This came from an evil crossbreeder.
The AKC’s now recognizes that its biggest threat are the intentionally bred crossbreeds, which are, unfortunately, called “designer dogs.”
Are these crosses being mass produced on puppy farms? Yes.
Are breeder making fantastic claims about them? Yes.
Are they inherently evil because they are crossbred? No.
Crossbreeding dogs is not inherently unethical, but it comes up against a fundamentalist religion in dogs. This is the religion of the fancy, which has as its number one command “Thou shalt not cross breeds. Breeds are like species.”
The AKC is very much threatened by these crosses, which are taking away a huge share of the market for them.
The American people have never really believed that these multi-breed registries really represent our values as country. And now that we are the only industrialized nation outside of South Africa, South Korea, and Japan with a non-Caucasian head of state (who was elected with majorities both times), I don’t think the average American accept the tenants of blood purity for people or for dogs.
People are questioning many things that were once believed to be true:
Should marijuana be illegal like cocaine and heroin?
Should marriage be allowed between people of the same sex?
Should women be paid equal to men?
These questions are running rampant in the body politic right now, and I can tell you it wasn’t so long ago–ten years to be precisely– that these issues were not discussed at all.
Now they are.
And if we’re questioning these values, it’s not really hard to see that Americans are question something as silly and oddly foreign as the institutionalized dog fancy.
These institutions were not created for a country with very strong democratic institutions. They were created largely by Tory elitists in England and then grafted onto the United States, which has never accepted truly accepted the dog fancy as most of Europe has. I don’t think such an institution could last long in a country that elected a Barack Obama.
The United States doesn’t have the strongest democratic institutions in the world, but it has always had a very strong egalitarian spirit that sometimes comes bubbling up when people least expect it. One of the great paradoxes of this country is that even though we have a lot of inequality, we are somewhat embarrassed by it, which is probably why we don’t talk about it very much.
The dog fancy that the AKC works for is not an egalitarian organization at all. It is openly elitist. At the major dog shows, the dogs that tend to win are those that are professionally handled, which means that their owners are rich enough to hire someone to show their dogs for them. How many breeder-owner-handlers do you see when Westminster is on television?
So the AKC is now reduced to talking points on “designer dogs” in much the same way anti-gay activists are on the issue of marriage equality.
The American people are rejecting the product the AKC is selling– not only because it is elitist and caught up in a faith-based position on blood purity– but because the dogs it is producing aren’t what people actually want.
People love Labradors.
But they also like Benji.
And they would like it if their Labradors didn’t shed so much.
Wait, there is a Benji-type Labrador cross that doesn’t shed as much as a pure Labrador?
Where do I get this amazing creature?!
Not the AKC, I can tell you that!
And that is why the AKC is in panic mode.
Now, I’m not a big fan of the doodles myself. The big reason is that I really don’t like the poodle coat, and as someone who keeps clean-shaven, I am not a big fan of beards.
If we were going to cross a Labrador with something, why not a golden retriever or a Chesapeake?
But one thing that that these doodles and other intentionally-bred crosses have done is that they have caused people to question the blood purity religion.
And yes, there are charlatans breeding doodles left and right.
But you really don’t have room to criticize these people when you keep bulldogs and Neapolitan mastiffs in your registry, and many of those dogs are being bred by absolute moonbats of the worst order.
A registry that would celebrate the rolling cushion of a dog known as the pekingese as the epitome of canine soundness has very little moral authority indeed.
The problems with all the “designer dogs” certainly do need to be corrected.
But I don’t reject them outright.
To reject them outright is to deny innovation in dogs. It is to accept on faith alone that blood purity is a virtue that must never be compromised.
And I don’t accept it.
I don’t think anyone with even a high school understanding of population genetics ever could– but you’d be surprised.
This is the big religion in dogs, and now it’s under assault.
It may be for very superficial reasons, but it is under assault.
And the AKC is totally caught flat-footed.
Talking points aren’t going to save it, and I must confess I’ve heard them all before.
They all amount to a dog fancy equivalent of a Gish Gallop, including misrepresenting a study on whether purebred dogs are healthier than mixes. (See Christopher Landauer’s (Border Wars) attack on this misrepresentation in the comments!).
The dog fancy is on its knees.
A country that now wants marijuana legalized is fine with Labradoodles.
And the AKC cannot handle it.
Don’t hate me because I’m crossbred.
I raise my joint to you sir!
Scott, I have to sort of disagree (in a friendly, conversational way) Designer dogs are not my biggest pet peeve. Designer dog breeders are my biggest pet peeve. These people do offer lots of false claims, and make LOTS of money mass breeding these dogs. I commend the AKC for cracking down on them. They need to be exploited. I hope there are still purebred dogs for many years, but I have just as much love for a mixed breed. (when I see a golden doodle I have to repeat..It’s not the dog’s fault, it’s not the dog’s fault) Designer dogs should never be promoted.
Can you explain to me why the AKC can crack down on anything?
Or why anyone with half a brain and a B in a high school bio class would care?
This is religion.
Your issue is mass production. Mass production is the problem.
It is not crossbreeding.
I support the right of anyone to buy these dogs, and it’s not your business or the AKC’s at all. The AKC is only mad because it’s not getting registration dollars.
They do not care about puppy mills one iota. They are in a partnership with the Hunte Corp. Look that one up.
They are totally fine with puppy mills.
People should breed Labradoodles, goldadors, and lurchers, just so long as the puppies are well-cared for, no one should give a murine rodent’s anus.
The AKC allows extremes in conformation in a large number of breeds (even celebrates it). It is heavily invested in puppy mills itself.
The only thing it does that is good for dogs is its health foundation, but most of those health problems come from how the AKC allows its breed clubs to define breed.
I really dislike most of the Labradoodle guys. No dog is hypoallergenic. It’s the dander not the fur that causes the allergies. Now, I myself love crossbreeding. It’s a good exercise, and to slightly go somewhat off topic, I am a supporter of wolf-to-dog mixes. (Or other non-Canis Lupus but still wild Canisxdomestic dog mix) Also, the AKC needs to just go extinct or change their attitude. People are wising up.
He is not promoting designer dogs, he is just saying that crossbreeding is not a bad thing.
http://www.thedogpress.com/PuppyMill/Hunte-History.asp
I never actually read the comments but apparently my views and friendly conversation aren’t welcome here. I apologize for commenting. Clearly I don’t belong here.
No one is really fighting against you, and personally I value your input.
We’re just saying that puppy mills and fraudulent crossbreed claims suck, but the issue isn’t crossbreeding, it’s silly breeders.
All I ask is evidence for views.
The AKC has decided that the best way to attack crossbreeding is to say they are all puppy milled dogs, which couldn’t possibly be true, and it’s really rich coming from them, because they are the biggest puppy mill kingpins in the country.
