# A plethora of breeds that can be used for companions? Really?



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

O.K. I stole this phrase from another thread where this topic has come from. I thought it was an appropriate title.

Problem is that I disagree completely. I would also suggest that IF there were a plethora of breeds that people (the market of buyers) actually thought fit with their lifestyle, then those breeding mixes would hardly have a market.

Mixed and designer dogs are a sure symptom of disatisfaction over what has been offered on a prescribed list of breeds, and the markets refusal to abide being told what they should choose from.

I am an average type of dog buyer. I am mid-aged. I want a dog 15-30 pounds. I want an easy care coat, can't stand beards and find grooming to be a chore that I'll do if necessary but would rather avoid. I want a dog that is biddable and that will be able to walk with me - happily - a couple of times a day for about 1/2 hour if not a bit longer. I have no interest in Terrier or Hound types as I find those temperaments are not a match for my ownership style and although I'm O.K. with little herders I know what it is like to own a companion bred dog and that is very much my preference.

Companion bred dogs are a match, but there is a problem. Coats and muzzles.

To start you off here are a list of companion breeds or utility breeds bred for companionship. The first set I'd consider if not for their short faces and resultant limitations due to those.

*brachycephalic:*
Pekingese - 
English Toy -
Japanese Chin - 
Cavalier King Charles - 
Pug -

*Over coated - grooming nightmare* (IMHO - love some of these breeds by temperament but wouldn't touch dealing with the coat):
Pekingese fits again -
Shih Tzu - 
Lhasa Apso -
Bichon -
Poodle - 
Chinese Crested - 
American Cocker - 

*Too small:*
Chihuahua -
Papillon -
Yorkshire Terrier - 

So, if someone is wiser than I please name an accessible breed (not a rare one found only in Holland etc) in the 13-30 pound range that has an easy care coat (no high maintenance coats, no wire or bearded coats) and moderate conformation traits (a muzzle is a great thing and so are legs) that is bred for companionship - that is the working traits that make a great companion - and that is NOT in a precarious state of health. I know of only a couple in development, and a couple that are rare breeds bred only in Europe. 

If there is someone reading that does not understand the working traits of a companion dog, here is a blog entry that describes it well. - 
http://blacksheepcardigans.com/ruff/dog-behavior/godric-and-sammys-9-to-5/



> Before I had these little dogs – Ginny and now Godric and Sammy – I had the same thought about companion dogs that most “big dog” people do: They basically sit on laps. Not a heck of a lot of utility.
> 
> Now I realize that I was totally wrong – because companion dogs don’t sit on laps – they SIT ON LAPS. It’s like the difference between chasing sheep and herding them, . . .


SOB


----------



## melaka (Mar 31, 2010)

I have to agree with you as I had similar requirements when I was looking for a dog and found my choices lacking. What differed for me was that I absolutely need a minimal grooming dog, and don't mind some Terriers. The purebred dog that I finally settled on was a Boston Terrier, but of course they're brachycephalic. I was hoping to find one where the muzzle wasn't quite as dramatic as others. I wound up not getting a BT, but getting my rescue mutt instead. And, while I think she's the best dog ever  and would not trade her for anything, she sheds like crazy and does have a bit higher prey drive than I'd like. I'd still like to have a BT one day, because I do enjoy their temperaments (at least the ones I've met), but their health issues scare me.


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

Just going through my encyclopedia of dog breeds; It sure looks like it is going to be a difficult task to find what you are looking for. I came across the whippet and was taken by the info on them.....not sure of health issues. I honestly like the Manchester Terrier even though it is not what you were looking for. I had one as a child and he lived for 17 years and you couldn't have asked for a better dog.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> I have no interest in Terrier or Hound types as I find those temperaments are not a match for my ownership style


Eliminating two very large groups of dogs because you don't like their temperaments seems unreasonable. There are TONS of terriers and hounds and many of them have different temperaments. 

But anyways....a corgi fits your requirements.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> Mixed and designer dogs are a sure symptom of disatisfaction over what has been offered on a prescribed list of breeds, and the markets refusal to abide being told what they should choose from.


Just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. In my mind, designer dogs are a symptom of human pride and the desire to have something different/better/more rare than "everyone else".


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

HerdersForMe said:


> Eliminating two very large groups of dogs because you don't like their temperaments seems unreasonable. There are TONS of terriers and hounds and many of them have different temperaments.
> 
> But anyways....a corgi fits your requirements.


You are suggesting that you do not agree with my putting value on the traits specifically bred for in companion breeds as that is their work. What you are stating here, then, is that the traits you value (working traits of herders) are in your opinion more valuable as a breeding criterion than the working traits of companion breeds? 

Why should I swallow that?

A Corgi FAR FROM fits my requirements. It is FAR FROM a breed bred for companionship traits. Did you click on the link to the blog post - it was written by a Corgi breeder who now understands what is so unique about companion traits. 

This answer of "A Cogi fits your requirements" shows me exactly how much thought has been put into the value of companionship traits and what they specifically are.



CoverTune said:


> Just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. In my mind, designer dogs are a symptom of human pride and the desire to have something different/better/more rare than "everyone else".


And that has changed through history how? What you are speaking of are traits inherent in humanity and they are not about to change, and yes I believe that some buy designer dogs to be different which I covered with _"and the markets refusal to abide being told what they should choose from."_ That does not mean there are not a bunch others out there that have found the list of prescribed breeds and the traits they exhibit unsuitable. As a libertarian I find it untenable that 'one bunch with a self interest' is trying to dictate a list to consumers.

SOB


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Also a lot of your "grooming nightmares" would be fine with a brushing once a week.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

HerdersForMe said:


> Also a lot of your "grooming nightmares" would be fine with a brushing once a week.


What? Seriously, which ones?


----------



## Fuzzy Pants (Jul 31, 2010)

CoverTune said:


> Just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. In my mind, designer dogs are a symptom of human pride and the desire to have something different/better/more rare than "everyone else".


One could say the same about people that only want 'pure-bred' dogs or people that want poisonous snakes and so forth.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> You are suggesting that you do not agree with my putting value on the traits specifically bred for in companion breeds as that is their work. What you are stating here, then, is that the traits you value (working traits of herders) are in your opinion more valuable as a breeding criterion than the working traits of companion breeds?
> 
> Why should I swallow that?
> 
> A corgi FAR FROM fits my requirements. It is FAR FROM a breed bred for companionship traits. Did you click on the link to the blog post - it was written by a Corgi breeder who now understands what is so unique about companion traits.


Are you kidding? A breed doesn't need to be "bred of companionship" to make a good companion. The vast majority of "working breeds" are solely used as companions these days.

How is a corgi far from your requirements? They are 25-30lbs, require little grooming, very biddable, and would be good with several 30 minute walks every day.


----------



## RoughCollie (Mar 7, 2011)

SOB, I agree with you. I wanted a CKCS, but the breed's health problems scared me away.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

HerdersForMe said:


> Are you kidding? A breed doesn't need to be "bred of companionship" to make a good companion. The vast majority of "working breeds" are solely used as companions these days.
> 
> How is a corgi far from your requirements? They are 25-30lbs, require little grooming, very biddable, and would be good with several 30 minute walks every day.


And a breed doesn't need to be bred to herd to do that job either then, I guess? How would that suit you?

I see that you still do not understand what 'bred for companionship' means and how those traits are valuable as you cannot understand the difference between a working breed and a dog specifically bred for companionship over a couple of hundred years.

I gave a link but it seems some are reluctant to click. Here is more of it to explain better.





> . . . . Now I realize that I was totally wrong – because companion dogs don’t sit on laps – they SIT ON LAPS. It’s like the difference between chasing sheep and herding them, honestly – at church, for example, Sammy and Godric greeted many people, they sat on Honour’s lap without asking to get off, and they were handed around to the gentle old ladies and the not-so-gentle youth leaders and the kids getting lemonade afterward. In every set of arms they were still and accepting; to every face they were friendly; they never barked or fought to get down and they quietly stood between Honour’s feet when they weren’t greeting people.
> 
> If you want to appreciate how difficult that is for a dog, imagine carrying around and handing a one-year-old German Shorthaired Pointer to five eighty-year-old women in a row. A Papillon and a GSP are the same animal. Same brain, same basic instinctive reactions. *It’s just as much a specialized behavior for a dog to sit still on a stranger’s lap as she plays with your hair and sniffs your head *(everybody sniffs Sammy’s head; I know that it’s actually because she’s super, super clean and soft all the time and they’re surprised how nice she feels and smells, but I have to laugh because it’s like she’s made out of cheesecake)* as it is for a dog to point a bird.*
> 
> ...


Very specific companionship traits ARE working traits that some of us VERY MUCH appreciate, and it really is a pet peeve of mine that so many want to pretend that they are not an important part of what people select for when deciding on what dog they want.

I will also give mention to how unethical it is, IMHO, to support the dumbing down of working breeds for companionship. Personally I find that much more offensive than the idea of developing new companion breeds.

SOB


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

I just don't consider it to be a limited selection, when there are some 300+ different breeds available to choose from. *shrug*


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

My neighbor has a BYB Golden Retriever that definitely qualifies as a companion dog. At first, I thought of him as a low-drive Retriever, except he's not, really. He does have high drive - only it's for seeking affection from humans, and not retrieving. His primary purpose in life is to sit quietly next to a human and be petted. The breeder, in fact, has been breeding for that specific temperament for 20 years. The dogs will never win any show titles - at a blocky 90+ lbs, my neighbor's dog has terrible conformation - but I could never in a million years say that the dog was bred badly. The dog meets the breeder's (and the owner's) expectations perfectly - it's just not the expectations put forth in the breed standard.

Which brings us to the original point - this dog is a terrible retriever whom no 'legitimate' show or field breeder would ever breed, but he's perfect for what the overwhelming majority of dog owners want in an animal. He fits a niche better than the dogs most properly bred dogs. And in case it's not obvious, I absolutely LOVE this dog. It's just that, whatever his pedigree says, he's really not a Golden Retriever anymore. 

The reason this BYB exists - and thrives - is because there is a huge, pent-up market demand for precisely this type of companion. At the same time, there is a huge institutional bias against this kind of breeding, and even moreso if she decided to cross with another breed to try and put the same temperament in a smaller package.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

I'm not saying there is nothing wrong in breeding dogs for companionship. In fact, most breeders today are doing this. Very few are breeding for working traits anymore. Not too many people use corgi to herd cattle anymore or shelties to herd sheep. These dogs are now being bred as companions. My problem lies in the creation of new mixed breeds because "there aren't enough options of breeds for pets". I don't feel it is responsible breeding. There are so many mixed breeds in shelters already who would make perfectly great companions.

What traits does a companionship breed possess that you are hard pressed to find in other breeds today? I'm having a hard time answering this myself. The herding dogs I've owned have all come from show lines and they have all been calm, biddable, social, loyal, and enjoy sitting on our laps at home. What are these companionship breeds being bred for that I am missing out on?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

HerdersForMe said:


> My problem lies in the creation of new mixed breeds because "there aren't enough options of breeds for pets". I don't feel it is responsible breeding.


I don't like this as an argument. Every single breed started out as a mixed breed because someone, somewhere felt there weren't enough options of breeds for XYZ purpose. Either it is and was ok to to do or it is not and was not.


----------



## meggels (Mar 8, 2010)

My french bulldog is the perfect companion. Perfect. He runs to greet people and then sits at their feet wanting to be pet. If they stop petting him? He puts his two front paws on them asking for more attention. 

He's my perfect companion.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

I'm a bit like SOB...I'm almost 51, her weight requirements are much like mine, as I get to be older with joint issues, I want to be more realistic about how many walks I can really do. My hubby and I have talked alot about a Tibetan spaniel, their coat is fine for me with regards to grooming


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Every single breed started out as a mixed breed because someone, somewhere felt there weren't enough options of breeds for XYZ purpose.


Correct except like you said those dogs were bred for a specific purpose. In general I don't find the purpose of creating another pet breed to be a good one. There are so many breeds who make fantastic companions as it is but we continue to experiment with more mixed breeds in order to appease a certain market of people.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

HerdersForMe said:


> Correct except like you said those dogs were bred for a specific purpose. In general I don't find the purpose of creating another pet breed to be a good one. There are so many breeds who make fantastic companions as it is but we continue to experiment with more mixed breeds in order to appease a certain market of people.


Well, I disagree that breeding for companionship is not breeding for a specific purpose. Which is what the link SOB posted is all about.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Well, I disagree that breeding for companionship is not breeding for a specific purpose. Which is what the link SOB posted is all about.


Except we don't need to experiment with new mixed breeds to breed for companionship...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

HerdersForMe said:


> Except we don't need to experiment with new mixed breeds to breed for companionship...


Then we don't need to experiment with new mixed breeds for Flyball or Agility or working purposes either. . .


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

HerdersForMe said:


> Except we don't need to experiment with new mixed breeds to breed for companionship...


Well if the people who want dogs strictly for companionship aren't finding breeds out there to suit them, then clearly we do. Which was kind of the whole point of this thread in the first place.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

HerdersForMe said:


> Except we don't need to experiment with new mixed breeds to breed for companionship...


We do if we want to preserve the existing breeds as they are. 

This is the conundrum - if you want to preserve the working traits of existing breeds, you can't breed them as companions. If you don't breed them as companions, you will likely be supplanted by the BYBs who do. If do breed them as companions, you lose the traits that probably attracted you to the breed in the first place.

Unless you start breeding new dogs explicitly as companions, you face one of the equally unappetizing choices above. To take my neighbors dog as an example, at this point he is neither Golden, nor a Retriever. He's an awesome house dog, though, which is what he's supposed to be. He's just not what a Golden Retriever is supposed to be. 

So do you keep breeding Golden Retrievers like him, eventually losing whe drive & energy that should characterize the breed? Or do you call him something else, and breed him to other dogs with similar temperaments to create a new breed, and let the Retrievers be true to themselves?


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

<--------- The North American Sydney dog meets your requirements. :biggrin1:

I just wanted to say I agree with your sentiments SOB but don't mention it often because people tend to be very wary of breeding mixed breeds...generally for good but IMO misguided reasons. For instance, people say you shouldn't buy a designer breed because their breeder is irresponsible but they don't necessarily HAVE to be. If they are testing for all the genetic diseases they are able to in both breeds that's responsible to me. Then they say if you just want a mixed breed you should get a shelter dog. This is what I do, but that doesn't mean anyone else should have to. Also, purebred dogs can be gotten in shelters quite easily in a lot of cases, too. This isn't to say that I don't realize the majority of breeders of mixed breed dogs are bad...but it seems like people underemphasize the fact that a great majority of purebred breeders are ALSO bad and automatically assume mixed breeds are being bred irresponsibly, 100% of the time.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Then we don't need to experiment with new mixed breeds for Flyball or Agility or working purposes either. . .


If there was a _real need_ for a certain working class dog it would be ethical. In this day and age there are not many real needs for working dogs. And that's the point of my argument. Is there really a real need for more breeds to serve as companions?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

HerdersForMe said:


> Is there really a real need for more breeds to serve as companions?


What exactly is your objection to creating a new breed? Does it harm existing breeds in some way? (I'm not trying to be snarky, but honestly curious.)


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

sassafras said:


> What exactly is your objection to creating a new breed? Does it harm existing breeds in some way? (I'm not trying to be snarky, but honestly curious.)


More dogs being pumped into the system most likely for the purpose of making money when there's already an overabundance of dogs being bred simply because some people can't find a breed that "suits them" enough.


----------



## marsha=whitie (Dec 29, 2008)

sassafras said:


> What exactly is your objection to creating a new breed? Does it harm existing breeds in some way? (I'm not trying to be snarky, but honestly curious.)


That's what I was wondering, too... 

If people breed with a goal in mind, then I have no problem with it. Like the responsible Goldendoodle breeders: there's one in my area that is breeding for a goal. All of her dogs are health tested and everything, and (if I remember right) some of them are service dogs in some way. These people aren't just throwing two dogs together to make a profit, they're trying to establish a new BREED by setting a STANDARD.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

HerdersForMe said:


> More dogs being pumped into the system most likely for the purpose of making money when there's already an overabundance of dogs being bred simply because some people can't find a breed that "suits them" enough.


But why is it worse/more unethical to pump maltipoos into the system than, say, labrador retrievers?


----------



## marsha=whitie (Dec 29, 2008)

HerdersForMe said:


> More dogs being pumped into the system most likely for the purpose of making money when there's already an overabundance of dogs being bred simply because some people can't find a breed that "suits them" enough.


No matter what people try to do, there are always going to be an abundance of animals in shelters. Yeah, sometimes those animals come from byb's, but a LOT of them are "oops" litters from people not being responsible with their pets. If people preached more about speutering, and not about ending breeding completely, maybe, JUST MAYBE, the shelter numbers will go down.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

HerdersForMe said:


> Is there really a real need for more breeds to serve as companions?


Yes, in my opinion there is. Just because you don't value the purpose of companionship doesn't mean no one else should be able to have a dog that suits them. For instance, I know someone who owns a shih-tzu. It's the perfect dog for her, except that she doesn't keep up with the dog's coat and it gets frequent matts which are painful for the dog. Is it unreasonable to want a dog that isn't going to be harmed if its owner doesn't groom it enough? If I never took a brush to Sydney's fur she would be JUST FINE. So, "a dog that suits you" isn't just a selfish request by owners. It's actually an act of compassion towards the dogs who are going to be owned by regular 'ol people.

SOB gave an exhaustive list regarding what traits make most purebred companion dogs unsuitable for her. And I wholeheartedly agree with her complaints. Now, I don't care about having a purebred dog. But in a perfect world where there were no OOPS litters dogs like Sydney would not exist and people would have to either create new breeds to suit our changing lifestyles or settle for dogs they probably won't be able or willing to care for properly. Or who have medical problems related to their body form which owners don't really want to deal with. The real "overpopulation problem" (if there indeed is one, searth the dog overpopulation myth) comes mainly from puppy mills and people who don't speuter their pets (random breedings) so I don't see how preventing new breeds from existing helps dog overpopulation at all. Unless you oppose the breeding of dogs in general, which you don't seem to.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Yea, I think there's just a knee-jerk emotional "ick, WRONG!" factor that a lot of people have to creating new breeds and I don't completely understand it. Maybe because there are so many faddish crosses (which are not breeds by a long shot) coming out of puppy mills. But not only are many, many purebreds coming out of puppy mills but there ARE people crossing dogs and trying to create new breeds responsibly. I just really don't understand the objection to creating new breeds - as in, many times I can see an opposing argument and just not agree with it but in this case I actually totally cannot understand it at all.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

I would recommend a Tibetan Spaniel, they have a moderate coat and not a too-squished face, plus the benefit of not being that popular (yet). I was actually considering a Tibbie if I don't end up getting a toy Xolo as my next dog.

Though speaking of Xolos, how about a Coated Toy Xolo? They are short haired and sleek without being too fragile, and are not exaggerated physically.


----------



## lisahi (Jun 19, 2011)

Reputable American breeders have already irreperably altered many breeds in order to achieve the right look, size, color, etc. to comply with American show standards. Creating new breeds for companionship doesn't seem all that different than conforming the old breeds in order to create a dog that an organization thinks is worthy. I'm not knocking show dogs or reputable American breeders at all--I'm just pointing out that certain American versions of breeds are already different than European versions of those breeds. At the very least, Americans are already picking and choosing what they want in dogs and attempting to breed for that. What's the difference in doing that by involving multiple breeds to create something new? As long as it's all healthy breeding, that is.

Federal law enforcement organizations get the vast majority of their dogs from Europe because the American breeders simply cannot breed back in the original strength of the working traits that are required for search and rescue dogs, drug dogs, cadaver dogs, patrol dogs, etc. It's extremely rare that they'll find a dog, bred in the United States, that will meet their needs because the working aspect has been bred out in favor of certain looks.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

That's exactly what I want in a dog haha. Though I don't care if it's purebred or a mutt... and I don't want a puppy. Makes getting a shelter dog a great option for me really.


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

dagwall said:


> That's exactly what I want in a dog haha. Though I don't care if it's purebred or a mutt... and I don't want a puppy. Makes getting a shelter dog a great option for me really.


 I just want my Poodle/Schnauzers to be 100 pounds each! Lol! Forget them being 20 lbs! They would be the perfect dogs for me.....and really good watchdogs too!.......no one would get through my door without being invited! Lol!


----------



## marsha=whitie (Dec 29, 2008)

Abbylynn said:


> I just want my Poodle/Schnauzers to be 100 pounds each! Lol! Forget them being 20 lbs! They would be the perfect dogs for me.....and really good watchdogs too!.......no one would get through my door without being invited! Lol!


They do... they're called "Giant Schnoodles."


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

marsha=whitie said:


> They do... they're called "Giant Schnoodles."


LOL! Although Giant Schnauzers are very different from Mini Schnauzers that I doubt they'd be very similar in temperment. I wonder what kind of demand she sees for Giant Schnoodles.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

dagwall said:


> That's exactly what I want in a dog haha. Though I don't care if it's purebred or a mutt... and I don't want a puppy. Makes getting a shelter dog a great option for me really.


Retired Greyhound?


----------



## Meshkenet (Oct 2, 2009)

I think it if ok if breeders want to create new breeds by doing it ethically, i.e. not simply getting 2 different pure bred dogs and throwing them together when the female is in heat. My biggest peeve with so-called designer breeds is that they are not breeds at all but mixed dogs who don't breed true and are slapped with a cutesy name. That is not creating a breed, that is breeding and selling mutts for money.

Many real new breeds have recently been created: mini American shepherds, silken windhounds, Australian labradoodles, Labernese, etc. The point is, if you breed a silken windhound to a silken windhound, you will get silken windhound puppies, with predictable characteristics. If you breed a maltipoo to a maltipoo, you will get maltese-looking puppies, poodle-looking puppies, and anything in between. Maltipoos are henceforth not a breed.

If there is a need for a new companion breed for various reasons, I have nothing against new breeds being created; but don't go around saying "I've created a new breed of companion dogs!" if all you've done is get puppies from two small unrelated dogs. 

I also despise this new fad of giving mixed-breeds ridiculous names: St-Berdoodles, Doberdoodles and other -doodles really get on my nerves. But that's just me


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

If done responsibly it can work. I just doubt how often it is done responsibly compared to how often it is done irresponsibly. I just have a feeling there is a much greater ratio of the designer breeds being bred for profit than done responsibly compared to other breeds. Maybe I'm being naive, it's just how I feel about it though. Seems like most of these designer mixes are simply to sell as pets to generate profit. It exists with all breeds I just feel the situation is worse in these designer breeds because they are a new trend and are popular in the general public.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

Before I got my Cavaliers, I had great mixed breed dogs who were wonderful members of my family. I wouldn't trade my experiences and that part of my life for anything. Thinking about them, now "at the bridge", I still feel the pangs of loss. However, it wasn't until I got the Cavaliers that I really understood the idea of a dog bred to "be a companion". My Cavaliers NEED to be with someone, especially ME. They don't care what we are doing, as long as we do it together.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pai said:


> I would recommend a Tibetan Spaniel, they have a moderate coat and not a too-squished face, plus the benefit of not being that popular (yet). I was actually considering a Tibbie if I don't end up getting a toy Xolo as my next dog.
> 
> Though speaking of Xolos, how about a Coated Toy Xolo? They are short haired and sleek without being too fragile, and are not exaggerated physically.


Pai, those are actually two breeds that I've looked into (the dog above is beautiful BTW), and thanks for pointing them out as I believe they would work for many, and possibly myself. Neither have the traditional "companion" temperament that I was speaking about., so it would depend on if a person wanted to gamble that.

Even if the breed was a fit there are not Xolo breeders here (maybe because we have long stretches of freezing cold weather and 5 months of snow) and I don't believe in purchasing dogs from breeders that I cannot get to know. I think that is a whole wrong idea. 



> The Xolo breed has definite primitive temperament traits (very high intelligence, high energy, inquisitiveness, strong hunting and social instincts). Thus Xolos today can be escape artists, climbing and jumping fences to chase small animals. They possess guard dog ability and will not back down from a fight, yet as adults, when raised properly, are known to become steady, well-trained and affectionate companions.


I went out of my way to meet a breeder of Tibbies in Radway, Alberta 8 years ago. She had champion ranked dogs and was kind to them but they were in an outside kennel and she did no more health testing and took no better care of her animals than the home breeder who puts two pets together. She is retired now, and the only breeder of Tibbies in my province (size of Texas) currently is also of the same caliber. 

Having said that just this year I have had the opportunity to get to know my second Tibetan Spaniel. The last I knew was a girl, and I really liked all about her BUT for a highly independent streak - an obedience dog she would never have made (liked her anyway which says something). The boy I've sat this year is very biddable (not a usual Tibbie trait) and a wonderful dog.

