This dog is a Scolden terrier.
Half Scottish terrier/half golden retriever.
I told you it was a bizarre cross. Some of you got close.
Many of you may not be aware that Scottish terriers also come in cream color, which is referred to as wheaten (not “Wheaton.”) We generally tend to think of Scottish terriers as black or very dark brindle dogs.
It is an e/e yellow to red color, so it is possible to get yellow puppies out of this cross.
I don’t know why anyone would cross these two breeds. Both are fairly cancer-ridden, and Scottish terriers have a very different utility from golden retrievers.
I wonder how much one of these dogs costs.
My guess is that is far more than one would spend for the exact same cross at an animal shelter.
However, the designer dog phenomenon is a major pressure on the dog fancy. People are letting their imaginations run wild.
A lot of it is nothing more than avarice and the caprices of a fickle market.
But some of it might actually lead to some reforms in the greater fancy.
The market share that goes to these dogs takes money away from the established registries.
I’d like to have a rational discussion about these dogs that is free of the general accusations that both sides tend to throw at each other.
You know my prejudice. I’m in favor of open registries. I am uncomfortable with the ideal of blood purity for blood purity’s sake. It seems to me a bit antiquated, and in the long run, it is going to be very harmful to domestic dogs as a species.
But I’m not so sure breeding Scottish terriers to golden retrievers is helping my case.
yep, I think if you despise closed registries and don’t care all that much about “purebred” dogs, you can’t complain about these kinds of wacky mixtures.. not even if they turn into desirable/expensive “designer breeds”.
at least not if you think consistency means anything.
Yes. That’s correct.
Nonsense. I am strong advocate of open registries and cross-breeding and I have a perfect right to complain about breeders of crossbreeds who use the public’s misunderstanding of genetic disease and misconceptions about heterozygosity to make a pile of cash. I know that where there is a market, there will be people who fill it, but that doesn’t mean I can’t complain about them. There is nothing inconsistent about it. I will complain about breeders of purebreds who mislead the public as well. And I believe that there is nothing immoral about making some cash off of dog breeding, so it’s not the money thing. There are ethical breeders and unethical breeders and whether they have purebreds or cross-breds has nothing to do with it.
Dear Emily…. al lot of the purebred dogs today came from a wacky formulation. so I only complain about the disastrous effect of dog breeding as a whole. Which is obvious from either side of the fence.
No, I’m not in favour of open registries! The very idea is bizarre to me – to ruin the work the serious, dedicated breeders have once started!
However, I wouldn’t mind at all to ban dog showing – or any other canine related competion for that matter -completely for some period of time…
At least it would widen the gene pool considerably as there won’t be any top winning stud dogs in heavy demand … ;)
GMAFB!
These people have no shame. Really now, what is the purpose of screwing up peoples’ minds even more with another unknown cross and one that does appear to throw the same dogs with each litter.
Breed, not greed.
I’m not against these kinds of crosses per se. I am for open registries and historically, many of the existing breeds were created by a similar mix/match process. However, I believe that any breeding should be done with some serious consideration as to the likely result and likely availabilty of homes for the type of dogs produced. in many cases the crosses are done “just because I can’ and the combination doesn’t seem to be anything more than that. Are goldendoodles bad? — there seem to be a fair number of homes for this kind of dog. I would find it difficult to object to someone breeding Dobermans/Rottweilers. People do breed Belgian/Dutch shepherds and Belgian/GSDs for a specific market. OTOH, just haphazardly putting two purebreds together so one can have a “name” designer dog without figuring on what the parents bring to the table is just dumb. There are dumb “purebred’ breeders too, but the one doesn’t excuse the other.
I also object to the rather wild assertions on the website provided. Truth in advertising should apply to “designer” dogs as much as it should for purebreds. but as PT Barnum said, “there’s a sucker born every minute”.
Peggy Richter.
