Friday 29 July 2011

Designer dogs - destined for disaster?

So thinks Elaine Geeson writing in this week's Dog World.

The thrust of Geeson's article is that designer dogs are being produced without care  - and that crossbreeding should be regulated.  "We now have tests to carry out before pedigree dogs are bred from in the hope that any malfunction can be ironed out and the breed will go from strength to strength," she writes. "Where are these guidelines and recommendations for the cross breeds, and who checks or regulates the truth behind all the spin given out on some of the advertisements given with crossbreed dogs?"

She's right - there are no breeding guidelines produced for breeders of crossbreeds,  something that would, in fact, be dead simple to produce and should be done. I imagine the Kennel Club wouldn't want to be seen as encouraging the filthy practice but this would be a very worthwhile job for the Dog Advisory Council, set up on the recommendation of the three dog-breeding enquiries that followed Pedigree Dogs Exposed. The DAC has a remit that covers all dogs.

Bad breeding is bad breeding across the board, regardless of whether the puppies are purebred or cross/mixed breeds. It all needs to be sorted.

After all,  there are heaps of purebred dogs being produced with no regulation or checks either - in fact, this includes the majority of dogs registered by the Kennel Club (only 12-13% per cent of KC puppies are born under the auspices of the ABS - of limited worth, anyway, for the 60 per cent or so breeds for which there are no health-test requirements). Then there's another undetermined number of purebred dogs produced outside the Kennel Club - perhaps as many again.

Geeson writes: "Diseases with serious consequences are in cross bred dogs. We have people breeding from bitches on consecutive seasons. A breeder who recently learned of a puppy she produced having Addison’s at seven months old repeated the mating of the parents on the dams next season. They are advertised on the internet, along with other cross breed dogs that do not have any come back."

Again, this is true of any number of purebred pups of dubious breeding from unhealth-tested stock being sold on various websites.

But yes, there are many ridiculously-named designer crossbreeds being produced with little care and attention by the unscrupulous, money-grabbing, uncaring, or just plain ignorant. And they are bought in some numbers by a gullible public.

This, apparently, is my fault because PDE told the world that purebred dogs were in trouble and that, on average, crossbred dogs are likely to be healthier - and never mind that this is true. (Although, if PDE was really so influential, by what madness have Pug registrations increased so hugely since the film?)

Geeson believes that designer crossbreeds have got off far too lightly in terms of media condemnation. As it happens, I'd agree. It is easy to be seduced by the undoubted appeal of a Puggle (to my view an improvement on at least one of its parent breeds) or the shaggy if sometimes over-enthusiastic bonhomie of a Labradoodle (or "labramongrel" as some of the most ardent purists call them in an effort to discredit them  - oblivious to the fact that to many outside of the insular world of purebred dog breeding 'mongrel' is no longer a pejorative term).

Puggle (above) or Pug (below). Which one would you rather be?

Science tells us that designer crossbreeds may benefit from some hybrid vigour - and those born of a union that includes one conformationally-extreme parent breed (such as a bulldog) are often an improvement on that parent thanks to nature's bent to normalise physical extremes given half a chance. They are almost always a half-way house (as, again, science predicts). No Puggle is as brachycephalic as its Pug parent and as a result it invariably has improved eye anatomy and and fewer respiratory problems.

But of course this doesn't get the people that produce them off the hook. All breeders have a responsibility to ensure that the puppies they produce have the best possible chance of a happy, healthy life and this, above all else, means breeding from sound stock.

Yep, F1 crosses will be exempt from recessive conditions that may lurk in their parents (as long as those conditions are not common to both breeds) and there is some good evidence that their immune systems may be better-braced to deal with onslaughts that might fell their inbred purebred cousins. But with more people breeding on from the first generation crosses, there's no doubt that health history and clearances for breed-specific problems are increasingly important. Then there are the conditions - hip dysplasia, thyroid problems, epilepsy - that are across many breeds and therefore likely to crop up in even first-generation crossbreeds, too.

So Geeson is right: something does need to be done about it. It's just that I'm not entirely convinced that she is highlighting the problem just because she's concerned about these crossbreeds' health and welfare.

That crossbreeds are being bred and sold for a lot of money is a source of continual irritation - fury even - to many of those that breed purebred dogs.  I can, of course, understand the frustration about people making a fast buck for little investment when many pedigree breeders put a lot of time, care and expense into their breeding decisions. But most of the ire is reserved for the very act of mating one breed with a different one. And that's just irrational. We need, then, to separate out the justified concern from the bigotry - for the latter is, at best, unthinking and, at worst, very ugly.

Have a look a what Geeson has written about Labradoodles on the Standard Poodle Club website. And note this: "It has been agreed at our AGM that members, or those causing detriment to the breed by cross breeding with other breeds are not considered suitable for membership, as they do not have the breed at heart."

