Colour Not To Standard?

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Koolie club of Australia doesn't even have a standard and refuses to write one, yet they are on the ANKC sporting register. Can't mistake a Koolie when you meet one though. So you dont even need a standard to have a breed

I'm interested in what Florence Amherst, Vera Watkins and Brigadier General Frederick Lance thought - they saw a world that is now lost to us. What's your breed and what are your reasons for rejecting the views of the people who wrote your standard?

[Salukifan]

Of course, no one is forcing anyone to breed to a standard, to not outcross or not to breed dogs that are their intellectually individual "version" of their "breed".

You just can't register them with an organisation that has a Register based on recognised pedigrees and agreed breed standards.

Having one's cake and eating it springs to mind. The idea of pedigreed dogs as genetically less diverse (and therefore more predictable in their characteristics) does not sit easily with the idea of genetic diversity being the be all and end all of dog breeding.

It's either purebred or it ain't from where I sit. Outcrossing involves culling what you don't want from the results you get... limiting genetic diversity, then line breeding to set it, limiting genetic diversity.

If absolute genetic diversity is your aim, then unpredictability of outcomes is your game. No thanks.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[OSoSwift]

Well put.................a lot of twaddle in this thread, wish people would do their history, early dog people didn't need genetics to know what to breed, performance decided it..................and culling which is a dirty word nowadays

Yep and look at how much breeds have changed over the years.

Back onto whippets for me. They were supposed to be small enough to hide under a poachers coat, and silent when they hunted so as not to draw attention to themselves or their owners. I wonder how many whippets could be hidden under a coat now.

MIne could

[Steve]

Purebred dogs have been selectively bred by humans and if, by out crossing, you mean to another breed rather than to an unrelated line then it might be a good idea to reconsider a wider view of population genetics and genetic diversity and how they differ with artificial rather than natural selection.

We are not talking about cheetahs or animals which have been isolated to a small geopgraphical area where they are reliant on the variables in their environment and havent had the benefit of artificial selection though there are thousands of examples of animals which have developed and evolved without human interference and without fresh blood which thrive and the off spring are more fertile and more healthy than their ancestors.

I breed purebred dogs, purebred dogs which have been bred to a standard which makes them predictable. It means I can produce puppies generation after generation knowing that I can place them with people who understand the breed and which suits their lifestyle. When the dog and the humans are compatible and their lifestyle fits there is less risk the dog or the humans will be unhappy and wont live happily ever after. I have developed my own lines and in my dogs in some cases you would be hard pressed to find a dog in the last 30 generations which had a shared ancestor with any other registered dog of their breed.If and when I outcross its to another registered dog of their breed which isn't related to my lines. When I do this I have to be worried about what may turn up that Ive never seen before in my dogs. My tightly in bred girls which are not related to my tightly in bred boys which dont share a common ancestor in 10 generations with my girls still produce 10 to 14 puppies per litter and I don't remember the last time that I mated a dog which didn't fall pregnant, didn't have beautiful healthy puppies with large litters and couldn't do the work they are bred to do. Some even become champions - it makes my heart sing when one of my dogs is a great worker and can work all week and come out into the show ring and take that off too. None of that is about competition - its about what I believe is best for the breed and the difference between someone who breeds dogs and who is a breeder is that they have an absolute desire to do what is right for the dogs and the breed into the future.

Its also not about competition as most champions of anything - conformation, agility , work, obedience etc used to be produced by in breeding and then out crossing to lines which were unrelated which were also in bred .Now we talk about COI and have been educated by people who have never bred a dog ,CC regs have been changed to placate animal rights and the limited register has had unintended consequences. Purebred breeders now have to make choices based on how closely related dogs are and what colour they are regardless of what is available and what each dog would bring to the table rather than what they believe is the best choice.If anyone wants to argue that this is what the founders intended I dont believe any one developing a breed could have anticipated that when they said a colour was disqualified that that meant it couldnt be used for breeding or that they would be restricted in choices based on how closely related dogs were.

If allowing colours which are not recognised does not,long term, adversely affect the best for the breed if it is used for breeding then it makes no sense to limit that - but again I say it is the ANKC which has limited that via the restrictions on the limited register not the founders or the parent clubs - all they limit is the dog with an un recognised colour being shown in a conformation ring . Colour disqualifications were intended to be disqualification for the show ring and the dog's ability to become a champ, not disqualification for breeding - this is something which is unique to the ANKC and is not the same in other countries.

