Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Question about mutt breeders

kayla
March 6th, 2005, 10:48 PM
I've read a few threads about how no good breeder would breed mutts, and those who do are only in it for profit. I was just wondering, why? I read something from a site someone posted and it says:

"When mixed-breed dogs are mated, the outcome is anyone’s guess. Perhaps both carried recessive genes for a physical deformity or personality flaw."

But couldn't this happen with purebreds that aren't carefully screened as well? If there was a good breeder, who screened both parents, what difference does it make if they are the same breed or not? Maybe I am missing something obvious here.. But if the both breeds could possibly be carrying this recessive gene, then a purebred offspring could possibly get the flaw, right?

I'm not challenging anyone here, I just really want to understand why no good breeder would crossbreed?

wjranch
March 6th, 2005, 11:55 PM
The whole point of 'purebred' dogs is to keep them true to form.
They have a recognized standard for thier breed that most breeders (good ones) attempt to meet or exceed.
When mixing breeds what is it they are looking to get out of it?? It makes little sense to me to practice this. If you want a dog to protect your house and family, but, not shed... you wouldn't breed a doberman with a poodle would you? No, you'd find a breeder of standard (french) poodles *protection breed originally*

There are risks in breeding any animals, they are higher when mixing different forms and functions. All of the recognized breeds of dogs today have a reason for being what they are... Hounds, Working dogs, Sport/hunting...etc..etc.. To mix them together you loose something to gain something... it depends entirely on the purpose of the breeding... I, personally, will stick to one breed and strive to perfect it. Hope this helps you understand better why it is important to stick with one breed when breeding anything!

Prin
March 7th, 2005, 12:03 AM
I've studied genetics until my eyes dropped out of my head-- I'll try to be brief.

There are recessive genes and dominant genes. Every mammal has 2 copies of each gene. The dominant one overshadows the recessive one unless you have 2 recessive genes. Humans with blue eyes have 2 blue eye genes. If a human has brown (dominant) eyes, the second gene can be anything-- green, hazel, blue. Breeders have a pedigree of a breed, which is the family tree as far back as they can go, with diseases, temperment, color, etc on it. They track it all to test the future probability of getting a disease or color of dog between mated pairs. Let's say use black labs as an example because I know them best.

Black labs are dominant. Black is usually dominant on yellow and yellow is dominant on brown. Black is dominant on brown as well (brown is the most recessive). If you mate a Brown lab (2 brown genes) with a black lab (1 black gene and one unknown), you will get:
The second gene in the black lab is black too, ALL black puppies with one black gene and one brown gene
The second gene is brown: 1/2 of the puppies will be brown, 1/2 black
the second gene is yellow: 1/2 of the pups yellow, 1/2 black
(of course it's more complicated than this...)

Now let's take a white (most recessive) husky with the black facial markings (dominant) and blue eyes (recessive) with a brown eyed black lab with one color gene brown (recessive too) and one gene black (dominant), with brown eyes-- one gene dark brown (dominant) and one paler, less common orangey brown (recessive too).

Here are SOME your possible puppies (there are so many and I have to sleep one day...)
Brown 40lb lab with brown eyes.
Yellow 60lb lab with the dark facial markings and one blue eye and one orange eye
White husky-like 60lb dog with brown eyes
black lab with one eye blue, one orange
yellow with facial markings and brown eyes
Black husky-like 40lb dog with brown eyes
black husky-like dog with only orange eyes (could over power blue)
Brown, 60 lb lab with one blue and one orange eye

and on and on.
Now what if you don't know what mixes the grandparents were? And you don't know how healthy they were and their parents were. And you don't know what recessive gene there is masked by the dominant, visible genes. Now throw in HUNDREDS of recessive diseases (like hip dysplasia, congenital heart disease, wobbler's syndrome, Diabetes, bacterial overgrowth, undescended testicles, patella luxation, congenital deafness, hernias, overbite/underbite, cataracts, epilepsy, and on and on and on and on.)

When you buy a pure bred dog from a reputable breeder, you get certification that it does not and will not get these diseases.

When you buy from Jo Schmo who was too lazy and cheap to get his dog fixed, you don't get anything, no peace of mind BUT you're still PAYING FOR IT. If you want a good lookin' mutt without a guarantee-- ADOPT A MUTT. There are TONS out there that need homes and are waiting in shelters and Jo Schmo is helping put them there. You'll pay half the price and most shelters do offer some sort of health guarantee.

Was my genetics 101 understandable? Do you see why now?

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 12:48 PM
I understand recessive/dominant genes, but that still doesn't really answer why a good, reputable breeder would never breed mutts.

Of course if Joe Schmoe wanted to breed his dog which wasn't fit for breeding with another dog not fit for breeding you couldn't end up with all sorts of problems, regardless of whether the two dogs were of the same breed or not. But what if, say, there was a person who bred purebred boxers and they also bred purebred black labs. They knew of the history of the animals, have had them all screened, and are all very healthy animals. This person is a good breeder who knows about genetics and has made sure he/she is not passing on any genetic flaws.

Now, one day, this person, for whatever reason, decides to mix two of his/her best dogs from the two different breeds. He has now bred boxer/black lab mutts. They are also all very healthy because both of the parents have been screened for health problems. Any recessive genes have no more chance of appearing than they would if the dogs had remained purebred. For example, if the mom was a black lab, and she had a recessive gene for hip dysplasia, then it doesn't matter if she was bred with her breed or not, because it is possible with ANY other breed that it could have the recessive gene also, and 25% of puppies would end up with it.

BUT, a GOOD breeder would know their dogs history, and be able to say with some certainty whether they have the gene or not. And since the gene is the same with both breeds, then it really makes no difference, no increased chances etc if they are mix bred or not, right?

Also, although hip dyplasia is pretty ubiquitous throughout breeds, some genetic flaws are not, so mixing does reduce the chance that two recessive genes for the flaw don't get matched. The breeder could know the history of his/her purebreds for a few generations back but still never have known his/her dog carried this recessive gene if it was never expressed. This would be even more risky with less common flaws.

Why would someone want a mixed breed? Well, I personally love mutts. I like not knowing exactly what it will look like when it grows up. I like having a more original dog, with both its look and personality. I don't like that I can look at a web site on my dog and learn how many spots it should have, what colors should be where, exact height of shoulder to ground etc etc. If I had children one day and there was the option to make them a certain temperment, size, color etc I would definitely not want that. I would want my child to be an individual.

I would personally get my mutt from a shelter and take the chances, but what about those people who don't want to take chances and want to ensure their dog does not have a variety of genetic flaws? A friend of mine got her dog from a shelter almost a year ago and has just found out she has hip dysplasia. The poor dog is wobbling around and now she has to pay $4,500 to gix the hip fixed. In the future she wants to buy from a breeder, because the original cost will save her money in the future on vet bills, but she doesn't want a purebred, so where should she get it from?

There are also certain mixes that some people may like. I for one have always love boxer mixes (especially boxer/black labs, hence the example I used).

If a reputable breeder mixed breeds, and charged the same for them as their purebreds (the same screening and care went into both) and adopted them out with a contract to get the dogs spayed/neutered, as good breeders would do, what is wrong with this?

Btw I am not condoning people who make "designer breeds" and charge waaaay too much for them! That is a completely different thing. Just want to know why someone can't, if they want, find a mixed breed with the same good genetic background they could find in a purebreed? Why are they necessarily buying from a bad breeder?

wjranch
March 7th, 2005, 01:01 PM
Any breeders I know, or know of, will not mix thier breeds. Yes, many of them do breed more then one breed of dog, just not together. The reason for this is, it does not better either breed. It is essentially taking a step backward.
There are occasionally accidents (ya never know which stud the bitch prefers ;) ) and those pups will need homes too. It would be a bonus to know that they come from high quality dogs (according to each breed standard) and that they recieve proper vet care and treatment. The likelyhood of hereditery health problems would be diminished as well (because breeders wouldn't keep a dog or bitch that had serious problems intact anyway)
It is not a practice with reputable breeders to have this happen, but, it does sometimes.

