The Desginer Breed Issue

    • Gold Top Dog
    My sister is blind and has a leader dog that is a golden retriever.  This is her second one and she receives her dogs from a school in California.  They have started to use mixed breeds like labrador/poodle to help people who have allergies and to try to avoid some of the medical problems associated with pedigrees.
    • Gold Top Dog
    I think Designer Breeders are very wrong, for a few simple reasons. Like BYB's and Puppy Mills, they are breeding just for the $$, second now is not the time to want to create a new breed. Years ago, people created certain breeds because a good guard dog, Retriever, Cattle dog etc. was needed.

    Now why are the 'doodles' being created? For a so called hypo allergenic dog. There are tons of breeds suitable for people with allergies, and to be honest with thousands of dog dying in shelters daily, its not fair to pump out puppies who only have a 50/50 percent chance of having the characteristics they are being bred for.

    There are hundreds of established breeds, and I can guarantee there is one for every different type of person. So why keep intentionally breeding mutts?

    No matter what 'breeder' of designer dogs I come across, in my book they will always be equal to, or worse that Puppy Mills or BYB's, out to make a quick buck selling dreams and lies to people
    • Gold Top Dog
    Personally I think it is time for a lot of people to get their heads out of the sand and realize that, like it or not 'designer' dogs are not going away. They have gone beyond being an oddity or a fad. I think our energy would be better spent educating and informing perspective buyers on seeking out breeders who can offer the healthiest, most stable dogs. Despite the misconception that every mixed breed either comes from a puppy miller or a byb whose only motive is to make a fast buck, there are SOME breeders who are committed to producing healthy, well bred designer dogs. The more buyers who are educated and aware of their options, the less chance they will end up with a problematic designer dog.

    Flat out telling people not to buy a chug because A. B, C, is not going to work. They will buy one anyways. The best we can do is point them towards the best breeders.
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: Presley does that means there will be one more dog in a shelter but that if a breeder of a pure bred has another littler, or someone buys a pure breed it does not? It's just not logical. The problem is over population of dogs.

     
    I am completely against the breeding of "designer dogs" for reasons that have been mentioned numerous times on this forum. 
    However, I do wholeheartedly agree with you on this point.  I do not believe that its right for reputable breeders to continue breeding litter after litter in search of "a champion of the breed" while millions of pets die in shelters.  Sure, the reputable breeders has more "noble" reasons and are not breeding at the same rate as BYB's but they are still having litters each year and taking away homes for pets in shelters.  I do believe that all breeding should stop - especially now that fewer and fewer breeds can actually do what they were originally bred for (not only because there isn't the demand but also because of show lines breeding for "form not funtion"!) It doesn't make sense to me how you can be "improving the breed" by breeding for looks rather than function, I think its ludicrous that there has been a divide between  breeding for show lines OR field/working lines.  I don't have as much issue with people who are breeding working dogs for a purpose/their livelihood - but when you are breeding to perfect a breed that doesn't have a purpose (other than to be conformationally extreme/correct) I have a BIG problem with that.  I agree that pet overpopulation is a problem that both BYB and reputable breeders are contributing to.  The BYB/puppymills are producing dogs at extreme rates while the reputable breeders continue breeding becausr they are "doing it the right way".  Just because you aren't as bad as another, doesn't make what you are doing RIGHT.  I believe that loving dogs for who they are and not what they are is all they ask for.  "Improving" 1 breed shouldn't matter  - saving a life has got to be much more rewarding!  
    • Gold Top Dog
    I dont bother too much with the whole designer dog issue, because here in Puerto Rico there is a HUGE overpopulation of street dog (MUTTS) and the designer dog issue is not a problem here because people know what a mutt is, they know that a Poodle X Golden Retriever is just a mutt, and that it is no way better than the Heinz 57 thay have in their backyard.