[DeltaCharlie]

I think the point some people are missing is that a dog can meet the standard without looking like a show dog.

Our dogs are MR but if we were to walk into the show ring with them we would probably be laughed at. That doesn't mean they don't meet the standard for BCs, it just means they don't have the current "desirable look". The standard was written to reflect the build of a dog who could perform the required job efficiently and without breaking down. The show ring has its "types" and a certain look that wins, but that is not to be confused with the standard. It is possible to breed within the standard without breeding for the show ring.

[Salukifan]

I think the point some people are missing is that a dog can meet the standard without looking like a show dog.

Our dogs are MR but if we were to walk into the show ring with them we would probably be laughed at. That doesn't mean they don't meet the standard for BCs, it just means they don't have the current "desirable look". The standard was written to reflect the build of a dog who could perform the required job efficiently and without breaking down. The show ring has its "types" and a certain look that wins, but that is not to be confused with the standard. It is possible to breed within the standard without breeding for the show ring.

Good point. The standard is the standard - styles within it may vary and change but "breed type" doesn't.

[miss whippy]

I think the point some people are missing is that a dog can meet the standard without looking like a show dog.

Our dogs are MR but if we were to walk into the show ring with them we would probably be laughed at. That doesn't mean they don't meet the standard for BCs, it just means they don't have the current "desirable look". The standard was written to reflect the build of a dog who could perform the required job efficiently and without breaking down. The show ring has its "types" and a certain look that wins, but that is not to be confused with the standard. It is possible to breed within the standard without breeding for the show ring.

absolutely.

hence there are some dogs that fit the standard, yet are likely unable to do the job they were meant to.

hence the standard is not enough to 'preserve' the working side of a dog breed without the test of work.

[Salukifan]

I think the point some people are missing is that a dog can meet the standard without looking like a show dog.

Our dogs are MR but if we were to walk into the show ring with them we would probably be laughed at. That doesn't mean they don't meet the standard for BCs, it just means they don't have the current "desirable look". The standard was written to reflect the build of a dog who could perform the required job efficiently and without breaking down. The show ring has its "types" and a certain look that wins, but that is not to be confused with the standard. It is possible to breed within the standard without breeding for the show ring.

absolutely.

hence there are some dogs that fit the standard, yet are likely unable to do the job they were meant to.

hence the standard is not enough to 'preserve' the working side of a dog breed without the test of work.

It's illegal to course live game in every state of Australia. What "test" shall sighthounds be put to?

[DeltaCharlie]

I think the point some people are missing is that a dog can meet the standard without looking like a show dog.

Our dogs are MR but if we were to walk into the show ring with them we would probably be laughed at. That doesn't mean they don't meet the standard for BCs, it just means they don't have the current "desirable look". The standard was written to reflect the build of a dog who could perform the required job efficiently and without breaking down. The show ring has its "types" and a certain look that wins, but that is not to be confused with the standard. It is possible to breed within the standard without breeding for the show ring.

absolutely.

hence there are some dogs that fit the standard, yet are likely unable to do the job they were meant to.

hence the standard is not enough to 'preserve' the working side of a dog breed without the test of work.

I agree, and it is why we will never buy a dog that is not from proven working lines, nor will we breed from a dog that cannot work. Simply meeting the standard is not enough. But that doesn't mean a working dog bred for its ability to work shouldn't also have good conformation. The standard should act as the base, then you build all the desirable traits, instincts and working abilities on top of it.

We are lucky enough to own a breed that is still able to perform its original function I guess. I can't imagine the difficulty breeders would encounter with a breed designed to bring down a lion :p

[mita]

I think the point some people are missing is that a dog can meet the standard without looking like a show dog.

...

The show ring has its "types" and a certain look that wins, but that is not to be confused with the standard. It is possible to breed within the standard without breeding for the show ring.

interesting point, DC. Would that also cover 'fashions' or 'trends' that are favoured ... but nothing to do with the standard? Even in my breed of interest where all colours & mixes are accepted in the standard, I was once told that 'chocolate' colour fell out of being 'favoured'. I'm no expert so don't know the detail (nor if it's in the past). But the remark made me wonder about the issue generally.