It doesn't make them bad breeders unless they make a practice of doing it.

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 01:33 PM
Okay, so mixing does not lead to bettering the quality of the breed, but what about bettering the quality of mutts? Why should mutts not get the same fair treatment? Where can people who want a healthy mutt get one, if not from a reputable breeder?

What if a breeder had a perfectly healthy, good looking bitch from one of his/her litters, but for some reason didn't meet up to breed standards (say, for example, her tail is shorter than it should be, or her markings aren't perfect or something) and they decide that they won't use her to breed purebreds, but rather to breed perfectly healthy mixed dogs, for those people who want them. Meanwhile they are keeping their true to breed dam for breeding purebreds and bettering the quality of the breed etc.

Is there something wrong with this?

Also, if people had the choice of getting their mixed breed from a reputable breeder, I really think this would help put puppy mills out of business, because they wouldn't buy their mutts from a pet store. In an ideal world people would buy from shelters (actually, shelters wouldn't have to exist in an ideal world, but they do so...) but unfortunately some people don't have the time to "shop around" for that perfect dog they are looking for. Like buying second hand clothes, sometimes you find something great, but that takes time to search and it can be easier just to go to a store where they sell what you want and have your size, color etc.

I know there is an argument whether mutts are healthier than purebreds. I personally think they can be, if bred properly (have a feeling I might get flamed for that comment). But the problem is they are not bred properly. They end up having to come from puppy mills or byb's. Even most of the mutts at the shelter's originally came from puppy mills or byb's.

I think if breeders bred mutts, and made those buying the mutts sign a contract saying they will spay/neuter, and return the dog to them if they don't want it anymore etc etc then this could really solve a lot of problems. Many people just like mutts better. And although one responsibility of a good breeder may be to better the breed, but isn't another to provide healthy, happy dogs to good homes where they will be properly looked after and have a home to return to if they can no longer be cared for for some reason?

wjranch
March 7th, 2005, 01:47 PM
So it all boils down to how the term "better" is understood ?


The terms are pretty black and white according to the breed standards. You breed to meet that standard set out for the purpose of the breed. Obviously, greyhounds would never get far if they were allowed to show with short legs.. etc. Form to Function is the basis for most standards.

It's not really a subjective thing. Your dog is of a certain size, temperment, color...whatever... If it's not, it doesn't meet the standard and is disqualified.

CyberKitten
March 7th, 2005, 01:58 PM
I have to admit to being slightly dizzy reading this. I am not a dog breeder - not a breeder of any animal for that matter - but I have followed the subculture wits its unique norms and mores known as the dog world. Or should I say the registered dog world.

I think most of get genetics 101 - it's such a basic undergrad biology course anyway, lol My understanding is reputable breeders want to improve upon the standard of their particular breed. If you accept - as purebred dog people do (could not think of an alt word to "owners") - that that is an acceptable standard, then you breed only to better the standard and you breed ONLY those animals who have won awards in shows where Judges examine how well these dogs meet the breed prerequsites.

Moggies and mutts are wonderful animals and many are just as smart as purebreds. Certainky, they are as cute! The designer dogs are imho (and the CKC, AKC etc) also mutts - more expensive mutts mind you. But they in no way meet the standards and thus it is not acceptable nor is there anything to be gained in breeding them. Nor as somone pointed out, would you have access to their family tree and background.

I know it does remind one of eugenics sometimes - it does me - but as a consumer you know exactly what you are getting and you probably love a certain breed when you adopt a purebred. It's all part of the fun.

I've never heard of mutts being expensive - save the designer mutts - most are available at the SPCA or Rescues and if anyone is selling mutts in my neck of the woods, it is news to me. They may ask for an adoption fee for a mixed breed which makes sense. I am opposed both personally and scientifically to anyone deliberatelymating two seperate breeds and then selling the puppies for profit as designer breeds. There is no way to determine if they have the best of both parents. What is they ended up with the worst of both?

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 02:03 PM
I think that is exactly the point that is being made.

The qualifications of the breed standards are;

a) not the same qualities family pet owners are looking for
b) unimportant to pet owners
Exactly. If you want a dog for showing, racing, etc it is completely different than those who want a dog as a companion. And why shouldn't both people have the same option of getting a healthy, well-bred dog?

wjranch
March 7th, 2005, 02:14 PM
both people do have the same option of getting a healthy companion. it's personal choice where you get your dog from.

My understanding of the original post was the poster wished to know why no good breeder would mix breedings... I think I've answered that.

now it just seems to be a debate on semantics.. i'm not going there :)

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 02:16 PM
I am opposed both personally and scientifically to anyone deliberatelymating two seperate breeds and then selling the puppies for profit as designer breeds. There is no way to determine if they have the best of both parents. What is they ended up with the worst of both?

If you get your mutt from a good, reputable breeder there IS a way to determine they have the best of both parents, that is my whole point. That is why you would buy your mutt from a good breeder and not a shelter, to ensure it has the best of both parents.

As for getting the purebred you want ebing "all part of the fun", some would argue getting a mutt being all part of the fun, learning the individual personality of your dog.

It does remind me of eugenics too. Why don't we just find the perfect dog in each breed and clone it? Then we would know exactly what we are getting, and never have any element of suprise or individuality.

As for charging way too much for designer mutts, I am against this, as I said earlier. But I would pay just as much for a well bred mutt as for a well bred purebered.

happycats
March 7th, 2005, 02:50 PM
IMO Why breed mutts when there are already to many dogs in the world??
and alot of them are purebreds.
Why contribute to a large pet overpopulation problem ?

That is what is meant by "responsible" breeding.

You wouldn't be a very responsible breeder if you bred more unwanted dogs or cats into this world, when we are already euthanizing so many healthy ones on a daily basis!!

(don't get me wrong, I love mutts, and will eventually be adopting one, but only because I know they have a less likely chance of being adopted then a purebreed)

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 04:42 PM
both people do have the same option of getting a healthy companion. it's personal choice where you get your dog from.


Where would someone who wants to get a healthy mutt from if not from a good breeder?

I don't feel like my question has been answered. Yes I understand there are standards set by some people for certain breeds, like long legs for greyhounds etc, and breeders strive to perfect them. But what about people who could care less about these standards who just want the "form and function" of the dog to be original, healthy, and raised properly?

Why would a breeder, who is in every way a good responsible breeder, be condemned for producing beautiful healthy mutts? Someone suggested anyone breeding mutts is purely in it for the money. But aren't purebreds more expensive? If a breeder mixed the two breeds, they would likely recieve less money (unless labelling it a "designer breed", which is plain stupid).

As for why breed mutts when there are so many unwanted ones? Why breed at all? In that case, every breeder, purebred or not, is adding to the overpopulation of animals.

And shelter mutts almost all come from puppy mills or byb's. If they had come from good breeders they would not be in the shelter, but rather back with the breeder, who could adopt it out again and be able to ensure the new adopters the quality of the dog's health since they bred it.

The more I think about it the more I think good breeders should breed mutts. Think about it. If suddenly people had the option of getting a healthy mutt over gambling over a shelter dog, they probably would. Now the mutts that are in the shelter now would sadly have less chance of getting adopted out. BUT, the if the people decided not to keep their dog for whatever reason, it would eventually go back to it's original breeder, as stated the breeding contract, NOT to a shelter where it will likely be killed. So although the animals in the shelter now would suffer, it would be better off in the long run for all animals, right? Couldn't this maybe stop the problem at the source?