Sassafras posted earlier _"But why is it worse/more unethical to pump maltipoos into the system than, say, labrador retrievers?"_ and it is a sentiment that I agree with. I don't understand why people would consider my support of these Tibbie breeders a more 'ethical' choice than if I supported a caring pet breeder, AND from a caring pet breeder I have a better opportunity at getting the less independent and more biddable personality traits that I desire. I know so, cuz I did so.

The main point of my post, however, was about the idea that there is a 'plethora' of breeds that can be used as companions, as if companionship traits were not specific and valuable. That phrase dismisses the very work that companion breeds have been perfected to do.



Independent George said:


> We do if we want to preserve the existing breeds as they are.
> 
> This is the conundrum - if you want to preserve the working traits of existing breeds, you can't breed them as companions. If you don't breed them as companions, you will likely be supplanted by the BYBs who do. If do breed them as companions, you lose the traits that probably attracted you to the breed in the first place.
> 
> ...


The heart of the matter for me. Thanks for stating it so well.

SOB


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

HerdersForMe said:


> If done responsibly it can work. I just doubt how often it is done responsibly compared to how often it is done irresponsibly. I just have a feeling there is a much greater ratio of the designer breeds being bred for profit than done responsibly compared to other breeds. Maybe I'm being naive, it's just how I feel about it though. Seems like most of these designer mixes are simply to sell as pets to generate profit. It exists with all breeds I just feel the situation is worse in these designer breeds because they are a new trend and are popular in the general public.


 I like your way of looking at this............it is relatively the way I feel.......I look at it like one having to have the latest electronic or computer or such because it is the fad and everybody else has one. And as soon as everyone owns that item.....the prices go down and nobody is interested anymore.....because there is now yet ANOTHER new one out! Eventually everything fizzles out.....just too bad it is with living creatures! I think that is how I wanted to say it?


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

lisahi said:


> Federal law enforcement organizations get the vast majority of their dogs from Europe because the American breeders simply cannot breed back in the original strength of the working traits that are required for search and rescue dogs, drug dogs, cadaver dogs, patrol dogs, etc. It's extremely rare that they'll find a dog, bred in the United States, that will meet their needs because the working aspect has been bred out in favor of certain looks.


Ha, this sounds so familiar to things I've heard and seen here. Not sure if it's really true though, but wouldn't be surprised if it were. 

SOB, I was almost about to recommend you a Markiesje, a native companion bred dog breed from Holland, hahaha  
Just kidding


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> O.K. I stole this phrase from another thread where this topic has come from. I thought it was an appropriate title.
> 
> Problem is that I disagree completely. I would also suggest that IF there were a plethora of breeds that people (the market of buyers) actually thought fit with their lifestyle, then those breeding mixes would hardly have a market.
> 
> ...


Except of course, most of the designer dogs are bred to have similar characteristics to the breeds of which they are a cross. Shi-poos do not have lower grooming requirements than Shih Tzus or poodles, for instance. Golden doodles are actually more grooming work than poodles, AND frequently are not low allergen. Chiweenies are still achondroplastic, though sometimes to a somewhat lesser degree. What particular mix (speciically) fits your requirements, such as they are, in a way that a purebred wouldn't? I think designer dogs are a sure sign that people are frequently seeking something "different" or "unique" and are often being sold a bill of goods by people who are good at making up qualities the dogs don't actually have.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> And that has changed through history how? What you are speaking of are traits inherent in humanity and they are not about to change, and yes I believe that some buy designer dogs to be different which I covered with _"and the markets refusal to abide being told what they should choose from."_ That does not mean there are not a bunch others out there that have found the list of prescribed breeds and the traits they exhibit unsuitable. As a libertarian I find it untenable that 'one bunch with a self interest' is trying to dictate a list to consumers.
> 
> SOB


So exactly what crossbreed meets your requirements in ways that a purebred does not. Don't get me wrong, I think there are some people making F1s with an eye to health and quality. I think there are people creating new breeds with an eye to purpose. I just want to know exactly what mix you are looking to buy and why.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Meshkenet said:


> Many real new breeds have recently been created: mini American shepherds,


Mini American shepherds are not really a new breed. It's just a new name for miniature Australian Shepherds. They are almost as old a breed as Aussies (but are not Aussies)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> What exactly is your objection to creating a new breed? Does it harm existing breeds in some way? (I'm not trying to be snarky, but honestly curious.)


What new breeds do you see being made that are bred to be better companions than the breeds they are made up of?


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Except of course, most of the designer dogs are bred to have similar characteristics to the breeds of which they are a cross
> Shi-poos do not have lower grooming requirements than Shih Tzus or poodles, for instance..


Yes, but they don't have as 'sharp' a temperament as a Toy Poodle, and the brachycephalic muzzle and bulging eyes of the Shih Tzu are moderated. 

(I should put that the thrust of my post was not about designer dogs, but about objections to new companion breeds being developed, but I can easily play devils advocate re designer breeds.)



Pawzk9 said:


> Golden doodles are actually more grooming work than poodles, AND frequently are not low allergen. ..


Again, as I babysit a Toy Poodle, know well an owner of three Standard Poodles and have known many more I will suggest that it is the change in the Poodle temperament that is the best part of the attraction. (Sorry to those that love Poodles, but all I've known have had temperaments I wouldn't choose to own). Of course it is also a gamble, but we are all allowed those choices in our society.



Pawzk9 said:


> Chiweenies are still achondroplastic, though sometimes to a somewhat lesser degree...


To a lesser degree is very important isn't it?



Pawzk9 said:


> What particular mix (speciically) fits your requirements, such as they are, in a way that a purebred wouldn't? ...


I have a mutt mix - both parents and grandparents with toy spaniel/small spaniel characteristics. I chose to support the tradition of breeding that has existed in my province forever. The breeder is actually a distant relative, and I've known her the best part of my life. I TRUST her motives for breeding. The purebred tradition is tiny here and hardly embraced with shows few and far between and I have yet to see a reason to support it.

Besides that, why should I be looking at purebred breeds and attempting to fit one of those first?



Pawzk9 said:


> I think designer dogs are a sure sign that people are frequently seeking something "different" or "unique" and are often being sold a bill of goods by people who are good at making up qualities the dogs don't actually have.


I see that as the reason for the attraction to purebreds that many have, especially since where I live the number of registered dogs has never been much higher than 1 in 10 . . . if that. It IS the registered and purebred that are unique, command a high price, and drive the market of unscrupulous breeders. Of course designer breeders are on their heels, with some in each category (very few) actually breeding cuz they care.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Yes, but they don't have as 'sharp' a temperament as a Toy Poodle, and the brachycephalic muzzle and pop-out eyes of the Shih Tzu are moderated.
> 
> 
> It IS the registered and purebred that are unique, command a high price, and drive the market of unscrupulous breeders. .
> ...


Perhaps things are different in Canada. Around here it's the mixes commanding the highest prices.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Perhaps things are different in Canada. Around here it's the mixes commanding the highest prices.


I do believe that parts of Canada (especially rural and Northern) are a BIT different, but how can one say the mixes command the highest prices when I know someone that has paid $5000.00 for a pet quality Cavalier on a spay/neuter contract. I KNOW someone who has paid similarly for an imported English Bulldog, and as well numerous that have paid highly for French Bulldogs - all FROM the USA. Five years ago here Yorkie and Chihuahua prices - on untested commercially bred stock - were off the wall.

I believe designer prices get a lot of attention . . . . but in some breeds prices are easily as high.



Pawzk9 said:


> What new breeds do you see being made that are bred to be better companions than the breeds they are made up of?


I don't like the basis of that question, as it imposes the idea that the purebred system and 'list' is first to be contemplated - as if somehow it has an automatic right of support over and above others, and breeders/buyers shouldn't think outside that box, BUT . . . . the Carlin Pinscher is one that I believe improves all that have gone into it. Yes, I have met one.

The Markeisje (made from small street dogs in Holland) is another still rare breed created in the latter part of the 20th Century that I believe has wonderful promise - but as it was created from mutts I can't say it 'bettered' the breeds it came from.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> I do believe that parts of Canada (especially rural and Northern) are a BIT different, but how can one say the mixes command the highest prices when I know someone that has paid $5000.00 for a pet quality Cavalier on a spay/neuter contract. I KNOW someone who has paid similarly for an imported English Bulldog, and as well numerous that have paid highly for French Bulldogs - all FROM the USA. Five years ago here Yorkie and Chihuahua prices - on untested commercially bred stock - were off the wall.
> 
> I believe designer prices get a lot of attention . . . . but in some breeds prices are easily as high.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing those two prices you threw out there are not the going price for most purebreds of most breeds, but rather a spectacular exception? I know around here "designer dogs" generally go for at least as much, and usually more, than a well bred purebred. And while I wouldn't doubt there might be someone out there health testing, contributing to research, studying and understanding pedigrees and screening clients, that's just not what has been my personal observation in my neck of the woods. Either it is someone breeding their pet dogs with no research, testing, etc. or it is commercial breeders with several small breeds that they mix and match for the pet shop/internet market. So, not really breeders I would recommend any more than I would recommend someone who was breeding purebreds the same way. On the other hand, I know many good breeders of purebreds who health test, contribute both financially and with samples to research, know their dogs' pedigrees and what those pedigrees mean, and are careful about where their pups and dogs go.

Your point seemed to be that we need intentionally created mixes because intentionally bred purebreds just don't meet people's needs. If that's so, you should be able to tell us which crosses improve on the original, and in what way.


----------



## HersheyBear (Dec 13, 2008)

A great way to find a dog that fits all or most requirements, is to adopt an adult rescue mix-breed dog. You know what you're getting off the bat, rather than getting a puppy that will be a complete temperament and health crapshoot. there are 0 guarantees when you get a puppy, even if you raise one from the beginning.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

All of the mixes moderate the parent breeds in some way. Maltipoos are not as sharp as Poodles, and not as delicate and nervous as Maltese. Cockaliers have a wider gene pool than Cavs, and are smaller and not as snappy as Cockers. Puggles are not as brachycephalic as Pugs, and not as "hound-y" as Beagles. Whether this is an improvement or not depends on your point of view, I suppose.

Do people really still pay more for mixes? Not around here (for the smaller mixes the price is generally about the same as for purebreds of similar quality). For a while Labradoodles were going for more, but I think people caught on. They still go for more than a Lab (but sometimes you can't even give Lab pups away so that's not hard) but not as much as a purebred Standard Poodle.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> And a breed doesn't need to be bred to herd to do that job either then, I guess? How would that suit you?
> 
> I will also give mention to how unethical it is, IMHO, to support the dumbing down of working breeds for companionship. Personally I find that much more offensive than the idea of developing new companion breeds.
> 
> SOB


Dunno. I've had dogs who have worked well and successfully as therapy dogs, social director for the dog school, etc. and are exceptionally nice companions. While they have training, this is just a part of who they are. And yet they aren't dumbed down, and they are capable of doing the job their breed was developed for. Granted they are a bit large to SIT ON LAPS (though Alice would love to try)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Dunno. I've had dogs who have worked well and successfully as therapy dogs, social director for the dog school, etc. and are exceptionally nice companions. While they have training, this is just a part of who they are. And yet they aren't dumbed down, and they are capable of doing the job their breed was developed for. Granted they are a bit large to SIT ON LAPS (though Alice would love to try)


 Any dog CAN be good companion. But do they have a need to do the job they were designed for? Will they become neurotic and bonkers if they don't do that job (or a reasonable substitute)? Herding dogs gotta herd. Retrievers gotta retrieve. A lot of people don't want to/ can't deal with high drives like that. So is it any better to water down your lines to make a low-drive herding dog or retriever (and a lot of people do) than to develop a new breed, or breed lower-drive mixes? I don't see a difference.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm guessing those two prices you threw out there are not the going price for most purebreds of most breeds, but rather a spectacular exception? .


7 years ago when I was looking at Cavalier King Charles Spaniels I was quoted in the $3500 price range from the top line breeders more than once. I know many that paid $2500 and up. The advice given on breeder lists has been that if you pay much less you should be skeptical of the breeder.

For Bulldogs and French Bulldogs I am aware there is a similar situation. If anyone owns one maybe they can clarify.



Pawzk9 said:


> I know around here "designer dogs" generally go for at least as much, and usually more, than a well bred purebred. And while I wouldn't doubt there might be someone out there health testing, contributing to research, studying and understanding pedigrees and screening clients, that's just not what has been my personal observation in my neck of the woods. Either it is someone breeding their pet dogs with no research, testing, etc. or it is commercial breeders with several small breeds that they mix and match for the pet shop/internet market. So, not really breeders I would recommend any more than I would recommend someone who was breeding purebreds the same way. *On the other hand, I know many good breeders of purebreds who health test, contribute both financially and with samples to research, know their dogs' pedigrees and what those pedigrees mean, and are careful about where their pups and dogs go*..


We come from vastly different experience bases. Purebreds are most often selling for the highest prices and I know not one purebred breeder that I would recommend above pet breeders . . . . despite the fact that I make a point of going to the occasional dog show to meet breeders and understand the culture as I have a sister immersed in the show world (shows, doesn't breed).



Pawzk9 said:


> Your point seemed to be that we need intentionally created mixes because intentionally bred purebreds just don't meet people's needs..


First off that is not my point. My point is that companion breeds have specific traits that have to be recognized as being important. Those that specifically want companions cannot simply be tossed the off-shoots and washouts from working breeders programs and told that we should make do because 'there is a plethora that can be used' that way. 

My second point is that the majority of those companion breeds that we do have are riddled with exaggerations that make them unappealing as many don't want to deal with the problems caused by them. Those would be short muzzles, short legs, overdone coats that require a lot of upkeep, bulging eyes and extra skin wrinkles . . . etc.

We could use a better variety of specifically companion breeds - ones with more moderation would be great. 



Pawzk9 said:


> If that's so, you should be able to tell us which crosses improve on the original, and in what way.


I've already done so after a couple of your earlier examples where you stated you couldn't see the reason for the mix. Its not hard to see the moderation that occurs, and the benefits of that, if you actually want to try.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Any dog CAN be good companion. But do they have a need to do the job they were designed for? Will they become neurotic and bonkers if they don't do that job (or a reasonable substitute)? Herding dogs gotta herd. Retrievers gotta retrieve. A lot of people don't want to/ can't deal with high drives like that. So is it any better to water down your lines to make a low-drive herding dog or retriever (and a lot of people do) than to develop a new breed, or breed lower-drive mixes? I don't see a difference.


Funny, Alice is an excellent and talented herding dog who is bred on a background of high powered ranch working cattle dogs. She loves it and she is good at it. But she doesn't get to do it very often. While I'm sure she'd love to go out and move stock every day (and would be willing to do it all day) that's just not our lifestyle. And in the months between getting to see livestock (our regular place to train has retired) she hasn't gotten neurotic or gone bonkers. On the contrary, she's happy to do whatever I ask of her - be it obedience, rally, freestyle or just demoing and greeting people in class. She'd be a great therapy dog if I had time for one more thing. I've had several talented dogs, but none have suffered if we did other things than what they were bred for. Of course, they aren't border collies,


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> 7 years ago when I was looking at Cavalier King Charles Spaniels I was quoted in the $3500 price range from the top line breeders more than once. I know many that paid $2500 and up. The advice given on breeder lists has been that if you pay much less you should be skeptical of the breeder.
> 
> For Bulldogs and French Bulldogs I am aware there is a similar situation. If anyone owns one maybe they can clarify.
> 
> ...


I said "most breeds" You seem stuck on three. As to improving, sorry, I've just not seen an intentionally bred mix that's an improvement on anything. And I've never seen a breeder of them who is breeding for anything other than to make puppies. I'm willing to entertain the belief that they are out there. Just not in my neck of the woods, and I see no reason to glorify what I have seen. I've yet to see a golden doodle that is as solid in temperament as either a poodle or a golden.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Any dog CAN be good companion. But do they have a need to do the job they were designed for? Will they become neurotic and bonkers if they don't do that job (or a reasonable substitute)? Herding dogs gotta herd. Retrievers gotta retrieve. A lot of people don't want to/ can't deal with high drives like that. So is it any better to water down your lines to make a low-drive herding dog or retriever (and a lot of people do) than to develop a new breed, or breed lower-drive mixes? I don't see a difference.


The difference is these breeds have existed for a long time. We are aware of their health issues. We understand how to breed them properly to reduce health problems. There are numerous groups and organizations dedicated to bettering these breeds and breeders who are members of these groups. 

Just because you don't breed the herding dogs with the most herding drive doesn't mean you are watering down the lines. The breed is remaining the same in every other aspect.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Funny, Alice is an excellent and talented herding dog who is bred on a background of high powered ranch working cattle dogs. She loves it and she is good at it. But she doesn't get to do it very often. While I'm sure she'd love to go out and move stock every day (and would be willing to do it all day) that's just not our lifestyle. And in the months between getting to see livestock (our regular place to train has retired) she hasn't gotten neurotic or gone bonkers. On the contrary, she's happy to do whatever I ask of her - be it obedience, rally, freestyle or just demoing and greeting people in class. She'd be a great therapy dog if I had time for one more thing. I've had several talented dogs, but none have suffered if we did other things than what they were bred for. Of course, they aren't border collies,


 Sure, but you do SOMETHING with your dogs to provide an outlet for the herding drive. For someone who wants a dog that's happy to be a pet, taking a few walks a day, play with the kids in the yard, and won't go crazy without an outlet for his/her drive, a high-drive herder isn't going to be a good choice, and there really are few non-tiny breeds who would fit that need.


----------



## melaka (Mar 31, 2010)

Yeah, that's kind of how I feel. I'm not necessarily in favor of breeding mixes, or creating new breeds (I really don't feel that I know enough to have a solid opinion), but I envy the idea of being able to get a dog with the characteristics I want, plus a known history, health testing, breeder support, etc.

I feel that I lucked out with my mutt because she turned out to be the perfect dog for me, and she has characteristics that I didn't even realize I wanted. But who knows what kind of health issues might develop down the road.

That said, while a few of the breeds named in this thread got my attention, I'll probably stick with rescues in the future, but go for an adult dog next time.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I said "most breeds" You seem stuck on three..


You originally said:



Pawzk9 said:


> Perhaps things are different in Canada. Around here it's the mixes commanding the highest prices.


and - 



> I know around here "designer dogs" generally go for at least as much, and usually more, than a well bred purebred.


I pointed out three breeds that I know to be of incredibly high prices for comparison, and I also said - 



> Purebreds are most often selling for the highest prices


That statement was not just about three breeds.



Pawzk9 said:


> As to improving, sorry, I've just not seen an intentionally bred mix that's an improvement on anything. And I've never seen a breeder of them who is breeding for anything other than to make puppies. I'm willing to entertain the belief that they are out there. Just not in my neck of the woods, and I see no reason to glorify what I have seen. I've yet to see a golden doodle that is as solid in temperament as either a poodle or a golden.


Again, our experiences and opinions are obviously vastly different. I know well a Shih-Poo, and many Bichon/Shih Tzu mixes (small breed meet up group member and dog sitter here). I also know individuals in all the breeds and in my experience the mixes have turned out superior in temperament AND physical traits to the purebreds. As Bichon/Shih Tzu mixes have been the go to for companions here for at least 20 years, I also know a breeder of that mix that bred a wonderful line that provided a few homes with great companion pups over her breeding years (now retired and continues to live with two of her 4th gen pups). 

I also don't have a problem with the idea of breeding for pets as long as responsibility is taken . . . . so I would guess from your above "making puppies" statement we wouldn't agree about that either.

SOB


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

HerdersForMe said:


> Just because you don't breed the herding dogs with the most herding drive doesn't mean you are watering down the lines. The breed is remaining the same in every other aspect.


A Retriever who has no drive to retrieve (as in Independent George's example) is certainly watered down. What if I'm looking for a dog like that? I'm pretty sure that if I called "good" breeders (defined by those who do health testing and take good care of their dogs, maybe show or do trials) and said "hi, I'm looking for a Golden Retriever puppy who I can be fairly sure will never have any desire to retrieve and will be perfectly happy as a housepet", I'd get hung up on a lot. The only people catering to that market are "BYBs", and I think trying to find one of them that breeds for low drive AND does all the right health tests would be difficult.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Sure, but you do SOMETHING with your dogs to provide an outlet for the herding drive. For someone who wants a dog that's happy to be a pet, taking a few walks a day, play with the kids in the yard, and won't go crazy without an outlet for his/her drive, a high-drive herder isn't going to be a good choice, and there really are few non-tiny breeds who would fit that need.


No. I don't think the things we do really provide an outlet for "herding drive" But she is happy to hang with me and do what I asked. She'd be happy to hang at home and chase sticks too.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> A Retriever who has no drive to retrieve (as in Independent George's example) is certainly watered down. What if I'm looking for a dog like that? I'm pretty sure that if I called "good" breeders (defined by those who do health testing and take good care of their dogs, maybe show or do trials) and said "hi, I'm looking for a Golden Retriever puppy who I can be fairly sure will never have any desire to retrieve and will be perfectly happy as a housepet", I'd get hung up on a lot. The only people catering to that market are "BYBs", and I think trying to find one of them that breeds for low drive AND does all the right health tests would be difficult.


Just curious why a retriever with no drive to retrieve would make a better pet than a retriever who retrieves?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Just curious why a retriever with no drive to retrieve would make a better pet than a retriever who retrieves?


To me, "drive" equals "need". This need is what makes a good working dog. My first dog was a high-drive retriever (Labs are great first-time pets, dontcha know!). She was not a good pet. We managed, but we all would have been happier if she hadn't had such a deep-seated need to retrieve anything and everything, for several hours every day. Most of the Labs I know are the same way. It's not something an average pet home wants or needs.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> A Retriever who has no drive to retrieve (as in Independent George's example) is certainly watered down. What if I'm looking for a dog like that? I'm pretty sure that if I called "good" breeders (defined by those who do health testing and take good care of their dogs, maybe show or do trials) and said "hi, I'm looking for a Golden Retriever puppy who I can be fairly sure will never have any desire to retrieve and will be perfectly happy as a housepet", I'd get hung up on a lot. The only people catering to that market are "BYBs", and I think trying to find one of them that breeds for low drive AND does all the right health tests would be difficult.


Dogs like that do exist whether they were intentionally "watered down" or not. You can't guarantee a dog will have drive or not. There are plenty of herding dogs that simply don't have much of the herding instinct. There are retrievers who have little drive to retrieve. Even if their background would suggest otherwise. 

What does a dog with drive or not have to do with being a good pet? I'm not sure what your analogy of seeking a retriever who doesn't retrieve has to do with the topic of designer breeds.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> To me, "drive" equals "need". This need is what makes a good working dog. My first dog was a high-drive retriever (Labs are great first-time pets, dontcha know!). She was not a good pet. We managed, but we all would have been happier if she hadn't had such a deep-seated need to retrieve anything and everything, for several hours every day. Most of the Labs I know are the same way. It's not something an average pet home wants or needs.


Dunno. I know plenty of dogs who exhibit drive when they are working but they don't "need" to do that all the time, or even most of the time. Good working dogs should have an off-switch. I'm not sure I'm in favor of breeding any dogs who have no desire to do anything, just so people who don't really want to do things with dogs can have one.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm not sure I'm in favor of breeding any dogs who have no desire to do anything, just so people who don't really want to do things with dogs can have one.


Why on earth not?


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> To me, "drive" equals "need". This need is what makes a good working dog. My first dog was a high-drive retriever (Labs are great first-time pets, dontcha know!). She was not a good pet. We managed, but we all would have been happier if she hadn't had such a deep-seated need to retrieve anything and everything, for several hours every day. Most of the Labs I know are the same way. It's not something an average pet home wants or needs.


A drive is more like an instinct than a need, think prey drive. Our sheltie has very good herding drive but he'd be perfectly fine never doing it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

The thread is about seeking a breed specifically bred to be a companion. As opposed to having to search for a low-drive individual of a breed designed to do something else. Somone seeking a pet should have the same ability to go to a breeder and buy a pup knowing there's a good chance it will be a good companion dog, rather than buy what you think might be the lowest-drive puppy from a breed that is designed to have a drive to do something and hope for the best. You say "there's no need for new companion breeds because you can get a low-drive dog of any breed". I'm countering that by pointing out that there's really no consistent way to find one of these low-drive dogs, especially if someone wants a puppy. And, as SOB pointed out, there's no substitute for a dog that actually has a drive to be a companion.

As far as "good pets" go, I think most people agree that high drive (prey drive, herding drive, retrieving drive) can make a dog a difficult housepet.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

> So, if someone is wiser than I please name an accessible breed (not a rare one found only in Holland etc) in the 13-30 pound range that has an easy care coat (no high maintenance coats, no wire or bearded coats) and moderate conformation traits (a muzzle is a great thing and so are legs) that is bred for companionship - that is the working traits that make a great companion - and that is NOT in a precarious state of health.


First of all, WHAT do you mean by "bred for companionship?" Does it HAVE to be a toy breed with no other working purpose? Or can "bred for companionship" simply mean biddable, affectionate and loyal? For the rest of my post, I'm going to assume that it's the latter. 

