon as we've had issues is bang out of order. I'd put the same work, time and effort into ANY of my dogs, regardless of what they cost. 




shetlandlover said:


> Where are they increasing?





shetlandlover said:


>




Eyes went funny, I thought that the top one youd posted read 2007 for some reason. Long day.




Spellweaver said:


> Strange - going by the numbers I see at shows and being walked everywhere, I thought Shelties were one of the more popular breeds


 
Id expect to see more of them at shows, because its a show? As for being walked everywhere, Ive only ever seen 3 (excluding SLs) as pets. 1 lived down my road when I was a young child, and the other 2 I see regularly covered in mud and prancing about with Harvey and Rupert. Gorgeous little dogs!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Maybe they are more popular in certain areas then. Just seen about 2 in my area and none when I visit friends and family that are spread out everywhere.
> 
> Oh and Noushka said that she has found them not to be popular amongst breeders who use free ads and popular sites.
> 
> ...


No need for the sarcasm dear! They are not just popular _according to me_  - take a look at the breed registration statistics over the last 10 years - they are consistently the third most popular pastoral breed with only GSDs and border collies having more registrations.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/5673/10-yearly-Breeds-Stats-pastoral.pdf

]


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

I thought borders were a working dog? 

But it is right though, if they are so popular how come its so hard to get a stud? Is it to ensure a wider gene pool? Or are the breeders just not producing good enough pups?

(serious question BTW)


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

swarthy said:


> You are not talking a lot of old nonsense at all - the trouble is - a lot of these do called 'breeders' don't want these crosses recognised as a 'type' or to have a breed standard and this is where it falls down.
> 
> You have recognised there are going to be issues with F2, F3 generations - and to do this properly to create a 'type' requires a huge amount of hard work and research - much more sadly, than your average cross breeder is prepared to put in - it also requires an increased level of health testing.
> 
> ...


It's probably not fear but that some of us don't see the need.

If we wanted a purebreed we would have got one but in wanting a cross it's usually ( not always) is because people like the combo and diversity of the two breeds.

I agree about health testing though but not with breed standards.

The trouble I have with them is that they are open to interpretation and only a select group would write them. I don't agree with some of the aesthetics and have read debates over how that has been abused or misinterpreted. The show ring being a prime example.

Also a breed standard for a pet dog??? can understand some guidance may be needed for dogs used in say sled pulling or gun dogs as that does affect their structure.

I know for example that the wavy coat of cockapoos is usually the most preferred so can see that being a standard. So that would leave my cockapoo as being a bad representative of the breed as he has a poodle coat so for me that is a no- no :nono:

Just because some-one has a preference doesn't mean it is right.

Cockapoos are bred in the main to be companion pets though they do seem to do well as service dogs such as PAT and assisting those with disabilities.

I personally don't feel that making them into a purebreed is any justification other than to stop the prejudices around them. But hey that's just my honest opinion 

At the end of the day whether a dog is described as pedigree or crossbreed or mongrel it's just a descriptive term.

As long as dogs are healthy and happy their descriptive term is the least important.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Although KC has an accepted breed standard, does it make sure that all breeders that register with it health check? 

If not, how would this then help cross breeds to ensure they are health checked? 

I'm not a big fan of all this conforming to type anyway. The idea that one dog can have an ear up, and one down, and be a "bad example" of that breed is ludicrous to me. 

My dogs are dogs. I love them for being individual and quirky.


----------



## shortbackandsides (Aug 28, 2008)

I bred from our border terrier and cocker 3 years ago,great pups,good pets and fantastic workers,great for brushing,will flush and retrieve like both parents!!all pups found excellent homes,we recently took one dog back due to its owners revised work schedual.He has settled in well.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> No need for the sarcasm dear! They are not just popular _according to me_  - take a look at the breed registration statistics over the last 10 years - they are consistently the third most popular pastoral breed with only GSDs and border collies having more registrations.
> 
> http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/5673/10-yearly-Breeds-Stats-pastoral.pdf
> 
> ]


I wasn't being sarcastic??? the same could be said of you saying to me _Strange.....??? but I thought we were above that?? Believe me you knew if I was being sarcastic 

Those stats do show that it is indeed 3rd in the Pastoral group. But some of the Pastoral group are rare so that might influence the results.

But if looking at popularity you need to look at Shelties across all groups.

I think a lot could depend on demographics. 
Obviously in Notts/ Derby where you are based maybe there are more??

Anyway does it really matter- it was only mentioned in relation to discussing Stats._


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Although KC has an accepted breed standard, does it make sure that all breeders that register with it health check?
> 
> If not, how would this then help cross breeds to ensure they are health checked?
> 
> ...


 No I don't think it does ensure all registered breeders health check- don't think it's something they can enforce only recommend.

Sure the pedigree peeps and breeders will be able to tell you more


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Could have sworn Shetland Lover had difficulty finding reputable studs for her Alaska as they were thin on the ground. So where do all these show breeders get their studs from?


Yes I did, Tanya can vouch for the numbers. For a DNA CEA clear tri male who was hip scored and eye tested I had the choice of 2 and 1 that was not hip scored (and is still not). DNA CEA tested shelties are like gold dust at the moment.:cryin:

Tanya helped me go through them.

There are loads of Shelties at shows. I know that some breeders have as many as 20 dogs.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> I thought borders were a working dog?
> 
> But it is right though, if they are so popular how come its so hard to get a stud? Is it to ensure a wider gene pool? Or are the breeders just not producing good enough pups?
> 
> (serious question BTW)


I think Shetland Lover would be able to tell you as she had difficulty finding a good stud.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Rather than discuss points raised already in this thread and discussed I'll simply state my view.

I own a crossbreed, a beagle/cocker mix (Bocker/Beaker).. Wasn't a deliberate breeding on the original owners part but an accident. I also own an Old English Bulldog (OEB). The OEB as a breed didn't exist in the 1970's when a David Leavitt started crossbreeding to produce a healthier version of the English Bulldog. Lifespan increased from 8 years to 10 as well as a multitude of additional health benefits. It's now recognized as a breed in itself. Another example is the Hovawart. Slightly different in that in 1915 they were bred to save an "unrecognized" breed known since the 13th century. Ok maybe this isn't a true crossbreeding but the principle point is the same. Adaptation to improve or recover.

Don't get me wrong, I love the English Bulldog breed but will never purchase one from a breeder. We did try to get one from a rescue but it had already found a home. We are shortly getting an american bulldog instead who is in the shelter simply for having the "wrong coloured eyes" i.e. no pigment. As such the breeder couldn't sell her. Too much now is based on money.

If you really want to debate the reasoning of crossbreeding you could also ask yourself why it is necessary to have the number of types of recognized pedigree breeds that exist? In my opinion it boils down to the same question. Choice.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Rather than discuss points raised already in this thread and discussed I'll simply state my view.
> 
> I own a crossbreed, a beagle/cocker mix (Bocker/Beaker).. Wasn't a deliberate breeding on the original owners part but an accident. I also own an Old English Bulldog (OEB). The OEB as a breed didn't exist in the 1970's when a David Leavitt started crossbreeding to produce a healthier version of the English Bulldog. Lifespan increased from 8 years to 10 as well as a multitude of additional health benefits. It's now recognized as a breed in itself. Another example is the Hovawart. Slightly different in that in 1915 they were bred to save an "unrecognized" breed known since the 13th century. Ok maybe this isn't a true crossbreeding but the principle point is the same. Adaptation to improve or recover.
> 
> ...


I like Beaker  I bet he/she is stubborn?

aww poor Am Bulldog rejected because of his eyes 

Hope it all goes well for you.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

Looking at Shelties across all groups of dogs you are looking at: (all breeds over 1000 registration)

I shall do it just for 2010.

Retriever (Labrador): 44,099
Spaniel (Cocker): 23,744
Spaniel (English Springer): 13,988
German Shepherd Dog: 10,364
Staffordshire Bull Terrier: 8,663
Border Terrier: 8,383
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel: 8,154
Retriever (Golden): 7,911
Pug: 5,726
Boxer: 5,699
Miniature Schnauzer: 5,651
West Highland White Terrier: 5,361
Shih Tzu: 5,247
Lhasa Apso: 4,865
Bulldog: 4,746
Whippet: 3,557
Yorkshire Terrier: 3,441
Beagle: 2,877
Dogue de Bordeaux: 2,841
Dachshund (Miniature Smooth Haired): 2,802
Chihuahua (Smooth Coat): 2,796
Border Collie: 2,604
Chihuahua (Long Coat): 2,601
Bichon Frise: 2,509
Bull Terrier: 2,467
Shar-Pei: 2,304
Siberian Husky: 2,209
French Bulldog: 2,204
Weimaraner: 1,969
Rottweiler: 1,959
Dobermann: 1,678
Hungarian Vizsla: 1,498
Poodle (Toy): 1,478
Dalmatian: 1,474
Cairn Terrier: 1,453
Retriever (Flat Coated): 1,438
Great Dane: 1,429
Tibetan Terrier: 1,429
German Shorthaired Pointer: 1,410
*Shetland sheepdog: 1,333*
Rhodesian Ridgeback: 1,243
Alaskan Malamute: 1,232
Dachshund (Miniature Long Haired): 1,203
Bullmastiff: 1,169
Poodle (Standard): 1,037
Irish Setter: 1,126
Collie (Rough): 1,046
Akita: 1,038
Newfoundland: 1,026
Basset Hound: 1,003


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> I thought borders were a working dog?
> 
> But it is right though, if they are so popular how come its so hard to get a stud? Is it to ensure a wider gene pool? Or are the breeders just not producing good enough pups?
> 
> (serious question BTW)


In my breed it was due to lack of health tests as I wanted hip scored, eye tested and DNA CEA tested.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

swarthy said:


> You are not talking a lot of old nonsense at all - the trouble is - a lot of these do called 'breeders' don't want these crosses recognised as a 'type' or to have a breed standard and this is where it falls down.
> 
> You have recognised there are going to be issues with F2, F3 generations - and to do this properly to create a 'type' requires a huge amount of hard work and research - much more sadly, than your average cross breeder is prepared to put in - it also requires an increased level of health testing.
> 
> ...


Thank you for not telling me I was talking nonsense! I was waiting to be shot down in flames! 

It certainly is a minefield by the sounds of it unless you really know what you are doing. I agree that the last thing anyone wants is more dogs with more health problems. I guess only time will tell. Mine will be for pet purposes only, no breeding!  Maybe it would be simpler if it remained a cross then, as long as bred sensibly with health tested dogs?  Some of the reason I would like to see the cross progress further is because of the negativity surrounding it. Maybe my opinion might be different if it wasn't such an 'issue'.  I must admit that until following these threads on here I had no opinion at all on the matter. I have learnt alot already and I guess I will continue to do so. No doubt my opinions may change along the way!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Looking at Shelties across all groups of dogs you are looking at: (all breeds over 1000 registration)
> 
> I shall do it just for 2010.
> 
> ...


aww bless ya for taking the the time to do that.

Surprised only toys and Standard poodles were on list and not minis.

For me that list reflects my opinion that Shelties are not a popular breed  ( still gorgeous though)

Which for you SL is great as less chance of breed being overbred to supply demand etc... and falling into hands of PF's cashing in on their popularity.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> For me that list reflects my opinion that Shelties are not a popular breed


You see this is it.. Most wouldnt have CCs down as a popular breed, but over the last few years they have become ever so popular more in rescue, more advertised on pup sites. Yet they didnt even make it to the 1000 registered. all this shows me is, out of the many puppies I see being produced, advertised ect alot arent being registered  so we shall never get a true figure of pups born.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> aww bless ya for taking the the time to do that.


It's okay I was interested too.

I am rather shocked to see

Hungarian Vizsla and Great dane there....you dont see many around. Or at least I dont.

I am also stunned the staffordshire is only 8,663 just shows how many are not registered I guess. :blink:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> You see this is it.. Most wouldnt have CCs down as a popular breed, but over the last few years they have become ever so popular more in rescue, more advertised on pup sites. Yet they didnt even make it to the 1000 registered. all this shows me is, out of the many puppies I see being produced, advertised ect alot arent being registered  so we shall never get a true figure of pups born.


 Yes that is true and is only a guide.

Just that I commented that when giving numbers for certain breeds of dogs in rescues you need to look at numbers born not just the amount in rescue in isolation.

Because if only a small number is bred then obviously the number in rescue will be small.

Then went on to say that I felt Shelties were not a popular breed and Spellweaver said they were.

Hence the figures.


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

Hmm found out today that a shih-tuz X jack russell is known as a Jack Tzu:w00t: no thankyou i really dont think il call lola that lol


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> It's okay I was interested too.
> 
> I am rather shocked to see
> 
> ...


Yes it is only a guide and I do feel where you live plays a part.

Certain areas probably have a high density of breeds than others.

I have seen 2 Vizslas in my area and one Great Dane pup at the vets.

I'm not surprised that the Staffy figure isn't as high as expected as a lot are bred by people who can't register them.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Found some have tried to create astandard
Cockapoo Breed Standard


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

gladass said:


> Found some have tried to create astandard
> Cockapoo Breed Standard


what the hell!  It doesnt make much sense. I also notice the size ranges include 'teacups'


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

freddies_mum said:


> Maybe the sheltie rescues should check preloved. I wish I hadnt looked. This poor mite is 'open to offers' (presumably from puppy farms given the write-up). :nonod:
> 
> "My lovely old Male Sheltie needs a kind pet home, where he can enjoy more attention than I can give him. He is 10 years old and in very good health. He is fed on a Barf diet, raw tripe and red meat mix, herbal biscuits and cod liver oil. He is eye clear and has a low hip score".
> 
> Preloved | sable and white shetland sheepdog for sale in Ledbury, Herefordshire, UK


I believe the Sheltie world are already onto this I wont say more until he's in the care of someone else.

Sadly the rescue cant afford to go and pay for every dog of their breed that comes up on free ad sites. You wont find the dogs trust ect paying for dogs off adverts.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Rather than discuss points raised already in this thread and discussed I'll simply state my view.
> 
> I own a crossbreed, a beagle/cocker mix (Bocker/Beaker).. Wasn't a deliberate breeding on the original owners part but an accident. I also own an Old English Bulldog (OEB). The OEB as a breed didn't exist in the 1970's when a David Leavitt started crossbreeding to produce a healthier version of the English Bulldog. Lifespan increased from 8 years to 10 as well as a multitude of additional health benefits. It's now recognized as a breed in itself. Another example is the Hovawart. Slightly different in that in 1915 they were bred to save an "unrecognized" breed known since the 13th century. Ok maybe this isn't a true crossbreeding but the principle point is the same. Adaptation to improve or recover.
> 
> ...


no what youre talking about is totally different from the indiscriminate crossing some of us are meaning....

the foundation dogs who were used in the Hovawarts revival were selected from dogs of the same type and from the area it originated in, enthusiasts got the breed recognised because they achieved what they set out to do and the breed bred true to type.. I dont know much about the OEB but im assuming that good breeders breed to some sort of standard with these aswell?? not just breed wily nily with only the aim of making money by supplying pets for other people.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

gladass said:


> Found some have tried to create astandard
> Cockapoo Breed Standard


Yep and that's why I don't agree with Breed standards for my boy 

I know it's American site and they originated from there and I suppose they are relating to the American cocker x poodle but :nono:


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Well this thread, some can agree with some can disagree with but the one thing ime sure that we ALL agree with is that you lot have some stamina i cant believe this has run for so long and you are still going strong.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

gladass said:


> Found some have tried to create astandard
> Cockapoo Breed Standard


As said by CPL, an American site. The cross or 'hybrid' as they call it has been around for longer in the States. What they are doing is not perfect however they are trying to improve breeding practices and also educate the puppy buying public. Surely that has to be a positive thing??


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Well this thread, some can agree with some can disagree with but the one thing ime sure that we ALL agree with is that you lot have some stamina i cant believe this has run for so long and you are still going strong.


Not sure if it's stamina or madness to be honest :crazy::crazy:


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Not sure if it's stamina or madness to be honest :crazy::crazy:


Ha Ha, ive read quite a lot but i gave in a while ago just keep coming on to see who's still left in the debate, think we will have a bet who will last the longest the money can go to keeping pf going a bit longer and get rid of the r.s.p.c.a. ad


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> Well this thread, some can agree with some can disagree with but the one thing ime sure that we ALL agree with is that you lot have some stamina i cant believe this has run for so long and you are still going strong.


LMAO so true, i think we're all running on duracel


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> LMAO so true, i think we're all running on duracel


  I recharge mine overnight! 

I am certainly glad I have been following the thread from the beginning. Can't imagine wanting to start from page 1 now! 

What is the longest thread on PF so far? Do you think we will reach page 100?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

haha me too

the longest thread has 15578 replies ....we've a way to go before we beat that


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> haha me too
> 
> the longest thread has 15578 replies ....we've a way to go before we beat that


:w00t: I don't think we will get that far! Although if we talk about the longest thread for a little while.....or maybe that is going off the subject!


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

Just to keep on here....

What do you think is a solution to keeping certain breeds out of the rescue crisis?

I think its clear that Shetland sheepdogs are not within the crisis because of the vetting done by breeders and the rather small litters they have.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> no what youre talking about is totally different from the indiscriminate crossing some of us are meaning....
> 
> I dont know much about the OEB but im assuming that good breeders breed to some sort of standard with these aswell?? not just breed wily nily with only the aim of making money by supplying pets for other people.


Yes.. OEB's having been recognized are now bred to a standard. The main aim of most breeders I have seen however is to make money, not to further the breed. My post however was answering the original question.



> I don't believe there is.
> 
> We have breeds of dogs which suit any purpose. So why would we need more?
> 
> Is it fair to our dogs in rescue to breed for no reason other than "because I want to"


If you want to discuss "breeding willy nilly with the aim of making money" it doesn't matter what type of breeds you are talking about be it mongrel/crossbreed or pedigree. If a type of dog is popular there will be a sudden rise in that breed being available and the price will go up which will encourage more breeding from bad breeders. I've watched one site advertising dogs for a few years here in Germany (looking at hovawarts but browsing all regardless) and have seen the trend.

Our OEB previous owner was desperate for her not to go to a "breeder" but a home and was relieved when we contacted her as she had only breeders contact her just for breeding purposes from around Europe and beyond as OEB's were an "in-dog" at the time. The American Bulldog we are getting was from a "pedigree" breeder who placed her in rescue because she didn't follow breed standard and therefore couldn't sell her. My experience is that to blame just one section of "breeders" for having dogs in rescues is hardly correct.

I have another generalization to put forward...

Pedigree dog owner - generally has researched the breeds and knows something about dogs. Generally is prepared to pay more for the "honor".

Mongrel Dog owner - someone who dislikes pedigree and as a result frequently will go to a rescue. Even if not they also know something about dogs which caused them to dislike the idea of pedigrees.

"aww aint it a cute puppy"/crossbreed dog owner - someone who doesn't know about dogs therefore doesn't know how to socialize it well or train it correctly. Can't handle it and eventually puts it in rescue.

I say that as an "aww aint it a cute puppy" owner  although we do know something about dogs. My point being though, it's not just the breeders you need to look at but the type of people buying the dogs and the reasons for buying the dog.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Yes.. OEB's having been recognized are now bred to a standard. The main aim of most breeders I have seen however is to make money, not to further the breed. My post however was answering the original question.
> 
> If you want to discuss "breeding willy nilly with the aim of making money" it doesn't matter what type of breeds you are talking about be it mongrel/crossbreed or pedigree. If a type of dog is popular there will be a sudden rise in that breed being available and the price will go up which will encourage more breeding from bad breeders. I've watched one site advertising dogs for a few years here in Germany (looking at hovawarts but browsing all regardless) and have seen the trend.
> 
> ...


i take it youre not in the UK? because neither OEB's nor AB's are recognised over here....and if they are being bred to make money then its not ethical to breed these imo either....and the breeder of your soon to be AB is a disgrace.

and i agree with your 2nd paragraph ive said it times many on this thread,...i think everyone knows there are bad pedigree breeders infact more bad ones than good...and i agree the gp need to be more educated when it comes to buying a puppy because by supporting the bad breeders they are perpetuating the problem, and more dogs will suffer.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Just to keep on here....
> 
> What do you think is a solution to keeping certain breeds out of the rescue crisis?
> 
> I think its clear that Shetland sheepdogs are not within the crisis because of the vetting done by breeders and the rather small litters they have.


same with roughs you can't, we are a very tight knit community when it comes to roughs ending up in rescues or needing rehoming , probably more so than alot of breeds, and yet i've just found a young rough in rescue..................


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

dexter said:


> same with roughs you can't, we are a very tight knit community when it comes to roughs ending up in rescues or needing rehoming , probably more so than alot of breeds, and yet i've just found a young rough in rescue..................


Its the same with Shelties. I think because of this when they do get into rescues they are homed fast.

Its a shame so many staff cross are ending up in rescues.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I can't imagine what could be crossed with it to be honest


Well, physically it could be crossed with anything of a similar size. But - you mentioned elsewhere on here that one of the reasons people want crosses is that they want a combination of both breeds. Why is it that a cross between a cocker spaniel and a poodle seems ok to you, but a cross between a bergie and anything has you going  ? I'm not having a go in the least, so please don't be offended - I am genuinely interested in why one sort of cross is ok and the other isn't. Like I said in my earlier post, I don't want anyone to cross them at all - but I can imagine someone wanting their personality but not their coats, and crossing them with something with very little coat to try to achieve this. Or, I suppose, the other way round - wanting their coats on a more docile, non-guarding type breed.



Cockerpoo lover said:


> It's great that it is healthy and I hope it stays that way. Do you think that because of only recently it has begun to gain popularity that has help to protect it's health status?
> 
> I mean once dogs become popular that's when demand sets in and that's when problems start,as more are being bred and with Bergies I presume their gene pool is small?
> 
> ...


I think it has undoubtedly protected them from man - not so sure about the elements and evolution because those would still have been working on the dogs that were there; and the elements and evoluton are what has produced the wonderful coat.

The bergamasco first originated in the Asian plateau at the base of the Himalayas, and around Iran and Turkey. It moved into Europe with the nomadic shepherds. The breed almost became extinct in the middle of the twentieth century and was revived largely due to the efforts of Dr Maria Andreoli (aka Pupa) who was an Italian geneticist. She researched the genes and her lines, the dell'Albera lines, are the closest to the original genes of any of the lines today. I never met her unfortunately, but she was a very good friend of the the breeder of our bergies - not surprisingly, our bergies are all from that line. When she passed away, she had over 40 dogs in her care - not just owned by her, but by various members of her family. Her mantle has been taken up by the breeder of our bergies in this country (Chique), and Donna DeFalcis in the US (SilverPastori).

One very interesting fact in all this is that, because Pupa had such a small gene pool to begin with, the breeding co-efficients were sky-high - and yet the breed has kept its health and vigour - so not all inbreeding can be bad! 

At the moment, the breed is small enough world-wide for present breeders to exercise great control on breeding programs, but common sense dictates that the more popular the breed becomes, the less easy it is going to be.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> I thought borders were a working dog?


They used to be - but the working group was so big that they split it into two. They took all the sheepdogs out of the Working Group and created the Pastoral Group.



Horse and Hound said:


> Although KC has an accepted breed standard, does it make sure that all breeders that register with it health check?


I don't think you have the right idea of what a breed standard is. All it is is a description of how the perfect dog of any breed should be constructed. They are put together by the breed clubs (not the KC!). And don't forget, breed clubs are made up of working owners and pet owners and well as sho owners. It has nothing to do with registrations or health checks.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Cockapoos are bred in the main to be companion pets though they do seem to do well as service dogs such as PAT and assisting those with disabilities.


MOST breeds are bred to be companion pets - just because a breeder happens to show or work their dogs, doesn't mean their dogs aren't companions, or that they can't be for other people.

The fact remains that, breeding a cross for a companion dog will NEVER produce predictable dogs or temperaments - whatever breeds you cross, not just cocker x poodles.

As for breed standard - it's something to aim for in terms of breeding - yes if you want to show, but also, for a dog to be capable of doing it's job - so it doesn't matter if yours has the 'wrong coat' unless you wanted to show it. It's like building a house, you wouldn't set out to build a house without a blueprint of how you expect it to look - and this should be the same for anything where humans are in control of an external activity and responsible for bringing two dogs together).

Not every dog in every breed will be the epitome of the breed standard - many will have minor faults and will still be shown and / or worked - but invariably - what they will have is a predictable nature and characteristics and these are as much part of the breed standard as how these dogs look in the showring.