Goodnesss. Can't imagine that plays well with the average pet owner.

There's a classic - and revealing - thread on the anti-PDE Facebook site today expressing outrage that someone might be allowing their champ Samoyed to be used on an agility Border Collie in order to produce a "black Sam".  Here's a sample:

• "Just been on a Samoyed forum I'm a member of, apparently someone is trying to Breed Black Sam's by cossing them with Border Collies ! I'm trying to get more information ..all I know so far is that the Bitch ( BC ) is an agility ch and the Dog ( Sam ) is a Show Champion !!........... who is there right minds ... Would use there CH Dog !!! and how guillable are people that they would believe it !!!"

• "Words fail me..................all I can see is the Samoyed being messed up and no true black Samoyed can come of this. Brainless idea.."

•  "I am INSCENSED/ FURIOUS and any other word you can think of!! I won't let this drop now, enough breeds have been tampered with, I'm not going to let it happen to Sam's !

• "THAT Woman has a lot to answer to now - i wonder where she will be when the kennels are full as none will be eligible for breed rescue.. "
(Ey up, my fault again...)

• "Why would you want to make a Black Sam anyway? And to cross it with a Border Collie so the dog is burning hot in the summer and freezing cold in the winter. And want to herd sheep while pulling a sled. I see how those two breed compliment each other."

• "Sadly it seems no breed can be left alone!It just makes me speechless with anger that someone can spend all that time,effort and money into making up a ch to produce mongrels!I was amazed and dissapointed when i heard of a person i know well allowing her studs to other breeds,now i know how she affords to do the things she does,i am so naive sometimes!!!!!"

• "No no no! leave our Sams alone! They are perfect as they are!"

"Let's call this what it is.....the breeding of mongrels. I will not give not give credence to these people by dignifying what they are doing with a name apart from money-making puppy farming."

"And let's not loose sight of this, this iis due in much part to Ms Jemima Harrison dissing pedigree dogs and claiming crosses are healthier. I wouldn't like to be her when she arrives at the pearly gates......there'll be no excuses there for all the little dogs that have been born and lived hellish lives, and ended up murdered at some dog shelter...  I don't know bow she sleeps at night. I sure as heck couldn't if I'd caused all those poor dogs all that misery. At least the puppy farmers used to have to wait for the right sort of dog to put to the right sort of bitch. Now, poor wee bitches are forcibly raped with anything. And make no mistake....they don't have romantic liaisons."

And so on. 

It has always struck me as racist - the same kind of unthinking, recoiling shock that people used to express about mixed-race marriages. They really do see the deliberate breeding of two different breeds as an unholy union - and the people who breed them as evil when, logically, they can only be as good or bad as any other breeder.

It makes my skin crawl.

47 comments:

  1. Well said, Jemima!

    I think you're spot on that any breeding for profit ought to be subject to scrutiny, regardless of the dogs being used. I think perhaps the exception I'd make to this are open registry 'breeds' like Jack Russells, if it's known that the dogs aren't related in any meaningful way.

    I'm concerned not only for the health issues that you raise, but the possibility that a trend for a certain type of dog may lead to farming.

    I'm really glad that you've said something too about the rather creepy contempt that some breeders have for cross breed and mixed breed dogs, as this has been the genesis of my interest in this topic. Like you, I find it utterly repellant and probably the real reason behind the objections of some of the dimmer 'not one drop of blood' brigade.

    Personally, I've always liked mongrels, because then I have a dog that's know for being itself, rather than a type of something else. Better to have a Buster, than a Doberman called Buster. Just my preference though, and not one I'd foist on others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. well jemima canine expert general all round know it all, please explain to me how it is helpful to either breed to do that particular cross??

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also to add why do you think that we all want to live our lives with short lived breeds, a very good friend of mine has worked tirelessly and spent a huge amount of money importing 3 dogs from several places in europe in a attempt to reduce the amount of cancer thas is affecting the breed he fell in love with so his pet buyers as most of his puppies go to the general pet owner not the show ring and this bothers him greatly.
    Many of us are caring conciencious breeders owners and for all joe blog can cross a dog with a cucumber as long as i can sleep at night because i know ive done my very best is all that matters to me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe it will put the working ability back in the agility-bred Border Collie.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cross-breeding does have benefits and risks.

    One cannot assume that just because a dog is a cross-breed that it will be free of genetic disease. Crossbreeding increases diversity in MHC genes and reduces the likelihood of getting certain diseases that are caused by deleterious recessives. However, if you crossbreed two dogs from two breeds that have the same genetic disease that is caused by the same genetic basis and you don't do the tests for it, you can still produce puppies that have the disease.

    No one who argues for open registries is calling for breed anarchy or the destruction of purebred dogs. The people who call for the destruction of purebred dogs don't even talk about registries-- it would be pointless, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the known ancestry of each breed is known, the relevant genetic and other tests available to each breed done, and they are sold as pet dogs only where is the harm?

