# whats wrong with breeding mutts?



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

I wouldn't ever breed a mixed breed but I don't see whats wrong with it *IF* the breeder does OFA testing and only breeds tempermentaly stable dogs, and sells the dog on a spay/neuter contract to a Sporting home with a return request if the new owner desides they don't want the dog anymore.

my breed wouldn't exsist if dog breeds weren't allowed to mix for proper reasons.

I know there are more unethical mixed breed breeders outthere than there are purebred breeders but there are also ethical mixed breed breeders(even though they are rare) just as there are also ethical purebred breeders.

the reason I posted this was because I was reading some posts where people where saying "people should NEVER breed mixes"


----------



## skelaki (Nov 9, 2006)

Keechak said:


> I wouldn't ever breed a mixed breed but I don't see whats wrong with it *IF* the breeder does OFA testing and only breeds tempermentaly stable dogs, and sells the dog on a spay/neuter contract to a Sporting home with a return request if the new owner desides they don't want the dog anymore.
> 
> Someone just putting two dogs in the backyard and letting them do their thing, or a person putting two, probably poor quality, purebreds together to make money off the latest designer breed fashion is highly unlikely to do any testing, have contracts, or be willing to take the dog back. In the first case, it would probably be due more to ignorance and in the second more to greed.
> 
> ...


 
Go to your local shelter sometime and just take a look at all the random bred dogs, Poo crosses, and even purebreds (almost always from BYBs or puppymill sources) that are there. Then come back and tell us you think we're wrong.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

One big problem I can see is that the 2 dogs being bred with all the health tests and temperament tests etc could indeed pass tests/exams etc with flying colors. What about their parents/grandparents, great grandparents etc. Who tested them? I believe this is another question throw out here that will just a useless ruckus. Instead of asking what's wrong with the breeding, the question should be what's right with it. I'm in and out of this thread. Everybody have fun and play nice.


----------



## Farore (Apr 20, 2008)

So many people think that their dog is so "great" and such a good dog which may be true, but we have so many dogs already put here by those same people. The problem is, that usually people only want to see puppies and then realize they have to get rid of them. They can't really sell them because they are not purebred or even pure mixes. Besides, each mutt is completely different, seeing as it came from a different family. You have no idea where it's come from or what its family was. Even if you have two dogs that look alike, they may have completely different breeds.


----------



## tirluc (Aug 29, 2006)

i think what Keechak is asking here is, if a person has in mind a certain look/temperment/purpose/etc. in a mix and are striving to obtain that, and is going thru all the "right" tests, etc, what is wrong w/ taking say a Lab and a Poodle to make the ultimate service dog for those that are sensative to the coats of Labs.....i'm not saying that it's going to happen overnight, it takes yrs and generations to achieve, but, let's face it folks, alot of our breeds (actually, i'm assuming all, here) we have today wouldn't even exist if it weren't for even those mishap breedings....they happened, someone saw a whole new type of dog in that litter, for something more than what the parents were used for, and continued the lines....no, you won't get the same things every single time so, just like when you don't get exactly what you want in a purebred dog, you "weed out" (not allow the breeding of) the unwanted traits and concentrate on the wanted.....this is how all new breeds developed over time....even in the best of lines today you will have pups that just don't measure up...it happens...some gundogs are gun shy, some herding breeds could care less about livestock, etc.....but they still make someone a good pet (s/n)......


----------



## skelaki (Nov 9, 2006)

I didn't get from the OP's post that she was talking about creating a breed, just about breeding mutts if the breeder tested and otherwise acted like a responsible breeder.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Consider the following - note the numbers I use are ballpark for illustration of my point. I believe they a representative of the actual situation:

In order to maintain the dog population at the level necessary to allow people to have dogs as pets, 6-8 million puppies need to be born each year regardless of the number of dogs in shelters.

Reputable breeders produce, at most, a few hundred thousand, certainly less then a million, puppies each year, and show no interest in increasing that number.

This leaves at least 6+ million puppies that need to come from somewhere.
Between .5 and 1 million pups come from mills, and 5+ million come from BYBs and oops litters.

Each hybrid pup produced from tested parents and raised in a healthy environment reduces the demand for a mill or bad BYB pup and therefore improves the overall welfare of dogs.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

well what came to mind for me was the alaskan husky. there are some people who specialize in long distance races here in the US and I have seen some of them who used to breed siberian huskys to greyhounds to get their desired speed. these few people of course needed a very healthy dog (other wise they would loose the race if their dog suddanly came up lame from hip dysplatia or droped dead from a hearditary heart problem.)

and if some family is really into hunting and within this family just happenes to be two MH dogs perhaps one a golden retreiver and one a Labrador retreiver. these two dogs have both proven their working ability. and if all the proper testing is done ect. ect. whats wrong with them breeding these two to create their ultimate field retrieving dog?

I guess I didn't make it clear in the first post. what I mean is mixing breeds for a purpose other than simple looks.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

The first time I went to some Sled Dog Races, other than a couple of teams of purebred dogs, all the rest were crossed with Greyhounds and other breeds to get the speed they now expect in some types of races. I am talking about a huge amount of dogs. I doubt very much that very many of them were tested in any way. They certainly were not the type of Sled Dogs I expected to see.


----------



## craven.44 (Sep 10, 2008)

Kasey- When every single dog in a shelter or rescue has a good home, then I will have to agree with your post. If there is no alternative to shelters and people were educated about rescue, maybe we could accomplish getting everyone out of shelters and allow people to breed.


