Do you like this story?
What’s in a ‘breed’? If nothing else, a purpose besides profit
By Liz Palika
March 5, 2010
I’m not adverse to the creation of new dog breeds; after all, many of the most popular breeds today were created by crossing other existing breeds. The Doberman Pinscher is said to be a cross of Rottweiler, Manchester Terrier, Greyhound, a now extinct form of a German shepherd dog, and a pinscher, to name just a few.
I would prefer that there be a legitimate reason for creating a new breed, however. My breed of choice, the Australian Shepherd, came to be in the American West. A breed was needed that was more versatile than the Border Collie. Border Collies are the best in the world for herding sheep, but in the rough and tumble American West, a dog was needed to herd all kinds of livestock, from chickens to cattle. The dog also needed to have a looser eye (stare less) than the Border Collies normally do. The dog needed to warn of predators and even fight them off. Hence the development of the Aussie and of the English Shepherd, which during that era was often called the farm collie.
Today, however, many of the new “breeds’” are actually just crosses of two purebreds – they are mixed breed dogs not new breeds –and these crosses seem to be done simply for profit.
That bugs me.
Let’s talk Labradoodles. A Poodle and Labrador Retriever cross was purposely done in Australia for a woman who needed a service dog and whose husband was allergic. That’s the back story that everyone has grabbed hold of.
At Kindred Spirits we see lots of Labradoodles. New puppy owners proudly tell us the breeders told them the dog won’t shed, that the dog is nonallergic, super-smart, and so on and so on. One woman had a white/cream puppy and wore black slacks and black shirt. She was covered in white dog hairs. I said, “Non-shedding, huh?” I get angry when there is false advertising.
I also feel bad when people pay huge sums of money for a mixed-breed dog. I understand “buyer beware,” but I wish buyers would do more research. (See my book, “The Howell Book of Dogs”). But I don’t like it when anyone intentionally tries to rip people off.
The motivation for this postwas a quick glance– that turned into an in-depth reading – of the pet section in the classified ads of a local newspaper. There were ads for the Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, Boxers and other common breeds. There were also a few breeds we don’t see too often: Cane Corso, Korean Jindo and Coton de Tulear.
Then there were the misspelled breeds, which I hope were the data entry person’s fault and not the breeder’s: German Shephards and Australian Shephards, as well as Cardigan Welsch Corgis.
There were also the breed variations. The mini toy and teacups Chihuahuas, for example. The Chihuahua Club of America says there is only one size of Chihuahua; there is no breed standard for mini toy and teacup. There were Yorkshire Terriers advertised as teacup, too, and again, there is no breed standard for that. I have no idea what babydoll and teddy bear Yorkies are, and I refuse to call and ask.
But the new “breeds” bother me the most. There were Chorkies (Chihuahua and Yorkie), Goldendoodles (Golden and Poodle), Golden Labrador (Golden Retriever and Labrador Retriever), Schoodles, (Schnauzer and Poodle). There were Chugs (Chihuahua and Pug) and lots of Maltipoos (Maltese and Poodle).
The price tags were jaw-dropping on some of these puppies. I won’t say what specifically because I don’t want to encourage anyone else to get into this for profit, but some of the puppies were advertised for four figures. No idea if they will sell for that of course. Kindred Spirits was contacted by a woman who had six four-month Labradoodles that she hadn’t been able to sell. She wanted to donate them to us for service dog training.
We said thanks but no thanks.
This is one fad that can’t end quickly enough for me.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
I believe that sometimes the decision as to what two breeds to combine to create the latest “designer dog” is based solely on how cute a name you can invent. NOTHING to do with how well 2 breeds might combine, or how useful or healthy the offspring might be.
Comment by Barb — March 5, 2010 @ 6:57 pm
But a heckalot of profit for puppy-milling scum, to judge from the listings from the retail puppy mill outlets. Health screenings? Not needed! “Hybrid vigor” cures all!
As for those super-teeny-tiny pups, they’re more fragile than grandma’s china.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 5, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
I am more bothered by the practice of producing dogs that get labeled with the traditional names of breeds still used for work, yet without serious and informed selection for working abilities. The dogs produced this way are descended from working breeds, and many of them make lovely pets. But they are as new and changed as the faddish designer breeds. They are new breeds, in everything but name.
Comment by LauraS — March 5, 2010 @ 7:17 pm
don’t forget about the mixed breed vigor lie! You know the one where they don’t bother to screen for breed specific genetic disorders….
Comment by cyndi — March 5, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
I don’t see the difference. A puppy mill dog is a puppy mill dog. (Except of course some people don’t make any money off of some of them and that makes them very, very angry.)
Really, the idea of somehow holding one breed in higher contempt than another because it’s newer is really kind of silly. Whenever I read how the designer dogs are nothing more than “mutts” or “crossbreeds” I want to go home and play with my rescue mutts, and then look at the vet receipts for the health problems they inherited from their finely bred ancestors.
Comment by Eric Goebelbecker — March 5, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
Gina- I agree- the teeny pups ( I rescued a 3 lb chihuahua I name Coco. She had had spinal issues, double row of teeth, legs that barely can hold her up, and was given a month to live by foster) and have to say while she is super cute (eternal puppy) she does have more medical issues than I was prepared for. If I leave for an extended period of time my husband has to bring her to his office so keep an eye on her, as she must eat tiny meals 5 x day, etc. He doesn’t like carrying her in her little dainty carrier much.
Anyway… I wouldn’t recommend getting a tiny dog to others.
She is spayed (‘cuz I’m a good mom and also because it would most likely kill her to carry puppies) and has dental work done twice a year.
I am on ‘alert’ for her well-being so she is not manhandled by visitors who picks her up and rub her soft spot on head, or plop her back to ground w/o knowing her legs are brittle, I monitor our mid size dogs so they don’t trample her, and am wary of hawks when i take her for a walk. “If a hawk sees Coco he must think: easy prey, takes like rabbit”
After Coco passes (and I hope it is not for a long while, she is six now) we have decided to get a big dog from a breeder. My husband wants a German Pointer. I want a Golden.