I just checked out the page you linked, and against my better judgement I looked at the list of “breeds”. OMG why on earth are people so willing to shell out big bucks for crossbreeds? It would be easier to go to the shelter and pick out a dog just as cute. However, I do remember people back in the sixties bragging about their “purebred” or “thoroughbred” Cocka-Poos. I can’t believe those Scottie/Goldens are truly half and half. Most of the pictures show dogs with the Scottie prick ear, I would think the Golden’s ear would show up. NONE of those dogs are anywhere near as neat as a purebred Scottie or Golden.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with the bobtailed boxer program, but when the Pembroke corgi was crossed with a boxer, there were prick-eared puppies in the F1.
http://www.steynmere.com/GENETICS.html
However– that cross was done with a definite objective in mind (to eventually produce Boxers with natural bob-tails, hence to circumvent the legislation to abolish tail-docking in the UK), and subsequent generationswere bred back into the Boxer to produce dogs that were typical Boxers, with short tails.
Random crossbreeding merely for the sake of “diversity” (or more likely, money) is pointless. Taken to its extreme, this would eliminate breeds and purpose-bred dogs completely. Then what? it would be complete chaos, and we’d have to start selective breeding all over again, in order to have dogs that could fulfill the many specific purposes that dogs perform for us.
On the other hand, careful and thoughtful, well-informed crossbreeding with the purpose of eliminating certain faults, or of introducing desired qualities, could be very useful. Yes, it might (would probably) take several generations to achieve the goal– and intelligent breeders are aware of that. The LUA Dalmatians are an excellent example (The Dalmatian Club of America’s stance not withstanding).
And remember– in order to have dogs of consistent and known qualities with which to crossbreed, it is necessary to maintain some equivalent of “pure breeds”.
A well-regulated open registry, such as some of the horse registries are, would enable outcrosses to be recorded and tracked. And anyone who didn’t want that in their lines, would not have to use those dogs. AKC has done this in a few cases, such as the albinoid Dobermans (not the result of a cross-breeding, but of a mutation–but same effect) and dogs with “conditional” registration. Dogs with such ancestry are recognizable by a specific letter combination in their registration numbers.
AKC also has the Foundation Stock Service for those developing a “new breed”. Worth looking into, perhaps.
Yeah. The point of me putting that on there was to show that you can get prick-eared dogs out of an F1 cross between a lop-eared and prick-eared dog. Generally, this is not the case. I do agree.
As for the registries, those are exactly the reforms I’d like to see.
The Foundation Stock Service in the AKC would serve better to allow new established foundation stock to be accepted as new lines of existing recognized breeds. That would serve better towards diversifying the gene pool for any breed. And truly is old school methodology. But more effective than anything done with existing stock today.
Based on Phenotype and Purpose. You can truly recreate a breed and infuse new blood into the existing gene pool. As well as breed away from any long term hereditary defects associated with those breeds.
Additionally…. the pet Market also hold some additional genetic stock that could be useful.
Yes. In a breed such as the Golden Retriever, or the Labrador, there are certainly sufficient numbers that some quality dogs can be found in different populations– the “back-yard bred”, the hunting lines, the field trial lines, yes even the “show” lines– CAN and have produced individual dogs that have the structure, temperament, quality, working aptitudes, soundness that would make them suitable for carrying on. BUT one must have the ability to recognize them for what they are, and for their potential.
One of the top-producing dams of well-structured, sound working Goldens is from 4 generations of names no one would recognize. But she had the quality, and she produced it. Folks should take off their blinders and start looking….everywhere.
Quality is where you find it. And blue ribbons aren’t hereditary.
“The Foundation Stock Service in the AKC would serve better to allow new established foundation stock to be accepted as new lines of existing recognized breeds. That would serve better towards diversifying the gene pool for any breed. And truly is old school methodology. But more effective than anything done with existing stock today.”
YES.
Sengimage, you write:
“Based on Phenotype and Purpose. You can truly recreate a breed and infuse new blood into the existing gene pool.”
Not being flippant but can you please enlighten as to which are the phenotype similarities between flatties and american cockers?