----------



## sheltiemom (Mar 13, 2007)

Keechak said:


> and if some family is really into hunting and within this family just happenes to be two MH dogs perhaps one a golden retreiver and one a Labrador retreiver. these two dogs have both proven their working ability. and if all the proper testing is done ect. ect. whats wrong with them breeding these two to create their ultimate field retrieving dog?


This is what my uncle did over the summer...bred his golden and his lab...he hunts with both and wanted another hunting dog. I have mixed feelings about it, on one hand, large lab mixes, puppies and adults, are flooding the shelters around here. On the other hand, he was breeding working dogs for a purpose. The pups he didn't keep were given to his friends, other working homes. It's tricky, the people who took those pups are not people who would have gone to a shelter and adopted a mix...even though they didn't care about breed, they wanted pups out of proven hunting dogs. Not saying I approve of this, I just don't know. I was offered a puppy too and turned it down.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

wvasko said:


> One big problem I can see is that the 2 dogs being bred with all the health tests and temperament tests etc could indeed pass tests/exams etc with flying colors. What about their parents/grandparents, great grandparents etc. Who tested them? I believe this is another question throw out here that will just a useless ruckus. Instead of asking what's wrong with the breeding, the question should be what's right with it. I'm in and out of this thread. Everybody have fun and play nice.


This is it, exactly. Because the ethical purebred people are NOT going to let you buy a puppy from them to produce a mutt, or breed your purebred girl of another breed to their dog, with VERY few exceptions. (And I suspect a lot of those exceptions are more accidental than intentional- ie, they knew you intended to breed the dog but didn't realize to what.) So at best, you've got two dogs with health testing on themselves, but nothing much done on the parents and so on. 

Next, the problem I have is that typically people breeding mixes are not proving the dogs by working or performance sports. The flyball dog crosses (staffiejacks, etc) and the working farmcollie crosses (usually ES x collie or BC x collie) are two exceptions, but I see every other doodle breeder bragging "Non-allergenic! Bred for service dogs!" when there's not a single dog with an OBEDIENCE title in the pedigree, or anything else to indicate trainability, good nerves, and good drive. (And it's not to say that dogs from untitled parents or rescues can't be good service dog prospects, but when they're advertising them like that? That's INCREDIBLY deceptive.) CGC certificates are nice - but they're not much of a test, to be honest. 

Cait


----------



## tirluc (Aug 29, 2006)

Dogstar, i agree w/ you....and don't get me wrong, i have no intentions of starting my own line of Border/?.....but if the parents _are_ titled, certified, proven, etc., and they were crossed to get the best of both (and yes, there are already breeds out there that can probably do what most anyone would be trying to achieve) _and_ they only breed selectively, for certain traits, then they are not doing anything more than the purebred breeders doing the same thing....the difference being, i still don't think that any mix should be going at 2,3,5 times the amount as any purebred that has proven lines for generations back.....but, neither should the "run of the mill" purebreds you can find in the ads, either....'doodles, 'poos,"Teddy Bears" all being sold at $500 and better?...let's get real...they are still a mix.....


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

If the breeder is legitimately trying to develop a new breed and is doing things correctly, there's nothing wrong with breeding mixes. MANY of the breeds we have today were developed this way including the Doberman, which was developed using the Rottweiler, Beauceron, Manchester Terrier, Greyhound and the German Pinscher. It was developed as a protection dog for tax collectors The Standard for the Doberman was drawn up in 1899.
http://www.barkbytes.com/history/dobie.htm

The Bull-mastiff was developed the same way in England, a mixture of 60% Bulldog and 40% Mastiff (to curb the Bulldogs ferocity, we're not talking abut the EBs you see today) to guard estates from poachers.

http://www.bullmastiffinfo.org/thebmf.htm


IMO, there has to be several factors for development of a breed in this manner. Including the PURPOSE for development. The stock used should be of EXCELLENT quality (hard to do in this day and age because the breeders that produce top quality dogs DON'T sell to those who wish to mix). They should also NOT be selling to the general public until the breed type and standard is established (which takes 6-10 generations) and a breed club can start working to prove these dogs in their shows and working competition. 

These circumstances are the ONLY time mixes should be bred. The CURRENT fad of mixing to provide 'fashionable' dogs by BYB and puppy-millers is wrong and is ONLY hurting the American dog population.

Also, remember that there are people on here that think NO ONE should breed while there are dogs in shelters. I think this attitude is extreame, but I understand where they are coming from.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

craven.44 said:


> Kasey- When every single dog in a shelter or rescue has a good home, then I will have to agree with your post. If there is no alternative to shelters and people were educated about rescue, maybe we could accomplish getting everyone out of shelters and allow people to breed.



No matter what you do to decrease the number of dogs in shelters, there still needs to be 5+ million puppies born each year in addition to the pups produced by "reputable" breeders in order to avoid the catastrophic effects of a major shortage of dogs.

If we are going to eliminate puppy mills and careless oops litters, something need to take their place. If reputable breeders aren't willing to do it, who should? Doodle breeders, or Mexican puppy mills smuggling half dead puppies through the desert in unconditioned trucks?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

There will never be 'no dogs left' in shelters... it's impossible. There will always be dogs that, for whatever reason, will not find a home, whether because of health, temperament issues, etc. The shelters will never be 'empty'.

However, the current percentage of total dogs that are killed annually in shelters is only *5%* of the total U.S. population of dogs.