As long as we can give it bear hugs, take it on long walks, and let it lay in bed w/o worries the dog will fall off side of bed and hurt itself.
Mainly I look forward to the big ol’ dog hugs.
Comment by ericka — March 5, 2010 @ 9:38 pm
Let’s not forget the toy and teacup schnauzer, and the mini corgi. Sigh.
Comment by schnauzer — March 5, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
Whenever I read how the designer dogs are nothing more than “mutts” or “crossbreeds” I want to go home and play with my rescue mutts, and then look at the vet receipts for the health problems they inherited from their finely bred ancestors.
Several responses come to mind—the first of which is “which being mutts didn’t magically protect them from, did it?”
Second, what makes you think their ancestors were “finely bred” ? There’s a huge difference between a careful, responsible breeder and a lazy, greedy one—and we know which of those breeders’ dogs are more likely to become the parents of mixed breed dogs.
Thirdly, I bet you didn’t pay “designer breed” prices for your rescue dogs, did you? And that really is the essential point: Lazy, greedy people are producing dogs in indifferent-to-horrible conditions, with health testing or temperament screening, and crossing breeds for no purpose except a cute “designer breed” name and a higher price tag for the gullible.
Comment by Lis — March 6, 2010 @ 6:47 am
And we’re back to one of our recurring themes here: Family pets from family homes.
That definitely doesn’t mean puppy-milling scum which is where those pet-store “maltipoos” and “puggles” are coming from. And that doesn’t mean careless, clueless quick-buck boneheads who are really just small-scale millers.
Breeding poor-quality purebreds with no genetic testing, whether to dogs of their own breed or to a different breed is shameful behavior, and woe to the poor puppy-buyer who gets one of these dogs.
But … let me tell you this: If I could have a puppy from one of the standard poodles I have seen at hunt tests — responsibly bred and thoroughly tested — and one of the healthy lean field Labs, also responsibly bred and thoroughly tested — and have that crossbreed Labradoodle raised by someone who knows WTF she’s doing in terms of puppy socialization birth to placement, well, I wouldn’t hesitate to get recommend that litter to my best friend or a member of my family.
Problem is, the kind of reputable, ethical breeders who own that standard poodle and that field line Lab would never in a million billion years think of putting those dogs together.
And that’s the real problem: Most of the people breeding for “cute name” designer dogs are starting with purebreds who should have been spayed/neutered for health and/or temperament issues. No reputable, ethical breeder would willingly or knowingly allow one of their dogs to be half of a “designer dog” — and that means the worst of the available purebreds in terms of health/temperament are behind this mixes.
Plus, the folks who are breeding these, even small scale, are mostly in it for the profit, and don’t care or know a jot of the canine disasters they’re selling. The more well-meaning among them also don’t know about proper puppy socialization — again, it’s a for-profit operation. Get ‘em born, get ‘em weaned, sell ‘em quick.
That sort of behavior from a “breeder” significantly ups the odds of getting a dog with bad health and bad temperament.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 6, 2010 @ 7:24 am
What newspaper and what day did the classifieds ad appear with the Korean Jindo in it? I live in San Diego and try to keep tabs on what’s going on with Jindos in my city.
Comment by Ann Kim — March 6, 2010 @ 7:33 am
I saw a “toy” Aussie once that didn’t look like it had two brain cells to rub together. What a shame.
Comment by C.L.H. — March 6, 2010 @ 7:46 am
“Problem is, the kind of reputable, ethical breeders who own that standard poodle and that field line Lab would never in a million billion years think of putting those dogs together”
Gina, why not?
Comment by Mary Mary — March 6, 2010 @ 8:29 am
Unfortunately, the puppy mills aren’t always selling to pet stores. My mother bought a Rat Terrier/JRT mix when she was 73. My father had just died and she wanted a friend. Mom is now 86 and Calvin is 13. She spent thousands of dollars in vet care, and tens of dollars hiring young walkers in the first few years of Calvin’s life. He cost $200 from a nameless religious group who came to a senior citizens’ meeting.
Comment by PamJJ — March 6, 2010 @ 9:27 am
We rescued our dog from a shelter and because we’re pretty sure he’s a lab/ boxer, we call him a boxador. We even named our company after him! After setting up google alerts for the term, I was shocked at the number of people selling Boxadors as a real breed. I love my boxador, but really think shelter rescue is the way to go!
Comment by Marjorie Williams — March 6, 2010 @ 10:08 am
If anyone here can supply a link to credible science that establishes hybrid vigor/heterosis in F1s is a myth/lie, please do so - the world of population geneticists, livestock breeders and informed dog people will be most grateful.
Also, for those who suggest “testing” is the answer (cure all)to making pure bred dogs healthier, please supply links for “tests” to identify carriers for, say, cancer in Flatties (or Goldens or Bernese Mountain Dogs); or MVD in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels; or Laryngeal Paralysis in Leonbergers; or, heck, Addison’s Disease in my breed - standard poodles…. What? You say there are no tests for these far-too-common problems? Okay - then how about providing links to the open health registries for these breeds (or any breed) that reputable, ethical breeders can and do and are encouraged to use by their national breed clubs. (Off the top of my head I can think of, um, one - Soft Coated Wheaton Terrier Club of America.)
If, OTOH, anyone here wants to become better informed about the serious, continuing health problems that are a direct consequence of the Myth of Breed Purity - and the various proposals to start addressing them including, but not limited to, cross breeding - here are some nice reads for you –
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC1950109/
http://breedinginquiry.files.w.....120110.pdf
http://www.netpets.com/dogs/re.....g.html#toc
http://www.terrierman.com/mcgr.....eeding.pdf
Look - if we really care about the health and welfare of dogs, perpetuating the “us versus them” battle between pure bred breeders and breeders of mixed breed dogs doesn’t help anyone – not the buyers of oodles, not the buyers of poodles, and certainly not the dogs.