Papillons, Pomeranians, and even some Chihuahuas can come in the 10-20 lbs range. May not be show quality but they certainly exist and are not uncommon. There are also smaller sighthounds like Italian Greyhounds and Whippets. If those are too independent for you, the Silken Windhound has herder ancestry and is much more biddable and loyal than other sighthounds, and the ones I've met are around 25-35 lbs. You've also got small herders like Shetland Sheepdogs and Miniature American Shepherds. They shed and require brushing but no clipping. If you want to broaden you size requirements, there are MANY larger breeds of dogs that would fit your requirements quite well. Rough/smooth Collies, Golden Retrievers, St. Bernards, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Labrador Retrievers, Rottweilers, just to name a few....

ETA: After reading more of the thread, I wanted to mention that I have no problem with creating new breeds, so long as it's done thoughtfully and carefully. 99% of designer dogs I believe are NOT bred thoughtfully or carefully, but are instead just two breeds haphazardly thrown together with a cute name to be sold for profit. 



Pawzk9 said:


> What new breeds do you see being made that are bred to be better companions than the breeds they are made up of?


Silken Windhounds are a new breed. They are a smaller coated sighthound for those who do no want a giant sighthound (like the Borzoi) and would prefer a dog with longer fur for protection from the elements and because breeds like Greyhounds have very thin skin that is easily injured. They also have herder ancestry so they are more biddable and less independent than other sighthound breeds, while still maintaining the regal mellow-ness that sighthound are known for. Also those who have created the breed have taken great care to prevent as many genetic health problems as possible from developing (as any breeders should).


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

You need a Maggie 








17 lbs, this is her natural coat (ears hairs get trimmed on rare occasion), people-oriented, happy to go on a walk for a few miles or just sit around the house and yard for a couple weeks straight. No biggie...she is just happy about life.

Really though, the breed that came to mind was a Sheltie. You said no herders but honestly most "show" Shelties I know pretty much want to hang out with their humans...and that's about it. Ever. The coat is often pointlessly big but doesn't seem particularly high maintenance.

Other than that, I don't really have any suggestions but the companion breeds hold little interest for me (though I appreciate that they are perfect for many people...let's just say I would be a terrible owner for my parents' dog and they for mine) so I don't seek them out in general.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Nargle said:


> If you want to broaden you size requirements, there are MANY larger breeds of dogs that would fit your requirements quite well. Rough/smooth Collies, Golden Retrievers, St. Bernards, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Labrador Retrievers, Rottweilers, just to name a few....


 So if someone starts a "what breed is right for me" thread and said: "I am mid-aged. I want a dog 15-30 pounds. I want an easy care coat, can't stand beards and find grooming to be a chore that I'll do if necessary but would rather avoid. I want a dog that is biddable and that will be able to walk with me -happily -a couple of times a day for about 1/2 hour if not a bit longer", you'd really recommend a Lab? Or a Rott? Or a Berner? :/


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Nargle said:


> First of all, WHAT do you mean by "bred for companionship?" Does it HAVE to be a toy breed with no other working purpose? Or can "bred for companionship" simply mean biddable, affectionate and loyal? For the rest of my post, I'm going to assume that it's the latter. .


It is NOT the latter. I provided a long quote and links to speak to that and as Willowy just very well pointed out (as I can see she gets what I'm talking about here) _"there's no substitute for a dog that actually has a drive to be a companion."_ As for large Paps and Chis, I KNOW that I would get the same reaction going to a great breeder of either of these breeds and asking for a dog with lots more bone than the standard calls for and way more leg under it. It is no more ethical to sift through BYB bred Chis and Paps for a large one than it is to support a pet breeder of non-pure dogs.



Shaina said:


> You need a Maggie
> 
> 
> 
> ...


She sounds like a wonderful dog.



Shaina said:


> Really though, the breed that came to mind was a Sheltie. You said no herders but honestly most "show" Shelties I know pretty much want to hang out with their humans...and that's about it. Ever. The coat is often pointlessly big but doesn't seem particularly high maintenance..


Sorry. I know many Shelties and this suggestion almost made me splurt coffee onto my keyboard.



Willowy said:


> The thread is about seeking a breed specifically bred to be a companion. As opposed to having to search for a low-drive individual of a breed designed to do something else. *Somone seeking a pet should have the same ability to go to a breeder and buy a pup knowing there's a good chance it will be a good companion dog, rather than buy what you think might be the lowest-drive puppy from a breed that is designed to have a drive to do something and hope for the best.* You say "there's no need for new companion breeds because you can get a low-drive dog of any breed". I'm countering that by pointing out that there's really no consistent way to find one of these low-drive dogs, especially if someone wants a puppy. And, as SOB pointed out, *there's no substitute for a dog that actually has a drive to be a companion*.
> 
> As far as "good pets" go, I think most people agree that high drive (prey drive, herding drive, retrieving drive) can make a dog a difficult housepet.


Thanks for gettin' it Willowy (and others too). Maybe you have to have the experience with these guys to know.

SOB


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> She sounds like a wonderful dog.


Yep. She's also overweight. When she's fit she's far more active.



spanielorbust said:


> Sorry. I know many Shelties and this suggestion almost made me splurt coffee onto my keyboard.


Yeah tbh I apparently really have no concept of what you are looking for in a dog.

ETA: The Shelties I'm thinking of are sort of like the Golden Retriever described earlier in this thread. More or less in the shape of that breed, but that's it. The type of Sheltie that any sort of sport/herding Sheltie person would want to deny is a Sheltie at all. Unfortunately a lot of these dogs seem to exist.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Shaina said:


> Yep. She's also overweight. When she's fit she's far more active.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah tbh I apparently really have no concept of what you are looking for in a dog.


Thanks for given' it a stab . . . . really. It is all about the companion drive vs. the herding drive. I've actually owned a few Collie and/or Sheltie crosses in my lifetime, and have worked through that Sheltie coat numerous times as I have a brother who had one of those as well (blue eyed merle). I have here often a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, my own mixed spaniels and often Papillons. There is a great difference in what they instinctually want to do with their day. 

I'm also not looking for a dog as I have mine . . . was just using my criteria as an example.

SOB


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> Thanks for gettin' it Willowy (and others too). Maybe you have to have the experience with these guys to know.


 
I don't really have a lot of experience with companion-bred dogs (except I know a lot of Shih Tzus. . .but all that fur!), but I do know that almost all dog owners I know do not really have dogs that suit them. Oh, they muddle through, and they love their dogs, but there's always something about the dogs that doesn't work for that family. Most of them would be very happy with a moderate, medium-sized, Spaniel-ish type dog with low grooming needs like you describe. Even among the Shih Tzus I know--and they seem to be perfect, personality-wise, for most of those wanting a companion dog--the majority of them are at least somewhat neglected when it comes to grooming. All the companion breeds seem to fall into some extreme category, I think a more moderate companion breed is needed. And fewer dogs would end up in shelters if more emphasis was put on breeding for good pet qualities.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I don't really have a lot of experience with companion-bred dogs (except I know a lot of Shih Tzus. . .but all that fur!), but I do know that almost all dog owners I know do not really have dogs that suit them. Oh, they muddle through, and they love their dogs, but there's always something about the dogs that doesn't work for that family. Most of them would be very happy with a moderate, medium-sized, Spaniel-ish type dog with low grooming needs like you describe. Even among the Shih Tzus I know--and they seem to be perfect, personality-wise, for most of those wanting a companion dog--the majority of them are at least somewhat neglected when it comes to grooming. All the companion breeds seem to fall into some extreme category, I think a more moderate companion breed is needed. And fewer dogs would end up in shelters if more emphasis was put on breeding for good pet qualities.


This is well said. I sometimes think about what kind of dogs I will have in the not-so distant future when I am a shriveled old lady who can't handle big dogs anymore. And every breed I think of has some kind of health or grooming concern that isn't ideal for me. We'll see when the time comes.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> So if someone starts a "what breed is right for me" thread and said: "I am mid-aged. I want a dog 15-30 pounds. I want an easy care coat, can't stand beards and find grooming to be a chore that I'll do if necessary but would rather avoid. I want a dog that is biddable and that will be able to walk with me -happily -a couple of times a day for about 1/2 hour if not a bit longer", you'd really recommend a Lab? Or a Rott? Or a Berner? :/


I had not read every single post in this thread when I had written my post. I was merely replying to the first post, particularly to the section I had quoted. And YES, I believe that if you're looking for a breed that's not excessively rare, has a low-maintanence coat, has moderate conformational traits, and makes a good companion, then those breeds could be a good fit for you. My point was mainly that larger breeds can still make just as good companions as toy breeds in many ways. In the original post there was no mention of only being able to give the dog a half hour of walking per day for exercise.



> As for large Paps and Chis, I KNOW that I would get the same reaction going to a great breeder of either of these breeds and asking for a dog with lots more bone than the standard calls for and way more leg under it. It is no more ethical to sift through BYB bred Chis and Paps for a large one than it is to support a pet breeder of non-pure dogs.


When I read this thread I was unaware that this thread was specifically about creating new breeds and I had assumed that going through a rescue to acquire a dog was an option. That's how I acquired my dog (who IMO fits your requirements that you posted) and there are plenty more like him out there for adoption.

To be fair, SOB, so far you've been quite vague about what you believe to be a good companion breed. I know that it's very subjective, but to say Shelties, Corgis, terriers, hounds, etc. all make bad companions is simply not true. Every single breed can make a fine companion for the right person. If the point you're trying to make is that you have your own specific idea about what kind of dog you want and that you wish it was a breed, that's fine by me. I am not opposed to creating new breeds. But you don't really have to shoot down every single other breed because there are many people who believe that their breed is a VERY good companion and fits all of their requirements just fine.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I copied and pasted that from the original post . Unless she edited that in later.


----------



## Fuzzy Pants (Jul 31, 2010)

Personally, I wish everyone would go to a shelter or rescue first when looking for a dog. However, if they can't find what they want, aren't willing to wait and have their mind set on going to a breeder I couldn't care less if they go to a breeder of AKC registered dogs or a 'designer' dog breeder that cares for their dogs well. I'd just hope they'd avoid pet stores and flea market puppy millers.

On a side note. I can't stand a long coat on a shih tzu. Not just because of the maintenance nightmare but because I simply think they are oh so much cuter (and manageable) in the short puppy coat.


----------



## HersheyBear (Dec 13, 2008)

Yeah that pretty much is what I meant. you got Colt as a 9wk old puppy, and with a puppy that young you can never tell what they are going to end up like when they're grown. even a purebred puppy may not grow up to have the desired temperament.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Fuzzy Pants said:


> Personally, I wish everyone would go to a shelter or rescue first when looking for a dog. However, if they can't find what they want, aren't willing to wait and have their mind set on going to a breeder I couldn't care less if they go to a breeder of AKC registered dogs or a 'designer' dog breeder that cares for their dogs well. I'd just hope they'd avoid pet stores and flea market puppy millers.
> 
> On a side note. I can't stand a long coat on a shih tzu. Not just because of the maintenance nightmare but because I simply think they are oh so much cuter (and manageable) in the short puppy coat.


But shelter populations are made up of the same breeds and mixes as the general pet population. Which means suitability (or lack thereof) is the same whether you get the dog from the shelter or a breeder. And, while I also wish people would check the shelters first, a lot of people just won't get their dog from a shelter, and I think they should be able to find the breed or mix that really suits their family, to minimize the chances of THAT dog ending up in a shelter.

I think Shih Tzus look better in short coats, too. But that's expensive! You either have to take them to the groomer once a month (at $50 a pop) or buy your own clippers (also not cheap) and put up with some awful haircuts before you get good at it. It's the main reason, IMO, that so many pet Shih Tzus have neglected coats.


----------



## Fuzzy Pants (Jul 31, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I think Shih Tzus look better in short coats, too. But that's expensive! You either have to take them to the groomer once a month (at $50 a pop) or buy your own clippers (also not cheap) and put up with some awful haircuts before you get good at it. It's the main reason, IMO, that so many pet Shih Tzus have neglected coats.


I get Casbah's cut really short when I take her and that keeps for about 3 months with me trimming with scissors here and there. I've never paid more than $40 for her cuts. I always manage to find a $10 off coupon for Petsmart's groomers. That's not a lot in my opinion to pay every few months. Her cut doesn't have to look perfect so I wouldn't bother with a more expensive groomer. Granted, I wouldn't shave her down in the winter time so it will be a bit more expensive to keep her fur around 2 inches long but I will continue to trim her a bit myself even if she does end up looking a little awkward. I don't care if she doesn't look like a show dog. Plus in winter, if I give her a really bad trim I can just cover it up with her winter coat.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

There have been a couple of posts here suggesting that mixes tend to be less drivey than purebreds. I agree that it is possible to create a moderately drivey dog by mixing in something with lower drive, just as it's possible to create a less brachy dog by mixing in something that's non-brachy. You can certainly moderate some of the characteristics that you don't like about a certain breed by mixing it with something with different characteristics. But if you mix two drivey breeds, you're going to get drive plain and simple. I think it's a mistake to assume that because a dog is mixed, it's automatically lower drive.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

No, of course not. . .Borderjacks come to mind!


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> There have been a couple of posts here suggesting that mixes tend to be less drivey than purebreds. I agree that it is possible to create a moderately drivey dog by mixing in something with lower drive, just as it's possible to create a less brachy dog by mixing in something that's non-brachy. You can certainly moderate some of the characteristics that you don't like about a certain breed by mixing it with something with different characteristics. But if you mix two drivey breeds, you're going to get drive plain and simple. I think it's a mistake to assume that because a dog is mixed, it's automatically lower drive.


This is very true and I see this mindset a lot among designer dog breeders. Sometimes it's almost as if no matter what two breeds you mix together, it doesn't matter, you'll always get calmer, less drivey, more loyal, perfect dogs.


----------



## Porphyria (Jul 18, 2011)

Nargle said:


> ETA: After reading more of the thread, I wan​ted to mention that I have no problem with creating new breeds, so long as it's done thoughtfully and carefully. 99% of designer dogs I believe are NOT bred thoughtfully or carefully, but are instead just two breeds haphazardly thrown together with a cute name to be sold for profit.
> 
> 
> 
> Silken Windhounds are a new breed. They are a smaller coated sighthound for those who do no want a giant sighthound (like the Borzoi) and would prefer a dog with longer fur for protection from the elements and because breeds like Greyhounds have very thin skin that is easily injured. They also have herder ancestry so they are more biddable and less independent than other sighthound breeds, while still maintaining the regal mellow-ness that sighthound are known for. Also those who have created the breed have taken great care to prevent as many genetic health problems as possible from developing (as any breeders should).


This is exactly what I was going to say. Silkens are a new breed and were bred primarily for companionship. I don't think the combination of traits found in the Silken-medium sized, easy to train, playful without being high energy, calm, low maintenance grooming requirements, and tolerant of hot and cold weather--can be found in any other breed. Borzoi and Whippets are great, but the Silken's size and trainability make it more appealing to me than the Borzoi, and its weather resistant protective coat makes it more appealing to me than the whippet. They are also extremely healthy and long-lived. I think it is a mistake to lump all new breeds, especially those with a breed standard, specific goals and an excellent breeding program, in with poorly bred "designer" mixes that are bred largely for profit.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Nargle said:


> This is very true and I see this mindset a lot among designer dog breeders. Sometimes it's almost as if no matter what two breeds you mix together, it doesn't matter, you'll always get calmer, less drivey, more loyal, perfect dogs.


I find it really interesting that it cropped up in this thread. I expect it among designer dog breeders, but not necessarily here.

Also, it probably depends on the intended buyers of the designer dogs....my perfect dog would never be described as "calm" or "less drivey". Those aren't selling points in my mind, although I understand how they could be for some people.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> As far as "good pets" go, I think most people agree that high drive (prey drive, herding drive, retrieving drive) can make a dog a difficult housepet.


The people that believe this have no idea what drive really is.

I own a high drive dog....that works as a service dog. He is out and about every day, in large crowds, dealing with things the average dog does not. And he works largely OUT of drive.

Training is done IN drive, but a dog (at least a GSD) with good nerve has the ability to cap its drives and turn them on and off as necessary.

GSDs need to think, yes, and they need to be trained, yes, and if you don't walk them for 4-5 days, most of them will drive you nuts. But that's not a drive issue...that's an energy level issue. GSDs are not a low energy breed.

Drive is what makes dogs easy to train and work with. A lack of drive makes for a dog that is difficult, frustrating, and unenjoyable to train. Drive is nothing more than the instincts the dog possesses, and the level at which that instinct lies.

Strauss has huge prey drive, but is a TERRIBLE herding dog. You know why? The drive to herd and the drive for prey are NOT the same thing. The drive to herd STEMS from prey drive, but they are NOT the same.

Mirada has a natural inclination to work a boundary, and keep sheep together...that is the drive to herd. Strauss wants to SEPARATE sheep and kill them...that is prey.

Mirada has prey drive, but it is lower than Strauss's, and she is clearer headed in drive than Strauss is. She can cap her drive, and does not "leak drive".

But Mirada could be happy with never getting structured exercise (walking, biking, etc). Agility and herding is enough for her. She hates walks and she despises biking (she has to do it anyway).

Strauss would probably die without biking. He can go a few days without it, but would really rather not.

So yes, after all that rambling, high drive does not = unable to live with.

P.S. Dogs with no drive make crappy service animals.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Nargle said:


> To be fair, SOB, so far you've been quite vague about what you believe to be a good companion breed. . . .


You are kidding right? This description followed by a link and a quote about what are the special traits of a companion is vague? 

Very first post on the thread:



> I am an average type of dog buyer. I am mid-aged. I want a dog 15-30 pounds. I want an easy care coat, can't stand beards and find grooming to be a chore that I'll do if necessary but would rather avoid. I want a dog that is biddable and that will be able to walk with me - happily - a couple of times a day for about 1/2 hour if not a bit longer. I have no interest in Terrier or Hound types as I find those temperaments are not a match for my ownership style and although I'm O.K. with little herders I know what it is like to own a companion bred dog and that is very much my preference.
> 
> Companion bred dogs are, but there is a problem. Coats and muzzles. . . .
> 
> ...


If you wonder why I do not name what I believe is a good breed . . . . my point on this thread is that there is currently not one, which is why I don't agree with the statement that there is a 'plethora of breeds that can be used for companions?' . . . . as if that use ought to be an afterthought.

In regards to temperament I will name the Shih Tzu and the Cavalier as at the top for me. I wouldn't touch either due to conformation and health issues.



> But you don't really have to shoot down every single other breed because there are many people who believe that their breed is a VERY good companion and fits all of their requirements just fine.


Please point out where the bullets were fired as I really don't believe they were. My opinion of Poodles? Shelties? An honest expressed opinion about what one thinks of a breed or if a breed suits is not a *personal* shot at any individual dog or even breed. . . maybe some over sensitivity? I can't imagine expecting everyone to like the breeds/dogs that I do. 



GottaLuvMutts said:


> There have been a couple of posts here suggesting that mixes tend to be less drivey than purebreds. . . .





Nargle said:


> This is very true and I see this mindset a lot among designer dog breeders. Sometimes it's almost as if no matter what two breeds you mix together, it doesn't matter, you'll always get calmer, less drivey, more loyal, perfect dogs.





> I find it really interesting that it cropped up in this thread. I expect it among designer dog breeders, but not necessarily here.


Which posts? I've carefully looked through the last four pages and cannot find - post # 59 Willowy mentioned the deliberate breeding of low drive mixes followed by some posts on that - nothing about mixes being less drivey automatically as has just been implied through these above posts.

SOB


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

EDIT: Oh hell, I don't care anymore. Just don't leave the dogs in the lurch.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> I also don't have a problem with the idea of breeding for pets as long as responsibility is taken . . . . so I would guess from your above "making puppies" statement we wouldn't agree about that either.
> 
> SOB


I think that many dogs are bred to be good pets. Some also have other talents. I don't have a problem with anyone who is taking responsibility for the pups they breed (and take measures to make sure those pups have the best chance they can have. I have described the majority of people I am familiar with who are intentionally crossing around here. And, I haven't met any of those who are taking the responsibility. The ones I'm familiar with are making puppies without doing those things. Therefore my statement. As I said, things may be different where you are.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Drive is what makes dogs easy to train and work with. A lack of drive makes for a dog that is difficult, frustrating, and unenjoyable to train.


I agree with this. I think the hardest dog to train is the dog with no drive. Basil is high drive in some ways and low drive in other ways. If I work outside of his drives, I can't get him to do ANYTHING I want and he just meanders around doing whatever. But when I work inside of his drives, he's a super quick learner and very motivated. I've just got to figure out what motivates my dog and I can get him to do anything. There's a reason why so many working dogs have high drives in regards to what they were bred to do. If high drive meant that the dog was uncontrollable and crazy then that would make a TERRIBLE working dog (and pet). I guess that's what "leaking" drive is all about. But a low drive dog wouldn't every be able to get any work done because it wouldn't be motivated to cooperate and work with its owner.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Willowy said:


> I don't really have a lot of experience with companion-bred dogs (except I know a lot of Shih Tzus. . .but all that fur!), but I do know that almost all dog owners I know do not really have dogs that suit them. Oh, they muddle through, and they love their dogs, but there's always something about the dogs that doesn't work for that family. Most of them would be very happy with a moderate, medium-sized, Spaniel-ish type dog with low grooming needs like you describe. Even among the Shih Tzus I know--and they seem to be perfect, personality-wise, for most of those wanting a companion dog--the majority of them are at least somewhat neglected when it comes to grooming. All the companion breeds seem to fall into some extreme category, I think a more moderate companion breed is needed. *And fewer dogs would end up in shelters if more emphasis was put on breeding for good pet qualities.*


I agree with all of this wholeheartedly, especially the bolded portion. And these are actually opinions I have previously kept to myself because I felt that they would be met with a lot of resistance. It's nice to know others feel the way I do.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Xeph said:


> The people that believe this have no idea what drive really is.
> 
> I own a high drive dog....that works as a service dog. He is out and about every day, in large crowds, dealing with things the average dog does not. And he works largely OUT of drive.
> 
> Training is done IN drive, but a dog (at least a GSD) with good nerve has the ability to cap its drives and turn them on and off as necessary.


This is probably a different thread (I stopped reading halfway through the first page since it seemed to be the same arguments over and over again with people not reading one another's replies) but I'd like to hear more on this topic.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> Drive is what makes dogs easy to train and work with. A lack of drive makes for a dog that is difficult, frustrating, and unenjoyable to train.


OK, I don't know all the right dog terms. And I think there are different kinds of drive. So whatever makes a good housepet. . .high pack drive, low prey drive? I suppose. Just saying that a retriever who MUST retrieve, who thinks she will simply die if she is denied that opportunity, is a bit hard to live with. So whatever that drive is = not a great quality for a housepet (and it wasn't high energy---although she was high-energy, too---because she could have just got through running for hours, completely exhausted, falling down tired. . .and if someone was willing to play fetch or even just picked up her toy, she would drag herself out of bed and fetch until she collapsed. It was like an obsession. I always thought that was the definition of drive. It's a good thing for working retrievers. Not so good for housepets).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

RaeganW said:


> The OP's point (one of them) is that of the 300 hundred breeds, there is NOT a small, sturdy companion breed that has not been taken to physical extremity.


Havanese (long coat but more utilitarian)
Schipperke
Manchester
Jack Russell
Berger de Pyrenes
some Mini Aussies
Beagle
Finnish Spitz
American eskimo
just off the top of my head
I'm sure there are a lot more, and I'm sure that there are things SOB may not like about these breeds, (some being terriers and hounds) but just looking at physical extremity - and most have relatively few health issues.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Willowy said:


> OK, I don't know all the right dog terms. And I think there are different kinds of drive. So whatever makes a good housepet. . .high pack drive, low prey drive? I suppose. Just saying that a retriever who MUST retrieve, who thinks she will simply die if she is denied that opportunity, is a bit hard to live with. So whatever that drive is = not a great quality for a housepet.


A high drive dog is a hard housepet if you are not fulfilling its drives. I would say that most people are not naturally equipped to meet the needs of the high drive dog. It's not something I would expect them to know. They might just keep exercising the dog, but it's the wrong kind of exercise (ie, running a retriever for three hours a day, but never actually throwing a ball) or they aren't meeting the mental stimulation needs. The high DRIVE dog requires more specialized care than the high ENERGY dog.

Xeph has shared an example of Strauss. After an X mile bike ride, Strauss will crash for two hours, but after that he's in your face again. But 15 minutes of training wears him out for the day.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Just saying that a retriever who MUST retrieve, who thinks she will simply die if she is denied that opportunity, is a bit hard to live with.


That is a dog that is incapable of capping its drive, wastes energy with constant pacing, whining, and obsessesing over finding something to fetch. That is not a drive issue, that is a nerve issue.