My own dogs, some shown, some not, have faults when measured against the breed standard - some minor, some a little more prominent, what they do all have however, lively or quiet, is the same flexible, adaptable biddable temperament with soft mouths and keen retrieving instincts - all of which are outlined in the breed standard and make them the breed I fell in love with - that and health will always be the most important factors while attempting to adhere to a specific standard - if you can breed 'that special one' who is conformationally perfect as well as retaining all the inherent features of the breed - fantastic - that's what having a breed standard is for - a blueprint.

What you simply CANNOT do is predict the characteristics of a first generation cross - whatever cross that happens to be - there are many breeds that go on to work as assistance dogs, but many fail along the way because they are unsuitable - so just because that is an idea behind it - doesn't mean it always happens - and many will fail along the way - that likelihood will probably be higher with a cross because of the inability to predict their adult characteristics. Unfortunately - because none of these breeds are registered - we have absolutely no idea on how many are being bred - how many are from health tested parents, how many breeders (sadly very few I suspect) really care about what they are breeding.

As Companion dogs - people who love their dogs will learn to live with all-sorts, the dog who hates other dogs, the dog who can't be trusted with children, the dog who wrecks their house, the untrainable dog, the snappy dog, the unpredictable dog, you name it - people who love them will learn to live with it, it doesn't make it right - it makes them good people in one way that they are prepared to adapt their lifestyle to live with such dogs, until something happens and a child or smaller dog gets injured - then - it's the owner who will be blamed - when the cause is often much deeper than that.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> In my breed it was due to lack of health tests as I wanted hip scored, eye tested and DNA CEA tested.


Are all those not recommended then or is it just poor breeders that dont do them? just trying to gage a feeling as you have always maintained high opinion of shelties breeders



noushka05 said:


> no what youre talking about is totally different from the indiscriminate crossing some of us are meaning....
> 
> the foundation dogs who were used in the Hovawarts revival were selected from dogs of the same type and from the area it originated in, enthusiasts got the breed recognised because they achieved what they set out to do and the breed bred true to type.. I dont know much about the OEB but im assuming that good breeders breed to some sort of standard with these aswell?? not just breed wily nily with only the aim of making money by supplying pets for other people.


But it goes to show though that YES crossbreeding CAN have a purpose!



Spellweaver said:


> don't think you have the right idea of what a breed standard is. All it is is a description of how the perfect dog of any breed should be constructed. They are put together by the breed clubs (not the KC!). And don't forget, breed clubs are made up of working owners and pet owners and well as sho owners. It has nothing to do with registrations or health checks.


No, that's what I thought re the standard but its the registering that confuses me. Could a KC registered dog differ slightly to the widespread breed standard, say for instance longer legs etc?

And if the health checks are not part of it, like I didn't think they were, how would adopting a breed standard fir crosses help?


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> Are all those not recommended then or is it just poor breeders that dont do them? just trying to gage a feeling as you have always maintained high opinion of shelties breeders


The KC suggest doing them but thats all. Most breeders eye exam (although some dont do that either), some hip scored and I think only a handful DNA CEA test.

I think highly of alot of the breeders in Shelties, it doesnt mean I agree with them not testing but I am however thankful to them for breeding in a way which has not only provided me with 3 fantastic dogs but has kept shelties out of the rescue crisis.

Alot of the breeders are older and have not joined teh new times with testing as back when they started an eye test was all that was needed.

Sadly I cant force them to health test however what I can do is add my line to the few lines that are fully health testing their breeding dogs.

If that makes sense...sorry if it doesnt I am over tired.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> The KC suggest doing them but thats all. Most breeders eye exam (although some dont do that either), some hip scored and I think only a handful DNA CEA test.
> 
> I think highly of alot of the breeders in Shelties, it doesnt mean I agree with them not testing but I am however thankful to them for breeding in a way which has not only provided me with 3 fantastic dogs but has kept shelties out of the rescue crisis.
> 
> ...


No it does but also goes to show that health tests perhaps are not the be all and end all of the breed and breeding process. Breeders that dont health breed are not necessarily all bad and on the flip side those that do could be just as unscrupulous as the next person.

As you say they are fairly recent, makes you wonder how breeders ever managed in the old days!


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> No it does but also goes to show that health tests perhaps are not the be all and end all of the breed and breeding process. Breeders that dont health breed are not necessarily all bad and on the flip side those that do could be just as unscrupulous as the next person.
> 
> As you say they are fairly recent, makes you wonder how breeders ever managed in the old days!


I think anyone getting into breeding should do the full health tests. But that's the way I see it. Health of the animal is more important than anything else imo. With more and more people breeding, importing from different countries ect I dont see why health tests should not be done.

The people who have bred for years, I can partly understand....but for a newbie to come into a breed and disregard the health tests that are out there and able to be done is just silly.

When the older breeders started health tests were not around, now they are imo there;s no excuse for new breeders not to use them to better the breed.

If health tests were not important CEA would be overly common within our breed because no one would know if their dog had it or not.

They are there I dont see why they are not used.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> No, that's what I thought re the standard but its the registering that confuses me. Could a KC registered dog differ slightly to the widespread breed standard, say for instance longer legs etc?


There will always be dogs with physical faults against the breed standard, it doesn't make them any less of a dog, but if bred correctly, and going on for forge a future generation - it gives you a blueprint to continue to work with to try and correct those faults, whether it be a tail is too short, a muzzle is too long, legs are too long or too short, a topline is not right etc etc



Horse and Hound said:


> And if the health checks are not part of it, like I didn't think they were, how would adopting a breed standard fir crosses help?


The number of times I've seen the argument that health and temperament come above all else - read a few breed standards - they don't just cover appearance, they cover temperament and characteristics - all my dogs may have physical faults as already mentioned - but all of them have the temperament and characteristics of the breed - and in addition to a dog being conformationally correct - as so many people have said time and again, temperament is most important - so why not have a 'blueprint' (breed standard) for a x-breed - because ultimately, if a breeder is working towards 'a breed' this will be the next natural step.

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

If nature could guarantee that crossing a poodle with say a labrador would ensure that the puppies inherited ALL the good points from each breed - fantastic - but they simply cannot.

Every caring breeder wants their pups to be healthy, and have good temperaments and characteristics - and the pedigree breeder has a MUCH greater chance of achieving this than the cross-breeder - it's really not as simple as saying - both parents are wonderful and the pups will inherit all these 'steady characteristics' - if they are serious about this, they need to get their heads together and say what do we want the dog to look like, will it have a specific working purpose, as it may well do - Poodles are highly intelligent dogs, as are many of the breeds they are crossed with.

Then, what sort of characteristics do we want - what sort of size dog do we want it to be - large, small, medium.

As for health tests - I will take Labs as they are the breed I know best these days - a Labrador suffering pain and discomfort will very often portray minimal (if any) change to it's overall behaviour and characteristics - making it very difficult to actually determine when a Lab is unwell - going off food for many of them is probably a key sign !!! but I've seen Labs with no hip sockets and other dislocated joints hoolying around as if there is nothing wrong.

Typically - with many other breeds - just as with humans, pain and discomfort can change their personalities (I know my health problems have changed mine in a number of ways) - and sudden behavioural changes in a dog can be an indication of either - "it has hit maturity and this is how it is going to be", or it is in pain / discomfort. I worked in boarding kennels for many years in my younger days and witnessed this first hand more than once.

This comes back to why breed standards are so important and equally health testing so you can produce dogs that are fit, healthy examples of the breed with the right personalities and characteristics to ensure they can be good companion dogs, working dogs, show dogs, or whatever other specific purpose they are eventually bred for.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> No, that's what I thought re the standard but its the registering that confuses me. Could a KC registered dog differ slightly to the widespread breed standard, say for instance longer legs etc?


Most registered dogs will differ slightly to the breed standard. The breed standard is the epitome of the construction of the very best dog ever, the standard to which breeders (all breeders, not just show breeders) aspire. That is why the breed standard is used by show judges - the dog in front of him that is nearest to the breed standard is the one that should win.



Horse and Hound said:


> And if the health checks are not part of it, like I didn't think they were, how would adopting a breed standard fir crosses help?


If it were possible for the wide diversity of people who crossbreed say, labradoodles, to get together to agree on what constitutes the perfect labradoodle and draw up a breed standard, then at least crossbreeders of labradoodles would have something to work towards in their breeding program. But as comments on here have shown, most crossbreed owners value the difference in temperament and appearance of their pets and don't want to want to do that. So while ever that situation is rife, there will never be an accepted breed standard, and hence never be any recognition of the cross as a true breed.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Maybe I'm being thick here but how does a blue print ensure that a dog has a certain temperament?

Are you saying that bad behaved or bad tempered dogs are a product of breeding and not bad ownership?

I think all dogs are different in temperament and character, cross bred or not, but with my cross it was fairly clear to me I was getting a terrier which would have both westie and jet characteristics in both appearance and temper. I wasn't wrong.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> They are there I dont see why they are not used.


Did you buy all your 3 from health checking breeders?


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> Did you buy all your 3 from health checking breeders?


A variation of tested and not. I have always been open about that on here.
Alaska's parents were both eye tested.
Aiden's father is eye tested but mother is not. (although I didnt know she wanst untiil after I got him as I thought it was a different bitch to what it was).
Kai's mother is eye tested and his father is eye tested and hip scored.

When I got Alaska I was not aware of hip scores within the breed. Although I fully admit knowing of health tests when I got Kai and Aiden. Aiden's breeder is bred her first champ in the early 70's, her dogs are stunning and always do well in the ring. Does this mean she shouldnt health test? No. However she has been within the breed for a while and I respect her dearly. She knows I fully health test and is more than happy that I do.

I personally am hoping that as new breeders come into breeds they will carry out the health tests older breeders wont and over time we will have a good idea of the DNA CEA state of our breed.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> A variation of tested and not. I have always been open about that on here.
> .


So what, pardon me being direct, then is the difference between someon buying a cross breed that's not health tested and you buying a sheltie that isnt, especially if said crossbreed owner has no intention of breeding their dogs?


----------



## freddies_mum (Apr 12, 2009)

I wouldn't want to see labradoodles recognised by the KC simply because I love the variety out there. I can't imagine what a breed standard would say - any colour, any size, any coat type! My doodle is petite, about lab height but poodle build, weighing less than 20kg. But I also know lab built, standard poodle height doods weighing well over 40kg. Plus coat types from slightly wispy lab to a full woolly poodle coat. Jasper has a scruffy but soft fleece. They're all fab but just where would a breed judge start??? I'd hate someone to dictate which of the above is 'best' or correct. What doodles tend to have in common is the comical, bouncy but highly intelligent personality. 

I'm more relaxed with the idea of cockerpoos being recognised one day simply because you don't tend to get so much variety.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Maybe I'm being thick here but how does a blue print ensure that a dog has a certain temperament?


Well it doesn't - it doesn't ensure anything at all by itself. It is merely a standard to work towards and as such is dependent upon breeders adhereing to it. For example, the breed standard for border collies says temperament must be keen, alert, responsive and intelligent, and neither nervous nor aggressive. If I had a border collie who was nervous, the breed standard could not stop me breeding from her. I could breed from her and produce border collies that may conform to the breed standard. But if I were a responsible breeder breeding to the breed standard, I would not take the risk of breeding from a nervous border collie. I would breed from a bitch with a temperament that more closely matched the breed standard and hence would be more likely to produce pups that were closer to the breed standard temperament-wise (ie not nervous)



Horse and Hound said:


> Are you saying that bad behaved or bad tempered dogs are a product of breeding and not bad ownership?
> .


I think it can be either bad breeding or bad ownership - and in some cases, both!


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Well it doesn't - it doesn't ensure anything at all by itself. It is merely a standard to work towards and as such is dependent upon breeders adhereing to it. For example, the breed standard for border collies says temperament must be keen, alert, responsive and intelligent, and neither nervous nor aggressive. If I had a border collie who was nervous, the breed standard could not stop me breeding from her. I could breed from her and produce border collies that may conform to the breed standard. But if I were a responsible breeder breeding to the breed standard, I would not take the risk of breeding from a nervous border collie. I would breed from a bitch with a temperament that more closely matched the breed standard and hence would be more likely to produce pups that were closer to the breed standard temperament-wise
> 
> I think it can be either bad breeding or bad ownership - and in some cases, both!


Gotcha. Thanks 

So you can have all the above in place, it's going to boil down t the breeder being responsible, just like when breeding pedigrees.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> So what, pardon me being direct, then is the difference between someon buying a cross breed that's not health tested and you buying a sheltie that isnt, especially if said crossbreed owner has no intention of breeding their dogs?


Because with a little piece of paper that comes with the dog I can tell you that Alaska's granddad had 0:0 hips and that 4 generations of her family are eye test clear for CEA. (the DNA test is fairly new) I can tell you 5 generations in her line 1 dog was CEA affected and it was swiftly bred out.

I can tell you Aiden's granddad had a hip score of 12 and that apart from his mum he has 5 generations of eye tested family.

I can also tell you the temperament of Aiden's granddad and Alaska's granddad. I can also tell you exactly what Alaska's mum and dad and Aiden's mum and dad are like.

If people who bought in cross breeds had no intentions of breeding then why are there so many cross by cross litters? Like collie cross lab cross whippet ect.

The difference is. These breeders put their life and soul into their dogs and breed when they want a litter to keep a pup back, they are active within their breed clubs, donate to the rescue and beg for you to keep in constant contact throughout the pups life.

(most) Cross breeders put two dogs together or let their bitch off lead while on season, think its a good way of getting a bit of cash or calming the bitch down and give their pups to whoever calls their number first.

As I previously said on this thread I was vetted to within an inch of my life by all 3 of my dogs breeders. I keep in regular contact with 2 of them and yearly contact with the other. I know if I got sick or was unable to keep my dogs I could call up the breeders and they would come and get them within a day.

So there is a big difference between buying a dog from someone who just has pups to go and buying a dog from someone who's whole life is their dogs.

Aiden's breeder suffered a bad fall and hurt her arm badly while her bitch (Aiden's mum) was heavily pregnant....Aiden's breeder is an older lady. She still managed to get the pups sorted and managed to get them to the eye exam at 6 weeks of age some 45 miles away from her home with a broken wrist. And even though still sore with her arm still got her dogs to crufts doing what she and her dogs enjoy the most....


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Because with a little piece of paper that comes with the dog I can tell you that Alaska's granddad had 0:0 hips and that 4 generations of her family are eye test clear for CEA. (the DNA test is fairly new) I can tell you 5 generations in her line 1 dog was CEA affected and it was swiftly bred out.
> 
> I can tell you Aiden's granddad had a hip score of 12 and that apart from his mum he has 5 generations of eye tested family.
> 
> ...


Great to hear from people so passionate about their dogs


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Gotcha. Thanks
> 
> So you can have all the above in place, it's going to boil down t the breeder being responsible, just like when breeding pedigrees.


That's right. The only difference is, if you have a standard to work towards, it helps you to know how to breed responsibly in order to produce good specimens of the breed.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> Are you saying that bad behaved or bad tempered dogs are a product of breeding and not bad ownership?


There is an element of this in breeding. Two breeds I am familiar with and have done research on are obviously American and Old English Bulldogs. Even if not recognized by the KC or AKC, both dog types look like fighting dogs but have had the aggression tempered by breeding by respectable breeders. That's not to say you don't have to be careful with them. Any dog can bite, especially if not trained well and socialized. I believe the same goes for Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

One of the things important for any person buying a dog is that they need to do research. A pedigree dog is likely to have a specific temperament. With a crossbreed you need to check both breeds and allow for any combination of temperament. However, even a badly trained "soppy" temperament pedigree dog can be aggressive without proper training and socialization.

A good example of a crossbreed is our Beagle/Cocker mix. It's an exceedingly soppy dog typical for a cocker but is very stubborn at times, like a beagle. I know at the training school they often mention how beagle like he is. It is also possible that this dog will develop the so called Cocker Rage Syndrome (rare even in cockers and often misdiagnosed). It's even less likely though in the crossbreed.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> If people who bought in cross breeds had no intentions of breeding then why are there so many cross by cross litters? Like collie cross lab cross whippet ect...


because unfortunately in all walks of life u get ******s that don't care and they are the ones that attract the bad press. Same as those that knowingly breed dogs that have bad temperaments and other stuff wrong with them.

I also find it ironic given that Kai was fully health tested he has ended up not being fit to breed. Goes to show it's not infallible.

I have no intention of breeding from my cross, and hence him being neutered. Same goes for the other one who's love spuds will be going as soon as he's old enough.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> I also find it ironic given that Kai was fully health tested he has ended up not being fit to breed. Goes to show it's not infallible.


Kai is not fully health tested, he is eye tested though he's being hip scored within the next year as I want to do agility with him. Due to his retained testicle its not right to breed him, although he can still breed I dont want him to. Having a retained testicle has nothing to do with how his breeder is ect although genetic it can appear out of the blue and due to the fact its genetic its not right to breed that dog.

There is a chance of it coming down up until 12 months at the latest but after 7 months we knew it wasnt going to happen. Which is sad. But its a fact of life. Because of his testicle he cant be shown.

The issue within its self is, regardless of the breed the dog should be health tested. With every generation of a breed there is new breeders coming into the breed and hopefully over time we will be able to know the genetic make up of the dogs where as back in the 50's/60's you blind bred because tests were not out.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I'm going to find a nice collie bitch to breed Oscar with so I can have a litter of Sprockollies. Catchy name, should sell well. That'll annoy you all. 

Just out of interest, how many would regard a working Sprocker a "cross-breed"? Both his parents were actually very similar to each other. Temperament wise we seem to have a calm dog compared to a full Springer and a more willing to please (less stubborn) dog than a Cocker. As well as a dog who everyone comments is "gorgeous". Is this a bad thing?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Maybe I'm being thick here but how does a blue print ensure that a dog has a certain temperament?
> 
> Are you saying that bad behaved or bad tempered dogs are a product of breeding and not bad ownership?
> 
> I think all dogs are different in temperament and character, cross bred or not, but with my cross it was fairly clear to me I was getting a terrier which would have both westie and jet characteristics in both appearance and temper. I wasn't wrong.


You can't ensure temperament- all that one can hope for is that the offspring has inherited the temperament of it's parents/ancestors but nothing is a given. Doesn't matter what is written down on breed standards.

Both of mine have the characteristics I was told and have read about. No surprises really- same as many other owners I know of the same breed.

We both have got crosses so yes you expect it to have both physical and characteristics/traits of both breeds.

So when people say you don't know what you are getting with a cross 
ermm think the answer is a cross- we are not expecting anything else


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Well, physically it could be crossed with anything of a similar size. But - you mentioned elsewhere on here that one of the reasons people want crosses is that they want a combination of both breeds. Why is it that a cross between a cocker spaniel and a poodle seems ok to you, but a cross between a bergie and anything has you going  ? I'm not having a go in the least, so please don't be offended - I am genuinely interested in why one sort of cross is ok and the other isn't. Like I said in my earlier post, I don't want anyone to cross them at all - but I can imagine someone wanting their personality but not their coats, and crossing them with something with very little coat to try to achieve this. Or, I suppose, the other way round - wanting their coats on a more docile, non-guarding type breed.
> 
> I meant  in a good way as in I can't see what dog would work well as it would probably lose it's coat or alter it, well not without a lot of serious thought nor late at night.
> 
> ...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> But it goes to show though that YES crossbreeding CAN have a purpose!


Of course, i dont think anyone has said differently, the difference being the enthusiasts of the Hovawart for example knew what they wanted to achieve and they achieved it...they bred to a standard and worked hard to get the breed recognised and the revived breed is now recognised and accepted in many countrys....i see them all the time at shows as theyre in the working group like my own breed.

but this example is really not the same as individuals with no aim or passion just breeding to supply a demand is it.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> Of course, i dont think anyone has said differently,. . .


goodvic2 answered her/his own question on the very first post of the thread saying differently! . . . I thought it would be hard to have missed. 



goodvic2 said:


> I don't believe there is. . . .


CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> goodvic2 answered her/his own question on the very first post of the thread saying differently! . . . I thought it would be hard to have missed.
> 
> CC


ive not read all Goodvic's posts and i cant really answer for her...but i know shes is heavily involved in rescue and tbh i can undersand why she feels so despairing.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> ive not read all Goodvic's posts and i cant really answer for her...but i know shes is heavily involved in rescue and tbh i can undersand why she feels so despairing.


Its easy to understand . . .

When I've been in the position I look for solutions/try to get to the heart of the matter - beats getting mopey. I've not had the time to keep up, and the thread moved on from this queery . . .



shetlandlover said:


> Just to keep on here....
> 
> What do you think is a solution to keeping certain breeds out of the rescue crisis?
> 
> . . .


Was there ever any takers?

CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Its easy to understand . . .
> 
> When I've been in the position I look for solutions/try to get to the heart of the matter - beats getting mopey. I've not had the time to keep up, and the thread moved on from this queery . . .
> 
> ...


well the rescue situation with my breed seemed to go down hill after the flamin snowdogs film when all the bybs, pet owners started cashing in on their popularity....so if this type of breeder stops churning them out(plus all the other breeds and crosses) and buyers refuse to support them, then its bound to have a knock on effect in rescues.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> You can't ensure temperament- all that one can hope for is that the offspring has inherited the temperament of it's parents/ancestors but nothing is a given. Doesn't matter what is written down on breed standards.
> 
> *Both of mine have the characteristics I was told and have read about. No surprises really- same as many other owners I know of the same breed.*
> We both have got crosses so yes you expect it to have both physical and characteristics/traits of both breeds.
> ...


I agree, despite being a cross and having a number of physical variables there does appear to be a personality type. I am sure there are some exceptions though as there are will all types of dogs.

I would also like to comment that despite suggestions otherwise, some breeders of Cockapoos take a lot of care over the dogs that they breed from. They have a carefully consider the temprament, the health, and they type of poodle stud dog. They take a lot of pride in the puppies that are born as a result. I also appreciate that alot are money making ******** but sadly people like that are in all walks of life.

IMHO to keep breeds out of rescues there needs to be alot of public education. Until people stop buying a dog on a whim or because it makes them look hard  the BYB will just continue to meet the demand. As has been demonstrated in other consumer driven markets, when the public are made aware of issues they often react. Obviously for this to occur there would need to be a joint campaign with the rescue centres which requires an awful lot of money and thought. Unless they come up with a cheaper way of getting the message across. Maybe we need to start with the next generations and have a few school trips to rescue centres or encourage work experience in them? I am not a dog breeding expert but I know that supply feeds demand and I believe that is what needs to be tackled.

I am now off to make a cuppa! :thumbup:


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Of course, i dont think anyone has said differently,


The opening poster asked if there was ever a reason to cross breed, then said that they didn't think so, no.

So there is actually a reason to cross breed, and a perfectly valid one at that.





sezra said:


> I agree, despite being a cross and having a number of physical variables there does appear to be a personality type. I am sure there are some exceptions though as there are will all types of dogs.
> 
> I would also like to comment that despite suggestions otherwise, some breeders of Cockapoos take a lot of care over the dogs that they breed from. They have a carefully consider the temprament, the health, and they type of poodle stud dog. They take a lot of pride in the puppies that are born as a result. I also appreciate that alot are money making ******** but sadly people like that are in all walks of life.


I was walking my 2 on cuerden the other day and there was a woman with a retreiver x poodle, a lab x poodle and someone else with a cocker x poodle. They were talking and turns out the cockerpoo and labradoodle had the same poodle stud.

I was being nosey so I walked past...should have stopped and butted in, that kind of stuff always fascinates me.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> I was walking my 2 on cuerden the other day and there was a woman with a retreiver x poodle, a lab x poodle and someone else with a cocker x poodle. They were talking and turns out the cockerpoo and labradoodle had the same poodle stud.


Sounds like someone in your neighbourhood is making a few bob from their poodle 

"Studding out" pet dogs seems a nice little earner for some owners


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> Sounds like someone in your neighbourhood is making a few bob from their poodle
> 
> "Studding out" pet dogs seems a nice little earner for some owners


Or they've studded him out 3 or 4 times and this was a co-incidence, who knows. I'll stop and ask them what name the stud us if I see them again, seen the woman with the labradoodle a few times.

There was one making a few bob from a dalmation too a few years back. Churning out litter after litter of pedigrees as well after she did reasonably well at Crufts. MY OH's best friend's girlfriend has her now as a rehome rescue when they decided to give her up as she was too old to breed.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

There will always be people who exploit breeds and those that encourage it.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Sounds like someone in your neighbourhood is making a few bob from their poodle
> 
> "Studding out" pet dogs seems a nice little earner for some owners


Never presume it's a pet being studded out nor one that lives in the same neighbourhood:hand:

As Sleeping Lion has already mentioned there are Show stud dog owners who are happy to stud there dogs out to crossbreed owners.
Probably more than we realise


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> The opening poster asked if there was ever a reason to cross breed, then said that they didn't think so, no.
> 
> So there is actually a reason to cross breed, and a perfectly valid one at that.
> 
> ...


dear me:nonod:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Never presume it's a pet being studded out nor one that lives in the same neighbourhood:hand:
> 
> As Sleeping Lion has already mentioned there are Show stud dog owners who are happy to stud there dogs out to crossbreed owners.
> Probably more than we realise


unfortunatly some folks principles and ethics go out the window when money is involved


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> unfortunatly some folks principles and ethics go out the window when money is involved


Yes sadly that is true- though across all types of dogs.

