Are all designer dog breeders "irresponsible"?

ok now you're making it sound like i cant see past the end of my nose and think it should all be swept under the rug and ignored on off chance that it will go away?
gee thanks. I still stand by my own statements and i dont ask anyone to agree. Its also my opinion that its still a free country and if you want to buy a Collaboration, or Chiwowow, or a Pointsetter its purely up to you and people have no right to make you feel like crap about it. Now if you own your new dog of choice for three weeks and suddenly decide it was a bad idea and dispose of it, then you should hang your head in shame.
Your website says you breed for health, temperment and confirmation but you left out the important part of being a beagle.. can they hunt and/or track? would they be good for S&R or drug detection? I'm guessing they're just show and pet quality, which is not bad, but in some circles its pointless to breed a working dog just for the show ring or living room sofa. I wouldnt hold it against you, but the people i've known in the past few months would say that show dogs are uselss unless they can perform the task they were designed for. The English Bulldog was once a good stout, strong, healthy willing worker.... now he's lucky to be able to trot across the front lawn without passing out from lack of oxygin. You like to look at the big picture, but so do i, but i look at a much bigger picture than just social strife and issues. I look at the future and wonder just how things are going to be in the next five, ten, to twenty years. I dont see dog clubs lasting much longer the way they are being run. if we get "certain people" elected into office then you kiss SOME breeds good bye (and if some organizations have their way you can kiss ALL pets goodbye), as well as the right to bare arms, and speak our minds anywhere we choose. The dogs are just a small part of this pie. Banning some breeds will not end fighting or biting. Nope, the thugs will just start creating a new breed to fight and attack. Isnt that where the pit bull sprang from anyway? They dummed down the English bulldog, so they moved on to staffy bulls, now they've been dummed down and thrown in the show ring, so they moved on the Am Staff, also now in a show ring, now we have the Pit Bull, they are property of the UKC and ADBA, so where to next? yeah they're outcrossing new breeds, the thugs are getting interested in Akitas and Tosa Inus and Korean Jindos as well as Chows, German Shepherds, and Rotties. They are making their own designer dogs but for a much more lethal purpose.


anyway, why WHY do we have to have a STANDARD on looks anyway? what does that prove? does it make the dog function better if he has floppy ears or rose ears? or if he has a pink nose or a purple one? if he has spots or blotches? Take for example the Irish Setter and the Irish RED AND WHITE Setter..... oh and then there is the Irish Setter bred and used for hunting in Ireland.... they all three look different but they are still Irish Setters... right? But neither fancier wants thing one to do with the other. One is a show dog that has a hard time making the long distances that are expected of the other two - mainly working dogs that are still being worked.
Working dogs were never meant to have a standard look and it should be imoral to make one. 

anyway i'm going to get off this subject and leave it be.
You would think it would be immoral for anyone to breed anything to make money, but thats not being realistic. people have a right to make money to support themselves. it wont change, it isnt going to go away. if it ever does go away then you can be sure that NO ONE will ever own a dog because dogs will cease to exist.
Maybe i am looking at too big of a picture. maybe we're all not looking at a big enough picture... thats why we have discussion boards like this []

To assume that all registered breeders are indeed ethical in the true sense of the word is foolish/ignorant in my well-informed opinion[8D]   There is good and bad in every facet of life so, in other words, there are good byb as there are good registered breeders and there are some rotten byb just as there are some despicable registered breeders. 
 
I don't find that there is anything wrong in crossbreeding and by that I mean breeding one purebred dog to another purebred dog of another breed...this ensures hybrid vigour but once you start breeding a crossbred dog to another crossbred dog then you are defeating the purpose.  Having said this one should ONLY breed from healthy dogs that have had all the necessary health checks; most importantly I personally DO NOT believe in large scale breeding as it then becomes a 'money making venture.'  I absolutely detest puppy millers who breed hundreds if not thousands of dogs and keep the breeding dogs in small, cramped and filthy cages where the dogs eventually develop the habit of 'circling' due to the sheer frustration of being imprisoned day in, day out and this is only one problem amongst dozens of others!!!  These dogs are fed inferior foods, never receive veterinary attention, are bred each and every time they come into season, never receive human interaction and love, are never groomed or bathed....and I hate to say that I have known of a few registered breeders guilty of this sort of conduct!!!   The frustrating thing is that I know of one individual that breeds her bitches twice a year and registers both litters with the canine control council of her state and is never questioned on this issue when we are all aware that one of the conditions is that a bitch is ONLY to be bred ONCE a year!  Other reg. breeders also breed their bitches twice but only sell one litter with papers and the other litter is either exported to the overseas market or to pet shops or simply sold without papers.  Having said this, I know of some reg. breeders whose dogs are their lives and I can say the same of byb who only breed a couple of litters a year and the breeding dogs are treated as members of their family and receive optimum care in every which way. 
 