Also, the AKC is not a government organization. It has no law enforcement capabilities. All it can do is trash people who buy these dogs.
Which is a lot like Ford people bashing Chevys.
Actually, no.
It’s like being lectured on sexual morality by the catholic church!
I know. I said designer dog breeders were my Pet Peeve Scott. Just like Christianity hits your nerve. I am not as educated as you and our views are very much opposite. I know you are passionate about your beliefs and most of the time I enjoy your blog, regardless of the fact I am a Christian. Didn’t want to even bring that up. I’m not a breeder, nor do I know many. I just really like Golden’s. Please don’t beat me up anymore. White flag!
I myself don’t hate Christians, I don’t like creationists. And not all creationists are Christians.
Nobody’s beating you up. They’re disagreeing with you (and fairly politely, actually). There’s a difference.
No one is lambasting you, TDG.
IMHO, both of you are supporting the same view – designer dog breeders are a problem if they mass produce and market the product on false claims. The problem is not cross-breeding, it is inappropriate market practices.
Please don’t quit & scuttle off –
it’s worth staying to discuss, surely?
My biggest complaint about Goldens is the refusal of breeders
& Golden-fans in general to admit that resource-guarding, espe-
cially over food, is a frequent serious problem – AND it’s heritable.
What about people who honestly promote their mixes and follow ethical breeding practices? Should they never get promoted, because the type of dog they like to breed is ‘too popular’ with unethical hucksters? Because there are none of -those- kinds of people in purebreds, right?
Certainly none in Golden retrievers…
The puggle is a great idea, but it was originally dreamed up by a dirt farmer in Wisconsin who made a ton of money milling the beagle-pugs.
‘Dirt farmer’ means ‘unproductive land’, right?
“It’s not the dog’s fault” but where lies ANY fault as long as a dog is wanted, looked after, healthy, fit for purpose and not bred to a cruel design? You obviously love golden retrievers but they are just as much ‘designed’ for certain tastes as are labradoodles for example.
You could make a case for not breeding, say, bulldogs for obvious reasons but instead you choose to have a go at people breeding to a design which many people like and yet you say nothing except reveal unreasoned prejudice when you say “Designer breeds should never be promoted” which seems a totally meaningless statement when used without qualification.
Brilliant post Scottie. I love all the cultural refs–they really bring it home.
Eugenics was tried and found wanting–it works no better in dogs than it does in people. What I find amusing is that the U.S. of A., arguably one of the most ethnically heterogeneous nations on earth, is so into genetic purity–it is to laugh.
And TDG, its great that you love Goldens, they’re great dogs, and thus deserve to be preserved as a healthy, viable breed. The best way to do that is to crossbreed every 4 generations or so to a breed not carrying the same bad alleles as the Golden. Diluting a closed genome can have seemingly miraculous effects and one can get back to type very quickly with backcrossing. The F4 of a single outcross will have only 1/16th of the genes from the non-golden g-grandparent. That is, if that despised Goldendoodle and its get were bred back to Goldens for the next 4 generations, its 2x g-grandpups would have only 1/16th of its Poodle parent’s genes. I ‘d be willing to wager that those pups would show no overt phenotypical traits of their poodle ancestry. But they’d have an improved shot at also not expressing some of the bad alleles from their Golden ancestors.
Would love to see it done. But the offspring would not be accepted by the AKC.. Poodles are great hunting dogs despite the stereotype due to how they are perceived in the breed ring. Chinooks were brought back through cross breeding.
I just want the old time German Shepherd back.. You know,the ones that could run and jump,take down bad guys and guard the ranch..
I had one of those and it was a really great dog!
We have to blame the Germans. for unwisely changing the german shepherd. Actually that’s where I started – blaming the Germans in the battle of Britain when a fire bomb hit the house and later when a doodle bug missile knocked me and a few playmates over in the playground. We all survived the encounter, however.
Umm~no.
I’m glad you survived.
“Umm – no” Well by the sixties and seventies, Peg 4×4, we In Britain and elswhere realised that our beloved alsation (my parents owned one) was in trouble with various structural problems, so what did we do – we started importing a strange looking dog from Germany with the then unfamiliar name of “german shepherd” These early imports were advertised as being puppies from zieger this and zieger that, which sort of impressed us to begin with, but soon it was realised that most people here just didn’t like the look of them, especially the back end, which had a tendency to collapse and go all over the place due to overangulation – and that awful topline! It was a disaster. Efforts were made in Britain to hang on to the familiar alsation type of old and I believe these efforts were marginally successful with long haired and white versions, but you’d have to ask those closely involved for an accurate update on this.
Yes,that is the problem here in the states,hunchbacks,Hyena profiles and really really bad hindquarters. and yes,it started in the late 60s/early 70’s.. We blame the AKC/dog shows for promoting such a critter. When/if I ever get where I can have a German Shepherd Dog again I’ll need to search many breeders to find the pre 70’s dog I want,solid in mind and body.
Did Jes tell you where that came from? It’s certainly not a PUBLIC public PR war–I know, though, that a lot of Poodle people are very anti-doodle (not sure how the the other half of that equation feels).
It came off the Facebook group “Dog Breeders Education Network,” run by the AKC. It was specifically in response to an online article about a family who bred a litter of crosses. This outraged people and they wanted to write the editor about how horrible these breeders are and how they aren’t ‘responsible.’ The AKCs response was to tell people to e-mail them for ‘talking points’ about how to combat the rising tide of ‘designer dogs.’
Note, Scottie, how few people want to discuss the actual point of your post, and my rant on FB: that essential hypocrisy of AKC NOT providing talking points about ‘puppy mills’, which garner just as much hate from ‘responsible’ breeders as the dreaded crossbreeders do, but AKC is perfectly willing to provide ‘talking points’ about the evils of crossbred dogs, without mentioning that they are quite happy to grant those very same dogs a PAL number so they can compete in AKC companion events. (Not to mention the programs AKC has going to woo the volume breeders back from other registries.)
AKC also has an agreement with NAFA (North American Flyball Association) offering the ability to put Flyball titles up to a certain level onto the pedigrees of purebred dogs (for a price, and I admit it, I did it–my Sheltie has some high-level Flyball titles and has been bred a couple of times, so I wanted the titles included on his pedigree). Considering the prevalence of “designer” mixes in Flyball (and AKC’s therefore tacit approval by their agreement with NAFA and presence at the NAFA Can-Am) I am surprised nobody has called them out on that too.
The other half of the equation is even more opposed to it.
I’m not defending all of these people, but the best PR is done in secret.
I noticed that most of what was going on with the hate on designer dogs seemed to be talking points, so when Jess posted that, I knew it!
I will send you an invite to the group, you should read the thread involving the UC Davis ‘purebreds are as healthy as mixed breeds’ study. Christopher is kicking some ass there.