When you get KC registered Breeders not adhering to best breeding practices and show breeders whom most would class both as being the ones _to_ go to for a puppy then :nono::nono:

Good roles models are what are needed but if some of the supposed creme de la creme are not getting it right then don't think the crossbreeders should be taking the brunt of it.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes sadly that is true- though across all types of dogs.
> 
> When you get KC registered Breeders not adhering to best breeding practices and show breeders whom most would class both as being the ones _to_ go to for a puppy then :nono::nono:
> .


The difference being, of course, that if a KC Accredited Breeder does not adhere to the standards then their accreditation can be withdrawn. There is no check at all on crossbreeders and their practices so unfortunately it has to be a case of _caveat emptor_.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> The difference being, of course, that if a KC Accredited Breeder does not adhere to the standards then their accreditation can be withdrawn. There is no check at all on crossbreeders and their practices so unfortunately it has to be a case of _caveat emptor_.


That doesn't always follow though does it? There have been a few posts on this forum where people has suspected KC accredited breeders not adhering to the standards and when notifying the KC they seem not wanting to address it.

Yes I agree some sort of crossbreed register would be good too.

But these things are only as good if the people using them abide by the rules set and the people in charge make sure that they are followed.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> The difference being, of course, that if a KC Accredited Breeder does not adhere to the standards then their accreditation can be withdrawn.


I'd like to just consider the following link:
Accredited Breeder Scheme Resignation Whilst researching dogs over the years I have found many opinions on many different subjects. To me this sounds like a responsible breeder and one who is also prepared to take a stance to do what they feel is right even if that would possibly mean expulsion from the KC. That doesn't make them a bad breeder. I would also like to point out that they are still showing the accredited logo so I assume things were worked out. I certainly hope so.

It of interest to the original post that they also breed Labrador Retriever crossed with a Golden Retriever. According to their site 47% of Guide Dogs are this kind of cross.


> Goldadors or Golden Labrador Retrievers have been bred successfully for over a decade. Unlike the Labradoodle or Goldendoodle this mating seems to have consistently excellent results.


I am aware that I tend to research when looking at getting a dog. Many people aren't. I've seen so much focus on the breeders but, at the end of the day, it's the people who buy the puppies who are the ones who can influence things. Bad breeders, no matter what breed, are simply supplying a demand.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

The problem I have with pedigree breeding as it is practised at the moment is the ever decreasing gene pools that are being created. The addressing of that issue in a serious way will lead to cross-breeding and that I feel is one good reason for cross-breeding.

If you have a town of say 4000 inhabitants and the inhabitants are only allowed to breed with people from the same town for generations and generations then it would become increasingly difficult to find any mate that was not related in some way. If you then made a stipulation that only blue eyed people with big noses and of a certain height were allowed to breed that would further restrict the gene pool. Males that fulfilled the criteria would mate with lots of women, so would have sons and daughters throughout the town. Males and females who were consistently producing the correct offspring would be in demand as opposed to those whose offspring were incorrect or their ability to meet the criteria was patchy.
In order to produce offspring that were blue eyed and big nosed and of the right height, inbreeding would be rife. As time went on and desirability entered into the situation, the blue eyes would need to be clearer and bluer, the noses more correct and bigger and the height specification more narrow.
Very occasionally males from out of town would show up and if they also looked right they would be in demand and mate with lots of women to produce many offspring too. The outcrossing effect of the "new" male would very quickly become diluted, until it effectively made no difference whatsoever. Eventually even those out-of-town fathered children would mate with relatives.
The townspeople would all eventually look very alike, but their genetic diversity would be dire. 
If into this equation you add genetic disease then the chances of being blue eyed, big nosed, of a certain height and also suffering from a genetic disease would be very, very high.

I have taken the example of a town with a starting population of 4000 , but many pedigree dog breeds are founded on just a few individuals or a few highly popular lines.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Never presume it's a pet being studded out nor one that lives in the same neighbourhood:hand:


It will be


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

Goblin said:


> I'd like to just consider the following link:
> Accredited Breeder Scheme Resignation Whilst researching dogs over the years I have found many opinions on many different subjects. To me this sounds like a responsible breeder and one who is also prepared to take a stance to do what they feel is right even if that would possibly mean expulsion from the KC. That doesn't make them a bad breeder. I would also like to point out that they are still showing the accredited logo so I assume things were worked out. I certainly hope so.
> 
> It of interest to the original post that they also breed Labrador Retriever crossed with a Golden Retriever. According to their site 47% of Guide Dogs are this kind of cross.
> ...


Which is exactly what I have said. You have to educate the puppy buying public. Until there is more understanding about dog breeding practices, health testing etc people will continue to go for the quick option rather than the sensible option.

Whether there is a reason to cross breed or not (we are all not going to agree on that no matter how much it is debated) like I have said before it will continue. There are good and bad breeders of pedigrees and of crosses it is down to the choice of the buyers where they go. Maybe rather than programs about people on council estates there should be more programs made about the disgraceful circumstances that some dogs have to go through to line the pockets of certain 'breeders'. I am sure they have been made before, however it needs repeating regularly to keep reaching people. I also think it should be made harder to own a dog. God knows how you do it, but maybe a registration system of some kind might deter those quick fix puppy buyers? 

You can go round and round in circles debating if there is ever a reason to cross or not but in reality it is kind of pointless. Much of what has been discussed actually relates to breeding practices and the morals of people buying and selling. Sorry  ...... not knocking the question as it is a thought provoking discussion and any new person on here will certainly learn alot about the ethics of dog breeding and peoples opinions of it! I had posted a thread about what could be done to educate the public and improve breeding however no one really bothered to reply to that. Maybe its because no one has the answers or the power to do what actually needs to be done to improve things. Until things are changed, the rescue situation will continue to be awful and we will continue banging our heads against a brick wall when we hear about another puppy farm or another abandoned dog! :crazy:


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

sezra said:


> I had posted a thread about what could be done to educate the public and improve breeding however no one really bothered to reply to that. Maybe its because no one has the answers or the power to do what actually needs to be done to improve things. Until things are changed, the rescue situation will continue to be awful and we will continue banging our heads against a brick wall when we hear about another puppy farm or another abandoned dog! :crazy:


Oh... . . oh . . . . oh:w00t:

I missed it!

I'm gonna go have a look, cuz there are plenty of communities across North America, from large cities to small rural areas, where changes made by those in rescue leadership have helped. Many of those communities in North America HAVE reached no-kill success (no-kill as defined, still allows for the euthanasia of the irremediably suffering).

Those changed have been studied and documented and there is PLENTY of information on the net about what needs to be done. I've libraried many links, so I'll definately be adding to that thread.

However, I have found that many are so overwhelmed they just don't seem to even want to consider those solutions . . . or that success can be achieved.

Just a quick start off here:

An Overnight Success - http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/12/an-overnight-success.html



> . . . In the letter from the director at UPAWS, (a completely open admission shelter that has several city contract), they happily reported that in 2007, the shelter made the decision to try No Kill. The shelter was in dire financial problems, and from 1999 to 2006 they had an average Kill Rate of 60%.
> 
> In 2007, the implemented many of the changes from the book Redemption, including:
> 
> ...


With or without "pet overpopulation", The solution is still the same - http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogb...opulation-the-solution-is-still-the-same.html

A No Kill nation is within our reach - http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/

How The Animal Protection Movement Is Failing Pitbulls - http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/PitBulls.pdf

CC


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> Oh... . . oh . . . . oh:w00t:
> 
> I missed it!
> 
> ...


Maybe my title was a bit rubbish!  :yesnod: I obviously needed something a bit more attention grabbing!

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/172612-breeding-council-all-dogs.html

I was trying to start a positive thread so that rather than discussing everything that is wrong (not a bad thing though ) people could maybe make suggestions on how the situation could be improved. I am a doer (is that a word?) If I don't like something I see what i can do to change it. Even if I can't do a huge amount personally other than carefully select my breeder and advise anyone who I know (and will listen) to do the same maybe collectively as a forum something could be done?  These things often have to start small but you never know what they might lead to. What we all have in common despite the old Pedigree/cross issue is the welfare of dogs, reducing the rescue problems and educating the public. There must be avenues to be explored?????


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

sezra said:


> Maybe my title was a bit rubbish!  :yesnod: I obviously needed something a bit more attention grabbing!:


You needed to fit 'Crossbreed' in the thread title somehow. That would've done it.

CC


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Of course we could mention the PDSA's recent stand on pedigree dogs as a reason for cross breeding, being discussed on another thread.

http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/173183-pdsa-new-policy-only-allow-one-pedigree.html

Changes To PDSA PetAid Hospital Service
"*Why does this apply to pedigree pets and not crossbreeds?*
Sadly, pedigree pets often need high levels of care due to inherited illnesses and breed-related conditions. This results in a disproportionate allocation of PDSA charitable veterinary resources, which is neither fair nor appropriate. Generally, non-pedigree dogs and cats dont have the same health issues as pedigree breeds."


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> An Overnight Success - An Overnight Success - KC DOG BLOG
> 
> With or without "pet overpopulation", The solution is still the same - With or without "pet overpopulation", The solution is still the same - KC DOG BLOG
> 
> ...


Wow, that's amazing, how positive to see such a turnaround!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Werehorse said:


> Just out of interest, how many would regard a working Sprocker a "cross-breed"?
> 
> Both his parents were actually very similar to each other. Temperament wise we seem to have a calm dog compared to a full Springer and a more willing to please (less stubborn) dog than a Cocker. As well as a dog who everyone comments is "gorgeous". Is this a bad thing?


I would regard it as a cross-breed, and would be curious as to the reasons behind the mating (although - and could be way off the mark on this one) - I am sure I have heard that they do have enhanced working ability compared to their individual breeds in certain areas? so this may the reason behind the cross.

Also - they are dogs of similar 'type' compared to say a cocker and a poodle, or a lab and a poodle.

As for how you would expect them to be - TBH - no-one would have any idea - you are VERY LUCKY how yours has turned out - and like ALL dogs, of course he will be gorgeous (as I've pointed out so many times before, it's predominantly the people I have an issue with) - I have loads of people tell me all my gang are gorgeous.

To turn it on it's head, you could have ended up with the Springer energy and enthusiasm for life, combined with the stubborness of a Cocker and the questionable and much debated 'rage syndrome' believed to affect some Cockers - then you really would have a problem on your hands - and not a gorgeous laid back pupster that everyone loves.

Regardless of your dogs parents temperament, the above scenario is just as likely as the laid back chappie you have got yourself, or anything inbetween - because the behaviour and tendencies are in the genes and most breeders simply won't / can't do the level of research required to minimise the risks of a worst case scenario.

It takes years to get to know about one breed - and we are always learning -including when it comes to breeding - so what do deliberate cross-breeders have that makes them so knowledgeable to do the best by the pups they produce in terms of both health and temperament?


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I do know the reason for the cross was to get a quaity working pup for the breeder. I *think* you are correct in saying that sprockers are regarded a good working dogs (I have had a few rural kids at school tell me so, and if kids are telling you it it's generally a rumour that is pretty ingrained in the community).

All the sprocker owners I have spoken to have laid back, obediant dogs. Whereas lots of springers I have met are basically tapped! Not an exhaustive study obviously, it would be interesting to see what percentage are "difficult" compared to the percentage of the purebreeds that are "difficult".

It is worth noting that we went looking for a high energy, high drive pup when we found Oscar (which is why we went for a working bred dog in the first place) so we were prepared for any outcome really. I think I'm going to have to get back in touch with the breeder to see if I can get the goss on how his siblings turned out.

I think it was Sleeping Lion who told me that the two breeds were basically the same breed until very recently, which is why I was interested in seeing if people regarded it as a cross.

Nurture has an awful lot to do with temperament, even in dogs.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

swarthy said:


> It takes years to get to know about one breed - and we are always learning -including when it comes to breeding - so what do deliberate cross-breeders have that makes them so knowledgeable to do the best by the pups they produce in terms of both health and temperament?


I could ask the same about the requirements about the so called "standards" for something like the english bulldog. Lets face it the standard is based upon looks, not the elimination of health issues or even temperament. These defined looks actually cause a lot of the breed health issues. Is the goal really to to the best for pups in terms of health and temperament or simply to follow a standard for shows where temperament and health doesn't even come into play? I know this is one breed out of many and a lot of pedigree breeds have a lot of leeway for improving and eliminating health problems but this example, I feels shows where the system fails.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

swarthy said:


> I would regard it as a cross-breed, and would be curious as to the reasons behind the mating (although - and could be way off the mark on this one) - I am sure I have heard that they do have enhanced working ability compared to their individual breeds in certain areas? so this may the reason behind the cross.
> 
> Also - they are dogs of similar 'type' compared to say a cocker and a poodle, or a lab and a poodle.
> 
> ...


*

* You may have taken an interest in your labs but I doubt very much if you can say that all pedigree breeders do the same.

How many knowledgeable pedigree breeders are there compared to the amount of breeders breeding pedigrees?

Depends on what constitutes knowledgeable- as you have rightly said learning it's an ongoing thing. So at one point would you say that a breeder is knowledgeable.???

You are coming at it from a breeders perspective and asking us pet owners- you may be better asking a breeder the question.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes sadly that is true- though across all types of dogs.
> 
> When you get KC registered Breeders not adhering to best breeding practices and show breeders whom most would class both as being the ones _to_ go to for a puppy then :nono::nono:
> 
> Good roles models are what are needed but if some of the supposed creme de la creme are not getting it right then don't think the crossbreeders should be taking the brunt of it.


research is the key, anyone buying something so important as a puppy should do as much research as they can, and although far from perfect as Spellweaver has said there is the ABS, plus the kc have restrictions on the age a dog is bred, the gap between breeding a bitch and the amount of litters a bitch has in her lifetime....tho i would like to see things tighten up further its got to be better than nothing....theres a couple who live on the opposite estate to me and have 2, i think they said cockapoos( i could be wrong because i cant see any spaniel in them at all, infact they are identical and i wouldnt be surprised if they are siblings but from different litters because they are from the same breeder...the owners said the are unrelated but im very suspicious), the bitch had her 1st accidental litter at 12 months old despite me telling them she wasnt mature enough physically or mentally and informing them of the mismate jab....shes just had her second litter and shes barely 18 months old!...i was disgusted! (they said they are going to her spayed...but we'll see )now i know they love their dogs they are very well cared for but they are so ignorant and see no wrong in what they have done they just keep harping on about their vet who says its fine!...if these were litters of pedigrees neither litter could be registered.

anyway its really not hard to find an ethical pedigree breeder if you do the research


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> anyway its really not hard to find an ethical pedigree breeder if you do the research


Correct, though much simpler to just browse and buy online ... so many poeple want "instant puppies" though ... and too many people willing to supply them.

Gone it seems are the days when people talked to Breed Club reps, did some research, gave some thought and were willing to possibly wait for puppy.

Most (not all) it seems want an "Argos style" pup .... click and purchase


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> research is the key, anyone buying something so important as a puppy should do as much research as they can, and although far from perfect as Spellweaver has said there is the ABS, plus the kc have restrictions on the age a dog is bred, the gap between breeding a bitch and the amount of litters a bitch has in her lifetime....tho i would like to see things tighten up further its got to be better than nothing....theres a couple who live on the opposite estate to me and have 2, i think they said cockapoos( i could be wrong because i cant see any spaniel in them at all, infact they are identical and i wouldnt be surprised if they are siblings but from different litters because they are from the same breeder...the owners said the are unrelated but im very suspicious), the bitch had her 1st accidental litter at 12 months old despite me telling them she wasnt mature enough physically or mentally and informing them of the mismate jab....shes just had her second litter and shes barely 18 months old!...i was disgusted! (they said they are going to her spayed...but we'll see )now i know they love their dogs they are very well cared for but they are so ignorant and see no wrong in what they have done they just keep harping on about their vet who says its fine!...if these were litters of pedigrees neither litter could be registered.
> 
> anyway its really not hard to find an ethical pedigree breeder if you do the research


With all the breed standards- breed club support and ABS then really all pedigree breeders should be what you class as "ethical" sadly that is very far from the truth :nonod:


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> With all the breed standards- breed club support and ABS then really all pedigree breeders should be what you class as "ethical" sadly that is very far from the truth :nonod:


Many "pedigree breeders" don't belong to Breed Clubs. Neither do they even try to breed to standard, they breed to sell online, that is all.

Pet breeders and backyard breeders.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Many "pedigree breeders" don't belong to Breed Clubs. Neither do they even try to breed to standard, they breed to sell online, that is all.
> 
> Pet breeders and backyard breeders.


Yes I agree.

We used to have one so called Pedigree breeder advertise in our local paper with a big advert and website with a list of dogs available such as: Westies, Cockers, Labs and a couple of others I can't remember.

Fortunately I don't see the advert anymore.


----------



## rbon450 (Jun 7, 2011)

Hey it is great feeling to see your dogs together. My dog didn't eat properly. Don't want to run with me. Finding reasons. But your dogs are happy, because they found you.


----------



## mstori (May 22, 2009)

ive tried to catch up with this thread but had to admit defeat in the end.. far too many pages :001_tongue:

As known, I am all for cross beeds if done correctly, I saw an ad for labradorx staffies yesterday, I cant understand why anyone would do that!?

I want to ask a question (and it is genuine) what checks are done on pedigree dogs prior to registering? Im no good with the lingo used but for eg, I had a pedigree weimaraner, who turned out it was actually from a puppyfarm in ireland and had been shipped over  she had serious issues.

We had english and irish setters, yorkshire terrier, greyhounds when i was younger, all pedigrees, and had no problems as such. (although my mam would argue that the amount of drool the setters produced was haha) I have also had cross breeds with no issues too.

I was told though that a local breeder "euthanises" the puppies that dont meet his "standard" and that used to be common in the past. Therefore are any statistics actually true?

Obviously my new dog has a birth defect which could have happened even if he had not been crossed, he may well have ended up with worse issues like ct, and it will take a few years for the "designer" dogs true statistics (god i hate the word designer) but just wanted to know if it proved that certain problems were eradicated through cross breeding would this change anyones views? or would it be prefered to try and maintain the pedigree (if that makes sense, im tired haha)


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Is there ever a reason to crossbreed apart for what has been said about choice and preference yes:

Crossbreeding maximes heterozygosity ( 2 different copies of the gene) especially where F1 generations are concerned.

Where as Pedigrees have endured years of inbreeding and line breeding to get where they are and this pursuit of perfection and uniformity means that the undesirable genes are increasingly likely to be homozygous and therefore can affect the dogs health as in genetic diseases.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Having just read about a sharpei x gsd mix, no, there is no reason to crossbreed such breeds!!!

Having stayed out of this thread so far


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> Having just read about a sharpei x gsd mix, no, there is no reason to crossbreed such breeds!!!
> 
> Having stayed out of this thread so far


Your better off out it!!
I keep saying I won't bother with anymore of these threads but then I do.

Still it livens it up when the forum goes boring 

At the end of the day I'm happy with my dogs couldn't give a stuff about what anyone thinks on here to be honest.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Your better off out it!!
> I keep saying I won't bother with anymore of these threads but then I do.
> 
> Still it livens it up when the forum goes boring
> ...


Well I am not getting involved, coz I dont like crossbreeding, but TBH, your cross is one of the better ones - the breeds are similar in size and stuff anyway. But a Sharpei and a GSD??? Come on man!!


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Sharpei x GSD what were they thinking? It's crosses like this that really rile me and i'm not prejudiced as I have three crosses of my own but some mixes are just not thought out!


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Its like the pug and the rottweiler - FFS!!!


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Ceearott said:


> Its like the pug and the rottweiler - FFS!!!


No, that didn't happen did it???


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Malmum said:


> No, that didn't happen did it???


It sure did!! Apparently the rottie lay down for the pug 

They were advertised as Pugweilers and some ridiculous price was being asked for them


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

O M G!!! what idiots!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Ceearott said:


> Well I am not getting involved, coz I dont like crossbreeding, but TBH, your cross is one of the better ones - the breeds are similar in size and stuff anyway. But a Sharpei and a GSD??? Come on man!!


I have always said I don't agree with all crosses.

I actually own two crosses as well as Monty my Cockapoo- I have Milly my Cavapoo. ( my avatar pic)

Both have been bred since the 1950/60's ( keep finding differing info) in America so not a new faze like some.

Both have lived up to what I was told. Well actually Milly is a fantastic cross ( i know of a couple of others on on another forum) and if crossing her with her poodle gives her more chance of not having heart problems that most Cavaliers get then I'm all for it.


----------



## sheriffjonny (Jun 23, 2011)

My Shar pei x GSD is a wonderful little puppy, the vet actually commented on how good his eyes and ears were. He made the comment that the shepherd in him will hopefull straigthen the eye area in relation to entropian. Of course he's still a baby, anything could happen. In all research done on crossbreeds, they have lived longer and also have suffered with fewer health problems, i think the average age of death was about 1.5-2 years older in cross breeds
But like someone else stated in this thread, i don't really care too much for what other people say about the breed of my dog, he's not their pet afterall!!


----------



## susieborder (Jul 23, 2010)

Someone i know of (family connection) who lives in the same part of the country as myself is now advertising "5 adorable DDBxRottweiler" I asked the reason behind this mix, the answer i heard was "money" when i asked if they had been health tested, if the parents had been health tested, etc, i was told, "dont be silly, that costs money and she has 6 children to feed as well" if these dont sell she is apparently going to breed full DDB's as she could get a grand each for them 
Surely these two breeds could be a potential disaster, just asking as not familier with either.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Agree with what has been said, there are some crosses that are just plain stupid. I mean the pug and the rotty?! 

But mine, JRT x Westie. Both terriers, both good ratters, both similar sizes...perfectly obvious what I was getting and he hasn't dissapointed.


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Dont crosses live longer and healthier lives than pure breeds? Inbreeding surely is unethical and imo should be banned. Look at humans that inbreed..cousins with cousins..a large majority of them end up with a kid that has down syndrome.

Inbreeding is not healthy and inbreeding to make a pure breed dog should not be allowed.

The original Pug's muzzle was never so squashed however to please our human desires people have made the Pugs face soo squashed that the breed has respiratory problems.










Do you really think the modern day Pug with its face has been bred to improve the breed health wise or looks wise?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

5rivers79 said:


> Dont crosses live longer and healthier lives than pure breeds? Inbreeding surely is unethical and imo should be banned. Look at humans that inbreed..cousins with cousins..a large majority of them end up with a kid that has down syndrome.
> 
> Inbreeding is not healthy and inbreeding to make a pure breed dog should not be allowed.


Has anyone supported inbreeding? (I havent read the whole thread, so do excuse me if I have missed something!) with some breeds, with limited numbers at times breeders will have no choice other than to carry out a close mating.
I often wonder if line breeding is mistaken for inbreeding in alot of cases, but lets not go there. Far to long and boring for a sunny afternoon.
The KC has banned the registeration of certain matings. Like mother, son and the like..
How ever matings such as grandfather, granddaughter are still accepted - and when such matings are done by the correct type of breeder it can be very worth while. Although its not something that should be carried out by them not knowledgeable on the breed, and lines.


----------



## sheriffjonny (Jun 23, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I often wonder if line breeding is mistaken for inbreeding in alot of cases, but lets not go there. Far to long and boring for a sunny afternoon.
> .


It's the same thing isn't it, just line breeding doesn't sound as controversial?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

sheriffjonny said:


> It's the same thing isn't it, just line breeding doesn't sound as controversial?


Its a hard one, its not the same thing as inbreeding is close relatives being mated, where as line breeding would be of two dogs some what related but not as close.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

In genetics the difference between inbreeding and line breeding is one degree.

Line breeding can erode breed genetic diversity by over using specific dogs so it's not without risks.

Both line breeding and inbreeding can perpetuate the chances of undesirable genes to be homozygous. ( both copies the same) which has resulted over the years in health problems and genetic diseases for our purebreeds.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

5rivers79 said:


> Dont crosses live longer and healthier lives than pure breeds? Inbreeding surely is unethical and imo should be banned. Look at humans that inbreed..cousins with cousins..a large majority of them end up with a kid that has down syndrome.Have you got any sound evidence of the above statement ya have made??
> 
> Inbreeding is not healthy and inbreeding to make a pure breed dog should not be allowed.