LavenderRott
March 7th, 2005, 04:59 PM
So, in order to get healthy mutts, we should just euthanize the 113,000 plus dogs that are listed on Petfinder and those that are not listed there, and start all over?

Well, you are going to have to pass some kind of law then. It seems that places like Wizard of Claws is making tons of money off of people with money to burn on such breeds as Morkies (I believe they have one listed for $8,000 - that would be American dollars).

Both of my girls are/were shelter dogs. In 8 years, we have had 1 emergency vet visit. My oldest girl just died of cancer. IMHO, shelter dogs are no more of a "risk" in any way, shape, or form then a carefully bred purebred dog. You need to be just as careful when looking for a shelter dog as you are when looking for a breeder of a purebred dog.

There are plenty of mutt "breeders" out there. Please, lets not encourage any more.

Writing4Fun
March 7th, 2005, 05:02 PM
Where would someone who wants to get a healthy mutt from if not from a good breeder?
Good breeders don't breed mutts. A "responsible mixed-breed breeder" is an oxymoron.

I don't feel like my question has been answered. Yes I understand there are standards set by some people for certain breeds, like long legs for greyhounds etc, and breeders strive to perfect them. But what about people who could care less about these standards who just want the "form and function" of the dog to be original, healthy, and raised properly? Then they should adopt from a shelter or contact a reputable breeder of their chosen breed and inquire about "pet quality" puppies.

Why would a breeder, who is in every way a good responsible breeder, be condemned for producing beautiful healthy mutts? Someone suggested anyone breeding mutts is purely in it for the money. But aren't purebreds more expensive? If a breeder mixed the two breeds, they would likely recieve less money (unless labelling it a "designer breed", which is plain stupid). Sorry, but this is incorrect. Anyone breeding mixed-breed dogs is not showing/titling/health testing, etc... and so their overhead is much lower, therefore their profit margin is larger. A good, responsible breeder is showing/titling their dogs (which means carting them all over the country if not continent), health testing extensively, breeding very selectively (which means far fewer pups than the mixed-breed breeder), yadda yadda... All this amounts to large cash. So, while the well-bred pup will cost more to begin with, there is a lot more that went into the breeding of said pup and so the breeder's profit margin is slim to none.

As for why breed mutts when there are so many unwanted ones? Why breed at all? In that case, every breeder, purebred or not, is adding to the overpopulation of animals. Now there's the $64,000,000.00 question...

And shelter mutts almost all come from puppy mills or byb's. If they had come from good breeders they would not be in the shelter, but rather back with the breeder, who could adopt it out again and be able to ensure the new adopters the quality of the dog's health since they bred it. Can't comment on this one for certain as I really don't know. I'd say a lot of dogs in shelters (purebred or not) are there because they were purchased on a whim and/or without any research/forethought. And of course the "disposable" mentality of society today translates to pets very easily. They are, after all, mere "property". Why don't they end up back at the breeder's? Probably because a lot of people don't want to admit failure. I't s a lot easier to drop Fido off with a faceless, nameless SPCA rep than to admit defeat to that person you assured wholeheartedly that you would love their pride and joy forever.

The more I think about it the more I think good breeders should breed mutts. Think about it. If suddenly people had the option of getting a healthy mutt over gambling over a shelter dog, they probably would. Now the mutts that are in the shelter now would sadly have less chance of getting adopted out. BUT, the if the people decided not to keep their dog for whatever reason, it would eventually go back to it's original breeder, as stated the breeding contract, NOT to a shelter where it will likely be killed. So although the animals in the shelter now would suffer, it would be better off in the long run for all animals, right? Couldn't this maybe stop the problem at the source? Wrong again. Sorry. People who dump their pets at a shelter for the many ludicrous(sp?) reasons we've seen on this board alone will not let an adoption contract rule them. The unwanted pets will wind up at the shelters regardless. After all, there are many, many well-bred, beloved pure-bred animals waiting for homes today. Many of these animals cost thousands of dollars initially, yet there they sit. As for "gambling" on a shelter dog - I'm not sure where you got this impression. Most shelters will health/temperment test their dogs prior to adoption. They'll also bring them up to date on shots and have them speutered. IMHO, this makes them pretty much a sure-thing! :D

Schwinn
March 7th, 2005, 05:29 PM
I think the crux of your question really is--what makes a responsible breeder? I think you'll find some opinions varied, and I do think there is a certain amount of opinion involved. Some seem to think that it requires to be "licensed", or "registered" (which has brought up great debate about what that means). Others feel that you are only responsible if you are showing your dogs and part of a recogninzed kennel club. I think still others would argure that, if over-population is the issue, there is no such things as "responsible breeders" if the shelters are full.

Personally, I don't think you'll find a general consensus to your answer, because I don't think there is general consensus to what a responsible breeder is. I think your question is probably hypothetical (ie. "All things being equal..."), but the problem is the answer everyone invariably arrives at is "A responsible breeder would never breed a mutt, ergo, if they are breeding mutts, they aren't a responsible breeder". It seems to me that, generally, if you aren't breeding pure-bred pups which are the off-spring of registered parents, then you are a backyard breeder. The question has been brought up before that if a BYB were to do all the things of a "registered" or "licensed" (which even that in itself has caused great debate), where is the problem? The answer is varied, but usually it revolves around a)breeding for profit is wrong and/or b)breeding of non-registered animals is wrong.

I'm not trying to throw stones, or push my own personal opinion, just making observations from the MANY forms this "discussion" (which almost always turns to an arguement) takes.

Maybe it's time to require an actual breeders license for ANYONE who wants to breed animals, then it'd be easier to have the debate. At the least, it would help with the problem of puppy mills, which I'm sure we all agree on are evil.

Prin
March 7th, 2005, 05:39 PM
The thing is, if you mix a boxer and a lab, the lab side will bring certain diseases and the boxer side will bring others. So you will have a chance of having a disease where you didn't before the cross.

And, no, most shelter dogs are not mutts but purebred dogs from people who got a cute dog that didn't suit their lifestyles. My aunt got an $1800 toy poodle from Rosie adoptions that the previous owners had had for 1 week before discovering that it wasn't house trained at 7 weeks!!!

The other thing, when you select a breed, you select personality characteristics too. You get a Weimeraner, you get a stubborn hunting dog. You get a Newfie, you get a loyal dog. You choose a sheltie, you get a herding dog. When you mix, you can't be sure of the usefulness of any of the puppies. What's a boxer/lab mix that looks like a lab and doesn't retrieve? Or a pointer mix who doesn't point? There are a lot of people who get dogs and then "bring them back" because they don't serve the purpose they are supposed to.

Or you get my dog, a lab husky mix who is beautifully black with blue eyes who gets passed around from house to house to house because she has the excitement of a lab and the endurance of a husky. That means you get an excited dog who never calms down and is impossible to wear out. She'll crack all her nails off before she stops running.

We tell people to research what breed really suits their lives and if they get a mutt, all that research is out the window.

The other thing is mutts happen by accident all the time, why would you pay big money for one?

Prin
March 7th, 2005, 05:45 PM
The bottom line is, a responsible breeder is one with absolute respect for dogs and a guy who breeds "crap" just to make money doesn't have respect for the 2 pure breeds he's mixing, and he has no respect for standards. Nobody selling mutts is out there to advance dog breeding.

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 07:22 PM
Oh my, so much to say, and I don't know how to use the quote option multiple times.. This should be fun..

LavenderRott: "So, in order to get healthy mutts, we should just euthanize the 113,000 plus dogs that are listed on Petfinder and those that are not listed there, and start all over? Well, you are going to have to pass some kind of law then."