This really has nothing to do with dogs, and everything to do with money, status, religion, and market share.
Lovely as they are I don’t see many standard poodles out there in the English countryside these days and I can imagine how the ubiquity of dogs which have ‘borrowed’ the poodle coat might bring out “anti doodle” sentiments among some canine topiarists of the poodle fraternity.
Talking of standard poodles, a very nice looking black one was given BIS at Crufts yesterday. He performed his little socks off and then virtually collapsed with exhaustion in front of the cameras. He is now being retired.
I can’t say that its just claims anymore that an intelligent outcross or an intentional mixed breed dog is a better end result than a dog bred from a long standing line of pure blooded relatives. From what I’ve experienced its actually factual. None of the expectations that were thrown upon my family for poor health problems were ever realized since 2004. And we’ve only further diversified and expanded our lineup of unrelated foundation dogs since then. If we compare our outcomes to the established breeders from the fancy…We’ve literally walked away on them as far as those statistics are concerned and if we continue to do things the way we have been I don’t see any point in the future where that success curve will ever dip.
My family has been approached several times from other families looking to join us in breeding our hybrid and trying to get us to believe they are sincere in their offer. But then when we review how they do things on their end with their existing foundation stock. We reveal they typically have 2 studs. Usually a Father and a Son. And a harem of females many of which are sisters or mothers, daughters and aunts.
When we question them on this they really just can’t understand where we’re coming from. That’s when we realize these people aren’t coming to us to help the push for diversity, but are instead looking at a pretty exclusive money making opportunity. There’s really not a lot of money to be made in doing things with a strict adherence to diversity planning and maintaining a COI as close to 0% as possible. There is some wiggle room to invest back into the dogs or to buy sneakers for the kids or the occasional night out for the movies, but as far as making a living off the backs of these dogs…. that’s a formula only the breeders with puppy farms have nailed. And a puppy farmer typically starts out just like the people who’ve approached us with a desire to breed the same cross. And the AKC never had the power to stop this. In fact their existence prior to the designer dog boom helped to promote it. And it in fact still does. Since those breeders still tout the AKC papers of the dogs used in the mix to add some perceived value to their hybrids in comparison to others. Which is not really so bad if they actually used those registration papers as a way of verifying a low COI to begin with from both parents. Instead they typically wave these papers as a measure of having better parent dogs based on their purity. Yep, that’s how stupid they expect the public to be, and unfortunately even in the light of so much information for the public to learn better, these puppy farmers are right to think this way.
Perhaps the fact that our mix breed was in fact patented then trademarked serves better to prevent the exploitation of it from people who would see it as an opportunity to make a lot of money very quickly. Does it sound stupid…yeah I thought so in the beginning, but after having been at this for 10 years now I see clearly where its helped to prevent such exploitation. I can’t see preventing the exploitation of a successful mix breed without such countermeasures in play. The innovation in all of this is simply just doing the right thing for the benefit of the public and dog-dom.
Hi, I am curious what your patent and trademark cover. Is it for the name Chatham Hill? Or is it for the actual type of dog mix? Also, I love Golden Retrievers but I feel you have a right to do what you are doing. Looks like you do your homework. I am also a fan of the real cocker spaniel that has the shorter fur and better temperament than it’s show cousin. Looks like you must have found some of those and they are getting scarce…
The Patent covers the formulation, purpose and method of creation (diversity) for said dog and the criteria for calling that dog a Chatham Hill Retriever. The trademark covers the name given to said dog in that patent for use in describing the dog for Marketing.
If anyone decides to try and create and or market the mix and/or use the name. We have every right to review how they do things and shut them down. Or if they adhere to our diversity planning we can promote/endorse them. So if a puppy farmer decides to try and exploit this particular mix, which we hope never happens…. we have legal premise to shut them down.
It seems like a LONG way to go for prevention. But, literally that’s the world we live in.
Imagine how much better of the Labradoodle could have been if it was given a proper name based on function and where it was created… “Austrailian Guide Dog”. And if it carried international patents and trademarks. It wouldn’t have become the exploited cash cow it wound up being. Where the resulting dogs are no longer any better off than buying a pure bred in the first place.
There are breeders who are trying to change this… but its literally come too late. The proper countermeasures needed to in play beforehand.
Seeing Eye in Morristown NJ was working with Lab/Golden crosses. This was in the 1990’s. They had great success with the two dogs mixed. These are dogs that were bred for a very specific purpose. Breeding responsibly is not a big money making venture and there can be irresponsible breeders whether a dog is pure bred or mixed. People jump to say a person crossing is irresponsible. I don’t understand why they would say that when it is the breeder;s practices not the matter of mix or pure bred dog….
The serious Labradoodle folks are trying to rebrand them as ‘Cobberdogs’ now.
Well…from a Marketing perspective….Cobberdogs is extremely unflattering. They really should rethink that. Simply because a name makes a difference in how people identify with that breed. The goal would be to keep it a desirable breed in form, function and the name it is identified with. And to limit the supply by adhering to strict principals to maintain the diversity.
Basically not giving a shit about the growth of the demand for this breed and simply breeding to meet the intended goal for genetic diversity.
Quality over quantity.
Unfortunately it sounds out of place. But it is relevant to how all breeders do things. Some favor quantity, some favor quality. But in order to market on either side of that coin…. it all starts with a name.
This kind of aggression scares me. I’m glad I live in England.
What Jan is calling a “real” cocker spaniel sounds rather like those which in Britain we call “working” cockers. These have become the cockers of choice for the masses, being generally acknowledged to have better qualities overall than the show cockers. As far as I’m aware no one is being so fascistic or arrogant as to think any one kennel of them can be patented. (Comments by chathamhill above just amaze me) People here are free to use them as starting points for their own experimental breeding. Long live democracy and freedom!
The Show type Cockers have the abilities to hunt, flush and retrieve. They are in fact quite capable. And are still used in the real world for hunting. They are just not as popular as the more commonly used bigger dogs. But if you consider that Cockers, Fields and Springers are historically all the same dog, just in different sizes, then its easier to understand that they can still be used successfully in a hunt and where the larger or smaller sizes can be advantageous or a disadvantage. The Flat Coat and Cocker cross has produced very good working gundogs.
http://chathamhilldogs.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-working-chattie-in-real-world.html
In that (albeit small) part of the “real world” which is the United Kindom neither the ‘working cocker’ nor the ‘show cocker’ is used for hunting since hunting with dogs has been illegal in this country since 2004.
In modern society…the local grocery store has replaced the need for hunting. That said…the purpose of dogs today is to live longer and healthy lives as a companion.
Which isn’t going to happen if the Dog fancy has things their way.