Regarding inbreeding some crossbreed papers are made up so God knows what some are mating with,could be brother to sister etc... for all they know


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

gladass said:


> Regarding inbreeding some crossbreed papers are made up so God knows what some are mating with,could be brother to sister etc... for all they know


Yeh i do have sound evidence, come take a visit of my neighbourhood.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

5rivers79 said:


> Yeh i do have sound evidence, come take a visit of my neighbourhood.


LOL Not scientific then


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Are we talking about humans or dogs now- when asking for evidence in relation to 5rivers79 comments?

Coz if humans have you seen the Jeremy Vile ( kyle) show?


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Crossbreeding maintains genetic diversity, but when that cross breed is similarly bred from the parents, creating designer dog breeds, problems are likely to occur again.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Are we talking about humans or dogs now- when asking for evidence in relation to 5rivers79 comments?l
> 
> Coz if humans have you seen the Jeremy Vile ( kyle) show?


Dogs of course although would have liked evidence of cousin to cousin human mating causing what the member posted

Where I live there are loads of old Pedigree dogs but it does not mean I can post for defo that they are healthier cause they are in ma hometown lol

5rivers you have a dog that ya did not read the pedigree papers for soooo How ya know he has not been Inbred ??


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

gladass said:


> Dogs of course although would have liked evidence of cousin to cousin human mating causing what the member posted
> 
> Where I live there are loads of old Pedigree dogs but it does not mean I can post for defo that they are healthier cause they are in ma hometown lol
> 
> 5rivers you have a dog that ya did not read the pedigree papers for soooo How ya know he has not been Inbred ??


I did read the papers for the sire, i just didnt make a note of them so cant remember what they said. I guess i took the word of the breeder who told me the parents of the pup were acquired from different breeders.

I have a number of friends and family who are Dr's and they will confirm cousin to cousin marriages have a greater risk of producing a genetic mutation causing disibilities such as down syndrome.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

5rivers79 said:


> I guess i took the word of the breeder who told me the parents of the pup were acquired from different breeders.


how does this prove the pups were not inbred.  dogs dont have to be bred or even owned by the same breeders to follow the same lines.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> Agree with what has been said, there are some crosses that are just plain stupid. I mean the pug and the rotty?!
> 
> But mine, JRT x Westie. Both terriers, both good ratters, both similar sizes...perfectly obvious what I was getting and he hasn't dissapointed.


Out of pure curiosity, what made you want this particular crossbreed rather than a JRT? I can understand you may have been reluctant to buy a Westie for fear of skin issues or maybe too expensive? But why a JRT/Westie cross in particular, or was it simply that they were available


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> how does this prove the pups were not inbred.  dogs dont have to be bred or even owned by the same breeders to follow the same lines.


Well inbreeding and pure breeding still is not healthy for the canid species. Guess i should have got a mongrel.:blush:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

5rivers79 said:


> Well inbreeding and pure breeding still is not healthy for the canid species. Guess i should have got a mongrel.:blush:


Hmmm..Do you even know what your talking about. If you dont feel that pure breeding is healthy I to am wondering why you didnt get a mongrel :w00t:

I am also wondering where your narrow minded views have come from. Like I said getting two dogs from different breeders, and then breeding them does not mean that any puppies wont have a high COI.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

goodvic2 said:


> I don't believe there is.
> 
> We have breeds of dogs which suit any purpose. So why would we need more?
> 
> Is it fair to our dogs in rescue to breed for no reason other than "because I want to"


Ummm well if we really dig deep into the dogs history nearly all dogs have been cross bread to obviously make new breeds.. for example a st.bernard ...they originally had thin coats because they wanted them for mountain dogs they were mated with newfies to make their coats thicker.
If you ask questions like this you have to really ask is it right to cross breed any animal?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> .
> I often wonder if line breeding is mistaken for inbreeding in alot of cases, but lets not go there. Far to long and boring for a sunny afternoon.
> The KC has banned the registeration of certain matings. Like mother, son and the like..
> How ever matings such as grandfather, granddaughter are still accepted - *and when such matings are done by the correct type of breeder it can be very worth while*. Although its not something that should be carried out by them not knowledgeable on the breed, and lines.


Exactly. When Dr Andreoli rescued the bergamasco breed from extinction, she used the original lines and her breeding COIs were extremely high - and yet the bergamasco is still a very healthy breed with no known health problems.


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> Out of pure curiosity, what made you want this particular crossbreed rather than a JRT? I can understand you may have been reluctant to buy a Westie for fear of skin issues or maybe too expensive? But why a JRT/Westie cross in particular, or was it simply that they were available


Amerthyst you really are rude!! Katie could afford to buy a pedigree but chose a cross her choice! Or would you only care if she rescued the dog? So Harvey is ok becasue he's a rescue but Roo isn't allowed because she bought him?!?!?!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

stigDarley said:


> Amerthyst you really are rude!! Katie could afford to buy a pedigree but chose a cross her choice! Or would you only care if she rescued the dog? So Harvey is ok becasue he's a rescue but Roo isn't allowed because she bought him?!?!?!


Considering Amethyst refuses to answer me on what dogs she owns- which is a fair question considering after all this is a petforum- and she doesn't share any stories/pics on her dogs- I think to cast aspersions on other's choices is taking the P to be honest.


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

I think this post has upset some people! 

At the end of the day I don't think anyone can judge someones preference of cross breeds to pedigrees. 

Cross breeds have their place as do ped's. The labradoodle is a new breed... 
my beloved dobe's are only 100 odd years old which is a very young breed. All breeds are a result of cross breeding period stop being snobby about it!! I really like a breed thats new in america the Canis panther! But if i decided I wanted to create my own breed who is anyone to jude me? As long as the dogs are health tested well looked after and loved!

What i think should be the united concern is BYB... rather then upseting and hurting peoples feelings!


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Hmmm..Do you even know what your talking about. If you dont feel that pure breeding is healthy I to am wondering why you didnt get a mongrel :w00t:
> 
> I am also wondering where your narrow minded views have come from. Like I said getting two dogs from different breeders, and then breeding them does not mean that any puppies wont have a high COI.


Oooh you must be one that advocates "line breeding" hey? Disgusting. By the way my Akita isnt pedigree


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

5rivers79 said:


> Oooh you must be one that advocates "line breeding" hey? Disgusting. By the way my Akita isnt pedigree


if you mean your Akita isnt pure bred why call him an Akita? strange


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> Out of pure curiosity, what made you want this particular crossbreed rather than a JRT? I can understand you may have been reluctant to buy a Westie for fear of skin issues or maybe too expensive? But why a JRT/Westie cross in particular, or was it simply that they were available


Nothing to do with them being "too expensive" . Some people command ridiculous fees for pedigrees and crosses alike, yes, but if you want a dog you will save enough for that dog, no matter how long it takes your. 
A number of reasons made me want this particular cross, which I have eplained several times before.

I've always loved JRTs and grown up with them on and around the yard and same goes for Westies, my friend had a fantastic Westie, Charlie, who sadly passed away last year at the ripe old age of 15. Both the breeds had made a good impression on me and despite their terrier traits I really was completely torn when looking into it.

We'd parked the issue of getting a dog after being refused from several rescues for having too small a house, working full time, or not enough grass on the garden... until we went to the garden centre for some fish stuff and got talking to a bloke behind the counter about all sorts. Mentioned the dog and he said that his friend had bred some pups and that one of the people meant to be taking one had let him down.

We got his number and I did a bit of digging. We met 2 peolpe who had pups from his previous litter and completely fell in love with the dogs.

The rest the say is history. I got the best of both worlds.



stigDarley said:


> Amerthyst you really are rude!! Katie could afford to buy a pedigree but chose a cross her choice! Or would you only care if she rescued the dog? So Harvey is ok becasue he's a rescue but Roo isn't allowed because she bought him?!?!?!


Ha, I really couldn't give two f**ks what she thinks about my choice or my inability to afford a pedigree! I'm only skint because you rip me off on my dog food. You know its cheaper in asda?!?!

Out of curiosity Amethyst, when we going to see what dogs you have? You have lovely rescues, or fantastically bred pedigrees? Or do you simply have none and just like to have a nosey at what's going on?


----------



## Phoenix&Charlie'sMum (Oct 12, 2009)

I really dont understand this, there is a sticky asking people not to post such topics.. and yet, it is still continuing on. These type of threads puts people off coming to this forum.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> if you mean your Akita isnt pure bred why call him an Akita? strange


Parents could both be Akita's but without papers. Lack of papers does not make it any less an Akita. It's just more open to abuse and trusting the breeder.

The whole paper thing for pedigree, bearing in mind it was a honor system was open to abuse by those who were dishonorable. I will say, not being involved in that side of things, that I do not know if DNA tests are now required but I know they are certainly an option.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Phoenix&Charlie'sMum said:


> I really dont understand this, there is a sticky asking people not to post such topics.. and yet, it is still continuing on. These type of threads puts people off coming to this forum.


Yes but it's sadly not reinforced. At the start of this thread Jules wanted to leave and the other day I spoke to another member who I hadn't seen around for awhile- the reason : she's fed up of of all the crossbreeding bashing.

Luckily both are staying.

Until coming on this forum I never realised how much animosity there is towards them especially towards my type of crosses.

Maybe I was naive? but I have not had any negativity to me or my dogs in person.

Not that I would stand for it mind


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Maybe I was naive? but I have not had any negativity to me or my dogs in person.


Me neither! I'm always getting comments about how cute Rupert is...a lot of people actually think he's a cairn x. Always a few raised eyebrows when I tell him what he is. I always have to watch Stigdarley though, she keeps threatening to steal him.

Harvey also draws a lot of lovely comments from people, he's a gorgeous dog, turning into a proper stunning staff. I'm not sure he is a cross now you know, looking at him. He's filled out really well.

Oh, and before I forget, did Monty have a good birthday?!


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

Its to early in the morning for this type of discussion. Anyone want a cup of tea?:001_tongue:


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Until coming on this forum I never realised how much animosity there is towards them especially towards my type of crosses.
> 
> Maybe I was naive? but I have not had any negativity to me or my dogs in person.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Me neither! I'm always getting comments about how cute Rupert is...a lot of people actually think he's a cairn x. Always a few raised eyebrows when I tell him what he is. I always have to watch Stigdarley though, she keeps threatening to steal him.
> 
> Harvey also draws a lot of lovely comments from people, he's a gorgeous dog, turning into a proper stunning staff. I'm not sure he is a cross now you know, looking at him. He's filled out really well.
> 
> Oh, and before I forget, did Monty have a good birthday?!


Yes he did thanks. Can't believe he is 4. It has gone so quick.

Mind you both of them are now not interested in their new nylabones - typical kids


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

pearltheplank said:


> Cockerpoo lover said:
> 
> 
> > Until coming on this forum I never realised how much animosity there is towards them especially towards my type of crosses.
> ...


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Iv seen Akita x Rotties online for sale. Is that a good mix?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Parents could both be Akita's but without papers. Lack of papers does not make it any less an Akita.


exactly! so its very odd that someone who finds line breeding disgusting would buy an Akita..

would like to hear what 5Rivers has to say on the matter


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

5rivers79 said:


> Iv seen Akita x Rotties online for sale. Is that a good mix?


no not a good mix at all.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

5rivers79 said:


> Iv seen Akita x Rotties online for sale. Is that a good mix?


As Noushka says, no


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> no not a good mix at all.


May i ask why? Thanks

I think they look stunning:


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

5rivers79 said:


> May i ask why? Thanks
> 
> I think they look stunning:


Because they are inevitably bred irresponsibly- it sounds like a novel idea, to make money or as the result of an 'accident', with no thought into the health & temperament of either parent, you really don't know what you're going to get with a cross like this, yes that dog is stunning but is he healthy & of sound temperament? What's his conformation like?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

5rivers79 said:


> May i ask why? Thanks
> 
> I think they look stunning:


lots of dogs are stunning thats no reason to breed them:nono:, Akitas can be same sex aggressive, i believe they are known to have poor recall, Rotties are a guarding breed...who knows what unwanted traits any pups could inherit...and you see many on this type finding their way into rescue because owners find them difficult to handle.

also how many breeders of such a cross would bother to do relevant health testing for the 2 breeds???.........i bet the answer is zero!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

instead of lining the pockets of irresponsible byb's... folk should check out their local rescues and see the stunning dogs desperate for a 2nd chance...like this young rottie/akita x


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> lots of dogs are stunning thats no reason to breed them:nono:, Akitas can be same sex aggressive, i believe they are known to have poor recall, Rotties are a guarding breed...who knows what unwanted traits any pups could inherit...and you see *many on this type finding their way into rescue because owners find them difficult to handle.*
> 
> also how many breeders of such a cross would bother to do relevant health testing for the 2 breeds???.........i bet the answer is zero!


That would have been our Bob if my hubby hadn't happened to be fishing that night on the pier, since we got him I have seen several dogs very similar in type to him in our local rescues, some the same age as him, & I wonder if they're Bob's less fortunate relatives


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> That would have been our Bob if my hubby hadn't happened to be fishing that night on the pier, since we got him I have seen several dogs very similar in type to him in our local rescues, some the same age as him, & I wonder if they're Bob's less fortunate relatives


dosent bare thinking about does it...so glad that Bob has a loving safe home with you now, hes a very lucky lad thats for sure xxx


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I found this today on this site: Mutts, Mixes, Mills & Pedigrees

A list of dog breeds and how they came about by the crossbreeding of others.

I don't know if it is correct but makes an interesting read and if true is a very good reason why crossbreeding is a good thing. ( going back to the original OP's question)


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Before threads like this I had the impression of Purebreeds and Crossbreeds. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Now I have the impression of KC recognized dogs, Purebreeds and Crossbreeds. Purebreed owners don't mind crossbreed owners and vice versa. 

It's a real shame people on this forum, being ambassadors of their respective "group" insist on alienating others rather than bringing the groups together for the benefit all all dogs. I guess that would mean admitting that the other "group" had just as valid reason to exist.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I found this today on this site: Mutts, Mixes, Mills & Pedigrees
> 
> A list of dog breeds and how they came about by the crossbreeding of others.
> 
> I don't know if it is correct but makes an interesting read and if true is a very good reason why crossbreeding is a good thing. ( going back to the original OP's question)


Thanks for that, it was an interesting read
I thought this quote from one of the answers sums up how I feel about creating new breeds (not a dig at you CL, I think you state your case effectively & at the end of the day your dogs are gorgeous)


> Until there aren't millions of dogs dying in shelters every year -- breeding should only occur to better a breed, not to create more.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

I want to crossbreed a cat and a dog.

So far I've had no luck.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

My MIL told me that many years ago, her cat had kittens. But they had very big back legs so they were sure it was their pet rabbit that had fathered them, so they drowned them. I kid you not.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

My lord...

I think you'd have to get an 8ft fence with Bunny-dogs about


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

NicoleW said:


> My lord...
> 
> I think you'd have to get an 8ft fence with Bunny-dogs about


Bunny-cats even


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

luvmydogs said:


> My MIL told me that many years ago, her cat had kittens. But they had very big back legs so they were sure it was their pet rabbit that had fathered them, so they drowned them. I kid you not.


When i was younger about 9 our dog had pups there were complications and they didnt survive.. i never saw them but my mom said they had a striking resemblance to my dad :yikes: honestly wouldnt put it past him


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Before threads like this I had the impression of Purebreeds and Crossbreeds. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Now I have the impression of KC recognized dogs, Purebreeds and Crossbreeds. Purebreed owners don't mind crossbreed owners and vice versa.
> 
> It's a real shame people on this forum, being ambassadors of their respective "group" insist on alienating others rather than bringing the groups together for the benefit all all dogs. I guess that would mean admitting that the other "group" had just as valid reason to exist.


The crossbreed owners have no problems with pedigrees after all we need them to make our crosses and some own both.

The problem we have is when people make silly remarks and unproven evidence blah blah......

I have never accused any pedigree owner of getting a dog just for it's looks only, or it's name, or because it's a fad, or because it's quirky or because I'm stupid etc.... The same cannot be said for pedigree owners making such remarks.

I have yet to accuse a pedigree owner of adding to the rescue crisis by getting their dog when ALL types are equally responsibly. The same cannot be said for us crossbreed owners.

I have yet to question someones choice of pedigree dog as they do ours.

I have yet to comment about any price paid as they do ours

I have never said to anyone that by getting a cross means that you don't care about a dogs health as has been said to us crossbreed owners.

Need I go on??

I have said about a middle ground for breeding to raise standards etc... and trying to see if both sides could work together.

I have said I agree on some of the negative aspects of crossbreeding.

Maybe on this forum that the ones who are vociferous are the show owners/breeders and people who own the more popular dogs that are being xbred such as cocker and labs.

Therefore feelings do run high.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> My MIL told me that many years ago, her cat had kittens. But they had very big back legs so they were sure it was their pet rabbit that had fathered them, so they drowned them. I kid you not.


How very sad


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I found this today on this site: Mutts, Mixes, Mills & Pedigrees
> 
> A list of dog breeds and how they came about by the crossbreeding of others.
> 
> I don't know if it is correct but makes an interesting read and if true is a very good reason why crossbreeding is a good thing. ( going back to the original OP's question)


I was talking to the owner of a labradoodle last year and they were saying that the kennel club were going to make them a registered breed.. i dont know how true that is.

I would love a little cavachon i think they are stunning


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

harley bear said:


> I was talking to the owner of a labradoodle last year and they were saying that the kennel club were going to make them a registered breed.. i dont know how true that is.
> 
> I would love a little cavachon i think they are stunning


We looked into a Cavachon after meeting some- love them 

but we went for another poodle cross and got Milly our Cavapoo.

I don't want mine made into a breed- I'm happy they are a cross.

Making poodle crosses into a breed will be very very hard.

Once you progress into f2 and f3 generations you begin to lose the genetic diversity etc..... one of the reasons why I like crosses in the first place.

You could have got a Shih-poo


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> We looked into a Cavachon after meeting some- love them
> 
> but we went for another poodle cross and got Milly our Cavapoo.
> 
> ...


To be honest we wernt really looking for a dog.. we were offered a bigger dog but couldnt go too far! I was looking on pets4homes and saw a pic of poppy and it was like a breeze block at hit the both of us we instantly knew that she should be ours .. shes a pedigree shih tzu but un registered which is fine by us because we have no interest what so ever in having pups! 
She really is the perfect dog! We have never really thought about having a pocket pooch lol


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

harley bear said:


> To be honest we wernt really looking for a dog.. we were offered a bigger dog but couldnt go too far! I was looking on pets4homes and saw a pic of poppy and it was like a breeze block at hit the both of us we instantly knew that she should be ours .. shes a pedigree shih tzu but un registered which is fine by us because we have no interest what so ever in having pups!
> She really is the perfect dog! We have never really thought about having a pocket pooch lol


We have one a few houses along- feisty girl ( lilly).She is not keen on other dogs. She got off her lead once and came over to my two.All was going well then she went for my Milly and think she caught her nose. The lady took her away but Milly was like a right tomboy trying to get back at her- you could imagine her saying " I ain't having none of that!!!"

Then there is a older lady with two of them and they are really adorable and laid back. One of them was a rescue.

We also have a shih-poo around too. Gorgeous bundle of black curls- a real cutiepie.


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> lots of dogs are stunning thats no reason to breed them:nono:, Akitas can be same sex aggressive, i believe they are known to have poor recall, Rotties are a guarding breed...who knows what unwanted traits any pups could inherit...and you see many on this type finding their way into rescue because owners find them difficult to handle.
> 
> also how many breeders of such a cross would bother to do relevant health testing for the 2 breeds???.........i bet the answer is zero!


Akitas are also a guarding breed. They have also been used for hunting and as police dogs... As far a an Akita X rottie I can think of worse crosses...

I think crosses of breed that have similar desires and purposes isn't a problem. My Akita is an american akita which is a jap akita cross german shep and is a recognised breed. I don't have papers and she is a rescue but i'm 99% sure as are all the people i've asked!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

America akitas are not jap akitas/gsd crosses they're different because the dogs in America were bred heavier and with more coat than the ones that remained in Japan


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

harley bear said:


> When i was younger about 9 our dog had pups there were complications and they didnt survive.. i never saw them but my mom said they had a striking resemblance to my dad :yikes: honestly wouldnt put it past him


 Nice dad! :blink:


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> America akitas are not jap akitas/gsd crosses they're different because the dogs in America were bred heavier and with more coat than the ones that remained in Japan


During World War II (1939-1945), it was common to use dogs as a source of fur for military garments. The police ordered the capture and confiscation of all dogs other than German Shepherd Dogs used for military purposes. Some fanciers tried to circumvent the order by crossbreeding their dogs with German Shepherd Dogs. When World War II ended, Akitas had been drastically reduced in number and existed as three distinct types : 1) Matagi Akitas 2) Fighting Akitas 3) Shepherd Akitas. This created a very confusing situation in the breed. During the restoration process of the pure breed after the war, Kongo-go of the Dewa line enjoyed a temporary, but tremendous popularity. Many Akitas of the Dewa line, which exhibited characteristics of the Mastiff and German Shepherd influence, were brought back to the United States by members of the Military Forces.

Think you'll find they were.... gsd seemed more popular then mastif....


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

luvmydogs said:


> Nice dad! :blink:


Turned out he liked a bit of woof :blink:

(btw i seriously doubt he did have the dog but he has been known to have a few 2 legged dogs)


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

my dog is a cross breed with a purpous! A lurcher

greyhound-for speed and agility
collie-for intelegence,stimina and hard feet to prevent injury
bull- for strength, heart/determination, also helps with feet and to prevent injury

Oh and unlike most purebreeds her mother is still working most nights at 8 years old with out a problem


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

tillymax said:


> Oh and unlike most purebreeds her mother is still working most nights at 8 years old with out a problem


My Alaska's dad is a working sheepdog and does very well at it. Many pedigree's are still working dogs.


----------



## tillymax (Jun 27, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> My Alaska's dad is a working sheepdog and does very well at it. Many pedigree's are still working dogs.


Oh yes I know that, I am just stating that her mother is still working at 8 unlike most whippets (for example)


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I found this today on this site: Mutts, Mixes, Mills & Pedigrees
> 
> A list of dog breeds and how they came about by the crossbreeding of others.
> 
> I don't know if it is correct but makes an interesting read and if true is a very good reason why crossbreeding is a good thing. ( going back to the original OP's question)


Think most pedigree owners know that their dogs were crossed years ago to make what they have now. The problem imo with the crossbreeds breeders nowadays is the fact its all F1
Taken from your link--------

*New breeds are created with a final intent and purpose in mind, and do not simply mean the same F1 to F1 breeding that encompasses most "new breeds" breeding program.*


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> The crossbreed owners have no problems with pedigrees after all we need them to make our crosses and some own both.
> 
> The problem we have is when people make silly remarks and unproven evidence blah blah.....


It sort of goes bothways imo I have noticed members making silly remarks re the looks of some Peds eg Bulldogs and how many times has it been posted that Crosses are healthier than Pedigrees and no evidence posted to back up same


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

gladass said:


> It sort of goes bothways imo I have noticed members making silly remarks re the looks of some Peds eg Bulldogs and how many times has it been posted that Crosses are healthier than Pedigrees and no evidence posted to back up same


Maybe if more crossbreed breeders did the appropriate health tests on their pedigree breeding stock they would have some concrete evidence to back up the hybrid vigour theory


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

This is going to be a long one...



gladass said:


> It sort of goes bothways imo I have noticed members making silly remarks re the looks of some Peds eg Bulldogs and how many times has it been posted that Crosses are healthier than Pedigrees and no evidence posted to back up same


So you think English Bulldogs are a healthy breed ? Taken from English Bulldog Information and Pictures Average life span is 8 years.



> Prone to breathing problems; some have small windpipes as well. Also poor eyesight, very susceptible to heat stroke in warm weather or hot rooms and cars. Very cold sensitive. Puppies often delivered by caesarian section because of their broad heads. Birth defects are common in some lines. Susceptible to skin infections, hip and knee problems. Prone to flatulence, especially when fed any other type of food other than their regular dog food.


Doesn't sound healthy to me. Can you honestly say it sounds healthy to you? Is it any wonder crossbreeders use them as an example of what can go wrong with the current system?

Compare with an Old English Bulldog (Not KC accepted). Life span 11+ years


> May be susceptible to "bloat" - a painful and often fatal condition that can be brought on by too large a quantity of food consumed at one time. Like in all large breeds, hip dysplasia sometimes occurs.


I will also add, they are susceptible to hot and cold weather but not to the extreme of the English Bulldog. Which is more healthy ?