Except pendant ears…
I don’t take anything from you as disrespectful Labpack. I understand the “why” about your question. In the beggining I questioned it too. It was carefully pointed out to me by some very observant people.
Since the phenotype is clear characteristics observed within an organism…. then between the two dogs in question…. You have retrieving instinct, birding instinct and visually proportionate physical carriage. Size not being an issue, its the proportion of the leg to the body the neckline and the topline Brisket and chest. Its not like crossing a Snauzer with a Great Dane.
In fact, its more like taking a German Pointer, A St. John’s water dog, Some Irish Setter, Gordon Setter and some Collie, then throwing in some lab and occasional Hound here and there and calling it a Flat Coated Retriever after about 50 years of breeding true. Then take the yellow FCR variant add some Tweed Water Spaniel and some more Setter into the mix and then calling it a Golden Retriever. Or how about throwing in some Weimaraner with a Chocolate Lab and then after some time calling it a Silver Lab.
Likewise, this is not the only piece of the final formula. Its still a question as to what other breeds may be considered before the results are satisfying. Its obvious that it didn’t take a single cross of just two breeds to get any of what was mention in the previous paragraph. And if more people realized the history of their own pure bred dogs then there might not be so much animosity on both side of the fence.
You also notice I didn’t just call my hybrid some stupid name combining the two breeds. Its an open name allowing for the formulation to change and the name to still apply. And perhaps one day…. one my Dogs will be right there competing among the purebred dogs…. and perhaps out pacing, out running and out performing them. Only time will tell.
If you keep in mind that it requires 200 dogs in households among 20 states then an established standard and a breed club….. then you are well on your way towards establishing a breed recognized by the same kennel club that calls itself the AKC…….
or…..
If you wish to keep away from a closed registry. Then you establish your own. and Say to hell with the status quo. ….
Or….
Set guidelines within your own breed club that allows for occasional outcrosses to establish new lines and still remain a part of the bigger closed system.
Thanks for your info, Sengimage. I don’t necessarily agree with you – but hey, there also are so many other ideologies I don’t find acceptable to my standards… :)
Understood, I often question how warmly accepted the creators of all these coveted pure breeds would be accepted for attempting to do in today’s world what they did in their own times. They most likely would be called creators of designer breeds. ;-)
It is what it is lab pack. When I’m constantly seeing and hearing about inbred birth defects and genetic defects in these pure line and no strides to change…. Then I believe that in what I’m doing I have a right to challenge the status quo.
And seriously…. For some breeds if you look deep into undoing the damage done…. You may find those who take up the challenge are not so far from where I am in this ideology. ;-). From what I understand, some pretty hard core anal retentive long time breeders are now considering intermixing with other breeds to save their own asses and mend the damage. They just aren’t telling anyone. ;-)
You know Paula, many would consider the bull terrier an example of a disastrous example of pure breed dogs due to the capricious nature of the humans that inbred and line bred and morphed it into the cartoonish representation with extreme features we see today. And yet people tend to shell out the big bucks for these purebred predecessors to the same concept of today’s designer breeds. Except it took generations of destroying the gene pool for the older established and original designer mixes. Whereas, there is some advantage to the current wave of designer dogs…. Diversity. That alone tips the result away from many of the inherent problems that plague generations of purebred relatives. ;-)
I understand my own breed is a mix of others. I am not criticizing mixing breeds to work towards a genuine goal. We watched a show on TV about a Russian breeding dogs to protect Russian airports. He is mixing in jackals for certain traits (scenting I think). He has a definite goal of breeding a better explosive-sniffing dog. Slapping any and all two breeds together to make money is not a legitimate breeding program. I don’t think designer dog breeders are much worried about producing diversity in breeding.When Fifi the poodle dies she isn’t going to use one of Fifi’s cocapoo daughters to carry on with, she’ll go get a new poodle so they will be “thoroughbred” cockapoos. In regards to the BTs, I am thoroughly and completed addicted to them and cannot imagine myself with another breed, faults and all.