> Here at the beginning of the twenty-first century, over fifty million household dogs live in the United States. Europe houses an estimated thirty-five million. ... If I add Canadian dogs to these populations, I get one hundred million household dogs in the industrial West.
> 
> In the United States each year, households produce 3,700,000 puppies. Hobby breeders produce another two million, and half a million are produced by commercial breeders for department store and other retail sales. That is a turnover of 6,200,000 dogs a year. If the population is not going up or down, then 6,200,000 dogs die every year. That is a 12 percent annual mortality rate, which for a species with a life span of a little over ten years is a low mortality rate in the wild.
> 
> In the United states, four million of these dogs spend part of a year in animal shelters. For 2,400,000 of them it is the last stop. Almost 5 percent of our companion animals are dogs nobody wants, and they get "put to sleep." Culled. Again, disaster for the individual dog. Some of this culling may be related to competition between people and dogs for food resources. People soon decide they can't afford the dog, and turn them over to humane societies


Do shelters kill more animals than they have to? Yes, I honestly believe the numbers could be lower, and greater community outreach and education can achieve that. I believe that before the 1980s and the rise of Spay/Neuter education, nearly 15 million animals died in shelters... so things HAVE gotten better. But the number will never be 'zero', because people will never be perfect. 
It is not reasonable to demand things be 'perfect' before people can be allowed to buy a dog or responsibly breed a dog without being demonized for it.


----------



## Stelladog (Aug 18, 2008)

Breeding mutts seems fine to me. Shouldn't be any better or worse then pure breeding. But I've always assumed the whole pure breed/pedigree stuff was just made up as an industry/interest for people.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

If you're referring to those who mass breed, you're right. However, if you mean those who are responsibly breeding to improve the health, conformedion and working ability I their chosen breed you're VERY wrong. Responsible breeders don't turn a profit on their dogs. They are in the breed for the love of it. That's something you won't see with the type of people who are breeding mixes such as the currently fashionable designer breeds.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> If you're referring to those who mass breed, you're right. However, if you mean those who are responsibly breeding to improve the health, conformedion and working ability I their chosen breed you're VERY wrong. Responsible breeders don't turn a profit on their dogs. They are in the breed for the love of it. That's something you won't see with the type of people who are breeding mixes such as the currently fashionable designer breeds.


I believe to that 50 or 75 yrs and much longer ago when many breeds were started there was much more control of the started new breed. Now when somebody hears about a doodle online they want to try their hand at doodling. then you have new doodles coming up all over the world. I don't believe this helps start anything. I hope all this doodling was not confusing.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

> If we are going to eliminate puppy mills and careless oops litters, something need to take their place.


I'd say that's putting the cart before the horse. 

AFTER we eliminate puppy mills and oops litters, THEN we can talk supply and demand.


----------



## Moonshadow (Nov 9, 2008)

KaseyT said:


> No matter what you do to decrease the number of dogs in shelters, there still needs to be 5+ million puppies born each year in addition to the pups produced by "reputable" breeders in order to avoid the catastrophic effects of a major shortage of dogs.
> 
> If we are going to eliminate puppy mills and careless oops litters, something need to take their place. If reputable breeders aren't willing to do it, who should? Doodle breeders, or Mexican puppy mills smuggling half dead puppies through the desert in unconditioned trucks?


What exactly would be the catastrophic effects of people not being able to go out and get a puppy on a whim? Perhaps they would have to wait for something they want? Perhaps they would learn to value dogs and not just treat them like a piece of furniture? Maybe they would think twice before they dumped their dog into a shelter because they were moving and knew that in a few months they could just go and get another puppy when it was more convienient for them.

It is not necessary for a person to have a dog. Food, clothing and shelter....they are necessities, dogs are a bonus in life. No one will die if they can't have a dog.

Nothing needs to take the place of puppy mills. You can say how many million dogs our country needs to produce in a year to satisfy the demand for them but how many of these dogs in our country live horrible lives? How many live outside in a pen with little or no human contact? How many are tied out to a tree with no shelter? How many are simply not cared for because the people that have them and haven't yet dumped them in a shelter just don't give a crap about them? How many are now being abandoned in homes because their owners have lost their houses? So many times you hear about people not being able to afford treatment for their dog and the dog is put to sleep. In my opinion NONE of these people should have a dog in the first place. 

I would hope that if someday dogs were harder to get that these people who have no intentions of loving and caring for their dogs properly would just give up and not have a dog.

Go and spend some time at not a shelter but a large animal hospital. Don't even look at the dogs that are being dumped but look at those that have homes and aren't cared for and are put to sleep because the people either won't spend money on them or are just too lazy and can't be bothered saving their dog. Watch the people that refuse to buy the medication for their dogs and choose to let them suffer because they are too cheap to care for them. Look at the dogs that come in with maggots on them or injuries that you know didn't just happen because the dog "slipped". 

You need to look at the whole picture here. Just because people want dogs doesn't mean that they should have them. Just because there is a demand for a "product" doesn't mean that there should be a supply. The only people that think like that are those who are looking to make money on the demand.

And no....I will never agree with breeding mutts for any reason. Nothing will ever change my mind. God himself could come and sit down next to me and tell me that I should support the breeding of Doodles and I would kick him out!

I have to ask you though....you seem to always pop in and support the breeding of mixes....are you planning on breeding your golden?


----------



## ambercober (Jan 1, 2009)

Moonshadow said:


> Just because people want dogs doesn't mean that they should have them. Just because there is a demand for a "product" doesn't mean that there should be a supply.