There is still a need for hunting dogs. I know a game warden who used his Golden to locate duck nests in order to band the ducklings. There is an organization that trains dachshunds to follow and locate wounded deer. And certainly hunting abilities are utilized in tracking, search-and-rescue, and cadaver dogs. There are modern jobs for dogs far more than simply being pleasant companions. Though that also has value.
Service and Assistance Work, , Therapy Work, Search and Rescue, Herding, Sled Dogs, Hunting and, Flushing, Guarding/Watchdog, Water Rescue, Detection Dogs, Cadaver Detection Dogs, Police Work, War Dogs, Carting, Rat Extermination, Therapy, Entertainment…
The list goes on. Most dog breeds were bred for a purpose and many still are. “Dog Fancy” produced the dogs that are being crossed.
I suppose you could add, “trade marked product.”
Um. Gundogs are still widely used in the UK, including working English cockers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TFMhtKb8uQ Nice working cocker in this display– and very nice goldens too.
Lovely video, thanks for including the link. These gundog displays are featured the length and breadth of Britain at various country shows from spring to autumn, but as we all know they are nothing to do with actual hunting despite the sexy faux hunting outfits of the presenters. I’m sure you are right in saying that gundogs are still used in the UK, just that this cannot happen legally.
I also meant to say that gundogs have such better things to do these days, using their great intelligence and tractability as companions and assistance dogs and in other useful roles.
I’ve asked some knowledgeable retriever friends in the UK, and while it is not allowed for hunters to use dogs to chase and kill game, the use of dogs to flush and to retrieve game shot by human hunters is allowed. Hence, working spaniels and retrievers are still legal, and both hunting with and field trials for those breeds continue.
I stand partially corrected. No longer the killers they are now just the accomplices.
You are right, the very name “retriever” was always the main clue as to their function as opposed to “hound” when used as a verb, so it’s illegal to hound an animal to death but legal to retrieve the corpse of one which has been shot.
A little hesitant to enter the fray here – in what should not be a fray at all.
The issue with the designer dogs is that they were not breeds created for a specific purpose or to enhance a purpose or genome. I am all in favor of the Lab/Golden crosses that the guide dog organizations did – they specifically wanted the temperament and sociability of the Golden and the work ethic of the Lab and they were able to achieve that using a planned breeding program.
The original breeds were established by people who were experienced in animal husbandry. Lord Tweedmouth was also a breeder of Setters and prized cattle and pigs. The designer breeders are experienced in marketing.
The purpose of heterozygosity is to keep health, longevity and other positive traits but unless you start with some level of health and clearances, you are just breeding pollution.
I think I am more comfortable with putting effort into identifying how to improve the health of some of the breeds we have by carefully planned introduction of new genes. We can learn from the people who have been dealing with endangered species.
He also bred Skye terriers, and his daughter was a famous person in Skyes for a very long time.
I agree about it being better to introduce new genes into the breeds that already exist (accept for a few breeds who I think need to be let go) only in that it would be an easier transition as far as having good breeders with good breeding practices involved. I wonder what pure bred dogs are being used in the crosses in terms of quality. Quality breeders do what they do out of love of their breed generally so I think the dog world would do better to work with the system. Even if the system has problems, they are known problems that can be solved little by little… that is my idealistic view.
And the system needs to change and evolve because our knowledge is evolving and we need to accommodate what we are learning in terms of health and genetics.
You’re completely ignoring the fact that without marketing, the ‘purebred’ dog industry would have gone belly up not long after it started. Almost ALL breeders in the early part of the 1900s depended heavily on marketing to promote their dogs, and they were most definitely marketing to the growing middle class after WWII. In 1920 show Collies and other breeds were selling for tens of thousands, especially to Americans who wanted to import the next big thing.
Many of the early names in one of my own breeds were dog dealers. They would import a dog, put some wins on it, get a litter or two out of it, and sell it on. These people weren’t interested in ‘developing a breed.’ They were interested in money and recognition.
Pick up any breed club magazine and you will see ad after ad of photoshopped dogs thanking judge so and so for that big win on the blahdy blah circuit. That’s marketing.
There is a huge market for dogs in this country. Someone is going to fill it, because like it or not, dogs are commodities. The vast majority of ‘purebred’ dogs are not bred for any sort of competition, they are bred for the pet market, and your average pet breeders web site is filled with, guess what, MARKETING. (All those pictures of stacked dogs and show brags on competition breeders web sites are the same thing.)
You cannot hold crossbreeders to a different higher standard than purebred breeders. There are ethical considerations that are perfectly applicable to ALL dog breeders. Trying to automatically slot breeders into the ‘exploitative’ category based on your own prejudice instead of objective consideration is just as hypocritical as AKCs ‘talking points.’
I’m wondering if we are all concentrating on the black and white but maybe we should be looking into all the grey areas…. I mean after pulling back and looking long and hard at the whole picture.
Clearly changes need to be made or there wouldn’t be so many people expounding on blogs such as this one about how many breeds are being sent in a wrong direction in terms of function and appearance. I mean really, some of the ways we breed dogs and coif their fur are over the top ridiculous.
I harp a lot on the cocker spaniel because not only has it been inbred for the show ring and it’s attributes exaggerated but it’s whole personality took a turn for the worse. I wish I saved the passage I was reading in a book written in the late 1800’s that talked about how people who hunted with dogs in general felt that dogs were ruined in the breed ring. That used to be an idea shared by many at that time.
Today our dogs are bred for family pets and the focus has become so one dimensional that horrible changes have occurred in a number of breeds. I know many breeders work very hard and diligently at trying their best to be responsible breeders. However, judges in the AKC breed ring are the ones who are in the long run deciding the fate of the dogs being bred.
You can turn around and cross into your breed to strengthen your line but then you are cut off from the main stream dog world.
There don’t seem to be any great solutions to bettering our breeds that seem to fit into our society realistically unless everyone has the same epiphany at the same time or unless you are happy to just be bettering your breed and not joining in with AKC events since you and your dogs would then carry a scarlet A…
Popularity of rough collies in the forties and fifties partly reflected the enormous popularity, just after the war, of a film called “Lassie come home” about a lost or stolen show type collie which found it way back to the boy who owned and loved it. I believe the film was set in Scotland, but it was a long time ago and I’m no longer sure. I think there were sequels off the back of the original film. As a very young boy at the time I was enthralled by it. It was one of the few films being released in immediate post war Britain “in glorious technicolour” Bomb damaged Britain seemed very grey at the time so we queued around the block to get into see this lovely film – though actually made in America I think. Anyway the point is it made the rough collie very popular at the time – but where are they now?
Chris…. Just to remind everyone….not every pure bred dog out there was created for a purpose. Many recognized breeds were simply created for the aristocracy as a status symbol and merely a lapdog. The fanciful stories to describe their purpose came after the fact.