    It's not likely that they are going to go on to be show dogs....well not yet anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh you know it's only a matter of time before the poor-mouth whining AKC wants to put their grubby little hands into the "designer dog" pot and will start accepting Boodle Rugs and Shitpoos into the registry and start calling them "purebred." At least those dogs will probably be healthier than the extreme-bred useless crap that's out there now. That poor pug. What is wrong with people????

    ReplyDelete
  8. Black Samoyeds did once exist. Though I can't comment on the propriety of choosing a BC to cross a Samoyed with. If someone was going to do that experiment to regain a lost breed color (or even if you wanted to make the cross for genetic diversity purposes), Wouldn't a better choice would be to cross to a more similar type of dog (one of the arctic spitz-types)?

    ReplyDelete
  9. How in the world do these "purists" think their breed was created in the first place?!

    I'd like to see some common sense in the back-yard-breeders of these deliberate crosses myself since there often appears to be none at all, but really? Where did you think the breeds we have came from? They sure didn't appear fully formed in all their Labrador/Great Dane/Mastiff glory from god's forehead!

    ReplyDelete
  10. So Ruth did a sammoyed come from a border collie???

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jemima sez:

    "But most of the ire is reserved for the very act of mating one breed with a different one. And that's just irrational. We need, then, to separate out the justified concern from the bigotry - for the latter is, at best, unthinking and, at worst, very ugly."

    No one knows this better than me. And if you *are* crossing with any kind of plan or sound thinking behind it, a goal, they try even harder to discredit you. Much like witches, thou shalt not suffer even an ethical cross-breeder to breed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Forgot to add, due the efforts of morons who believe that people will buy purebreds from pet stores and cross them to make a buck and fill the shelter with their unwanted puppies (despite all statistics to the contrary), and the 'responsible' breeders who deride making *any* money at all on a puppy, and of course all that 'proof' that cross-breeders are greedy and unethical, the nearest city to me amended their animal control ordinance recently. It is now illegal to breed *any* dog that isn't registered with an *approved* registry, and illegal to breed two different breeds together. If the puppy is under a year old, it cannot be sold at a profit, even a small one, and if you want to charge more than $50 for the pup, you must have every single expense related to the puppy documented (and don't think they'll let you count expenses related to showing, either. Health testing probably won't count in practice, either.) This applies to rescues as well.

    Be careful what you wish for, 'responsible' breeders.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Unfortunatly - a great deal of harm can be done if the parent breeds are incompatible. An easy example to use is the golden retriever x poodle. A common cross supposedly producing 'hypoallergenic dogs'. Great. However the coat types of poodles and goldens are at odds with each other creating an immediate potential welfare issue. The thick, heavy golden coat sheds pretty much continously but when combined with a non shedding poodle coat, the resultant offspring have very dense coats which require daily attention if they are not to become quickly matted and uncomfortable. Equally a fluffy poodle coat on a dog with the working instincts of a cocker spaniel gets snared and tangled when pushing through undergrowth. The characteristics of purebred dogs have developed to 'fit' the breed. It's why border collies don't have coats like afghans or mastiffs don't have the desire to enter rabbit holes.

    I have seen breeders advertising shar peis crossed with bassetts and cavalier and pug crosses(all on the KCs list of high profile breeds). In what conceivable way are these an 'improvement' on the parent breedsno matter what health testing is done? There are the frankly bizarre crosses (done solely to combine the breed names into a funny mix)e.g. shih tzu x poodles, bulldog x poodles etc. It seems that anything with 'poo' in it causes as much merriment as one would expect from those who have more money than sense.
    Then there are the potentially dangerous crosses - akita x german shepherd, mastiffs x staffies etc - some obviously bred as status/fighting dogs but others plain stupidity and disasterous in the wrong hands.

    I have just browsed a well known internet advertisement site and without looking too hard, these are some current charming examples:
    mastiff x german shepherd, shar pei x staffy, bullmastiff x rottweiler, westie x whippet, staffy x rottweiler...

    So no worries there!!??

    I have seen this subject discussed on many occasions and the consensus seems to be increduality that people are prepared to pay exorbitant prices for what is essentially an unknown quantity, coupled with deep concern as to why these crosses are being done and what the resultant offspring can expect.
    The breeder referred to above is crossing samoyeds with border collies to produce a black samoyed. Why? How is that going to benefit the breed? Is there a massive demand for Samoyeds in alternative colours? Bearing in mind that there are health concerns in collies not present in samoyeds and the collie temprement is at odds with samoyed temprement I can see why there are concerns. To describe it as 'racist' is a very caustic comment when these people do have genuine worries.

