According to “dog expert” Judge Judy, English shepherds, ABCA border collies, JRTCA Jack Russells, non-registered Jack Russell types, and anything registered by the American Rare Breed Association are not breeds. Only the AKC matters.
There are breed registry paper mills that will allow you to make up breeds, but I think this dog breeds true enough to be considered a breed. It certainly breeds more true than ABCA border collies or Jack Russells.
These are not cock-a-poos or doodles. They are more like Kyi-Leo or Kromfohrländer. Or the Eurasier.
The ‘breed trim’ they do b shaving the crowns of their heads is just weird. I assume that without it they just look like generic fluffball toy dogs.
They are in the process of being recognized by the UKC, so I do think this breed is becoming a breed.
And they are recognized by ARBA, which isn’t one of those make stuff up registries:
http://www.rarebreedmi-kidogs.com/35.html
They have a breed standard: http://www.rarebreedmi-kidogs.com/37.html
It’s about like the old flat-coated retriever standard– very short and not specific at all!
http://www.imrmikis.com/Miki_Standard.html
Like a lot of little dogs, these appear to be easily milled.
http://www.imrmikis.com/UKC_CDHPR.html
No “designer dog” has taken this step. Maybe the Kyi-Leo and the Australian Labradoodle have, but then they are almost established as distinct types.
“… but I think this dog breeds true enough to be considered a breed.”
Based on what? Convincing “breed” site?
Designer toy dogs sell well – imagination of their breeders is the only limit what combinations/”breeds” we’re yet to see on the market… ;)
http://www.imrmikis.com/UKC_CDHPR.html
Yes.
Stop the nonsense, people.
This dog is an established type. It’s as more of a breed than most o the things we’re calling Jack Russells.
They are trying to get into the UKC, which is the smaller legitimate registry.
They have a breed standard. Most Jack Russells bred in the US are not bred to any standard at all– and aren’t even registered.
Yet no one would say they aren’t a breed.
The Pure Blood Brigade has arrived.
http://www.cdhpr.com/CDHPRWeb.nsf/WebPages/BreedMiKi
Not a designer dog.
Did you read this page? http://www.cdhpr.com/CDHPRWeb.nsf/WebPages/Enrolled
That allows for controlled outcrosses, but still requires the establishment of a breed.
North American shepherds are just Aussies that were on the smaller side of what the Aussie standard required.
Olde English Bulldogge is just a recreated breed– like the Irish wolfhound.
By Judge Judy’s standard, neither ABCA border collies or JRTCA Jack Russells are breeds either. They aren’t AKC, but the Mi-Ki people have a standard and what appears to be relatively closed registry. The ABCA has no breed standard and they like to pretend that their registry is fully open.
You have to wonder what the creators of the Labrador was thinking when they “designed’ their breed in the first place?
Really now… how closed minded is the thinking?
Isn’t Judge Judy saying that it takes time (she mentions 100 years… stupid example ) to develop a breed? I think she is talking about people who are making up breeds and over running the registries with uncountable dog breeds in order to make a quick profit. Wouldn’t flooding the registries make the word “breed” lose meaning?
I am probably missing the point of this article. Can you elaborate since my mind is not grasping your point.
It takes more than two or three generations to start a breed.
But just because it’s not AKC, doesn’t mean that it’s not a breed.
There are plenty of bona fide breeds that are less than 45 years old. The Eurasier as we know it today with Samoyed crossed in is about that old. The Czechoslovakian wolfdog isn’t aal that old either, nor is the Tamaskan or the Cesky terrier.
She denounced a breed as a designer dog, when it’s clearly not a designer dog. Designer dogs– except for Australian labradoodles– don’t have the level of commitment that these breeders have put forward.
Oh, I got it. Yes, there are breeds other than AKC. The AKC lets in a few new ones every year which just proves the point that others exist.
I have a hard time with the over use of the term ‘designer dog’ since all dog breeds start off as designer dogs. A retrieving dog is needed so retrieving breeds are developed. Purse sized dogs are desired so purse sized dogs are developed… Supply and demand is how all breeds have come into existence. Established breeds are constantly being redesigned as well to meet need. Just look at all the sporting dogs that have their couch potato counter parts.