The mere fact that registries were established became the method of Marketing for the dog fancy. Anything else was a result of that. And being an expert at animal husbandry doesn’t mean you understand genetics and the consequences of always inbreeding or line breeding from those champion dogs, cattle or pigs.
Health clearances at a genetic level might be applicable. But from just a physical inspection there are still no guarantees for the resulting pups or the parents as they age. The one factor you can look at and actually improve is the COI. And the benefits of that is more immediate.
If you’re dealing with a low breeding population either by fate or by human intervention… your choices for new genes typically won’t be within that existing population. Thus outcrossing is needed.
I’m gonna argue that “lapdog” is a perfectly fine purpose. The most useful dogs I have ever had are my Italian Greyhound bedwarmers! I don’t need a dog to herd or guard my flock or hunt over, but those IGs keep me warm at night like nothing else!
Many of the breeds that we have today were bred for a purpose. Just open up some old books! All the sporting dogs were bred for hunting purposes. Many dogs were bred for pulling carts, killing vermin, guarding sheep and other flocks, herding, tracking, and even warming laps at a time when heating homes was more of a challenge.
People showed their live stock well before there were registries and dogs were a kind of off shoot from that… wouldn’t you say? And the Lord Tweedmouth (Marjoribanks) that Chris mentioned did not have a closed group of dogs that he bred. he took a yellow wavy coat and bred him to a tweedmouth spaniel. Then he added in a smooth coat black retriever, a red setter and another tweedmouth spaniel… He bred in a number of dogs because guns had changed and having a good retrieving dog who could bring back game from across rough and wet terrain was invaluable. He was considered an expert in his time for animal husbandry and was known very well for his cattle as well. He was an avid deer hunter and he stock exotic birds on his large property as well. All his animals were raised for a purpose,
Quoting Chis
“I am all in favor of the Lab/Golden crosses that the guide dog organizations did – they specifically wanted the temperament and sociability of the Golden and the work ethic of the Lab and they were able to achieve that”
That description could go either way consider both breeds…. They could simply have stayed with a Labrador or a Golden and met the same expectations. Provided those dogs in fact met those expectations.
Likewise…..not all Goldens or Labradors have a mild mannered temperament or are favorably sociable. So in the end its a human factor involved for selection based on these traits. Whether out crossing or not.
Forgive me for going this way here, but even providing a guide dog is a business that requires marketing. And how better to fulfill the requisites and the demand without having to go to the traditional breeders than by simply producing your own dog. When I think about it from an innovations perspective and a slant towards business… Its actually brilliant.
The price for providing the dog, the dog training and the formal training for the human candidate to familiarize the pairing is an entirely homegrown and packaged solution.
Just saying. It makes sense to create a breed outside the familiar circle of breeders.
Just to clarify the Lab/Golden crosses that Chris is referring to, they are in no way a commercial venture. This is a not-for-profit organization that is the oldest of it’s kind in the US.
The Seeing Eye breeds German Shepherds, Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, and Lab/Golden crosses. They are bred on premise in Morristown, NJ. The crosses that they have they breed themselves.
It was explained to me that they were bred together for health reasons as well as complimentary qualities.
And you are right, there is diversity in both retriever breeds but the ones in this breeding program are very carefully selected for very specific qualities.
As far as marketing themselves, well, God bless them and those who are helped by their services….
I get it Jan, But I also know for a fact that the programs they provide are funded from charitable contributions and from federal and state allocations they qualify for, as we’ve been asked to provide candidates for these programs as well. Therefore, in the end it really does need to be managed as a business. So if they are crossing with an intent to roll that resulting pup into the packages they offer…and in the end they offer a package deal, then its in their best interest to not have to deal directly with the pure breeders. Some of which do not just give up free puppies. And if they do offer free pups the pups don’t always make the cut for the intended program. Then what’s left to do with it? The selection even between Labs and Goldens would in fact not be very beneficial for health reasons since far too many common disorders overlap in each breed. Their histories are too closely intertwined to really offer any health benefits to the other in an F1 outcross. But if the purpose was to SELECT for a calm and obedient temperament then that does make sense. Again I’ll reiterate… that could have been accomplished using either just Labradors or Goldens. Both of which have more than proven themselves as excellent guide dogs with the exact traits you’ve mentioned.
However as a business decision and marketing tactic. It does in fact make more sense to keep the process of supply contained within their control. It brings the costs down and the time for preparation and selection becomes far more convenient. Especially if a puppy from a litter of 10 doesn’t make the cut for any reason. At that point its now a pup that’s offered as a pet for an adoption fee which in turn still gets rolled back into the program.
Its actually a brilliant move.
Labs and Goldens are related but the COI would be negligible. I think it makes the selection easier. JMO.
I like the looks of the dogs you breed but I don’t see info about health certs. Also no info on structure or capabilities.
Jan, that information along with much more is shared with our clients. There’s a lot of things traditional breeders do that are for public fanfare like sharing information out in the open about health tests without knowing anything about the persons inquiring.
We’ve never did that since its not the public’s business. For example…allow me to know everything about your children’s medical records. Just post it all up on this blog and I’ll scrutinize it. Or for that matter what about your own. I’m pretty sure its none of my business and you have every right to say so.
The clients we have don’t have any complaints when we offer the pedigree of the parents along with the relevant health information as it applies to each parent after we know who they are. And once our clients have been through our qualifying process, we have no problems sharing this information with them. Because at that point we know them and can trust them.
with no dogs abandoned or turned into shelters….we attribute this method as part of that success.
In fact each entire litter and parents is taken for health exams prior to a puppy pickup party and all that information along with information about the parent medical and health history is passed onto the clientele so their own veterinarians have a clearer picture of the relevant history of the hybrid dog in front of them.
And…
That’s how we run our business.
I don’t think that breeders post health clearances for public fanfare. I think they post them so that a potential buyer knows whether it is worth the inquiry. I don’t think that people post their human children’s information because they aren’t selling their puppies… Human children are different than dogs. Wouldn’t you say? I know we love our dogs like children but we don’t breed them and sell their offspring… or at least I don’t know of anyone who does that. I think your program looks interesting and that is why I asked. I would not find your program to be interesting if I thought that you were not doing health clearances. I would find that to be irresponsible.
Actually the information is “yours” about yourself, your children or your dogs. Genetic test that are conclusive tests to check for hereditary conditions are performed Jan. Physical tests which are not conclusive have been performed on the Parents of our litters only to assess the parents condition prior to breeding them, not as any measure to predict the condition of resulting puppies. That would be stupid. Like I said, as a qualifying client, full disclosure is a part of the package. The way I see it, you have far more to prove to me than the other way around
I suppose when we find our sole mates and decide to marry you either take chances or like most people you learn about that other person. You’re in fact selling yourself in that relationship. And if you’re like most parents, you want to know about this human being your child has taken a liking to. Everything about your life is a two way interview. That prep school will want to qualify you prior to accepting you. And you’ll want to know about that prep school prior to applying. The prep school presents results. You present your qualifications. The rest is revealed after the two parties meet that first level of criteria and shake hands to proceed. It’s a business decision.