No, I don't want 113,000 dogs to be euthanized! People would still adopt from the shelters, especially those wanting to pay less, and willing to take a risk, and those with hearts of gold who want to save the poor unwanted animals. I am very pro rescuing animals! But since starting this discussion I have started thinking about what causes those animals to be abandoned in the first place, and what would happen if everyone bought from responsible (yes the term is arguable) breeders.

Writing4Fun: "I't s a lot easier to drop Fido off with a faceless, nameless SPCA rep than to admit defeat to that person you assured wholeheartedly that you would love their pride and joy forever."

Unfortunately this is too true. Many breeders now are selling their dogs microchipped now though, aren't they? Couldn't the SPCA then find out where the dog came from and phone up the breeder? Then the breeder could deal with the coward who broke the contract?


Writing4Fun: "Anyone breeding mixed-breed dogs is not showing/titling/health testing, etc... "

How do you know? What if it was from a breeder who showed their dogs and decided to mix them? Why are they necessarily not health testing?

Schwinn: "Personally, I don't think you'll find a general consensus to your answer, because I don't think there is general consensus to what a responsible breeder is."

I think I am coming to see this ;)

Prin: "When you mix, you can't be sure of the usefulness of any of the puppies. "

Eeeek, hate the terms used here. Why does a puppy have to be "useful", "functional" etc? What about "original"? This seems like an argument against mutts, perhaps a new thread should be started for that one..

Prin: "The thing is, if you mix a boxer and a lab, the lab side will bring certain diseases and the boxer side will bring others. So you will have a chance of having a disease where you didn't before the cross."

This doesn't make sense, if a breed had genetic flaws it would be more likely to show up if both parents had it, ie were of the same breed. But again my point is that both parents would be screened for these diseases too.

Maybe what this is boiling down to is "Are purebreds better than mutts?"

I guess the discussion could go on and on. I'm sure it probably has, I'm just pretty new to this board and haven't read all the past posts. Sorry to those of you who have probably seen this argument over and over. I was just wondering if there was a reason why good breeders would not breed mutts that I have overlooked. It seems to be a matter of opinion more than anything scientific. Some people don't think mutts should be bred because of the unpredictable outcome. Although I can see a point behind this, not everyone agrees that unpredictability is a bad thing.

But whether people agree that purebreds or mutts are better, the fact remains that some people just want a mutt, and if responsible people were encouraged to breed them once and a while, there would be less business for irresponsible byb's and mill's. And if these responsible people were also responsible in finding good homes, not just the highest bidder, and microchipped their dogs, less would end up in shelters, and if less ended up in shelters, less will be put down.

I just think that a responsible breeder cares for their animals, keeps the line healthy, screens for flaws etc, places them in good homes, microchips and sterilizes, and cares about what happens to them for their entire life. And I think that if they choose to mix two good dogs this can still be considered good breeding. There are, afterall, people out there who would rather have an original mutt than purebreed, and will accept the risks of this unpredictabiliy, I am certainly one of those people!

Anyways, again, this seems to have boiled down to the purebred vs. mutt argument and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just wanted to put mine out there! I am sure there are many flaws to what I am saying, I just started thinking of this yesterday and haven't had time to iron out all the wrinkles of my thoughts, I was just curious about what other people think on the matter. Thanks for the replies! :thumbs up

CyberKitten
March 7th, 2005, 07:44 PM
I am not sure I can respond to your question and I hesitate for it to become a debate. There are strongly held opinions here and without question, anyone who breeds mutts whether for profit or because they love their dog and in some misguided way think it's a good idea is a backyard breeder. No ifs ands or buts.

Re: you get your mutt from a good, reputable breeder there IS a way to determine they have the best of both parents, that is my whole point. That is why you would buy your mutt from a good breeder and not a shelter, to ensure it has the best of both parents.

You have absolutely NO idea what you are getting in a mutt. So, maybe you knew the mom because she grew up next door. Do you know the dog who impregnanted her? Who is his grandfather? What traits does he have? In all liklihood, the answer is no. There is not even a way to get the best of both parents when you breed reputably and these breeders spend thousands and some millions in their avocation (it could never be a living for the ones I know). Reputable breeders mate their female with an approved, medical tested dog and hope that at least a few of the litter will be show quality and measue up to the breed. It does not mean that these dogs have a highet status than the "pet quality" dogs. It is the way the breed standards are judged. Many many experiements are ongoing and much research in to genetics and breeding and still, nature has is so good at getting "in the way".

Simply stated, you have no idea what you are getting in a mutt - no medical history of the parents and other antecedents.

Re: Why would a breeder, who is in every way a good responsible breeder, be condemned for producing beautiful healthy mutts?

No good breeder in their right mind would breed mutts. It goes against everything they are doing. They should be condemned because they are advancing a dog that may have all sorts of mutations and health problems lurking in their genetic code (How can they possibly know?). That is one reason byb is so horrible! They may be healthy and beautiful but that is not the point. That is not why they breed a championship dog.

Re: The more I think about it the more I think good breeders should breed mutts

I have to respectfully and strongly disagree. Unless one wants to indiscrimiantely and unscientificly add to the thousands of unwanted puppies and dogs in the world, there is no verifiable credible or humane reason to breed mutts. It would be extremely foolhardy, however much you love your dog!


Re: Are purebreds better than mutts?"

Absolutely not. It is choice we have - some of us like mutts. Some have researched and discovered the breed we like most.

Please read more and do some research about the various breeds and maybe talk to breeders of various species of dogs and it will give you a good idea of what you are seeking - I hope. As I mentioned previously, it is a subculture all its own - the world of dog shows and breeding champions and we are not going to change it anytime soon.

Writing4Fun
March 7th, 2005, 07:50 PM
How do you know? What if it was from a breeder who showed their dogs and decided to mix them? Why are they necessarily not health testing?
Breeders who show and title their dogs will not mix breeds because (and I may be mistaken here, so please correct me if I am wrong) cross-breeding will result in their champion becoming essentially useless as a breeder/show prospect. I would suggest, if you really want to be certain, you contact a breeder of Morkies or one of the popular "poo" crosses and ask them to see their dogs' pedigrees. I'll bet dollars to donuts that you won't see any champion titles there (I'd be very surprised if any of them can actually produce a dog's lineage). Actually, go to any of their websites. Most good breeders will proudly list their dogs' pedigrees, showcasing the titles of all their ancestors. I can bet you won't find the same on the website of a Schnoodle breeder.

As for health testing - there's a huge difference between bringing a pup to a vet for a checkup and having extensive health records for generations upon generations to ensure any genetic faults are not bred any further. Again, if you want to prove me wrong, talk to a Labradoodle breeder and ask them to provide proof that their dogs have been cleared of all genetic disorders (for both the Labra and Doodle sides, mind you) for at least the past three generations.

So, what's the solution to the pet overpopulation crisis? I don't know that there is one. As long as human beings are driven by greed, the rest of the planet will suffer. I do believe wholeheartedly, though, that a few new legislations would take care of a lot of it:
- MANDATORY spay/neuter for all pets that are not part of a breeding program.
- Give the CKC (or some other such governing body) the authority to license and monitor all breeding facilities.
- Mandatory basic obedience classes for all new dog owners (kind of like a Lamaze class for puppies :D ).

You're right, though. This debate can go on forever, and as long as everyone maintains respect for everyone else's views, it can be a great discussion and very informative. :thumbs up

CyberKitten
March 7th, 2005, 07:53 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with you Writing4Fun. The same should be true for cats too! We issue licenses in order to drive a car or own a firearm and building petmits when one is constructing. Why not in the case of innocent furry lives?