[Salukifan]

We are lucky enough to own a breed that is still able to perform its original function I guess. I can't imagine the difficulty breeders would encounter with a breed designed to bring down a lion :p

Course and hold at bay only thank God, not bring down... I don't think too many dogs would survive a lion hunt if they had to actually tackle such a beast.

Quicky google though says they would kill baboons - those are formidable in their own right. Big teefs.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[miss whippy]

Purebred dogs have been selectively bred by humans and if, by out crossing, you mean to another breed rather than to an unrelated line then it might be a good idea to reconsider a wider view of population genetics and genetic diversity and how they differ with artificial rather than natural selection.

We are not talking about cheetahs or animals which have been isolated to a small geopgraphical area where they are reliant on the variables in their environment and havent had the benefit of artificial selection though there are thousands of examples of animals which have developed and evolved without human interference and without fresh blood which thrive and the off spring are more fertile and more healthy than their ancestors.

I breed purebred dogs, purebred dogs which have been bred to a standard which makes them predictable. It means I can produce puppies generation after generation knowing that I can place them with people who understand the breed and which suits their lifestyle. When the dog and the humans are compatible and their lifestyle fits there is less risk the dog or the humans will be unhappy and wont live happily ever after. I have developed my own lines and in my dogs in some cases you would be hard pressed to find a dog in the last 30 generations which had a shared ancestor with any other registered dog of their breed.If and when I outcross its to another registered dog of their breed which isn't related to my lines. When I do this I have to be worried about what may turn up that Ive never seen before in my dogs. My tightly in bred girls which are not related to my tightly in bred boys which dont share a common ancestor in 10 generations with my girls still produce 10 to 14 puppies per litter and I don't remember the last time that I mated a dog which didn't fall pregnant, didn't have beautiful healthy puppies with large litters and couldn't do the work they are bred to do. Some even become champions - it makes my heart sing when one of my dogs is a great worker and can work all week and come out into the show ring and take that off too. None of that is about competition - its about what I believe is best for the breed and the difference between someone who breeds dogs and who is a breeder is that they have an absolute desire to do what is right for the dogs and the breed into the future.

Its also not about competition as most champions of anything - conformation, agility , work, obedience etc used to be produced by in breeding and then out crossing to lines which were unrelated which were also in bred .Now we talk about COI and have been educated by people who have never bred a dog ,CC regs have been changed to placate animal rights and the limited register has had unintended consequences. Purebred breeders now have to make choices based on how closely related dogs are and what colour they are regardless of what is available and what each dog would bring to the table rather than what they believe is the best choice.If anyone wants to argue that this is what the founders intended I dont believe any one developing a breed could have anticipated that when they said a colour was disqualified that that meant it couldnt be used for breeding or that they would be restricted in choices based on how closely related dogs were.

If allowing colours which are not recognised does not,long term, adversely affect the best for the breed if it is used for breeding then it makes no sense to limit that - but again I say it is the ANKC which has limited that via the restrictions on the limited register not the founders or the parent clubs - all they limit is the dog with an un recognised colour being shown in a conformation ring . Colour disqualifications were intended to be disqualification for the show ring and the dog's ability to become a champ, not disqualification for breeding - this is something which is unique to the ANKC and is not the same in other countries.

I am quite aware of how different purebred dog breeding is from the ideal of natural selection and randomised breeding. It is a very different animal.

If you think that closing a genepool and consistently artificially select for various traits with no new blood for generation after generation and using only a small percentage of the population to further their genes each time is a better way than mother nature figured out, maybe you need to have another look at population genetics.

I understand what you do works, and it has for many breeders for lots of years, and if breeders these days were as committed to their own 'lines' as you are it's possible that these sub-populations would hold enough diversity from one to another to be able to 'outcross' to when problems arise and you need a bit more vigour in your line. But with the age of frozen semen, hobby breeders and the internet, 'lines' are not what they used to be. Popular sires have spread their genes far and wide and some breeds have gone through such severe bottlenecks that the entire population is as related as half siblings.

Purebreeding as we know it in dogs is a closed system. You cannot get back what you have lost, and there is no way of predicting which vital bits that you cant see when you select for or against certain traits are dragged along behind the scenes and just start going missing, or popping up 'unexpectedly' The closer the genepool is when you need to go 'fix' some problem, the less likelihood you have of still having enough diversity there to be able to avoid it..