Breeding should be seen as a hobby and not with the intentions of aying one's mortgage or sending the kids to university. 
 
I particularly don't find anything offensive in breeding a pug to a cavalier or a cavalier to a poodle for example....or a labradoodle.   

DumDog, As I explained in my previous post...I dont have a problem with small scale crossbreeding but I can see a purpose in breeding to a standard
also...even though most breeds of dogs are not used for the reason that they were originally 'created' for it is nice to opt for a dog in which you can be 100% certain as to their characteristics...albeit I have known of dobermans for example that have no guarding instinct whatsoever and would sooner hide than bark at intruders, lol...I guess there is always the exception to the rule, lol.  It's nice to have a uniform look instead of dogs of similar breed looking as though they belong to a seperate breed altogether.  I do agree that some dogs have been bred to extremes with no consideration to their health, comfort and wellbeing like, as you said, the english bulldog, the pug...the pug has difficulty breathing and is unable to eat adequately and has the tendency to choke on its food because of its lack of muzzle...I have saved my own pug's life on at least half a dozen occasions otherwise he would have suffocated to death...this is cruel and it seems that cat breeders are following suit with what they've done to the persian, shame shame shame...

ORIGINAL: bylabs

Yes, they are irresponsible -- at ano reputable breeder of a purebred dog would ever consider putting two different breeds together!  Take the puggles -- beagles are a dog bred to hunt and run, they like to bark and dig.  Then you mix them with a Pug, a breed that has a short muzzle and is not made to exercise a lot (as in NOT a jogging companion although can do well in obedience or agility if not in heat or cold), can have respiratory problems in hend cold so shouldn't be running around and has eyes that are prone to injury.  A co-worker got one from a puppy mill and within the first 2 weeks the dog had an eye problem requiring surgery.  The only reason they are being bred is obvious -- to make money for the "breeder".  I have had some in classes and they are hyper, bark alot and some have had terrible allergies.  A set up for ending up in a shelter......

 
Well, I'm not going to sugar coat this, I will say it as it is but you are contradicting yourself big time!!  You say that "no reputable breeder of a purebred dog will ever crossbreed; then you choose to emphasise the puggle because, as you say, a pug is not bred to hunt and run and dig like a beagle because of its short muzzle and its respiratory and eye problems."  That is the purpose why a puggle has come into being and that is because once a pug is bred to a beagle it no longer has the flat face and respiratory and eye problems.  It is more tolerant of extremes in temperature.  MOST IMPORTANTLY and REALISTICALLY a "reputable" and "conscientious" breeder would never have bred a dog with no muzzle, respiratory and eye problems, sensitive to the heat and humidity!!!  An "ethical" breeder would take all these things into consideration and opt for a dog that is able to withstand extremes in temperature, able to eat without difficulty, breathe with facility, etc etc etc....and this applies to certain other breeds also.  Have I made my point clear, somewhat??[]

When it gets down to it the breeds we currently have started as mutts. Don't we have enough problems with the purebreds we already have? We don't need to be creating new breeds, what we really should be doing is bettering the breeds we have already. There really are too many dogs in the pounds & rescues... Creating new mutts is only about money. Breeder up the road from me is selling her designer creations at $2500.00+!!! IMO it's wrong.

Dog breeds occurred due to controled breeding choices.  It is was a combination of line breeding and outcrosses, until a specific "type" was established.  Breeding for looks alone causes problems, breeding for work alone causes problems.  Line breeding concentrates the potential for good and bad,  outcrosses increases the potential for who knows.  Dog genes are very plastic.  Dog traits are a mix of single, double, triple, or  more combinatations of genes that at the present time we know very little about.

Dog breeds that get popular tend to have more random outcrosses (designer breeds and BYB).  Some of those puppies are great (had a dobe live 16-9)  some of then are a nightmare, dead at 10 with cancer from stem to stern.

