Cross Breeds- Breeding?

[Steve]

I don't think it is that easy to create a new dog breed- in the days when there were less breeds or regulations on breeding and people were breeding for a purpose other than the show ring, people could also cull (and by cull I mean kill, not desex and pet home) excess puppies or ones that didn't make the grade. But someone trying to do that now would be shot down to the ground.

I believe that one day, the Labradoodle will become a recognised & legitimate breed, thanks to a dedicated handful of breeders, but it will have to be given a new name to differentiate it from the Labrador/Poodle crosses.

I hope you did not misunderstand me, GayleK- I meant my question tongue-in-cheek. I don't care if there are 10 or 10 thousand cat breeds. I do find it interesting though that owning a moggy/mongrel cat is acceptable but heaven forbid one owns a mongrel dog.

The criteria for having a new breed accepted and recognised by the ANKC is clearly spelt out on the ANKC web site.

However, if people want to develop a breed and never have it accepted onto the ANKC registry thats their right too.

Many of the other registries are much harder than the CCs have ever been.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Steve

[Gayle.]

I hope you did not misunderstand me, GayleK- I meant my question tongue-in-cheek.

No at all, it's a great topic for discussion and it's also very relevant given the thread title. Being that I own both purebred, pedigree dogs and cats it's something I'm interested in discussing.

At one time, I entertained the idea of showing a cat, but after attending a few cat shows as a spectator, I decided that I couldn't cope with spending Sundays cooped up in a hall that stunk strongly of cat piss by 10am. But I love pedigree cats and love the story of the Australian Mist.

I don't think it is that easy to create a new dog breed- in the days when there were less breeds or regulations on breeding and people were breeding for a purpose other than the show ring, people could also cull (and by cull I mean kill, not desex and pet home) excess puppies or ones that didn't make the grade. But someone trying to do that now would be shot down to the ground.

Do you think this doesn't go on now? It definitely does. But no one talks about it.

Some breeds that have become rare or extinct due to war, famine or whatever reason have been recreated by people with a vision, but having a clear idea in mind of what you want to create and having the commitment, drive and balls to actually do it is hugely different to making Maltipoopenschnoodledoodles. Actually, come to think of it, breeders of doodles do have a fairly clear vision. They want to make money. Lots of it.

[KismetKat]

From what I have read on the net the people trying to actually make a breed of the "labradoodle" call the dogs "Australian Labradoodle" and they definitely distance themselves from the money-maker types.

One thing I find interesting with new cat breeds is that there is no compunction against using moggies (DSH) in the mix to give a wider gene pool and resulting health benefits.

So "hybrid vigour' works for cats???

Well yes, totally the wrong term, but what Joe Punter understands from the term "hybrid vigour" is actually valid in the context you are widening the gene pool on the breed you are trying to produce.

So is there a role for TOTAL mutts in some cross-breeding with pures (and then back to breeding with pure) to help get rid of breed-specific genetic problems????

[Steve]

From what I have read on the net the people trying to actually make a breed of the "labradoodle" call the dogs "Australian Labradoodle" and they definitely distance themselves from the money-maker types.

One thing I find interesting with new cat breeds is that there is no compunction against using moggies (DSH) in the mix to give a wider gene pool and resulting health benefits.

So "hybrid vigour' works for cats???

Well yes, totally the wrong term, but what Joe Punter understands from the term "hybrid vigour" is actually valid in the context you are widening the gene pool on the breed you are trying to produce.

So is there a role for TOTAL mutts in some cross-breeding with pures (and then back to breeding with pure) to help get rid of breed-specific genetic problems????

You still have to be able to present your goals and convince the committee that you have everything covered and while you are developing your lines back to purebred breed you simply put your kittens or puppies out with different papers.

There would only be a role for total mutts if they were cleared for what ever it was you were breeding against. A total mutt could have many more hidden recessives than another purebred which would show up in your future generations.

Years ago I bred ragdoll cats and some said the gene pool was too small and they wanted some new colours so they got approval to introduce other breeds of cats into their expermental breeding programs. Within a few generations things such as cardio myopathy and immunE related issues began to show up where they never existed for 20 or so generations prior to that.

[SpikesPuppy]

I hope you did not misunderstand me, GayleK- I meant my question tongue-in-cheek.

No at all, it's a great topic for discussion and it's also very relevant given the thread title. Being that I own both purebred, pedigree dogs and cats it's something I'm interested in discussing.