BTW – an ethical standard poodle breeder SHOULD be willing to do a well planned out cross breeding of her healthy poodle to that healthy lab and bring some genetic diversity back into the breed if that’s what would improve the breed. And yes - I would buy one of those puppies in a heart beat.
Comment by Miki — March 6, 2010 @ 11:15 am
“Several responses come to mind—the first of which is “which being mutts didn’t magically protect them from, did it?”
No, it certainly did not. Hybrid vigor doesn’t apply to dogs, especially since we’ve all but destroyed their gene pool.
“Second, what makes you think their ancestors were “finely bred” ?”
Nothing. That was sarcasm. “Finely bred” approaches mutual exclusion with each and every generation.
“Thirdly, I bet you didn’t pay “designer breed” prices for your rescue dogs, did you? And that really is the essential point: Lazy, greedy people are producing dogs in indifferent-to-horrible conditions, with health testing or temperament screening, and crossing breeds for no purpose except a cute “designer breed” name and a higher price tag for the gullible.”
But if they did all of the above without *gasp* crossing breeds, it is somehow superior?
For Gina:
“Breeding poor-quality purebreds with no genetic testing, whether to dogs of their own breed or to a different breed is shameful behavior, and woe to the poor puppy-buyer who gets one of these dogs.”
What happens when the genetic test indicates that only one dog is suitable for breeding? Are we counting on stem cell research to save from that inevitable event?
Comment by Eric Goebelbecker — March 6, 2010 @ 11:18 am
http://thealliechronicles.blog.....nt-me.html
Comment by Susan — March 6, 2010 @ 11:39 am
What happens when the genetic test indicates that only one dog is suitable for breeding? Are we counting on stem cell research to save from that inevitable event?
Comment by Eric Goebelbecker — March 6, 2010 @ 11:18 am
One dog, out of the entire canine population? REALLY?
I assume you mean one out of a pair. Easy - pick another dog to breed that is suitable.
“But if they did all of the above without *gasp* crossing breeds, it is somehow superior?”
No. It’s not “superior”. But one can find many, many, many good breeders of purebred dogs. I’ve yet to come across a good breeder of mixed breed dogs, at least by *my* definition of good, which includes, besides all health/genetic testing, have a REASON to breed beyond $$$.
Comment by K.B. — March 6, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
“What happens when the genetic test indicates that only one dog is suitable for breeding? Are we counting on stem cell research to save from that inevitable event?” - Me
“One dog, out of the entire canine population? REALLY?” - K.B.
Yes, really. (For a given breed, at least.)
I’m no breeder, but it seems to me that eliminating dogs from the pool for failing genetic tests means the pool keeps getting smaller. For some diseases this means eliminating it, but for others it does not because the disease is carried recessively.
And of course, culling for one disease frequently has the effect of just bringing another to the fore.
They’re going to run out of dogs someday. This isn’t a stretch - it’s simple math. Coppinger has some startling numbers in his book “Dogs.”
100 years ago the people that needed these dogs to actually perform a specific job would have just introduced some healthy dogs to the pool, but tradition seems to have somehow missed that.
Comment by Eric Goebelbecker — March 6, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
“If anyone here can supply a link to credible science that establishes hybrid vigor/heterosis in F1s is a myth/lie, please do so - the world of population geneticists, livestock breeders and informed dog people will be most grateful.”
Comment by Miki — March 6, 2010 @ 11:15 am
Of course hybrid vigour is a real, observable, testable, provable thing. Generations of crop breeders have relied on it for their very livelihoods.
Odd thing though, they seem to understand that it relies on two species that are genetically varied - which is not the case with many dog breeds.
As for proof - can YOU find proof that an F1 mixed breed dog is *always* healthier than it’s purebred parents? Because I can find proof that those offspring are just as susceptible as any other dog - as Eric so nicely pointed out. Here’s a post, by a vet, about how nice and healthy her F1 pug mix is:
http://www.dolittler.com/2009/.....#8230;html
(If that link doesn’t work, go to the Dolittler site and search for “Slumdog”).
You are correct - we shouldn’t be fighting amongst ourselves. But we also shouldn’t be ignoring the truth, either.
As for that lab/poodle mix - WHY would anyone want to cross those breeds to get “diversity”? What are the benefits? What qualities are lacking in each that the other would provide?
Breeding mixes shouldn’t just be about the health of the breeds (as it’s abundantly obvious that slapping two different dogs of different breeds together doesn’t magically produce excellent offspring), but about the qualities of each breed you want in the mix. And THAT is what breeders of mixed breeds seem to be missing. Again, again, again - there should be a purpose to breeding beyond making money off of “teh cute”.
Comment by K.B. — March 6, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
WARNING - GENETIC LECTURE FOLLOWS
Read at your own peril ;)
I can’t leave this alone, since it is one of my pet peeves - the whole “let’s just breed mixes instead of health testing” thing, since it is based on a complete misunderstanding of science.
Let’s visit our hypothetical labradoodle breeders. They have decided they don’t have to test for any genetic issues, since that’s not what “good” breeding is about, right? Since they are taking a great poodle and a great lab, and breeding them, all is well.
Of course, they don’t know if the poodle is a carrier for Addison’s. Or if the lab carries the genes for retinal dysplasia (or insert your own favourite genetically-linked diseases).
Let’s look at the two parents, and assume they are both carriers of their respective diseases.
Poodle: Aarr, Lab: aaRr.
Since these are genetically recessive diseases, the parents will show no signs of them.
Breeding them (Aarr x aaRr) produces the following probabilities:
AaRr: 25%, carrier for both traits
Aarr: 25% carrier for Addison’s
aaRa: 25% carrier for RD
aarr: 25% clear
So, they have a 1/4 chance of getting an F1 pup that is clear of both conditions. The exact SAME chance they take of getting an F1 pup that is a carrier for both.
