It’s well-known that I have my own opposition to religious tenet of blood purity that has unfortunately poisoned so much of dog culture.
If it were acceptable that golden retrievers could still be crossed with flat-coats or Labradors and still get the puppies registered with the AKC and the entire FCI system, I’d be all for it. But if you do any crossbreeding within these breeds, the descendants can never be registered as any breed. There use to be an “Interbred” retriever classification with the Kennel Club (of the UK), but now, if you cross a golden with a yellow Labrador, none of the descendants of that cross can ever be registered as golden retrievers, even if they look just like normal golden retrievers.
Not this was not always the case.
In the 1920’s, when both golden and Labrador retrievers were recognized as distinct breeds by the Kennel Club, the Haulstone line of golden retrievers experienced an outcross to a field champion yellow Labrador retriever, FTCh Hayler’s Defender. If you play around on pedigree databases enough, you’ll find descendants of this dog in both golden and Labrador pedigrees.
But right now, an outcross between two breeds is a genetic dead-end, and you cannot use this tool to make improvements on the strains or increase genetic diversity.
I want this tool back in the hands of dog breeders, and I would be willing to buy a dog that looked like a golden retriever but had a Labrador three generations back in the same way I’ll eat a “Black Angus steak” that came from a steer whose great, great, great grandmother was a Hereford.
However, I’ve found that even among “working dog” writers that there is a resistance to outcrossing that so resembles that of the kennel club aversion to it that it’s really quite disconcerting.
And this doesn’t include those who are against all outcrossing.
Some of those who are okay with outcrossing with other breeds, or at least claim to be, are very adverse to crossing things into there own breed.
For example, there is a well-known “working terrier” expert who keeps Jack Russells for groundhog digging operations.
His biggest lament is that Jack Russells are getting too big for the job, and it’s harder and harder to find one small enough to do the work.
Well, there is an obvious solution to this problem.
The Jack Russell is a fox terrier. It’s a specific type of fox terrier that resembles those that were first distilled into a breed in the late eighteenth century, but fox terriers became a global breed. And now there are dozens of offshoots of the family.
One of these is called a toy fox terrier. It’s a toy breed, which isn’t much larger than a Chihuahua, and it’s not technically a working dog, though they are known for their intelligence. They may not be as game as Jack Russells, but they aren’t as far removed from Jack Russells as say a mastiff or a greyhound would be.
All one would have to do is a little crossing with toy fox terriers and Jack Russells, and then one could select for both small size and gameness and have the perfect sized terrier for the job.
The JRTCA even would allow descendants of those crosses to be registered, so long as they were within the JRTCA’s conformation requirements.
But I’ve never heard this terrier writer say anything about the potential of this cross, though I’m pretty sure he’s excoriated the existence of toy fox terriers as an anathema to “real terriers,” which includes only about 4 or 5 breeds and dachshunds, which are actually small Central European hounds, not terriers. (A full-sized dachshund would be something like a Hanoverian schweisshund.)
The Germans had no problems crossing miniature pinschers with dachshunds to make the little rabbit dachshunds that are used to hunt in rabbit warrens.
So why would someone be opposed to crossing toy fox terriers with Jack Russells to make a groundhog specialist-sized Jack Russells, especially when one can eventually get the descendants of the cross registered as Jack Russells with the JRTCA?
The truth is I really don’t think many of these working dog people are as opposed to the closed registry system as they claim to be.
Sure, some of those crosses are going to be too docile to do groundhogs, but in Europe, when breeders cross low drive conformation golden retrievers with higher drive working goldens, they get some pups in the litter that aren’t any good at retrieving.
But they still do it, because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be getting new blood in.
If you want to turn a dog into a ferret, the opportunity is there.
The truth is both “working dog” people and “show dog” people are operating under the same paradigms.
It’s the same old song.
And we have to get out of this mythology on both sides if we are to confront the problems dogs face in a rational manner.