Let me put it this way. If my dogs were being bred for and treated as livestock then I see where it would be open for public knowledge since the breeding of my dogs is also serving public necessity. They are however sold privately. As such the background information of those who inquire is much more important to me, since I really want to know where my puppies are going, who is going to be caring for them and increase the likelihood that they will thrive where they are.
That’s a concept that works for us, since its not just about selling puppies, its about qualifying homes and families for “MY” puppies. A non-traditional approach for breeding dogs that puts the same level of responsibility upon our buyers. Who all walk away with full disclosure. That’s a business decision that’s proven successful. And yes it’s not the traditional way of doing things that you know of. Then again my family hates the traditions that screwed up all dogs in the first place. So to learn anything about us… you can either go to the people who hate us and listen to their tall tales and fantasies or you can place a deposit, subject yourself to our background checks and reference checks, followed by an in person face to face interview when we schedule you to visit and actually meet the dogs, we’ll ask more questions of you answer more questions of us and then we’ll proceed from there.
You keep equating dogs with humans… Humans have natural selection. Dogs are bred. Health clearances lower the rate of genetic disease and if you are arguing that point as being “stupid” then we have nothing more to say to one another. The fact that you don’t make your health clearances public yet you publicly sell your animals says to me that you have something to hide.
Genetic testing lowers the rate of genetic diseases provided you use that information wisely in the choices made for breeding. So if that’s what you mean by Health clearances then we are on the same page. If you want to talk physical tests then they allow you to ascertain the condition of the dog being tested and only at the time of testing and do not provide you with predictions of that tested dog’s condition beyond that point nor does it tell you anything predictable about the resulting puppies.
If you wish to make predictions on the outcomes based on those physical tests then I am in the majority of HUMAN Medical practioners in saying that’s STUPID. I’m also aligned with the majority of Geneticists in saying that’s STUPID..
Literally if you are a client there’s nothing hidden. If you can’t understand that then I’m sorry but then you’re moving forward with a sense of entitlement that’s not yours to have concerning my dogs. In today’s world and when it comes to my dogs you need to earn it.
BTW..my puppies are are begotten from closer to natural selection than most. And our track record of outcomes as a result of it speaks for itself… its a tough thing to argue your point of view over when faced with those numbers of healthy offspring Vs the given statistics.
But, I’ll make it easy…we all have choices. If you were sincere and wanted to visit then that’s a start. But, That’s not going to happen so I would simply choose not to do business with you based on that alone, therefor no disclosure. Likewise you have a right to make a choice if you don’t wish to be subjected to our screening process, again for you that means no disclosure.
See how that works.
CHEERS.
If you are in the business of breeding dogs, you should at least know what health clearances are and the difference between a health clearance and an event title which is what I think you are referring to… I didn’t expect you to get so defensive in the first place. I was asking about your breeding program with interest and then you tried to shoot me down. You are equating dogs with humans and they are not human. Do you talk to all your potential buyers this way? I’m a bit shocked!
If you knew what my family’s journey has been ….you’d understand. But, generally speaking yes we treat everyone equally.
And using the human process as a comparison is a perfect analogy. Everything is applicable in the same manner. Even when speaking about dogs which are thought of as property. The thing here is my dogs are my property.
Where did you ever think I was shooting you down? Or for that matter what makes you think I am not understanding the difference between health clearances or titles? And why would you assume that I would not do health tests on my own dogs? If I don’t want to share such information with someone without meeting my requisites first, I have every right to do so.
I do not have an urgent need for anyone’s money in exchange for my puppies. I do not make a living off my dogs. Therefore I can be much more scrutinizing of interested parties than they are typically used to. And if that comes off as rude, well that’s just a matter of opinion. The people who call us their breeder have a far different opinion and really that’s all that matters for my family.
All I did was ask about health clearances and you went into a long tyraid! You called physical tests “stupid” when I asked innocently about health clearances. Why should your animals that you sell publicly on the Internet be above the need of health clearances? Just because they are crossed, doesn’t mean the dogs being crossed shouldn’t be checked for health clearances and if someone wanted to take the time to visit you, they would want to know that ahead of time so they wouldn’t be wasting the time and gas money! Geesh, you really turned me off!
Actually I stated my stance. Try not to imagine me with my hands on my hips scolding anyone. I simply stated my stance. I find that when my thinking is in complete contrast to the person on the other side its often misconstrued as combative or defensive. I assure you..its the contrary. Cordial, respectful and personally subjective.
Here’s what’s stupid…just to clarify. Using physical tests to predict the outcome of the offspring. Yes that’s stupid. However…Using them as a way to ascertain the condition of the dog being subjected to the tests is very relevant to knowing more about that dog’s current state of well being. I think if you identify with using the physical tests as a predictive tool for the outcome of the resulting offspring you might take offense to that “stupid” descriptive. But, you shouldn’t.
If interested people come to us assuming we don’t have our foundation dogs tested. Then that’s a poor assumption. I don’t have to reveal the results until they actually come and visit. And for that matter… if they don’t make the cut we actually refund them…So its not a waste of their time. Not wanting to visit and see how we do things or meet the dogs or take an interest in the outcomes we have proven is a waste of my time. Seriously..the old ways of doing things don’t apply here. Clients in the long term…become our friends. And the data they provide on the health and well being of their dogs…. eclipses the given expectations from the status quo.
An example of a disease that can be inherited is hip dysplasia. “Dogs that are known to be dysplastic should not be bred. The mating of two affected dogs produces an incidence of 75 percent in offspring – in other words, 3 out of 4 puppies produced by two dysplastic dogs will themselves develop hip dysplasia. In contrast, on average only 25 percent of offspring of a mating between two healthy dogs will develop hip dysplasia. There is clearly an advantage to a mating between normal dogs. By limiting the breeding population to only those dogs with healthy hips, we can lower the number of new cases of hip dysplasia that will appear in the coming generations.”
Information from:
Baker Institute for Animal Health
College of Veterinary Medicine
Cornell University
Hungerford Hill Road
Ithaca, NY 14853
Tel: 607-256-5600; Fax: 607-256-5608
Are you calling Cornell University stupid?
“If interested people come to us assuming we don’t have our foundation dogs tested. Then that’s a poor assumption.”
What is the big secret? Why not share that information? Who does that hurt?
Their studies do not make predictions on offspring based on physical tests. They can’t. What they could do is provide a genetic level of testing that will in fact indicate that what the test subject is suffering from that has high odds to be inherited. That would be conclusive. The problem then is identifying the genes that would show the hip dyplasia as hereditary. But, they can’t. If you want the myriad of studies that also indicate this from Cornell or Penn State or where ever we’d be here forever reviewing. The Medical field and Geneticists know this is not something you can make predictions for off a physical test. And for any breeder to say they can..is the most irresponsible thing they can do.