And there is a 75% probability that a pup will be a carrier for at least one condition.
But none of the pups will develop Addison’s or RD - hybrid vigour at work!!
Of course, our breeders can’t breed past the F1 generations without running the very real risk of dogs from further generations developing BOTH conditions. So, they rely on purebred breeders of poodles and labs to produce their breeding stock for them, and pat themselves on the back for producing such healthy pups, right?
Can you please explain to me how this is a better breeding plan than genetic testing?
Comment by K.B. — March 6, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
“Problem is, the kind of reputable, ethical breeders who own that standard poodle and that field line Lab would never in a million billion years think of putting those dogs together”
Gina, why not?
Comment by Mary Mary — March 6, 2010 @ 8:29 am
I’m blatently NOT Gina, and I know she’s more than capable of answering for herself, but here’s my opinion;
There are more than enough breeds already, bred to fullfill their own purpose.
Also breeding a litter responsibly and finding appropriate homes for dogs bred of parents of the *same* breed (as each other) is not always easy. I imagine the amount of suitable home waiting for crossbreds would be limited. Most people who really want a certain breed, want THAT breed, not a cross. The breed has been tried and tested for purpose for generations, a crossbred is a (un)lucky dip as far as how they will actually turn out.
Breeders should be trying to improve their breed of choice, not going off at a tangent for no good reason.
Comment by Alison — March 6, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
“As for proof - can YOU find proof that an F1 mixed breed dog is *always* healthier than it’s purebred parents?”
Nooooo. But I never claimed that “an F1 mixed breed is *always* healthier than it’s [sic] purebred parents.” But don’t believe me – compare quotes for pet insurance on mixed breeds vs. purebred dogs. (Or read some of the links I posted….)
“[O]ne of my pet peeves [is] the whole “let’s just breed mixes instead of health testing” thing….”
Who said that? Health testing and heterosis are not the same thing, even if some people like to conflate the two (which is not very smart).
“Let’s look at the two parents, and assume they are both carriers of their respective diseases.”
Oops – the mode of inheritance for Addison’s Disease in standard poodles is unknown and, most likely, is not single autosomal recessive. Polygenetic? Epigenetic? Dominant with incomplete penetrance? Don’t know. Do care. And that’s just one of the reasons I rail against the “breeders’ code of silence” which, among other things, results in the refusal by too many breed clubs to encourage/enforce disclosure of genetic disease in pedigrees of pure bred dogs.
“Of course, our breeders can’t breed past the F1 generations without running the very real risk of dogs from further generations developing BOTH conditions. So, they rely on purebred breeders of poodles and labs to produce their breeding stock for them, and pat themselves on the back for producing such healthy pups, right?”
Yep – that’s exactly what they do. And guess what? Chances are the F1 puppy buyers will get a healthier puppy than if they’d bought a pure bred dog or F2 or F3 or F4.
The reason the “health” factor works for breeders of mixed breed dogs who are in it for the $$$ is because the lack of health in too many pure bred dogs is a fact. And “testing” isn’t going to fix the problem.
What will? Open the registries; discourage the use of popular sires and inbreeding; encourage/mandate disclosure of genetic disease; make health a – the – priority in breeding schemes; dump the myth of breed purity.
I can dream, eh?
Comment by Miki — March 6, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
But if they did all of the above without *gasp* crossing breeds, it is somehow superior?
You haven’t been reading this blog very long, or else you haven’t been paying attention to what you’ve been reading. There are not a lot of fans of the closed stud book, here.
However, a stud book which is open for the products of carefully planned outcrosses intelligently made to address the weaknesses (including health weaknesses) of a breed, is rather different from sticking two random badly-bred purebreds of different breeds to produce puppies who can be sold for high prices to the gullible because they have such cutesie-poo names.
I’m no breeder, but it seems to me that eliminating dogs from the pool for failing genetic tests means the pool keeps getting smaller. For some diseases this means eliminating it, but for others it does not because the disease is carried recessively.
But that’s not the way you do it, if you’re doing it intelligently and responsibly. What you do do, for those diseases for which there is a known genetic marker to test for, is identify a dog as Affected, Carrier, or Clear. You generally don’t breed Affected dogs, because all their pups will be at least Carriers, though limited exceptions are possible, with exceptional dogs and an exceptional (and Clear!) potential mate. Carrier dogs are never bred to Carrier dogs, only to Clear dogs. That way, you don’t throw the genetic baby out with the bathwater, preserve the desirable traits, don’t limit the gene pool unnecessarily—but gradually decrease the frequency of the unwanted gene in the gene pool.
Your other point, of course, that there are not genetic tests for all undesirable genes, is quite true, and for those genes, the situation is more complicated. But that’s what studying pedigrees, including the health histories of the recent generations of ancestor dogs, and the detailed medical records of the prospective parents, is all about. It’s also what funding and participating ongoing genetic research into these diseases is all about, so that we can develop means to test for these things and improve the ability to make intelligent, beneficial breeding decisions.
Your beloved “designer dog” breeders are not part of that research, because they’re only interested in making money off cutesie-poo names.
My own breed of choice, Chinese Cresteds, has gotten healthier over the past thirty years. Why? Because influential breeders pushed for a variety of practices that help make healthier dogs: 1. Including powderpuffs in breeding and showing. 2. Competing Cresteds in agility or obedience, and breeding only with lines that have some recent performance titles. 3. Know Thy Lines: study the lines for evidence of PRA and and lens luxation. 3a. Some major breeders chose to delay breeding dogs until the age at which these problems would have presented. 3b. Now that DNA testing for these genes are available, responsible breeder use them, so that they don’t create affected pups, and gradually reduce the frequency of these genes in the general Crested population.