I was actually thinking about this yesterday, poking around on the Border Collie forums. It occurred to me that if the BC people really wanted to put their money where their mouths were, they’d turn their breed back into a landrace and mix with other herding (and non-herding) breeds. If the only important thing is that it works, why not? Also, that way they wouldn’t have to worry about their precious breed getting absorbed by AKC, as the dogs wouldn’t be “pure.”
It would require letting go of the Border Collie name and calling their dogs “working sheepdogs” as is done with unregistered BCs in the UK. But if they did that, they really could justify their currently unwarranted feelings of superiority.
It’s actually easier with Jack Russells–I’ve known several registered with JRTCA that were actually mixes (one with Border Terrier and one with Whippet, believe it or not) and I can respect that. You know, I did ask once what terrier-dude looks for in a dog when he gets a new one (because it can’t JUST be about chest size) and never did get an answer.
Border Collies are a trial dog, not a working dog. They are the only breed that trials in the manner that is fashionable (i.e. with eye) and thus any thoughts of outcrossing are dismissed outright. Dogs that are actually bred for work, like McNabs, have no such fatwa on blood purity.
Right, but the people who BELIEVE and feel they define working dogs, as you know, are the ones who trial (in USBCHA trials, of course). Even dogs who actually do farm work aren’t really working dogs to them (I wonder how they feel about livestock guardians, which are working by my lights, though not in any way that the “big hats” would acknowledge). I would also argue that killing groundhogs with terriers is a sport, since it doesn’t HAVE to be done that way.
I don’t even have a dog in either fight, being quite happy with my “sport” Shelties and yeah, Italian Greyhounds (TONS of fun to train and run in Agility). I have just been so amazed at the cray-cray that is Border Collie culture, I keep bringing it up. I cannot quite believe it. The JRT people I have known are not QUITE as bad, but they have “sport” JRTs, sooo…
My cousin who lives in SanFrancisco has two dogs similar in appearance to the one in the photograph. She calls them “rat terriers”. They don’t quite resemble the typical English type of jack russell do they?
Toy Fox Terriers are really more like toy rat terriers. And rat terriers are basically the purebred version of a feist.
A rat terrier is an American feist/terrier. They have lots of different things in them. The main strain is Fox/Manchester, but they have lots of everything else in them. When I was a kid, my mom and dad had a good friend that had a tiny rat terrier that looked exactly like a toy Manchester, what you call an English toy terrier. She was undocked and had natural prick ears.
About the only working dog groups that are “ok” with breeding outside a registry are the working military dogs (KNPV being the primary group there) and some of the service dog (guide dogs, wheelchair dogs, etc) organizations. And I think that this is telling — in both, the dogs are being used in very serious, critical roles and function (including health, temperament, etc) really IS the most important thing.
When it’s a little less critical, I think you see less penalty for not adhering to the “does it work” criteria and more adherence to the “brand name” loyalty. A little like those who insist that only a “chevy” or only a Ford can do Y and a Dodge can’t. You do see the occasional X in hunting dogs (I’ve seen an ad or two for Lab/Goldens or similar crosses) but there needs to be allowance for such crosses — otherwise the F1 is as far as they go and it doesn’t help either breed. Dog laws in various areas need to accommodate such as well (most exceptions require the dogs to be “purebred registered” ).
Has anyone availed themselves of the FCI rule allowing crossing of related breeds?
I agree that the major problem with the domestic dog today is the “Blood Purity” mind-set of the AKC and other dog registry people. A simple solution to this problem would be for these registries to adopt a system something like that used by show poultry enthusiast. They have a standard of perfection that says exactly what an individual bird of a certain breed must look like, but beyond that they do not (for the most part, and this is totally up to the breeder) care what any particular birds ancestors are. As long as the bird in the show pen meets all the criteria the standard calls for, it can be awarded the blue ribbon and be a champion, even if one of its parents is of a completely different breed.