It is arrogance in the extreme to simply say "if more crossbreed breeders did the appropriate health tests on their pedigree breeding stock". Maybe if those tests were automatically done as part of the actually getting the dog recognized as a pedigree it would be of help. Too young you could say.. How about required for retention of a pedigree status after reaching a certain age? What... change a perfect system you are probably saying. Or how about explaining how to organize doing these tests, what it costs etc? Education is the key, not ramming "We're better than you as we do this" down people's throats.

I'll also post quotes from another thread:


> Someone selling a sable-merle pup on a free ad site! (Sable merle is an un-accepted colour and can lead to accidentally breeding double merles).


Realizing this sounded as though looks were the only thing important I posted


> To be fair, as I know I often seem anti breeding for looks, I will add this. Apprehension about Double merles is not just about looks. Double merle's are more likely to have hearing or vision problems.
> 
> Edit.. having just reread that... I am anti breeding for just looks.


I only know because I came across it when looking at why one of our dogs has one blue and one brown eye. To me this is informative and making it clear the problem was health rather than look related.
The response:


> Sable merle's are no no because they can look sable meaning many are unaware that they carry the merle gene. Meaning if that line is mixed with merle's further down the line its more likely to get double merles.


Although I am sure it was not intentional the "look" word stands out. Is it any wonder that people get the impression looks are the be all and end all rather than health? More care needs to be taken on all sides as to what they write. Me often included.

There are, on these forums, a number of pedigree breeders and cross breeders who are open to ideas and are prepared to actually listen and to take on board some of the suggestions from the other "camp". I only wish it were more.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Although I am sure it was not intentional the "look" word stands out. Is it any wonder that people get the impression looks are the be all and end all rather than health? More care needs to be taken on all sides as to what they write. Me often included.


I really dont want to seem rude but have you herd yourself?

I said "can look sable"...sable is a colour....if the "sable" coloured dog is actually a sable merle then there are issues with HEALTH NOT FRICKING LOOKS.

Go breed a sable-merle and sell the sable-merle pups as sable and find out how your line does yeah? A bunch of sick dogs is what.

I am so sick of people making ASSUMPTIONS about pedigree's. Sable merles are not good because of hte health not because of the looks hell I love sable merles stunning dogs.

GAH dont go making assumptions about stuff you have no idea about. When dealing with the merle gene people need to be aware of what you have. If you think your dogs a sable and its actually a merle you are risking the pups health.



I dont mean to snap but that got right up my nose.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

I'll make sure I won't use a sable merle dog to breed with my cat.  Thanks Shetland lover


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

@shetlandlover: And your post proves mine. You are very knowledgeable about things like merles. On a specific breeding forum this may mean everyone knows what you are talking about. Most people here wouldn't. Adapt to the audience if you don't want to give the wrong impression. Where in the original posts did you mention health?

Snapping on both sides is part of the problem.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

Goblin said:


> And your post proves mine. You are very knowledgeable about things like merles. On a specific breeding forum this may mean everyone knows what you are talking about. Most people here wouldn't. Adapt to the audience if you don't want to give the wrong impression.


How does this quote.



> Sable merle's are no no because they can look sable meaning many are unaware that they carry the merle gene. Meaning if that line is mixed with merle's further down the line its more likely to get double merles.


Make it look like colours are because of looks? My gran knows double merles are a bad thing health wise and my gran knows sweet naff all about dogs or breeding.

Anyone who would be interested only has to google; Double merle and this comes up.

http://www.lethalwhites.com/brochure/WhtAusBro.pdf

If they are not prepared to re-search then they should not breed. I knew what a double merle way before I owned my first dog.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

NicoleW said:


> I'll make sure I won't use a sable merle dog to breed with my cat.  Thanks Shetland lover


Want to use my 1 testicled tri?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

My gran didn't know what a double merle was. In fact the large number of people who ask if my dog is blind in one eye while out walking I'm pretty sure don't. I could say I also knew a lot of things about computers which you still don't before I built my first one. It's the same principle.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

Goblin said:


> My gran didn't know what a double merle was. In fact the large number of people who ask if my dog is blind in one eye while out walking I'm pretty sure don't. I could say I also knew a lot of things about computers which you still don't before I built my first one. It's the same principle.


No its not....the information's out there its an owners job to find it and learn it before breeding their dog. Its either selfish or stupid not to re-search how to correctly breed your breed of dog before breeding it.

I have not yet had my first litter however I know what I NEED and SHOULD know before I do. A dogs life and puppies eye sight is not a computer you cant take it apart once you **** it up. The pup pays for the breeders idiocy.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

gladass said:


> It sort of goes bothways imo I have noticed members making silly remarks re the looks of some Peds eg Bulldogs and how many times has it been posted that Crosses are healthier than Pedigrees and no evidence posted to back up same


I haven't seen it posted many times that crosses are healthier than pedigrees. Maybe some have said in relation to hybrid vigour which none of you have disproven.

The looks remarks made about bulldogs is in relation to how it has changed etc... they are not silly but factual.

When I say silly remarks I mean ones like : ' people who get crossbreeds don't care about their dogs health" for one example.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> I have not yet had my first litter however I know what I NEED and SHOULD know before I do. A dogs life and puppies eye sight is not a computer you cant take it apart once you **** it up. The pup pays for the breeders idiocy.


Agreed but that has nothing to do with the impression you can easily make, especially on a forum where people can't communicate as well as they can verbally.

If your post was in the breeding section I wouldn't have read it, or commented. It wasn't, it was in the generic dog chat section where people not up on breeding terms are generally looking.

When talking with other computer "geeks" I use a different "language/terms/abbreviations" to when I am explaining to Joe Bloggs on the street so they can understand. I need to do this "language switch" so I am understood. Can't you admit that breeders can have their own professional language which they slip into using without conscious thought? Not looking for an answer, just something I would ask you consider.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

stigDarley said:


> Akitas are also a guarding breed. They have also been used for hunting and as police dogs... As far a an Akita X rottie I can think of worse crosses...
> 
> I think crosses of breed that have similar desires and purposes isn't a problem. My Akita is an american akita which is a jap akita cross german shep and is a recognised breed. I don't have papers and she is a rescue but i'm 99% sure as are all the people i've asked!


 yes im sure there are worse crosses but no one can know the traits the pups will inherit, what the pups will look like,health problems they could inherit! because i dont think you'll find a breeder that breeds them and health tests breeding stock not to mention breed with any'desire or purpose' apart from to make money....not the sort of breeder i could ever support thats for sure!

your Akita was accepted as a recognised breed once enthusiasts bred them true to type.. lots of pure breeds have other breeds in their ancestry.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> Maybe if more crossbreed breeders did the appropriate health tests on their pedigree breeding stock they would have some concrete evidence to back up the hybrid vigour theory


The jury is out on hybrid vigour but whatever you say you cannot go against the basic principles of genetics.

To get a pedigree dogs relies on inbreeding and line breeding to get perfection and uniformity to the breed standards this increases homozygosity. Undesirable genes become homozygous and therefore this can lead to health problems, fertility issues and genetic diseases.

With F1 crosses on the other hand this maximises heterozygosity i.e there is two different copies of the gene- this is where your hybrid vigour comes in.

I have posted all this before though.

Also both Swarthy and Sleeping Lion tried to imply that because the 5year mean of HD in labs was now 12 and labradoodles BMS was 13 this disproved hybrid vigour theory.

However as I said you cannot make comparables unless they are the same.

You cannot compare BMS with a 5 year mean. You have to compare BMS with BMS, or 5yr with 5yr.

So as labradoodles don't have a 5 yr mean then you compare the BMS for this year.

So BMS for labs is 14

BMS for Standard poodles is 14

BMS for labradoodles is 13

Hardly disproves hybrid vigour but reinforces- don't you think?

Though as I have said to Swarthy HD results are not solely based on genetics.

But just using their data and methods in the hybrid vigour debate.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Agreed but that has nothing to do with the impression you can easily make, especially on a forum where people can't communicate as well as they can verbally.
> 
> If your post was in the breeding section I wouldn't have read it, or commented. It wasn't, it was in the generic dog chat section where people not up on breeding terms are generally looking.


If someone is so interested in breeding or interested in genetics of dogs its THEIR job to re-search just like I did and like many others who give a general crap about their breed and their dogs. WIKI has a lovely page on Shelties that mentions merle's on the SHETLAND SHEEPDOG page so they could re-search their new sheltie puppy and see that merle to merle breeding is a no no.

Or am I living in a dream world of owners who give a crap? Infact breeders within the breed should advise you on breeding and what to avoid too. There are plenty of boosk out there on shelties if you dont have the internet.

If a wanna be breeder cant be arsed to re-search breeding the dog correctly then I am sorry but they dont deserve to own a dog. You cant be lazy when an animal depends on you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shetland_Sheepdog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shetland_Sheepdog#Breeding


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Can I ask what the problem is with sable merles SL? Is it that it can mask the merle colouring? I can't understand anyone knowingly breeding double merles/harlequins :nonod: far too high a risk of severely disabled dogs. But of course people don't do the research and probably think they can sell the merles for more


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> If someone is so interested in breeding or interested in genetics of dogs its THEIR job to re-search just like I did ...


Do you actually read what I am writing ?



Goblin said:


> *If your post was in the breeding section* I wouldn't have read it, or commented. It wasn't,* it was in the generic dog chat section* where people not up on breeding terms are generally looking.


@Nicky10. Yes it can mask the coloring which can lead to the breeding of double merles which are frequently deaf or have eye problems.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Can I ask what the problem is with sable merles SL? Is it that it can mask the merle colouring? I can't understand anyone knowingly breeding double merles/harlequins :nonod: far too high a risk of severely disabled dogs. But of course people don't do the research and probably think they can sell the merles for more


The general issue is that sable-merles can be like sables.


















Can you see how easy it would be to confuse the two? the top one is a shaded sable. Not a sable-merle.

Sadly sometimes the merle markings are so slight they can go un-noticed and a sable merle can throw the merle gene into a mating with a tri which would later be mated to a merle (blue) resulting in double merles.

I remember having a discussion about it I cant remember which forum but I will try and dig it up.

The colour cant be shown either I am guessing to keep the merle gene limited as most show dogs are bred.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> But of course people don't do the research and probably think they can sell the merles for more


The latest fad is selling sable merles as sables with blue eyes.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

So you could easily mate two merles together without realising which would be disastrous. Good thing you're not allowed to breed for that colour then


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Do you actually read what I am writing ?


Yes but all I am reading from it is I should type like everyone's not got a club about ANYTHING. So in that case when I post up about my dogs hip scores I should then write a page on how they are done and why?

Google is a useful tool and most people wont comment on a discussion they either are not interested in OR have no idea about unless they have googled it.

I know I have googled a few things on here. It takes a second to do and is so helpful.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> So you could easily mate two merles together without realising which would be disastrous. Good thing you're not allowed to breed for that colour then


Yes merle to merle matings are not registered meaning there is less chance of eye and hearing issues becoming more common (we have CEA in the breed which is slowly being bred out).


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Good to hear who says the KC and breed clubs don't care about the health of their dogs . They've also banned merle chihuahuas haven't they? Or is that the AKC presumably for the same reason


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Yes but all I am reading from it is I should type like everyone's not got a club about ANYTHING. So in that case when I post up about my dogs hip scores I should then write a page on how they are done and why?


Why not include to a link about hip scores if you have it bookmarked? There is already a sticky in the Breeding section on Necessary health tests. http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/9369-necessary-health-tests-before-breeding.html Why not link people to it when talking about them? Anyone discussing health tests can point to it or have it in their signature even if talking in the general dog chat area. Help people to learn.

Accept the simple fact people are lazy. On the internet it's a safer assumption. So they don't google to know what a double merle is. They then don't know the reason you don't like them is for health reasons. They have already read about the fact that they look like your preferred animals but aren't. You are indirectly supporting prejudices which already exist.

It's always a difficult problem with the forum medium. Noone is perfect and everyone occasionally writes things they perhaps shouldn't. It's human nature.

When you hold strong views however you are an ambassador for your beliefs. Part of the that responsibility is to listen and part is also to educate in a non confrontational manner. Doing it in a confrontational manner or accidently lending strength to existing prejudices only serves to harm the general welfare of dogs no matter what breed.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Good to hear who says the KC and breed clubs don't care about the health of their dogs . They've also banned merle chihuahuas haven't they? Or is that the AKC presumably for the same reason


Taken from the KC breed standard site.



> Colour
> Any colour or mixture of colours - but never merle (dapple).


And as far as I am aware the KC do not register merle chi's.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Accept the simple fact people are lazy. On the internet it's a safer assumption. So they don't google to know what a double merle is.


If they can google for porn or to find this forum to ask for advice they can google the word "Shetland sheepdog" and click wiki since that's were everyone goes first. I found wiki years before I found this site.

If someone is daft enough to believe that pedigree's are all about looks then leave them to it. They will feel so silly with a litter of blind pups. *shrugs*

The informations out there if they cant be arsed looking for it then shame on them.

Or really throw the boat out and google "sable merle" and you will be led to a merle genetics site.

sable merle - Google Search

Merle Genetics

I believe its the first link.

This is exactly why idiotic breeders are around because people sympathize with them for being lazy!

If they cant even be arsed to read Wiki for colours not to breed then how the hell are they going to find out how to whelp a litter?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Oh but dogs just know what to do when giving birth . I would do all the research I could but that's just too much hard work when you've thrown her with the nearest male to make some quick cash


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Oh but dogs just know what to do when giving birth . I would do all the research I could but that's just too much hard work when you've thrown her with the nearest male to make some quick cash


Exactly. And the longer people sympathize with their idiocy these breeders will continue. If they cant work out from the fact the KC dont accept the colour and that its on pretty much all sheltie breeding sites and books then what sort of breeders will they be? How will they offer advice to the owners of the pups they sell when they dont know the breed themselves?

Its a sad sad situation when you have to dumb down something that ALL breeders within the breed NEED to know.

And its even more sad when people on sites like this act uneducated by acting like a hidden merle gene is not a good thing because of looks! God only knows....


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Not being funny, but I take everything on WIKI with a pinch of salt! :nonod:

What I don't understand though is, if pedigree breeders ARE in it for the health of their dogs, how come then do so many pedigree breeds differ from what they were years ago?

Thing is though, it seems to be only in certain breeds. You look at the history of say a GSD or a lab or a sheltie or a collie and they look pretty similar. Is it that the working breeds were not changed because their function overrode it?

Anyway, been googling a bit myself, I was particularly interested in somthing I read in Your Dog about the Kennel Club launching the site "Mate Select". I went to the site and started having a look at some of the dogs and in particular some that had been highlighted in the link in the magazine.

The two that struck me most:

The Viszla that won Crufts in 2010 has had 577 puppies from 89 litters. A bit more googling then told me that the breed only register about 1400 pups a year, so the best part of HALF of those are going to be his?! :blink:

Beuella Radszinski- the cav that was featured on the dreaded Pedigree Dogs Exposed had 140 pups from 40 litters but in August 2008 before Pedigree Dogs Exposed was on the air, Rollo had only had 34 litters, which means that even after the dog was exposed as having SM, six more litters were bred before the KC pulled the plug on her for not responding to their requests for information.



shetlandlover said:


> If they cant work out from the fact the KC dont accept the colour and that its on pretty much all sheltie breeding sites and books then what sort of breeders will they be?


I don't set much by the KC either for the reasons stated above. What are they doing to police this/stop it? Perhaps Mate Select will go some way to educating those that do care and want to breed respsonibly from dogs to avoid certain ones, but the KC should be IMHO taking a more active role.

These dogs are in the spot light and owned by peolpe you would hope know better. The Vizsla above may have been health tested, but is it really right to breed so may times from him? To me that is as blatant profiteering as you can get.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> If they can google for porn or to find this forum to ask for advice they can google the word "Shetland sheepdog" and click wiki since that's were everyone goes first. I found wiki years before I found this site.


I simply cannot believe the appearance of arrogance. You believe strongly in what you do and your reasons for doing it. You "put down" people who do things you see as "wrong" but are not prepared to spend a small amount of time/effort yourself to try to educate them to do better. You simply blame them for not knowing. :nono:

I know you will argue, dismiss the above whatever. Hopefully another breeder will consider my words and think about how to improve things rather than simply blame others.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> The Viszla that won Crufts in 2010 has had 577 puppies from 89 litters. A bit more googling then told me that the breed only register about 1400 pups a year, so the best part of HALF of those are going to be his?! :blink:


that's disgraceful. I think there should be a limit on how much a stud dog can be used, depending on how small the gene pool is. Ie if the gene pool is large, you can use the dog more than if the gene pool is small.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Exactly. And the longer people sympathize with their idiocy these breeders will continue. If they cant work out from the fact the KC dont accept the colour and that its on pretty much all sheltie breeding sites and books then what sort of breeders will they be? How will they offer advice to the owners of the pups they sell when they dont know the breed themselves?
> 
> Its a sad sad situation when you have to dumb down something that ALL breeders within the breed NEED to know.
> 
> And its even more sad when people on sites like this act uneducated by acting like a hidden merle gene is not a good thing because of looks! God only knows....


Well said and I couldn't agree more. I do so pity some poor dogs, being bred by their owners.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> Well said and I couldn't agree more. I do so pity some poor dogs, being bred by their owners.


Don't get me wrong. I agree, dogs like this should not be bred. shetlandlover raised an important point.

You also don't appear to see the point in education to to make sure people realize why this shouldn't happen. When people see discussions like this which_ appear _to be look based as they don't know the details can you not see it is enhancing already existing prejudices?

I'll quite readily admit I'm uneducated in breeding dogs, just as others may be uneducated when it comes to my specializations. I am learning though as I go even though I do not plan to breed. My complaint is the more I read, the more the_ unintentional _arrogance seemingly on this forum would push me away from ever going to a KC accredited breeder. I'm probably not the only one. This is exactly the opposite reaction to that which should be happening. People should be being encouraged to go to such breeders or at least to breeders who do things properly and have done their research.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Goblin said:


> You also don't appear to see the point in education to to make sure people realize why this shouldn't happen. When people see discussions like this which_ appear _to be look based as they don't know the details can you not see it is enhancing already existing prejudices?


No, I see it as an oportunity to learn, though I fear some people do not want to ... when ignorance is so much easier


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> No, I see it as an oportunity to learn, though I fear some people do not want to ... when ignorance is so much easier


Shouldn't we then also try to pass knowledge on so even those who are ignorant take it on board simply by reading. They may not register it when reading but it may help them make the right decision next time they get a dog.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Goblin said:


> Shouldn't we then also try to pass knowledge on so even those who are ignorant take it on board simply by reading. They may not register it when reading but it may help them make the right decision next time they get a dog.


As Shetlandlover was doing 

Those genuinely wanting to learn will, those that don't like what they read ... won't I guess


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> Those genuinely wanting to learn will, those that don't like what they read ... won't I guess


However, accepting people may not know things and a bit of extra thought when posting can make a lot of difference. Not just to the knowledge learnt from the posts themselves, but to the incentive to continue to learn.


----------



## sezra (May 20, 2011)

Goblin said:


> However, accepting people may not know things and a bit of extra thought when posting can make a lot of difference. Not just to the knowledge learnt from the posts themselves, but to the incentive to continue to learn.


I agree. I have no intention of ever breeding my future dogs however I feel that there is a fabulous amount of experience and wealth of knowledge on this forum. It is all about reaching those people who might be thinking of breeding and like we have said before it is about education.

I am doing a distance learning degree and my tutor is absolutely awful, I have been to two of her sessions and will not be attending anymore. She is condescending, sarcastic and pretty dull. Fortunately I do not need to go to be able to pass my course.  What I guess I am trying to say is, anyone can gain knowledge but teaching and educating others is a skill. It is easy to just moan about what is wrong and to 'tell them off' but the only way improvements will be made is those 'in the know' help and educate.

This is not aimed at any particular individuals on here. I admire your knowledge of your dogs and your passion even if I don't agree with everything that is discussed.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Learning isn't about preaching what you believe to be right without any due consideration for the other's beliefs.
Factual evidence is good but so is personal experience.

Lots of info is good on here and the stickys do provide a base for info to be found.

But learning is a two-way process- it means listening to other's points of views and not being dismissive to every point made.

Just because some-one may not have much knowledge of a subject doesn't mean what they say is meaningless.

Some people find it hard to express themselves and often the ones that have been involved in breeding and showing for many years do use language and terms that can go over peoples heads sometimes.

So sometimes a bit more tolerance is needed.

I not talking about when people post and don't want to listen to advice- but talking more about when we have these type of debates that all people can join in with.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

harley bear said:


> I was talking to the owner of a labradoodle last year and they were saying that the kennel club were going to make them a registered breed.. i dont know how true that is.


About as true as those pigs flying over there!


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Goblin said:


> This is going to be a long one...
> 
> So you think English Bulldogs are a healthy breed ? Taken from English Bulldog Information and Pictures Average life span is 8 years.
> 
> Doesn't sound healthy to me. Can you honestly say it sounds healthy to you? Is it any wonder crossbreeders use them as an example of what can go wrong with the current system?.


Personally I know of 2 Bulldogs, 1 is 12 and the other 9years of age so I cannot agree that they are healthy/ unhealthy as a breed as the 2 I knopw are healthy and always have been.
I always ask myself How people can come to the assumption that Todays breeds due to "breeders\2 changing their "looks" have shortened their lives. Is there any evidence between lifespan from these breeds years ago and now etc..... Assumptions imo as nowadays there are a lot of tests available that have indeed erradicated illnesses rather than added to them


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I haven't seen it posted many times that crosses are healthier than pedigrees. Maybe some have said in relation to hybrid vigour which none of you have disproven.I have not been a member that long and yet I have read a lot of posts about it. As for disproving well as I said it goes bothways
> 
> The looks remarks made about bulldogs is in relation to how it has changed etc... they are not silly but factual.
> 
> When I say silly remarks I mean ones like : ' people who get crossbreeds don't care about their dogs health" for one example.


As mentioned I know 2 Bulldogs and their looks have not changed them, they are nutters lol the oldest one still at 12 chases the goats every morning without fail lol Sweeping statements tend to be the bases of arguements on here re Pedigree/ Crossbreeds


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> The jury is out on hybrid vigour but whatever you say you cannot go against the basic principles of genetics.
> 
> To get a pedigree dogs relies on inbreeding and line breeding to get perfection and uniformity to the breed standards this increases homozygosity. Undesirable genes become homozygous and therefore this can lead to health problems, fertility issues and genetic diseases.
> 
> .


Now genetics is not my stong subject and I rely heavily on advice from the breeders of our bergies and border collies if I breed - so all you folks who have more knowledge than me, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in what I write next. From my limited knowledge, I don't think what is stated in this post is exactly true. I was under the impression that the zygosity of genes can be controlled by the careful breeder - ie that it is perfectly possible to breed for heterozygosity even through line breeding (In fact, as I have stated already on this thread, this is exactly what the genetics expert Dr Andreoli has done with the bergamasco). From what I can remember, isn't it something to do with ensuring that you breed to ensure the progeny receives a dominant gene from one parent and a recessive gene from the other? Or am I just talking rubbish?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> However, accepting people may not know things and a bit of extra thought when posting can make a lot of difference. Not just to the knowledge learnt from the posts themselves, but to the incentive to continue to learn.


There are so many members on here it is impossible to know the level of knowledge of each person concerned. There is nothing wrong in assuming:

a) that, on a pet forum, a good number of people will know what you are talking about and
b) _*those that don't understand will ask for further information in a respectful manner*_.

Had you done this in the first place instead of attacking Shetlandlover, she would have gladly shared her knowledge - as she has done many times on this forum already. The wealth of information all sorts of different people have shared on this site is amazing.


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

This is a very interesting thread (e.g. I never knew about the double-merle issue). I am neither a breeder nor currently a dog owner, so my input here is purely anecdotal. In South Africa, many if not most dogs at some stage get biliary (what we call "tick fever"). I had two dogs when I was a child: first a pedigree corgi (yes, with papers and everything). He got tick fever and was dead within 48 hours, in spite of vet treatment. In those days, the firm belief was that cross-breeds or mongrels were hardier and more resistant. So my next dog was a cross-breed (bassett X golden lab). He shook off a few bouts of biliary (of course he got vet treatment) quite easily. Coincidence? Perhaps, but many of my friends and family, including my OH had the same sort of experience: pedigree = died of tick fever; mongrel = survived.
I don't know really. Could be something to it.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Now genetics is not my stong subject and I rely heavily on advice from the breeders of our bergies and border collies if I breed - so all you folks who have more knowledge than me, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in what I write next. From my limited knowledge, I don't think what is stated in this post is exactly true. I was under the impression that the zygosity of genes can be controlled by the careful breeder - ie that it is perfectly possible to breed for heterozygosity even through line breeding (In fact, as I have stated already on this thread, this is exactly what the genetics expert Dr Andreoli has done with the bergamasco). From what I can remember, isn't it something to do with ensuring that you breed to ensure the progeny receives a dominant gene from one parent and a recessive gene from the other? Or am I just talking rubbish?