Long time breeders have “designed” today’s breeds, mostly trying to accommodate their buyers in the long run. Who are today’s buyers? not the people of yesteryear. How many people hunt? There are some but not as in the 1800s. There are divisions in the sporting breeds referred to as conformation and field. These differences are not recognised officially but just go to Westminster and look at a Golden Retriever and then go to Wisconsin and look at the Golden Retriever used for hunting.
The actual breed standard for Golden is 55-65lbs for female and 65-75lbs for males…. No one weighs them in at the shows.
I meant to say breeds other than registered in the AKC…
What’s interesting is the ones use for hunting are a bit smaller than the breed standard– 50-60 pounds. They are often the same height but are built a little lighter.
There is a place for both Goldens. They are both in demand and very legitimate. —off topic a bit
and they are carefully designed by people who love them…
You have to say all breeds are designed since humans choose the breeding pairs.
And the Field Dog Stud Book is . . ., toast?
Yeah. I guess so.
I wonder what would happen if someone showed up wth claim for one of those top champion UKC coonhounds that can sell for thousands of dollars.
Not AKC. Not worth anything.
Actually, the AKC does now recognize six of the coonhound breeds (and has for a few years), accepting many UKC registered hounds. There are AKC coonhound trials as well. There were some Redbones and Plotts at Westminster this year, I believe.
Yeah, but they don’t have those UKC “nite” champions that I see advertised in the all the local papers…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_Dog_Stud_Book. This older than AKC or UKC
So, the recognition of the UKC is a solid proof of an established breed?
Can’t one just buy a UKC pedigree by sending a hand written “pedigree” of one’s dog? Or include a photo of the animal to prove its chosen “breed”?
The UKC is as established a registry as the AKC.
It was originally designed as a working-dog focused registry, but it has since expanded.
http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/WebPages/RegistrationHome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kennel_Club
http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/WebPages/LrnAboutUKC
http://www.continentalkennelclub.com/
This is the kind of registry you’re talking about.
The UKC is almost as old as the AKC, and only recognizes actual breeding true breeds.
If people want to crossbreed and use those registries, I’m fine with it.
But if we’re defining breed as Judge Judy just did, then the Mi-Ki is a breed.
No, wasn’t talking about Continental KC!
To me the credibility of the UKC vanished with its paragraph for: “Application for Limited Privilege (LP)”
“Purebred Dog – Two recent & clear color photographs must be provided. One photo of the full front of the dog, clearly showing the facial characteristics of the dog. One view of the full side in profile of the dog standing on a flat surface.
http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/WebPages/RegistrationLimitePrivilege:
“Dogs enrolled in the LP Program must be spayed or neutered and, if accepted, are eligible to compete in all Performance Events for which the breed is eligible; however, they are not eligible for conformation events.”
Perhaps you can explain to me how this is any different than an AKC ILP number.
Me? Should I know? :-o
Anyway, the UK KC has recently made history in opening the breed registries:
“Pilot scheme for registering dogs of unverified parentage”
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3672/23/5/3
The credibility of many a dog registry would certainly benefit if following the above example… ;)
Yeah, I’ve seen that, and I wish we could start down this road to tearing down this Berlin Wall that worships blood purity over common sense.
Not much really new about the KC “pilot program”. It’s very like the system once used for Interbred and Crossbred gundogs (up until the 1960s or thereabouts).
The best known case in Goldens is the 1929 introduction of a yellow Labrador (FTCh Hayler’s Defender) into the Haulstone kennel of Goldens. After 3 backcrosses, descendants of that breeding were/are considered purebred Goldens.
Yes, there was a group of breeders in favour of interbreeding early 1900’s. The sires were mainly labradors.
The results weren’t too bad, prominent field trial and Ret. Championship winners in the progeny. ;)
“To me the credibility of the UKC vanished with its paragraph for: “Application for Limited Privilege (LP)” ”
So the UKC has no credibility for having a program identical to AKC’s ILP (I guess they call it PAL now that they accept mixed breeds,) yet the UK KC receives kudos for opening their main registry to the same dogs that UKC would give a limited privilege number to, if they were spayed or neutered.
http://www.akc.org/reg/ilpex.cfm
Some consistency in your position would be nice.
Jess, so I’m not allowed to have a personal opinion, am I! :o
Personal opinion? Sure, if one doesn’t mind misrepresenting the procedures.
http://www.sofinemikis.com/MiKi_FAQ.html
Read.
No.
http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/WebPages/RegistrationRegIndividualDog
I have nothing against breeding “designer dogs.”