Or at least, the general responsibly bred Crested population. This would not include those breeders who are producing Chi-Chis (Crested/Chihuahua crosses) and selling all those F1 pups as “designer breeds” with “hybrid vigor.” (No OFA, and no one asking whether mom and dad can even walk, or if their moms and dads could.) Or Crestie-Poos—a crappily bred Crested and a crappily bred poodle have an excellent chance of producing PRA-affected pups, because they share the gene for it.
Comment by Lis — March 6, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
I’m blatently NOT Gina, and I know she’s more than capable of answering for herself, but here’s my opinion;
There are more than enough breeds already, bred to fullfill their own purpose.
Also breeding a litter responsibly and finding appropriate homes for dogs bred of parents of the *same* breed (as each other) is not always easy. I imagine the amount of suitable home waiting for crossbreds would be limited. Most people who really want a certain breed, want THAT breed, not a cross. The breed has been tried and tested for purpose for generations, a crossbred is a (un)lucky dip as far as how they will actually turn out.
Breeders should be trying to improve their breed of choice, not going off at a tangent for no good reason.
I’m also blatantly not Gina. However, my reasoning is rather different from yours. We’re asking dogs to do very different jobs than we asked of them a century ago, and whether or not anyone thinks there are “enough breeds” now, this doesn’t change the fact that the ideal guide dog may not be the current GSDs, Labs, and Goldens. At least one guide dog school is finding that they have a lower washout rate with Lab/Golden crosses bred from their Labs and Goldens who have been bred as guide dogs for decades, than they do with purebred Labs, Goldens, or GSDs. But they’re not crossing for the sake of crossing, or for a myth of “hybrid vigor;” they’re breeding for specific characteristics for a specific reason.
English Shepherds and Australian Shepherds exist because the border collie was not the right dog for herding in the American west, but simply the almost right dog. Border Jacks exist because flyball enthusiasts want a better flyball dog.
Even some Cockapoo breeders did it because they felt the cocker spaniel had become too unreliable in temperament.
But Maltipoos, Chi-Chis, most labradoodle and goldendoodles, puggles, Bugs, Chugs, and too many to name exist only because somebody wanted to make big bucks off of a cutesie-poo name and gullible customers. And no, that’s not okay.
Comment by Lis — March 6, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
I actually agree with Miki (and the folks she cited) that expanding the gene pool of many if not most breeds is a good if not necessary thing, and frankly, I’d be first in line to do it with either of my extremely well-bred, field-line retrievers, either my champion, field-titled OFA excellent, etc., etc., Swedish-bred boy or (some day, if she turns out as nice as she should) my puppy girl whose mother and paternal grandfather are/were part of the most notable litters ever bred in flat-coated retrievers in North America, and whose maternal grandfather was one of the top field dogs in Europe and maternal grandmother is one of the most beautiful and top-winning show bitches in a breed where show dogs hunt and hunting dogs show.
But I would do the outcrossing (to a successful field Lab or something like that) ONLY as as part of a larger, science-based effort of a breeder/geneticist/vet school study/coalition aimed at blasting open the genetic bottleneck that makes flat-coated retrievers the veterinary oncologist’s poster breed. Why? Because I don’t want to work in a vacuum. The end goal would NOT be a cute name and a four-figure check for a puppy. It would be healthy, hardy, happy companion retriever with a great nose and plenty of drive who’s also a good family pet. In other words: The end result is a flat-coated retriever.
I would want genetic testing for what could be tested for (hips, etc.) and then a reasonable multi-generation breeding plan with a freakin’ GOAL. The dog at the end would look like a flat-coat, hunt like a flat-coat, wag a tail 24/7 like a flat-coat but not die like a flat-coat. I think best-friend retrievers — not the same thing as field trial retrievers on a pro trainer’s truck — are a heritage worth preserving, but it’s not the piece of paper that makes a dog a good hunter and companion: It’s the work, and it’s not dropping dead at 8. So when I think about preserving heritage breeds, I’m thinking about the breed functions, not the papers that say they are this or that.
What I would NOT be doing is breeding “flatadors” or “flatadoodles” from any available registered purebreds I could get my hands on because a “cute name” gets me double the puppy price of a flat-coat or quadruple the price of a casually bred Lab.
As for WHY (Mary Mary’s question) someone with an awesome standard poodle doesn’t seek out someone with an awesome field bred Lab, well … I think one day that will happen. There are already a few breeders who meet every standard for reputable and ethical EXCEPT they’re not breeding purebreds. They’re not common, these breeders, but they’re out there.
And there will be more.
Like Liz, I’m good with that. But I’m even better with people not supporting bad breeders — not puppy-milling scum, and not quick-buck small-scale idjits. And I’m even more good with some who wants “just” a nice pet finding one through a rescue or shelter. Get a dog who fits with your lifestyle and your family, and who won’t drop dead early after costing you thousands trying to keep your pet alive.
A flat-coated retriever fits my lifestyle because I have made preserving this heritage working breed a major part of my life. Along with writing, my retrievers ARE my life. The other animals in my life are beloved companions. I love them no less, but my retrievers are ALSO part of something bigger.
That’s not the norm for most families.
A healthy, temperamentally sound canine companion of an acceptable size, exercise level and coat type is really all that should matter to most people, not how trendy their breed or crossbreed is. Or how morally superior they want to feel for having a “mutt” — because I sure see a lot of that, too.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 6, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
“The dog at the end would look like a flat-coat, hunt like a flat-coat but not die like a flat-coat.”
Replace flat-coat with standard poodle and that’s what I want, Gina. {{{HUGS}}}
But how do we get there? Not by bashing mixed breeds (or breeders of mixed breeds). And that’s what I’m bitching about in this blog/comments.
I gotta go - my (neutered, rescued) standard poodle needs his shot + pills + special food.
Comment by Miki — March 6, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
Miki … five years ago we weren’t even asking these questions. For me, the fact that we are shows that we’ve come pretty far, pretty fast.