    People here in Puerto Rico at least realize that a Yorkie with champion lines, and AKC papers would be well worth 800 dollars, but would laugh in the face of anyone who tried to sell them a YorkiePoo for 1.5k

    Thankfully I have never seen these mutts advertised anywhere, and I hope to never see them.
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: denise_m

    Personally I think it is time for a lot of people to get their heads out of the sand and realize that, like it or not 'designer' dogs are not going away. They have gone beyond being an oddity or a fad. I think our energy would be better spent educating and informing perspective buyers on seeking out breeders who can offer the healthiest, most stable dogs. Despite the misconception that every mixed breed either comes from a puppy miller or a byb whose only motive is to make a fast buck, there are SOME breeders who are committed to producing healthy, well bred designer dogs. The more buyers who are educated and aware of their options, the less chance they will end up with a problematic designer dog.

    Flat out telling people not to buy a chug because A. B, C, is not going to work. They will buy one anyways. The best we can do is point them towards the best breeders.

     
    Because the chances of finding a mutt breeder using quality health tested dogs to produce the mutts, is slim to nill.  Bottom line not good breeder is going to seel their quality dogs for someone to creat mutts.  They got thier dogs from BYB and PM's they started with unhealthy dogs and are useing them to produce more unhealthy dogs.
    • Bronze
    You hit the nail on this issue, Jetty! Form should follow function, not the other way around. Some of oldest and most succesful  breeds, like mastiffs and  greyhounds, were bred out of multiple lines over the centuries with only function in mind. We do have  a problem when dogs are only bred. a) for shows b) for a fad.
    Designer dogs are even worse, because there´s this myth of hybrid vigor that does not always happen. If you mate two mediocre and inbred pure breeds, you never know what you´re going to end with.
    Any random mutt is superior.
    Now if they were going to say that after breedings generations of labs and poodles they´ve produced a stable breed that they´re going to name Vermont Dog or  some other  name without the pretense and  trendiness implied in designer breeds, I could accept the new breed .
    • Gold Top Dog
    "... no good breeder is going to sell their quality dogs for someone to create mutts."

    This is the argument used over and over. I have had the opportunity to speak very candidly with a lady who is very involved with doodles. She doesn't breed herself, but has owned doodles for years and is very active in 'doodle community'. Her breeder had bred high quality poddles for years. She apparently became interested in doodles and subsequently added goldens to her kennel, which she bred and sold. So in her case was able to start her doodle line from high quality, tested dogs from her own kennel.

    So all I'm saying is, while many doodles breeder ( maybe even most) may be starting from less than perfect parent dogs it is not a universal truth.

    • Gold Top Dog
    The problem with attempting to make a breed now is that there are waaayyy too many dogs to justify making a new breed of dog, and because the making of a new breed of dog is an extremely wasteful practice. You wind up chewing through a lot of mixed-breed dogs. When the human population was smaller and less urban, and when breeding was something that was done one litter at atime, on a smaller scale, these extra dogs sometimes hung out, but were mostly killed, or culled, by the breeder. And what I would argue is that this is exactly what's happening now, but on a very grand scale.

    It is my personal opinion that there is a cycle operating here:

    1. Mill creates huge quantities of "chugs" "mini bulldogs" or whatever, in livestock conditions that are sometimes extremely cruel and definitely not conducive to being a good pet in the future. Very little human handling, learning to poop and pee in the crate, no dog-dog interaction, etc.
    2. Sells puppies to pet stores or act as brokers over the internet, where huge quantities of unsuspecting, dog-ignorant people are duped into paying $$$ because he/she "simply fell in love with the cute face" or similarly emotional, short-term, puppy-centric reason.
    3. Uh, oh! Turns out puppies are a lot of work. Turns out puppies raised in conditions such these learn how to sleep and poop in the same place and become a real nightmare to housetrain. Turns out pups raised without adequate human contact can get serious behavioral problems that restrict the humans' ability to take care of them. Who wants a dog that is impossible to housetrain, scared of all new things, etc.? Besides, dogs are not as cute as puppies. That cute face is now older and is more about spending all your free time washing out the poopy crate.
    4. Now-adolescent puppies flood the shelter, where most are euthanized (culled) and some are given a second chance. But the problems with the scale of this operation remain: the dogs have real potential to go right back to the shelter, as it is still put in the awful position of having to overcome its livestocky upbringing and become a viable pet.

    Because the dogs are technically, "mixes," they are generally considered "strays," or the product of oops litters. Individuals get more pressure to spay/neuter their dogs and adopt from shelters. But that does not stop the huge quantities of dogs pouring into shelters, because it's not an individual problem--it's that "new breeds" are being created, as they have been in the past, and that they are being created using the industrial farm model that is now a common part of our globalized economy. You don't know exactly where your tomatoes came from... why not do the same with puppies?