Of course, the culling of chickens that don’t make the grade is (hopefully) a bit more drastic than with dogs, with those that don’t look like they should going into the stew pot (though I know hundreds of off-colored puppies are quietly killed in many breeds before the public ever sees them). But if breeders were willing to outcross to improve the health of their particular dog breeds, and sell or give away the puppies that will never be “show specimens”, they could actually have the best of both worlds: show dogs and healthy breeds, too. But then they’d be faced with the financial drawbacks of such a program: can’t make much money giving most of their puppies away, can they?
But even if such a breeding program were adopted, the standards for certain breeds must be changed so they don’t call for an unhealthy phenotype in any breed. The health of the dog must come before any human vanity that calls for outrageous exaggerations in a dogs form.
This is easier for me to believe in than some dog people, since I favor a completely natural dog in the first place (I even note the continuing trend to breed shorter-legged golden retrievers as a sign of degeneration of form in that breed), but we have to face the facts that the day of such canid monstrosities as the Neapolitan Mastiff or English Bulldog is over, as much as the day of the bear pit for entertainment is. What one generation may find acceptable, the next generation may come to realize is wrong and bring an end to it.
I raise mixed breed dogs with no thought at all about any registry. My sole goal is to raise healthy dogs. I love (very) large dogs, so work with some of the large and giant breeds when breeding my puppies (usually one litter a year, so this is not a money making “business”). I primarily cross my Irish wolfhound, Branigan (who would be AKC registered if the breeder I bought him from had not burned me, and never produced the promised “papers”. This breeder is still a member in good standing of the AKC, but the lack of “papers” doesn’t matter to me, I never intended to raise purebred Irish wolfhounds with their plethora of health maladies in the first place) with my AKC registered Alaskan malamute, Denali, to produce the dogs I call my “Alaskan wolfhounds’. These crossbred dogs are physically amazing specimens, and will hopefully remain healthy into the teen years. I chose the two breeds to use in this cross not only because I believed they’d provide the physical qualities I was looking for, but also because breeding them would combine genes that hadn’t been in the same animal for thousands of years; who knows, they may even have originally been bred from separate wolf stock?
I have not had any of my ‘Alaskan wolfhounds’ long enough, or in adequate numbers to know whether or not they’ll be longer-lived than pure Irish wolfhounds, but I believe this will eventually prove to be the case. As it is, they are wonderful, intelligent dogs.
I have bred one litter of pups by crossing Grizzly, one of my original ‘Alaskan wolfhounds’ to Boudicca, my AKC registered female Irish wolfhound (if I were in this for the money I could simply breed her to Branigan, and get more pure Irish wolfhounds which I could then sell for $1,500.00 each, the price I paid for Boudicca, or more realistically, for $1,000.00 each, since Branigan “has no papers”), and these puppies look just like pure Irish wolfhounds, though they are ¼ Alaskan malamute. I am not as happy with this cross as I am with the original wolfhound-malamute cross, though; fearing having Irish wolfhound on both sides of the family might result in some of these pups inheriting some physical problem common to that breed.
On another point: one thing I try to avoid in the blogs I read and participate in is any personal vendettas I might see boiling up, and with Retrieverman’s mention of a certain working terrier expert not being on board with crossbreeding to improve Jack Russells, I fear I see a personal note sliding into the intelligent discussions we have on this blog. We all know who he is speaking of, and I have been in reasonably frequent correspondence with this man for the last couple of years, and all I can say is that he seems to be in constant search for the betterment of the dog in general, without any axe to grind of his own, or supporting any form of “Blood Purity” breeding in any breed. When I first contacted him a few years ago, I supposed he would look down on my crossbred breeding program (to me, the support of such breeding is the true test of whether or not a person really cares about the health of dogs in general), and was very surprised when he congratulated me on my work, and said he thought I was producing good animals (and he doesn’t even like big dogs). I have come to consider this gentleman a very intelligent person, who makes more sense than most people do these days (though he hardly needs me coming to his defense).
To bring this subject to an end, I just want to say I enjoy blogs much more when they concentrate on the areas of dog breeding and handling, and deal with facts (and even the unproven beliefs we might have, as we all have a different idea of just how to do it right), than when they drift into the area of personal vendetta. And though it is the absolute right of the blog owner to state anything he or she may wish (we’re always free to no longer subscribe and read), I would be sorry to see this one take such a turn.