In the End Paula…… even your BT’s are Cross Bred dogs. The only difference now……
They are a part of a closed registry system that calls them a pure breed.
If you went back to basics and crossed other dogs to recreate your BT in look and feel and possibly purposeful behavior traits, I don’t know what they are in your breed. Then the end result is highly likely to be heathier and longer lived than what you have in the breeding population today.
I know about those Jackal hybrid bomb sniffing dogs. There was a lot of information posted on them here on Retrieverman’s Weblog. I’m also aware that its highly likely…. that particular hybrid may not be very resilient in terms of breeding a hybrid to a hybrid…..eventually the result may find sterile dogs. The F1 crosses seem to be the successful ones….. and then taking that F1 hybrid and possibly breeding back to a dog, maybe over time it may still see a sterile result??? Not sure. But its still an interesting concept. Makes you think if the Basenji is already and example of a jackal Dog hybrid or just a dog that evolved along the lines of convergence, being that it can successfully reproduce and interbreed with other dogs may suggest its all dog and not Jackal. Its a lot of food for thought. But very interesting.
Sengimage, diversity in any breed could be achieved if there were no “top winning dogs of the year”…
To me all the abnormalities regarding conformation are nothing but results by the show judges’ and their very own personal interpretation of the breed standards!
Labpack……The Show judges are slaves to the standards set by the breed club. The Breed club is a unanimous agreement of many weak minded individuals looking to fit in. And the dogs are result of the agreements set and followed by those same capricious individuals who head the clubs and lead their weak minded following. Hmmmmm, sounds very similar to religion.
Likewise many of those standards were set in stone during a time when our modern understanding was never considered. Yet, when science is slapping the majority of old school driven followers in the face about the damage done from generations of doing it the “preferred way”. Look how the fancy drags its feet to admit. or stands stuck in the mud instead of moving towards reform.
Champions are still the founding stock in the majority of litters. And many litters still share the same fathers. It hasn’t changed in decades of the truth being revealed about the negative effects. And, dog shows are not the complete root of the problem. In fact, with reform and education as the goal… the shows have potential to do more good than bad. If the public were embraced at these shows by the exhibitors rather than being told “do not touch my dog” and if the people with a real idea of the benefits of diversity were more vocal. It becomes an opportunity to educate the public about where to look and what to look for when they are ready for their own dog. And it could show the benefits of a responsible breeding program versus a pet store gamble.
“show judges slave to the standards set by the breed club?” You’re kidding, right? Have you actually been to a conformation show lately?
I can tell you that in every breed I know well, including the one I HAVE shown, the judges almost entirely do NOT follow the standards. They put up dogs bred by well known breeders, or handled by well known handlers.
If judges judged to the standard and if breeders bred to the standard, no one would have any complaint about purebred dogs.
Plus you have the fact that the human brain is hardwired to gravitate to things that are different and stand out. It’s not even a conscious decision, the dog that is different (more extreme, more hair, bigger sidegait, etc.) will stand out and the eye will go to it.
Good example:
Which of these mongrel puppies already has a home?
is there an answer here Scotty?
My 2 cents….
Well, if its a result of stupidity rather than a demand that fueled the mix…. They all might have a home in the local animal shelter.
If it was a desired cross then they should have had a waiting list. Interviewed the interested parties and qualified them. Then all the pups should have been spoken for before they were even born or… before they were 8 weeks old.
“If it was a desired cross then they should have had a waiting list. Interviewed the interested parties and qualified them. Then all the pups should have been spoken for before they were even born or… before they were 8 weeks old.”
Unless you are breeding very popular pet dogs or have working lines that are in high demand this is bullshit and I hate to see it repeated constantly. In rarer breeds you do not breed unless you can keep all the pups for a long period of time. If my Azawakh friends waited until they have enough definite buyers lined up before the breeding, the breed would die out in the west.
I can agree with that perspective Jess. It makes a lot of sense. But its not the only one. Even rarer breeds will benefit from an outcross. Moreso I believe than the popular ones. And if you are serious about creating those new bloodlines….isn’t it beneficial to seed the potential gene pool. Even among the pet population? Otherwise we tend to trap ourselves in the same practices that got the purebred line in the shithole they’re in to begin with.