Strauss would play tuggy or chase fizbees until he dropped dead if I let him, but because he can shut his drive off when not doing things, this is what he is currently doing:









It's the same thing for when we're out at a restaurant. If Strauss could not just shut off his drive and constantly had to be doing something, he couldn't sleep under a table for an hour or two in a restaurant.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Havanese (long coat but more utilitarian)
> Schipperke
> Manchester
> Jack Russell
> ...


But that misses the point of COMPANION breed. _Working_ companion, if that makes it clearer. Broadly speaking, the stronger the working heritage of a breed, the more "dog-shaped" it is (since in general successful work demands moderate coat and structure). When you lose the work, you lose the moderation. You can see THAT in comparing stock line Border Collies to bench BC's. And to a lesser extent, even sport bred. Of that list, I'd say probably only the Havanese, Schipp (and even that's on the fence), and American Eskimo were dogs as stringently selected for companionable traits as herding dogs were selected for herding behavior.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> OK, I don't know all the right dog terms. And I think there are different kinds of drive. So whatever makes a good housepet. . .high pack drive, low prey drive? I suppose. Just saying that a retriever who MUST retrieve, who thinks she will simply die if she is denied that opportunity, is a bit hard to live with. So whatever that drive is = not a great quality for a housepet.


but not all retrievers who retrieve are like that (I'd guess most are not). Retrievers are wired to bring the duck to the human without eating it. Herding dogs are wired to bring the sheep to the person without damaging them. In both cases an important consideration in correct temperament/instinct is the dog's biddability and willingness to work FOR the human. I don't care how much instinct a herding dog has (I can speak less to hunting breeds - only personally having co-owned one IWS) but if the dog is not willing to work for you, they are useless. Biddabilitiy is a feature when it comes to living in a pet home as well


----------



## LoMD13 (Aug 4, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> And a breed doesn't need to be bred to herd to do that job either then, I guess? How would that suit you?
> 
> I see that you still do not understand what 'bred for companionship' means and how those traits are valuable as you cannot understand the difference between a working breed and a dog specifically bred for companionship over a couple of hundred years.
> 
> ...


This is a very interesting thread! I grew up with a Sheltie, and a GSD. I now have a small companion dog. My sheltie and GSD were awesome dogs and fine companions, but it's not really the same. My current dog just loves to hang with people. She's up for anything- running, hiking, cuddling, lap-sitting, trick-training, agility as long as she gets to hang with me (Or with anybody really). I just took her to get an oil change (They allow small dogs in), and she cuddled in her carrier for an hour perfectly content because she was sitting next to me. People came and fawned over her, and she was happy, calm, and eager for their attention. Don't get me wrong, I _love _herding dogs, but I totally get why people want dogs bred for companionship traits. I would be all over a dog with a CKCS temperment without the health issues.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> OK, I don't know all the right dog terms. And I think there are different kinds of drive. So whatever makes a good housepet. . .high pack drive, low prey drive? I suppose. Just saying that a retriever who MUST retrieve, who thinks she will simply die if she is denied that opportunity, is a bit hard to live with. So whatever that drive is = not a great quality for a housepet.


If all it takes is a tennis ball to get your dog to learn whatever you want to teach it, I think that's a great quality for a pet. Sure if the dog is absolutely psycho that's bad but that's not the same as having high drive. As Xeph put it, and I'm paraphrasing, but you can have a high drive dog that also has an off-switch. But back to drive... Use that to your advantage to train your dog all sorts of wonderful pet dog behaviors, like like accepting a crate, walking nice on a leash, leaving food alone unless given permission to eat it, waiting before going out of doors, etc. etc... All very valuable behaviors for a pet that must be trained. 

I think a big misconception that some people have about companion breeds is that by breeding the perfect companion breed, you can get a dog that that will behave perfectly and sit around and not do anything bad without requiring any training. And that high-drive working breeds make bad pets because if you don't train them they get into all sorts of trouble and wreak havoc. The thing is, calm dogs that know boundaries and behave well are like that because they have been trained, and dogs with drive are much easier to train than dogs with no drive. Though the KIND of drive definitely does matter in regards to what kind of training you'd like to do with your dog.

Energy level is a different story. A dog with a high energy level would be difficult to manage for a person or family that couldn't provide their dog with an outlet for their energy. But I don't personally feel like every breed designed to do some form of work other than companionship is going to be an energizer bunny. In fact, there are many companion breeds that have just as high energy levels if not higher than many working breeds. For instance a lot of Papillons can be compared to herders in energy level.




RaeganW said:


> as herding dogs were selected for herding behavior.


A good herder that won't get along with the farmer isn't much use is it...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

My GSDs make great companions for my husband and I, but they are definitely not a companion breed. They are perfectly content with only myself and my husband. They do not like to be passed around, hugged, and snuggled by anybody other than us, really.

Mirada's a pseudo exception, but she's a silly youngster at 19 months old.

Companion breeds throw calming signals less often when being smushed and cuddled and the like because they've been bred to ENJOY such interactions. Other breeds merely endure them (and not always happily....this even goes for happy go lucky breeds like Labs and Goldens).


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> That is a dog that is incapable of capping its drive, wastes energy with constant pacing, whining, and obsessesing over finding something to fetch. That is not a drive issue, that is a nerve issue.


I'm not denying it may have been a nerve issue (not fully understanding the exact definition of "nerve"). Also probably a training issue, and a bad breeding issue. But she didn't pace or whine, and was fairly biddable. And could relax. . .until someone moved like maybe they might go outside and play FETCH! "Oh please please please play fetch with me!" *throws ball in person's lap*. All she could think of, all the time. If that dog ever had a thought in her head other than fetching (and worrying about random noises), I never knew about it. She was psycho (but we loved her anyway).

I do think Cavaliers would be an ideal companion breed. It's too bad their health issues are so daunting.

Of course even companion breeds aren't perfect without training. But it is true that, say, an untrained Shih Tzu is going to be a lot less trouble than an untrained JRT.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Companion breeds throw calming signals less often when being smushed and cuddled and the like because they've been bred to ENJOY such interactions. Other breeds merely endure them (and not always happily....this even goes for happy go lucky breeds like Labs and Goldens).


When I read this I immediately though of Inga's wonderful Rottweilers :biggrin1:


----------



## Polywoggy (Mar 7, 2011)

Much has been said about the difference in Golden retrievers. 
Willow is an inch short of standard, very light and petite, and was energetic/drivey as hell. I could not wear that dog out when she was young. Luckily I lived on the edge of a conservation area in a very small town for most of her years. We hiked every day, she swam whenever she wanted, kids and other dogs in the country have more freedom so she was never short of playmates. I also made sure there was a constant supply of tennis balls and my arm was very well-exercised.
I don't think I can keep up with that level of activity anymore, especially now in the city, where most exercise has to be on-leash.
I have a neighbour who has a Golden. The dog is only 3 years old and has an occasional pokey walk around the block. She seems content with this, and is fine to sit being petted. She looks like a retriever, but certainly is not my experience of one. The reason I wouldn't consider one of these mellowed out retrievers? They are twice the dog Willow is. I want a dog about 40-50lbs. My neighbour's dog is 90 lbs.


GoldenDoodles are actually very appealing to me- at least the concept of them is. A lot of them weigh in the 50 lb range and are still energetic but with a bit more of an "off switch". I like the look of the coat more than I do a Standard Poodles. I am not used to having to groom so much, but at least that would be time spent with my dog, grooming it instead of the couch if the dog is low-to-no shed.

The problem is that all of these traits are not consistent in the mix. I have no problem with a certain amount of breeders who are ethically working towards that goal, but they are not there as of yet, so I am looking at A Standard Poodle as my next dog although that has taken some time for their look to grow on me. There is a lot of unethical breeding of Goldendoodles out there, but so is there a lot of unethical breeding of Goldens and Spoos. 

I understand wanting a certain thing and not finding it available. I also get that no dog, even a purebred, well-bred one, is going to be completely predictable or perfect.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

Xeph said:


> So yes, after all that rambling, high drive does not = unable to live with.


But we're not (or, at least, I'm not) talking about low drive. I'm talking about high companion drive, and low herding/retrieving/tracking/whatever drive. 

One of the main points to the original post was that 'companionship', however vaguely it's defined, is in fact a type of drive in and of itself. It's an instinctive behavior and temperament that can be selected for, but runs contrary to the original working purposes of most breeds. 

Leo, the Golden Retriever I mentioned in my post, is an example of this - even though he's a purebred Golden Retriever on paper, functionally he's not a GR. His conformation is awful (he's a blocky 91 lbs, with a fluffy, beige coat; he looks like a white Newfoundland), and he has no retrieving instinct to speak of. Objectively, he's a great dog, but a lousy GR - because he wasn't bred to be one. He is a purpose-bred companion dog who happens to also be entirely from GR lines. 

The point that I'm getting at is that while his temperament may be found in many breeds - and, obviously, had to have been already present in GRs to have been bred from them - it's a crapshoot. Meanwhile, his entire line was developed specifically for those traits. While there is obviously some random variation, the breeder more or less consistently gets this type of temperament in her dogs for the same reasons (and using the same methods) a trial breeder gets GRs with high retrieving drive.

I think part of the communication problem is that I'm defining a companion dog as something more than just a good pet dog; there's a very distinct set of behaviors to a purpose-bred companion dog which goes beyond what we think of in the average pet. It's obvious when you see it - as is the case of Leo the GR, or my friend's Cavalier. Someone earlier described it as the difference between chasing sheep, and herding them - or, as in the OP's link, the difference between 'sitting on laps, and SITTING ON LAPS!'. What they do is _work_. 

The problem SOB identified is that if you wanted to start a breeding program to get a consistent, companion-type temperament & drive, with a specific conformation (say, 25 lbs, moderate coat), and minimal health problems, you're out of luck. They don't exist. You could find individuals within existing breeds that meet that conformation, but they are not purpose-bred for that conformation except by BYBs (Leo being the 91-lb example of this).

I'll go even further: I believe there is such a deeply set, cultural, institutional aversion against attempts to do just that which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for breeders to attempt this responsibly. 

What's the first step if you're interested in breeding? Find a breed mentor. How do you find a breed mentor if you want to outcross several exsisting breeds to get a completely new type? How many 'reputable' breeder are going to put his kennel's name on such an attempt? What breeder, after spending thousands of dollars searching geneologies, writing & signing contracts, paying for genetic screenings, etc., is going to give up one of his dogs to a brand-new breeding program that produces mutts for the pet market?

What happened to the LUA Dalmatians? The breeder was _excommunicated_ for daring to outcross, not to create a new 'designer' breed, but to elminate a debilitating and sometimes fatal genetic defect which was prevalent in the breed. Have you ever seen what happens on a CKC board when someone suggests outcrossing to reduce the likelihood of SM/MVD?

How do you think someone purposely trying to create a new breed is viewed and treated? Do you think for a moment they'll get the least support from the breed clubs in their attempts?


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Personally, I do believe that there are plenty of breeds that can fulfill a companion role, whether that was their original function or not. However, if you don't and you want to develop a new companion breed, I think that is fine as long as you do that responsibly, i.e. health testing and breeding toward a standard look/temperament. 

Unfortunately, IME, I have never seen one breeder breeding intentional mixed breeds do so responsibly. Instead, they are throwing two cute little fluffies together and pumping out puppies with ridiculous, made-up names and selling them for even more ridiculous prices. And, people buy into the fad and buy them, often for more than they could buy a well-bred pup for (at least around here). These dogs have no standard look/temperament as they are almost always an F1 cross, so there is no real knowledge about what they will look/act like when grown. Honestly, right now buying a designer dog is just as much of a crapshoot as going to the shelter and choosing an adult, medium sized dog both in terms of health and temperament. 

I just don't see too many people all that dead set on TRULY developing a breed. I don't buy that most people are actually breeding mixed breeds because they see some great deficit in the number of companion breeds available. Most of what I see are the F1 cross designer dogs that are being pumped out as a money maker.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

brandiw said:


> I don't buy that most people are actually breeding mixed breeds because they see some great deficit in the number of companion breeds available. Most of what I see are the F1 cross designer dogs that are being pumped out as a money maker.


 But then you really have to wonder WHY mixed-breeds are such a money maker. Profit breeders only breed for the demand, it's not like they're forcing puppies on anybody. People wouldn't buy them if they thought there was anything great about purebreds. And they especially wouldn't pay more. Personally, I don't like the looks of any of the small purebreds. There's always something too extreme about them. But I've seen some awfully cute Yorkie/Poodle mixes. And isn't cuteness a large part of a companion breed?


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

This entire thread boggles my mind. 

I'm sorry, I want my GSD to not shed so I need to create a new herding breed that is mixed with a poodle. NO. We aren't doing that, it's not necessary. If you want a herder, you're going to have hair. If you want a dog that does nothing but sit happily on your lap all day, you're going to have hair or a short face, or health issues.

OR, you could stop paying attention to titles and get a dog that acts EXACTLY like you want with the proper hair and face, but happens to be in the non-sporting group instead.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

brandiw said:


> Personally, I do believe that there are plenty of breeds that can fulfill a companion role, whether that was their original function or not. However, if you don't and you want to develop a new companion breed, I think that is fine as long as you do that responsibly, i.e. health testing and breeding toward a standard look/temperament.
> 
> Unfortunately, IME, I have never seen one breeder breeding intentional mixed breeds do so responsibly. Instead, they are throwing two cute little fluffies together and pumping out puppies with ridiculous, made-up names and selling them for even more ridiculous prices. And, people buy into the fad and buy them, often for more than they could buy a well-bred pup for (at least around here). These dogs have no standard look/temperament as they are almost always an F1 cross, so there is no real knowledge about what they will look/act like when grown. *Honestly, right now buying a designer dog is just as much of a crapshoot as going to the shelter and choosing an adult, medium sized dog both in terms of health and temperament. *
> 
> I just don't see too many people all that dead set on TRULY developing a breed. I don't buy that most people are actually breeding mixed breeds because they see some great deficit in the number of companion breeds available. Most of what I see are the F1 cross designer dogs that are being pumped out as a money maker.


I understand and mostly agree with the point you are trying to make but the bolded part I somewhat dispute. A puppy be it a mutt or a purebred I think will always be more of a crapshoot than an adult from a shelter temperment wise. True the adult shelter dogs behavior may change some as they settle into a home but I think it'd rarely be a drastic change. The temperment is already established at that point. A purebred puppy is likely to be similar in temperment to it's parents but not always. Though I fully agree the health of an adult shelter dog and 'designer' puppy are both a crapshoot.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Personally, I don't like the looks of any of the small purebreds. There's always something too extreme about them. But I've seen some awfully cute Yorkie/Poodle mixes. And isn't cuteness a large part of a companion breed?


Really? You aren't satisfied with the way any purebred dog _looks_ so it's fine to start mixing breeds to make them more appealing to your eyes?


----------



## toblerone (Nov 24, 2009)

I think this whole question stems from the very nature of a true companion breed because their job is much harder to define than a hound or a herder. Basically companion breeds are meant to please their owner and those around them. This largely comprises of temperament and looks. I mean just think about brachycephalic dogs. Their short faces don't aid in their temperament or their health, but at the time they were created as breed, aided in their looks so as to become a better companion. The short squished faces fit the desires of the courtly people in a way that a longer faced dog did not. 

By that logic, whether people like it or not, companion breeds will always be subject to the whims of the market and a target for BYBers as the current fad of dog looks change. Its not pretty to think that humans are so visual that we will sacrifice health and possibly temperament for the perfect lap dog, but history is filled with examples already. The only way to protect the dogs is for responsible breeders with established companion breeds to be flexible and be open to breeding healthy mixes to create what is now the fad. This type of breeding is not necessary in other dog groups because a well bred lab can still do the same job just as effectively as ever and those who need a lab for working purpose still want the same thing as the person who created the breed. 

So yes, I am for the creation of new breeds in a responsible way because one day I will want a companion dog and I am not a lady in the 17th century so I won't want the same type of dog.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Independent George said:


> How do you think someone purposely trying to create a new breed is viewed and treated? Do you think for a moment they'll get the least support from the breed clubs in their attempts?


I'm not sure there's any reason a breed club would be supporting a different breed or a developing different breed. Any more than I'd expect the Golden Retriever club to "support" ASCA. That said, I have no problem if someone has a goal in mind that is likely to be desirable and useful for a number of people, and pursues that goal. I don't mind if a GROUP of people gets together to pursue that goal. I do think that in developing something new you need to be even more knowledgable and careful than if you are trying to preserve what already exists. Because traits are often linked, and link up in surprising ways. Change one thing, you will change several others (I'm sure Belyaev proved that) If someone wants to take on that task, and do it well, I say good for them. But that's not what I am seeing when someone wants to breed their cocker Poopsikins to the neightbor's poodle Butch, or a kennel has half a dozen yorkies, half a dozen shih tzu, a few poodles, a couple of mini Aussies and a handful of pugs and chihuahuas to see how many different cute names they can market on the internet to unsuspecting buyers. Now, I'm not saying that is the only kind of people who produce these mixes. I just haven't come across the other kind yet, except possibly in a few Goldendoodle/Labradoodle breeders.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> But then you really have to wonder WHY mixed-breeds are such a money maker. Profit breeders only breed for the demand, it's not like they're forcing puppies on anybody. People wouldn't buy them if they thought there was anything great about purebreds. And they especially wouldn't pay more. Personally, I don't like the looks of any of the small purebreds. There's always something too extreme about them. But I've seen some awfully cute Yorkie/Poodle mixes. And isn't cuteness a large part of a companion breed?



What was it P.T. Barnum said? Oh yeah "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute" And lots of people buy in to the fallacy of hybrid vigor.


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

Willowy said:


> But then you really have to wonder WHY mixed-breeds are such a money maker. Profit breeders only breed for the demand, it's not like they're forcing puppies on anybody. People wouldn't buy them if they thought there was anything great about purebreds. And they especially wouldn't pay more. Personally, I don't like the looks of any of the small purebreds. There's always something too extreme about them. But I've seen some awfully cute Yorkie/Poodle mixes. And isn't cuteness a large part of a companion breed?


 In my area "designer" dogs were hyped up to be THE DOG for people with ALLERGIES.....period....and not to mention they were CUTE! They were advertised in a way that people who were not familiar with dogs in general....they bit for it. They were going for $400 to $1000 each five years ago. I do not even see them advertised in my area now. I did not pay that for my two Schnauzer/poodles. I paid $100 each. I was willing to spend up to $1000 for a purebred non shedding breed....but was aware of the health issues of some of those dogs....and had always found a mixed breed to have not so many health issues. Yes, they all are a crapshoot! Purebred or mixed! Maybe I just have had good luck over the years with health issues. I have owned both purebreds and mixes. I honestly do not like all of the documentaries that I have recently seen about the issues concerning the purebreds and their health issues due to breeding whether it be responsible or not....getting worse. I was prepared to pay up to $3000 for a good quality Doberman three or four months ago.....but decided with the health issues in that breed .......do I get that or a mix? I chose to rescue a mix for $100. Honestly before turning out another new breed....IMO someone should look into fixing the health problems of the purebred dog breeds we have now. I do have to admit that I love how the Schnauzer/Poodles I have now are in every aspect except for the need to bark! So, even though I have been following this thread for two days now......I am still not sure if I am actually for or against new breeds or the Purebreds. I am sure that time will come when I need to make a choice again,....and I hope by then somebody has their stuff together. Just my opinion.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

dagwall said:


> I understand and mostly agree with the point you are trying to make but the bolded part I somewhat dispute. A puppy be it a mutt or a purebred I think will always be more of a crapshoot than an adult from a shelter temperment wise. True the adult shelter dogs behavior may change some as they settle into a home but I think it'd rarely be a drastic change. The temperment is already established at that point. A purebred puppy is likely to be similar in temperment to it's parents but not always. Though I fully agree the health of an adult shelter dog and 'designer' puppy are both a crapshoot.


I was more speaking about temperament on the side of the designer puppy being a crapshot. Clearly most adult dogs' temperament is pretty well set, and a great reason why one shouldn't rule out adopting a well-tempered small/medium sized adult dog over buying a puppy that is an unknown quantity.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Willowy said:


> But then you really have to wonder WHY mixed-breeds are such a money maker. Profit breeders only breed for the demand, it's not like they're forcing puppies on anybody. People wouldn't buy them if they thought there was anything great about purebreds. And they especially wouldn't pay more. Personally, I don't like the looks of any of the small purebreds. There's always something too extreme about them. But I've seen some awfully cute Yorkie/Poodle mixes. And isn't cuteness a large part of a companion breed?


I don't wonder at all. It is because, so often, these designer dogs are a fad, i.e. puggles. I can't tell you how many puggles have been through my local animal control after their popularity waned. 

Of course I see lots of cute mixed breeds, but honestly, if that is what you want, go to your local shelter and/or rescue and find some cute mixed breed puppies. They are adorable too, and aren't really much different from the designer dogs people pay big bucks for (unknown temperament, unknown looks as an adult). My local ac constantly has schnauzer mix puppies, poodle mix puppies, and chi mix puppies; cute little fluffy puppies aren't in short supply and I can't condone those who continue to breed them with no end goal but making money.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Abbylynn said:


> I honestly do not like all of the documentaries that I have recently seen about the issues concerning the purebreds and their health issues due to breeding whether it be responsible or not....getting worse. I was prepared to pay up to $3000 for a good quality Doberman three or four months ago.....but decided with the health issues in that breed .......do I get that or a mix? I chose to rescue a mix for $100. Honestly before turning out another new breed....IMO someone should look into fixing the health problems of the purebred dog breeds we have now. I do have to admit that I love how the Schnauzer/Poodles I have now are in every aspect except for the need to bark! So, even though I have been following this thread for two days now......I am still not sure if I am actually for or against new breeds or the Purebreds. I am sure that time will come when I need to make a choice again,....and I hope by then somebody has their stuff together. Just my opinion.


Well, the $100 price tag would definitely leave more money in the bank to take care of health issues. The thing is, purebreds have health issues. So do mixed breeds. Every dog carries at least 4 to 5 defective genes. Those can be for something as non-problematic as a bad bite or something that threatens the dog's life or quality of life. Or something that keeps the dog from being born at all. The problem with purebreds is that you are likely to see more of the same "bad genes" in a closed gene pool and if it's a recessive or polygenetic issue, those genes are more likely to get together. The problem with mixed breeds is you have less idea what problems you are likely to be dealing with, and not so many ways of studying pedigrees and health testing to avoid bad combinations. I would say the percentage of mixes with health or temperament flaws which require a lot of work/money from their owners is probably at least as great as the percentage of purebreds with those problems. There are a few breeds I wouldn't consider due to it being very hard to get "healthy" (Cavaliers would be one) but I don't think anyone intentionally breeds for those sort of problems, and many breeders are working hard at finding ways to breeding away from them. With increasingly available DNA tests, if those tests are used responsibly and intelligently (not throwing the baby out with the bath water) I think we will see considerable improvement in dog health in the upcoming years. But I don't think we will create perfect dogs. Because, hey, nobody's perfect. And breeding to eliminate one problem can give the opportunity for another problem to surface. That's how nature works. And we can only influence that natural process so much.


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

PAWZk9......thanks for the info......was not aware of the 4 or 5 gene factor. Just learning in depth about some of these things. Yep, nothing will ever be perfect. I am genuinely concerned with how I have seen one of my fav breeds slowly seemingly declining. When I had my Dobes 40 years ago the worst I had was one of them with a heart murmur that fixed itself. Guess I have been one lucky duck! Lol!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> But we're not (or, at least, I'm not) talking about low drive.


You may not have been, but Willowy made a sweeping statement that "People agree that high drive = hard to live with" (that was paraphrasing). I was correcting that statement.

Nerve, by the way, is basically the "base" for a dog's genetic temperament and drives. A dog with strong nerve can cap its drives and chill out around the house. Think of it in terms of people. A weak nerved person will often be described as wishy wash, pathetic, and unenjoyable to be around There is a lot of worrying. A strong nerved person is often bold with a strong personality, even if they are quiet about it.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

lisahi said:


> Federal law enforcement organizations get the vast majority of their dogs from Europe because the American breeders simply cannot breed back in the original strength of the working traits that are required for search and rescue dogs, drug dogs, cadaver dogs, patrol dogs, etc. It's extremely rare that they'll find a dog, bred in the United States, that will meet their needs because the working aspect has been bred out in favor of certain looks.


This is incorrect. There are many breeders of working dogs in the United States who are producing dogs capable of the jobs listed, the issue is they aren't producing them in the quantity needed. There are only a few breeders of working dogs producing them on any large scale, most have 1-5 litters a year, and the market needs literally thousands. And of those 1-5 litters, it's not just the government (police, military, etc) who are looking at the dogs, but also the private sector. And then there is another major issue that plays into it, police, military, etc don't want puppies. They want young adults. So now the breeders of these dogs would have to keep back and raise up puppies in LARGE numbers to fill the demand. There are only a few private facilities here in the US doing this in any sort of numbers. I know a lot of people who do it, but we are talking 1-10 dogs a year, at most.