If he ever referred to one of your favorite breeds as a “freak on a leash” you’d be inclined to be annoyed by him too.
I don’t know what your favorite breeds are, but there are plenty of dogs out there that are “Freaks on a leash”. We have to be honest and ask ourselves if our chosen breed is really one of them. Over the years I have heard so many excuses from people as to why their favorite breeds “deformity” is actually an attribute to that breed that I could write a book on that subject alone. We have to look at our dogs objectively. Just because we love a dog doesn’t mean it’s not a freak. I’m sure there are many people out there who are madly in love with dogs that can’t breathe, can’t run, can hardly walk, have fits and seizures, and are bound to die young. But just because we love them does not mean we have done right by them. Nature did not produce all the exaggerated phenotypes found in domestic dogs, Man did. I’m not saying we should love any particular dog less, let’s just not perpetuate whatever deformity they may possess into the next generation. But many people are blind to the problems their dogs have, and it’s usually the people who refuse to see the truth before them that get the most offended when they hear it. Look at your dog(s) with an open mind. Ask yourself if you’d like to be stuck in its body for the rest of your life. If you can’t honestly say “It might be fun”, there’s something wrong with your dog. We all make bad choices in life, and sometimes its with the breed of dog we choose to love.
DAC–Italian Greyhounds–and when I asked why, he said because their legs break at the slightest activity (or something like that). Which isn’t actually true, although leg breaks CAN be a problem. Some lines have low bone density (and that IS a problem) but this is a fearless breed that climbs like a cat. And then takes flying leaps off of the things they climb on.
But it wasn’t so much that he said it as the dismissive, contemptuous way that it was said. By someone who clearly has no use for this breed (and clearly knows nothing about them) even though they probably went in to making HIS most beloved breed.
I can see small greyhound ancestry in Sophie, my Patterdale terrier. I know very little about Italian greyhounds, and certainly not enough to make any assumptions about the breed. I’d prefer not get into any discussions about the man who insulted your breed, but instead stick to the points I (feel I) know something about, and why someone may look at a breed of dogs today in the light they do. When it comes to the animal kingdom (and just about anything else, I guess), whenever people get interested in something, they seem to fall under the assumption that if a little is good, a lot is better. I see this tendency to take things to an exaggerated extent not only in dogs, but in chickens, pigeons, goldfish, budgerigars or just about any animal Man has taken it upon himself to improve (why would anyone want to breed hairless rats?). Its arguable whether a goldfish with bulging eyes and long, flowing fins is “better” than the ones with a normal carp shape that swim around my pond, but when we’re talking about an animal like your greyhounds, it becomes obvious that the breed reached a point of perfection as a small coursing dog sometime in its past, and then, as with all pure breeds, some (group of) people decided to keep it in that state of perfection by registering it as a breed, and breeding from only a few selected animals. As anyone who knows anything about genetics could have expected, such close inbreeding eventually led to the deterioration of certain aspects of the dog, whether it’s more easily broken legs, or shorter life-spans, or the weakening of the general health of the animals. I can only assume that Italian greyhounds were once actually used for hunting by Italian hunters. Because of their beauty, they then fell into favor with the more “cultured” crowd, who didn’t much care if their dogs had bones robust enough to take fast turns at a high rate of speed. This type of breeding was probably perpetuated (again, I am only assuming here), but with the stories of the breeds glorious past as hunters accompanying the dogs into the 21st century.
I am probably somewhat more of an “outdoor” type person than many, and my dogs have always accompanied me wherever I roamed in forest or mountain, and I demand a higher degree of fitness from my dogs than do most (just two days ago a man who hunts bobcats and bears with his hounds visited and checked out my dogs, and said, “Man, they are ******* amazing!”), so I have a more skeptical eye when people try to pass off the average outdoor type dogs onto me as “fit” (I live in an area directly in the waterfowl migratory zone known as the Champlain Flyway, so there are innumerable breeders and trainers of retrievers all around me, and it has long been an acknowledged fact that no dogs in the area had anything on my dogs).