If the pet Market wasn’t the majority driving the demand, then it would be so simple. But since the pet market is driving most of the demand, not the purpose bred market….. it is in the best interest to provide a good healthy specimen with a good amount of interview and checks to make sure that at least your dogs….don’t become a statistic in the shelter system.
And if you need good foundation stock to pull from you know where they are, who they’re with and can make the best decisions to benefit your program.
I’m not sure what you are talking about. I was talking about the mantra of waiting to breed until you have a waiting list and all pups are spoken for.
Oh, got it. Well, then the wait list only insures an interview for potential placement. There’s still an interview process and a weeding out process involved. And using myself as an example….
We’re talking about maybe two litters possibly 3 litters a year. From a stock of dogs and bitches that allows for maintaining several different unrelated litters being produced. A waiting list beforehand only insures the offspring will be spoken for. However the planning process shouldhave been in the works long ahead of the actual breeding. Especially for a hybrid. If there is an end goal in sight and you’re not about the money, then you build your own foundation stock and map out the future. I want to know this year… What my planned pairs will be next year, two years from now…. Etc, etc. I also need to know what potential offspring I may wish to keep and/or put with a partnership to keep in the genetic pool. If in 10 years the goal is to infuse something beneficial into the gene pool of one breed of dog with the use of other breeds… Then you damn well better plan ahead. Otherwise, you just joining in with the doodle craze…. And thecreator of that hybrid admittedly regrets it.
Guilty as charged. I love exotic colors. It pleases me to no end that my last two litters have produced a variety of interesting colors.
Variety is an advantage … IMO.
Yes, Emily. I go to them with all the children. I enter my dogs and to even piss off a few snot nosed show people, I may even allow the public to meet my dogs and pet them and ask questions.
We’ve occasionally challenged the judge. And sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. With the competition based solely on one person’s opinion based off of training from another who may not even handle my breed. Sometimes, I kindly remind them of the standard. If they are offended… I stick to my guns, and yes raise a big stink so the public can hear it.
For the most part. The judges I’ve encountered. At least for my breed. Judge against the standard. The ones I find disgust with are the ones who are friendly with the handlers on a first name basis. And it’s no surprise those dogs usually win…. Go figure.
I prefer a multiple judge format. Like in Canada. But even three judges could be biased. So, really we go to enjoy the show, talk with friends and meet the people who go to learn more about the pure breeds. And have fun. It’s a concept the others attending don’t seem to get, go figure.
Sengimage, the breed standards were written when the breed was more or less well established – and with many breeds it took place more than hundred years ago…
The breed standards haven’t changed since but the conformation of many breeds do have! Don’t you agree?
Do have a look at some old photos of the then (show)winning dogs; eg. German Shepherds, Bullterriers, even Labradors!
During these past decades the show judges certainly have been no slaves to the breed standards! :(
Well, in the AKC system, the standards do change from time to time.
The golden retriever standard– there is nothing wrong with it at all. It creates a dog that is based in the real world conditions.
However, what happens here is what are called fancy points take over and people just breed whatever really gets judges going.
It does win ribbons, but in the long-term, it leads to distortions.
Actually, for the most part, I feel the interpretations of those standards leans towards the extreme. And the end result is a dog that represents the interpretation at that time. What has to happen as a part of reform is more descriptive standards that do not lend a hand to open interpretation. Visually we may see fewer oddities because of it…. It still won’t correct age old breeding practices, but it may produce less dogs with crippling cosmetic features…. Imagine if dwarfism in labs for the show ring was no longer so common in them because the working standard was preferred. You know, the real labs as opposed to the show variety pig dogs. ;-)
Retrieverman,
“However, what happens here is what are called fancy points take over and people just breed whatever really gets judges going.”
You’re not alone with the show world “fancy points” – it’s global…
Show judges from every corner of world, judging in every corner of the world are there to dictate the (future) trendy looks for winnng glory & fame!