On the flip side this is not unusual at all in Europe. In Holland there are many people raising up dogs specifically for resale as adults, that's basically the goal of the entire KNPV program. In other countries it's not really the goal of their national protection sport, to raise up dogs for resale, but there are still plenty of people with dogs they want to sale. And then geography comes into play. Maybe each person is only raising 1 dog at a time, but with the size of the country, a buyer can easily view 100's of dogs over the course of just a couple of days by traveling from one location to another, and letting it be known they are on a buying trip. People in the area will bring their available dogs out to one kennel or club, and a buyer can look at large numbers of them all at once. Then drive 1/2 -1 hour away, and do it again. I know brokers in my area who if they let it be known they are looking might have 5 dogs to look at, if they are lucky. Then they have to travel 5-10 hours to the next location to see another 5 dogs, then travel again to see another 5, etc. 

If you took the 1000's of people who are training up dogs for KNPV, Sch, French Ring, Mondio Ring, or police work that exist in countries like Holland, France, Belgium, or Germany, and put them all into say Texas, you'd see a lot more dogs purchased stateside. Instead, in the US we have fewer people involved in the protection sports and police dog training than any one of those countries I named, and they are scattered throughout our entire country. It's simple economics, even though they have to fly to Europe to look at the dogs, and then ship them back here, it ends up being cheaper, and much faster, to do that then to try to travel all over the US to look at the dogs that are available here.



Independent George said:


> What happened to the LUA Dalmatians? The breeder was _excommunicated_ for daring to outcross, not to create a new 'designer' breed, but to elminate a debilitating and sometimes fatal genetic defect which was prevalent in the breed. Have you ever seen what happens on a CKC board when someone suggests outcrossing to reduce the likelihood of SM/MVD?


The LUA Dalmatians were recently accepted into the AKC stud books.

As far as the OP's point, personally I don't have a major issue with the idea of cross breeds, if they are being done for a specific purpose, to fill a niche that can't otherwise be filled, and it's done responsibly. Ie health checks, a breeder who stands behind their dogs for life, etc. I'm not a fan though of the designer breeds for flyball, or dock diving, etc since I have yet to be convinced that those dogs are filling a niche that can't be filled by breeds that already exist.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

brandiw said:


> . . . My local ac constantly has schnauzer mix puppies, poodle mix puppies, and chi mix puppies; *cute little fluffy puppies aren't in short supply *and I can't condone those who continue to breed them with no end goal but making money.


What can be found in shelters also very much depends on where you live. If you are not aware small dogs *ARE in short supply* in many of the Northern States and most of Canada. I live in a province the size of Texas and our two main city shelter systems do not and have not euthanized dogs for space for almost a decade now. The fact is we import small dogs to offset the demand being made that has seen an upsurge in below standard commercial breeding operations and puppy brokers. We import by planeloads from California (CentralCaliforniaSPCA - Fresno, and Southeast Area Animal Control Authority - Downey California ), as other places closer also have this same difficulty. Adoption fees are at the $400 mark . . . There are some ethical quandaries around that topic as well as I'm sure you know.

http://www.edmontonhumanesociety.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=224&Itemid=20

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&source=www.google.ca

http://www.facebook.com/notes/make-...fix-fresnos-input-was-ignored/209706492387950



> . . . .This latest group will be available starting this Sunday, Valentine’s Day. They will be made available in groups of 15 or so a day, over the next week. This is to ensure that people have ample opportunity to adopt one. The public is advised to keep checking the adoptable animals section of our website for when the dogs become available. Due to the high demand for these dogs, we are not able to put any on hold. . . . .


To give you an idea of numbers - as I've run them by stats from years previous:

In the City of Calgary (approx 1 million people), in 2008, not even 1200 dogs came available for adoption through the Calgary pound, and the Humane Society. Approximately 9800 dogs were needed just to replace those that died of old age in the city that year – to cover attrition.

In the City of Edmonton (approx 1 million people), in 2008, 2312 dogs came available for adoption through the Edmonton pound and the Humane Society. As well approx. 9800 dogs were needed just to replace those in the city that died of old age that year. 

Approx 16,000 MORE dogs were required to cover attrition than could be offered by our open admission animal control and shelters. Some of these can be provided by private rescues, but by no means can they all be. If you study those numbers a little closer you will notice that the shelters offer only about 20% of what is needed to cover animals lost to attrition.

I also find it an incredible thought that one 'cute little dog' is considered to be interchangeable with another. There are vast personality differences in small dogs as well as there are in large, and I'm sure that those looking for a specific Golden Retriever temperament in a dog would find insult if they were told to just go get something that size from the pound as it should do.

ref reports for stats can be found here - http://www.google.ca/search?sclient...eting.&btnK=Google+Search&rlz=1R2ADFA_enCA407

SOB


----------



## lisahi (Jun 19, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> What was it P.T. Barnum said? Oh yeah "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute" And lots of people buy in to the fallacy of hybrid vigor.


Hybrid vigor isn't really a fallacy if you compare a mix breed dog to a pure bred dog that has too much inbreeding in its line. Although not a given, there is a better chance that a mixed breed will not suffer (either at all, or as greatly) from inbreeding because its genes are... well... mixed. Even if a parent suffered from an inbred line, there is a chance the mix breed puppy won't suffer from the same causational issues. I'm not at all suggesting that all pure bred dogs suffer from inbreeding problems (at least not in their recent geneology), but it is still an issue.

Hence, "hybrid vigor." The more genes in the mix, the less likely inbreeding will be a problem.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

lisahi said:


> Hybrid vigor isn't really a fallacy if you compare a mix breed dog to a pure bred dog that has too much inbreeding in its line. Although not a given, there is a better chance that a mixed breed will not suffer (either at all, or as greatly) from inbreeding because its genes are... well... mixed. Even if a parent suffered from an inbred line, there is a chance the mix breed puppy won't suffer from the same causational issues. I'm not at all suggesting that all pure bred dogs suffer from inbreeding problems (at least not in their recent geneology), but it is still an issue.
> 
> Hence, "hybrid vigor." The more genes in the mix, the less likely inbreeding will be a problem.


Inbreeding isn't the only cause of dog health issues...

Besides, this isn't mixed breeds vs purebreds here. It's creating a new breed by mixing two breeds. There would still be a good chance of inbreeding through irresponsible breeding.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lisahi said:


> Hybrid vigor isn't really a fallacy if you compare a mix breed dog to a pure bred dog that has too much inbreeding in its line. Although not a given, there is a better chance that a mixed breed will not suffer (either at all, or as greatly) from inbreeding because its genes are... well... mixed. Even if a parent suffered from an inbred line, there is a chance the mix breed puppy won't suffer from the same causational issues. I'm not at all suggesting that all pure bred dogs suffer from inbreeding problems (at least not in their recent geneology), but it is still an issue.
> 
> Hence, "hybrid vigor." The more genes in the mix, the less likely inbreeding will be a problem.


If you are looking at putting together random unknown genes compared to known genes, the "vigor" part of it is definitely fallacy. There are always the same number of genes in the mix. They may be alike or they may be different. And those "likenesses" and "differences" can be important to know. Some "alike" genes my produce things we want. And some of those "different" genes may produce disaster. The only real time totally random bred would be more desirable is if you are inbreeding on a lot of undesirable genes, or you are limiting diversity to the point that the immune system is effected.


----------



## lisahi (Jun 19, 2011)

HerdersForMe said:


> Inbreeding isn't the only cause of dog health issues...
> 
> Besides, this isn't mixed breeds vs purebreds here. It's creating a new breed by mixing two breeds. There would still be a good chance of inbreeding through irresponsible breeding.


I was merely responding to the quote that hybrid vigor is a fallacy. It wasn't made up by people who want to sell mixed breed dogs - there is a medical basis for the term.

And I never said inbreeding was the cause of all dog health issues.



Pawzk9 said:


> If you are looking at putting together random unknown genes compared to known genes, the "vigor" part of it is definitely fallacy. There are always the same number of genes in the mix. They may be alike or they may be different. And those "likenesses" and "differences" can be important to know. Some "alike genes my produce things we like. And some of those "different" genes may produce disaster.


You're reading specificities into my post that weren't there. I was explaining the context of the creation of the term. And it's not about "like" vs. "different". It's about "extremely alike b/c it's literally from the same gene pool" and "different." "Hybrid vigor" wasn't made up by breeders looking to sell some mixed breed dogs. It may be misused by them; but it is true that you're _more likely _to get a healthy dog if the genes that make up the dog's two parents aren't from the same shallow family line. That could mean mixing two breeds, or breeding two dogs of the same breed who come from different family lines.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> What can be found in shelters also very much depends on where you live. If you are not aware small dogs *ARE in short supply* in many of the Northern States and most of Canada. I live in a province the size of Texas and our two main city shelter systems do not and have not euthanized dogs for space for almost a decade now. The fact is we import small dogs to offset the demand being made that has seen an upsurge in below standard commercial breeding operations and puppy brokers. We import by planeloads from California (CentralCaliforniaSPCA - Fresno, and Southeast Area Animal Control Authority - Downey California ), as other places closer also have this same difficulty. Adoption fees are at the $400 mark . . . There are some ethical quandaries around that topic as well as I'm sure you know.
> 
> http://www.edmontonhumanesociety.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=224&Itemid=20


I certainly do realize that the supply isn't the same everywhere, however, it doesn't change my opinion on those who breed without health testing or aren't breeding towards a standard. I don't think it is ethical to breed ANY dog, if you aren't willing to do the testing to ensure *as much as is possible* that this will be a healthy dog free of genetic issues. Few on this board would condone purebred breeders just throwing two untested dogs together and churning out puppies without regard to health, temperament, and the breed standard, so I fail to see why we should hold designer dog breeders to different standards.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

brandiw said:


> I certainly do realize that the supply isn't the same everywhere, however, it doesn't change my opinion on those who breed without health testing or aren't breeding towards a standard. I don't think it is ethical to breed ANY dog, if you aren't willing to do the testing to ensure *as much as is possible* that this will be a healthy dog free of genetic issues. Few on this board would condone purebred breeders just throwing two untested dogs together and churning out puppies without regard to health, temperament, and the breed standard, so I fail to see why we should hold designer dog breeders to different standards.


Where on this thread were we indicating support for breeders that just throw dogs together? The topic centers around the fact that some see a niche and a need for new breeds and others don't. I believe we all agree that dogs need to be bred with knowledge behind what is going into them and being put together, and care.

SOB


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Where on this thread were we indicating support for breeders that just throw dogs together? The topic centers around the fact that some see a niche and a need for new breeds and others don't. I believe we all agree that dogs need to be bred with knowledge behind what is going into them and being put together, and care.


Your opinion is there should be more development of new breeds used specifically as companions.

Opposing viewpoint is that development of new breeds just for companionship is not necessary and just creates more problems including a new slew of irresponsible breeders. 

It could be done ethically and responsibly in theory. Unfortunately many things work out in theory but in reality they don't. I think this is one of those things that in reality doesn't work out for the better.


----------



## Porphyria (Jul 18, 2011)

HerdersForMe said:


> Your opinion is there should be more development of new breeds used specifically as companions.
> 
> Opposing viewpoint is that development of new breeds just for companionship is not necessary and just creates more problems including a new slew of irresponsible breeders.
> 
> It could be done ethically and responsibly in theory. Unfortunately many things work out in theory but in reality they don't. I think this is one of those things that in reality doesn't work out for the better.



Silken Windhounds are a perfect example of how a new breed, bred primarily for companionship, _can_ work out if done correctly.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

HerdersForMe said:


> Your opinion is there should be more development of new breeds used specifically as companions.
> 
> *Opposing viewpoint is that development of new breeds just for companionship is not necessary and just creates more problems including a new slew of irresponsible breeders.
> 
> It could be done ethically and responsibly in theory. Unfortunately many things work out in theory but in reality they don't. I think this is one of those things that in reality doesn't work out for the better*.


Exactly! I have yet to come across one person who is breeding mixed breeds from parents that have health clearances and/or that are working toward a new breed.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Porphyria said:


> Silken Windhounds are a perfect example of how a new breed, bred primarily for companionship, _can_ work out if done correctly.


I don't know a lot about the breed so I read this:

http://www.silkenwindhound.com/history.html

I don't think they would be what the OP considers a breed bred for companionship. They would be considered a hound. OP said he specifically doesn't want a hound.


----------



## Porphyria (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm not suggesting them for the OP, I'm simply citing them as an example of a successful new companion breed. Silkens certainly are hounds and excel at sports like lure coursing, but the real purpose for their creation was for a good companion breed; they were not bred for any working purpose, as few people in their country of origin (U.S.) hunt with sighthounds. But if the silken is considered too much of a hound to be considered a companion breed, another excellent example is the Eurasier, a medium-large spitz type dog developed in Germany in the 60s. They are bred strictly as for traits that make them an excellent companion for the average owner looking for a larger breed than traditional companion breeds.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

The Avon Terrier is another (probably not suited to the OP unfortunately) that is in the process of being created solely as a companion breed. We have a handful of clients with them who uniformly sing their praises as a family pet.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lisahi said:


> You're reading specificities into my post that weren't there. I was explaining the context of the creation of the term. And it's not about "like" vs. "different". It's about "extremely alike b/c it's literally from the same gene pool" and "different." "Hybrid vigor" wasn't made up by breeders looking to sell some mixed breed dogs. It may be misused by them; but it is true that you're _more likely _to get a healthy dog if the genes that make up the dog's two parents aren't from the same shallow family line. That could mean mixing two breeds, or breeding two dogs of the same breed who come from different family lines.


Not all purebred gene pools are small. Not all family lines are "shallow".


----------



## lisahi (Jun 19, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Not all purebred gene pools are small. Not all family lines are "shallow".


I'm now wondering whether you're closely reading what I'm writing, because I said neither of those things. Nor did I insinuate either one.

In fact, I say: "it is true that you're more likely to get a healthy dog if the genes that make up the dog's two parents aren't from the same shallow family line. That could mean mixing two breeds, *or breeding two dogs of the same breed who come from different family lines*."


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Where on this thread were we indicating support for breeders that just throw dogs together? The topic centers around the fact that some see a niche and a need for new breeds and others don't. I believe we all agree that dogs need to be bred with knowledge behind what is going into them and being put together, and care.
> 
> SOB


So where are all these wonderful breeders creating new "companion breeds" or mixes specifically engineered to be good companions with knowledge and care? You say that you see them in Canada. I gotta tell you they are a bloody cryptid in Oklahoma.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> So where are all these wonderful breeders creating new "companion breeds" or mixes specifically engineered to be good companions with knowledge and care? You say that you see them in Canada. I gotta tell you they are a bloody cryptid in Oklahoma.


This is what it comes to? A question about 'where are all these breeders'. How does my personal relationship with any of these breeders play into this philisophical question in any way?

What I see in Canada is probably not much different from what most see, and that is a bunch of breeders of most breeds and mixes that are not taking much care at all. As the tradition I've known here has always been that pups should be acquired through those that you know, I also have had the privilege to know breeders of mixes that are sound caring breeders that back their pups.

As to the answer to your specific question, way back when I had more than a few email conversations with the originator of the Carlin Pinscher. She had in fact purchased Cavaliers for her project . . . and then decided against that idea. I have also had a couple of long conversations with an Alberta breeder of Carlin Pinschers --- who has been met with so much scorn that he has disbanded his website and advertises very carefully. 

. . . . But I would not HAVE to know a single one to philisophically battle their right to do what they are doing and to express my opinion that I believe, whole heartedly, there is room - a niche to be filled - for new breeds specifically bred for companionship.

Independen George has spoken very eloquently about the reason these breeders are so few and far between and hard to see . . . and I have seen the castigation given to breeders/concerned pet owners on CKC boards that suggest outcrossing might be of benefit to the breed. Saw Carol Fowler take it full board numerous times.



Independent George said:


> . . . . I'll go even further: I believe there is such a deeply set, cultural, institutional aversion against attempts to do just that which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for breeders to attempt this responsibly.
> 
> What's the first step if you're interested in breeding? Find a breed mentor. How do you find a breed mentor if you want to outcross several exsisting breeds to get a completely new type? How many 'reputable' breeder are going to put his kennel's name on such an attempt? What breeder, after spending thousands of dollars searching geneologies, writing & signing contracts, paying for genetic screenings, etc., is going to give up one of his dogs to a brand-new breeding program that produces mutts for the pet market?
> 
> ...


SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> This is what it comes to? A question about 'where are all these breeders'. How does my personal relationship with any of these breeders play into this philisophical question in any way?
> 
> What I see in Canada is probably not much different from what most see, and that is a bunch of breeders of most breeds and mixes that are not taking much care at all. As the tradition I've known here has always been that pups should be acquired through those that you know, I also have had the privilege to know breeders of mixes that are sound caring breeders that back their pups.
> 
> ...


Actually, I'm more than a little open to the idea that people have a right to breed the dogs they want to breed. That includes breeders of purebred dogs as well, of course. Because I know that when we start being critical of other people's choices, our own choices are the next target. The fact is, I see a lot of dogs. Some well bred, some not so well bred, a lot of purebreds and a lot of mixes (including both designer and shelter/rescue dogs. I like all dogs, and don't discriminate based on where they come from (though I did email a breeder on the other side of the country to compliment her on what a nice young dog she produced). I see a lot of really caring, responsible breeders of purebreds. I seldom see that with the cross breds. Your mileage may vary. And I have no problem with people who truly see a need for a new breed and go for it in an intelligent and well researched way. For instance, I think Gary Ericsson produced a breed he saw a niche for. I wouldn't want one, but some serious ranchers swear by them. If someone wants to produce the ultimate companion dog (and I think that sets unrealistic expectations - no breed is going to produce dogs who are all perfect companions without effort on the part of the owner) I don't object. But that isn't what I see. I see people producing a lot of F1s (which is their priviledge, but isn't - in my opinion - an example of good or thoughtful breeding practices) without much research into pedigrees or health issues (hybrid vigor, don't you know!) and no support of health research. It's not up to me to approve or not approve. I just say what I see.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

HerdersForMe said:


> I don't know a lot about the breed so I read this:
> 
> http://www.silkenwindhound.com/history.html
> 
> I don't think they would be what the OP considers a breed bred for companionship. They would be considered a hound. OP said he specifically doesn't want a hound.


This was inspired by this quote but more of a general statement in regards to the whole thread: Personally think that it's a little silly to say that only breeds that were designed specifically for the purpose of companionship make good companions. I'm not arguing against the creation of new breeds for the purpose of companionship, but it's completely silly to say just because a breed was designed to do X work, they make bad companions. There are many many working breeds out there that were bred to work alongside humans. If a herder or a retriever or a guard dog or a gun dog didn't cooperate and co-exist well with its owner, it would be useless as a working dog. Companionship is PART of many jobs that dogs have been bred to do. Just because "shepherd" or "retriever" is in the name does not mean that that's all the dog was bred for. That's probably why breeds like Golden Retrievers, Labs and German Shepherds tend to make excellent service dogs. 

In regards to Silken Windhounds, hounds were used to create the breed, but the intention of the breeders was to create a breed for companionship. Silken Windhounds were not bred for work.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Personally think that it's a little silly to say that only breeds that were designed specifically for the purpose of companionship make good companions. . . .


. . . but that is not what was said. No one suggested ONLY breeds that were designed for companionship make good companions. I know this is a nuanced concept but there is a real difference here in what is being said and what you have understood.

There are MANY breeds that *can* make good companions and I believe that is apparent to most everybody.

Those designed specifically for the purpose of companionship, though, are naturally skilled to do it to a degree that others are not . . . . and individuals within those breeds that are designed specifically for companionship can more reliably found to do it well.

That is important for those that want a relationship with a dog that hinges predominantly on those skills. They are described well in the very first link that I gave.

My exception to the statement about there being a 'plethora of breeds that can be used for companions', is that it dismisses the 'wants' of those of us for whom that IS the most important set of traits required as if they have less importance than 'wanting' a herding dog, or a scenting dog or retrieving dog etc.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Those designed specifically for the purpose of companionship, though, are naturally skilled to do it to a degree that others are not . . . . and individuals within those breeds that are designed specifically for companionship can more reliably found to do it well.
> 
> That is important for those that want a relationship with a dog that hinges predominantly on those skills. They are described well in the very first link that I gave.
> 
> ...


The thing is, some of the dogs who are supposedly not bred to be anything but companions (including a number of the little mixes) tend to be among the more problematic dogs I see. I suppose because they are little and people don't realize that you actually STILL have to train them until they've had time to develop a number of bad habits. Or perhaps because people have been given the idea that they will be great companions no matter what, because that is what they have been bred for.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> . . . but that is not what was said. No one suggested ONLY breeds that were designed for companionship make good companions. I know this is a nuanced concept but there is a real difference here in what is being said and what you have understood.
> 
> There are MANY breeds that *can* make good companions and I believe that is apparent to most everybody.
> 
> ...





> There are MANY breeds that can make good companions...Those designed specifically for the purpose of companionship, though, are naturally skilled to do it to a degree that others are not


See, you have mentioned several times that certain breeds are better at being companions simply because they were bred with no other purpose than companionship. And while those breeds may make great companions, there are many many other breeds not just bred for companionship that do just as well (if not better)! For instance, my boyfriend's sister's Australian Shepherd is much more snuggly and touchy-feely than my Papillon. I've known people with Pit Bulls that won't leave your side and love to curl up in your lap. I've known an extremely large variety of breeds used as therapy dogs, and most of them were not toy-breeds or breeds with no other purpose than companionship. Labrador Retrievers and Rottweilers that can be taken into classrooms and have dozens of children pet them and fawn over them. Collies that will sit calmly by as children read to them. Whippets that will curl up in the lap of an elderly person. All of the traits that are extremely important for those who take companionship very seriously are present in other breeds that may have also been bred for another purpose other than merely companionship.

The thing is, back in the day when people truly needed their dogs to work for them to make life possible, people didn't breed dogs that were good workers but were hard to live with. In fact, so many jobs required such a close bond between owner and dog that if the dog was not a good companion, it would have made the work they were bred to do impossible. And at the end of the day after the work was done, the owner still had to live with their dog. What I'm trying to say is, don't discount a breed's ability to be an excellent companion just because they were bred to do some form of work. Because there are several breeds that were bred to work, but ALSO bred to be companions. 

Again, I'm not saying that companionship isn't a valid reason to create a breed, and I don't see a problem with wanting to fill a gap that is small breeds of dogs without high maintenance coats and extreme physical features. But I don't think that you can say that all breeds of dog bred for purposes like work are automatically going to be lacking in companionship skills when it comes to breeds created with no other intention than just companionship. Because many working breeds were created with companionship in mind.

ETA: Wanted to add...



> My exception to the statement about there being a 'plethora of breeds that can be used for companions', is that it dismisses the 'wants' of those of us for whom that IS the most important set of traits required as if they have less importance than 'wanting' a herding dog, or a scenting dog or retrieving dog etc.


If you had a dog that was an excellent companion but had, say, an instinct to retrieve, or an instinct to herd, I'm not sure I see how that would be much of a sacrifice. It doesn't have to be the number one reason for owning the dog. My Papillon is a great companion, but he has a high prey drive. It doesn't take away from his companionship abilities. The reason he's a good companion is because he also has a desire to be a "velcro dog," and there are many herders, sporting dogs, working dogs etc. that have that same "I want to be with my person" drive. 



> There are MANY breeds that can make good companions


Also wanted to mention that this quote contradicts the title of this thread :biggrin1:


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Nargle said:


> See, you have mentioned several times that certain breeds are better at being companions simply because they were bred with no other purpose than companionship. And while those breeds may make great companions, there are many many other breeds not just bred for companionship that do just as well (if not better)! For instance, my boyfriend's sister's Australian Shepherd is much more snuggly and touchy-feely than my Papillon. I've known people with Pit Bulls that won't leave your side and love to curl up in your lap. I've known an extremely large variety of breeds used as therapy dogs, and most of them were not toy-breeds or breeds with no other purpose than companionship. Labrador Retrievers and Rottweilers that can be taken into classrooms and have dozens of children pet them and fawn over them. Collies that will sit calmly by as children read to them. Whippets that will curl up in the lap of an elderly person. All of the traits that are extremely important for those who take companionship very seriously are present in other breeds that may have also been bred for another purpose other than merely companionship.
> 
> The thing is, back in the day when people truly needed their dogs to work for them to make life possible, people didn't breed dogs that were good workers but were hard to live with. In fact, so many jobs required such a close bond between owner and dog that if the dog was not a good companion, it would have made the work they were bred to do impossible. And at the end of the day after the work was done, the owner still had to live with their dog. What I'm trying to say is, don't discount a breed's ability to be an excellent companion just because they were bred to do some form of work. Because there are several breeds that were bred to work, but ALSO bred to be companions.
> 
> ...