At one time, I entertained the idea of showing a cat, but after attending a few cat shows as a spectator, I decided that I couldn't cope with spending Sundays cooped up in a hall that stunk strongly of cat piss by 10am. But I love pedigree cats and love the story of the Australian Mist.

I don't think it is that easy to create a new dog breed- in the days when there were less breeds or regulations on breeding and people were breeding for a purpose other than the show ring, people could also cull (and by cull I mean kill, not desex and pet home) excess puppies or ones that didn't make the grade. But someone trying to do that now would be shot down to the ground.

Do you think this doesn't go on now? It definitely does. But no one talks about it.

Some breeds that have become rare or extinct due to war, famine or whatever reason have been recreated by people with a vision, but having a clear idea in mind of what you want to create and having the commitment, drive and balls to actually do it is hugely different to making Maltipoopenschnoodledoodles. Actually, come to think of it, breeders of doodles do have a fairly clear vision. They want to make money. Lots of it.

Of course it still goes on, but not nearly as often as it could or should IMO. I feel for those who are genuinely attempting to create a new breed because they have to send so many of the 'failures' out into the population and thus reduce homes for that type reducing the number of pups they can breed to create a stead line.

I am no way endorsing oodle breeders but I have seen a handful of seemingly genuine 'breeders' who sell the pups for a very modest sum ($400-500) and they provide lifetime support, clipping lessons or discounted grooming, health guarantees and so on. Not all oodlers are evil or money hungry...

I have been researching bringing a new breed into Australia, but the hoops I would have to jump through and the time and effort I would have to spend to have the breed ANKC recognised, I honestly don't think I'm upto it. And this is an established dog that has been FCI & UK recognised and is currently on the rare breeds AKC register. My point is- maybe some people just want to enjoy their dogs and breeding without all the crap that comes with being part of an organisation. Just because someone doesn't want to be regulated doesn't automatically mean they are irresponsible.

[iltby]

The main reason I don't support or agree with crossbreeding is that it contributes to the already overflowing populations in pounds and rescues all across the world. We don't need anymore dogs in the world, there are enough without homes as it is - both purebreds and mutts. We already have 200+ dog breeds that all serve a purpose, we don't need to add to the list.

Edited January 24, 2010 by iltby

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

but we need a better way for the public to acquire puppies. we also need to be ok with the public wanting cross breeds. there has to be a way for us all to get what we want and the welfare of the dogs are looked after as well.

i buy pure bred, pedigreed dogs, usually expensive ones ;) . that is ok for me because i like to know what i am buying especially when it comes to predicting the dogs temperament and size. some people don't mind the surprise package that cross breeds are, i do.

what bothers me is any type of snobbery around what dogs we own. if a dog is well looked after, trained, exercised, socialized and happy then what this shows is a good dog owner, regardless of the breed of the dog.

if we expect the public to only buy pedigreed dogs then we must make sure the supply meets the demand. for instance, i like Boston Terriers and French Bulldogs and they are difficult to come by and expensive. so if the public could only buy pedigreed dogs then i would expect the demand for the companion type dogs to increase making the procurement of those dogs even more difficult.

how would we overcome those issues? because it then goes into the realm of how many litters a year breeders should have before being named a puppy farmer. it would totally change the way dog breeders operate at the moment.

i am not saying this would be bad but if the public only had access to pedigreed dogs if they wanted a pet it would have wide reaching implications for breeders and would need much honest and forthright discussion. just my opinion.

[hoffpig]

I can't imagine why anyone would breed any animal when there are so many in need out there.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I can't imagine why anyone would breed any animal when there are so many in need out there.

because the right type aren't out there, i dont want a cross breed because i have no idea about its background so i will always want a pure bred dog (i am not so fussed about pedigreed IF their background is sound)

[BJean]

I hope you did not misunderstand me, GayleK- I meant my question tongue-in-cheek.

No at all, it's a great topic for discussion and it's also very relevant given the thread title. Being that I own both purebred, pedigree dogs and cats it's something I'm interested in discussing.

At one time, I entertained the idea of showing a cat, but after attending a few cat shows as a spectator, I decided that I couldn't cope with spending Sundays cooped up in a hall that stunk strongly of cat piss by 10am. But I love pedigree cats and love the story of the Australian Mist.