If you use common sense then their are many causes for hip dysplasia. Not all entirely attributed to hereditary problems. And if you still pass all the physical tests possible, there is still no way to guarantee the resulting offspring will or will not suffer from bad hips. WHY!!!???
Simple. The patient who passes a test today could still get bad hips two years from now. Yet you used the information gathered today to say lets make babies. Do you now go back and kill all the offspring when the subject fails the tests two years later? Until you provide a conclusive test that indicates this at a genetic level, what you’re proving is a best guess for the offspring. Many of these diseases present themselves gradually the condition deteriorates over time. And that deterioration can be exacerbated by many other environmental factors.
If you want a conclusive assessment of what you see in front of you living in the moment, then that’s what you’ll get from a physical test.
If the dogs were born with bad hips from birth and its now a congenital problem, then its now without a doubt something that can be passed on by using that dog to breed with. You have conclusive proof there is a problem in that dog, But if you use the problem dog anyway…You fold a possible hereditary problem back into the equation that could be doubled up on later. If you use two dogs as the parent with this issue then the odds of producing more like them is high, but also doesn’t guarantee there won’t be pups born with good hips as well. But the odds are high for bad hips… so you don’t use that dog ever.
Now -Jan- if you can find a magic bullet that will pinpoint the Genetic markers for bad hips…then you have a point. To date this does not exist. So all we have at best…is a guess. Again… if you want what we have that is conclusive abut our dogs so you can make your best guess. However, we still have requisites and will need to qualify you. In our perspective this is far more responsible. And…if you think we’ve bred over 170 pups over the past 10 years with only 3 congenital defects that were corrected with minor surgery or how none of the dogs thus far have any cancer, bad hips, blindness or poor hearing…by using dogs that were in fact not going to pass any health clearances. That’s a long stretch of imagination. Like I’ve said the real facts speak for themselves.
Comparing my outcomes to whomever you want to compare them to…. No disrespect …But… We’re way ahead of the curve Jan.
If you still don’t like my answers or insist on doing things your way… you simply find someone else. That’s the power of having a choice. What have you got to lose by simply meeting our requirements? The most I would do is say…we don’t feel you are a good match for one of our pups. Then promptly refund your deposit.
If things are going to change with breeding practices and there are people who are calling for change. Then what I offer is certainly a change.
First of all you say that these “tests” are stupid and then you say “If interested people come to us assuming we don’t have our foundation dogs tested. Then that’s a poor assumption.”
What is your response here?
You just don’t want to spend the money to do the testing. That is my take on your responses and I most definitely will not take the time to visit you or to spend any more time responding to you since you do not meet my requirements for a good breeder in so many ways.
Well, if you’re gonna quote me … Get it right.
I’ve said …
1. Using physical tests to predict the outcome for the offspring is stupid.
2. Using them as an assessment of that test subject’s health status is relevant to that dog being tested.
3. Genetic test are more conclusive for making breeding choices with predictable outcomes.
I always want to know the health status of my dogs. Make your assumption based off that tidbit of info.
You’re also assuming I would accept you as a client after qualifying you.
On many levels you’ve likely not made the cut to begin with.
BTW… I maintain a revolving account for Veterinary care for a foundation stock of 30 dogs. 15 females and 15 studs. Paying for tests is certainly not an issue. Assuming I don’t is your personal opinion.
Seeing Eye also maintains strains of purebred Labradors,,Goldens, Shepherds in which they have used EBVs (Estmated Breeding Values) to greatly improve success rates and health qualities over generations of controlled breeding. They have very nearly eliminated hip dysplasia in this way.
Canine Companions for Independence also maintains a careful breeding program to produce both purebreds and inter-bred retrievers to be service/assistance dogs. One reason for the Golden x Labrador was to get the very suitable qualities of the Golden along with a short coat, easier for handicapped people to care for.
“EBVs (Estmated Breeding Values) to greatly improve success rates and health qualities over generations of controlled breeding”
This is a statistical best guess which is derived from the same practices used in diversity planning using known variables from the parents. In Purebreds this would have to adhered to strictly and it would also be cause for tough decisions if in fact you have a dog that does not meet the EVB criteria. Show and trial traditional methods are counter to this way of thinking.
“One reason for the Golden x Labrador was to get the very suitable qualities of the Golden along with a short coat”
This makes sense in terms of managing the grooming out of possible tangles and mats, although I know for a fact that the shedding won’t be improved. Although the results would be mixed since out of a resulting F1 litter you can have puppies that “type” either way.
The only time one would get long-haired pups from a Labrador x Golden F1 cross, is in the rare case of the Labrador carrying a recessive long-coat factor. This would be very unusual.
The grooming question Is not about shedding, but rather about a handicapped person lacking manual dexterity and/or hand strength for brushing and combing.
Interesting, considering all the history behind Labradors and the various types of dogs with medium to long coats used in their creation. I would think the long hair is commonly recessive in Labradors. Like wise short haired dogs being crossed in with Goldens…. Just a fascinating result to always have shorter haired pups. IMO.
I agree….Grooming for that individual would be a challenge with a longer coat. I would hope this maintenance would be a regular visit to or from a groomer with any type of coat. But, that’s in a perfect world. If the patient is blind or afflicted with something else restrictive to doggy hygiene then grooming might be tasked upon others. Or not. I would only hope for the best.
Christopher’s comment on the article you linked to referred to data from a different retrospective study that compared intact dogs to neutered dogs. Car strike/trauma deaths were higher in intact dogs. Again, not a health parameter any way you slice it, but it was not one of the items referenced in the purebred vs mixed breed study.
Can someone help me here. I’m not very knowlegable on this so please be patient with me. I’ve tended to accept the perceived wisdom that crossbred dogs tend, on the whole, to be healthier and longer lived than purebreds. I’ve understood that most inherited diseases are passed on via recessive genes so that the F1 generation from the mating of two breeds which don’t have diseases in common will have expression of their separate sets of diseases conveniently hidden.
Ive further understood that the danger arises if F1’s carrying the diseases of both breeds in hidden form are subsequently bred together to beget an F2 generation, in which case the hidden recessives pair up giving rise to the expression of both sets of diseases in a proportion of the F2 generation, albeit that by happy chance some of the F2 generation could be free of all diseases being carried by the F1 parents.
Does anyone know whether there has been much incidence of disease accumulation recorded from breeding labradoodles and cockerpoos, for example, beyond the F1 generation?
If my assumptions are correct then in theory the casual breeding of ‘designer’ dogs beyond the first cross could be a bit hazardous?