ScottGoodburn
March 7th, 2005, 07:59 PM
This is the most confusing thread EVER! All of these threads are based on personal opinion and interpretation of what you may have read, even if you are a breeder! I am a husband and father, with a wonderful wife, two wonderful kids, and a dog and he's a MUTT! The best dog I've ever had. I had purebreds as a kid and they were not as smart or good as my dog I have now! So why don't we end this argument(thread) and enjoy our wonderful pets, purebreds, mutts, monkeys, cats, frogs and whatever else you may want as a pet. Enjoy them, love them and that is my opinion!

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 08:00 PM
You have absolutely NO idea what you are getting in a mutt. So, maybe you knew the mom because she grew up next door. Do you know the dog who impregnanted her? Who is his grandfather? What traits does he have? In all liklihood, the answer is no.

Once again, my point is that you WOULD know where the parents, grand parents etc came from, because it would be from a good breeder. And you WOULD know about any genetic flaws, because it would come from a good breeder! I'm not talking about a byb. I'm talking about someone who has spent their life researching and learning about the breeds, shows the dog etc, and has decided to mix two breeds at some point for pets for people who want them. But the breeder can also still be breeding purebreds. Don't forget that many breeds came from mixing two breeds. Maybe the breeder just wanted to see if the outcome would be something worth looking into or something. Anyways, my brain is hurting from all this :eek:

doggy lover
March 7th, 2005, 08:02 PM
I think their are enough mutts in shelters and from people who don't know better to get their dogs fixed so they don't add to the population problem. Most breaders you hear of are for pure breds other than designer dogs that are mixed breeds no matter what anyone tells you. I have had mutts and purebreds they are both wonderful, but with mutts you never know what you are going to get, some of each parents genes, but you can never tell which ones that they will pick up. With purebred dogs you know they all kind of look the same and act the same within the same breed, so it is more predictable. Its just that with mutts their is no testing for different defects as in most responsible purebred dogs breeders do the testing and will not breed a dog that doesn't stand up to these tests.

happycats
March 7th, 2005, 08:03 PM
I agree scottgoodburn........ AMEN !!

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 08:07 PM
I am a husband and father, with a wonderful wife, two wonderful kids, and a dog and he's a MUTT! The best dog I've ever had. I had purebreds as a kid and they were not as smart or good as my dog I have now!

I know, I love mutts too! I just got on a thought tangent that maybe if they were bred more responsibly then maybe not so many would end up in shelters and not be killed.

doggy lover
March 7th, 2005, 08:23 PM
I find most mutts are accidential breedings not planned and I don't think this would stop them being pts it happens to the purebreds too. The world is so unfair.

twinmommy
March 7th, 2005, 09:22 PM
I know, I love mutts too! I just got on a thought tangent that maybe if they were bred more responsibly then maybe not so many would end up in shelters and not be killed.

I disagree, when you see the reasons(?? :eek: ) why people bring their dogs to shelters, and unfortunately no matter how dogs are bred, I'm convinced the shelters will always have occupants. :(
I would tell you to deal with the dogs who are already living in shelters FIRST before entertaining the idea of breeding more... :confused:

Beetlecat
March 7th, 2005, 10:08 PM
Kayla, I agree with you. Many of the breed functions of dogs are either obsolete or not really important to many people wanting a family/companion dog. Yet they still want a dog with some guarentee of health and long life. I see nothing wrong with that. I also don't believe that breeding crossbred animals is fundamentally wrong.

I'm going to get flamed for this but I don't see it being any different than breeding other animals, companion pets or no. Consumer demand rules over all. If consumers demand mutts, then that is what will be bred. I believe this is also the demand that brought in 'designer dogs'. Responsible breeders can breed these mutts and so can irresponsible ones. The prices are high because that is what the market will bear.

The trick is that if consumers get educated and begin to demand health tested and well bred dogs, then irresponsible breeding practices will diminish.

Now, the only real problem I can see for breeding intentional mutts is that some dog breeds are not compatible with each other. The pups get messed up instincts and drives, confusing themselves and their owners. And then there's the whole issue about possibly ruining current breeds through dilution and interbreeding.

CyberKitten
March 7th, 2005, 10:22 PM
I am not debating this because I prefer purebreds over mutts. I like all dogs - however they came into the world. Of course like anyone else, I have my favourites.

That said, I do not agree with this comment you wrote Kayla: You said "Once again, my point is that you WOULD know where the parents, grand parents etc came from, because it would be from a good breeder."

With all due respect, I cannot imagine anyone breeding mutts (I know we have these "designer" dogs aka a fast buck for someone). How would you start? Most breeds have a history. I have a Siamese cat and I know the history of that breed. If I adopt a cat from the shelter (and most of my cats have been wonderful adorable moggies), how do I know what I am getting in oredr to start a new line?

Your line of thinking would not be accepted by the CKC etc and does not make sense to me. I am not saying you are not sensible just that I do not see the point of breeding mutts. It is impossible to have that intricate history with mutts - with a Heinz57, it is impossible to know the entire history!

In the end, I just think there are too many unwanted dogs and cats out there already and why start breeding mutts? How can you justify that as bettering the breed. No one would know the breed.

We should probably do as Scott says and enjoy our furbabies!

Karin
March 7th, 2005, 10:24 PM
All I have to say about this is...



No one better steal MY spot on the couch while I go get more popcorn.




No way Jose!

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 10:25 PM
I would tell you to deal with the dogs who are already living in shelters FIRST before entertaining the idea of breeding more... :confused:

I agree, I just wished there was something that could be done to prevent people dumping their animals.

I think I am getting too far ahead of myself though. First, a law would have to be passed that only allows registered breeders to breed, and requires people to spay/neuter unless a registered breeder. These breeders, in order to get registered, should have to microchip their animals, and make people sign agreements on giving the animal back to the breeder should they not want it anymore. Then the buyer would not just drop the animal off at a shelter because the shelter could look up on the computer and find what breeder it came from and contact them and they could then deal with the breach of contract from the buyer. This would make people think long and hard before adopting an animal, and long and hard before abandoning it. And in my perfect little world these good breeders would also be breeding mutts, not just purebreds (I will stubbornly stick to my guns on this matter, because I think mutts rock and breeding dogs shouldn't just be about trying to make the "perfect" clone-like animal).

Anyways, since my perfect little world doesn't exist just yet I guess I should be working on convincing the government to pass these laws, rather than convincing people that good breeders can breed mutts. Sorry for the long winded ranting, helped me sort out some thoughts though so thanks to all who gave their 2 cents!

happycats
March 7th, 2005, 10:30 PM
Control the pet population, have your pets spay/nuetered (pure bred and mutts alike) :thumbs up

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 10:34 PM
It is impossible to have that intricate history with mutts - with a Heinz57, it is impossible to know the entire history!


I'm not thinking of breeding long lines of mutts with mutts and mutts that someone got from the pet shop or byb's. I was thinking of a breeder who breeds two breeds, knows their history, and mixes them. And possibly even breeding on of these mixes with abother purebreed of which you know the history. The result? A healthy mutt with a history as recorded as any purebreds bred from the same dogs.

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 10:35 PM
happycats: "Control the pet population, have your pets spay/nuetered (pure bred and mutts alike) :thumbs up"

Amen!

happycats
March 7th, 2005, 10:36 PM
I'm not thinking of breeding long lines of mutts with mutts and mutts that someone got from the pet shop or byb's.
.

So are you thinking of breeding mutts?

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 10:43 PM
So are you thinking of breeding mutts?

No no no! One day I would like to start a no kill rescue, I would definitly not start breeding unless there were no dogs left in shelters! You misread what I said, or I mistyped it:

"I'm not thinking of breeding long lines of mutts with mutts and mutts that someone got from the pet shop or byb's. I was thinking of a breeder who breeds two breeds, knows their history, and mixes them. "

Should say:

"I'm not thinking of A BREEDER WHO WOULD BE breeding long lines of mutts with mutts and mutts that someone got from the pet shop or byb's. I was thinking of a breeder who breeds two breeds, knows their history, and mixes them. "

happycats
March 7th, 2005, 10:44 PM
Sorry I misread your post.
I think the rescue idea is a wonderful one!