Cross breeding is not a hybrid.  It is an outcross.  One of the absolute worst cases of HD I have ever encountered was a random bred mutt.

As to dumming down breeds, I think it all has to do with popularity.  Your breed stays relatively unknown you have a better chance of maintaining some characteristics.

As long as this is a free market economy (in the USA) then we will have people who will breed for money.  As well as just because they want to.  I believe the majority of puppies produced in the US are produced poorly.  Give me a Breeder Code of Ethics signer from a national breed club any day of the week if you want a dog for breed sport.  If you want a companion or a pet, check out rescues and the shelters.  Too may BYB folk manage to pull down just enough money and manage to avoid the pit falls they keep on doing this.

Designer breeders do not have breeds with respect to fully documented pedigrees of multiple generations of dogs who have bred true.  It is all about "pet lovers" who want to make money. 

Some dog breeds arose shaped by function - some individuals of a particular "type" (terrier, collie, pointer, setter, hound, etc) proved to excel at a particular job and focused breeding produced a popular specialist (Yorkshire, Border Collie, Doberman, foxhound, Beagle). Others arose through aesthetics - not all lap dogs, however - some of the "functional" dogs were created through something of a fancy - standard collies and shelties, golden retrievers. Finally, many simply developed until someone decided to set up a formal studbook - Beardies and Old English Sheepdogs, many of the spaniels, many of the other hunting breeds, bloodhounds, sighthounds.

The point is that something purposeful was guiding the development of each breed - or it died out, and rightfully so. There were many other collie breeds up to the early 1900s. Then the standard (show) collie and the Border Collie specialized and filled both roles so effectively that there was no need for the other breeds.

Many of the tough cur dogs of the old west have died out, so there are a few people who are breeding lines to attempt to meet this need which has risen again. This is a good example of responsible crossbreeding, or trying to create a new breed through specialization. They literally euthanize dogs which do not meet their standards. That's unpopular, but there's no other way to do this responsibly, otherwise you are adding to the dog overpopulation problem, like it or not.

We've been breeding cocker/poodle mixes for fifty years. Why do we not have a breed yet? There's got to be a basic flaw underlying the breeding of these dogs. What is it? It didn't take anywhere near fifty years to create Dobermans, Border Collies, or any other purpose bred variety.

Becca if they added another breed they'd make it. You really need at least 3...otherwise once you start doing second gen crosses they always will tend to one side or the other...always. The labradoodle people really wanting to give it breed status have now added SCWT's and something else I forget which to their dogs and now have some multi gen crosses going. You also have to the willing to inbreed to set type and many are not willing to do that because they aren't comfy with it or fear what their critics will say.

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

Becca if they added another breed they'd make it. You really need at least 3...otherwise once you start doing second gen crosses they always will tend to one side or the other...always. The labradoodle people really wanting to give it breed status have now added SCWT's and something else I forget which to their dogs and now have some multi gen crosses going. You also have to the willing to inbreed to set type and many are not willing to do that because they aren't comfy with it or fear what their critics will say.

 
I think the main reasons they're afraid to in-bred/line-bred, and even the Cockapoo Club of America discourages this in their by laws (5. Cockapoos that are inbred or line-bred will not be registrable) and in their [linkhttp://www.cockapooclub.com/ccapagesgen/ccabreederethics.htm]breeder ethics[/link](11. Breed only non related pairs of the healthiest, best tempered dogs),  is because they are uneducated about genetics. They believe that in-breeding/line-breeding causes "retarded" dogs and that out-crossing guarantees healthy dogs. They also believe in "hybrid vigor" which is something that does occur to the offspring of 2 different species yet does NOT apply to dogs. Dogs, whether they be Beagle or Boston Terrier, are all the same species "Canis Lupus Familiarus". Breeding a Beagle to a Boston Terrier will not result in a hybrid so hybrid vigor wouldn't apply to them.

Interesting post. Do you consider McNabs to be an actual breed or sort of a short haired BC mix?
 
The dog brother and SIL bought is McNab, Aussie, ACD mixed. He's a fine working dog (cattle) with no health problems. To me, that's a far cry from a puggle.

For me being responsible boils down to making sure the parents are healthy, breeding for a purpose and taking responsibility for the puppies for the rest of their lives.
 