Excellent post


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> O.K. I stole this phrase from another thread where this topic has come from. I thought it was an appropriate title.
> 
> Problem is that I disagree completely. I would also suggest that IF there were a plethora of breeds that people (the market of buyers) actually thought fit with their lifestyle, then those breeding mixes would hardly have a market.





spanielorbust said:


> There are MANY breeds that *can* make good companions and I believe that is apparent to most everybody.





spanielorbust said:


> My exception to the statement about there being a 'plethora of breeds that can be used for companions', is that it dismisses the 'wants' of those of us for whom that IS the most important set of traits required as if they have less importance than 'wanting' a herding dog, or a scenting dog or retrieving dog etc.


I didn't want a herding dog because they can herd. I like herding dogs because they make great companions. They are biddable, loyal, and protective. My main problem with what you are saying is the idea that companionship qualities are lacking in other breeds. Also I was never dismissing the concept of dogs bred for companionship. Because guess what, many of these herding or retrieving dogs _are_ bred for companionship!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

No, herding dogs are bred to herd, retrievers are bred to retrieve. Yes, a good breeder will make sure their herders and retrievers are good companions as well, but it's not their primary purpose. There really is a difference between an Australian Shepherd (bred to herd) and a Shih Tzu (bred only to be a pet). If you don't understand that, then I don't think you get what SOB is saying.

And when it comes to the companion breeds, what difference does it make if they're bred for cuteness or mixed or whatever? If it makes them good companions, in some way fulfills what someone wants in a companion dog, isn't that the point? In a working dog, working ability should never be sacrificed for looks. A companion dog's work is being a pet, anything that makes them more agreeable to someone wanting a pet is fulfilling their purpose.


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

Still following.......excellent 2 posts before mine here......and to say what is wrong with a velcro dog in your lap by day and guarding you by night.......that's a good companion.... better companion than the man I once married..........and 50 lbs is not so heavy in your lap at times! Lol!

In all honesty........this is about the best thread I have ever followed on here!


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Willowy said:


> No, herding dogs are bred to herd, retrievers are bred to retrieve. Yes, a good breeder will make sure their herders and retrievers are good companions as well, but it's not their primary purpose. There really is a difference between an Australian Shepherd (bred to herd) and a Shih Tzu (bred only to be a pet). If you don't understand that, then I don't think you get what SOB is saying.


That may be true of some of the crazed field trial retrievers of today, but traditionally many of the retriever breeds were bred to retrieve on the hunt and be excellent home companions until the gentleman when hunting again...however long that may be. Not just be manic retrieving idiots. They have a very strong desire to be with their human(s), truly feeding off the presence of people around them. It's not just that they happen to be good companions...*the difference is that their companionship tends to be more of an active one than a passive one. *I think that is the point of confusion here, between a lot of people.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Shaina said:


> That may be true of some of the crazed field trial retrievers of today, but traditionally many of the retriever breeds were bred to retrieve on the hunt and be excellent home companions until the gentleman when hunting again...however long that may be. Not just be manic retrieving idiots. They have a very strong desire to be with their human(s), truly feeding off the presence of people around them. It's not just that they happen to be good companions...*the difference is that their companionship tends to be more of an active one than a passive one. *I think that is the point of confusion here, between a lot of people.


But I don't think SOB meant that passivity is a desirable or even necessary trait of a dog bred to be a companion (correct me if I'm wrong SOB). 

It IS a blurry, confusing line between a breed that "can" be a good companion and a breed that is specifically bred to be a companion. There are a lot of things in my house I CAN sit on when I'm using my laptop to read DF, and many of them were even designed for sitting on (i.e. the toilet), but the couch is most comfortable to me.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

sassafras said:


> But I don't think SOB meant that passivity is a desirable or even necessary trait of a dog bred to be a companion (correct me if I'm wrong SOB).
> 
> It IS a blurry, confusing line between a breed that "can" be a good companion and a breed that is specifically bred to be a companion. There are a lot of things in my house I CAN sit on when I'm using my laptop to read DF, and many of them were even designed for sitting on (i.e. the toilet), but the couch is most comfortable to me.


Whereas I prefer sitting on my exercise ball or on the floor. My husband, on his desk chair at his desk. To each their own.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> No, herding dogs are bred to herd, retrievers are bred to retrieve.


My sheltie and rough collie are both considered herding dogs. They were NOT bred to herd. They were bred to be companions with the possibility of being show quality (clearly they aren't since I have them!). 

You make it sound like everything is black and white. Most working dogs today are not bred to work. I think I've made this point many times. Border collies and maybe Aussies are about the only herding dogs that really herd anymore. And even those breeds are not exclusively bred to herd like they used to be. Most dogs today are bred with companionship qualities being the primary concern. Because puppies that aren't kept by the breeder are going to be sold as companions and only as companions.

Lets also point out you can't just generalize a breed because it's a herding dog or a companion dog. All breeds are different, they don't all automatically have the same qualities as those within their "group". Aussies and rough collies are quite different yet both come from the herding group. I imagine there are many companion group breeds who are quite different as well. I think it's silly to remove entire breeds of dogs because you are seeking companionship qualities and they aren't classified as a companion breed.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

Willowy said:


> There really is a difference between an Australian Shepherd (bred to herd) and a Shih Tzu (bred only to be a pet). If you don't understand that, then I don't think you get what SOB is saying.


I'm only quoting you because you said it most recently, but the majority of individuals from "companion breeds" I meet are nasty, nervous little things. I am sure they provide companionship to their owners, but they aren't what the OP described in terms of going out in public, being handed around to strangers to cuddle, etc. 

The ones bred for more than just companionship, ie agility, flyball, conformation, etc are the ones I've seen with a more stable temperament.

So is the issue really that there aren't any companion breeds that are supposed to fit what the OP is looking for, or is it that the companion breeds that already exist should fit what the OP wants, but don't due to poor breeding practices? And would creating new breeds really solve this issue, or would the new breeds just go down the path of the current breeds, what is going to make the breeders of any new breed any more or less responsible than the breeders of the current breeds?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

dantero said:


> And would creating new breeds really solve this issue, or would the new breeds just go down the path of the current breeds, what is going to make the breeders of any new breed any more or less responsible than the breeders of the current breeds?


 I believe the OP's main issue is that there ARE companion breeds with the temperment she wants, but they all have conformation and health issues to the point she finds that she can't ethically support anybody breeding them (those breeding responsibly and health testing are breeding for extreme conformation, those breeding for more moderate conformation are not breeding responsibly or doing health testing). I feel the same (although I won't be looking for a small dog, or have any necessity for a dog of known breeding, for a long time). But if I were to try to find a suitable companion breed for my grandma, or for my mom when she gets older, it would be extremely difficult for me to find someone breeding for the temperment, conformation, and health I want to see in a small dog, and doing that breeding in a way I feel I could support.

And, no if any new breeds are developed it's not likely that the majority of people breeding them would be any better than the people currently breeding existing breeds. But to say that nobody should responsibly breed the mix/new breed they want because bad breeders exist is like saying that nobody should breed any existing breeds because bad breeders exist.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I believe the OP's main issue is that there ARE companion breeds with the temperment she wants, but they all have conformation and health issues to the point she finds that she can't ethically support anybody breeding them (those breeding responsibly and health testing are breeding for extreme conformation, those breeding for more moderate conformation are not breeding responsibly or doing health testing). I feel the same (although I won't be looking for a small dog, or have any necessity for a dog of known breeding, for a long time). But if I were to try to find a suitable companion breed for my grandma, or for my mom when she gets older, it would be extremely difficult for me to find someone breeding for the temperment, conformation, and health I want to see in a small dog, and doing that breeding in a way I feel I could support.


I didn't specifically mention the health/conformation issues, but probably should have. I was kind of lumping that into the breeding issues.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

dantero said:


> I didn't specifically mention the health/conformation issues, but probably should have. I was kind of lumping that into the breeding issues.


Yeah, problem is that those breeding for the extreme conformation are considered the good breeders. Those breeding for moderate conformation are considered to be engaging in poor breeding practices, because it's against the breed standard (or the current interpretation thereof).


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

I don't think I understand what she wants (I don't consider the Bichon to have a "nightmare" coat - and there's Papillion owners that consider them low maintenance. I think Lauren (I think that's her, the lady with Mia and Summer) doesn't do anything "exotic" for her paps coats I don't think?

I'd nominate the Coton. They are companion dogs, often naturals at being therapy dogs if you get one with a stable temperament (i.e. wasn't "raised" like Wally, and even then he's like that around me/my mom - i.e. people he knows and trusts).

Cotons do not have a lot of health problems in the breed, and, on average, have long, healthy lifespans. I don't know how rare they are, but if someone was breeding them in America, I'm sure they can be found elsewhere. 

Size: they are about 14-15 lbs, so they fit the 13-30 lb requirement. They fit the temperament requirement assuming good breeding and early puppyhood raising/socialization. 

The only problem is that you might consider it a "nightmare" coat. I don't think it's all that hard - I comb Wally with than Untangler and mist a couple times a week, tops. It looks like a lot of trouble, but it really isn't since he's supposed to look "messy" or "frizzy" instead of silky smooth or such. 

Cotons are very gentle and don't care about handling. Even Wally is like that. Pick them up, hold them all kinds of ways, invite him up on your lap, and he'll lay there still and calm unless he needs something (water, bathroom) or you ask him to get off. He's gotten so relaxed he's had dreams in my lap and will lay out sideways sleep. 

He loves to put his head on the nook in my arm and wants to follow me around everywhere. He's "in your business" because he wants to know what you're doing and be with you while you do it. 

So I'd say he exhibits a lot of companionship traits without having to be trained to do it. He just does it as part of his personality (and no, it's not separation anxiety as he can be left alone out of his crate with full range of the house with no problems).


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, problem is that those breeding for the extreme conformation are considered the good breeders. Those breeding for moderate conformation are considered to be engaging in poor breeding practices, because it's against the breed standard (or the current interpretation thereof).


 Exactly what I was trying to say earlier and did not know how! Down the road IMO the same thing would happen with the new mix of "Companion" breeds also.Why wouldn't it? They will just strive for that "standard" of the new mix too.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Shaina said:


> Whereas I prefer sitting on my exercise ball or on the floor. My husband, on his desk chair at his desk. To each their own.


Well yea, I didn't mean to imply anything different. But I think SOB is saying that none of the available seats suit her (him? sorry I've spaced) personally.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> But to say that nobody should responsibly breed the mix/new breed they want because bad breeders exist is like saying that nobody should breed any existing breeds because bad breeders exist.


And yet, I've seen a lot of people (myself included) say that if someone sees a niche they feel needs to be be filled, and wants to do it intelligently and carefully, with good breeding practices including studying pedigrees and knowing what health tests may be needed (more difficult if you are cross-breeding) that is their choice. I haven't actually seen anyone say that "nobody" should do that. I think the major point that has been made is that the majority of people making schnoodles and maltipoos aren't actually doing that and shouldn't be glorified or held up as something more special than purebred breeders who do.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> So I'd say he exhibits a lot of companionship traits without having to be trained to do it. He just does it as part of his personality


But see, I can say the same thing about my herding dogs. Only Alice is small enough to fit in my lap though (and at 34 lbs., she's a lap full) Mostly I just get heads resting in my lap. Does that make them less of a companion?


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> And yet, I've seen a lot of people (myself included) say that if someone sees a niche they feel needs to be be filled, and wants to do it intelligently and carefully, with good breeding practices including studying pedigrees and knowing what health tests may be needed (more difficult if you are cross-breeding) that is their choice. I haven't actually seen anyone say that "nobody" should do that. I think the major point that has been made is that the majority of people making schnoodles and maltipoos aren't actually doing that and shouldn't be glorified or held up as something more special than purebred breeders who do.


This. Nobody is saying it's impossible to do. It's just very unlikely to be done responsibly or ethically. Responsibly breeding to create a new breed from mixing is a much more difficult task than breeding a pure bred responsibly. Not to mention the purpose of creating the new mixed breed, as described in this thread, is to fill some demand in the dog market for companion dogs. This is already a profit driven motive which is a bad road to take. 

There are over 150 breeds recognized by the AKC. This isn't including all the recent designer breeds that are out there as well now. If a person cannot find a single breed or rescue that suits them maybe it is the wrong time to have a dog or they should consider another pet.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, problem is that those breeding for the extreme conformation are considered the good breeders. Those breeding for moderate conformation are considered to be engaging in poor breeding practices, because it's against the breed standard (or the current interpretation thereof).


I know a number of people who are breeding for other than "show" quality. Some work to preserve original traits. Some are actually very well respected in their breed circles. Part of the problem is all the people mindlessly repeating the mantra that good breeders are the ones who "prove" their dogs in the conformation ring.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I can find a breed that suits me now, but if I wanted/needed a small dog I wouldn't be able to. I don't think I should have to give up on the idea of having a dog at all just because I may not be able to have a large dog at some point.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Abbylynn said:


> Exactly what I was trying to say earlier and did not know how! Down the road IMO the same thing would happen with the new mix of "Companion" breeds also.Why wouldn't it? They will just strive for that "standard" of the new mix too.


If moderation WAS the new breed's standard, then the good breeders of that breed would be producing moderate dogs.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I can find a breed that suits me now, but if I wanted/needed a small dog I wouldn't be able to. I don't think I should have to give up on the idea of having a dog at all just because I may not be able to have a large dog at some point.


And what qualities in a small dog can you absolutely not fulfill with what's available?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

HerdersForMe said:


> This. Nobody is saying it's impossible to do. It's just very unlikely to be done responsibly or ethically. Responsibly breeding to create a new breed from mixing is a much more difficult task than breeding a pure bred responsibly.


Why?


> Not to mention the purpose of creating the new mixed breed, as described in this thread, is to fill some demand in the dog market for companion dogs. This is already a profit driven motive which is a bad road to take.


Are you saying all companion dog breeders are in it for the profit? What if they just want to produce nice healthy dogs who are suitable pets for sedate people?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

HerdersForMe said:


> And what qualities in a small dog can you absolutely not fulfill with what's available?


I think SOB went though it already: generally healthy, not tiny, not high-energy, low-maintenance coat, no extreme physical characteristics. A Shih-Tzu without the grooming issues (or buggy eyes or stubby legs).


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Why?


You really don't know why?

Breeding two dogs of different breeds has a less predictable outcome than breeding two dogs of the same breed. Breeding two dogs of the same breed produces a very predictable litter when we know the history of the parents. We can expect certain health issues, certain temperaments, certain drives, etc. Creating a new breed requires a level of expertise in breeding. Not only that but creating a new breed takes a long time. There's going to be many mixed litters along the way that aren't of the new breed, just mixes. 



Willowy said:


> Are you saying all companion dog breeders are in it for the profit?


I said the main goal of creating a new companion breed would be to fill a market demand. In fact I believe I am paraphrasing SOB there. That is most likely to be driven by profit. Unless there's a very knowledgeable breeder who is very passionate about creating something new (the silken windhound thing comes to mind here), it's likely just driven by profit motive.



Willowy said:


> What if they just want to produce nice healthy dogs who are suitable pets for sedate people?


Those dogs exist...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> If moderation WAS the new breed's standard, then the good breeders of that breed would be producing moderate dogs.


The breeders of the "winningest" dogs probably not. Moderate doesn't often catch the judge's eye. In the ASCA breed standard the word "moderate" appears 9 times. And yet many of the top show dogs are anything but, with big bone, drapey coats, exaggerated gaits, none of which is described in the breed standard. If people want that, and want to breed for that, they will. And I won't criticize their choice, but cause I appreciate that we should be able to have the dog we want. I just am not interested in owning one. Thank goodness there are plenty of places I can go to get the kind of dog *I* want. And in most breeds there are breeders who are producing dogs to the standard and sometimes to older qualities that some people may want. Some of those breeders are among the most experienced and careful in the breed. And they see past a judge's opinion (and are often a lot more knowledgable about their breeds than the judges are) You just have to do more than look at the "surface." People often form opinions and generalizations of a situation without looking very deeply. I bet in most breeds you can find well bred, moderate, health tested dogs. Like all good things, though, you have to actually make an effort.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If a demand exists, and if they can humanely and ethically produce nice healthy dogs who are consistently good pets, why would I care whether they make a profit or not?


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> If a demand exists, and if they can humanely and ethically produce nice healthy dogs who are consistently good pets, why would I care whether they make a profit or not?


Because doing it for profit generally doesn't involve doing it ethically...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Like all good things, though, you have to actually make an effort.


Depending what kind of effort you're talking about, this may be unrealistic for most pet owners. If I have to know people who know people, spend 20 years being "into" a breed, search for years to find a halfway decent breeder, and get turned down due to crazy requirements, it's just not going to happen. If it's too hard to find a moderate pet from a decent breeder, no wonder people go with puppymill mixes. Demand fuels production.



HerdersForMe said:


> Because doing it for profit generally doesn't involve doing it ethically...


So no ethical breeder ever makes a profit? I'm pretty sure we've had threads about this in the past. . .


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

This. Nobody is saying it's impossible to do. It's just very unlikely to be done responsibly or ethically. Responsibly breeding to create a new breed from mixing is a much more difficult task than breeding a pure bred responsibly.




Willowy said:


> Why?
> 
> 
> Are you saying all companion dog breeders are in it for the profit? What if they just want to produce nice healthy dogs who are suitable pets for sedate people?


Why? Really?
You don't see how it would be more difficult to figure out the genetic combinations that would produce certain desirable traits and to get those traits to breed true? You don't think it's more difficult to figure out the combinations which would produce health issues when you are mixing two breeds together? The question betrays an awesome lack of understanding of genetics and breeding.

As to "are you saying ALL companion dog breeders are in it for the profit?" Willowy you have a penchant for absolutes. If someone says that something may happen you then proclaim that they said it is all or always. That's called a strawman. I personally don't think there's anything wrong in being sure you have a "market" for what you are producing. Otherwise you may end up very lonely with a whole lot of dogs that nobody wants. I think that many breeders are in it for the art of creating something special. That would include breeders who are preserving a breed, or breeders who are trying to actually trying to create a breed. Creating is more difficult (and risky) than preserving. AND I think the people who are out there creating new breeds (as in really creating something special, not just making puppies) are pretty rare. I won't say that they don't exist.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> So no ethical breeder ever makes a profit? I'm pretty sure we've had threads about this in the past. . .


There's a difference between doing something and happening to make money versus doing something with the intent of making money.

No ethical breeder breeds solely to make money. Any gain they make on a litter will likely cover their personal living expenses. It's not a business to them.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Depending what kind of effort you're talking about, this may be unrealistic for most pet owners. If I have to know people who know people, spend 20 years being "into" a breed, search for years to find a halfway decent breeder, and get turned down due to crazy requirements, it's just not going to happen. If it's too hard to find a moderate pet from a decent breeder, no wonder people go with puppymill mixes. Demand fuels production.


I've never been turned down for a dog due to crazy requirements. Never had trouble finding the dog I want either (though sometimes the demand for puppies is greater than the number of puppies available. Last time that happened to me (all puppies were reserved) the breeders gave me my pick free from the next litter. That "pick" helped put their kennel in the Hall of Fame.



Willowy said:


> So no ethical breeder ever makes a profit?.


Hello Mr. Strawman


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

One of the points the OP was making is: it is necessary for breeders to produce puppies for sale to the public. It is not necessary for those breeders to take it to an art form or "create something special". All they need to do is make nice friendly healthy puppies in an ethical manner. If they're doing this in a way that ensures their breeding dogs are treated properly, and the puppies are healthy, why is this wrong? Giving up on expecting ethical behavior from pet puppy producers is why puppymills find business. A lot of people think that's their only choice.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> One of the points the OP was making is: it is necessary for breeders to produce puppies for sale to the public. It is not necessary for those breeders to take it to an art form or "create something special". All they need to do is make nice friendly healthy puppies in an ethical manner. If they're doing this in a way that ensures their breeding dogs are treated properly, and the puppies are healthy, why is this wrong? Giving up on expecting ethical behavior from pet puppy producers is why puppymills find business. A lot of people think that's their only choice.


If someone breeds simply to breed, that's fine, but they still aren't going to make it a business by doing it ethically. You can't breed ethically and rake in money. It just can't be done. 

It just so happens most people who breed do so because they are involved in showing or sports.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> One of the points the OP was making is: it is necessary for breeders to produce puppies for sale to the public. It is not necessary for those breeders to take it to an art form or "create something special". All they need to do is make nice friendly healthy puppies in an ethical manner. If they're doing this in a way that ensures their breeding dogs are treated properly, and the puppies are healthy, why is this wrong? Giving up on expecting ethical behavior from pet puppy producers is why puppymills find business. A lot of people think that's their only choice.


Oh. *all* they need to do is make nice friendly healthy puppies in an ethical manner. Why shoot, nothing to that. (being facetious, here) I would hope that if someone undertakes to create a new breed, they are wanting to create "something special" Because if they don't put a lot of work in it, they are not going to be consistently producing nice friendly healthy pups. There are already breeders out there producing for the "pet market" (both mixes and established breeds) and more of them assure that their breeding dogs are treated properly and the puppies are healthy than do not. And yet many people would still call them a puppy mill or back yard breeder. It's true that I'd rather get my dogs from someone who puts more effort into it than that.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

Willowy said:


> If moderation WAS the new breed's standard, then the good breeders of that breed would be producing moderate dogs.


Actually I believe the word moderate, or a similar word, shows up in many breed standards. That doesn't stop people from breeding for extremes.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

dantero said:


> Actually I believe the word moderate, or a similar word, shows up in many breed standards. That doesn't stop people from breeding for extremes.


From the AKC Collie standard:

"The deep, *moderately *wide chest shows strength, the sloping shoulders and well-bent hocks indicate speed and grace, and the face shows high intelligence."

"The forearm is *moderately *fleshy and the pasterns are flexible but without weakness."

"The tail is *moderately *long, the bone reaching to the hock joint or below."


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> From the AKC Collie standard:
> 
> "The deep, moderately wide chest shows strength, the sloping shoulders and well-bent hocks indicate speed and grace, and the face shows high intelligence."
> 
> ...


Yup...but when you go to get your license to judge Collies, you're told in your judge's education seminar that 75% of judging is to be focused on the head. The head is important (for some stupid reason), not the dog's ability to work.

The structure of some American Collies, like many American GSDs, ain't that great.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

HerdersForMe said:


> Are you kidding? A breed doesn't need to be "bred of companionship" to make a good companion. The vast majority of "working breeds" are solely used as companions these days.


I absolutely agree. Just because a dog is bred for herding or retrieving doesn't make them a bad pet?!? 

Most people's pets are not companion breeds anyways. Domesticated dogs are all pretty much bred for companionship as well as some kind of work in many cases.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> *I absolutely agree. Just because a dog is bred for herding or retrieving doesn't make them a bad pet?!? . . . *
> .


This is not what is being suggested on this thread.  Some seem to be interpretting this as what is being said, but it is not.

SOB


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

What is being said that dogs that are bred for herding (a purpose) are going to excel at herding. Dogs that are bred for companionship (a purpose) are likely going to excel at companionship.

Now, I'll admit, I have a hard time swallowing that a companion bred dog is better for companionship, simply because any dog really can make a good companion. But people that want companion bred dogs also seem to enjoy being able to hand their dog over to anybody, and watch the dog eat it up.

That kind of personality/temperament annoys the crap outta me, so it's not the kind of dog I'd seek out xD

If you hand a properly bred Pomeranian around a group of elderly folks, that dog is going to want to be on every lap and stay there....but if it doesn't get to stay on that lap, the next lap is perfectly acceptable, and they will willingly stay there for ever and ever if allowed.

Now, let's for a moment pretend that the GSD is Pomeranian sized, but still has all the temperament breed traits of its regular sized self. That dog will like to sit on ONE or TWO laps....those of its owner. It will tolerate being passed around like a wet blanket, but it won't like it...and in 5 or 10 minutes, the dog is going to want to get down and do whatever it wants on its own.

German Shepherds dote on *their people*, and everybody else can screw off.

Companion bred breeds dote on *all people*, and will keep you pinned on the couch until you die.....and they'll be happy to be there.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

HerdersForMe said:


> It just so happens most people who breed do so because they are involved in showing or sports.


Are you sure MOST? I'm pretty sure I can dig up some USDA stats that indicate that the vast majority of small-breed puppies are produced in large-scale commercial breeding facilities.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> There are already breeders out there producing for the "pet market" (both mixes and established breeds) and more of them assure that their breeding dogs are treated properly and the puppies are healthy than do not.


Really? Well, no worries then. I guess that since there are so few bad breeders out there there's no need for a change. Nice that it's that way in your area. I've never seen any indication that the large-scale breeders around here have any goals beyond keeping the pups alive long enough to sell. And weren't you arguing earlier that none of the mixed-breed breeders you knew of were taking any care in their breeding at all? ("Healthy" would indicate genetic health testing, to me. A dog whose knees slip in and out constantly is not a good pet (in body, even if his temperment is sound). A dog who needs $3000 surgery is also not a good pet).