Yes and no - you can breed for genes that have been identified but you won't always know the outcome. Genetics is very complicated and each gene will no doubt have various effects (genes code amino acids which code proteins) and while we may understand one function of the gene we are unlikely to understand the affects that the amino acids and therefore the proteins will have on other interactions. Also for complex expressions there will most likely be multiple genes involved so while we may have identified one we won't know them all.

The best example I know is the Fox-P2 gene. This was identified about 7 years ago and is heavily involved in the expression of language in humans. With a mutation of it humans suffer from a severe language and speech disorder. Studies in mice and songbirds have shown that it is heavily involved in moderating the plasticity of neural circuits but it is also indicated in the development of lung and gut tissues. It also regulates a large number of other genes.

Offspring of closely related parents will have an increased likelihood of unwanted gene expression as there is less genetic diversity and are especially more likely to have less efficent immune systems (due to a lack of diversity of MHC genes).

My experience is with human genetics but I should imagine that it is largely the same - and as the human genome is much better studied we can have more of an idea of gene interaction.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> No, I see it as an oportunity to learn, though I fear some people do not want to ... when ignorance is so much easier


Exactly I have lost count of how many times I have given out advice on here to people who have bred their dog with no or little knowledge and not just on this forum but others too infact one lady I was giving advice to enjoyed learning what I know so much we are now very very good friends.

However!

You cant expect me to go easy on some idiot that has bought a dog and has no idea about the breed. That is disgusting and owners like that are the exact reason they get bored or cant cope with certain breeds and toss them into rescues OR decide they are cute and can make ____ of money from them so breed them. If they are clearly selfish enough to not look into the right way to breed the breed then I have no sympathy for them.

When I got Alaska I went to see her put money down after spending hours with her and left with 2 of the breeders books to read until she was ready. 
I read those books from cover to cover. Although I had already researched the breed and had experience with the breed I wanted to make sure I knew all I could. When I went to pick Alaska up her breeder told me about breeding and how sable-merles were a no no as were merle to merle matings. And told me why. 
I had already read about it but the breeder cared enough to make sure I knew.

These are the breeders we should support not someone who doesnt know the breed yet is selling it to make some cash.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> There are so many members on here it is impossible to know the level of knowledge of each person concerned. There is nothing wrong in assuming:
> 
> a) that, on a pet forum, a good number of people will know what you are talking about and
> b) _*those that don't understand will ask for further information in a respectful manner*_.
> ...


Thank you.

And I really could not have said it better myself. If someone wants to know they will either do the re-search or ask the question.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> The jury is out on hybrid vigour but whatever you say you cannot go against the basic principles of genetics.
> 
> To get a pedigree dogs relies on inbreeding and line breeding to get perfection and uniformity to the breed standards this increases homozygosity. Undesirable genes become homozygous and therefore this can lead to health problems, fertility issues and genetic diseases.
> 
> With F1 crosses on the other hand this maximises heterozygosity i.e there is two different copies of the gene- this is where your hybrid vigour comes in.


But surely (& I'm no genetic expert so I'm sorry if I sound thick!) this can also work _against_ hybrid vigour in that it can introduce the different hereditary disorders from two different breeds, as well as the disorders that both breeds suffer from, which, in an ideal world, could be prevented if the breeders of crosses health tested their dogs before breeding


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> that's disgraceful. I think there should be a limit on how much a stud dog can be used, depending on how small the gene pool is. Ie if the gene pool is large, you can use the dog more than if the gene pool is small.


Isn't it a disgrace? 

Not been taken on by any one else though, bit gutted about that. Spent ages researching and typing it up!

Clearly not a point anyone wants to discuss!

Whilst I think on, FAO Amethyst- I did answer yesterday...



Horse and Hound said:


> Nothing to do with them being "too expensive" . Some people command ridiculous fees for pedigrees and crosses alike, yes, but if you want a dog you will save enough for that dog, no matter how long it takes your.
> A number of reasons made me want this particular cross, which I have eplained several times before.
> 
> I've always loved JRTs and grown up with them on and around the yard and same goes for Westies, my friend had a fantastic Westie, Charlie, who sadly passed away last year at the ripe old age of 15. Both the breeds had made a good impression on me and despite their terrier traits I really was completely torn when looking into it.
> ...


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> But surely (& I'm no genetic expert so I'm sorry if I sound thick!) this can also work _against_ hybrid vigour in that it can introduce the different hereditary disorders from two different breeds, as well as the disorders that both breeds suffer from, which, in an ideal world, could be prevented if the breeders of crosses health tested their dogs before breeding


I'm no genetic expert either hun- very complex and can just about grasp the mere basics 

To get a genetic disease I believe ( could be wrong) you have to have both pairs with faulty genes if you got one then you could be a carrier.

So yes breeding two breeds both prone to same problem could result in getting both faulty genes but not all breeds crossed have the same predispositions.

Also you say about health testing crosses. There are breeders that do do that- so don't think they are all bad.

Also to get a cross you are getting two pedigrees to cross. So really the breeder who supplied these pedigrees should have health tested the parents before breeding and selling the pups.

It's not just down to the crossbreeder but also the breeder who sold the pedigrees to them in the first place.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Had you done this in the first place instead of attacking Shetlandlover, she would have gladly shared her knowledge


Please show me where I have attacked her personally. I have tried to keep it in generic terms and writing not just to her but to all about the need to think about what they are writing and how to improve it. The original post which she felt she had to defend wasn't even attributed to her. This was deliberate so it would not be a personal "attack" but an example of where things can and do go wrong. If anything I would say inferring I am uneducated because I may not know genetics is a far more personal attack.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Isn't it a disgrace?
> 
> Not been taken on by any one else though, bit gutted about that. Spent ages researching and typing it up!
> 
> ...


 You mean not a point that those who only support pedigree breeding want to discuss.

Think we are happy to discuss it


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2011)

Goblin said:


> If anything I would say inferring I am uneducated because I may not know genetics is a far more personal attack.


Never said you were an idiot for being uneducated I said you (as a general you not a you you) are an idiot for not re-searching the breed your breeding and being to lazy to learn about correct breeding.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I'm no genetic expert either hun- very complex and can just about grasp the mere basics
> 
> To get a genetic disease I believe ( could be wrong) you have to have both pairs with faulty genes if you got one then you could be a carrier.
> 
> ...


Absolutely, the rot has set in gradually, I would imagine most of the pedigrees who are used for crossbreeding came from PF & unethical breeders several generations back, & they're just as bad
I love my crossbreed to bits & he has enriched my life, but at the same time I feel sad as I know he was bred either because someone thought it would be a novelty, for greed or that he was the result of an accidental mating, he's a fantastic dog but I'd hate to think what he'd be like if he'd inherited every one of the worst breed traits of his parents & as he hasn't been tested for any herediatry diseases (something I wonder if I should do, although obviously he can't be bred from) he could have those inside him like ticking timebombs


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I'm no genetic expert either hun- very complex and can just about grasp the mere basics
> 
> To get a genetic disease I believe ( could be wrong) you have to have both pairs with faulty genes if you got one then you could be a carrier.


It's a lot more complicated then just two faulty alleles in a gene it all depends on the number of faulty alleles at the gene locus. Dominant and recessive is a rather blunt instrument when considering gene expression as it really depends on the phenotypic consequences of allelic interaction.

It also depends if the gene is sex-linked. If it is on the X chromosome then regardless of whether it is dominant or recessive in females then it will be expressed in males (only 1 X chromosome). A good example of this is hemophillia A.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> he's a fantastic dog but I'd hate to think what he'd be like if he'd inherited every one of the worst breed traits of his parents


Yeah but this is waht I don't get. Every breed, pure bred or not, runs the risk of inheriting that breeds worst traits, surely? No matter how much you health test.

Look at that Viszla I pointed out in a post a while back. nearly HALF of Vizsla pups registered that year, will turn out to be his. How is that acceptable?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Please show me where I have attacked her personally. I have tried to keep it in generic terms and writing not just to her but to all about the need to think about what they are writing and how to improve it. The original post which she felt she had to defend wasn't even attributed to her. This was deliberate so it would not be a personal "attack" but an example of where things can and do go wrong. If anything I would say inferring I am uneducated because I may not know genetics is a far more personal attack.


Hmmm. Let me see. What gave me the impression that you were attacking her personally?

Could it be when you told her she had to adapt to her audience?



Goblin said:


> @shetlandlover: And your post proves mine. You are very knowledgeable about things like merles. On a specific breeding forum this may mean everyone knows what you are talking about. Most people here wouldn't. Adapt to the audience if you don't want to give the wrong impression. Where in the original posts did you mention health?
> 
> Snapping on both sides is part of the problem.


Or could it be when you instrust her to include links and help people to learn? Or, in the same post, lecture her about her responsibility? Or tell her she is supporting existing prejudices?



Goblin said:


> Why not include to a link about hip scores if you have it bookmarked? There is already a sticky in the Breeding section on Necessary health tests. http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/9369-necessary-health-tests-before-breeding.html Why not link people to it when talking about them? Anyone discussing health tests can point to it or have it in their signature even if talking in the general dog chat area. Help people to learn.
> 
> Accept the simple fact people are lazy. On the internet it's a safer assumption. So they don't google to know what a double merle is. They then don't know the reason you don't like them is for health reasons. They have already read about the fact that they look like your preferred animals but aren't. You are indirectly supporting prejudices which already exist.
> 
> ...


Or could it be when you called her arrogant? Or in the same post say she is not prepared to spend time educating people? (erroneously, as you would know if you read more of her posts  )



Goblin said:


> I simply cannot believe the appearance of arrogance. You believe strongly in what you do and your reasons for doing it. You "put down" people who do things you see as "wrong" but are not prepared to spend a small amount of time/effort yourself to try to educate them to do better. You simply blame them for not knowing. :nono:
> 
> I know you will argue, dismiss the above whatever. Hopefully another breeder will consider my words and think about how to improve things rather than simply blame others.


Could it be when you said she couldn't see the point in education? Or, in the same post, tell her that arrogance such as hers would make people shy away from pedigree breeders?



Goblin said:


> Don't get me wrong. I agree, dogs like this should not be bred. shetlandlover raised an important point.
> 
> You also don't appear to see the point in education to to make sure people realize why this shouldn't happen. When people see discussions like this which_ appear _to be look based as they don't know the details can you not see it is enhancing already existing prejudices?
> 
> I'll quite readily admit I'm uneducated in breeding dogs, just as others may be uneducated when it comes to my specializations. I am learning though as I go even though I do not plan to breed. My complaint is the more I read, the more the_ unintentional _arrogance seemingly on this forum would push me away from ever going to a KC accredited breeder. I'm probably not the only one. This is exactly the opposite reaction to that which should be happening. People should be being encouraged to go to such breeders or at least to breeders who do things properly and have done their research.


There are probably more examples, but I'm sure you get the point.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Yeah but this is waht I don't get. Every breed, pure bred or not, runs the risk of inheriting that breeds worst traits, surely? No matter how much you health test.
> 
> Look at that Viszla I pointed out in a post a while back. nearly HALF of Vizsla pups registered that year, will turn out to be his. How is that acceptable?


Yes but with two different breeds you could have twice the problems, I have seen some dogs that are deformed as a result of crossbreeding- last year the local RSPCA were looking for a home for a Rottweiler x Dachshund, I've never seen anything so freakish looking, the dogs tiny legs could barely support its Rottie sized body & I would also say the same about pedigree breeds that have problems breathing, entropion or any other debilitating conditions, but at least these problems are reasonably predictable, mixing 2 dogs together means there is going to be more variation
As for the Viszla, I didn't see your thread I'm afraid & know very little about the breed so I can't really comment


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

L/C said:


> It's a lot more complicated then just two faulty alleles in a gene it all depends on the number of faulty alleles at the gene locus. Dominant and recessive is a rather blunt instrument when considering gene expression as it really depends on the phenotypic consequences of allelic interaction.
> 
> It also depends if the gene is sex-linked. If it is on the X chromosome then regardless of whether it is dominant or recessive in females then it will be expressed in males (only 1 X chromosome). A good example of this is hemophillia A.


Thanks for taking the time to explain, L/C. I think I understand ........just!  Now I have the thousand dollar question  If you think of a breeder who knows nothing about genetics, and has no-one to ask, is that breeder less likely to produce litters with genetic illnesses if they breed pedigrees or crossbreeds? Or is the likelihood of producing litters with genetic illnesses dependent upon each single dog, irrespective of whether or not they are pedigree or crossbreed?

(I'm thinking mainly of BYBs here and so am assuming for the purpose of this question that any health testing available has not been done)


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Thanks for taking the time to explain, L/C. I think I understand ........just!  Now I have the thousand dollar question  If you think of a breeder who knows nothing about genetics, and has no-one to ask, is that breeder less likely to produce litters with genetic illnesses if they breed pedigrees or crossbreeds? Or is the likelihood of producing litters with genetic illnesses dependent upon each single dog, irrespective of whther or not they are pedigree or crossbreed?
> 
> (I'm thinking mainly of BYBs here and so am assuming for the purpose of this question that any health testing available has not been done)


I would say it depends on the prevalence of certain diseases in the breed, how closely related the two are and how close the breeds are (if a x-breed). So in essence it comes down to the individual dogs - if they are highly inbred then they are much more likely to produce pups with genetic abnormalities but similarly so will unrelated parents if they carry mutated alleles.

The only edge a x-breed might have over a pedigree is a more robust immune system due to a greater range of MHC genes (but again that comes down to the difference in the MHC makeup of the individual dogs). Similarly if you cross 2 breeds that have wildly different phenotypes you will most likely end up with a pup with severe skeletal and mobility problems.

In breeds that have a high incidence of use of particuarly popular stud dogs (esp. if it is fairly indiscriminate) you could have generations that will be much more prone to problems due to relatedness and a lack of diversity. Whether or not that would trickle down to the BYB and PF I'm not sure.


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Not being funny, but I take everything on WIKI with a pinch of salt! :nonod:
> 
> What I don't understand though is, if pedigree breeders ARE in it for the health of their dogs, how come then do so many pedigree breeds differ from what they were years ago?
> 
> ...


I recognise some of that post from Jemimas blog. Interestingly there's a working type in my breed who's had 171 litters and 791 puppies hmy:.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Hmmm. Let me see. What gave me the impression that you were attacking her personally?
> 
> Could it be when you told her she had to adapt to her audience?


So you think everyone on the section of the board knows what double merles are and why they are bad? I also gave reason's and examples of where and why these misconceptions could occur.



> Or could it be when you instruct her to include links and help people to learn? Or, in the same post, lecture her about her responsibility? Or tell her she is supporting existing prejudices?


If it is true, due to the nature of the audience and someone doesn't realize that is what they are doing, most people would actually appreciate the advice if they were not reaching number of people they could be and have an important message.



> Or could it be when you called her arrogant?


No I said she appears to be arrogant. I don't know the person so I can't judge. When she dismisses constructive criticism apparently out of hand, what impression should that leave.



> Could it be when you said she couldn't see the point in education? Or, in the same post, tell her that arrogance such as hers would make people shy away from pedigree breeders?


I stated "unintentional arrogance" again as I see it and not deliberately intended on their part.

I could understand it being construed as an attack if I simply said she was wrong. However I also posted examples and some constructive criticism on how it could be improved. If people are not expected to listen to constructive criticism and to view it simply as an "attack", there is no hope to move forward with any discussion where people have differing views.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Could it be when you said she couldn't see the point in education? Or, in the same post, tell her that arrogance such as hers would make people shy away from pedigree breeders?












Couldnt resist. :blush:

Serious question now...

Has anyone on this thread (cross or pedigree) bought a dog without re-searching its breed or breeds involved?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Couldnt resist. :blush:
> 
> Serious question now...
> 
> Has anyone on this thread (cross or pedigree) bought a dog without re-searching its breed or breeds involved?


Oddly, we'd researched sibes & decided we weren't up to scratch for one & researched Rotties & decided that we probably could provide a good home for one, then we decided not to get a dog at that point as we didn't feel ready. 2 years later the girls came along (we'd had GSDs before so knew what to expect) & about 8 months later my OH rescued Bob from Cromer pier, & he was a Rottweiler/husky, pure coincidence but at least we were prepared for it!


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Couldnt resist. :blush:
> 
> Serious question now...
> 
> Has anyone on this thread (cross or pedigree) bought a dog without re-searching its breed or breeds involved?


By researched, do you mean their history, health checks needed, care etc?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

5rivers79 said:


> Oooh you must be one that advocates "line breeding" hey? Disgusting. By the way my Akita isnt pedigree


If you have read my earlier posts then you would know the answer, yes I feel line breeding is a great 'too'. Theres nothing digsusting about that, I would strongly suggest you do some more research into breeding before you through sch statements around, I happen to have very strong and high views on breeding myself 

- without trying to cause to much offence, you are quite a strange one.. You find this and that 'disgusting' when breeding pedigree dogs, yet find it totally acceptable to cross breed two breeds for one reason, they look good. Of course it wouldnt matter that the breeds wouldnt match at all. 



noushka05 said:


> if you mean your Akita isnt pure bred why call him an Akita? strange


I also wondered this Noush 



Goblin said:


> Parents could both be Akita's but without papers. Lack of papers does not make it any less an Akita. It's just more open to abuse and trusting the breeder.


This just means the pup is not a registered dog, its still from two pure bred parents - therefore is still a pedigee breed..


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> By researched, do you mean their history, health checks needed, care etc?


Depending on if you intended to breed your dog...but

*Just as pet*
-History.
-Health of the breed in general.
-Temperament.
-Grooming requirements.
ect

*as breeding dog*
-Health tests needed.
-How to correctly breed.
as well as the above.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> This just means the pup is not a registered dog, its still from two pure bred parents - therefore is still a pedigee breed..


My understanding was no papers meant you could not call it a pedigree dog. It may be a pedigree breed, simply not a pedigree dog. If one parent was not registered, even if a pedigree breed, it's offspring could not be registered and therefore, even though both parents where a pedigree breed, they would also not be pedigree dogs.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I would say that pet people, and them going on to look at breeding will need to research the same, although the breeders will go into alot more detail.
Like pet owners should still research health tests needed, as will need to find a breeder that has done so.
They will need to research their history, to get an idea of the orginal purpose - that can give some ideas on certain traints, instincts that the breed will have. (Like collies herding sheep).
I also feel that a pet owner should know how to breed in an ethical manner, if they do not do this, they could be supporting any tom, dick or harry chuking out X amounts of puppies.

Maybe I am asking for to much. But as someone that would only ever allow puppies into the bestest of homes, I feel that potential owners (no matter the purpose the pup is bred for) has done a good amount of research, its so refreashing and makes me feel that less problems are likely to occure later on down the line - all decent breeders should educate potential owners to, but to me a new owner should themselves be willing to learn all there is before committing to taking on the big responsabilty of caring for a life for X amounts of years..


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2011)

I look at it this way.

A dog with papers - pediree.
A clearly pedigree dog but without papers - Purebreed.
A cross of two breeds - Cross breed.
A cross of a few breeds - Mongrel.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

@shetlandlover; we did research on the points above for pets. Had no knowledge about tests as these aren't publicized well if you simply want a pet. One of the reasons I posted http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/174928-test-before-breeding.html in the general dog chat as it may raise general awareness of what happens when pets are not tested.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Goblin said:


> My understanding was no papers meant you could not call it a pedigree dog. It may be a pedigree breed, simply not a pedigree dog. If one parent was not registered, even if a pedigree breed, it's offspring could not be registered and therefore, even though both parents where a pedigree breed, they would also not be pedigree dogs.


I guess its however you want to put it. To me its still a pedigree dog, its a established breed. Papers means its not registered with the KC thats all, and that the parents might well not be full bred. But no papers, from two pure bred dogs doesnt take away from it what breed it is.
alot of unregistered dogs, are still sold with 'pedigrees'.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Maybe I am asking for to much.


It looks like expecting someone to research before they buy is asking to much in general.  Let alone re-search before they breed.

I would sooner keep a whole litter than give a pup to someone who had no idea about the breed.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I would sooner keep a whole litter than give a pup to someone who had no idea about the breed.


This is why we have turned away some right numpties from going onto our waiting list. sick of people thinking our breed are fashion toys, ready to be dressed up and shoved in bags. You think that, then dont bother contacting us. because our dogs are dogs...covered in mud not clothes. :hand:


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> It looks like expecting someone to research before they buy is asking to much in general.  Let alone re-search before they breed.
> 
> I would sooner keep a whole litter than give a pup to someone who had no idea about the breed.


Some of us do then again we didn't pay for our current dogs
& believe me, every time I find out someone I know is thinking about getting a dog I tell them to research thoroughly & then research some more
It's going to take 5 years (well, 4 years & 9 months now) before I think I'll be ready to take on the breed I've fallen in love with


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Depending on if you intended to breed your dog...but
> 
> *Just as pet*
> -History.
> ...


I'll go through the beginnings of our dog ownership -

1. A Pom/Sheltie/Poodle/Terrier mix (knew her parents and that's what they roughly were). I acquired her at 9 years of age and knew nothing of any of those breeds.
2. A Pomeranian - acquired at 6 years of age. Knew nothing.
3. An Irish Setter - acquired by my OH at 7 months of age. Knew nothing. He came from a family member whose 18 year old boyfriend purchased him as a pup. Neither new a thing about the breed. He was registered and sold with breeding papers.
4&5. A Border Collie mix and his littermate that we took in to help rehome when they were abandoned in our community. I knew a bit about these guys as had lived with farm collies through my life . . . Border Collies, however, are very much higher drive and I had to quick learn on these guys regarding their increased need for mental stimulation. 
6. A Labrador mix that we fostered as she had been abandoned in our community (we were involved with foster for our community). Knew nothing.
7. A Border Collie/Spaniel that we fostered - had some experience with both breeds in the past but if I were asked about required testing I would have said 'breed on only from the sound older proven workers', as that is what was done.
8. Given a small mixbreed with some Spaniel background and some Sheltie/Pom as well that was deaf and in need of a home. Again knew nothing of health testing that should have been there. I was acquainted with family of those that bred her and could have asked about her parents, but that didn't even occur.
9. An Alaskan Husky acquired from the pound. Knew not a darn thing about their requirements but was up for the task.

. . . . so basically, there were were many, many years into dog ownership without any idea that 'breeds' should be researched. Thoughts were that you meet the animal, and if you clicked then that was great and you set in for figuring out how to make sure it worked.

At that point I began to yearn for a pet of my own determination and sought out an American Cocker and that was just the beginning of learning about the need to research the breed or breeding practices. Internet was not available here until 2005, and that was a great help in learning. I know others that still only use internet as an email enabler.

I continue to know personally many owners of dogs that have purchased the breed, and owned a dog of that breed for many years, that do not know a thing about what they were getting into or about what they should have looked for in a breeder or for testing.

I know closely one that purchased his two Papillon dogs, that lived until 14 and 15, from a commercial breeder that bred 12-14 litters a year(she has an inspected kennel) and that person would support that breeder again in a heartbeat. I would not so we've had some conversations but what it comes down to is that we all have a very different value system.

CC


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> . . . . so basically, there were were many, many years into dog ownership without any idea that 'breeds' should be researched. Thoughts were that you meet the animal, and if you clicked then that was great and you set in for figuring out how to make sure it worked.


So are you saying that you advocate impulse buying of a dog? What happens if they get it home and are unaware of its high energy needs or bad malting and are unable to provide that environment for the dog?

Many dogs end up in rescues because the buyers decide they cant cope with their new ___insert breed here___ because they have failed to correctly train the dog because they had no idea of the needs of the dog. Or because they are scared said dog doesnt fit with theri children, cat, parrot ect.

Or that their coat sheds to much for their lifestyle due to grandma's allergy. 
Or that they need an excess amount of walking otherwise they rip the house appart?
Or that they are excess barkers and are not suited with certain lifestyles (such as fuss neighbors).

I have never got a dog without re-searching the breeds involved.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> So are you saying that you advocate impulse buying of a dog? What happens if they get it home and are unaware of its high energy needs or bad malting and are unable to provide that environment for the dog?
> 
> Many dogs end up in rescues because the buyers decide they cant cope with their new ___insert breed here___ because they have failed to correctly train the dog because they had no idea of the needs of the dog. Or because they are scared said dog doesnt fit with theri children, cat, parrot ect.
> 
> ...