That's very well put, it's a shame how many people out there make the decision to get a dog at the drop of a hat. I hate to see the "but he's so cute" and the "wouldn't it be nice" get forgotton once the new baby comes home, a new job out east comes up, or the worst... when they just can't train a dog and he destroys everything in the house!

For my husband and I, we decided to get a dog a few years ago and we knew it was a big decision. I spent my time dog sitting and walking dogs and dogsitting to see if I really wanted a dog or just liked the 'idea' of having a dog. Turns out picking up poop wasn't that bad *L, so after 6 months of that we went to the shelter and adopted a dog that I had known before that was given up.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

Moonshadow said:


> What exactly would be the catastrophic effects of people not being able to go out and get a puppy on a whim? Perhaps they would have to wait for something they want? Perhaps they would learn to value dogs and not just treat them like a piece of furniture? Maybe they would think twice before they dumped their dog into a shelter because they were moving and knew that in a few months they could just go and get another puppy when it was more convienient for them.
> 
> It is not necessary for a person to have a dog. Food, clothing and shelter....they are necessities, dogs are a bonus in life. No one will die if they can't have a dog.
> 
> ...



It's not about what "should" be, it's about what "is". Puppies are a commondiy. You may not like this fact, but that doesn't make it less true.

If you reduce the supply without reducing the demand, the value of the commodity will increase. As the value increases, someone will find a way to supply the demand and reap the additional profits. Who would you prefer that someone to be?

If you know a way to reduce the demand, I'd like to hear it.

My Golden was spayed at 6 mo.

The popularly of poodle mixes has only benefited the overall welfare of dogs.
Every poodle mix sold reduces the demand for a puppy much more likely to end up in a shelter or come to some other bad end. That all I care about.



RonE said:


> I'd say that's putting the cart before the horse.
> 
> AFTER we eliminate puppy mills and oops litters, THEN we can talk supply and demand.



The ONLY way to eliminate puppy mills is to reduce the demand for puppy mill puppies. The ONLY way to reduce the demand for puppy mill puppies is to provide an acceptable alternative.

"Reputable" breeders and unwilling and unable to provide that alternative. That leaves BYBs. Among BYBs, hybrid breeders provide the dogs least likely to end up in shelters and least likely to genetically damage breed lines and least likely to pass genetic health defects beyond one generation.

The only other alternative is to give dogs a differently legal status then other animals. So far as I know no one is working toward this.



cshellenberger said:


> If you're referring to those who mass breed, you're right. However, if you mean those who are responsibly breeding to improve the health, conformedion and working ability I their chosen breed you're VERY wrong. Responsible breeders don't turn a profit on their dogs. They are in the breed for the love of it. That's something you won't see with the type of people who are breeding mixes such as the currently fashionable designer breeds.


The "responsible" breeders you are describing provide less than 10% of the puppies required to maintain the current pet dog population. Their impact on the overall welfare of dogs is minimal.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

wvasko said:


> I believe to that 50 or 75 yrs and much longer ago when many breeds were started there was much more control of the started new breed. Now when somebody hears about a doodle online they want to try their hand at doodling. then you have new doodles coming up all over the world. I don't believe this helps start anything. I hope all this doodling was not confusing.


 
True, and 50-75 years ago dogs were a luxury item and breeding them was know to be only for those with the $$$ to do so, not an endevor for the 'common' person. Quality stock was more readily available for those with the $$$ to start a program to develop and new breed and it was done carefully and with a lot of thought. Of course not all was rosy, it was common practice to cull the weak pups or those pups that didn't meet standard in color, type or temperment. 

Then the USDA stepped in and encouraged farmers to to start mass breeding of dogs to meet the pet demand. Dog breeding started to become an avenue to make a quick buck.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well in fairness to the culling etc. It was a much harsher world for people and dogs. My wife had relatives in southern IL who worked the coal mines even some of the female gender and kids. The people with money could do the breeding and the poor people couldn't afford to feed the culls. This thread amazes me that the original question was asked, but you never know if somebody reads thread and doesn't breed it will help save some cruelty down the road.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

> That leaves BYBs. Among BYBs, hybrid breeders provide the dogs least likely to end up in shelters and least likely to genetically damage breed lines and least likely to pass genetic health defects beyond one generation.


I don't think poodle mixes are the least likely to end up in a shelter. We have a poodle or a poodle mix at all times, most times more. True, there are not as many as labs, pit bulls, hounds, etc, but they show up in higher frequencies than many fairly popular purebreds like purebred Golden Retrievers, or shelties (Both pretty popular around here). They also show up more than rarer breeds obviously. But we do get quite a few poo mixes.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

> That leaves BYBs. Among BYBs, hybrid breeders provide the dogs least likely to end up in shelters and least likely to genetically damage breed lines and least likely to pass genetic health defects beyond one generation.


That is a HUGE false statement. Nearly 1/3 the population in shelters are mixes, mostly the designer breeds. They are FULL of genetic health issues, from BOTH sides of the parentage. Don't believe the propaganda of the designer breeders.

The lies these 'breeders' spread to sell their pups are outragous. They've spread retriever rage into the population, the dogs bred with Labs and Goldens have a high incedence of HD (which is rare in Poodles). They've also used poodles with VonWillibrands so the 'Doodles have that condition, which is rare in Labs and Addison's, which is rare in Goldens. 

When you mix breeds you get the health problems of BOTH breeds PERIOD. 