I don't think it is that easy to create a new dog breed- in the days when there were less breeds or regulations on breeding and people were breeding for a purpose other than the show ring, people could also cull (and by cull I mean kill, not desex and pet home) excess puppies or ones that didn't make the grade. But someone trying to do that now would be shot down to the ground.

Do you think this doesn't go on now? It definitely does. But no one talks about it.

Some breeds that have become rare or extinct due to war, famine or whatever reason have been recreated by people with a vision, but having a clear idea in mind of what you want to create and having the commitment, drive and balls to actually do it is hugely different to making Maltipoopenschnoodledoodles. Actually, come to think of it, breeders of doodles do have a fairly clear vision. They want to make money. Lots of it.

Of course it still goes on, but not nearly as often as it could or should IMO. I feel for those who are genuinely attempting to create a new breed because they have to send so many of the 'failures' out into the population and thus reduce homes for that type reducing the number of pups they can breed to create a stead line.

I am no way endorsing oodle breeders but I have seen a handful of seemingly genuine 'breeders' who sell the pups for a very modest sum ($400-500) and they provide lifetime support, clipping lessons or discounted grooming, health guarantees and so on. Not all oodlers are evil or money hungry...

I have been researching bringing a new breed into Australia, but the hoops I would have to jump through and the time and effort I would have to spend to have the breed ANKC recognised, I honestly don't think I'm upto it. And this is an established dog that has been FCI & UK recognised and is currently on the rare breeds AKC register. My point is- maybe some people just want to enjoy their dogs and breeding without all the crap that comes with being part of an organisation. Just because someone doesn't want to be regulated doesn't automatically mean they are irresponsible.

That;s true. I know someone who has imported two Sivas Kangals (different to the Australian ANKC Kangal)

they cannot get ANKC registration but this person will breed their dogs very 'responsibly'.

Registration isn't the one and only yardstick.

[Shmurps]

I talk to Joe public everyday about this. I have found that there is only handful who seek purebred pedigree dogs for whatever their reason.

A larger handful who prefer to adopt from a shelter and the rest go on looks. Temp and health doesn't enter their criteria.

[Odin-Genie]

Where did pure dogs come from - cross breeding at the very start for most of them..

Selective breeding is how most of them came about, NOT cross breeding. This is a misconception most people have. Purebreds did not start out being different breeds that were crossed with each other to make different purebreds. They started out as purebreds who were selectively bred to set desirable traits which were then carried on down the generations.

Here is the origin of one of today's purebreds (From the GR Club of America website):

Golden Retriever: Dudley Marjoribanks, (later known as Lord Tweedmouth) mated a yellow Wavy-Coated retriever with a Tweed Water Spaniel (a breed now extinct) between 1868-1871. This resulted in several yellow pups that became the foundation for a distinctive line of yellow retrievers. Descendants of this mating were combined with wavy and flat-coated retrievers, another Tweed Water Spaniel, and a red setter. The breed was officially recognized by The Kennel Club in 1911 as "Retriever- Yellow or Golden" and finally, "Retriever- Golden" in 1920.

To me, this definitely sounds like cross breeding, not just selective breeding within a breed.

[BJean]

Where did pure dogs come from - cross breeding at the very start for most of them..

Selective breeding is how most of them came about, NOT cross breeding. This is a misconception most people have. Purebreds did not start out being different breeds that were crossed with each other to make different purebreds. They started out as purebreds who were selectively bred to set desirable traits which were then carried on down the generations.

Here is the origin of one of today's purebreds (From the GR Club of America website):

Golden Retriever: Dudley Marjoribanks, (later known as Lord Tweedmouth) mated a yellow Wavy-Coated retriever with a Tweed Water Spaniel (a breed now extinct) between 1868-1871. This resulted in several yellow pups that became the foundation for a distinctive line of yellow retrievers. Descendants of this mating were combined with wavy and flat-coated retrievers, another Tweed Water Spaniel, and a red setter. The breed was officially recognized by The Kennel Club in 1911 as "Retriever- Yellow or Golden" and finally, "Retriever- Golden" in 1920.

To me, this definitely sounds like cross breeding, not just selective breeding within a breed.

why?

[Quickasyoucan]

Very interesting question.

I am an allergy-sufferer and have an 'oodle' at home (from the pound 10 years ago). Also have a bichon.

This list from an earlier post was interesting I thought:

I also think if the following breeds were available and promoted, people would choose them as an alternative to oddles.