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Are you sure MOST? I'm pretty sure I can dig up some USDA stats that indicate that the vast majority of small-breed puppies are produced in large-scale commercial breeding facilities.


I said most breeders not puppy mills. You have to stop taking things out of context...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Dogs that are bred for companionship (a purpose) are likely going to excel at companionship.
> 
> Now, I'll admit, I have a hard time swallowing that a companion bred dog is better for companionship, simply because any dog really can make a good companion. But people that want companion bred dogs also seem to enjoy being able to hand their dog over to anybody, and watch the dog eat it up.
> 
> ...


I gotta admit one thing that pleases me is having dogs who are selective about best friends but will pretty much tolerate other people just fine. I suppose I've never met those breeds who are bred to be perfect companions. Most of the little "companion" type dogs I run into are actually LESS tolerant of strangers. Spookier about new experiences, barky and somewhat nippy. The nicest example I can think of at the moment is a friend's well-bred Havanese, who is a sweet, darling and tolerant little dog. Very smart too. And yet, he knows who he knows, and who he doesn't know. Can be sensitive to too much pressure and can "worry". I don't think all laps would be equal to him, though he'd be charming about it and a less observant person probably wouldn't notice. Possibly one of the worst dogs I've met (a five month old who was putting big holes in all members of the family and was dead serious about it) was also a Havanese. Since he wasn't so well bred and definitely not "show quality" reason in this thread has it he should have been an even better companion, since he wasn't bred for show and since it is so terribly easy to breed nice healthy friendly puppies. Especially in a "companion dog" breed.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> A dog who needs $3000 surgery is also not a good pet).



Well, then. I guess I need to kill my dog who just required $6000 in surgery, because he is not a good pet. Fact is, breeding random mixes together aren't going to improve your chances of "healthy"


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I gotta admit one thing that pleases me is having dogs who are selective about best friends but will pretty much tolerate other people just fine.


That's why I have GSDs. I do not enjoy dogs that create indiscriminate friendships.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

HerdersForMe said:


> I said most breeders not puppy mills. You have to stop taking things out of context...


Like it or not, puppymills are breeders. Anybody who breeds is a breeder. That IS the context.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, then. I guess I need to kill my dog who just required $6000 in surgery, because he is not a good pet. Fact is, breeding random mixes together aren't going to improve your chances of "healthy"


I never said anyone should kill their dog if he does have problems. Just that anyone who is not breeding with a view to minimizing health issues can't possibly be said to be producing good pets. Health problems are not something the majority of dog owners want to deal with, if it can be helped. 

I'm pretty sure nobody was advocating breeding random mixes together without proper health testing.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I've only read page 1 but I do agree with SOB, although I will relent and go smaller than I'd like to for papillons. I wish they were bigger but I deal with that because otherwise I love them. I think there's a HUGE market for new larger companion type dogs. 

There is a definite difference to me between breeds that are kept as companions but have another purpose versus those bred to be companions. It's just different...


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Just because people create new breeds doesn't mean the overall number of dogs produced would change. It would simply be what is being bred that is changing.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I gotta admit one thing that pleases me is having dogs who are selective about best friends but will pretty much tolerate other people just fine. I suppose I've never met those breeds who are bred to be perfect companions. Most of the little "companion" type dogs I run into are actually LESS tolerant of strangers. Spookier about new experiences, barky and somewhat nippy. The nicest example I can think of at the moment is a friend's well-bred Havanese, who is a sweet, darling and tolerant little dog. Very smart too. And yet, he knows who he knows, and who he doesn't know. Can be sensitive to too much pressure and can "worry". I don't think all laps would be equal to him, though he'd be charming about it and a less observant person probably wouldn't notice. Possibly one of the worst dogs I've met (a five month old who was putting big holes in all members of the family and was dead serious about it) was also a Havanese. Since he wasn't so well bred and definitely not "show quality" reason in this thread has it he should have been an even better companion, since he wasn't bred for show and since it is so terribly easy to breed nice healthy friendly puppies. Especially in a "companion dog" breed.


Wouldn't some of that be due to socialization as much as it is breed in general?

A dog that's not exposed to much may well be "wary" about new stuff, because it's...new to see new stuff (if that makes any sense). I think a lot depends on individual temperament even within breed, which is why it's hard to say if breed X "will" or "will not" make a good companion. No one knows and it seems to depend as much on what happens after he's born as it does the genes "playing around" while he's still forming in the womb.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> But see, I can say the same thing about my herding dogs. Only Alice is small enough to fit in my lap though (and at 34 lbs., she's a lap full) Mostly I just get heads resting in my lap. Does that make them less of a companion?


To me, no. 

If I had a herder and he wanted to sleep with his head purposely place on my foot or heads in the lap, I think that's a dog showing companionship.

Now, if the person wanted a lap dog - I don't think a Border Collie would fit that (in general)..."type" of dog, for lack of a better word. Personally, I'd invite my Border Collie in my lap (and make her learn it in multiple languages LOL) but "most people" might not.

I think it goes to what a "Companion Dog" is. Is that a real breed trait, or an individual dog's personality trait? What defines "companionship"? A dog that follows you around, or one that waits until you're done doing whatever, then curls up under your legs when sitting in a chair like a makeshift den? Is the dog that waits a dog that is less of a companion, or one that just doesn't want to interfere or perhaps is waiting for you to invite her? In that case, her self-discipline might be misunderstood as aloofness - while all the while, she could be thinking "I wish I could come see too."

I think that's the problem. Is there a "real" definition of a companion dog or one that's showing "companion behaviors" and is it possible to know if that's a personality trait of the dog or a breed trait that "all" dogs of that breed "will" demonstrate?


Edit: For the record, I like those dogs that are selective about who they warm up to, but don't react badly to strangers (such as aggression or snapping, etc). "Accept" attention/affection of strangers, but don't necessarily be a "soft touch" and follow anyone who strokes them a couple times. Especially with dog stealing on the rise, supposedly.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

A companion dog isn't something you can nail down. I will say there is a big difference to me in the way my companion breed dogs relate to me and the way my other dogs have. Even though shelties are mostly companions nowadays there is a big difference between a sheltie and a papillon. Maybe it's the breeds in general, I'm not sure. But I think there is DEFINITELY something to be said about a breed being bred for thousands of years with being a companion specifically in mind. 

What does it really matter though? I think there's lots of room for people to breed dogs with temperament traits that would fit different lifestyles.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

spanielorbust said:


> Thanks for given' it a stab . . . . really. It is all about the companion drive vs. the herding drive. I've actually owned a few Collie and/or Sheltie crosses in my lifetime, and have worked through that Sheltie coat numerous times as I have a brother who had one of those as well (blue eyed merle). I have here often a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, my own mixed spaniels and often Papillons. *There is a great difference in what they instinctually want to do with their day. *
> 
> SOB





Shaina said:


> Yeah tbh I apparently really have no concept of what you are looking for in a dog.
> 
> ETA: The Shelties I'm thinking of are sort of like the Golden Retriever described earlier in this thread. More or less in the shape of that breed, but that's it. The type of Sheltie that any sort of sport/herding Sheltie person would want to deny is a Sheltie at all. Unfortunately a lot of these dogs seem to exist.





Nargle said:


> Energy level is a different story. A dog with a high energy level would be difficult to manage for a person or family that couldn't provide their dog with an outlet for their energy. But I don't personally feel like every breed designed to do some form of work other than companionship is going to be an energizer bunny. In fact, there are many companion breeds that have just as high energy levels if not higher than many working breeds. For instance a lot of Papillons can be compared to herders in energy level.


There is a difference. Maybe you have to live with both to really see it, I'm not sure. There is just a difference in the way that a herding type (even watered down) and a companion type approach companionship. I don't know what to say past that but having known and lived with quite a few shelties and papillons it's just different.

Energy level and drive? My paps are certainly much more energetic and in many ways drivier than my shelties (especially Mia). It's not that at all. It is more their approach to things that is different to me. Both breeds are very handler oriented, but shelties are more hands off and aloof about things. Both breeds are very biddable and both enjoy working with you. But paps are meant specifically to be a companion and have been for so long it is bound to change them. Just as a herder tends to approach things differently than a retriever, etc. And there are 'leftovers' so to speak from a herding past. My shelties heeled quite a bit and were in general much nippier. 

That doesn't mean they're easier dogs to me. In fact it gets people in trouble often times because these breeds often are pretty needy time-wise and they're often set up to fail because people think they'll be easier. Mia is not an easy dog but she is definitely a companion breed and takes that job very seriously. 

I am just using these breeds because they're my breeds. I'm probably not making much sense. To me it is a very clear difference but perhaps it's not to others. 



> I don't think I understand what she wants (I don't consider the Bichon to have a "nightmare" coat - and there's Papillion owners that consider them low maintenance. I think Lauren (I think that's her, the lady with Mia and Summer) doesn't do anything "exotic" for her paps coats I don't think?


Papillon coats are easy to groom. But I think SOB's issue was size, she was looking for a 15 lb+ dog. Yeah you'll find a big pap occasionally but the breed is typically 6-10 lbs, so smaller. It's a sticking point for me too in some ways. I like dogs in the 20ish lb range. But there really isn't anything papillon like in that size range.

One day I will make the giant papillon and be done with it. 



> But people that want companion bred dogs also seem to enjoy being able to hand their dog over to anybody, and watch the dog eat it up.





> Companion bred breeds dote on all people, and will keep you pinned on the couch until you die.....and they'll be happy to be there


Just for clarification that's not what I personally mean. You could not hand my companion dog to a stranger at all. Not saying she has exactly the correct temperament- she's a lot sharper than most paps. It's more of her approach to being MY companion. I like dogs that discriminate.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> Wouldn't some of that be due to socialization as much as it is breed in general?
> 
> A dog that's not exposed to much may well be "wary" about new stuff, because it's...new to see new stuff (if that makes any sense). I think a lot depends on individual temperament even within breed, which is why it's hard to say if breed X "will" or "will not" make a good companion. No one knows and it seems to depend as much on what happens after he's born as it does the genes "playing around" while he's still forming in the womb.


Some of it has to do with socialization. But then, I think socialization is a must for small "companion" type dogs as well. In my line of work, I get to see a lot of them that have not been. With Alice it is personality.She genuinely likes people.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> You could not hand my companion dog to a stranger at all. Not saying she has exactly the correct temperament- she's a lot sharper than most paps. It's more of her approach to being MY companion. I like dogs that discriminate.



Me too. Neither of my gals 'insta-love' on strangers (the breed in general tends toward the shy side) -- and I prefer it that way.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

HerdersForMe said:


> Eliminating two very large groups of dogs because you don't like their temperaments seems unreasonable. There are TONS of terriers and hounds and many of them have different temperaments.
> 
> But anyways....a corgi fits your requirements.


I also wonder of this comment as well, haven't all of us done this at some point? I myself am not a fan of: toy breeds, sporting, or hounds. Their temperaments just dont get with me, what is wrong with that?

Just wondering.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> but not all retrievers who retrieve are like that (I'd guess most are not). Retrievers are wired to bring the duck to the human without eating it. Herding dogs are wired to bring the sheep to the person without damaging them. In both cases an important consideration in correct temperament/instinct is the dog's biddability and willingness to work FOR the human. I don't care how much instinct a herding dog has (I can speak less to hunting breeds - only personally having co-owned one IWS) but if the dog is not willing to work for you, they are useless. Biddabilitiy is a feature when it comes to living in a pet home as well


keep in mind, herders also "drive", not just "bring" .

I have what would be considered a high drive dog in Izze, if she doesn't have a designated "job" she goes a little nutso :-/ *-* even at 9 yrs old. Any breed can be a companion, when if its also a "working" dog, heck most working type breeds (the ones bred to work with a handler, as I know some working types aren't bred to work closely with humans, exclude those in this example of course, for a moment. As I am talking about the breed in reference to its standard) make good companions... They.are usually velcroed to you anyway lol.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> I also wonder of this comment as well, haven't all of us done this at some point? I myself am not a fan of: toy breeds, sporting, or hounds. Their temperaments just dont get with me, what is wrong with that?
> 
> Just wondering.


Terriers and hounds are large groups of breeds and the temperaments of the dogs in those groups can still vary quite a bit.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I never said anyone should kill their dog if he does have problems. Just that anyone who is not breeding with a view to minimizing health issues can't possibly be said to be producing good pets. Health problems are not something the majority of dog owners want to deal with, if it can be helped.
> 
> I'm pretty sure nobody was advocating breeding random mixes together without proper health testing.


Shrug. It's been an expensive year with my dog. Not because of genetic issues, but because of an accident. However, he's still a very suitable pet for me, even if he did cost me big bucks.

So, what = proper health testing for mixed breeds? Issues vary from breed to breed. One of the things about purebreds is you do your homework, you know what you have to watch out for. If you know their pedigrees you can further reduce risks. With polygenetic problems, by adding something completely new in, you could find your self with issues you wouldn't expect from either parent.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> I also wonder of this comment as well, haven't all of us done this at some point? I myself am not a fan of: toy breeds, sporting, or hounds. Their temperaments just dont get with me, what is wrong with that?
> 
> Just wondering.


I don't like some breeds, but I can't think of any entire groups I don't like at all.

Still, though, if a dog's individual temperament is compatible, then the breed thing goes away if I were looking for another dog.

I know breed traits are really just generalizations at the end of the day, and there's nothing saying all individuals will match the generalization for a variety of reasons.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Papillon coats are easy to groom. But I think SOB's issue was size, she was looking for a 15 lb+ dog. Yeah you'll find a big pap occasionally but the breed is typically 6-10 lbs, so smaller. It's a sticking point for me too in some ways. I like dogs in the 20ish lb range. But there really isn't anything papillon like in that size range.


Well, she put paps in the "nightmare coat" category, I think, which is why I brought you and your dogs up. 

And a large papillion would be totally awesome. Do want.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Some of it has to do with socialization. But then, I think socialization is a must for small "companion" type dogs as well. In my line of work, I get to see a lot of them that have not been. With Alice it is personality.She genuinely likes people.


Yeah, I think socialization is a must in general, if only to further bring out the "companionship genes" to full potential.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

KBLover said:


> Well, she put paps in the "nightmare coat" category, I think, which is why I brought you and your dogs up.
> 
> And a large papillion would be totally awesome. Do want.


Nah, if you look at the first post, Paps are in the "too small" category. So, yup, we need a DF variety of giant Paps!


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

KBLover said:


> And a large papillion would be totally awesome. Do want.


Cue Basil :biggrin1: hehehe










Honestly I think if Papillons normally came in the 18-20 lbs range I would be a little more interested in getting another Pap.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

Nargle said:


> Honestly I think if Papillons normally came in the 18-20 lbs range I would be a little more interested in getting another Pap.


If Paps came in the 18-20 pounds range I would switch from "man, if I ever get in a situation where I can only have toy dogs, I am definitely getting a Pap" to "I am definitely getting a Pap."  I don't consider them because, despite what I consider an amazing temperament, I know from experience that I am happier with a larger dog -- something that needs at least two hands to lift. 

As far as dogs that I've had experience with that I truly think exhibit a "companion breed" personality -- some of you may remember this dog. I do not think you could find a person she did not love or was excited to meet. She was content to spend her whole day in your lap or by your side, but she was also up for some games or a walk or some training if that's what you wanted to do. She didn't have a particularly strong bond with any one person in particular (although she probably would have developed one if I'd had her for longer...) and was content to exhibit these behaviors with me, with children, with men, with the elderly. The most motivating thing to that dog, even more so than food or toys, was access to people. I could (and started to before she left, largely as an experiment, and with great success) teach her behaviors using affection, praise, and the ability to have physical contact with me as her primary rewards. She was learning faster than she did when I taught a different set of behaviors using treats (though very obviously my experiment lacked the necessary controls to give anything concrete, and it could have been that my treats weren't good enough or I was crappy at teaching the other set of behaviors, etc). 

I also think there's an implication (not really made by anyone in this post, moreso maybe by the developers of the breeds maybe? I'm not really sure where it comes from) that companion breeds, or toy breeds, are superior companions because that is what they were bred to do. I enjoyed the Pinkdawg's personality very much, but I don't think I would actually want that temperament in a dog. I like a dog that's a little... zestier? I like dogs with higher drives because I find that they're more fun to teach because they are a little bit livelier? I'm really having trouble describing this in words, especially since Pinkdawg was very lively when I was asking her to engage with me in a lively way (never really on her own, though). I don't know. I like dogs that want to run around and shred the life out of Mr. Stuffy and show squirrels who the boss is and swim in their water bowls. I like dogs that get the zoomies. So, for me, a toy breed would not be a superior companion and it wouldn't work for me. I guess I really don't like the term "companion breed" at all because of the connotation that if it's not a "companion breed" it won't be a good companion, or that the "companion breeds" are inherently better companions. 

Even then, though I think Pinkdawg's personality was ideal for those who are attracted to the temperament of the "companion breeds" I would understand why she would not be a good fit for a lot of people, with her high maintenance coat and discharge-prone eyes. 

I do think a "companion breed" offers traits that I have yet to see other dogs offer, on average. I do think there is a lack of moderate-looking smaller dogs, especially as compared to the number of larger dogs. Every time I look through breed books or such resources, I always end up with the feeling that the selection in the “small-medium” or “larger-small” size range (15-30, especially 20-30) is a bit lacking, especially for those just looking for a typical family dog, and I wonder if that’s true or just me being picky about the things I like in a breed. 

So, I guess my view is.. plethora of breeds that can be used as companions? Definitely. But Plethora of breeds that aren’t super tiny but still small with easy-care coats, low exercise requirements, a lack of health problems associated with exaggerated features that also exhibit “companion drive” in the way the little pink poodle did? Not really. I really don’t think there is one.


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

"The Little Pink Poodle" describes my smallest dog. But he loves to tear the stuffings out of anything you give him as a toy and loves to chase squirrels and dig for ground moles.....run around the house like a herding dog at times..........but he is just like the little pink poodle in all the other ways described. I am a big dog person. I am not being bias. But I would recommend this dog to anyone who wanted a dog like the little pink poodle,plus some...........and as far as the coat maintenance.......if you can afford a dog why can you not afford a hair cut once every three months? Just the darn barking would have to be somehow bred out of these protective little 20 pound dogs. He is the Schnauzer/Poodle in this post below. I love this mix..........I want them to be about 50 lbs with this same exact temperament and personality! Not for or against this new breed thing I guess........................just want to see a very very responsible person behind it all.


----------



## Bluebearry81 (Aug 28, 2011)

CoverTune said:


> I just don't consider it to be a limited selection, when there are some 300+ different breeds available to choose from. *shrug*


I like very tiny dogs; there are only 21 breeds in the toy group. So, yeah definitely nowhere near 300 to choose from.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Cue Basil :biggrin1: hehehe
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I feel exactly the same way. They sound like wonderful dogs whose personalities I would enjoy (maybe not so much my bf) but I just am not very interested in a tiny little dog. To me, 20 pounds is ideal and I'll probably always have dogs with 5 pounds of that ideal.

And oh man, is Basil cute.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Bluebearry81 said:


> I like very tiny dogs; there are only 21 breeds in the toy group. So, yeah definitely nowhere near 300 to choose from.


I agree, and I also think, so what if there are a super huge amount of breeds to choose from. If they ALL have one of the three valid problems SOB mentioned at the beginning of this thread then it really isn't much of a choice.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Ok so there are not enough pure companion breeds how do mixes help 
SOB what mixes are crosses of companion breeds meet.

I also read the corgi person link but while there may be companion dog traits most any breed can make a good companion for some one esp in this day in age where working breeds act like pet dogs they can fit more peoples lifestyle


----------



## sizzledog (Nov 23, 2008)

Xeph said:


> A good dog (at least a GSD) with good nerve has the ability to cap its drives and turn them on and off as necessary.


This describes my Dobermans to a "T" - their on/off switches are fantastic - today, the dogs stayed inside ALL day - and they were totally and completely fine. They are fantastic companions, I couldn't ask for better pets. 

My problem with breeding "companion dogs" is that the term "companion" means something different to each person. My idea of a companion isn't the same as my aunt's idea of a companion, which isn't the same as my neighbors' idea of a companion. 

We _love_ our Dobermans - for us, they are the best companions we could ever ask for. But we like athletic, intelligent, large dogs with a potent dose of natural protective instinct and world-renowned intuitiveness and handler-awareness.

That said, our next dog will be a mutt. We wanted a 30-40lb, short coated, long legged dog with prick ears, a longish muzzle and not predominantly white. She should be good with people and other dogs of both genders, should be athletic enough to keep up with the other dogs and our activities, but also have a very adaptable energy level.

... we couldn't find that in a purebred dog. But we did manage to find that in a specific type of mutt. But we're not getting said mutt from a breeder - she's going to be a rescue dog.

But is a Doberman an ideal companion dog for Joe Schmoe? Heck no!


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Ok so there are not enough pure companion breeds how do mixes help
> SOB what mixes are crosses of companion breeds meet.
> 
> I also read the corgi person link but while there may be companion dog traits most any breed can make a good companion for some one esp in this day in age where working breeds act like pet dogs they can fit more peoples lifestyle


It could be argued that mixing could downplay certain undesirable traits found in purebred companion dogs. For instance a pug or shih-tzu cross would have a longer muzzle, theoretically. IMO the mixing should happen with an end goal, for instance, of a new breed of dog. But it sounds like many people here have been resistant to that idea as well.

But then if I'm going to be totally honest, I'll admit that I don't have much of an issue with someone creating intentional mixed breed dogs so long as they are doing the health test necessary and have homes in line for the pups. Not everyone everyone is interested in whether or not their dog is purebred and in a world where there were no homeless dogs I wouldn't really care about purebred dog registries in the slightest (that's not to say other people shouldn't). I'd be happy to own a pariah type dog. Maybe that's besides the point. I don't know.

As for non-companion bred dogs being good companions, I feel like this has been gone over again and again. And I guess you just have to have a lot of experience with companion dogs to know the difference. To me, a companion dog doesn't mean that the dog is affectionate and friendly, or even that they make a superior house pet. I guess all I can say is that even Sydney seems to relate to people MUCH differently than, say, the shih-tzu and maltese I have met. And she's a very loving dog. Just not really the same in a way that's hard to describe. 

The only way I can describe it in somewhat concrete terms is, those dogs both would be happy to lie in your lap or right next to you all damn day and be contented at your presence and touch. But on the other hand Sydney is thrilled to sit on your lap or near you _so long as you are actively petting her_. If your hand stops moving she's going to go off and either find something to play with or someplace more comfortable to sleep. She just isn't much of a companion though she's a very loving dog. And these dogs have somewhat similar energy levels to Sydney as well, so it's not really that, that is different, either.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

kafkabeetle said:


> IMO the mixing should happen with an end goal, for instance, of a new breed of dog. But it sounds like many people here have been resistant to that idea as well.


 Here's my take on that: I honestly think mixing established breed is less damaging to the general dog population. If someone is trying to make a new breed, they need to breed a lot to get the breed type set, to establish their bloodlines. There'll be a lot of in-between puppies who don't fit what they're looking for, and they'll need to find suitable homes for all those puppies. If you can get what you want by mixing 2 (or 3 or 4) established breeds, there will be fewer excess puppies. 

There's also less damage to the parent breeds; there's really not a huge difference between breeding a purebred Poodle to a purebred Yorkie (for instance) and breeding her to another Poodle. You can still breed her to another Poodle next time. The parent breeds are still purebred. Whereas if you start trying to make a new breed, you have dogs who aren't Poodles and aren't Yorkies, and aren't the new breed, either. It just gets more complicated that way.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Here's my take on that: I honestly think mixing established breed is less damaging to the general dog population. If someone is trying to make a new breed, they need to breed a lot to get the breed type set, to establish their bloodlines. There'll be a lot of in-between puppies who don't fit what they're looking for, and they'll need to find suitable homes for all those puppies. If you can get what you want by mixing 2 (or 3 or 4) established breeds, there will be fewer excess puppies.
> 
> There's also less damage to the parent breeds; there's really not a huge difference between breeding a purebred Poodle to a purebred Yorkie (for instance) and breeding her to another Poodle. You can still breed her to another Poodle next time. The parent breeds are still purebred. Whereas if you start trying to make a new breed, you have dogs who aren't Poodles and aren't Yorkies, and aren't the new breed, either. It just gets more complicated that way.


I can't disagree with your sentiments here. Really the only issue I have with designer breeds is the fact that the "results" aren't all that predictable. But then I think the predictability of purebred dogs is also sometimes overstated, so I don't know how I feel about that distinction. Maybe a better "end goal" instead of just breeding willy nilly would be to breed healthy (hopefully healthier than their purebred parents), moderate dogs that are _wanted_, regardless of which breed they end up most resembling. That means health testing and finding homes for the dogs before they are born, the same types of things one would demand from a reputable breeder of purebreds.