Here's a little info on the health issues of Labs, Goldens and Poodles.

http://www.poodleclubofamerica.org/health.htm

http://www.dogbiz.com/dogs-grp1/ret-labrador/labrador-health-issues.html

http://www.dogbiz.com/dogs-grp1/ret-golden/golden-retriever-health.html

Many of the same things are seen in the smaller 'doodle mixes. 

hybrid vigor is a MYTH nad it's one that's perpetrated to PROFIT the breeders of designer dogs.



wvasko said:


> Well in fairness to the culling etc. It was a much harsher world for people and dogs. My wife had relatives in southern IL who worked the coal mines even some of the female gender and kids. The people with money could do the breeding and the poor people couldn't afford to feed the culls. This thread amazes me that the original question was asked, but you never know if somebody reads thread and doesn't breed it will help save some cruelty down the road.


My mother is from Ohio, and her father and Uncle worked in the coal mines. She also owned a blind pony that was supposd to be put down once it wasn't 'useful' in the mines. Yes, it was a MUCH harder time.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

Seems to me the way to do that is to INCREASE the number of reputable breeders- that means getting more people MORE involved with dogs- showing, trialling, working, and proving their dogs, as well as screening their puppy owenrs and taking back puppies who don't work out at any poitn in the dog's life.

Instead, we've got the villification of ALL breeders and the "RESCUE IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO/ YOU KILL A PUPPY WHEN YOU BUY A DOG" mantra and the subsequent "Well, I rescued her from a really horrible situation." justification for going to substandard breeders.


KaseyT said:


> It's not about what "should" be, it's about what "is". Puppies are a commondiy. You may not like this fact, but that doesn't make it less true.
> 
> If you reduce the supply without reducing the demand, the value of the commodity will increase. As the value increases, someone will find a way to supply the demand and reap the additional profits. Who would you prefer that someone to be?
> 
> ...


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

there are some really interesting ideas comming out here. I definatly don't regret posting my original statment. responcible dog breeders need a TV channel of their own for people to stumble across and become educated.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

There are some really interesting ideas on this thread. As a former cattle breeder, though, I have to address some thoughts on hybrid vigor. Maybe you have to be into livestock (and not dogs) to have read these references, so I will offer them up. All of them have professionals, many with doctorates, referring to the effect of hybrid vigor when mixing breeds (of cattle/sheep and then I found some on dogs too).

1. Here is reference to “hybrid vigor” from Dr. Kent Weigel, Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin

“Heterosis (hybrid vigor) can improve the performance of crossbred animals, relative to the average of their parental breeds.” 

http://www.wisc.edu/dysci/uwex/gene...Crossbreeding_in_Dairy_Cattle_Improvement.pdf (page 2)

2. Another from John Hough, Ph.D. Chief Science Officer, EPD International, Inc.

"Heterosis, known as hybrid vigor, is the added performance you get when mating parents of different breeds. It is free and nothing is spared to achieve it."

http://www.slanker.com/bulls/id24.htm

3. Here is another from T. A. Olson, associate professor of Animal Science, Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.

“A properly designed crossbreeding system allows the cattle producer to take advantage of appropriate combinations of the superior traits of several different breeds (complementarity) and it also yields heterosis. Heterosis, often referred to as "hybrid vigor," measures the difference between average performance of crossbred animals and average performance of the breeds that were crossed to produce them.”

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AN055 

4. Yet another from Susan Schoenian, Western Maryland Research & Education Center

“Crossbreeding offers two distinct advantages: 1) heterosis; and 2) breed complementarity. Heterosis or hybrid vigor is the superiority of the crossbred offspring. Mathematically, heterosis is the difference in performance between the crossbred and the average performance of the purebred parent. There are effects of heterosis in the crossbred offspring, crossbred dam, and crossbred ram. In general, crossbred individuals tend to be more vigorous, more fertile and grow faster than purebreds.”

http://www.sheep101.info/201/breedingsystems.html


5. & 6. I looked for professional references re hybrid vigor and dogs. Here most scientists use the more proper term "heterosis" but still some have less problem with the layman's term. Here are two references to it by Dr. Hellmuth Wachtell. 

“Introducing one or two non-related dogs per generation into a medium-sized population should help enormously and prove adequate. Highest heterozygosity (and thus heterosis or "hybrid vigour"), however, should result from a three-way cross of three different breeds or very distantly-related strains.

In the dilemma between absolute breed purity and urgent need to raise the health standard, in cases where pedigree studies or molecular tests do not reveal opportunities for outbreeding within a breed, it will in future become more and more imperative to adopt the option of careful outcrossing with a closely related breed.”

http://www.seppalas.org/wachtel_considerations.htm

“Genetically variable dogs are more adaptive to environmental changes and requirements, better performers, healthier, show more intelligence and character. This is called heterosis while inbreeding causes the opposite, inbreeding depression. Symptoms are loss of fertility, less resistance, intelligence, performance etc. These symptoms may but must not occur, but long-time close breeding invariably must end up in disaster. Breeders may line-breed all their life and apparently enjoy best results, but sooner or later some successor will dearly pay the bill for it in form of progeny of poor health and viability. All those hecatombs of dogs sacrificed every year for some inherited defect bear witness.”

http://www.geocities.com/farmcollie1/mill.html 


I googled for the definition of hybrid and found this from Science Daily.

"The second meaning of "hybrid" is crosses between populations, breeds or cultivars of a single species.