The local dog boarding kennel not far from me has two little Italian greyhounds that sleep in a big sunny window like a couple of cats. They are sweet little things with pleasant (though quivering) personalities. But my hunter’s instincts tell me I would never take these little dogs out to actually hunt; one form of trauma or another would eventually “get them”. But the geneticist and dog breeder in me sees the potential of taking their genes and combining them with the genes of something like my Patterdale and creating a great little hunting dog; a tough little dog that could hunt about anything I would ask it to. When I, or a common sense person like the man who insulted your breed (and you, by association) compares the dainty little things that (I’m trying to think of a word for that little trot of theirs) around tiled floors as if the world is about to fall on them to what we know (through pure gut intuition) the original hunter’s dogs (the ancestors of today’s Italian greyhounds) must have been like, it is easy to dismiss them as freaks on a leash.
But I realize that not everyone needs a dog like the Italian greyhounds ancestors actually were. Most of us live in a different world and the little dogs that now represent the breed serve perfectly for pets. I see nothing wrong with a dog being just that, as long as the dog is healthy and comfortable in its own skin (and it is always nice if the dog can actually turn around and lick its own butt). But a man who is accustomed to seeing a little dog go down a hole and confront an enraged rodent of equal size might be understood when he seems to be dismissive when he sees dogs that are anything less than robust, no matter what the size. It’s like the deerhound people who like to regal listeners of the exploits their prized dogs did in their heyday in Scotland, yet when I see a nice deerhound, beautiful as it is, all I think is that it would be a good animal to add to my ‘Alaskan wolfhounds’ if I wanted to trim the size down a bit. Any deerhound I know would be trampled by my pack in play. When I went to a Scottish deerhound coursing event a few years ago and brought a couple of my dogs along, the most common comment I heard when people (surrounded by a hundred or more nice deerhounds) would walk up to us and look at the dogs was, “Holy s***!”
There are Italian greyhounds in a lot of terriers. Rat terriers, Manchester terriers, and the fox terriers, including the Jack Russell, all have some Italian greyhound ancestry.
Big greyhounds have been used as retrievers. Grantley Berkeley, the shooting sportsman novelist, had several “deer greyhounds” that were fine retrievers.
I think the Irish wolfhound and the Scottish deerhound are the last survivors of that deer greyhound type. The old name for a deerhound is “Highland deer greyhound,” and the Irish wolfdogs that exist today are definitely of the same type, though whatever the historical greyhound or perhaps mastiff-type it was isn’t exactly clear.
BTW, Irish wolfhounds are one of my favorite of a dogs. I just love the look in their eyes.
The word you’re looking for is “mince”. Italian greyhounds mince.
Well, some do. Some run around like, you know, dogs.
This individual does not believe in breeding dogs to be ‘pets.’ Only working animals should be purposely bred. If you want a pet, you should go to a shelter, or get a cat.
This is actually an…interesting position, because it assumes that one can selectively breed traits to produce a ‘working’ dog, but that this is not necessary or desirable to produce a ‘pet.’ For a ‘pet,’ any dog will do, and no background information about the ancestry is necessary, should be necessary, and even the desire for such information in regards to a ‘pet’ dog is empty-headed, shallow, and elitist.
I find it amusing working dogs can’t be pets because a lot of the working dogs on the other side of the pond are not as hyper as our North American working lines.
For example, the Jamthunds are quite similiar to racing Greyhounds in temperament.
Working sighthounds are not hyper. They are often not pets, but that is cultural, not due to a shortcoming of the dog.
My Irish wolfhounds and ‘Alaskan wolfhounds’ are great house pets. It’s amazing how they can curl up and get out of the way. Of course, when they sprawl out it becomes something of an obstacle course.