Writing4Fun
March 7th, 2005, 11:06 PM
I'm not thinking of breeding long lines of mutts with mutts and mutts that someone got from the pet shop or byb's. I was thinking of a breeder who breeds two breeds, knows their history, and mixes them. And possibly even breeding on of these mixes with abother purebreed of which you know the history....and then the people who buy those mutts take their puppies home and breed them with more mutts, whose new owners take their puppies home and breed them with more mutts... See where I'm going with this? We can't even keep track of the pure-breds that are out there. What makes you think anyone will be able to trace the lineage of a mutt after 2 or 3 generations once the puppies are scattered across the continent?? The human race is far too greedy and self-centred to allow your idea to fly. Sorry. :(

kayla
March 7th, 2005, 11:18 PM
...and then the people who buy those mutts take their puppies home and breed them with more mutts, whose new owners take their puppies home and breed them with more mutts... See where I'm going with this?

Not if the breeder makes the buyers sign a contract saying they will spay/neuter, and keeps a deposit until they have done so.

Writing4Fun
March 7th, 2005, 11:27 PM
Not if the breeder makes the buyers sign a contract saying they will spay/neuter, and keeps a deposit until they have done so.
Breeders & shelters & rescues are doing that now, and we still have a pet overpopulation problem.

kayla
March 8th, 2005, 09:17 AM
Breeders & shelters & rescues are doing that now, and we still have a pet overpopulation problem.

We have a problem because of the people who don't breed responsibly, not because of the people who do.

Yes, it would be nice if everyone who wanted a new dog went to the shelter to get one, but the fact is that many people have stigmas against doing this, whether we agree with them or not they exist.

As Beetlecat said, there is demand out there for mutts, and although we disagree with the reasoning behind this, many people out there want a "brand new" one. That is just a fact. So given this demand, someone must supply these puppies. And who ends up doing that? Puppy mills and byb's. Why? Because they want a slice of the profit. What happens to these animals? Either they are lucky and loved for life or unlucky and end up with hip dysplasia or some other disease because their parents werent screened are abandoned at a shelter because the owner realized s/he had made a mistake.

But what if people had the option to buy these puppies from a responsible breeder? What if the breeder made sure the puppy has very low chance of genetic flaw? What if the breeder knew how to test the puppy to see if they were dominant/submissive and matched accordingly the the buyer, what if the breeder made sure the puppy was microchipped? Spayed/neutered? What if the breeder made sure it was given back to them if the owner ever ever got rid of it? What if this breeder then took time to find the puppy another good home? And could assure the new buyer of it's health?

I think this breeder is a VERY responsible breeder. First, they would be taking "business" away from puppy mills/byb's. Second, it will prevent more animals from being abandoned at shelters, and if less animals end up in shelters the ones who are there will have more time to find a home instead of being pts.

LavenderRott
March 8th, 2005, 09:39 AM
Sorry, but judging from the number of mixed breed shelter dogs available, there doesn't seem to be much demand for mutts.

There is however, a huge demand for teacup sized "designer breeds" that cost an arm and a leg. If you do a search on line for some of these breeds, you can spend days looking at puppies.

OK, lets agree with the whole "responsible" mutt breeder thing, for the sake of arguement. Do you really think that the person that is willing to pay WOC $8,000 for a morkie is going to do any kind of research to find out if the breeder is responsible? Heck, if you are lucky - they might know that a morkie is a mix between a maltese and a yorkie. More then likely, however, they know someone who got a cute puppy from WOC and want one just like it. Or they want to emulate Brittany Spears or Paris Hilton, who also have puppies from WOC.

It is all about instant gratification with little effort. Somebody wanted a free puppy or a statis symbol with no regard to the life that they were aquiring. In a world where animals are dropped of in the street because they don't match the new furniture, people don't care about responsible breeders.

Add to that the myth that the dogs at the pound are somehow defective. I don't know how many people I have heard say, I want a puppy but I don't want one from the pound. You never know what is wrong with it until you get it home. Heck, you know just as much about it as you really know about the dog you bought from an add in the paper or a fancy website.

Responsible breeders breed exceptional specimens of the breed they love. Dogs that have shown in many arenas that they fit both the physical and the tempermental standard of that breed. We have plenty of breeds out there that fit most people's lifestyles and tastes. There is certainly no reason to breed more mutts just so that someone can have a status symbol.

Schwinn
March 8th, 2005, 10:47 AM
I think some people missed that this was a hypothetical "what if?" I could be wrong, but I think the point of the original thread was to debate and discuss. Just wanted to point that out while some people are getting excited...

twinmommy
March 8th, 2005, 11:30 AM
Yes let's not forget that this was a good debate...all opinions considered.

Anyways, since my perfect little world doesn't exist just yet I guess I should be working on convincing the government to pass these laws, rather than convincing people that good breeders can breed mutts. Sorry for the long winded ranting, helped me sort out some thoughts though so thanks to all who gave their 2 cents!

No need to apologize, I like reading your thoughts and ideas, and we all love a good debate, right guys?

Unfortunately, for every law that is passed, there is a greedy byb trying to figure out the loopholes. :evil: and I think that some of your GOOD ideas would be used against what was originally intended.

CyberKitten
March 8th, 2005, 12:20 PM
I had not planned on posting again and yes, I know it is hypothetical. But

re:"rather than convincing people that good breeders can breed mutts"

There is sucn entity as a good breeder sho can breed mutts. No should there ever be!

And re:
"rather than convincing people that good breeders can breed mutts I'm not thinking of breeding long lines of mutts with mutts and mutts that someone got from the pet shop or byb's. I was thinking of a breeder who breeds two breeds, knows their history, and mixes them. And possibly even breeding on of these mixes with abother purebreed of which you know the history. The result? A healthy mutt with a history as recorded as any purebreds bred from the same dogs."

There are thousands of healthy mutts out there. Most are at Rescues and SPCA centers. And for most, the history is unknown. For some, one may know the mother. BUT there is no way to know the genetic code and possible health issues (all breeds have a tendancy toward one thing or another - it is something one considers in opting to adopt a particular breed). And maybe it is my medical background, I consider the health issue an important one. That does not mean I want the perfect dog or cat - I originally sought a special needs cat and ended up wirh a show cat that I fell in love with. Emotion over reason. The dog may be healthy but a breeder who mixes mutts would need to understand mega genetics and other scientifc methods and that calls into question the reason most people breed - ie, for the betterment of the breed or to extend the line of an especially great animal.

If one wants a mixed breed dog, go to a rescue center!! If you want a purebred, remember that 25% of all rescued dogs are purebreds so it is somewhere to look - unless you want a very young animal.

That's it!! :)

kayla
March 8th, 2005, 03:05 PM
Oh my, what have I gotten myself into?

I feel like the arguments keep on going in circles so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

I would just like to put in a few closing arguments though:

LavenderRott: "Sorry, but judging from the number of mixed breed shelter dogs available, there doesn't seem to be much demand for mutts."

I was talking about a demand for "brand new" mutts, not shelter dogs. Yes, in an ideal world everone would want a shelter dog, but they don't, plain fact, you admitted it yourself when saying:

LavenderRott: "I don't know how many people I have heard say, I want a puppy but I don't want one from the pound."

And as for the demand for "brand new" mutts, I just phoned 7 pet stores that sell dogs in Montreal. I pretended I was looking to buy a dog and asked what they had available. There were 15 purebreds and 12 mixed dogs in total. That makes almost half of Montreal's demand for mutts.