    With a purebred dog, the main benefit is you know pretty much exactly what you're getting in terms of temprement, excercise, grooming requirements, size, lifespan and potential health issues. The predictaibility of purebreds is the reason for them to exist. A first generation cross gives none of this certainty. Those who endorse crossbreeding would have it that some wonderful melding of breeds occurs to produce a half way house perfected combination of both. Unfortunatly real life isn't like this.

    I have nothing at all against the select group of 'crossbreeders' who have a sensible long term breeding strategy approached with careful research and a rational goal. They have my wholehearted support but the vast majority of the remainder that are breeding these animals with no thought, consideration or knowledge deserve utter contempt and condemnation. Just because an animal supposedly has hybrid vigour does not mean it will be healthier, live longer or make a more suitable companion than a purebred dog. Usually, sadly this is very far from the case. I'm afraid the continuing apparent endoresemt of such reckless breeding makes my skin crawl!

    ReplyDelete
  14. My all time 'favourite' cross, which was a very popular dog to have in the large city I lived in: border collie x blue heeler.

    Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  15. so you wood make an "exception" for Jack Russell even if the owners were "breeding for profit" what ever that that means.
    Know what makes my skin crawl.. the intrusion of the government or some 'authority" into every crevice of a humans life..where street corner cameras are in full use. ( you know to "protect you) and speed cameras send you an expensive ticket,where every move you make is recorded. or reported.. where even the simplest breeding of two dogs regardless of breed is said to need "oversight" and 'regulation" and of course CONTROL.. where rules and more rules are made to make one of life's pleasure.. the raising of a litter of puppies ..into a regulatory nightmare..where one person idea of what is right is enforced upon another for no reason.. where people who have never raised a litter of their own ( see this blogger and others here)feel compelled to tell those who have what they are doing wrong and make it their business to correct those wrongs as they see fit and to convince others with lies, exaggerations and accusations that their way is the only way.
    Your reference to "black sam" and the next paragraph or so reference to mixed marriage and racist over tones is not lost on this reader.
    Your PDE accused the KC of a eugenic philosophy.. and now you want control over those who would break out of that mould as well..
    I am a pure bred breeder.. do I care if someone wants to cross bred to my breed.. no I do not.. will I do that.. no I will not but either way it is really no business of yours, now is it?
    Puggles, poo blends.. who cares.. and really who cares how much people pay for these dogs or any others.? A sale is made between two willing parties.. one gives money the other gets a product.. even if that product is a puppy. Do I care if the poo breeder makes a profit.. no I don't just as the readers here should not care if I make a profit..
    SOMETHING MUST BE DONE is the mantra.. not only here.. although it is the basis for your business but in every walk of British life.. The sky is not falling.. and neither are dogs... but reading what is written her about control, rules, laws and more should make anyone's skin crawl...

    ReplyDelete
  16. A Sammy x border collie could be a very nice crossbred indeed.

    I do hope both parents have had their eyes checked. Not sure there are any other issues common to both lineages.

    But I don't see the Reinrassig Uber Alles set getting their knickers in a twist when they hear of a show champion Samoyed mated to an agility tilted Samoyed. They aren't demanding to know why, or whether the parents have been tested, or what's to become of the puppies.

    If someone is breeding healthy parents in a humane manner, raising puppies appropriately, marketing honestly and transparently, taking care to home them responsibly, committing to taking them back, conducting QA reviews of the pups' health and temperaments as they mature and making breeding decisions according to the outcome -- who the hell has any business moaning and wailing about it?

    If they aren't doing all those things, then I don't care that Mommy won Crufts and Daddy won Westminster.

    The main effect I've seen in the rise of crossbreds in the classified ads and deli case at Petland is a corresponding drop in the number of backyard-bred and puppymill purebreds. Do these "fanciers" believe that it was doing their breeds "any favors" to have Hunte Corporation brokering orders of magnitude more pups than they ever produced, with "papers" that certified them as the same "brand" as their pups?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Um, was only recommending that someone produced some written advice/guidelines for the deliberate breeding of crossbreeds, Anon. Education, not regulation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. AH Jemima.. that is so untrue.. you support the limitations of all sorts of breeding.. not through education but rather through set of onerous laws and regulations for pedigreed dogs. Number of litters produced by each bitch, number of ceasarian sections,number of times a sire is used, COI's for limiting breeders,limits on inbreeding ( didn't you yourself say PDE was instrumental in affecting the rule of no half sibling breeding and don't you support e=on even more onerous limitation?) change of standards, mandatory health testing ( to your standards)are just a few laws you support...as if all breeders are either stupid or manipulative.. or flat out liars..
    most are none of these things and education works very well.. but then if you believed that you wouldn't be so keen on producing another slag on breeders in a second PDE.. should be very interesting that..

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am all for stronger guidelines/regulations set by the KC because I think they are necessary to improve dog health and welfare - but I am not pro new legislation. Too much of a woolly liberal at heart.