This second meaning is often used in plant and animal breeding. An example of an intraspecific hybrid is a hybrid between a Bengal tiger and an Amur (Siberian) tiger."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/h/hybrid.htm

Can someone explain how the term "hybrid" is accepted for crosses of cattle breeds, sheep breeds and even tiger breeds and yet is contested in dogs?


Of course this does by no means guarantee that a hybrid mix dog cannot have health issues. I have never seen a doodle breeder say “my pups will never have health issues." I've just gone for a look on advertisements and haven't found that once. Is the worry that the public is so dumb that this is what they will think? Maybe I don't have this worry because I just don't think most are that dumb. I would not mislead about the scientific term, though, even if I did.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

spanielorbust said:


> Can someone explain how the term "hybrid" is accepted for crosses of cattle breeds, sheep breeds and even tiger breeds and yet is contested in dogs?


It's contested because 1) no breeder operates their breeding program like a laboratory, and 2) statements of hybrid vigor in canines is normally told in anecdotes. I don't think anyone is contesting whether hybrid vigor exists as much as one would contest gravity.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Cattle and sheep breeders do not operate their breeding programs like a laboratory either, but still, if you read any of those links, you will see that there is success gleaned from its use.

I object to the statement, that was posted above and that I often see from dog breeders on forums, that "hybrid vigor" is a myth. It is not. 

If there is a myth it is the fact that hybrid dogs are guaranteed better health. Fighting with that myth is fine, but denying the fact of hybrid vigor is just wrong.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

spanielorbust said:


> Cattle and sheep breeders do not operate their breeding programs like a laboratory either, but still, if you read any of those links, you will see that there is success gleaned from its use.


Lets not overlook the obvious. Cattle is BIG business, and BIG business can afford to throw a few...bones, to nerds in white coats to find ways to make a few more...bones, as a result. Dog breeders do not have this kind of equity, time, or resources. Show me the money trail where dog breeders have done this, and perhaps then its worth discussing more than as a suspicious selling point.


----------



## PugChick (Nov 5, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> Can someone explain how the term "hybrid" is accepted for crosses of cattle breeds, sheep breeds and even tiger breeds and yet is contested in dogs?
> .


Because people breeding livestock generally don't just throw two animals together because 'OMG, they're so CUTE', or 'This mix was selling for 2K at the petstore, I'm going to make my own puppies and make some money!' or 'I know nothing about genetics, but I bet if I breed one extreme to another extreme the puppies will be in the middle!'

Livestock breeders want a certain measurable result, and they go into breeding with clear goals and guidelines. Better milk production, etc, better production in tropical areas, less time to market. Things you can clearly measure, not intangibles like cuteness, and trainability. Ever see some of the ads for bulls at stud? Cattle people measure EVERYTHING, both meat and dairy producers. If a cross fails they know it, they know why it failed, by how much, and in what exact areas. Also, if the results fail you can usually eat them and no one gets upset.  There's a reason that certain breeds are crossed and others aren't. You can't just breed cattle willy nilly and get a better calf no matter what. 

And even then many of the popular hybrids ONLY work for that first generation. Red sex link hens are great producers of brown eggs, but breed the hybrid brids together and the chicks can't even begin to compare with their parents. Same thing happens with most of the hybrid vegetables - that's why I buy heirloom only, otherwise you're a slave to the seed companies - you HAVE to buy the hybrid seed over and over each year because if you save seed and try to plant your results won't be anything like the parent plant.

That makes it petty damned hard to create a new breed, when you're stuck on that F1 cross forever and ever. 

Captive wildlife breeding programs cannot be compared to mutt dog breeders. That's like saying a kid in his backyard with a science kit is the same as a rocket scientist at NASA. Two entirely different ballgames, when it comes to the thought put into it. 

Hybrid vigor is not a silver bullet. For a balanced picture, you need to look at outbreeding depression also - that's when you cross two breeds and the offspring are WORSE off.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

spanielorbust said:


> I object to the statement, that was posted above and that I often see from dog breeders on forums, that "hybrid vigor" is a myth. It is not.


That's your prerogative but I have yet to meet a "reputable" breeder who even knows the math behind hybrid vigor. 



> If there is a myth it is the fact that hybrid dogs are guaranteed better health. Fighting with that myth is fine, but denying the fact of hybrid vigor is just wrong.


I don't argue the Earth revolves around the Sun...there is overwhelming proof that this is true. What proof beyond a definition of the term is there that breeders employ hybrid vigor successfully? Again, only anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence of fact.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Are you saying then that the hybrid vigor displayed by crossbred calves and sheep would not be displayed by pups?

What is your basis for this idea? Most farmers who use crossbreeding systems do not have "nerds in white coats" helping them to make their decisions. They simply use the information from the programs and data provided.

I never, in any of my posts, stated that breeders of dogs use hybrid vigor successfully. 

That was not my argument.

My argument is with the often held up mistruth that "hybrid vigor is a myth"

If you want to tackle the argument of if it is used successfully for puppies, go for it. Personally, I think some may and some may not. It's never been studied that I know of, oh, except in puppy studies from about '59. Off to go look in a book. I'll post what I find.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

spanielorbust said:


> Are you saying then that the hybrid vigor displayed by crossbred calves and sheep would not be displayed by pups?


How does one see long term health? Long term health is not the goal of cattle breeding. It would be for dog breeders, however. Sure cattle breeder can observe higher yielding cattle over time, but the life of cattle is cut short long before they reach full term. So I'm not even sure why you'd want to make this comparison. Seriously, how would one assess hybrid vigor of companionship? This is what a most dog owner want, right? 