The fact that there’s a long way to go doesn’t change that.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 6, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
Yep – that’s exactly what they do. And guess what? Chances are the F1 puppy buyers will get a healthier puppy than if they’d bought a pure bred dog or F2 or F3 or F4.
Comment by Miki — March 6, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
So where exactly are the parents coming from??? Why is it okay to breed “healthy” F1 from supposedly “not healthy” parents?? And if everyone is breeding F1s, then what happens when all the purebreds die out (yeah, I know, not likely, kinda like any one breed coming down to one “breedable” individual)?
As for “open health registries” in your breed - check out Versatility in Poodles.
http://www.vipoodle.org/
Lots of great, healthy, active, working poodles there!
Comment by K.B. — March 6, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
There are more than enough breeds already, bred to fullfill their own purpose.
Even setting aside the designer breeds, many new breeds have been created in recent years and are still be created. These new breeds are all around us, in huge numbers. Since we are a society obsessed with brand names, and these new breeds are going by the names of older breeds, we don’t realize that they are new.
Reposted from something I sent to the Canine Genetics list a year ago:
Many dog breeds have been created and then lost over the course of millennia. This process of adaptation is part of the historical relationship between humans and the domestic dog.
Most of the “traditional breeds” are already lost, even when a breed that descends from them and goes by the traditional breed name still exists. But they are no longer the traditional breed. They have been “improved” by the dog fancy to the point that they are profoundly different from the traditional breed whose name they still use. They are new breeds in everything but name. These new breeds are being created at an incredible rate, yet somehow they are acceptable because they go by a traditional breed name and descend from a traditional breed. In truth, breeds like the AKC showline GSD (less than 40 years old) are as new as the Labradoodle.
There is no reason to believe that we now have all of the dog breeds that can suit all current and future needs. I disagree that there is anything intrinsically wrong with those who are creating new breeds, or those who are breeding F1 hybrids. On the contrary, this is a necessary part of adaptation to changes in human culture, which is changing faster than at any time in history. Dogs must adapt to this change, or nearly all of them will go extinct. Indeed they have been adapted to this change, as most working breeds have gone extinct in recent years or will soon do so, even when a breed still exists by the traditional working breed name.
The notion that time should now stop and that we should create no more new dog breeds seems utterly bizarre to me.
Hundreds of dog breeds have been created over just the past 100-150 years, including many that are held up as “traditional breeds”. This is a span of time that is tiny given the 10,000+ year existence of the domestic dog. Much of this change has occurred over the past 50 years and is still ongoing.
The dog fancy considers the practice of “improving” traditional breeds until they are transformed into new breeds acceptable since they have the seal of approval of a traditional breed name and a kennel club pedigree history, while those who are honest enough to create a new breed name for their new breed are condemned as breeders of unacceptable mongrels. This seems quite hypocritical to me.
My objection is to the common practice of appropriating the breed genetics and breed names of _currently_existing_ working breeds and transforming them into show or pet breeds. This is misleading and damaging to the
“traditional breed” — the working breed — that also goes by the same breed name. If those who do this would just come up with a new name for their new breed, there would be no problem.
Comment by LauraS — March 6, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
Hybrid vigor doesn’t apply to dogs, especially since we’ve all but destroyed their gene pool.
There’s sufficient evidence of heterosis (hybrid vigor) in low COI pure breed dog sub-populations as well as in mixed breed dog populations.
Comment by LauraS — March 6, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
“Miki … five years ago we weren’t even asking these questions. For me, the fact that we are shows that we’ve come pretty far, pretty fast.
Right you are, Gina. Five years ago I was terrified about getting another standard poodle. Now my consternation is between paying the $$$ and supporting truly ethical breeders or rescuing another Addisonian standard poodle because I know how to care (and pay) for them.
I love, love, love my breed but I also know that, chances are, I’m going to have to support a sickie - Addisons, sebaceous adenitis, HD, bloat, laryngeal paralysis, mast cell cancer, allergies - pick your poison.
We can and should and want to do better by our pure bred dogs. But denying their genetic, inbred, closed registry problems has not produced a healthy pure bred.
Why not?
Comment by Miki — March 6, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
As for proof - can YOU find proof that an F1 mixed breed dog is *always* healthier than it’s purebred parents? Because I can find proof that those offspring are just as susceptible as any other dog - as Eric so nicely pointed out. Here’s a post, by a vet, about how nice and healthy her F1 pug mix is: http://www.dolittler.com/2009/…..#8230;html
That doesn’t frame the question fairly or meaningfully.
The existence of a life-long cigarette chain smoker who manages to beat the median longevity for non-smokers does nothing to negate the evidence that smoking cigarettes reduces longevity, on average.
Likewise, the existence of an unhealthy mixed breed dog does not negate the evidence that mixed breed dog populations are healthier and live longer than pure breed dog populations, on average.
Comment by LauraS — March 6, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
There are already a few breeders who meet every standard for reputable and ethical EXCEPT they’re not breeding purebreds. They’re not common, these breeders, but they’re out there.
There’s more than a few of them in the working dog world.
I’m told that most of the working stock dogs in California are purpose-bred mixed breeds. Not random mutts and not designer breeds, they are selectively bred for work.
If you see a Belgian Malinois accompanying a law enforcement officer, realize that the odds are pretty good that the dog is a high percentage Malinois mix that also includes recent infusions of Dutch Shepherd, German Shepherd Dog, and various other breeds. They are not pure breeds, at least not in the modern sense of that term.
Comment by LauraS — March 6, 2010 @ 6:30 pm
Not disagreeing with you, Laura, but … breeding for performance (stock dog, sled dog, police dog, etc.) is pretty rare relative to the number of dogs born and destined to be “just” pets of any breed or mix.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 6, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
Miki, have you seen this?
http://www.canine-genetics.com/standard_poodle.htm
Comment by LauraS — March 6, 2010 @ 6:35 pm
Gina, I am hoping that those who breed “just pets” will pick up on these diversity breeding practices. Pet dog breeders need not be shackled by obsolete 19th century breeding paradigms.