    There are no rules re half-sib matings - just first-degree-relative matings and only then within the KC.

    You're right, I would like to see grandfather/grand-daughter matings begone, too. I think it's too close.

    But a KC rule is a whole different order to legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ruth said...
    How in the world do these "purists" think their breed was created in the first place?!

    Hopefully I would like to think that you knew that Pure breeds Today were not created in the same way as the oodles and doodles that are being churned out now. Most of these breeders of oodles are only continually breeding F1 so only for the Money imo
    Have a look at some of the poor cross dogs bred here http://www.puppiesforpets.co.uk/ and http://www.jukeedoodles.com/ this one is ???what trying to create/ improve ??WHAT 10 litters over weeks and then condemn Purebreed breeders

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Hopefully I would like to think that you knew that Pure breeds Today were not created in the same way as the oodles and doodles that are being churned out now. Most of these breeders of oodles are only continually breeding F1 so only for the Money imo
    Have a look at some of the poor cross dogs bred here http://www.puppiesforpets.co.uk/ and http://www.jukeedoodles.com/ this one is ???what trying to create/ improve ??WHAT 10 litters over weeks and then condemn Purebreed breeders"

    Have I missed something?

    Were there no commercial breeders/ puppy farmers "churning out" different purebred breeds pre August 2008?

    Yes, absolutely condemn big commercial churners of silly named crossbreeds (someone needs to tell them there are no mountains in Norfolk), but why condemn the idea of a regulated, carefully planned outcross project to essentially help a breed such as the pug?

    Should purebred pug breeders be allowed to continue to produce a breed that by conformation alone predisposes it to breathing problems, eye problems, and back problems?

    There is the argument that "if you don't like the breed then leave it alone and choose another one", but I'm sorry, I disagree, and it's about time someone stood up for the pug and tried to help it. And if this means a careful out cross to another breed to lengthen its muzzle or selecting purebred pugs for breeding that have slightly longer muzzles (like the germans) the so be it.

    But GASP, what about the breed standard, the blue print of what the breed should look like?
    Can't we just tweak that slightly, take out a few words? Surely that will help?

    Yes, it will help prevent exaggerations, but pugs will still go on to have respiratory and eye problems until breeders admit that what they are producing at present STILL predisposes them to numerous health issues.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I find it interesting that anyone cares about doodles at all and if they do what exactly are they objecting to?

    The average doodle buyer is simply interested in a pet. Not a show dog, not an agility champion, not a breeding dog. Just a pet who will wag, look cute, and hopefully be housebroken. F1 generations who are usually altered are not a real danger to the overall welfare of dogs.

    The only valid argument against doodles are people purchasing an animal that cannot live up to the hype - which is true. BUT!!! how many purebred dogs can't live up to their hype either? We have beagles who can't hunt, dobermans unfit for guard work, retrievers who can't fetch, mastiffs that couldn't see an intruder let alone catch one, toy breeds who can't walk let alone be a good pet, and the list goes on.

    Let them have their doodles, bless them for being good pet owners and by your actions convince them coming to you for their next dog is a better idea.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon wrote: "Have a look at some of the poor cross dogs bred here http://www.puppiesforpets.co.uk/ and http://www.jukeedoodles.com/"

    Not terribly convinced by the first one - they claim they are not a puppy farm but then give no info that reassures they are not. But I was quite impressed by the Juke Doodles - a solid background in breeding horses and working dogs and using sturdy miniature poodles and working cockers to produce dogs with a bit more oomph - a bright, focused, non-prissy pet dog for what I would guess are mainly country homes. Suspect they could turn their hands to all kinds of "doing" things too.

    http://www.jukeedoodles.com/p/bio.html

    Would I want one? No. I would take the working cocker over a cockerpoo any day but, again, if they're breeding them responsibly, and people want them...then why not?

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Jemima for every dang mutt & mongrel purposely bred & sold, is a mutt or mongrel sitting in the shelter or rescue that might have had that home that will probably be euthanized. People who want mutts or mongrels please consider a shelter or rescue dog instead of supporting cross breeders.

      Delete
  24. What would amuse me, if the implications weren't so horrifying, is an underlying assumption behind some pure breeders' thinking, that their taxonomy of x hundred breeds somehow represents the apogee of dogdom.