Poodles with a bad ass haircut

Bichon

Havanese

Chinese Crested (Powderpuff)

Spinone

Lagotto

Portugese Water Dog

Irish Water Spaniel

(and probably another 6 breeds I've forgotten )

I would add a few to the list. Schnauzers, Tibetan Terriers, Bedlington Terriers, Kerry Blues etc. Probably take spinone off the list (for my allergies - don't know about others).

So yes I think these dogs would appeal to oodle buyers - but the problem is they are hard to come by. My preferences would be poodles (smart, easy to train, comparatively easier to come by but still there are often waiting lists etc.), lagotto (very hard to come by), bichon (also hard to come by) etc etc.

So it's not that there is a problem with the breeds and the variation and choice I don't think. It's just that the oodles are available quickly when people want them.

Raises the next problem - if these purebreeds were ready when people wanted them (pretty much any time) then isn't that just more puppy farming? And encouraging irresponsible breeding of purebred dogs with lack of attention to health matters?

For me that would just take us straight back down that same old road.

I think Zug Zug raises an important point. One of the things the Bateson Report pointed out which I think is true is that the current consumer market actually fuels irresponsible breeding.

The quote was something like the sad fact that the buyers turned away by ethical breeders will find their puppy from the unethical. Sorry I am paraphrasing as I don't have the report to hand.

For me this is about public attitudes to owning dogs, it is less about what people are prepared to pay (that much is obvious from the amount people will part with for DD's), it is about the fact people believe they have the right to buy what they want when they want (ie instantly) without being questioned about their own lifestyle and whether they are suitable to be given the right to own a dog. And of course that is why so many dogs end up in pounds.

I think this DD thing is part marketing but more so they are instantly available, no questions asked.

I don't think for a second ethical breeders should change their high standards, I also don't think cross-breeding to a higher ethical standard would stop the dog welfare issue, if cross-breeders became more responsible, a lot of the I want it now owners would just stop buying from them too.

Until there is a massive shift in the public awareness in the responsibility of owning a dog, I don't seen anything changing any time soon.

[JulesP]

I am a 'want it now' type of person. I don't like waiting for things. Don't think that makes me an irresponsible owner Waiting for this current pup has driven me nuts! Sometimes people do have reasons for needing the pet ASAP too. I wanted a pup in a big hurry once because my old dog had passed and my other dog looked like she was willing herself to die.

I also decided I wanted a kitten in June. I didn't realize that this was 'off' season for purebred cats. I almost almost considered a pet shop cat but the values held.

In both cases it took a lot of effort to get my pet. A lot of effort! I can see why a non-crazy-animal-person would just go and get one from a petshop faced with this. Dealing with the cat breeders also reminded me of what it was to be a newbie dog owner, some of them were not very nice! Why go through that crap if you are not passionate about animals & puppy farms?

[Steve]

Where did pure dogs come from - cross breeding at the very start for most of them..

Selective breeding is how most of them came about, NOT cross breeding. This is a misconception most people have. Purebreds did not start out being different breeds that were crossed with each other to make different purebreds. They started out as purebreds who were selectively bred to set desirable traits which were then carried on down the generations.

Here is the origin of one of today's purebreds (From the GR Club of America website):

Golden Retriever: Dudley Marjoribanks, (later known as Lord Tweedmouth) mated a yellow Wavy-Coated retriever with a Tweed Water Spaniel (a breed now extinct) between 1868-1871. This resulted in several yellow pups that became the foundation for a distinctive line of yellow retrievers. Descendants of this mating were combined with wavy and flat-coated retrievers, another Tweed Water Spaniel, and a red setter. The breed was officially recognized by The Kennel Club in 1911 as "Retriever- Yellow or Golden" and finally, "Retriever- Golden" in 1920.

To me, this definitely sounds like cross breeding, not just selective breeding within a breed.

Of course that started with cross breeding but thats not where it ended. They used those pups as a foundation and selected only those which fitted what they were aiming over generations of puppies until they got something that bred consistently the same look, characteristics and temperament.

[Odin-Genie]

Where did pure dogs come from - cross breeding at the very start for most of them..

Selective breeding is how most of them came about, NOT cross breeding. This is a misconception most people have. Purebreds did not start out being different breeds that were crossed with each other to make different purebreds. They started out as purebreds who were selectively bred to set desirable traits which were then carried on down the generations.