Nothing at all.
You obviously hate purebreds and want everybody to have a mutt.
Judge Judy is a bitch. She better have her deputy
If I catch her ugly ass on my property. I got my papers
Signed by President Cheney.
If I recall, the Mi-Ki people have been trying for years to be recognized by the UKC. The UKC, in their wisdom will not accept them. The reasons for this are that there is apparently some serious in-fighting amongst the Mi-Ki breeders and, there is no agreement on the standard, or ability to set type well enough without continuing outcrossing.
New breeds are fine: the Mi Ki is still not a breed, anymore than a doodle mutt is.
So this isn’t a breed either?
The Dog Wars: How the Border Collie Battled the American Kennel Club
Your standard doesn’t work here either.
You are just member of the pure-blood brigade.
Admit it.
Currently, the state dog of Texas, the lacy dog or blue lacy dog, has exactly this problem.
But by your standard, it’s not a breed either.
And no landrace would be a breed either. The majority of Jack Russells wouldn’t be considered “a breed,” nor the JRTCA dogs, because they aren’t AKC.
See how silly you sound?
This little toy dog breeds more true than a border collie, which I think you’d agree is a breed– though I might have my doubts.
Doodles don’t breed true. You have to backcross to poodles to keep the coat– there are tons of smooth-coated goldendoodles that look like goldens.
Even if they can’t agree on a standard at least they are trying.
And the UKC likely will recognize them, along with the North American shepherd (which only exists because the smaller Aussies didn’t meet the contrived standard) and the Olde English Bulldogge, which is a reconstruction.
The real issue with those breeds is they don’t have enough blood to be fully viable within a closed registry system, such as the UKC.
The UKC is not an entirely closed registry. The Chinook breed, for instance, has some very recent outcrosses in their pedigree record. All carefully considered and recorded.
AKC now has a Conditional Registration for certain dogs with questionable individuals in the ancestry. These dogs are tagged with a letter designation in their registration number. See AKC website for complete information.
My Tazi bitch has parents registered as Tazis, in Russia and Kazakhstan. UKC registered them as Salukis.
I’m a little late in the game here, but I can tell you from working with different herding dog breeds that Border Collies are fairly unique in their working style – extremely tight-eyed and distanced from stock, which is why they are SO GOOD at trialling (and so bad at close in work). I would argue that this characteristic is distinct from all other herding dog breeds currently recognized and common in the US (I think Kelpies are also tight-eyed but they’re pretty uncommon in the US) and thus I think it could be argued that it’s a distinguishing breed characteristic. You don’t get dogs that work like Border Collies from random breeding. A F1 cross usually results in a decent loose-eyed dog that works a lot like an Australian Shepherd.
Border Collies certainly are unique in their working style. Their eye might not be exclusive, however. It’s certainly possible that it is the same gene or a slight modification of the setting behavior seen in other (obviously non-herding) breeds. It could be a de-novo and unique behavior, but there are a lot of similarities to behaviors which have been cultivated in different breeds.
I’ll also suggest that while “the eye” is sufficient to identify a Border Collie (at least among herding breeds), it is not necessary. Dogs are not excluded from the breed for not having it and there are highly successful dogs who are not particularly strong eyed.
As for “breed” status, the Border Collie is an excellent example of a breed that has strong landrace elements. The fact that there have been multiple simultaneous registries throughout almost all of its history with different focuses but plenty of inter-mixing, and there is also acknowledgment of different strains and types regardless of registry. For example, you can look at the “Nap Type” vs. “Northumbrian Type” vs. “Wiston Cap Type” vs. “Herdsman Tommy Type” … layered with the “Coyote Collie” vs. “Barbie Collie” layered with our understanding that the breed is composed of regional dogs that include Welsh Shepherds, Kelpies, and other breeds from around the Scottish Borders.
Interesting. The Azawakh will go into AKC Miscellaneous this summer, and there is not only serious infighting among breeders, but it’s involves the FCI standard, the one for the rest of the world. AKC doesn’t really seem to care much.
Doodles aren’t mutts. They are crossbreeds.
Mutts/mongrels/crossbreeds… they’re all the same thing. It doesn’t matter whether one intentionally crossed two breeds together or whether multiple, undetermined breeds makeup a dog. Any dictionary is going to say that a mutt is a mongrel dog and that a mongrel is any cross between breeds/groups/persons/things.