    What you have is in fact x hundred breeds, that represent x hundred ideas of what a dog could be. As we can see though, there are probably x tens of thousands of ideas of what a dog could be. And finally, the public are beginning to realise that, and to embrace dogs in all their glory. However that takes power out of the hands of a lot of people, and some don't like that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. An interesting post. Any breeder of any dog should be striving to breed puppies as good as or better than the parents in terms of health, temperament and ability.
    'Mongrels' are not the same as cross breeds. They are dogs of undefined heritage.
    Cross breeds have long been created by accident and by design but until recently the planned crosses always had a purpose in mind other than a silly name! A lab cross springer for a rough shooting dog perhaps or a collie x gsd for working trials or the poodle x lab for a non shedding guide dog. To breed good crosses NEEDS good pedigrees! And to breed good crosses needs sensible health testing. I got abuse from people when I used my KC reg springer on a friends unregistered lab bitch. I didn't see a problem; she couldn't breed to a lab without risking inbreeding as she didn't know the dams pedigree. People wanted pups from the bitch as she's a cracking dog. We tested both parents for eyes and hips. Result four super puppies (with a small non-designer price tag). Has it destroyed either breed? No.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh, I thought to add that buyers do have come back against the breeders of poor quality dogs of any breed or cross. They should go via trading standards- sadly dogs are considered the same as sofas but this does mean a 'manufacturer' ie breeder can be liable if they can't show they have taken every step to produce decent 'goods'

    ReplyDelete
  27. Katies P says "Were there no commercial breeders/ puppy farmers "churning out" different purebred breeds pre August 2008?" of course they were and they werent the one who did all the health checks then (but were they the ones hi-jacked in PDE - dont be daft of course they werent), are those the ones who have now jumped on the Oodle Bandwagon of Designer Dogs, still with no health checks but the endorsement of silly celebs who think its a clever thing to spend thousands of pounds on a dog fooled by a silly name given to it. Just stand back and think will these dogs sold as hybred healthy designer dogs, have the back up of their breeders in 10, 20 or 40 years time? no they will have taken the money and run and thats why Ms Gleeson says their is and will be a great rescue problem for such dogs, but those breeders be around, if PDE2 fails to show that problem now, now that will bea a failure to those poor dogs, stop targeting the show dogs and go for the real problems

    ReplyDelete
  28. So Jemima this is where the problem lies imo Your attitude towards Jukke Doodles astounds me. No where does that website mention all the health testing they have done and the fact they are churning out 10litters within weeks year on in does not bother you??
    They have 17 cocker bitches who are mated to 2 Poodle Studs !!!No endorsement, no spay/ neuter contract Popular studs lol but hey ho not KC Reg so of no interest to you and your program

    ReplyDelete
  29. M said...
    "I find it interesting that anyone cares about doodles at all and if they do what exactly are they objecting to?

    The average doodle buyer is simply interested in a pet. Not a show dog, not an agility champion, not a breeding dog. Just a pet who will wag, look cute, and hopefully be housebroken. F1 generations who are usually altered are not a real danger to the overall welfare of dogs.

    The only valid argument against doodles are people purchasing an animal that cannot live up to the hype - which is true. BUT!!! how many purebred dogs can't live up to their hype either? We have beagles who can't hunt, dobermans unfit for guard work, retrievers who can't fetch, mastiffs that couldn't see an intruder let alone catch one, toy breeds who can't walk let alone be a good pet, and the list goes on.

    Let them have their doodles, bless them for being good pet owners and by your actions convince them coming to you for their next dog is a better idea."


    These people aren't interested in dogs at all. All they can see is the latest fashion affecting their puppy sales.
    There's no difference between purebred breeders and crossbreed breeders. Both have good ones who do everything possible for their dogs and give a full back up service, and both have bad ones who don't give a toss about the pups as long as they get the money from the sales.
    What percentage of dogs born are actually bred by the conformation show people? They are a minority in the world of dogs but seem to think they can rule it. The vast majority of people just want dogs as companions. They are not interested in the "my dog is better that your dog" mentality of the conformation show world. They all love dogs for what they are not how they look. It's only the conformation show fraternity that are getting on their high horses about all this. The people with hunting, working, agility, schutzhund, etc dogs don't give a toss what breed they are as long as they are capable of doing the job they are asked to do.

    ReplyDelete
  30. For those people that say crossbreeds cannot be registered at the Kennel Club, I suggest they read the Kennel Club's own site where they state "We are a voluntary register for all dogs, whether cross breed or pedigree,".
    http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1772

    ReplyDelete
  31. I did not say that a Sammy came from a Collie, nor did I say I approved of the insane doodle cross breeding. Did you read what I said?

    If you think that crossing a Sammy and a collie will get you the blend of characteristics that you want then more power too you. Just put some thought and common sense into whats going to happen to the rest of the litter once you have your "perfect" dog, and what you're going to do if the cross DOESN'T produce your "perfect" dog. And you better be paying attention to the health of all the dogs involved.....

    ReplyDelete
  32. This cuts both ways.

    Pedigree breeders tend to crazy when you consider crossbreeding of any sort. Want to see a hissy-fit. Go to a breed club meeting and announce you'd like to cross-breed and then back cross to try to eliminate some breed fault. Eg, the tendency of Labradors to obesity.