LavenderRott: "OK, lets agree with the whole "responsible" mutt breeder thing, for the sake of arguement. Do you really think that the person that is willing to pay WOC $8,000 for a morkie is going to do any kind of research to find out if the breeder is responsible?"

Going to quote myself here, since I am tired of repeating myself and seeing these arguments going in circles again and again (I don't blame you, this is a long thread and it's hard to remember everything that has been said):

Myself: "Btw I am not condoning people who make "designer breeds" and charge waaaay too much for them! That is a completely different thing. "

Myself again: "As for charging way too much for designer mutts, I am against this, as I said earlier."

Myself yet again: "(unless labelling it a "designer breed", which is plain stupid)."

LavenderRott: "You never know what is wrong with it until you get it home. Heck, you know just as much about it as you really know about the dog you bought from an add in the paper or a fancy website."

Exactly my point, which is why I think there should be responsible mutt breeders out there so you can know its history.

LavenderRott: "There is certainly no reason to breed more mutts just so that someone can have a status symbol."

There are just as many people out there if not more who want a purebred as a status symbol. And again, you are talking about designer mutt issues here, which again, I am not talking about.

CyberKitten: "There is sucn entity as a good breeder sho can breed mutts. No should there ever be!"

So I hear, still haven't been given a good answer as to why though.

CyberKitten: "If one wants a mixed breed dog, go to a rescue center!! "

I agree, but so many don't! And what about those people who want a non-shelter mixed breed? Go to a pet store? I think we all agree that rescuing a dog from the shelter is the way to go, and I think most of us have done just that. But don't forget not everyone thinks that way, some people don't want to risk it, they hear one horror story of a dog coming from a shelter (that could have just as easily have come from the pet store) and decide never to rescue a dog.

Blah blah blah there is so much more I can go on about but I keep repeating all my arguments and I think this discussion really has to come to an end at some point. I think we all have good points. And I think we all want what's best for our animals. Some people think mutts shouldn't be bred because they aren't bettering any breed standard. Some people are just concerned with producing healthy dogs. We would all like to see less animals end up in shelters though, and less pts.

I think it's great we can come here and discuss how that could be possible. The way things are right now, it isn't working, as can be seen by the number of dogs in shelters. I wanted to put out a new idea to see what people thought about it, most people don't like it. I'm not going to let that get in the way of my brainstorming though, so if anyone else has any ideas about how we can help prevent animals from ending up in shelters I'm all ears!

LavenderRott
March 8th, 2005, 03:20 PM
I think that the responsible thing to do would be do find a way to educate people about "designer breeds" and what is available at the shelter. Face it, if you were to come up with some nifty sounding name for a lab/shepherd mix - half the dogs in the pound would have a home! That is all a designer breed is - a mutt with a fancy name.

While you and I may not condone places like the WOC - the fact of the matter is that they are out there. Where their puppies come is AWFUL. Again, by educating John Q. Public, maybe they wouldn't get $8,000 for a mutt. And if you can sell a dog for that much that you got by throwing a couple of dogs in a cage - why do any research as far as lines and genetics? Again, J.Q.P. has shown that they are willing to put out the cash without doing any type of research.

I am not necessarily talking about designer breeds either, but the sad truth is a mutt is a mutt is a mutt no matter what fancy name you put on it.

Writing4Fun
March 8th, 2005, 03:33 PM
Personally, I think this is a great debate. Everyone is putting great thought into their posts, and no one has gotten nasty. :thumbs up

To address your most recent post, Kayla, where you said, "There were 15 purebreds and 12 mixed dogs in total. That makes almost half of Montreal's demand for mutts." I would be willing to bet that none of those mutts available in the pet stores were "true" mutts (like my Phoebe, who is so far gone, there's no telling what her ancestry holds :D ), but rather that they were mainly small breed, Yorkie/Poodle/Shih Tzu crosses in some form or another. If that is the case, then that would bring LavRott's point about designer breeds back to the forefront. In today's reality, those are the only mutts people actually want to buy from a "responsible breeder" because they are a) a status symbol, or b) the latest trend being paraded down red carpets all over Hollywood. Anyone who is looking for a "real" mutt (like mine) would have no issue with going to a shelter or rescue. It's a fallacy that all dogs in shelters are older animals with psychological issues, and anyone who wants a dog purely for the love of the animal will know & care enough to look into it. Anyone who wants a dog because Paris Hilton had one, or because their spoiled 12 year old is whining for one, won't bother researching to determine their best options. They'll buy one while they're out doing their groceries.

Why isn't it a good idea to mix breeds? Because a) it'll make your stud/bitch useless in the eyes of other breeders, b) you're only pandering to people who want that dog because they saw it in a commercial, and/or c) there is no amount of genetic testing out there that will determine what kind of psychological/physical issues you will get when you cross a Standard Poodle with a Basset Hound (at least, those are some of the reasons I can think of ... I'm sure there are plenty more!). ;)

Writing4Fun
March 8th, 2005, 03:36 PM
Face it, if you were to come up with some nifty sounding name for a lab/shepherd mix - half the dogs in the pound would have a home!
Hey! There's an idea! Let's call them "Shepradors" or "Labherds" and maybe they'll find homes! :p

Prin
March 8th, 2005, 04:14 PM
Scottgoodburn-- don't forget that intelligence depends on breed. If you get a dumb breed that is a purebred, you can't compare it to the intelligence of a mutt. Get a border collie and compare it to your mutt...

Don't get me wrong, I have had SPCA-specials all my life but mixed in are a couple of pure breds and there is a difference. My old dobie who was a champion show dog before we got him had no health issues, no allergies and lived till 13 (very long for a dobie). The other dog we had, a runt yellow lab who was scraps of a farm accidental breeding. She had arthritis very young, had one leg shorter than the other, had chronic ear infections even though she didn't swim and she was on a special diet, was covered in tumors when she died of a massive brain tumor. She still lived till 14, but you'd all agree, her quality of life was definitely not as good. She just was not as strong. These two dogs got a lot of vet care and good food and the same treatment and the outcome was completely different.

I have 2 mutts now and I love them and they are beautiful after curing their ear infections, chronic stomach bacterial overgrowth due to allergic reactions, not to mention aggression and trust issues from being abandoned... People think they are beautiful. We have had serious offers from people to TRADE dogs!!! One guy said his 6 year old black lab was a LEMON. I said, You're the lemon!! The truth is I got handsome mutts but a lot of them out there are really ugly. And not the kind of ugly that becomes cute (like a pug), I mean really ugly. With icky fur that no one wants to touch, weird looking eyes, disproportionate bodies... These are the victims of breed crossing and even the well meaning breeder with the health histories can't prevent the birth of a couple of really really ugly puppies.

I'm lucky that my dogs are so pretty, but then maybe I am not the type to feel sorry for the ugliest dog at the SPCA and bring him home...

Bottom line is, there are so many healthy mutts (black lab puppies and black lab mixes especially) in shelters who were given up because they chewed on the leather furniture and the owners didn't expect that from a puppy. Like I said before (maybe on a different thread), my aunt got a pure toy poodle from a shelter at 8 weeks because the owners didn't realize a 7 week old dog would not be house trained...

SPCA employees can back me up-- dogs are rarely given away because of health reasons. A lot of the time is for bad human reasons. When we were at the SPCA, the abandonment papers were out and we thought they were for looking at (we got in trouble shortly thereafter..). We scrolled through and there was a dalmation abandoned and across the 3 lines on the paper it was written "TOO BIG" in really big letters and another was a german shepherd lab mix--- "Hair shows on sofa". Nothing is wrong with these dogs, why bring another mutt into the world?