    I cannot believe that shelters are letting themselves play the role of the culler for these huge businesses, who are just pumping out puppies to satisfy a demand for puppies, without any consideration of the fact that the puppies become dogs. And it galls me that anyone would equate a system that is operating on such a vast scale and to such huge, negative effect, with the responsible breeder working to keep a specific breed of dog strong and healthy, and to make good pets.

    This is a large-scale corporate problem. It's one face of agribusiness. And I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it is so perfect that they wind up flooding the shelters with mixes and not purebred dogs that I can't help but think that somewhere someone thought of the entire cycle and came up with "designer breeds" as a way to make the connection between the mill and the shelter look less direct.
    • Puppy
    ORIGINAL: Xerxes

    ORIGINAL: Smug Pugs

    I'm hoping that I'm not reading that comment about breeding between "non-champions" the way you meant it.. Are you talking about between breeds?? If not, I'm at a loss cuz I've never heard of any breed that enacted any kind of regulations regarding breeding one non-champion to another and some of the best show dogs I've seen came from parents that were not finished for one reason or another at the time of breeding...


    Re-read my post I said that breed clubs have regulations about that. 


     
    Guess I was reading you right... Hmmm, I've been involved with several different breeds over the years and not one of them had any regulations prohibiting breeding non-champions to other non-champions of the same breed. In fact, our top winner in the history of the Pug is out of a non-champion who was produced by 2 non-champions.
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: gr8pyrz

    ORIGINAL: Xerxes
    The only groups that you could say form = function would be, IMO the Toys and the Non-Sporting.


    Sorry but there are many working dogs who still perform their primary function today and form definately contributes to that function. 

     
    Read the whole post please, not just a snippet: Show lines and working lines differ.  The working lines can't show and the show lines typically can't work.
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: Smug Pugs

    ORIGINAL: Xerxes

    ORIGINAL: Smug Pugs

    I'm hoping that I'm not reading that comment about breeding between "non-champions" the way you meant it.. Are you talking about between breeds?? If not, I'm at a loss cuz I've never heard of any breed that enacted any kind of regulations regarding breeding one non-champion to another and some of the best show dogs I've seen came from parents that were not finished for one reason or another at the time of breeding...


    Re-read my post I said that breed clubs have regulations about that. 



    Guess I was reading you right... Hmmm, I've been involved with several different breeds over the years and not one of them had any regulations prohibiting breeding non-champions to other non-champions of the same breed. In fact, our top winner in the history of the Pug is out of a non-champion who was produced by 2 non-champions.

     
    I stand corrected.  The PHCA does have regulations, as seen in the PHCA's code of ethics which I cannot find online, ;prohibiting the breeding of non-champions to one another, but as seen here [linkhttp://www.thedogsbestfriend.com/code.htm]http://www.thedogsbestfriend.com/code.htm[/link]
    many other breeds do not.  However, most codes of ethics do mention registration and conformation to standard as prerequisites for breeding, with an emphasis towards betterment of the breed.
     
    Thank you for calling me to task on that one Smug [:)]
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: denise_m

    "... no good breeder is going to sell their quality dogs for someone to create mutts."

    This is the argument used over and over. I have had the opportunity to speak very candidly with a lady who is very involved with doodles. She doesn't breed herself, but has owned doodles for years and is very active in 'doodle community'. Her breeder had bred high quality poddles for years. She apparently became interested in doodles and subsequently added goldens to her kennel, which she bred and sold. So in her case was able to start her doodle line from high quality, tested dogs from her own kennel.

    So all I'm saying is, while many doodles breeder ( maybe even most) may be starting from less than perfect parent dogs it is not a universal truth.

    Sorry I stand by what I said, no QUALITY breeder would ruin thier own breed by doing this, if this poodle breeder did infact do this then all her quality went down the drain, there is no point in breeding to improve the breed if you are going to destroy it all for a fad breed with no standard just  ahuge price tag.
     
     
    On the same lines read in an add today for lab poodle crosses, "labradoodles for the price of a lab".