    Lots of X breeding is done carelessly, and some for filthy lucre. Go to any pound in Australia and you'll find lots of small white fluffy crossbreeds, many from pet shops, most yappy and many with health and/or temperament problems. You'll find almost as many bull breed X's, mostly with temperament problems, most commonly dog aggression.

    But I don't see why it's "Pedigree" dogs that need exposure. Seems to me that pedigrees are a useful tool for perpetuating desired attributes and eliminating health and temperament problems. The big problem with X breeds is that, for most, the pedigree is unknown. The problem is reckless breeding, whether by carelessness (the oops litter), greed, or show mania.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anon 11.56,

    I watched a panorama programme on the terrible care a certain vet practice gave (one of a commercial chain of practices), with unqualified staff doing what trained vet nurses should do, etc etc.

    As a vet nurse, did I throw my toys out of my pram because it labelled all veterinary practices, vet nurses, trainee nurses etc with the same bush?

    Did I demand that they should have filmed at another practice, one that is a centre of excellent care?

    NO!

    Why? Because I believe that in my industry of work, if bad practice is occurring where it involves poor animal welfare then it needs exposing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Julia 21:34 said: "Those who endorse crossbreeding would have it that some wonderful melding of breeds occurs to produce a half way house perfected combination of both. Unfortunatly real life isn't like this."


    Actually cross-breeding like this happens all the time with Lurchers - some of the best working Lurchers are first generation crosses of Greyhound/Border Collie. These dogs are bred from 'working' Greyhounds (that is one from racing lines, not the travesty that is the show Greyhound which cannot run and would not remain sound if anyone tried to work it), and Border or Bearded Collie (again from working, not show lines). These dogs are bred purely to do a job and do that job well. You are trying to get the best of each breed - the speed of the Greyhound and the biddable temperament and all-terrain feet of the Collie.

    Interestingly, the show-bred Deerhound has an average lifespan of 8-9-years. Whereas Deerhound crosses (Deerhound Lurchers) can live well into their teens.

    ReplyDelete
  35. As this post is based upon an article in Dog World, I see no harm in referring to a piece in the previous week's edition by Jane Lilley:
    http://www.dogworld.co.uk/Features/28-Lilley-(3)?year=2011&month=07
    It very interesting to read the comments made by Barbara Turnbull, the MD of the Labradoodle Trust concerning the DOWNSIDE of this most popular designer crossbreed. Like any good breed rescue (and breeder) she is very honest about highlighting the problems which may arise, even when the dogs are produced by breeders who invest in health testing and have a proper breeding programme.
    If anyone is interested, the Trust has an excellent website (admittedly better than those of many breed clubs) where an accurate rather than rose tinted assesment of labradoodles is given:
    http://www.labradoodletrust.com/about_labradoodles.html

    To anonymous 30/07 19:41, I was waiting for someone to mention lurchers, which after all are the 'traditional designer crossbreed'.

    "You are trying to get the best of each breed - the speed of the Greyhound and the biddable temperament and all-terrain feet of the Collie."
    'Trying' is the operative word here. I know several wonderful lurchers which indeed exhibit many of the better qualities of their parents. Unfortaunatly I also know a fair few which have the speed of a sighthound, coupled with an unfortunate nervous/phobic collie disposition. Even sighthound/terrier crosses are not immune to temprement (and physical) issues.

    "Interestingly, the show-bred Deerhound has an average lifespan of 8-9-years. Whereas Deerhound crosses (Deerhound Lurchers) can live well into their teens."

    This is a meaningless statement as you are comparing an average statistic with a maximum. I expect show deerhounds can also live into their teens too.

    To reiterate what I said before, there is absolutely no guarentee when crossing two different breeds that you will only get the best traits of both parents in the puppies. (If this was the case, pedigree breeders would have it very easy!!) Anyone suggesting otherwise needs to learn about inheritance.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Julia so you working cross lurchers can only live into their teens, just lost one of my pedigree boys this year aged 17, his sister didnt quite get there at 16, on of the litter is still going and the other two I sold made 16 too!! Hybred vigor my..*@$£!!@.!!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. There we go again Jemima, using shock tactics just like you did with the Nazi Jew killers slur in your program. To call someone a racist just because they prefer pure bred dogs to crossbreeds is outrageous and shows you have little regard for peoples feelings as long as you get what you want. I did not like the group and its catty remarks but they were entitled to their opinion and at least they did not have to resort to shock tactics to make their point. I will bet that you do not allow this post.