Here is the origin of one of today's purebreds (From the GR Club of America website):

Golden Retriever: Dudley Marjoribanks, (later known as Lord Tweedmouth) mated a yellow Wavy-Coated retriever with a Tweed Water Spaniel (a breed now extinct) between 1868-1871. This resulted in several yellow pups that became the foundation for a distinctive line of yellow retrievers. Descendants of this mating were combined with wavy and flat-coated retrievers, another Tweed Water Spaniel, and a red setter. The breed was officially recognized by The Kennel Club in 1911 as "Retriever- Yellow or Golden" and finally, "Retriever- Golden" in 1920.

To me, this definitely sounds like cross breeding, not just selective breeding within a breed.

why?

Because a Red Setter, a Wavy-coated Retriever and a Tweed Water Spaniel are different breeds. The definition of selective breeding within a breed would be to select traits within a breed that are desirable and breeding those. Where three different breeds are used, that should fall under cross breeding.

[Muttaburra]

Here is the origin of one of today's purebreds (From the GR Club of America website):

Golden Retriever: Dudley Marjoribanks, (later known as Lord Tweedmouth) mated a yellow Wavy-Coated retriever with a Tweed Water Spaniel (a breed now extinct) between 1868-1871. This resulted in several yellow pups that became the foundation for a distinctive line of yellow retrievers. Descendants of this mating were combined with wavy and flat-coated retrievers, another Tweed Water Spaniel, and a red setter. The breed was officially recognized by The Kennel Club in 1911 as "Retriever- Yellow or Golden" and finally, "Retriever- Golden" in 1920.

To me, this definitely sounds like cross breeding, not just selective breeding within a breed.

Not as simple though as producing and F1 cross as the final outcome, that will not produce puppies that are true to type.

The majority of cross-bred dog breeders aim only to produce F1 crosses, so any cross-breed argument in the development of a "breed" is a moot point.

The end result of the breed development of the Golden Retriever was a dog that bred true to type, known as a purebred. There was also a rationale behind the development of the breed, something like a retriever that also was a good swimmer.

There is no sane rationale for the current breeding of cross-breeds, the only driving force being money.

[megan_]

Here is the origin of one of today's purebreds (From the GR Club of America website):

Golden Retriever: Dudley Marjoribanks, (later known as Lord Tweedmouth) mated a yellow Wavy-Coated retriever with a Tweed Water Spaniel (a breed now extinct) between 1868-1871. This resulted in several yellow pups that became the foundation for a distinctive line of yellow retrievers. Descendants of this mating were combined with wavy and flat-coated retrievers, another Tweed Water Spaniel, and a red setter. The breed was officially recognized by The Kennel Club in 1911 as "Retriever- Yellow or Golden" and finally, "Retriever- Golden" in 1920.

To me, this definitely sounds like cross breeding, not just selective breeding within a breed.

Not as simple though as producing and F1 cross as the final outcome, that will not produce puppies that are true to type.

The majority of cross-bred dog breeders aim only to produce F1 crosses, so any cross-breed argument in the development of a "breed" is a moot point.

The end result of the breed development of the Golden Retriever was a dog that bred true to type, known as a purebred. There was also a rationale behind the development of the breed, something like a retriever that also was a good swimmer.

There is no sane rationale for the current breeding of cross-breeds, the only driving force being money.

but the OP asked the question if cross-breeders did all the "right" things (trying to breed true to type, health testing etc) would everyone still be against it?

That is the question being asked, not "how do we all feel about those puppy farmers churning out dd's for profit?".

[Alyosha]

For me this is about public attitudes to owning dogs, it is less about what people are prepared to pay (that much is obvious from the amount people will part with for DD's), it is about the fact people believe they have the right to buy what they want when they want (ie instantly) without being questioned about their own lifestyle and whether they are suitable to be given the right to own a dog. And of course that is why so many dogs end up in pounds.

I have to agree with this. I wouldn't adopt from many rescues (apart from having purebreds of course!) because I think they're too invasive. I've seen adoption forms that even ask your monthly income! I can see where rescues are coming from with their adopter interrogations but it's certainly not for me. I like to be treated as a responsible adult and I certainly hope I give that impression. The breeders of my dogs were very respectful of that whilst still having utmost concern for the pups they were selling me.

There has to be a middle ground, because too many people don't want huge waiting lists, and invasive personal scrutiny. They will take an easier option if they can find it.