brookcove
Posted : 3/14/2008 1:44:58 PM
First, to update, my sister came to her senses. The Petfinder links really gave her pause for thought. In fact, she's almost two years older now and realizes that some of the things that attracted her to the web sites hawking this cross - low maintanence, low attention needs - are very good reasons to pass on a dog entirely until her life is more established. That's maturity for you!
No one, absolutely no one, ever said cross breeds are inferior in themselves. Random bred dogs are delightful and giving one that is in rescue or a shelter a home, is a rewarding thing. I've got two random bred dogs myself and they are probably my best family pets (the jury is still out on Lynn but it looks very good). But I gave a home to two dogs who needed homes through no fault of their own. I didn't support a breeder who breeds sheltie/Leonberger mixes or Finnish spitz/Border Collie mixes.
Trying to pin the "purebred snob" title on people who want every dog to be responsibly bred, is a straw man argument and hardly relevant to the conversation. I even feel there is sometimes a need for responsible cross breeding on occasion, to create dogs for a particular working function. When you note that all dogs were originally crossbreds, that is true - but the gene pool of most small companion breeds predates kennel club registration, even. For instance, pugs aren't miniature bulldogs - bulldogs are large pugs. The small spaniels, on the other hand, were bred from pure lines for size and cuteness.
The point is that there is no real need to crossbreed for the sake of creating companion dogs. We have plenty of randomly bred dogs in shelters, and when we run out of those, there are the backyard breeders (formerly the main source of nice-ish pets). And finally if we find ourselves in crying need for companion dogs, we can encourage responsible breeders to step up their efforts, which will ultimately raise the quality and soundness of any breed so affected.