    ReplyDelete
  38. There are black reindeer herding spitz in Scandinavia and Russia. The thing we call a Samoyed or Bjelkier is just a Russian one that was selected to be white or cream. There were black Samoyeds in many old breed books, but no one cares if those ever existed.

    http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v485/Pietoro/Dog%20Breed%20Historical%20Pictures/?action=view&current=1902Sammy.jpg&currenttag=samoyed

    ReplyDelete
  39. If you all think that labradoodles are a perfect cross and so much better than either of it's parents. Look at dog world and Jane Lilley's column July 15th when one of the trustees of the Labradoodle trust rescue tells it like it REALLY is with that particular cross. people should be made to read it before even thinking about getting a puppy.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jennifer sez:

    "Lots of X breeding is done carelessly, and some for filthy lucre. Go to any pound in Australia and you'll find lots of small white fluffy crossbreeds, many from pet shops, most yappy and many with health and/or temperament problems. You'll find almost as many bull breed X's, mostly with temperament problems, most commonly dog aggression."

    I find most of the problems resulting from so-called pet-quality dogs are due to low expectations from the owners. They have been habituated to owning crappy throwaways from both kennel programs and unsocialized dogs alike. They don't know what a mentally-sound dog look like. Whether or not the dog is a crossbred or a pedigree has very little to do with this phenomenon.

    Jennifer sez:

    "But I don't see why it's 'Pedigree' dogs that need exposure. Seems to me that pedigrees are a useful tool for perpetuating desired attributes and eliminating health and temperament problems. The big problem with X breeds is that, for most, the pedigree is unknown. The problem is reckless breeding, whether by carelessness (the oops litter), greed, or show mania."

    Many of the sound dogs I know of have NO pedigree at all, and there are just many with a pedigree are just as sound. The difference is people make a concious choice of breeding good temperament to good temperament dogs. Whether or not the dog has a pedigree is irrelevant.

    And considering in many of the breeds, about 50 to 90% of the founding alleles has been lost over the course of 100 years, to argue they have better temperament is meaningless. If the breed has shitty temperament and lost most of its genetic information-- then it's too late to go back.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hmm . . .

    Dave says
    The difference is people make a concious choice of breeding good temperament to good temperament dogs. Whether or not the dog has a pedigree is irrelevant.

    Breeders commonly find that breeding like to like doesn't reliably produce pups of the desired characteristics. Results are much more predictable if you can follow traits back through a few generations, and hopefully know something about siblings or progeny from other matings. That is, understanding the pedigree. Need not be a kennel club Pedigree. With working dogs, you'll often find the owner or breeder will talk your ear off about the other great dogs in the dog's lineage . . . such dogs have a pedigree, if not a Pedigree.

    I agree that clueless owners are a major reason that dogs end out in pounds. But clueless owners buy cute puppies without consideration of the temperament or possible health problems of sire / dam / lineage. There are breeders, both Pedigree and DD . . . who make money by breeding pups in large numbers, doing little or nothing to socialize them, and selling them to the clueless. The progression, thus: unethical breeder --> naive puppy buyer --> problem dog --> dog ends up in pound. Selection for health and/or temperament is not done. It's hard to say whether the root cause is genetic or environmental. The puppy buyers have no documents on sire or dam, and may not even know what breed(s) they are, much less what their parents hip and elbow scores were. Its common for spoodle buyers to end out bewildered cause they didn't bargain on a big dog . . . and the poodle half was standard, not toy.

    Can't respond to Dave's last comment about "50 to 90% of the founding alleles" being lost. Doesn't make sense to me. If the concern is loss of genetic diversity through breeding in a closed population, too little is known about the genetics of temperament to say how this affects temperament. No question, the health effects can be deplorable. But 'going back' through outcrossing and backcrossing IS possible.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I wouldn't call the puppy buyers clueless. What I am seeing more of is when people concede ill-behaved dogs as: "Oh, that's normal. I am used to that since we always had dogs like that." That tells me they are used to putting up with bad dogs. Poorly-bred dogs have become normalized for many people.

    So while one can say "selection for temperament and health is not done," one has to consider how much crap people are willing to put up with and how any breeders blur this area. Crap dogs exist because people are willing to tolerate them.

    By working people, do you means people who participate in trials, or people who depends on their dogs to make a living? The definition of a "working dog" need to be clarified here.

    The reason why I ask this is I always find it a bit odd the trial folks go on about the ancestors of their dogs; while many of the people who depend on their dogs to get by just get their dog from a rescue or an oops litter from their neighbours.

    I am not saying everyone should go out and get non-pedigreed dogs. I have had several pedigreed dogs since they are not the breeds one can buy from just anyone. However just trying to be realistic and truthful about prevailing cultures.

    About lost alleles, I am referring to individual breed reports like this one:

    http://www.popgen.su.se/exjobb/winkler_saluki.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  43. Creating more mutts destined for euthanasia in shelters all over the world is not the solution.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Aren't modernly created dog breeds mongrels anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Breeding mutts when thousands of dogs die in shelters is irresponsible. Same with backyard breeders and puppy mills.

    ReplyDelete