Breeders of F1 designer pet dogs claim their approach is the answer. But unless they also combine this with careful, responsible selection of breeding stock on its own merits as healthy, temperamentally sound long-lived pets, and also carefully combine mates that complement one other, they will fall short.
Hybrid vigor is very real, but it cannot compensate for all the ills created by modern dog breeding practices. A lot of the problems in modern dog breeding stem from decades of inadequate selection for health and longevity. Health screening and genetic tests are only a part of the answer.
Comment by LauraS — March 6, 2010 @ 6:55 pm
“Miki, have you seen this?
http://www.canine-genetics.com/standard_poodle.htm”
Um, yeah - I have. It (allegedly) forms the basis of the canine genetics list I subscribe to. And it should explain why I sometimes think I should just “rescue” another Addisonian standard poodle.
I haven’t reached the place where I believe we can’t breed healthy pure bred dogs. I still believe we’re smarter than that. But this “pure bred vs. mixed breed” bullshit is just that - bullshit. And it’s gonna kill us unless we let go of the ignorance of conformation.
Comment by Miki — March 6, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
And it’s gonna kill us unless we let go of the ignorance of conformation.
Comment by Miki — March 6, 2010
Or just re-prioritize so it’s just ONE factor, along with health and working ability. Or at least have breed standards not actively work AGAINST health and working ability, as is the case in too many breeds. (Too many = one.)
After all, even the purely working hounds Glenye Oakford writes about are judged for their conformation. It’s just secondary to their performance in the field. The Iroquois Huntmaster isn’t going to breed a pretty hound who can’t/won’t hunt.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 6, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
Conformation isn’t always or necessarily irrelevant. Health, OTOH, is always and necessarily relevant. But don’t believe me - ask Darwin.
I don’t believe Dogs and Darwin are mutually exclusive.
Comment by Miki — March 6, 2010 @ 7:27 pm
If I want a cross-breed, I’ll go and adopt one from a shelter and not pay the $1000+ price tag for these so-called designer breeds. Friends of mine paid $2500 for a labradoodle, I think that they have more money than brains.
Comment by Karen Friesecke — March 6, 2010 @ 8:30 pm
Regarding conformation standards (as used at the Masters of Fox Hounds Association shows where our hounds show, as opposed to AKC, which I know nothing about) and breeding of working hounds, conformation is considered mainly in terms of whether the hound will remain sound as an athlete over the particular kind of country its pack hunts, as Gina indicated.
Somewhere in another discussion, about Westminster, I think, I said I’d be interested to know how long ago the last working (as in entered to hunt) foxhound or beagle was also a winner at Westminster. Maybe it wasn’t too long ago, but I’d be surprised. I wonder how different the standards are between the MFHA and the AKC, too … the AKC standard for foxhounds, for example, must have grown out of the original English MFHA judgments of what generally made a successful working hound, but I wonder how similar they still are? I would think the MFHA standards might be more fluid, because the country your hounds hunt over plays such a role in the type of body they will need (beyond obvious flaws that any hound would have difficulty overcoming regardless of its country, like a badly crooked limb prone or something similar). That’s something to look up next week: comparison of the standards between AKC and MFHA. Just thinking aloud.
You all raise such interesting points, and now I’ll sit back and continue reading—and learning!
Comment by Glenye Oakford — March 6, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
I’m also blatantly not Gina. However, my reasoning is rather different from yours. ,
Comment by Lis — March 6, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
My response was to whe a decent breeder would *NOT* be involved in breeding crossbreds. Your response appears to be why they *WOULD*.
Comment by Alison — March 6, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
My response was to whe a decent breeder would *NOT* be involved in breeding crossbreds. Your response appears to be why they *WOULD*.
Yeah.
And it’s not the reasons of the “designer breed” profiteers.
But “why they would” basically breaks down to two reasons: Either they see a need for a dog with different characteristics than existing breeds for some real purpose, or because they see a need and a way to improve the health of the current breed that they love—such as Gina’s interest in planned outcrossing to improved the health of flatcoats. But to do that latter one right, you don’t want just one breeder doing it. You want a well-developed scientific plan with multiple lines and substantial buy-in. And sadly, we’re not there yet. But it’s coming.
Comment by Lis — March 7, 2010 @ 12:39 am
All these poodle mixes are starting to get to me.
I own a Standard Poodle, Figaro, bought from a breeder in hopes he’ll make it as a service dog for me. It took me 2 years to find a breeder I loved and I ended up with a dog from California when I live in Maine. Still, I don’t regret it. Anyway, I digress.
When he was intact, the amount of people who approached me to ask if I’d breed him with their lab, or golden, or other breed was astounding. I’ve a no breeding clause in my puppy contract anyway, but the sheer ignorance of the amount of people who thought cute mixes would be fun and a quick buck was rather surprising and boggling.
I tried explaining that if one wants labradoodle, their are plenty in shelters, that F1 crosses are pretty random in what traits they display, but I’m not sure it did any good.
On another note, I would in fact like to see an outcross for the poodle, but I’m not sure on a likely breed yet and I myself don’t breed. Still it’s something I’d love to have happen.
Comment by thetroubleis — March 7, 2010 @ 2:40 am
By the way, I like all these folks who are blatantly NOT Gina. I wish sometimes I could take a day off from actually BEING Gina, sometimes. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 7, 2010 @ 6:23 am
Maybe Faybe would be willing to switch off with you for a day? She’ll be you, you get to be the puppy for 24 hours?
Comment by Lis — March 7, 2010 @ 6:44 am
46.By the way, I like all these folks who are blatantly NOT Gina. I wish sometimes I could take a day off from actually BEING Gina, sometimes. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 7, 2010 @ 6:23 am
Har! I’ll just keep asking clueless questions about genetics but address them to “not-Gina” …
Comment by Mary Mary — March 7, 2010 @ 7:03 am
Having read Gina’s latest post on the blog, I wish I WERE Gina!