DesertWindHounds is correct. I wrote a very polite letter to “TerrierDude” once in response to one of his “trashing the Boston Terrier” rants
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7684843&postID=8205839790243686927&isPopup=true
to tell him about my breed, The Olde Boston Bulldogge. They are a continuation/recreation (depending upon whom you speak with) of the Boston Terrier as it was before it became a pushed in face, tiny, show dog. It is registered with the IOEBA, and cross breeding is allowed, as long as the new dog looks like an OBB. It becomes registered as a foundation dog, and offspring are registered as F1. My pups are incredibly vigorous, have no trouble breathing (or doing anything else), and to my eye, are a big improvement over purebred BTs. I use mine to pull me on a scooter or sulky (see pic) and we have gone up to 7 miles on a scooter. Terrierdude professes to be against breeds that are “freaks”. OK, so am I. Which is why I got into OBBs—I personally feel that the BT is a great dog that deserves saving and deserves better than to be stuck in a body that can’t breathe or give birth naturally.
What was his reply to me? He called me a puppy peddler, a dog dealer, a dog fighting enthusiast, and a person who didn’t know what I was doing. He told me I shouldn’t be breeding dogs, but adopting pit bulls.
Which is hogwash. The demands on base temperament that being a pet require are far more stringent than the temperament of a working dog. If a pet is of poor temperament, it’s dead meat these days – whereas a working dog will likely be trained to a certain extent to compensate.
I am intrigued. You are against breeding pets, which you despise. You have sighthounds. Obviously they are not pets. Do you hunt with them? What do you hunt? What is their function?
Elizabeth
You misunderstod. The person who is against breeding pets is the terrier writer I mentioned in the post. DesertWindHounds is into breeding pets, and people call her a puppy miller and a crossbreeder and everything else.
All my puppies go as pets first.
Healthy pets are the only thing I breed for. My dogs can be great hiking or X-country skiing companions, but first and foremost, they’re pets.
Irish Setter breeders were halfway successful at improving their breed through outcrossing. The Irish Setter received an officially-sanctioned infusion of blood from English Setter field lines in the late 1940’s-50’s. After a certain number of generations, the offspring were allowed to be registered as purebred AKC Irish Setters. The arrangement fell apart in the 70’s, leaving many field-bred Red Setters registered only in the FDSB and locked out of the AKC. There are, however, some lines that are still AKC registered. Those lines will never win a conformation show, though in my opinion they look much better than the show lines, which will never come close to winning a field trial.
I have a small jrt that I think would be able to get groundhogs. He has tonnes of prey drive too! He’s neutered and we live in England so maybe not much practical value though!
11 months in the video and only had him a few weeks but not really any bigger now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exu0tuf2dNU&list=UUPmhEfCjOu9wbmvrvClk6Zg&index=4
Re the outcross thing. I have noted that some working gun dogs round here are out cross, e;g springer/labrador. As are soem working sheep dogs, e;g collie/huntaway collie/kelpie or a mix of all 3.
Adam
We could send you groundhogs. I bet they’d do as well as gray squirrels!
A lot of people never heard of culling before.
Yes, America, it is okay to put your puppies down if they are not suitable for home.
I’m told the preferred dog for the Australian forces in Vietnam was kelpie x Labrador. Both very smart breeds. Labrador makes the kelpie more biddable and calmer. Kelpie makes the Labrador more tolerant of heat and a bit faster and light on the feet.
Pretty Good essay sir. However, where you wrote…
“The truth is I really don’t think many of these working dog people are as opposed to the closed registry system as they claim to be”.
There is a major exception, and it is the tree dog world. WTDA and NKC will allow for crossed hounds and curs to be registered as “Treeing Curs”-if they tree. Strains of Curs are crossed to create new ones, such as Camus Curs, and Canadian Curs. Some folks are breeding the Cur type back into Plotts and away from Plott “hounds”. I think the difference is that in the tree dog world, only performance matters. Unlike Bird dogs and Border Collies, there is no European sporting tradition about what is “proper”. I think your hopes for a sensible crossbred bird hunting dog will be plagued by bird hunter’s more narrow attitudes that stem from the 19th Century Gentleman’s sporting tradition.