You only have to see the number of huskies in rescue & in the freeads to realise that people are definitely not doing their research


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I know closely one that purchased his two Papillon dogs, that lived until 14 and 15, from a commercial breeder that bred 12-14 litters a year(she has an inspected kennel) and that person would support that breeder again in a heartbeat. I would not so we've had some conversations but what it comes down to is that we all have a very different value system.
> 
> CC


& its people like that, that allow these types of breeders to carry on by supporting them - disgusting. People need to up their standards after all its only ever the dogs that suffer


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> So are you saying that you advocate impulse buying of a dog? What happens if they get it home and are unaware of its high energy needs or bad malting and are unable to provide that environment for the dog? .


Why in all get out would you interpret my post that way!

No, that is not what I am saying.

As the conversation as gone on in this thread the point was being made that many do NOT research. It is not a matter of if they should or should not, it is about the fact of the matter that they do not and that element has to be recognized, if not for anything else but for the fact that the message better needs to get out there better that research needs to be done - as I don't believe that message currently has hardly a toe hold on the public.

CC


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> & its people like that, that allow these types of breeders to carry on by supporting them - disgusting. People need to up their standards after all its only ever the dogs that suffer


I agree, but eyes are rolled now if I bring the topic up, so it is pointless with this guy anyway (good thing he is old and not gonna get any more dogs).

I should add that my upset with this particular breeder is not just (or even primarily) about the numbers. There is much more, and it includes brokering in pups from Ireland and no health testing, but as she is one of the very few that sells small purebreds that are regularly available, and she is entrenched in the show system with many CH's to brag about, many continue to support her.

CC


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

But then breeders are just as bad, for selling to the un educated in the first place - something that to me, NO responsible breeder would do - EVER


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> Why in all get out would you interpret my post that way!
> 
> No, that is not what I am saying.
> 
> ...


I dont know how the breeders work where you are but the good breeders over here will question your re-search of the breed and put your knowledge to the test. 
Because of sites like pets4homes people buy whatever seems cute at the time. Huskies seems to be the newest MUST HAVE dog and now because of that there is a rescue crisis with them.

Its not my job to force people who come on here to do their research however I dont mind giving the advice when asked. Its THEIR job as an owner to ensure the dogs they get are suitable with their lifestyle now and for the next 11-15 years. So if a baby comes along in 3 years time the dogs not dumped in a rescue.

Why cant people put the same thought and care into picking a dog that they do picking a car or a house. I know people that spend weeks researching cars yet will go out tomorrow and buy a dog because there was a for sale sign outside a shop.

We need a face palm emote!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> I dont know how the breeders work where you are but the good breeders over here will question your re-search of the breed and put your knowledge to the test. !


Good breeders do here too - but for the most part they live a very separate life from the public and only advertise amongst themselves, so the message that this should be done just doesn't get out.

What new/uneducated buyers find are the 'not-so-good' breeders that still appear to be above board . . . so they continue to be uneducated.

And that circle will continue unless there are changes made. Education is key, but keeping that education within a small circle, and to only those that seek it out won't work.

CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> If you have read my earlier posts then you would know the answer, yes I feel line breeding is a great 'too'. Theres nothing digsusting about that, I would strongly suggest you do some more research into breeding before you through sch statements around, I happen to have very strong and high views on breeding myself
> 
> - without trying to cause to much offence, you are quite a strange one.. You find this and that 'disgusting' when breeding pedigree dogs, yet find it totally acceptable to cross breed two breeds for one reason, they look good. Of course it wouldnt matter that the breeds wouldnt match at all. :confused
> 
> ...


ive read on another thread that said member may consider using this dog to stud when hes older he dosent know its ancestry and it sounds as tho hes not even sure whether hes a pure breed or a cross


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> My understanding was no papers meant you could not call it a pedigree dog. It may be a pedigree breed, simply not a pedigree dog. If one parent was not registered, even if a pedigree breed, it's offspring could not be registered and therefore, even though both parents where a pedigree breed, they would also not be pedigree dogs.


A dog is a pedigree if both its sire and dam are pedigrees, irrespective of whether or not any of them are registered. Registration is something a breeder can do with pedigree breeds he/she has bred if he/she wishes to do so, providing both sire and dam were registered'. It does not confer the status of pedigree; the status is already there whether they are going to be registered or not. However, if a dog is unregistered you may have trouble in proving it is a pedigree, because it wll have no papers - hence the reason any progeny of unregistered pedigrees will not be eligible for registration.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I agree, but eyes are rolled now if I bring the topic up, so it is pointless with this guy anyway (good thing he is old and not gonna get any more dogs).
> 
> I should add that my upset with this particular breeder is not just (or even primarily) about the numbers. There is much more, and it includes brokering in pups from Ireland and no health testing, but as she is one of the very few that sells small purebreds that are regularly available, and she is entrenched in the show system with many CH's to brag about, many continue to support her.
> 
> CC


I am glad he wont be getting any more dogs LOL - should be ashamed of his self. Of course any breeder/owner should be proud of making up champs, its a special moment..even more so if you have bred the dog yourself. But there isnt many people within the show world (that I know of) that would support someone that was breeding in such an unethical manner (although I am not in any way saying it doesnt happen) - after all we cant see what goes on behind closed doors, so cant judge until we have seen. 


noushka05 said:


> ive read on another thread that said member may consider using this dog to stud when hes older he dosent know its ancestry and it sounds as tho hes not even sure whether hes a pure breed or a cross


Oh dear. well surely this member wont put this dog to another of 'said' breed, or therefore is breeding in the same manner as he/she has slated :nono: no proof of ancestry means putting to any other of the same breed is a risk, as you couldnt possibly no the level of inbreeding - mind you if they put it to stud to any tom, dick or harry I am sure it will get more attention as no ETHICAL breeder would want such a stud. (my opinion only of course !!)


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> What I don't understand though is, if pedigree breeders ARE in it for the health of their dogs, how come then do so many pedigree breeds differ from what they were years ago?As I have already posted "Can anyone come up with the statistics that prove pedigree breeds that have now seemingly changed so much nowadays actually were healthier and lived longer years ago??" Nowadays there are so many dna tests etc.. done. When for example were dogs tested with HD years ago and scores recorded
> 
> Thing is though, it seems to be only in certain breeds. You look at the history of say a GSD or a lab or a sheltie or a collie and they look pretty similar. Is it that the working breeds were not changed because their function overrode it?A lot of GSD owners would disagree with you on this one, not sure about collie's
> 
> ...


Re the Vizla it does seem a lot but imo you would also need to know how many of the progency were going to be/ bred from etc.. and how many were exported to be outcrossed
I personally would rather see the above health tested dog bred to a health tested bitch producing that amount than a Poodle mated to ?????how many different breeds that a breeder may have at the time untested


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> Yes but with two different breeds you could have twice the problems, I have seen some dogs that are deformed as a result of crossbreeding- last year the local RSPCA were looking for a home for a Rottweiler x Dachshund, I've never seen anything so freakish looking, the dogs tiny legs could barely support its Rottie sized body & I would also say the same about pedigree breeds that have problems breathing, entropion or any other debilitating conditions, but at least these problems are reasonably predictable, mixing 2 dogs together means there is going to be more variation
> As for the Viszla, I didn't see your thread I'm afraid & know very little about the breed so I can't really comment


It wasn't a thread, it was a post earlier on on this thread. No one seemed to pick it up. It wasn't about Viszla's, it was about pedigrees in general.

Funnily enough it got ignored.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

gladass said:


> Re the Vizla it does seem a lot but imo you would also need to know how many of the progency were going to be/ bred from etc.. and how many were exported to be outcrossed
> I personally would rather see the above health tested dog bred to a health tested bitch producing that amount than a Poodle mated to ?????how many different breeds that a breeder may have at the time untested


So, basically if they are health tested it doesn't matter how much it is bred?! I personally don't think it is acceptable though for nearly 50% of a breeds registered pups to be sired by the same stud? :nono: Blatant profiteering on the part of his owner, whichever way you look at it.

Also, it wasn't from the Jemima site, it was in a magazine which highlighted the dogs I chose as well as an example. I'll have to dig it out to see who wrote it, but re Jemima, I wasn't aware she had a sight? If she does I'll go and have a look, I personally think she has a lot of good info/ideas.

Funny, how when people put up what they have found out about pedigrees that is negative its an attack on the dogs as a whole, but when anyone puts something negative about crosses and everyone agrees and lots of replies, it is taken as just an attack on the irresponsible breeders, and is all ok!!

That Vizla has been overused, and as for the person breeding from a dog which has failed a health test...disgrace.

Surely it can't be one rule for one set of breeders, and another for the other??


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> Yeah but this is waht I don't get. Every breed, pure bred or not, runs the risk of inheriting that breeds worst traits, surely? No matter how much you health test.
> 
> Look at that Viszla I pointed out in a post a while back. nearly HALF of Vizsla pups registered that year, will turn out to be his. How is that acceptable?


when i bought my sibes i was well aware of their traits so knew what i could expect and was well prepared to deal with them, do you really believe that the majority of people who breed and buy these crosses even think about what traits pups could inherit?? because i dont, hence why rescues are inundated with sibe,mal,akita etc crosses:nonod:....not to mention pure breeds churned out by the same type of breeder.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Depending on if you intended to breed your dog...but
> 
> *Just as pet*
> -History.
> ...


To answer your question, yes. I did no research whatsoever before buying Rupert, as I'd grown up with/around both breeds he is a mix of so I knew a lot about their traits, behaviours and how to handle them.

What I did do was take in a lot of advice/info about puppies and dogs in general.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> do you really believe that the majority of people who breed and buy these crosses even think about what traits pups could inherit??


I did. I knew full well what my dog could turn out like, how you have to know how to handle both terriers mine was a mix of.

Proper people that buy their dogs do, and that goes for *ALL* proper, responsible buyes, pedigree or not. Its like people that buy a border collie then dump it in a rescue 6 months down the line as its gotten destructive because they are not keeping it occupied enough. So those people exist in ALL buying circles, pedigree or not.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> But if they are tested, or from tested parents, does it matter what the breeding outcome is with regards to teh podle.
> 
> I don't think it is acceptable though for nearly 50% of a breeds registered pups to be sired by the same stud? :nono: Blatant profiteering on the part of his owner, whichever way you look at it.


I did not disagree with you re the Vizla especially about the profiteering but I cannot condemn as such as I do not know how many will actually have been kept in the country, how many will be bred from
I commented on the part re amount of pups that would maybe affect the gene pool only 
Unfortunately Poodle crosses have no registraion that ya can go look up re a Studs matings/ progency


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> when i bought my sibes i was well aware of their traits so knew what i could expect and was well prepared to deal with them, do you really believe that the majority of people who breed and buy these crosses even think about what traits pups could inherit?? because i dont, hence why rescues are inundated with sibe,mal,akita etc crosses:nonod:....not to mention pure breeds churned out by the same type of breeder.


The same can be said about some buyers and breeders of pedigrees too.

Like when they say I didn't know he would get that big or needs a lot of exercise etc... look at Cearott with that puppy owner who went for a Rottie then decided puppy too big so now want a JRT. Or those that put collies into rescues coz they can't cope with giving dog lots of stimulation/exercise.

Or as in the show versus working cocker debate. etc.....

I do get your point about crosses though- but there are both buyers and breeders that do think about what traits they would inherit.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

gladass said:


> I did not disagree with you re the Vizla especially about the profiteering but I cannot condemn as such as I do not know how many will actually have been kept in the country, how many will be bred from
> I commented on the part re amount of pups that would maybe affect the gene pool only
> Unfortunately Poodle crosses have no registraion that ya can go look up re a Studs matings/ progency


No, but you don't know how many of them will be bred from either. So why condemn them?


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> To answer your question, yes. I did no research whatsoever before buying Rupert, as I'd grown up with/around both breeds he is a mix of so I knew a lot about their traits, behaviours and how to handle them.
> 
> What I did do was take in a lot of advice/info about puppies and dogs in general.


Genetic tests are evolving regularly so there may have been a few other health issues/ tests since you were brought up/ around these 2 types of terriers that may have been beneficial to research


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> No, but you don't know how many of them will be bred from either. So why condemn them?


I am not condemning them lol its just my opinion that I gave that example as I would rather have the tested Vizsla high number progency than an untested poodle cross progency flooding the market
Not that I entirely agree with either


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

gladass said:


> Genetic tests are evolving regularly so there may have been a few other health issues/ tests since you were brought up/ around these 2 types of terriers that may have been beneficial to research


The westie I was brought up with died a few months after I got Roo, and the last set of JRTs I was around before getting Rupert are still going strong (now aged 10 and 13) then maybe not.

She never had a skin condition, but I know westies are prone to them.

One of the JRTs had primary lens luxation

JRTs more prone to hot spots, none of the JRTs I know had them though.

I know both breeds can have luxating patellas.

None of that was researched, just stuff I found out about from being around them and talking to owners.

So I suppose, actually, it is a form of reasearch in itself. Hmmmm, didn't think about that one very well!!


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

gladass said:


> I am not condemning them lol its just my opinion that I gave that example as I would rather have the tested Vizsla high number progency than an untested poodle cross progency flooding the market
> Not that I entirely agree with either


Came across that way, I do apologise.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> The westie I was brought up with died a few months after I got Roo, and the last set of JRTs I was around before getting Rupert are still going strong (now aged 10 and 13) then maybe not.
> 
> She never had a skin condition, but I know westies are prone to them.
> 
> ...


Me or you lol Forums are nasty thingmabobswhen ya cannot read facial expressions lol:hand:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> I did. I knew full well what my dog could turn out like, how you have to know how to handle both terriers mine was a mix of.
> 
> Proper people that buy their dogs do, and that goes for *ALL* proper, responsible buyes, pedigree or not. Its like people that buy a border collie then dump it in a rescue 6 months down the line as its gotten destructive because they are not keeping it occupied enough. So those people exist in ALL buying circles, pedigree or not.


i was actually thinking of Nordic breed crosses,...i consider my breed a specialist breed yet we have idiots cashing in on their good looks,crossing them with anything people like this dont take into account breed traits!...infact all the sibes and sibe crosses ive come across off lead have been bred by [email protected] breeders, my friends friend bought her sibe (a pure bred husky) from a notorious sibe byb, she was never even told to keep her on lead in unsecure areas, Mischa was hit by a lorry and killed... and the vast majority in rescues will be from the same sort of breeder who dosent instill in new owners what is required to keep them safe and happy hence why many people cant cope and dump them in rescue.......a terrier cross isnt really in the same league as the type of cross i was meaning


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

gladass said:


> Me or you lol Forums are nasty thingmabobswhen ya cannot read facial expressions lol:hand:


Me.  I did research, just not in a way I'd think it was research if you get me! I didn't study a lot of books.

And to be fair, most crossbreed owners I know do know what issues their parentage dogs have. its the idiots that don't that seem to get us all tarred with the same brush, when there are thousands of pedigree owners that don't know as much about their dogs as well, but that seems to be swept under the carpet.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> The same can be said about some buyers and breeders of pedigrees too.
> 
> Like when they say I didn't know he would get that big or needs a lot of exercise etc... look at Cearott with that puppy owner who went for a Rottie then decided puppy too big so now want a JRT. Or those that put collies into rescues coz they can't cope with giving dog lots of stimulation/exercise.
> 
> ...


but with a pure breed you can do the research and have a pretty good idea what youre getting and whether you can cope...with a cross you just dont know! .....this is why crosses of my breed are flooding into rescue because they arnt as easy to live with as they thought!


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> a terrier cross isnt really in the same league as the type of cross i was meaning


Sorry, your post read as if you were talking about all crosses.

Same point goes. It could be a pure bred dog that people havn't researched. Just because people buy a cross doesn't automatically make them irresponsible, just like when people buy a KC registered dog, with all the health checks etc doesn't make them automatically responsible.

I had a right tiz with someone at work, who was offering a border collie for sale because she was too boisterous. Turns out she was being walked for 20 minutes ONCE a day, and they hadn't realised how much excercise she would need.

F****ng idiots.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> but with a pure breed you can do the research and have a pretty good idea what youre getting and whether you can cope...with a cross you just dont know! .....this is why crosses of my breed are flooding into rescue because they arnt as easy to live with as they thought!


Again, disagree.

You can research BOTH dogs. If you can cope with BOTH dogs, very good chance you can cope with a CROSS of both those dogs.

No different to researching a poodle, researching a cav and buying a pedigree of each.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> Me.  I did research, just not in a way I'd think it was research if you get me! I didn't study a lot of books.
> 
> And to be fair, most crossbreed owners I know do know what issues their parentage dogs have. its the idiots that don't that seem to get us all tarred with the same brush, when there are thousands of pedigree owners that don't know as much about their dogs as well, but that seems to be swept under the carpet.


I do not believe its swept under the carpet and pedigree owners/ breeders also get tarred by the exact same stick lol
I personally would never buy from a breeder who could not tell me more than the name of their breed and its pet name 
So many people nowadays --want a puppy--lift a paper or plug in a computer--go get puppy seen on a pic and hey presto one puppy owner who does not have a clue and then poor doggy when they move onto next want


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i was actually thinking of Nordic breed crosses,...i consider my breed a specialist breed yet we have idiots cashing in on their good looks,crossing them with anything people like this dont take into account breed traits!...infact all the sibes and sibe crosses ive come across off lead have been bred by [email protected] breeders, my friends friend bought her sibe (a pure bred husky) from a well know byb, she was never even told to keep her on lead in unsecure areas, Mischa was hit by a lorry and killed... and the vast majority in rescues will be from the same sort of breeder who dosent instill in new owners what is required to keep them safe and happy hence why many people cant cope and dump them in rescue.......a terrier cross isnt really in the same league as the type of cross i was meaning


I do see your point Noushka and currently with both this breed as pures and crosses getting to be the next new dog to be seen with is sadly going to get worse.

When we first decided the time was right to get a dog, hubbys' fav dog is a Husky- now if we were irresponsible we could have just gone and got one.

But no it's not the right dog for us and we both knew that. Hubby has to contend with drooling over them when he sees one. 

We did some research on a few breeds we liked on our list : cockers, mini schnauzers, lhasas and in doing this we stumbled across cockapoos liked what we found and decided that was the dog for us.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

gladass said:


> I do not believe its swept under the carpet and pedigree owners/ breeders also get tarred by the exact same stick lol
> I personally would never buy from a breeder who could not tell me more than the name of their breed and its pet name
> So many people nowadays --want a puppy--lift a paper or plug in a computer--go get puppy seen on a pic and hey presto one puppy owner who does not have a clue and then poor doggy when they move onto next want


Down to idiots not considering or thinking their decisions through. Regardless of the breed of dog. :nono:


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> When we first decided the time was right to get a dog, hubbys' fav dog is a Husky- now if we were irresponsible we could have just gone and got one.


OH wanted a boxer...:blink:

More specifically his mums boxer.

Not a chance in HELL we could cope with him at our house. Harvey is about as big as we can realistically have with the space.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

There are many crossbreeds which do not work. I think reading through a lot of these threads there actually is a lot of common ground which are important no matter if you agree to crossbreeds/pedigree or not.


Conformation (how a dog looks) can have a direct influence on Health.
Health tests are necessary
Having easy access to ethical breeders is necessary
Breeders who do it for simply money are not ethical breeders.

So how do you suggest moving this forward if everyone in this thread accepts these? This should be the main focus rather than simply going round in circles of simply citing what people think is wrong.

When it comes to conformation, there are seminars which teach it. These are advertised in dog magazines. If these were advertised also in say a local paper wouldn't it spread the awareness further afield? How about if these were advertised online where people buy puppies?

Knowing which health tests exist is a great start for any breeder. Not once when looking at things to look for when buying a pup did I see anything about health tests. Advertising things like Guide to congenital and heritable disorders would be an excellent start. Buyers need to be aware of these as, at the end of the day buyers drive the market and because of their lack of knowledge encourage non-ethical breeders. I posted a thread earlier with a youtube video which shows an American Bulldog with a neurological illness. It's distressing but do you think anybody wanting to buy that breed as a loving pet would then buy one without health testing for it? Maybe I'm an exception but I doubt it.

I know this may be be counted as an attack but ethical breeders need to reach a greater number of people who simply do not have the knowledge of what to look for. Advertising in dog magazines is great but the majority of buyers simply don't go there when buying. If ethical breeders advertised where most people look and emphasize the good points of ethical breeding, it can also serve as a prompt for people to look these things up especially if they are pointed to such information. Assume people are lazy. It's been noted that those ethical breeders who do advertise where they reach a majority of people stand out. You can see the difference in the way they present. Buyers browsing ads do see it and it can influence their decision making process.

There isn't a quick easy solution but unless people stop simply stating "this is wrong" without actively thinking about how things could be improved and acting upon it things will only get worse.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> but with a pure breed you can do the research and have a pretty good idea what youre getting and whether you can cope...with a cross you just dont know! .....this is why crosses of my breed are flooding into rescue because they arnt as easy to live with as they thought!


Yes I agree not so easy to know.

For me as mine are very well established they have lived up to all that I was told as have all the other owners of these crosses I know.

You have to take in all the good and bad traits of both breeds and be prepared to accept them- otherwise don't go there!!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Not been taken on by any one else though, bit gutted about that. Spent ages researching and typing it up!
> 
> Clearly not a point anyone wants to discuss!





Horse and Hound said:


> Funnily enough it got ignored.


Except, of course, by the following posters: 



SEVEN_PETS said:


> that's disgraceful. I think there should be a limit on how much a stud dog can be used, depending on how small the gene pool is. Ie if the gene pool is large, you can use the dog more than if the gene pool is small.





simplysardonic said:


> Yes but with two different breeds you could have twice the problems, I have seen some dogs that are deformed as a result of crossbreeding- last year the local RSPCA were looking for a home for a Rottweiler x Dachshund, I've never seen anything so freakish looking, the dogs tiny legs could barely support its Rottie sized body & I would also say the same about pedigree breeds that have problems breathing, entropion or any other debilitating conditions, but at least these problems are reasonably predictable, mixing 2 dogs together means there is going to be more variation
> As for the Viszla, I didn't see your thread I'm afraid & know very little about the breed so I can't really comment





Cay said:


> I recognise some of that post from Jemimas blog. Interestingly there's a working type in my breed who's had 171 litters and 791 puppies hmy:.





gladass said:


> Re the Vizla it does seem a lot but imo you would also need to know how many of the progency were going to be/ bred from etc.. and how many were exported to be outcrossed
> I personally would rather see the above health tested dog bred to a health tested bitch producing that amount than a Poodle mated to ?????how many different breeds that a breeder may have at the time untested


But then, I suppose ignoring the fact that people did reply doesn't fit in with the "it's only crossbreeding that is ever condemned" scenario that some people like to pretend exists on here. 

As for myself, I didn't reply for two reasons: Firstly I know nothing about vizlas and, unlike some posters, I don't try to blag about things I have no knowledge of. And secondly, anything that is lifted from anything JH produces is, in my opinion, not worth discussing - and I didn't want to turn this thread into another discussion about JH and PDE.

His owner may have been profiteering - which imo is as wrong with pedigrees as it is with crossbreeds - but I did wonder if one of the reasons he was so widely used is that the gene pool mat be small and he was such a good specimin that careful line breeding with his genes would improve the breed as a whole - in much the same way as Dr Andreoli did with the bergamasco. However, that would be pure surmise on my part because, as I said, I know nothing about vizlas at all.

btw- talking about not commenting on a post - no-one at all commented on my post about the fact that careful line breeding and high COIs in bergamaschi has not resulted in dogs with health problems. Wonder why that was, hmmmm? Perhaps because it shoots down in flames the argument that crosses are always healthier than pedigrees?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> Sorry, your post read as if you were talking about all crosses.
> 
> Same point goes. It could be a pure bred dog that people havn't researched. Just because people buy a cross doesn't automatically make them irresponsible, just like when people buy a KC registered dog, with all the health checks etc doesn't make them automatically responsible.
> 
> ...


i agree a lot of people buy pedigree dogs on a whim and do no research...but good breeders of sibes vet potential buyers of their pups out and they certainly expect them to have done plenty of research on the [email protected] sibe breeders dont bother its 1st come 1st served so long as they pay the cash!....and people who cross sibes are the same they dont give a damn only about the money! ....... ive yet to find a single ad for a sibe cross where the breeder has done the health tests for the breeds involved and believe my i have scoured the net!...not saying that all owners who buy such crosses are bad but if they have researched i just cant undertand why anyone would support such breeders


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> But then, I suppose ignoring the fact that people did reply doesn't fit in with the "it's only crossbreeding that is ever condemned" scenario that some people like to pretend exists on here. ?


7 people out a massive lot of contributers to a thread...wow!  And I've never said it is only crossbreeding that is condemned, there's plenty of other threads about bad breeders, pedigree or not, BUT its only a thread about crossbreeding that manages to generat such a response. One thing I will say though, is everyone who has responded has picked up on the vizsla. Nothing about the unhealthy Cav that was used for breeding...