Comment by Glenye Oakford — March 7, 2010 @ 7:26 am
Maybe Faybe would be willing to switch off with you for a day? She’ll be you, you get to be the puppy for 24 hours?
Comment by Lis — March 7, 2010
Now THAT would be fun!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 7, 2010 @ 8:01 am
My greatest objection to the profit-driven production of F1 mutts with cute labels conducted by ignorami is, in fact, the mud that the practice spatters over the DIRE need for the thoughtful opening up of purebred gene pools.
What Gina described as her criteria for a cross-breeding program about covers it.
I’d add that those of us with rare breeds will tend to be more conservative about using our bitches in a crossbreeding program. A bitch has only a few opportunities to contribute to the future of the breed.
I’d be happy to have a stud dog from my breeding participate in an outcross program to help another breed — or if it became necessary, to produce offspring with bitches of another breed that would be folded into our ES gene pool.
I’d be unlikely to breed a litter out of one of my bitches for the same purpose. Especially since my working bitches may have one or two litters in a lifetime.
The object lesson on that front is the near-extinction of the Cleveland Bay horse due to using mares to produce sought-after crossbred sport horse offspring:
http://www.albc-usa.org/cpl/clevelandbay.html
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 7, 2010 @ 10:07 am
I have a popular breed(golden retrievers_ that has real problems with genetic diversity. I would be happy if we could do intelligent outcrosses with related breeds (Labs, flat-coats, setters, etc).
I am ambivalent about doodles. The more contrived genetic bottlenecks one is dealing with, the more genetic disorders one must know.
However, the big problem is that the problems we have in purebred dogs cannot be solved within the closed registry system. The more we try to “breed out” disorders, new ones will continue to pop up. Many of these disorders are recessives, which means as you restrict genetic diversity to cull out one disorder, another one will pop up.
And lower genetic diversity always affects the immune system. That’s probably why so many purebreds are tumor factories.
Laissez-faire doodling, however, probably won’t save our dogs.
We have to start thinking of our dogs as organisms. They are as affected by selective pressures as any other species. I’ve never known of a zoo that liked to have inbred specimens.
Comment by retrieverman — March 7, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
BTW,
Golden retrievers aren’t low shed, and goldendoodles aren’t either.
Comment by retrieverman — March 7, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
However, the big problem is that the problems we have in purebred dogs cannot be solved within the closed registry system. The more we try to “breed out” disorders, new ones will continue to pop up. Many of these disorders are recessives, which means as you restrict genetic diversity to cull out one disorder, another one will pop up.
Well said. When taken too far, real harm can be caused by well-meaning breeders. This harm has actually happened to some dog populations, when attempts to purge one disease caused other diseases to become more common. A big risk is when breeders misuse genetic tests of recessives to cull carriers. BIG BIG MISTAKE. For a given genetic test of a recessive, breedings of carrier dogs to clear dogs should NOT be discouraged.
Comment by LauraS — March 7, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
I don’t breed, and don’t see myself ever doing it. But with the experiences I’ve had, breeders I’ve met, dogs I’ve known, etc., the only way I could ever support the mixes is if it is done for the good of the breed, not the good of someone’s bank accounts. I’ve read where they’ve brought pointer blood into dalmatians now due to the uric acid issues, and where boxers have been crossed with corgis in england so the dogs are born with a docked tail. (The dalmatian thing made total sense to me when I read about it.) But I can no further support the person mixes beagles with bassets (I have a rescued one) just because they’re so darn cute, or any other -oodle, -poo, whatnot. If it’s done for the health of the dog and the health of the breed, I’m all about it. Problem is even so many breeders of purebreds don’t desrve the title as they’re BYBs or puppymillers.
Comment by Brooke — March 7, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
Yet some beagle blood folded back into the basset gene pool *for a reason* strikes me as a very good idea.
In the case of bassets, to jump-start a return to a more moderate, healthy, functional structure.
Not all genetic problems are hidden.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 7, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
Sneaking off to breed a litter of Shepaburgers…
Comment by Janeen — March 7, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
I’ve been giving this topic a lot of thought the past 24 hours, trying to come up with a reply that addresses the subjects Liz brought up in her original post.
I am getting 2 dogs, one this spring as a pup, and one in 1 1/2 to 2 years from now. Gotta sign up early! lol. Both dogs are coming from show and performance parents. Performance sports is a stand in for many breeds whose original function has been lost by the passage of time and the changes we have made as humans in our lifestyles. Chasing a tall kitchen garbage bag at the end of a string is not the same as chasing a rat in the rushes strewn on the floor of a great hall but it will have to do. Going over an Aframe at speed and contacting the yellow zone doesn’t really relate to anything except the dog being willing to learn a behavior and knowing her job.
However, I want my future dogs to be from known parentage with what is currently available for health testing and most of all I want the Ginas and Christies and anyone else on this blog who is or has been a responsible breeder in my back pocket to be a friend, mentor and shoulder to lean on through the life of my puppehs!
Knowledgeable Family homes for Family Dogs! Amen.
Comment by Anne T. — March 7, 2010 @ 7:12 pm
Sneaking off to breed a litter of Shepaburgers…
Comment by Janeen — March 7, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
Summbuddy’s gonna need a stepstool.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 8, 2010 @ 7:51 am
I hate this trend, it’s bad for dogs and people. Who knows what kind of health issues are creating. I have loved mixed breed and pure breed dogs. I love pure breed dogs because they come with a special set of trates and characteristics, along with known health issues. I have had four St Bernards. I have had to deal with hip issues in two. I have had Basset Hounds and have had no health issues. But plenty of trips to the vet for injuries, Their noses get them into trouble.Hope this ends soon.
Comment by Susan Dunnick — March 8, 2010 @ 8:02 pm