BTW- There is a lot of other breeding in most commercial Angus, and the “Certified Angus” in the store likely comes from black baldies, that do have Hereford in them. Some Holstein crosses have even crept into show Angus lines to get the size up. When practicality trumps traditionalism, it is never a problem, as the comment above mentioned with show poultry
Again, interesting essay and great blog.
Holstein heifers are often bred to Angus bulls to reduce the size of that first calf. The x-bred calves make fine meat animals.
I read somewhere that “they” (I can’t remember who, so I’ll credit it to the mysterious ‘they’, but some branch of the FDA I assume) did DNA tests on packages of meat labeled ‘Angus’ in various grocery stores, and found a high percentage of it was not actually Angus at all. The ‘Angus’ label has gained such popularity that around here any (live) beef (animal) taken to auction that is black (or primarily black, they tend to overlook a white face) will average about $50.00 to $75.00 more than the same animal of a different color. There’s no doubt this animal’s meat gets labeled ‘Angus’, no matter what its actual parentage was.
He has killed grey squirrels so yeah send the groundhogs!
Re the whole ‘breeding for pets’ thing. Seeing as most dogs end up as pets surely that is a very sensible thing to do! Here’s the thing why are bulldogs (English) so popular in the states? They are a walking/puffing vet bill right? But they are really lazy (cause of the health issues?) so don’t need much exercise or stimulation! This suits some people. If you breed dogs to make good healthy pets and educate people on how to live with/train dogs so they can deal with a dog with a bit of life in it you will have a huge market. Plus will improve the overall dog scene by replacing unhealthy pets with healthy pets.
The thing is I like high drive/high energy dogs. I live in a rural area and have a lifestyle/job that accommodates that very well. Not everyone wants/can offer a dog several hours exercise a day. I dislike seeing dogs in an environment that is under stimulating to them, it causes huge behavioral issues. So people should imo breed dogs with good health and temp for pet homes.
Re rescues, I think with careful selection a rescue dog can be more suitable than a puppy. Puppies are a hassle to look after plus if you pick wrong you can end up with a challenging adult.With an adult rescue you can see what your getting.
Adam
I have a toy fox terrier! She’s the love of our lives :-) Loves finding little rodents. lol
I just found out today that the UK KC is “having discussions about” opening the registry to crossbreds. I think they may well do it. As theirs is the only registry for almost all breeds in the UK, the breed clubs will just have to bite the bullet.
And a good thing too.
Elizabeth
It’s really the only sensible thing to do. My nephew just visited with his 7 month old 3/4 Irish wolfhound, 1/4 Alaskan malamute, ‘Alaskan wolfhound’ puppy for a play-visit with the rest of the pack here. As my puppy and my nephew’s ran about playing, I couldn’t help but think that they were better looking “Irish wolfhounds” than many pure wolfhounds, and anyone interested in an Irish wolfhound for the love of that type of dog would be just as pleased with the looks, and more pleased with the health of one of these animals as they would be with a pure Irish wolfhound. That is, unless they were hung up on the AKC purebred prestige and felt it more important than the dog itself.
The majority of ‘pet people’ don’t care about AKC prestige; they want ‘papers’ and ‘show breeding’ because that’s what all those ‘How to Find a Reputable Breeder’ checklists tell them it’s important (along with ‘health testing’).
Most people who want a type of dog just want a healthy, well adjusted animal that looks and acts the way that breed is supposed to. If there was a mix 3+ generations back, they wouldn’t care less. I know that I wouldn’t, at least.
The first question a lot of people ask me when they contact me about my ‘Alaskan wolfhound’ pups is, “Do they have papers?” That’s basically all the majority of the American public really knows about dogs; if its a good dog it has to have papers. As far as wanting a certain type, I see so many families with dogs that don’t fit their lifestyle that I have to wonder if most people even put much thought into getting a dog. They just grab the first puppy that is “cute”. Unfortunately, all puppies are cute.