I'm so far removed from the purebred dog scene I guess I'm not that opinionated about it. I just hate to see people being demonized for admitting that the dog that's best for them doesn't exist in any current breed. Because if that is true (and it absolutely is in my case), then I think it's wrong to say that mixed breeds (designer breeds, whatever propagandic name you prefer) shouldn't be bred, because it's basically the same as saying purebreds shouldn't be bred. Both end up in shelters routinely because of people who shouldn't have been breeding in the first place. Both could be suitable animals for someone if their births had been more responsibly managed. This isn't to say I don't realize a great majority of mixed breed breeders are bad, but if you look at percentages of breeders of purebreds I bet a large majority of them are pretty crappy bybers, too. 

And this may be an unscientific opinion, but so long as it's not done as a _replacement_ for health testing, but actually alongside it, I can't see how increasing the genetic diversity of pet dogs through mixed breeding could be a bad thing.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Here's my take on that: I honestly think mixing established breed is less damaging to the general dog population. If someone is trying to make a new breed, they need to breed a lot to get the breed type set, to establish their bloodlines. There'll be a lot of in-between puppies who don't fit what they're looking for, and they'll need to find suitable homes for all those puppies. If you can get what you want by mixing 2 (or 3 or 4) established breeds, there will be fewer excess puppies.
> 
> There's also less damage to the parent breeds; there's really not a huge difference between breeding a purebred Poodle to a purebred Yorkie (for instance) and breeding her to another Poodle. You can still breed her to another Poodle next time. The parent breeds are still purebred. Whereas if you start trying to make a new breed, you have dogs who aren't Poodles and aren't Yorkies, and aren't the new breed, either. It just gets more complicated that way.


Well, then. I guess there are a lot of large commercial kennels who are doing just the right thing for dogs. The thing is, you are assuming that people will get what they want by mixing a few breeds together. What if they don't? If this is the new paradigm, I certainly do expect to hear less negative comments about "your dog is MIX" from folks on here when new people come on proclaming that they have a designer pure bread snickerdoodle.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> If this is the new paradigm, I certainly do expect to hear less negative comments about "your dog is MIX" from folks on here when new people come on proclaming that they have a designer pure bread snickerdoodle.


Well, I would probably still let the person know that their dog is a mixed breed because...well it just IS a mixed breed dog. If they say their designer hybrid dog is a purebred it simply isn't true. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with those dogs being bred or not.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, then. I guess there are a lot of large commercial kennels who are doing just the right thing for dogs.


I think you're jumping a few logical steps here. She never said she thought ANY breeding should be done on a grand scale. Sounds like you're saying "Willowy thinks purposeful mixing of breeds can be useful and good/neutral for the parent breeds and therefore ok sometimes. Large commerical kennels think purposeful mixing of breeds is good too. Therefore Willowy thinks large commercial kennels are useful and good/neutral for the parent breed." Seems like you're conflating two separate issues that do often go hand in hand but not always and it's blurring the point she's trying to make.

You could say likewise, "I think only purebreds should be bred. Puppy mills often produce purebred dogs. Therefore puppymills are doing just the right thing for their dogs."


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Large commercial kennels are never doing the right thing by dogs. There is no humane way to mass-produce living creatures. Don't make it sound like support things I would never condone. I guess I could turn it around and say that YOU must support large commercial kennels who only produce purebreds. But that's just ridiculous. Someone who takes no care in health testing or in placing the right 2 dogs together, does not keep their breeding dogs humanely, who sells puppies to anybody with a wad of cash, can never be said to be doing anything right by dogs. Talk about strawman arguments?

And, yeah, if someone says they have a "purebred" Maltipoo---or if they say they have a "champion" purebred (bought from a pet shop)---has clearly been misled and should be told that (and if they spell it pure bread they certainly have a lot to learn!). I don't see how that has anything to do with whether it's OK to produce mixed-breed puppies or not.

And, sure, if someone can't get what they want by mixing a few established breeds, then making a whole new breed would be the way to go. Plenty of people have done it, too (Shilohs, King Shepherds, Silken Windhounds, Carlin Pinschers, etc). But F1 mixing IS less complicated.

I don't see why you would expect fewer negative comments in general. My opinions are mine; there are no hivemind forum opinions around here.

ETA: haha, thanks, kafka. I take too long to type!


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Here's my take on that: I honestly think mixing established breed is less damaging to the general dog population. If someone is trying to make a new breed, they need to breed a lot to get the breed type set, to establish their bloodlines. There'll be a lot of in-between puppies who don't fit what they're looking for, and they'll need to find suitable homes for all those puppies. If you can get what you want by mixing 2 (or 3 or 4) established breeds, there will be fewer excess puppies.
> 
> There's also less damage to the parent breeds; there's really not a huge difference between breeding a purebred Poodle to a purebred Yorkie (for instance) and breeding her to another Poodle. You can still breed her to another Poodle next time. The parent breeds are still purebred. Whereas if you start trying to make a new breed, you have dogs who aren't Poodles and aren't Yorkies, and aren't the new breed, either. It just gets more complicated that way.


I don't think you can say that by creating new breeds you're producing any more "excess" puppies than you would if you were breeding mutts or purebreds. There breeders of purebreds and mutts can breed lots and lots of dogs, too. There may be one or zero show quality puppies in a purebred breed's litter and so all of the rest of the puppies need to find pet homes. If a breeder is keeping show quality pups for themselves and they have people wanting to buy show quality pups, then they're going to have to breed several litters to get the dogs they want. 

Also if you're breeding all F1 type mutts, aren't ALL of your puppies the same thing as all of those "excess" mixed breed puppies produced by breeders trying to create a new breed? None of them fit within a predictable type or standard, whereas with the people creating a new breed, eventually they'll have a breed standard. 

What does "excess" mean, anyways? That it needs to go to a pet home? How is that such a bad thing? All breeders produce puppies that don't fit in to their breeding program all the time.

As far as it being complicated to create new breeds, I'll just let the people making new breeds worry about that. :biggrin1: But then again breeding good quality purebred dogs can be just as complicated.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

kafkabeetle said:


> I think you're jumping a few logical steps here. She never said she thought ANY breeding should be done on a grand scale. Sounds like you're saying "Willowy thinks purposeful mixing of breeds can be useful and good/neutral for the parent breeds and therefore ok sometimes. Large commerical kennels think purposeful mixing of breeds is good too. Therefore Willowy thinks large commercial kennels are useful and good/neutral for the parent breed." Seems like you're conflating two separate issues that do often go hand in hand but not always and it's blurring the point she's trying to make.
> 
> You could say likewise, "I think only purebreds should be bred. Puppy mills often produce purebred dogs. Therefore puppymills are doing just the right thing for their dogs."


Actually, that sounds more like one of Willowy's arguments than one of mine. I tend to say what I have to say without making massive generalizations. You could of course extrapolate that from what I said, but you'd be wrong about what I said. I've said before (and will probably say again) that I don't know that there aren't people responsibly making mixes, complete with studying pedigrees, health testing (which would be increasingly difficult, when you are dealing with a few different gene pools) and a solid long-term goal. I just have not met any of them. On the other hand I've met a number of careful, knowledgable, responsible breeders of purebreds. Because I think people should be able to breed the dogs they want, when I meet the people who are breeding mixes with the same care as the people I know who are breeding purebreds, I'll likely support them. (looking around) Where are they? The people I see making mixed breeds are A)kennels who generally don't do the study, health testing, or have any long term plan besides sellintg puppies, and B)the pet owner who wants another cute little mix just like the cute little mix they already have. When those people start breeding with the same care as the people who do those things with purebreds, I'll revise my opinion.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Nargle said:


> Also if you're breeding all F1 type mutts, aren't ALL of your puppies the same thing as all of those "excess" mixed breed puppies produced by breeders trying to create a new breed?


LOL, yeah, I guess so. But I'm assuming someone is breeding because they want a particular type of dog. If what they want is a Yorkie/Poodle mix, then, well, they got it, in one generation. If their goals are farther removed, they're going to have puppies who aren't what they're looking for. But probably they are what SOMEONE is looking for (just like pet-quality pups when the breeder is trying for show-quality). So I guess it is all the same in the long run.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> I tend to say what I have to say without making massive generalizations.





Pawzk9 said:


> Well, then. I guess there are a lot of large commercial kennels who are doing just the right thing for dogs


???

And then you insult me. That's nice.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Willowy said:


> LOL, yeah, I guess so. But I'm assuming someone is breeding because they want a particular type of dog. If what they want is a Yorkie/Poodle mix, then, well, they got it, in one generation. If their goals are farther removed, they're going to have puppies who aren't what they're looking for. But probably they are what SOMEONE is looking for (just like pet-quality pups when the breeder is trying for show-quality). So I guess it is all the same in the long run.


I guess if all they want is to be able to call their dog a "Yorkiepoo" then they've accomplished their goal in one generation. But if they want a certain set of traits and they're trying to get a dog with those traits by breeding a Yorkie and a Poodle then it's still just a crapshoot and there's no guarantee that they'll get what they want. If they want to be able to produce dogs with certain characteristics consistently, then they're going to have to take the same steps as one trying to create an entirely new breed.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> You could of course extrapolate that from what I said, but you'd be wrong about what I said.


Err... I think it might be worth me piling in here and saying that I extrapolated the same information from your post as did Willowy and Kafka. My initial reaction, too, was "What? Where did that come from? Pretty sure Willowy was never advocating large-scale commmercial breeding... So maybe you weren't as clear as you thought?



Pawzk9 said:


> When those people start breeding with the same care as the people who do those things with purebreds, I'll revise my opinion.


So, wait... what you're saying is that supposing you found a breeder attempting to create a mixed breed or a new breed who breeds with the same care that, say, you did when you bred your Aussie litter(s) (I think I remember reading that you've been a breeder before, correct me if I'm wrong), you'd change your opinion and consider approving them? 

If that's the case, I don't really think you guys are actually disagreeing. It seems like one argument is "I'm okay with mixed breeds and creating new breeds as long as the breeder does proper health testing etc that any reputable purebred breeder I'd support does" and the other argument is... "I'm okay with mixed breeds and creating new breeds as long as the breeder does proper health testing etc that any reputable purebred breeder I'd support does."

????


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> ???
> 
> And then you insult me. That's nice.


No. I didn't. But semi-clever redirection there. (is that a compliment?)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

CricketLoops said:


> So, wait... what you're saying is that supposing you found a breeder attempting to create a mixed breed or a new breed who breeds with the same care that, say, you did when you bred your Aussie litter(s) (I think I remember reading that you've been a breeder before, correct me if I'm wrong), you'd change your opinion and consider approving them?
> 
> If that's the case, I don't really think you guys are actually disagreeing. It seems like one argument is "I'm okay with mixed breeds and creating new breeds as long as the breeder does proper health testing etc that any reputable purebred breeder I'd support does" and the other argument is... "I'm okay with mixed breeds and creating new breeds as long as the breeder does proper health testing etc that any reputable purebred breeder I'd support does."
> 
> ????


No. I've said that all along. I just haven't seen that happening. And I wonder if the people supporting breeding for mixes here are possibly living in a parallel universe where it does. That would explain why they are able to support the intentional breeding of mixes without, apparently, supporting the people who are actually doing so.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I've never met a responsible breeder. Of any breed/mix. Ever. Should I extrapolate from my experience that responsible breeders do not exist? If I can support the intentional breeding of any dog without, apparently, supporting the people who do so, what difference is it to me if they're breeding purebreds or mixes? 

It's really all theoretical to me, since it seems like breeders who health test and take good care of their dogs are like Bigfoot: his existence is possible, other people say they've seen him, but he's elusive and hard to find.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I've never met a responsible breeder. Of any breed/mix. Ever. Should I extrapolate from my experience that responsible breeders do not exist? If I can support the intentional breeding of any dog without, apparently, supporting the people who do so, what difference is it to me if they're breeding purebreds or mixes?
> 
> It's really all theoretical to me, since it seems like breeders who health test and take good care of their dogs are like Bigfoot: his existence is possible, other people say they've seen him, but he's elusive and hard to find.


Wow. You really do need to get out more. I gotta say that personally, the responsible breeders I know number in the 100s. That's not just people I've "heard of." People I know. I don't know anyone breeding mixes that way, though. And I'm probably around as many mixed breeds as purebred. If I had never met a decent breeder, I probably could not support breeding. But then, I don't really think you do.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

sizzledog said:


> My problem with breeding "companion dogs" is that the term "companion" means something different to each person. My idea of a companion isn't the same as my aunt's idea of a companion, which isn't the same as my neighbors' idea of a companion.


I think this is a nicely succinct way of putting what several of us were trying to say earlier in the thread


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Wow. You really do need to get out more. I gotta say that personally, the responsible breeders I know number in the 100s. That's not just people I've "heard of." People I know. I don't know anyone breeding mixes that way, though. And I'm probably around as many mixed breeds as purebred. If I had never met a decent breeder, I probably could not support breeding. But then, I don't really think you do.


LOL, I probably don't. As you say, it's hard to be in favor of something when you don't know anyone doing it responsibly. Although I suspect I will someday want to get a dog from a breeder. Which makes for quite the moral conundrum, doesn't it? So I hope responsible breeders exist, and I hope I can find one who is producing what I want when that time comes.

I'm not sure what to make of the comment that I need to "get out more". Get out where? Where do these hundreds of responsible breeders gather? I know nearly everyone in town (working at the Post Office will do that), although it is a pretty small town, and there are none here that I know of or have heard about. Where does a normal dog owner meet responsible breeders? I would not be welcome in the "dog world", or at least it was made pretty clear to me that I wasn't welcome when Penny was in the AKC obedience class. They were polite to a paying customer, but mutt owners need not apply for further club activities. I have zero patience for exclusion, infighting and cattiness, and I find that most clubs and groups (of any sort) have plenty of that. So joining a club is out. Help out at the shelter? I've done a bit of that, but most of them are pretty anti-breeding in general so I doubt I'd be meeting hundreds of fine breeders there.

So. I should get out more. Out to where?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> I gotta say that personally, the responsible breeders I know number in the 100s. That's not just people I've "heard of." People I know. I don't know anyone breeding mixes that way, though. And I'm probably around as many mixed breeds as purebred.


Considering the crowd you run with, if someone in that crowd did want to start breeding mixes responsibly, what kind of response do you think they'd get? Kicked out of the purebred club? Shunned by the purebred breeders? I would guess that if anybody did attempt that, you wouldn't "know them" anymore. How many of the mixed breeds you're around were purposely bred?


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

> So. I should get out more. Out to where?


Non-AKC performance events. AKC too, you'll see a lot of the same people, but there is a purebred bias. A lot of non-AKC performance dogs are shelter/rescue/whatever mixes, but there are a lot of people who breed specifically for performance. That can be hit or miss too, responsibility wise, but it's a start.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Ha, you mistake this for a state where things actually happen! If I learned of a non-AKC dog event in the area, I'd definitely go (except I won't go to hunt trials). Maybe even as far as Omaha if I could get off work. But I can't just go flitting off to Minneapolis or whatever cities in Wisconsin have events, at least not very often.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I'm not sure what to make of the comment that I need to "get out more". Get out where? Where do these hundreds of responsible breeders gather? I know nearly everyone in town (working at the Post Office will do that), although it is a pretty small town, and there are none here that I know of or have heard about. Where does a normal dog owner meet responsible breeders? I would not be welcome in the "dog world", or at least it was made pretty clear to me that I wasn't welcome when Penny was in the AKC obedience class. They were polite to a paying customer, but mutt owners need not apply for further club activities. I have zero patience for exclusion, infighting and cattiness, and I find that most clubs and groups (of any sort) have plenty of that. So joining a club is out. Help out at the shelter? I've done a bit of that, but most of them are pretty anti-breeding in general so I doubt I'd be meeting hundreds of fine breeders there.
> 
> So. I should get out more. Out to where?


Shrug. AKC doesn't hold obedience classes. Clubs can be sort of clique-y but I suppose I am thicker skinned than that (or don't take things as personally). Any more there are hardly any venues (including AKC) where mixed breeds can't compete, and a ton of sports and venues to choose from. Back when I started there was basically AKC and there was conformation and obedience (and a few breed-specific sports. Not even a herding program). No Rally, No Agility. Despite not having an AKC breed I went through the process of becoming a club member. THEN I started fighting to get non-AKC achievements recognized by the club. And accomplished that. And was one of the first people in the nation to participate in a Gaines Regional Obedience Tournament with a non-AKC breed. Not because I got a lot of support, but because it was what I wanted. And if you participate and compete at a national level and around the people at the national level in a number of sports, you meet lots of people, including a lot of breeders. Including a lot of people whose passion is their dogs and their dog sports. And you find out that a lot of the BS is on the surface, and a lot of what looks like snootiness is just normal people who are just pre-occuped with their own thing and it has nothing to do with them liking or not liking you. Of course if you never go further than the post office and have no interest in organized sports with dogs and that culture, your opportunities to meet breeders of the better sort are probably pretty limited. If you don't put yourself in situations to meet people who are involved with dogs, it's not surprising you don't know any in real life. And nobody's fault but your own.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Considering the crowd you run with, if someone in that crowd did want to start breeding mixes responsibly, what kind of response do you think they'd get? Kicked out of the purebred club? Shunned by the purebred breeders? I would guess that if anybody did attempt that, you wouldn't "know them" anymore. How many of the mixed breeds you're around were purposely bred?


Some would be pretty narrow minded about it. Some probably not. If they were breeding them with the same care as good PB breeders, I wouldn't mind knowing them. I learned some stuff from Gary Ericsson after he developed the HT Cowdogs. Couldn't deal with the whole ecollar thing though. The thing is. with the AR crowd snapping at ALL breeders' heels these days (and a lot of the public gullable enough to buy into it) dog enthusiasts need to look at the fact that everybody's a target. If someone's breeding with care, AR doesn't need our help to drag them down. And if we do, we may be next. And if we are that stupid, we probably deserve to be next, simply by Darwinian law. I'd say that maybe a third of the mixes I see were bred on purpose, but don't come from anyone who studies pedigrees, participates in health studies and health screening and mentors their puppy buyers. I do know the stories behind most of my student dogs. Just the other week, I emailed a breeder across the country to thank her for breeding such a lovely pup as the one I have in class.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Actually, that sounds more like one of Willowy's arguments than one of mine. I tend to say what I have to say without making massive generalizations. You could of course extrapolate that from what I said, but you'd be wrong about what I said. I've said before (and will probably say again) that I don't know that there aren't people responsibly making mixes, complete with studying pedigrees, health testing (which would be increasingly difficult, when you are dealing with a few different gene pools) and a solid long-term goal. I just have not met any of them. On the other hand I've met a number of careful, knowledgable, responsible breeders of purebreds. Because I think people should be able to breed the dogs they want, when I meet the people who are breeding mixes with the same care as the people I know who are breeding purebreds, I'll likely support them. (looking around) Where are they? The people I see making mixed breeds are A)kennels who generally don't do the study, health testing, or have any long term plan besides sellintg puppies, and B)the pet owner who wants another cute little mix just like the cute little mix they already have. When those people start breeding with the same care as the people who do those things with purebreds, I'll revise my opinion.


Unfortunately, I am uninterested in what people "tend" to say. I was commenting on what you DID say. Fortunately, though, I don't think we're in much disagreement, since it seems the argument was hypothetical and in that hypothetical situation you wouldn't have a problem with mixed breeding either. In all honesty, I can't point out a good breeder of mixed breeds, but then I can't point out a good purebred breeder either. I'm not that interested in breeders as it stands right now, because I can get a suitable enough dog from a shelter. Btw, that's not meant to insult breeders or people who buy from them.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Ha, you mistake this for a state where things actually happen! If I learned of a non-AKC dog event in the area, I'd definitely go (except I won't go to hunt trials). Maybe even as far as Omaha if I could get off work. But I can't just go flitting off to Minneapolis or whatever cities in Wisconsin have events, at least not very often.


You wouldn't expect Oklahoma to be a hotbed of dog sports. But the fact is, in the fall and spring, I could compete every week if I had the time and the entry fees. In addition to AKC, we have AHBA, WCFO, APDT, UKC, USDAA, TDAA (for the little dogs) and NADAC. We did have ASCA as well, but now I have to go to neighboring states for that (usually TX)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If they don't want me around, I'm not going to force myself on them. It's pretty unrealistic to expect average dog owners to do that kind of thing. I have no interest in competition of any sort. And sure, it's my choice not to participate in dog things but why would I care if I know any decent breeders? If they want me to have a better opinion of breeders that's their problem. If they don't care what I think of breeders in general than I guess we're even. 

I was just pointing out that one's personal experience doesn't mean much. And that most "normal" people don't run into excellent breeders in their everyday lives. They run into crummy breeders all the time, but I suppose that's because they advertise, network, shmooze etc. in order to sell their puppies to the public. If that's how "dog people" want it than I guess it's going well. If that's not how "dog people" want it than something has to change.

AKC doesn't have obedience classes? Do local AKC chapters? Because all the paperwork had an AKC logos, and I went to the "AKC building at the fairgrounds". I dunno. I only went because I thought they'd be better than classes at PetCo.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

kafkabeetle said:


> Unfortunately, I am uninterested in what people "tend" to say. I was commenting on what you DID say. Fortunately, though, I don't think we're in much disagreement, since it seems the argument was hypothetical and in that hypothetical situation you wouldn't have a problem with mixed breeding either. In all honesty, I can't point out a good breeder of mixed breeds, but then I can't point out a good purebred breeder either. I'm not that interested in breeders as it stands right now, because I can get a suitable enough dog from a shelter. Btw, that's not meant to insult breeders or people who buy from them.


I think it is fine if you get the dogs that suit you from the shelters. I've had a few. For the dogs I want, breeders are better. And I can point out a whole passle of really good purebred breeders. From the very beginning of this discussion, I said I would have no problem with someone breeding mixes with health research and a solid goal in mind (and mentorship of their puppy buyers). But despite being very involved in the dog world, and with both purebreds and mixes as part of my occupation, it's just not something I've seen. If someone knows some of these excellent breeders of mixed breeds, I'd be happy to have them pointed out to me.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> If they don't want me around, I'm not going to force myself on them. It's pretty unrealistic to expect average dog owners to do that kind of thing. I have no interest in competition of any sort. And sure, it's my choice not to participate in dog things but why would I care if I know any decent breeders? If they want me to have a better opinion of breeders that's their problem. If they don't care what I think of breeders in general than I guess we're even.
> 
> I was just pointing out that one's personal experience doesn't mean much. And that most "normal" people don't run into excellent breeders in their everyday lives. They run into crummy breeders all the time, but I suppose that's because they advertise, network, shmooze etc. in order to sell their puppies to the public. If that's how "dog people" want it than I guess it's going well. If that's not how "dog people" want it than something has to change.
> 
> AKC doesn't have obedience classes? Do local AKC chapters? Because all the paperwork had an AKC logos, and I went to the "AKC building at the fairgrounds". I dunno. I only went because I thought they'd be better than classes at PetCo.


AKC doesn't have chapters. If you don't want to know about breeders, no reason you should. But it does make your opinion about them hinge on pretty shaky ground. People who are interested in things will find out about them and seek them out. People who aren't will blame others for their lack of curiosity/tenacity. For basic pet manners, I would guess Petsmart /Petco is probably as good a choice as the local obedience club because they are teaching pet skills instead of concentaiting early on competition skills. If someone doesn't want me around, but I want to be around, I'll stick it out and make myself valuable.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, I don't know who those people were then, lol. I wonder if AKC knows they're using their logo on their paperwork. 

I think a "consumer" has a right to have an opinion about something. I have no interest in meeting the people who make the food I eat, and I don't really want to know everything about how they process and package it, but I definitely have opinions about certain aspects of food production and processing. And so as a person who will always have a dog (and even if I get the dog from a shelter _somebody_ bred the dog), I think I'm entitled to have opinions about their production.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Well, I don't know who those people were then, lol. I wonder if AKC knows they're using their logo on their paperwork.
> 
> I think a "consumer" has a right to have an opinion about something. I have no interest in meeting the people who make the food I eat, and I don't really want to know everything about how they process and package it, but I definitely have opinions about certain aspects of food production and processing. And so as a person who will always have a dog (and even if I get the dog from a shelter _somebody_ bred the dog), I think I'm entitled to have opinions about their production.


Well, I'm sure we've all heard the old saying about what else opinions are a lot like (hint: we all have one) That said, I'm not interested in opinions which aren't based on at least a modicum of first hand knowledge or fact. For that matter, if I am interested in aspects of food production and processing, I am also interested in the people who produce that food and how they process and package it. If I am interested in details, I can chart my own course and make informed choices. Otherwise I'm just a hysteric screaming into the wind. Lots of that going on these days.


----------