I agree with you on the colour exclusion, and the limited register. You either need to be able to register non-standard colours on the main, for breeding and genetic diversity reasons, or be able to use limited register dogs for breeding. Whatever works. Colour is really the only thing in the standard that prevents you putting on the main register. You dont have to say if your dog has prick ears when they should be rose, or it has cat feet when they should be hare, or it's tail carriage is high when it should be low, or it's over height.. but heaven forbid you breed the wrong colour!

[miss whippy]

I think the point some people are missing is that a dog can meet the standard without looking like a show dog.Our dogs are MR but if we were to walk into the show ring with them we would probably be laughed at. That doesn't mean they don't meet the standard for BCs, it just means they don't have the current "desirable look". The standard was written to reflect the build of a dog who could perform the required job efficiently and without breaking down. The show ring has its "types" and a certain look that wins, but that is not to be confused with the standard. It is possible to breed within the standard without breeding for the show ring.

absolutely.hence there are some dogs that fit the standard, yet are likely unable to do the job they were meant to.hence the standard is not enough to 'preserve' the working side of a dog breed without the test of work.

It's illegal to course live game in every state of Australia. What "test" shall sighthounds be put to?

I'm not suggesting that there is necessarily a test for every breed that is still available or practical. The nearest thing for sighthounds sport-wise is Lure coursing. And i'm prett sure you're still allowed to hunt rabbits with them.

But my point is that the standard is only a loose container. It doesnt describe in intricate detail with measurable, quantifiable parameters the nature and construction of the breed. It is still open to quite some interpretation and does not 'preserve' the essence of the breed in it's entirety.

I think the point some people are missing is that a dog can meet the standard without looking like a show dog....The show ring has its "types" and a certain look that wins, but that is not to be confused with the standard. It is possible to breed within the standard without breeding for the show ring.

interesting point, DC. Would that also cover 'fashions' or 'trends' that are favoured ... but nothing to do with the standard? Even in my breed of interest where all colours & mixes are accepted in the standard, I was once told that 'chocolate' colour fell out of being 'favoured'. I'm no expert so don't know the detail (nor if it's in the past). But the remark made me wonder about the issue generally.

Yes, trends, fashions, different styles between kennels and lines. They all fit within the standard.. But are they all correct? And are they all bettering the breed? What is being lost along the way in preferring certain colours or styles?

[YOLO]

I suppose there are legitimate arguments for out-crossing, but I'll leave those for the breeds where its an issue and for those that know and understand the reasons.

I certainly don't support it for cosmetic reasons. So in the case of say "Silver Labs" I fully support their exclusion. But that is deliberately adding "genes" that were not already part of the breed, and where that is blatantly obvious.

Merles are possibly a different issue again. My (limited) understanding is that Merle is not a colour, and whilst "attractive" is actually a genetic defect. It affects not only skin & hair pigmentation, but eyes, and also particular cells in the inner ear

Whenever you ask, EVERY breeder says "Oh I breed for health and temperament," and that is clearly a crock. I'm not going to guess at percentages, but there is clearly a significant portion who breed for the ring and vice-versa. Plus those who breed for aesthetics.

And for all those who defend the standards as being carved in stone, the problem is that in reality dogs are judged not only to basic standard, but often more so to some narrow interpretation that is currently in vogue with judges and breeders.

[Salukifan]

Purebreeding as we know it in dogs is a closed system. You cannot get back what you have lost, and there is no way of predicting which vital bits that you cant see when you select for or against certain traits are dragged along behind the scenes and just start going missing, or popping up 'unexpectedly' The closer the genepool is when you need to go 'fix' some problem, the less likelihood you have of still having enough diversity there to be able to avoid it..

Of course it is. That's the entire point of any purebred system regardless of species. If you want "unexpected traits" random breeding is the epitomy of that.

Arent' you selecting for certain traits, and have no way of predicting which vital bits you can't see will fall by the wayside when you crossbreed? Won't you be backcrossing and limiting genetic diversity when you've done it?

Bite strength, bite inhibition. degree of reactivity, guarding levels, prey drive, pack drive, human aggression, dog aggression, other temperment features. The whole point of a restricting a gene pool is increase the incidence of desireable traits in offspring and decrease the incidence of undesireable ones. Its not just about looks.