EEEEENT! Wrong answer. Ask people in the dog world, ie the people who actually know, and they will tell you that a mutt or a mongrel is a mixed breed dog with an unknown background.
Purpose bred crosses are cross-breeds, and if multigenerational crosses, they usually have some kind of designation. Like lurcher, longdog, Alaskan husky, staghound, etc. These are dogs loosely defined by type and purpose, but not a ‘breed’ that breeds true, except in the performance department. They often have extensive pedigrees going back many generations.
I breed crosses, and backcrosses. Their backgrounds are known up to the early 1900s, and they are not mutts or mongrels.
Dog people who have an irrational attachment to the notion of ‘breed’ and ‘purity’ tend to use ‘mutt’ or ‘mongrel’ as a derogatory term. They are just exposing their ignorance of selective breeding outside the purebred box when they do that. That’s one of the reasons the rest of the animal breeding world finds certain dog people so amusing.
I am in love with an AKC breed but I support your efforts and do think that you are creating crosses and not mongrels. I hope you don’t think that all of us who are into a particular AKC breed are against what you are doing.
I have purebreds as well, they’re not mutually exclusive ;)
The usage of the term ‘mutt’ or ‘mongrel’ is a tell, like in poker. If you are discussing, for instance, Dalmatians, and someone start ranting about how the LUA Dals are ‘mongrels’, they are a member of the Pure Blood Brigade.
There is a very large difference between what (for lack of a better term) could be called “interbreeding” (as Jess does, among related varieties of sighthounds ) and “cross-breeding” of vastly differing types/breeds. Some cross-breeding may be done for specific purpose of introducing a desired trait (as in creating LUA Dalmatiams), but then the F1 progeny are back-crossed into the primary breed.
Most of the current “designer dogs” are designed primarily to sell, to create profit. A cute made-up name seems to be a big sales tool. Wanna buy a cheeweenie? A puggle? Boxador?
I have seen some very interesting first cross lamping dogs, that you really wouldn’t think would ‘work’, like cattle dog/greyhound. Staffy/whippet is also very popular.
Cockapoos have been popular pets for years and years, a cross-breed where the first cross is what is desired.
‘Mutt’ or ‘mongrel,’ beyond the implication that the animal has little worth, generally implies that that the dog has no provenance, no known background. Desert bred Salukis are sometimes called mongrels, by certain individuals.
If the dogs from the native population are ‘mongrels’, how does that mesh with the claim the breed has been ‘pure’ since 7000BC? Who was keeping them pure all that time?
Moses was.
It doesn’t. That’s why it’s so bloody funny. Either Salukis are only ‘pure’ in the West where the registry is closed, or they have been ‘pure’ in the countries of origin since 7000 BC. You actually can have it both ways if you are very good at cognitive dissonance.
Then you have the camp that believe that desert bred Salukis were pure a hundred years ago, but not now (and some of them aren’t, especially in Gulf; however, there is evidence that some of them weren’t back then, as well.) When is the cutoff? Usually when that person imported their Salukis. Everything after that is impure.
Even better, you have the UK, where brindle is a DQ because longdogs have been bred into the Salukis. Brindle is evidence of the impurity, so we’ll DQ it, then just not worry about the impure dogs that AREN’T brindle.
Salukis, and Afghans (especially Afghans, actually, considering the great variety in both type and coat in the early imports) are perfect examples about how ‘breed’ is simply an artificial construct. What constitutes the construct is going to differ according to who you talk to. Just as ‘purity’ does.
Wow, I can’t believe this post has nearly 60 replies.
A breed is about as clear of a concept as what is something worth?
The answer to the second question is “whatever someone will pay for it” … and I think the answer to the first is “whatever someone wants to call a breed.”
Unlike Judge Idiot, I don’t cede the right to declare a breed to the AKC or any other body. They have the right to declare what an “AKC (insert breed here)” is, as does any registry.
So if JoeBlow wants to declare his basement computer a registry and he keeps track of lineage for his JoeBlow Breed. Then it’s a breed.
The “Designer” dog fad is symptomatic of one thing: people are not satisfied with what purebred breeders are producing. The free market is speaking. Time to listen.
If this is the video I think it is (I don’t watch videos, it uses up bandwidth) it was discussed on the Pet Law list and the gist was that only people who breed ‘purebreds’ could be ‘responsible.’ Breeding a cross is automatically a black mark.