My observant but naive comments, having hung around on the fringes of the circles for a while:
I wish the Conformation Certificate programs would take off a bit more, especially in Labs. There is a certain amount of respect for them in some golden circles, from what I understand, and in some small corners of Labs, but it really hasn’t made much impact. It’s too bad.
For Labs and goldens, the conformation certificate says, “This dog meets the characteristics of the breed in essential ways–it looks like what it says it is compared to the standard–nice job meeting the standard” (my paraphrase, of course). The CH in these two tremendously popular breeds with huge numbers of show entrants is more like, “This dog is really above-and-beyond special because it exemplifies the characteristics of the breed more than the vast majority of other dogs even competing on any given day” (my paraphrase), which of course leads to exaggeration. Comparison: If you see a model on the runway, she may very well appear exemplary–if you see her in person, however, she can be a little freakish!
(IMO/IME, in flat-coats, a CH is what says the above essential conformation plus “it had X number of times when it was the best representative of the breed on a given day–making this dog is an excellent representative of the breed in the broad scheme of things.” I don’t know that a CC program in flat-coats is either necessary or relevant for breeding purposes.)
AKC needs to scrap their extremely stupid point system and go with a ratings system like the Germans, where each dog in the ring receives a rating, then there is further competition between the excellents.
Oh my, I just don’t understand why those two breeds together… it doesn’t make sense to me.
Its possibly a solution for a person who is extremely active and loves to go running, yet loves the Scottish Terrier and wants a variant that can keep up with him/her running and Jogging and can swim at a decent clip, too. Has a good chance of getting cancer and ….. get this…..
occasionally might exhibit extreme aggression. ?????
I don’t think this is a good mix or a well thought out one, nor a particularly beneficial one for either side of the equation. But, it is certainly an interesting one.
I agree that didn’t sound like a good combo to me….you get a dog with the scottie’s huge teeth and dog agression, and terrier tenacity along with the golden size. No thank you. A lot of people i know do not breed to the winning dogs just because they are the winning dogs. we try to find the best dog for our bitch and if he is the winner, so be it, or if he is somebody’s pet in Iowa that is willing to let us use him, we will go that way as well. As long as both dogs are health tested.
I cannot imagine wanting to cross such a nasty dog as a scotty (in my experience, anyway) with a dog as nice as a golden and risk getting a big nasty dog? We already have plenty of those.
Depends, you could get a real saint of a Scottish and a really nasty Golden. Either way it’s a crap shoot.
There was mention on an earlier post about using intelligent outcrosses to either help one side or both sides of the equation in any mix. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. Although there are some experts in Genetics that maintain simply outcrosses different breeds alone will prevent many disorders even if they are presen in both sides. It’s not really conclusive.
If the registry really wanted to help then it would see out crossing to preserve look and feel along with breed specific behavior as the proper way to give any breed a genetic booster shot. Or possibly look towards one breed to help correct a problem in another…. Like designer dalmations. The kooks throwing together dogs for a quick buck instead of planning out their results over a long term do more damage than good. And once in a while maybe turn up a gem.
Who knows…. Maybe the Scottish-Golden “Gold Digger” mix will turn out to be a healthy long lived hybrid. Maybe it might find a purpose???? With Genetics…. You never know.
“Maybe it might find a purpose???? With Genetics…. You never know.”
With breeding true to type, one has a far better chance, however.
Would that more people kept this in mind. Might curtail the number of useless dogs, both mix and breed.
You do realize that even today pure bred dogs still do not always breed true to type. You can have Goldens that throw setter looking pups, even spaniel looking pups. Labs that throw houndy dogs and even pointer-ish or long hair flattie-ish
And there are certainly many pure bred working line dogs that would qualify as “useless”.
So please do not question based on your experience alone and perhaps accept that variants even within your chosen breeds do exist.