> What is your basis for this idea? Most farmers who use crossbreeding systems do not have "nerds in white coats" helping them to make their decisions. They simply use the information from the programs and data provided.


And where do you think these programs and data came from for today's farming? Follow the money trail and I guarantee the buck will stop at a mass producing corporation. The farmer down the field may not have the money to invest like a corporation can, but if he reads literature from what a big money farm does, he will do the same with his resources. I'm still not sure though how this would apply to dogs.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Don't you think that it is good then, if this costs a lot to study, that these same concepts can be applied to other species? . . .


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

spanielorbust said:


> Don't you think that it is good then, if this costs a lot to study, that these same concepts can be applied to other species? . . .


Good in theory, terrible in practice. 

The average breeder doesn't even have a clue which sperm meets which egg.


----------



## PugChick (Nov 5, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> Are you saying then that the hybrid vigor displayed by crossbred calves and sheep would not be displayed by pups?


It might work for some - hard to say because they don't measure things in dogs like they do in sheep and cattle - same as with livestock you're going to have crosses that FAIL. People do not just randomly throw cattle breeds together. Certain crosses work, certain crosses FAIL. Go google 'outbreeding depression'. 

Hybrids are not ALWAYS better. There's a reason the purebred Holstein dominates the dairy industry in the USA. There is no hybrid as good as the purebred. 

How do you _know_ if a pup has hybrid vigor? How do you know if it doesn't? Is it unhealthy because one parent passed on a dominant trait for a problem (which no amount of hybrid vigor is going to do jack to prevent), does it seem to be healthier because of hybrid vigor or because it 'won the lotto' and neither parent passed on that bad recessive?

We don't measure things in dogs like we do in cattle. Find me a group of mutt dog breeder who know this much (http://greenbook.usjersey.com/Default.aspx?tabid=355) about their dogs and I'll show you the one group of dog breeders who can actually tell you if the pups are showing hybrid vigor or not. 

Everyone else is just guessing.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I was just about to mention outbreeding depression.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

PugChick
Don't you dare try to throw common sense into this thread. In 45 years traveling haphazardly through the world of dogs I never once heard a mutt breeder mention hybrid vigor. The terms, cute, lovable, money etc etc etc are mentioned a bunch. Oh yes the allergy free/non shedding pup is a big seller. I do like your style. When I was a kid I spent a little time milking cows in Wisconsin and read some catalogs about Holstein studs and milk yield and stuff so even the small milking operations tried to upgrade their stock in a proper manner. The farmer I worked for never got out of high school, but he too had some common sense and tried to make his operation pay.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

There's also the fact that a lot of livestock breeds are VERY specialized. In dogs? Most dogs aren't. We want MANY predictable traits (coat, energy level, drives, range of personalities, size), excellent health and longevity (and I would NOT argue that holstein cattle or leghorn X production layers are more long-lived than the heritage muttly 'black baldies' or RIR/gamebird crossbred chickens with good mothering instincts- in fact, I'd argue that hybrid vigor pays off in those cases, with a loss of 'productive' traits and predictability.) 

There's also crosses that just plain don't work- look how little most longhorn X cattle sell for at auction. They may be healthy, but they gain weight really slowly, the meat's not as nice as angus, and okay, they gain weight on minimal pasture that other people couldn't raise cattle on, but wouldn't it make sense to raise GOOD meat goats than mediocre cattle? 

For that matter, I'd love to see a study comparing feral dogs (and do NOT cite "SOS Dogs" at me, that book is SO riddled with factual errors....) with some natural selection pressures including starvation and disease with city stray 'oopses' with randombred purebreds, random-history 1st gen hybrids, multi-gen tested hybrids, and multi-gen tested purebreds. (Why not? Well, because frankly, most of the health foundations run by the breed clubs (which, in turn, provide MOST of the funding to support canine health research- especially the genetics of heritable health problems- outside of commercial concerns such as drug/vaccine companies) are more interested in the problems already IN their breed than anything else. And none of the 'hybrid breed clubs' are doing crap all but piggybacking on the research paid for by LEGITIMATE breeders.

The money's just not there for that kind of thing. It's like comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## Moonshadow (Nov 9, 2008)

Dogstar said:


> Seems to me the way to do that is to INCREASE the number of reputable breeders- that means getting more people MORE involved with dogs- showing, trialling, working, and proving their dogs, as well as screening their puppy owenrs and taking back puppies who don't work out at any poitn in the dog's life.
> 
> Instead, we've got the villification of ALL breeders and the "RESCUE IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO/ YOU KILL A PUPPY WHEN YOU BUY A DOG" mantra and the subsequent "Well, I rescued her from a really horrible situation." justification for going to substandard breeders.



The sad thing is that there aren't young people getting involved in dogs like there used to be. It seems to me like most people now a days want everything instantly. You see new people come into the sport but most don't last but a couple of years. They get a dog and they want it to win, win, win. It's expensive and it's hard work. Yes, it's fun too but it takes a special kind of person to want to get up at 3am and drive to a show, haul a ton of expens, crates, etc. around, groom, show, sometimes win, sometimes loose and then on the fun days in July when it's so hot that your pantyhose are literally stuck to your body so badly that you can't even use the wonderful 100 degree porta potty....it's just not for everyone. I think it's tons of fun....but some just don't I guess

Our local club was started in 1908 and became a formal club in 1917, it's an old club....we're really going down in numbers. We'll see some people come to a meeting or two but many don't bother joining. Most of our club members are older, I'd say the average age is probably 60. There is one other member that is younger than I am, I'm the youngest board member and I am pretty sure that all but one person on that board is old enough to either be my parent or grandparent....it's sad. The sport is dying. Between the crap that people hear about breeders being evil and the fact that most people have to work (no more husband that goes to work and the wife staying home with the kids) coupled with people's need to have everything instantly and not wanting to work for anything...it's a sad state.