So we outcross - and open up a whole new range of possible outcomes. Without a shadow of a doubt some of the most potentially dangerous dogs I have seen were Mareema/Golden Retriever crosses. A random mix of bite strength, bite inhibition, protectiveness and territorial aggression. But if genetic diversity was the desired outcome, they got that in spades.

Seriously, have you thought this stuff through or are you repeating a line of thought you've read somewhere.

Popular sire syndrome and tight inbreeding are problems created by breeders, not breeds. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps you need to meet more breeders because clearly the ones you're basing this stuff on don't seem to be up to snuff.

As I said, people are free to outcross to their hearts content to fix what they perceive to be problems with pedigree dogs. However, don't expect the very system being rejected by such breeding to welcome the product of that breeding with open arms.

Just out of interest, what will your next pup be a cross of?

Edited May 28, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[miss whippy]

Purebreeding as we know it in dogs is a closed system. You cannot get back what you have lost, and there is no way of predicting which vital bits that you cant see when you select for or against certain traits are dragged along behind the scenes and just start going missing, or popping up 'unexpectedly' The closer the genepool is when you need to go 'fix' some problem, the less likelihood you have of still having enough diversity there to be able to avoid it..

Of course it is. That's the entire point of any purebred system regardless of species.

Arent' you selecting for certain traits, and have no way of predicting which vital bits you can't see will fall by the wayside when you crossbreed? Won't you be backcrossing and limiting genetic diversity when you've done it?

Bite strength, bite inhibition. degree of reactivity, guarding levels, prey drive, pack drive, human aggression, dog aggression, other temperment features. The whole point of a restricting a gene pool is increase the incidence of desireable traits in offspring and decrease the incidence of undesireable ones. Its not just about looks.

So we outcross - and open up a whole new range of possible outcomes. Without a shadow of a doubt some of the most potentially dangerous dogs I have seen were Mareema/Golden Retriever crosses. A random mix of bite strength, bite inhibition, protectiveness and territorial aggression. But if genetic diversity was the desired outcome, they got that in spades.

Seriously, have you thought this stuff through or are you repeating a line of thought you've read somewhere.

Popular sire syndrome and tight inbreeding are problems created by breeders, not breeds. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps you need to meet more breeders because clearly the ones you're basing this stuff on don't seem to be up to snuff.

As I said, people are free to outcross to their hearts content to fix what they perceive to be problems with pedigree dogs. However, don't expect the very system being rejected by such breeding to welcome the product of that breeding with open arms.

Just out of interest, what will your next pup be a cross of?

Im not suggesting cross-breeding. I am suggesting outcrossing.. However, that is semantics.

Selective breeding is always going to reduce the diversity within the genepool, yes so of course once you go back to that after doing an outcross, you are going to lose some of the genes. Some of it is predictable, some isnt. That is the nature of genetics when you are not genetically engineering from scratch. What you are doing is replacing some of the diversity lost through closed genepool selective breeding.

The premise of pure breeding is as you say, 'increase the incidence of desireable traits in offspring and decrease the incidence of undesireable ones'

If only it were that simple. You cannot predict what your are selecting for or against that you cant see or test for.

You are always going to be inadvertently fixing or increasing some genes that lurk in the background. You cant avoid it within that model of breeding.

I also dont suggest you use a completely incompatible breed for your outcrossing either, so yes a maremma/golden cross is just a dumb idea..

I have definitely thought this stuff through, and so have the geneticists and biologists that test and research it.

Breeds are nothing if not for the breeders. The decisions made by breeders shape the breed and it's future. The breeders I am basing this stuff on, most of them just don't understand the genetics of what they do.

What many 'dog people' fail to realise is that it is not an untested new concept.

Breeders of cattle and most livestock, horses, even cats use the principle. It works.

And it is already being used in dogs in threatened breeds, to redress the loss of alleles that have been lost in some breeds and some countries where they have forward-thinking kennel clubs.

It is not a 'rejection' of the system. It is simply realising that the system was flawed and suggesting a remedy. It's a tweak, an adjustment. It does not threaten the very life and heart of pedigreed dog breeding.