On that note. I do kind of agree with yourPoint of view. Being open minded instead of brainwashed allows for a bit of understanding behind what the status quo typically presents. ;-)
It is true that there will always be a certain amount of variation within any “pure breed”. And that is quite acceptable, even necessary. (Anyway, it’s doubtful that we could ever get a majority to agree on one single exemplar as “perfect”!) it gives us choices in selection, for one thing.
However, the big advantage of having a breed or strain that “breeds true” is that of predictability — one knows fairly well what to expect. If one breeds two Golden Retrievers together, one if reasonably certain that they will not get black dogs or parti-colors or wire coats or bobtails or brachycephalic heads, or dogs with certain sorts of temperament (I’ll forego naming any breeds here!) foreign to the Golden Retriever.
Yes, certainly, unexpected things can occur– like the 21″, 45 pound Cocker Spaniel from a purebred litter (a dog I knew personally). But when a different breed is introduced, the results can be quite unexpected and sometimes produce traits not seen in either parent. Then a few more generations of careful breeding are still needed in order to reach the objective.
Of course, if one has no objective in mind, it’s easier.
Absolutely agree M.R.S.
Clearly our predecessors had an idea of an end goal in mind. And it took many generations of getting it right, and even then, did they really get it right. But, breeding true is still a toss up. The gems in the litter are still a matter of personal taste. The rest may vary one way or another from the accepted form. In general there is a type that is preferred in every litter. And breeding true…. Is as open to interpretation by the breeders and their breed clubs as conformation standards are to the show judges mentioned here.
I feel that the variances are an advantage. Depends on how the culling process handles it. Whether Spay/Neuter or a bucket. Odds are the only ones that will carry their genes forward are the ones that look like what is the “standard of the month”. Even if it is a fad that drives that decision.
Clearly, to benefit the dogs. Building upon variety might be a more beneficial objective than breeding true.
I wasn’t questioning anything. I was making a statement of belief.
Do we actually disagree on it? Do your assertions change the statement? Do you really think I’m basing that statement on my experience alone? Just because one shares a belief with others, does that mean one is brainwashed?
(Rhetorical questions. In truth, I am weary of this perceived debate, should not have entered into it, and may absent myself from further engagement. If so–have at it.)
No agreement ….
Just acknowledging your POV since its a common one and clearly pointing out that breeding true isn’t perfected even in today’s pure breeds.
But, “useless dogs” transcend all walks of life….. for the human world as well as the canine world.
Rhetoric is often used as a defensive mechanism. I know you have no need to do so. And I really wasn’t giving you one. But, bow out if you feel thats what’s needed. No one is fighting here.
Without voice inflection or body language there is much lost in the world of two dimensional text. That said, please don’t think everything put out there is always an attack. Clearly, in the past I’ve had much more to call attacks of character and ethics than anyone. And I just refuse to get into it.
Beliefs being what they are…… Sometimes you just need to respect it and exercise tolerance.
Related more to some of the things you chat about with respect to open vs. closed registries and breeding for capabilities rather than appearance, more than the question of designer mixed breeds, this paper seemed like something you might think was neat:
(And I was not even looking at elkhound articles this time; just goofing around on ScienceDaily.com!)
“A genetic dissection of breed composition and performance enhancement in the Alaskan sled dog.” Heather J Huson , Heidi G Parker , Jonathan Runstadler and Elaine A Ostrander. BMC Genetics 2010, 11:71doi:10.1186/1471-2156-11-71. Published: 22 July 2010
“The Alaskan sled dog offers a rare opportunity to investigate the development of a dog breed based solely on performance, rather than appearance, thus setting the breed apart from most others. ”
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/11/71
Yes, studying the sled dogs for their performance and related conformation would be fascinating.
Which is probably why the Coppingers spent so much time on them in their book “Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution.”
Basically the skolden -scottish terrier/golden retriever pup is a mutt! There’s quite a lot of mutts in the shelter that are looking for forever home. Stop breeding dogs for fun!
Hi! I have a dog, Dougie, he looks exactly like this. When we got him from Wales (England) this is the cross they said he was! Thanks.