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think most breeders of doodles breed them back to each other. I think most doodles sold are F1 crosses.
In sport dogs, quite often you will see mixes bred to mixes so that you might end up with a border staffie crossed with a whippet/jack (for instance).
Thank you. However I do know for certain that a lady vet local to me recently bred her F1 labradoodle to an F2 labradoodle stud dog which had been dna tested, responsibly I suppose, to see if anything nasty lurked in the dog’s genome. I don’t know but presume that dna testing is expensive and so one might not expect bitch owners to have it done.This would leave some risk of abberrant recessives being passed on from untested mothers.
As you imply, Nora, it must be safer and more expedient to mate only F1s. However, as time goes by one can imagine that matings beyond those needed to create the basic F1s will become increasingly arranged by people ignorant of or unconcerned by the possible harmful implications. This may come about more often as the doodles become treated routinely and misguidedly as if they were pure breeds per se and the disease avoidance reasons for breeding them get forgotten.
One can forsee the day when doodle breed clubs are formed with the ambition to get them accepted by Kennel Clubs as new pure breeds thus defeating the original healthy aims. Someone now tell me that events have gone way beyond that already and the big mistakes of pure breeding are happening as we speak. Hope I’m wrong but I did hear a rumour way back that this unwise scenario was being contemplated in Australia in respct of labradoodles.
They usually backcross into poodles if they breed from the F1’s.
If they cross two F1 labradoodles together they don’t have any real idea of what the puppies are going to look like. They might all be cute & fluffy, they might all have short, hard hair, or they might be anything in between. With the big investment in time (not to mention the expense) that a large-dog litter of 8 or 10 pups entails, that can be an expensive gamble to take. But if they cross the F1 back to a poodle, they’re much more likely to get a litter of fluffy, salable puppies.
@Chervilmeadow…. If you’re truly looking at diversity then you don’t stop at a single outcross between two breeds. You typically need to introduce a third then a fourth outcross down the line. Getting back to animal husbandy the goal is a mixing of many traits from many donors. much like how things are when left to fate in our own human society.
The choices need to be made in an intelligent manner considering what the other breeds can bring to benefit the “Mixed” breed. For example it would be naive to assume that a Golden retriever just appeared one day or that it took an out cross just between two breed to create what we call a Golden Retriever. Its obvious that there were many types of dogs that went into the formulation of what finally became the Golden.
The F1 is just the first step if you’re taking things seriously.
Even in human science there has been consideration for taking experiments that proved successful in animal research by creating a baby from 3 parents that will enhance that baby’s resulting immune system.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/three-parents-fda-mulls-safety-embryo-technique-n39401
This isn’t fantasy…its happening and its a possibility in the world we live in now. Which only reinforces the fact that diversity is more beneficial and tangible when compared to just a physical test and a doctor’s opinion. Which by the way doesn’t happen in human medical practices, they laugh at Veterinarians who make predictions based on physical test results in their dog patients.
So what does that also tell you about our current state of veterinary research???
Thanks for those comments, chathamhillranch. I happen to live just a couple of miles from the HQ of an assistance dog centre and occasionally see dogs from there on training walks. As you suggest, their policy is to introduce a third breed after they have found an initial combination which seems to work well.
Sorry my remaining brain cell getting confused – I meant to say “more expedient to mate purebreds to produce F1s” not breeding F1s together (which would defeat the object)
May I just interject about something which really annoyed me this evening during tv coverage of the second day of Crufts. The presenter, Claire Balding, asked this interviewee, there to give his opinions from a vet’s point of view “What breed would you most recommend to beginners”. Quick as a flash this man suggested the cavalier spaniel – and nothing else. Claire Balding made no comment in response. I’m sure there will be some reactions from viewers about this. Sorry for going off topic.
I have nothing against purposely bred crossbreeds (I won’t call them designer dogs) and me personally would love a cocker/golden mix or a Border Staffy one day. However the false claims people make about the “doodle” dogs irks me. If a breeder will stand behind what they produce and health test their breeding dogs then sure. IF I were to get a “doodle” mix there is one breeder I would go to – knows what is behind each of her dogs and guarantees them and explains proper grooming, etc. I don’t like mass production of dogs either whether it is mixed or whatnot.
I do show in AKC with my dogs but I am in no way against crossbred dogs. Best bomb dogs I know are whippet x malinois crosses. Speed and bite and drivey as hell.
And there is a Golden Poodle mix and several Border Staffs who are awesome at agility in my area.
Every Purebred dog was an intentionally crossbred concept.
If you open your mind and look at each dog presented to you and think on the level of ingredients to get to this…then…
When you see a Golden Retriever your mind should say “Oh that’s a Tweed Water Spaniel, Wavy coated, Pointer, Setter type mix breed” Not…Wow its really cool how these dogs just appeared like this in the form we see today.
Just saying.
I am taking about F1 crosses mostly. For instance I love both goldens and cockers. I would love a cross of both – good size and hopefully not a ton of hair. Or a cavalier x cocker.
Actually, there are quite a few people doing those crosses – especially the cav/cocker.
The cross breeders are an interesting bunch. They’re not afraid to try something new, and they sometimes end up with some very attractive dogs – yay Capitalism!
My personal favorite is Berner x Pyrenees. The puppies always end up brown with white markings, varying from golden to dark mahogany. It seems like it’d be a good way to get away from all the genetic woes of purebred Berners – many Pyrs are real working dogs with lots of genetic diversity. Anatolian x Pyr working dogs are not uncommon.
Cocker x Golden:
http://www.puppyfind.com/breed/?breed_id=292
Cocker x Cavalier (with the unfortunate name “Cockalier”:
http://www.puppyfind.com/for_sale/?breed_id=258
The cross I most covet is a British working Labrador/working golden retriever cross.
if you want a mix rescue one..im not against mixes but i am against the prices charged for these designer dogs(mutts)..when there is so many mixes as well as pure breeds in the shelters
Again, someone who didn’t understand that post at all.
What I’m saying is that purebred dogs– keeping them pure at all costs as a kind religious value– is very bad for dogs in the long run, and crossing breeds actually is something that should be done.
This is a bromide you just spouted off. I have no time for bromides.
I’m not talking about saving the pound puppies. I’m talking about saving dogs that are intentionally bred, and anyone with a few minutes understanding of population genetics will know that the closed registry system is the death of the domestic dog.
This is why I don’t go off and issue fatwas about “designer dogs.”
Because the dog fancy itself has done more to ruin dogs and cause more suffering today than just about anything else working in domestic dogs today.
And it does so with very undeserved legitimacy.
If the AKC is wailing against so-called designer dogs based on the mixing of different breeds and then giving them a highfalutin’ name, then how do they explain embracing into their registered fold the so-called Chinook Dog? What a crock that is! Methinks the AKC speaks with forked tongue.