Edited May 28, 2015 by miss whippy

[DeltaCharlie]

I think the point some people are missing is that a dog can meet the standard without looking like a show dog.

...

The show ring has its "types" and a certain look that wins, but that is not to be confused with the standard. It is possible to breed within the standard without breeding for the show ring.

interesting point, DC. Would that also cover 'fashions' or 'trends' that are favoured ... but nothing to do with the standard? Even in my breed of interest where all colours & mixes are accepted in the standard, I was once told that 'chocolate' colour fell out of being 'favoured'. I'm no expert so don't know the detail (nor if it's in the past). But the remark made me wonder about the issue generally.

I can only speak for my own breed but an example of what I mean would be the coat length in a BC. The "typical look" for a BC is quite heavy coated but the standard only specifies that they are rough-coat. Ours are not smooth coats, they are genetically rough-coats but do not even come close to the coat of a show dog. In a working sense however, you would run a mile from the show coat as it is too long and heavy to be practical. It would collect burrs and grass seeds and would weigh down easily in heavy rain. It also requires regular grooming to prevent matts etc. Our dogs are lucky to get a brush once a year and a bath every 5 years.

Both types fit the standard as it was written, but only one would be able to achieve success in the show ring. That is because over time one "look" has evolved for the show ring, for whatever reason. Perhaps it looks flashier? I'm not entirely sure. Or perhaps a heavy coated dog did really well at one point, was bred often and produced more heavy coats. People got used to seeing them do well and the "heavy coat" got paired with that and people started to prefer that look.

Does that make sense?

I believe that BCs also have certain colours that do better than others and I know symmetrical markings are preferred but I really don't know enough about it to comment too much sorry.

[miss whippy]

I think the point some people are missing is that a dog can meet the standard without looking like a show dog.

...

The show ring has its "types" and a certain look that wins, but that is not to be confused with the standard. It is possible to breed within the standard without breeding for the show ring.

interesting point, DC. Would that also cover 'fashions' or 'trends' that are favoured ... but nothing to do with the standard? Even in my breed of interest where all colours & mixes are accepted in the standard, I was once told that 'chocolate' colour fell out of being 'favoured'. I'm no expert so don't know the detail (nor if it's in the past). But the remark made me wonder about the issue generally.

I can only speak for my own breed but an example of what I mean would be the coat length in a BC. The "typical look" for a BC is quite heavy coated but the standard only specifies that they are rough-coat. Ours are not smooth coats, they are genetically rough-coats but do not even come close to the coat of a show dog. In a working sense however, you would run a mile from the show coat as it is too long and heavy to be practical. It would collect burrs and grass seeds and would weigh down easily in heavy rain. It also requires regular grooming to prevent matts etc. Our dogs are lucky to get a brush once a year and a bath every 5 years.

Both types fit the standard as it was written, but only one would be able to achieve success in the show ring. That is because over time one "look" has evolved for the show ring, for whatever reason. Perhaps it looks flashier? I'm not entirely sure. Or perhaps a heavy coated dog did really well at one point, was bred often and produced more heavy coats. People got used to seeing them do well and the "heavy coat" got paired with that and people started to prefer that look.

Does that make sense?

I believe that BCs also have certain colours that do better than others and I know symmetrical markings are preferred but I really don't know enough about it to comment too much sorry.

you make sense, but the situation doesn't really. :)

[raineth]

I don't think a well thought out out-cross is any more risky than a Standard purebred breeding. I think judicious use of outcrossing could be beneficial.

It is easy to think of individual cases that support any argument.

For instance, by far the most unhealthy dog, with the least desirable temperament was my pedigree dog. My crossbred dog and my byb 'purebred' are both nicer in temperament and had/have better health. But I don't think it's really appropriate to extrapolate from this that all crosses and byb dogs are superior to pedigree dogs.

[miss whippy]

I don't think a well thought out out-cross is any more risky than a Standard purebred breeding. I think judicious use of outcrossing could be beneficial.

It is easy to think of individual cases that support any argument.

For instance, by far the most unhealthy dog, with the least desirable temperament was my pedigree dog. My crossbred dog and my byb 'purebred' are both nicer in temperament and had/have better health. But I don't think it's really appropriate to extrapolate from this that all crosses and byb dogs are superior to pedigree dogs.

very sensible comments :)