The rest is interesting to all of us---but not important to the dogs which are the ones who truly pay because of bad breeders.
 
Crossing dogs to create a type for a purpose---sled dogs come to mind---doesn't bother me because it us purposeful breeding. "Color and coat don't pull the sled" is a quote I heard from a Chinook fancier and it makes sense. Breeding for a purpose makes sense.
 
A breed standard is SUPPPOSED to be the goal for breeding because the standards used to reflect the purpose of a breed. Long ears on a bloodhound? Curly coat on a poodle? It was for a reason. Now many breeds have standards which are not necessarily refined and changed in order to improve a breed's performance or health.
I think that is a problem and the reason why some folks get all huffy when breed standards come up.
 
As for the discussion about shelters and purebreds---if a purebred dog is in a shelter then the odds are high that it did NOT come from a really good breeder. A really good breeder makes sure the pup is going to a home that it compatible, agrees to take the dog back and puts penalties in the sales contract for dumping the dog at a shelter. I have seen contracts with $5,000 penalties for dumping a dog 
 
As for the argument against breeding because there are too many dogs in shelters---while I agree with the sentiment,  I believe that if someone is breeding for a purpose then that isn't irresponsible.
 
Bottom line: if a breeder agrees unconditionally to take back a dog at any point in their lives (and they have done the best they can to insure the dog will have a healthy life by health screening the parents) then it doesn't matter what they call the dog or what kind it is. They are being responsible as much as anyone can be.
 
That being said, I  honestly do not believe 99.99 percent of the people crossing breeds do anything remotely like this and most designer dog breeders are churning out pups as fast as they can so they don't mi$$ out on the trend.

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

I do believe that all breeders of purebred dogs should breed only to maintain and improve the breed.  However, we all know that there is a lot more breeding than that.

If two breeders both
(1) breed purebreds,
(2) are careful with genetics,
(3) health check the sire and dam,
(4) breed only when they have a waiting list of screened applicants,
(5) carefully socialize their puppies,
(6) require all pups to be neutered,
(7) make sure that all buyers understand what characteristics the pup will, won't, or may have, and
( take lifetime responsibility for the pups they produce,

is one breeder less "responsible" than the other just because he/she uses two different breeds?

 
  Well these are reputable things to do, but I have a question for you. In the very beginning of creating a new breed, do you think two breeders of two different breeds would sell someone two quality puppies of different breed to began with? I highly doubt because they have a rigious contract that they are not allowed to mate with other breeds. Many breed clubs have their own code of ethics and they do not allow any reputables breeders to breed with other breeds EVER! If they did, then they are unethical period.
 
  So to answer your question, someone will have no choice but buy two different dogs from a byb to begin with.

So John Walker would be considered irresponsible and a BYB.  Poor Marvin (in my sig below), a Treeing Walker Coonhound can never get a break.

I certainly wouldn't consider the origins of the Walker to be suspect. They developed from a line of treeing hounds. Just like the McNab, to answer Stacita's question. Someone had a useful and distantive line of functional dogs and people started calling them by name. The McNabs all go back to a single family of Border Collies - or rather pre-Border Collies as the breed had no name or studbook when the McNab branched off. There's another breed developing right now out of Border Collie lines (again, must be lots of useful genetics there, huh?) - the McCallum cattle dog. You'll see that one at an agility trial or flyball tourney near you soon, I'm sure, though right now they are pretty much sold as cattle working dogs. They are simply highly linebred Border Collies from a breeding program guided by one person. They are still registered as Border Collies but recently started a registry of their own.

Here's the collie family tree to show how breeds start from within a type, and branch out from breeds (with some outcrossing): http://izebug.syr.edu/~gsbisco/ftree.htm

I'm sure the American hounds, curs, and feists have a similiar family tree but no one has tried to put one together. The North Carolina state dog is the Plott hound, which you could hardly call backyard bred - but is similiarly bred by a single person like the Walker.

Here is the origin description of the Tree.
 
The Treeing Walker is a descendant of the [linkhttp://www.dogbreedinfo.com/englishfoxhound.htm]English Foxhound[/link], which Thomas Walker imported to Virginia in 1742. Sometime in the 1800's, a dog known as "Tennessee Lead," a stolen dog of unknown origin, was crossed into the Walker Hound.