Spellweaver said:


> As for myself, I didn't reply for two reasons: Firstly I know nothing about vizlas and, unlike some posters, I don't try to blag about things I have no knowledge of. And secondly, anything that is lifted from anything JH produces is, in my opinion, not worth discussing - and I didn't want to turn this thread into another discussion about JH and PDE.


Wasn't just focussing on vizslas, it was personally an attempt to show that the KC need to be doing more to crack down on bad breeders as a whole, and just pointing out that they exist in all walks of life, sadly.



Spellweaver said:


> His owner may have been profiteering - which imo is as wrong with pedigrees as it is with crossbreeds - but I did wonder if one of the reasons he was so widely used is that the gene pool mat be small and he was such a good specimin that careful line breeding with his genes would improve the breed as a whole - in much the same way as Dr Andreoli did with the bergamasco. However, that would be pure surmise on my part because, as I said, I know nothing about vizlas at all..


Possibly, but then again to have nearly 50% of an entire breed's pups that are registed, sired by the same stud...in the 12 months that followed crufts? Be a bit of a sod if down the line he turns out to have some form of disease that can't be tested for or what not, as people point out exist. But you run the risk of that with any stud I suppose.



Spellweaver said:


> btw- talking about not commenting on a post - no-one at all commented on my post about the fact that careful line breeding and high COIs in bergamaschi has not resulted in dogs with health problems. Wonder why that was, hmmmm? Perhaps because it shoots down in flames the argument that crosses are always healthier than pedigrees?


LIke you said above, don't like to brag about things I know nothing about. But if it did, well done. Healthy dogs are always good dogs in my opinion.

Don't think I've also ever been daft enough to claim that crosses are always healthier than pedigrees either. But on the flip side pedigrees are not always healthier than crosses.

Swings and roundabouts.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> i agree a lot of people buy pedigree dogs on a whim and do no research...but good breeders of sibes vet potential buyers of their pups out and they certainly expect them to have done plenty of research on the [email protected] sibe breeders dont bother its 1st come 1st served so long as they pay the cash!....and people who cross sibes are the same they dont give a damn only about the money! ....... ive yet to find a single ad for a sibe cross where the breeder has done the health tests for the breeds involved and believe my i have scoured the net!...not saying that all owners who buy such crosses are bad but if they have researched i just cant undertand why anyone would support such breeders


I'm with you, I could never support who I thought was an unethical breeder, be they crosses or pedigrees they are breeding.

But then it boils down to what you think constitutes an ethical breeder, which is then a complete different ball game.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Except, of course, by the following posters:
> 
> But then, I suppose ignoring the fact that people did reply doesn't fit in with the "it's only crossbreeding that is ever condemned" scenario that some people like to pretend exists on here.
> 
> ...


*
*

The reason being is that we are not that knowledgable about genetics to answer that , nor are we familiar with the breed like yourself.

Like anything with genetics and breeding there are always exceptions to the case.

Also as far as I'm aware no-one has stated that crossbreeds are *always* healthier than pedigrees. Then again could be wrong as sooo many pages.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> Again, disagree.
> 
> You can research BOTH dogs. If you can cope with BOTH dogs, very good chance you can cope with a CROSS of both those dogs.
> 
> No different to researching a poodle, researching a cav and buying a pedigree of each.


but why would anyone support such a breeder in the 1st place??...

my God theres no wonder my breed is going the way of the staffy:nonod:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> 7 people out a massive lot of contributers to a thread...wow!  And I've never said it is only crossbreeding that is condemned, there's plenty of other threads about bad breeders, pedigree or not, BUT its only a thread about crossbreeding that manages to generat such a response. One thing I will say though, is everyone who has responded has picked up on the vizsla. Nothing about the unhealthy Cav that was used for breeding...
> 
> Wasn't just focussing on vizslas, it was personally an attempt to show that the KC need to be doing more to crack down on bad breeders as a whole, and just pointing out that they exist in all walks of life, sadly.


Response about the cav has already been done to death on numerous anti-pedigree threads that have generated just as much - if not more - response as crossbreeding threads 

Re using the vizla an example that the KC needs to be doing more to crack down on bad breeders - well, maybe they do: but in your own words you spent ages researching for this material and after all that could only come up with two examples - the vizla and the cav from over 3 years ago. And in any case, using source material produced by JH (who has proved on numerous occasions that her research techniques and findings leave much to be desired) is no basis for any argument whatsoever - you can never expect to prove a point if you cannot trust the source material. :nono:



Horse and Hound said:


> LIke you said above, don't like to brag about things I know nothing about. But if it did, well done. Healthy dogs are always good dogs in my opinion.


So you see, there are good reasons for people not replying to posts - trying to insinuate it's because you were talking about pedigrees rather than crossbreeds only fuels the fallacy that everyone on here is anti-crossbreeds.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes I agree not so easy to know.
> 
> For me as mine are very well established they have lived up to all that I was told as have all the other owners of these crosses I know.
> 
> You have to take in all the good and bad traits of both breeds and be prepared to accept them- otherwise don't go there!!!


but this is what i just dont understand, why would anyone who does some research want to be party to such irresponsible breeding practices??

because if they had reseached sibes and were prepared for sibe traits why not just get an ethically bred sibe i mean the breed has few health issues, its a long lived breed many making it well into their late teens..and i mean well into their teens!...my oldest bitches sire is still going strong, her grand sire and great grand sire both lived to be 17 years old,....so surely someone who looked at the wider picture would have to ask themselves what reason does a breeder have to cross them!!!...and if they still chose to support a breeder like this then they may be the best owner in the world but imo they are still partly to blame for the state of the sibe rescue crisis!


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> yes im sure there are worse crosses but no one can know the traits the pups will inherit, what the pups will look like,health problems they could inherit! because i dont think you'll find a breeder that breeds them and health tests breeding stock not to mention breed with any'desire or purpose' apart from to make money....not the sort of breeder i could ever support thats for sure!
> 
> your Akita was accepted as a recognised breed once enthusiasts bred them true to type.. lots of pure breeds have other breeds in their ancestry.


But this is just as true for pedigrees... so rather then saying its either side it should be all sides. This is were peoples feelings get hurt.

I know of a GSD breeder who bred a bitch who chews her tail to the point that its a bald bloody stump. All her pups do this.. one of my friends has rescued one of the boy pups. He is a permant tail chewer and has to be permantly muzzeled except for eating time when he has to be watched! This is a ped dog that should never have been bred!

There are examples in the cross breed world as well as the ped world.

Who are you to "know these dogs werent bred for a purpose" with out speaking to the breeder your just guessing!

This whole thing of not knowing what a cross breed temperment will be like... well how can you guarantee a ped's tempermant? you ensure mum and Dad have good one and hope that the puppys will. I can't see the difference with compatible cross breeds!

I do agree with you in regards to health testing! I think all animals should be health tested before being bred with.

Thanks


----------



## stigDarley (Jan 2, 2010)

Goblin said:


> Why not include to a link about hip scores if you have it bookmarked? There is already a sticky in the Breeding section on Necessary health tests. http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/9369-necessary-health-tests-before-breeding.html Why not link people to it when talking about them? Anyone discussing health tests can point to it or have it in their signature even if talking in the general dog chat area. Help people to learn.
> 
> Accept the simple fact people are lazy. On the internet it's a safer assumption. So they don't google to know what a double merle is. They then don't know the reason you don't like them is for health reasons. They have already read about the fact that they look like your preferred animals but aren't. You are indirectly supporting prejudices which already exist.
> 
> ...


I would also point out that on the internet you can publish what ever you want doesn't mena its right or true! So someone who does know what there on about should begrudge sharing the info!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

stigDarley said:


> But this is just as true for pedigrees... so rather then saying its either side it should be all sides. This is were peoples feelings get hurt.
> 
> I know of a GSD breeder who bred a bitch who chews her tail to the point that its a bald bloody stump. All her pups do this.. one of my friends has rescued one of the boy pups. He is a permant tail chewer and has to be permantly muzzeled except for eating time when he has to be watched! This is a ped dog that should never have been bred!
> 
> ...


then that GSD breeder is also an irresponsible breeder!

lol in most cases i think my guess will be correct and the only reason they were bred is because they could and to make a nice little earner!...you wont find many such breeders who know one jot about conformation let alone do any health testing!...they cut corners because its more profitable to do so!

but with a well bred pedigree you have a very good idea of the pups temperament


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> but this is what i just dont understand, why would anyone who does some research want to be party to such irresponsible breeding practices??
> 
> because if they had reseached sibes and were prepared for sibe traits why not just get an ethically bred sibe i mean the breed has few health issues, its a long lived breed many making it well into their late teens..and i mean well into their teens!...my oldest bitches sire is still going strong, her grand sire and great grand sire both lived to be 17 years old,....so surely someone who looked at the wider picture would have to ask themselves what reason does a breeder have to cross them!!!...and if they still chose to support a breeder like this then they may be the best owner in the world but imo they are still partly to blame for the state of the sibe rescue crisis!


The question would be best answered by a sibe x owner as we all like different crosses.

I guess it's because like most of us cross owners we like the diversity of two breeds being in one. It's not being against a purebred it just personal preference like everything else in life.

Maybe some like a sibe to be x so that it could possibly dilute it's worse traits or bring better traits in.

It's mixing and matching that creates pedigrees anyway- did you see the link I put up with the list of dog breeds and what mixes went in to make them?

BUT I do agree then when it comes to as you put it "specialist" dogs then yes I do think more caution and research into the mix is needed.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

stigDarley said:


> But this is just as true for pedigrees... so rather then saying its either side it should be all sides. This is were peoples feelings get hurt.


The difference is, with pedigrees there is a hell of a lot of documentation that you can check up on - information that is widely available either through the KC or on specialist breed sites (such as Anadune for border collies). A prospective buyer can research the lines. With crossbreeds, all a prospective buyer has to go on is what they are being told by the breeder. Now given that there are a hell of a lot of unscrupulous breeders out there -both crossbreed and pedigree - at least with pedigrees the prospective buyer has more to base his judgement on than just the breeder.



stigDarley said:


> I know of a GSD breeder who bred a bitch who chews her tail to the point that its a bald bloody stump. All her pups do this.. one of my friends has rescued one of the boy pups. He is a permant tail chewer and has to be permantly muzzeled except for eating time when he has to be watched! This is a ped dog that should never have been bred!


No - this is a breeder than should neither breed nor own dogs because she is not looking after her dog or her litters properly. Tail chewing has nothing to do with bad breeding - it is a behavioural trait that arises out of sheer boredom and your friend might need specialist help to train the rescued pup not to do this.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> but why would anyone support such a breeder in the 1st place??...
> 
> my God theres no wonder my breed is going the way of the staffy:nonod:


Sorry, I've lost you. Such a breeder, you mean a cross breeder?

Various reasons, which have been discussed I suppose. Some people just want a cross. If you can handle both dogs, and are confident then fair play. What I have issue with is those that pick a cross when they would have no idea handling one, or either dog.

Like me, I wouldn't DREAM of buying a cross that had any of the northen breeds in it. I chose terriers as I'm confident in my handling of them.

Hope that makes sense, does to me anyway....which isn't a good sign, to be fair.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Re using the vizla an example that the KC needs to be doing more to crack down on bad breeders - well, maybe they do: but in your own words you spent ages researching for this material and after all that could only come up with two examples - the vizla and the cav from over 3 years ago. And in any case, using source material produced by JH *(who has proved on numerous occasions that her research techniques and findings leave much to be desired)* is no basis for any argument whatsoever - you can never expect to prove a point if you cannot trust the source material. :nono:


In you're opinion you cannot trusht the source material, looks to me like a lot of her findings have a fair bit of basis to them. Not that I actually saw the documentary that gets everyones knickers in a twist but I have actually located her blog now and she's actually quite intellingent and I enjoy reading her stuff.

And I said I spent ages looking around the data base, once I'd looked up some of the ones she'd come up with. There was actually an example of 5. But those 2 stood out. I was actually quite fascinated and was tracing a fair few of my friends dogs back through their studs and what not.

Sh*t breeding happens in all walks of life, not just crossing them. That much is accepted. Wasn't a point I was trying to prove really, just one I was raising.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> The question would be best answered by a sibe x owner as we all like different crosses.
> 
> I guess it's because like most of us cross owners we like the diversity of two breeds being in one. It's not being against a purebred it just personal preference like everything else in life.
> 
> ...


i like sibe crosses like i do all dogs but isnt it rather selfish to support the breeding of them when its inevitably done for unethical reasons?

so some breeders may be breeding them in the hope of diluting their traits...its already been established they have no idea what traits the pups will inherit !...very very irresponsible reason!...someone may believe they have a dog which because its been crossed with a more subservient breed is safe to let off lead!...i know of examples where such crosses have paid the ultimate price!....such breeders are playing a lottery with dogs lives here!...there is NO justification for crossing them imo!


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> With crossbreeds, all a prospective buyer has to go on is what they are being told by the breeder. Now given that there are a hell of a lot of unscrupulous breeders out there -both crossbreed and pedigree - at least with pedigrees the prospective buyer has more to base his judgement on than just the breeder.


So does a cross breeder.

If you cross a pedigree with a pedigree, then you can trace the lineage of BOTH those pedigrees, same as you could trace any pedigree mating with a pedigree.



I could trace Roo's mums linage, in fact I might do that. I'd struggle with his dad as JRTs aint registered. But I bet CL could trace her dog's lineage/parentage.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> i like sibe crosses like i do all dogs but isnt it rather selfish to support the breeding of them when its inevitably done for unethical reasons?


Again, there's that word. Unethical. All boils down to what, to you, is unethical.

To you breeding cross breeds falls into that category, as you see they have no purpose. I don't agree with that. I think crosses can have a purpose. Certain crosses don't, and that IS unethical (examples of stupidity like Rotties x JRTs and the like).


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> In you're opinion you cannot trusht the source material, looks to me like a lot of her findings have a fair bit of basis to them.


Not just my opinion - read and learn! 

Pedigree Dogs presenter exposed!

This looks like the same link but is completely different
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/145718-pedigree-dogs-presenter-exposed.html

shar-pei eyes


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2011)

As much as I dont agree with over using a stud dog I would much rather have a pup from an overused stud dog than an unhealthy one. 

In my breed for example there is only a handful of fully tested dogs. So they will be used more often. Its not the best situation but sadly its either that or risk more health problems.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> So does a cross breeder.
> 
> If you cross a pedigree with a pedigree, then you can trace the lineage of BOTH those pedigrees, same as you could trace any pedigree mating with a pedigree.
> 
> ...


That is probably true of F1 crosses - but only if the crosses are from reputable breeders who have registered their dogs. And wasn't someone stamping their feet on this thread not so long since because reputable pedigree breeders are reluctant to allow their stock to be corossbred? For the rest, and after F1 crosses, you still only have the breeder's word that what they list as the pedigree is actually the truth. There is no independent way of checking.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> That is probably true of F1 crosses - but only if the crosses are from reputable breeders who have registered their dogs. And wasn't someone stamping their feet on this thread not so long since because reputable pedigree breeders are reluctant to allow their stock to be corossbred? For the rest, and after F1 crosses, you still only have the breeder's word that what they list as the pedigree is actually the truth. There is no independent way of checking.


Suppose the same goes for those pedigrees that don't get registered.

I don't know about someone stamping their feet, I'd have to go back, but wasn't someone else saying that the issue with not getting said crosses as new breeds because they were majority F1 crosses and not crosses to crosses? 

Mind you, say I crossed Rupert with another cross whith registered ped parents. The owner of the pups we had could trace the pups back if they wanted, surely? Granted they'd have to go off what I said initially, but if they wanted to they could go away, and check the dog's parentage.

Aaaaah, though I see what you mean. They would only have my say so that my puppies parents were who they said they were, as there's no cross register. Maybe a register would help. Dunno

Conundrum.

Oh, and re your JH post, not ignoring it. She did make an almighty f**k up there, give you that one. But that's on that particular issue.

Out of interest and on a slight tangent, if you have to tack a sharpei's eyes, is it really then ethical or right to breed from that dog? Is that something that is passed down?


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> As much as I dont agree with over using a stud dog I would much rather have a pup from an overused stud dog than an unhealthy one.
> 
> In my breed for example there is only a handful of fully tested dogs. So they will be used more often. Its not the best situation but sadly its either that or risk more health problems.


Would you not, say for instance, think it is better perhaps looking at dogs that are not KC registered in a breed, but are a healthy and tested example and start using those as studs to widen the gene pool? Surely you have a way then towards widening the gene pool with healthy dogs?

Or is the desire to produce perfect looking dogs that adher to a breed standard accepted by the KC the main issue?

Thinking aloud here by the way, wondering if there is a way to stop flooding gene pools with one dog.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> Again, there's that word. Unethical. All boils down to what, to you, is unethical.
> 
> To you breeding cross breeds falls into that category, as you see they have no purpose. I don't agree with that. I think crosses can have a purpose. Certain crosses don't, and that IS unethical (examples of stupidity like Rotties x JRTs and the like).


so just what is the purpose of crossing sibes then?....it cant be to improve health, its not to increase lifespan, its not to breed out traits because we all know no one can be sure which traits pups will inherit!...so what is it then??...because i cant find ONE ethical reason!


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> so just what is the purpose of crossing sibes then?....it cant be to improve health, its not to increase lifespan, its not to breed out traits because we all know no one can be sure which traits pups will inherit!...so what is it then??...because i cant find ONE ethical reason!


Which is exactly what I was saying.

You think it is unethical BECAUSE you can't see a purpose or reason to cross breed them.

To be fair, there was absolutely no "reason" (in your eyes anyway) for the bloke who bred Rupert to cross breed his dogs either, but I wouldn't view him as an unethical breeder, where you clearly will. Which is fine, that's where people differ and the beauty of a forum like this. Personally, being bred to be a pet for someone is as much a valid purpose of an animal than any. His breeder hasn't done it to feed a saturated market of JRTs x Westies, he hadn't done it to make a shed load of money off a designer breed...I'd never heard of the cross before I found Rupert.

Some, like me would view unethical as something different e.g. puppy farming, BYBS, not health testing, stupid crosses, not keeping the dogs in good condition, overbreeding from a said bitch/stud etc.

I'd much rather go to someone like the bloke that bred Roo for a puppy than any of the above. His bitch has had 2 litters and is now spaed. She was health tested, KC registered and I'm going to call him tonight actually and trace her back, I'm intrigued.


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Maybe all breeding should be limited till the vast amount of rescue dogs are rehomed?


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Horse and Hound said:


> Out of interest and on a slight tangent, if you have to tack a sharpei's eyes, is it really then ethical or right to breed from that dog? Is that something that is passed down?


Very difficult this one, as wether or not a pupies eyes need tacking is down to the individual amount of hylauran in that particulars pups genetic make up. Som pups in litter may require it, others won't. Some need tacking from clear eyed parents and sometimes if parents had tacking, pups had clear eyes

If the eyes were bad enough to warrant surgery then, definitely its a no-go for breeding in my book. As with much genetics, with no test available you run with the best you can


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> but this is what i just dont understand, why would anyone who does some research want to be party to such irresponsible breeding practices??
> 
> because if they had reseached sibes and were prepared for sibe traits why not just get an ethically bred sibe i mean the breed has few health issues, its a long lived breed many making it well into their late teens..and i mean well into their teens!...my oldest bitches sire is still going strong, her grand sire and great grand sire both lived to be 17 years old,....so surely someone who looked at the wider picture would have to ask themselves what reason does a breeder have to cross them!!!...and if they still chose to support a breeder like this then they may be the best owner in the world but imo they are still partly to blame for the state of the sibe rescue crisis!


I saw an advert just this morning, Rottweiler x Mallies, which claims the puppies look like Rotties but with the double coat of malamutes, so will only shed once a year
Tell that to my Rottie x Northern breed who is gently shedding wherever he goes all year round, as well as the fun blowing of his coat twice a year


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Aaaaah, though I see what you mean. They would only have my say so that my puppies parents were who they said they were, as there's no cross register. Maybe a register would help. Dunno


It would - but it would have to have a controlling body so that it could be accepted as a reliable register - I dunno, maybe this is one area the KC could look at?



Horse and Hound said:


> Oh, and re your JH post, not ignoring it. She did make an almighty f**k up there, give you that one. But that's on that particular issue.


Ah, but this was the almighty f**k up that proved to everyone in the world what pedigree breeders and the dog show fraternity had been saying since PDE - ie that her research was flawed and that she preferred sensationalism over truth. 



Horse and Hound said:


> Out of interest and on a slight tangent, if you have to tack a sharpei's eyes, is it really then ethical or right to breed from that dog? Is that something that is passed down?


I believe it is something that can be passed down. Personally, I would never breed from a dog who had to have its eyes tacked. Again, I don't know much about the breed but from what I have read, ethical breeders are deliberately breeding away from it - certainly most shar-peis being shown these days don't seem to have had to have their eyes tacked and the breed standard says:

_Function of eyeball or lid in no way disturbed by surrounding skin, folds or hair. Any sign of irritation of eyeball, conjunctiva or eyelids highly undesirable. Free from entropion._


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> Sorry, I've lost you. Such a breeder, you mean a cross breeder?
> 
> Various reasons, which have been discussed I suppose. Some people just want a cross. If you can handle both dogs, and are confident then fair play. What I have issue with is those that pick a cross when they would have no idea handling one, or either dog.
> 
> ...


i mean those who are obviously only in it to make money! cos where my breed is concerned it certainly aint improve health or longevity as ive already said!

and just because someone is confident handling such a cross dosent make it right to go and buy one!...dont they care about the rest of the puppies in that litter? that some of their owners might not end up being so confident once reality hits home:nonod:...such selfishness is one of the reasons my breed is in such a state!

i'd really love someone to find me a sibe cross breeder who motive aside does everything else ethically! where are these breeders????????

so do you think its okay for pet breeders to continue breeding and crossing staffies than as long as they go by your ethics??


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> I saw an advert just this morning, Rottweiler x Mallies, which claims the puppies look like Rotties but with the double coat of malamutes, so will only shed once a year
> Tell that to my Rottie x Northern breed who is gently shedding wherever he goes all year round, as well as the fun blowing of his coat twice a year


nothing surprises me anymore with breeders like this...they'll say anything to get a sale:nonod:

well lets just hope any new owners of those puppies arnt very house proud hey


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> so do you think its okay for pet breeders to continue breeding and crossing staffies than as long as they go by your ethics??


No, because I don't think its ethical to be breeding a breed that is in such trouble in recues, full stop, be it crossing or pedigree.

But then again, you get the whole arguement from people about teh decent lines dying out. Staff breeding should be being very, very closely monitored IMHO. Preseving the bloodline is crucial, but there are so many of them in rescues, its untrue.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> No, because I don't think its ethical to be breeding a breed that is in such trouble in recues, full stop, be it crossing or pedigree.
> 
> But then again, you get the whole arguement from people about teh decent lines dying out. Staff breeding should be being very, very closely monitored IMHO. Preseving the bloodline is crucial, but there are so many of them in rescues, its untrue.


like my breed you mean??? or is it still okay for all an sundry to churn them out because theyve not quite hit proportions of the staffs in rescue

and youve contradicted yourself in your last paragraph really...because breeders who care about preserving thir dogs lines are in most cases the ones who care about preserving the breed.......but imo staff breeding should only be done by the very best most responsible and ethical breeders........as will ALL breeds.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> like my breed you mean??? or is it still okay for all an sundry to churn them out because theyve not quite hit proportions of the staffs in rescue
> 
> and youve contradicted yourself in your last paragraph really...because breeders who care about preserving thir dogs lines are in most cases the ones who care about preserving the breed.......but imo staff breeding should only be done by the very best most responsible and ethical breeders........as will ALL breeds.


I don't know enough about your breeds or their rescue state to comment on them, its not something I've looked into as I don't have one myself, nor is it a breed I would consider having becasue they are not suited to my lifestyle. I was using the staff exampl as you brought it up.

As for contradicting msyelf, I didn't mean to. What I meant to say, and thought I had, was that no, I don't agree that breeding a breed that is in such a bad rescue state is ethical, but there is the consideration to preserving the bloodlines that has to be taken. However, like you said, those that want to preserve said bloodlines won't be the ones churning out the dogs left, right and centre to generate profit.

But then you also get into the debate that it has to be done without flooding the market and gene pool with more dogs that need homes, so its a tough call to make and one which, IMHO the KC should be doing more to look at and monitor...but then you get into the debate about policing it and it doesn't solve the BYBs that would simply go further underground.

I don't have the answers, I've never pretended to.


----------