And I don't think people go to the spca to get a cheap dog. I think most people go to adopt a discarded dog and price is not the issue. Usually with SPCA dogs, you make up for the cheaper price with immediate vet bills anyway.

Prin
March 8th, 2005, 04:22 PM
And it is true about the Shepradors--- so many people at our dog park say that they have lab husky mixes even though there is no husky feature at all... because it's much cooler than saying "lab corgy" (which one obviously is- he is a tiny lab with the corgy ears and tail..) or "undetermined black mutt"... And then there are the mutt owners who get sooo offended when you even suggest their dog is not pure...

CyberKitten
March 8th, 2005, 04:36 PM
I agree this has been a good discussion. I just came from a M&M (Mortality and Morbidity) meeting where one person exuded too much hostility for my liking and this is sooo tame!

I somehow sense that Kayla you are frustrated in your quest for a concept that is rather nebulous and difficult to comprehend, to me anyway and I don't think I am ill informed or possess difficult in grasping complex theses.

In resonse to my staterment "There is such entity as a good breeder who can breed mutts. No should there ever be!"
you wrote:
"So I hear, still haven't been given a good answer as to why though."

Astonisingly, less than 12% of all dogs come from "breeders who actively test their stock in conformation, obedience, and field trials." (This from a website campaigning against puppy mills).Backyard breeders, or people who breed their dogs without testing and certifying their stock, produce nearly 67% of all the dogs born annually in this country (Gardner, 1994)1.

The site also points out that "You will not pay more for a pet quality puppy from a reputable breeder than one from a backyard breeder. Unfortunately, there are backyard breeders everywhere: in kennel clubs, advertising in the newspaper, and also in dog publications. The difference is that the ethical breeder has spent time and effort developing the healthiest, soundest, and most representative of the breed possible. "

This second site informs the aspiring puppy "owner" in how to find a good breeder. Ethical and reputable breeders usually just breed one species only.
A Heinz57 mutt does not represent one breed, needless to say and stating the obvious. There is no ethical, moral ,credible way to further that dog.


You can find it here:
http://www.nopuppymillscanada.ca/back_yard_breeders.htm

Here is another geared to cats:

http://www.exoticbengals.com/rep.htm

A reputable breeder is one who has made a lifetime commitment to the well-being and IMPROVEMENT of one, or possibly two, breeds. S/he has studied and researched his breed and knows its history and standard, its strong points and its drawbacks.

Hiw can you do that with any mutt. What you suggest would in fact amount to attempting to introduce a new breed. Because it is a "Mixed" breed, it would never be accepted by any reputable registration group like the CKC.

Most significantly, a reputable breeder can look at a bigger picture than dog show wins or puppy sales and contributes in some way to the betterment of the breed as a whole. How in heaven's name can a mixed breed dog better a breed - it cannot better the breeds the dog came from.

How will the standards for this new mixed breed be developed or decided??

ALL dog breeds have inherited genetic problems that good breeders screen for and take great pains to eliminate from their bloodlines. This is part if bettering the breed. I do not understand how you can even begin to do this with a dog whose family's medical history is not known. (and I mean the family tree here). I am sorry - what you will end up with a backyard breeding.
(hypothetically speaking)

kayla
March 8th, 2005, 10:17 PM
I agree this has been a good discussion. I just came from a M&M (Mortality and Morbidity) meeting where one person exuded too much hostility for my liking and this is sooo tame!


Definitely! It's nice to have a good debate without getting our tails tied in a knot. I definitely agree that education is very important, they should teach pet ethics in school!

wjranch
March 8th, 2005, 10:47 PM
Let us not forget that the original "Pitbulls" that were created for sport fighting were the mix of the English Bulldog and a Terrier....both of which were purebred dogs.. in order to create a 'new breed' that fit the bill of what they were looking for?? It was called the Bull & Terrier or Bull Terrier...... Voila! designer mutt :) Was that a good idea? I don't think so, but, hind sight is 20/20 my Mom always said. :thumbs up

(*Please don't kill me all you Bully lovers? I love 'em too) But, consider their origins, looking back, was it a good idea? Or well thought out? Or the future of this new breed considered? nope, nope & nope

If we want to get this deep into it, then I guess we need to address that fact that NO breed is 'purebred' in the truest sense. But, through the course of history, nature has taken it's course and survival of the fittest prevailed... Then Man stepped in, because we all know Man can improve on God's handywork! ;)

Let's just love 'em all and do right by them.

Prin
March 8th, 2005, 11:01 PM
I actually thought about breeding dogs like my lab husky. She'd make a great hunting dog/recreation dog. She's got the thick fur that's waterproof but warmer and thicker than lab fur. She's got incredible hunting skills and persistance. She swims faster than most dogs because she is do determined. She has endurance like no dog I know and she can run up to 45km/h. She's nuts. And then you bring her home and she's affectionate and smart like a lab, not stubborn like a husky. She's like a cat in that her instincts are sharp. Plus she's beautiful. All black with blue eyes, which wouldn't be hard to achieve genetically. But if I can't bring myself to buy a new dog, how am I supposed to produce them?

LavenderRott
March 9th, 2005, 12:00 AM
She's got the thick fur that's waterproof but warmer and thicker than lab fur. She's got incredible hunting skills and persistance. She swims faster than most dogs because she is do determined.

I think this pretty much describes the Standard Poodle, which, if I am not mistaken, was originally bred to be a hunting dog.

Yes, most of the breeds that are recognized by CKC and AKC were developed by mixing a couple of different dogs or types of dogs to get a new breed that was suited to do the JOB that the breeder had in mind. The only JOB that a modern "designer dog" has is to make money for the breeder.

As for pit bulls - yes, they were bred to fight originally. But those dogs that were aggressive towards humans were not bred and often culled (or killed). Those same dogs that were supposed to fight tenaciously in the ring were expected to let humans handle them at any time.

happycats
March 9th, 2005, 07:27 AM
Kayla, I think I may have an answer to this! :) :D
Have you ever heard of the american indian dog, or indian dog??
There are a few people out there who breed them who call themselves reputible breeders of this dog. But after some debate and study, these dogs have actually been proven to be mutts! :crazy: Probably a mix of husky, shepherd, hybrid wolf, lab and possibly more.

So in answer to your question, YES there are people out there who breed mutts, and NO the shelter is not the only place you can get them! ;)
(there are also alot of mutt puppies listed in local papers)

Prin
March 9th, 2005, 04:58 PM
The thing is my doggy may have some poodle characteristics but she has more lab-like short fur that doesn't grow. It's like having a Super-lab.

mona_b
March 10th, 2005, 08:36 AM
I just really want to understand why no good breeder would crossbreed?

Because they just wouldn't.These responsible breeders only breed to better their breed.They have them genetic and health tested.They know the pedigree going far back as 5 generations.Their dogs are and come from champion and titled lines.They know their breed and most have been breeding/showing/titled dogs for 10+ years.You are put on a waiting list before breeding takes place.And you are put on a non-breeding contract.When you ask a responsible breeder about someone breeding mutts,they are not happy about it at all.

Qustion for you.How can you better the breed of a mutt?You can't.There is no way this can be done.Have you checked out the shelters lately?They are filled with mutts.And yes,the newspapers too.Yes accidents happen.But they wouldn't if they were spayed or neutered.

Could I have used my dogs for stud survice?Heck yeah.They came from a long line of champions and titled dogs.Titled for this breed means SchH III.But I was put on a non-breeding contract.This meant id I went against the contract and didn't get them spayed at 6 months,I would have been fined $5000 each.

No one,and I mean no one should be breeding mutts.It's just wrong.And yes,they only do it for the money.

Karin,can we skip the popcorn and go straight for the Nachos and Rye?... :D .