We do need more people in the sport but I think it's going to be very hard to get them interested in it.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

KaseyT said:


> No matter what you do to decrease the number of dogs in shelters, there still needs to be 5+ million puppies born each year in addition to the pups produced by "reputable" breeders in order
> 
> 
> If we are going to eliminate puppy mills and careless oops litters, something need to take their place. If reputable breeders aren't willing to do it, who should? Doodle breeders, or Mexican puppy mills smuggling half dead puppies through the desert in unconditioned trucks?


to avoid the catastrophic effects of a major shortage of dogs??
You are kidding right?
Do you understand that MILLIONS of dogs are killed in shelters EVERY YEAR?
We have no cause to think we are ever going to have a shortage of dogs, ever. I hope we do though. Then we could be more choosy about who gets to have a dog. Whether more reputable breeders start breeding more dogs or not it does NOT cut down on the mills or the byb. They will continue to try to get their share of the almighty dollar. Millions of dogs will continue to die every year. Most of those dogs are very very adoptable and could be wonderful pets. MOST of them..


----------



## GroovyGroomer777 (Aug 21, 2008)

Am I missing something here? A shortage of dogs? She was kidding, yes?



Inga said:


> to avoid the catastrophic effects of a major shortage of dogs??
> You are kidding right?
> Do you understand that MILLIONS of dogs are killed in shelters EVERY YEAR?
> We have no cause to think we are ever going to have a shortage of dogs, ever. I hope we do though. Then we could be more choosy about who gets to have a dog. Whether more reputable breeders start breeding more dogs or not it does NOT cut down on the mills or the byb. They will continue to try to get their share of the almighty dollar. Millions of dogs will continue to die every year. Most of those dogs are very very adoptable and could be wonderful pets. MOST of them..



Well said.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

Using dogs killed in shelters to win arguments is a poor tactic. Saying "omg, dogs die" is not evidence for or against mixed bred dogs. Nor is it evidence against breeders. It's only evidence that we throw away 5% of our dogs every year, and that number could be lower.

Consider this:

(1) 30%+ of marriages end in divorce.
(2) 20%+ of pregnancies end in abortion.
(3) 2.5% of children under 18 are adopted.
(4) The theoretical "natural rate of unemployment" ... i.e. the percent of people who are going to be unemployed at any given time, no matter how good the job market is, due to inefficiencies and differences in the types of workers wanted and the types of workers available, is 4-6%.

(5) We kill roughly 5% of our pets each year in shelters.

Is this number, despite being in the millions (pet ownership could be higher than 100 million), isn't that unreasonable. We are a throw away society.

Let me say that again, we are a throw away society. And just because we throw away old unwanted products doesn't mean we should be stupid about the new products we create.

This is a free market and if people WANTED to adopt more dogs, they would. If the shelters were better at SELLING their product, the people probably would.

Nathan Winograd has shown that lowering the kill rate is so possible, so easy, and so straightforward, that it's really a shame of the shelter community group think idiots continue to kill when they don't have to.

But again, is 5% throw away rate any reason to breed dogs differently? I say no.

Especially because these are the top 10 reasons dogs end up in shelters:

1. Moving
2. Landlord issues
3. Cost of pet maintenance
4. No time for pet
5. Inadequate facilities
6. Too many pets in home
7. Pet illness
8. Personal problems
9. Biting
10. No homes for litter mates

The proper breeding of dogs has nothing to do with any of those reasons, and the only one close is 10. And believe me, you're not a very good breeder if you can't actually sell or find homes for your offspring. 10 is most likely the "oops" litter people. And even then, puppies have no trouble getting adopted out of shelters.

SO, if you want to invoke the "so many dogs die in shelters" card, do it in a manner that is instructive to WHY those dogs die.


----------



## deege39 (Dec 29, 2008)

I know I'm really coming in, in the middle of a _discussion_ here, but I'd just like to add my input here, however uneducated it may seem...

First of all... I don't approve of "puppy mills", "backyard breeders", _or_ animal shelters. Look at it this way, it's like a vicious cycle that's never ending. You have "puppy mills", "backyard breeders" contributing to the population of pets/dogs, the more pets/dogs there are there seems to be just as many in the animal shelter being euthanized because no one adopted them in the allotted time! At the same time, in defense for the breeders, I'm glad to see people so caring about dogs, and that someone is taking the time to keep _history_ alive! It's so interesting to hear about a dog in a dog show that can link his/her heritage.

I'm against over-breeding/over-populating, but I'm also against animal shelters putting the dogs to sleep... but until there's a fool-proof method to keep everything in check I guess this is how it's going to be... This seems to be one of those discussions that doesn't seem to have a clear cut side to sit on.

I also agree with someone saying we're a "throw away society", those words have never been so true!

I know how vehemently people argue, that if you can't afford to take care of a dog then don't have one. That same statement applies to parents who have children! As with Donny, I may not always have the funds to give him top quality care. (What parent has that kind of money for their child 100% of the time nowadays...) But I would rather Donny be with _me_, safe, off the streets, happy and content and live out whatever life he'll have with me- Then be stuck in the animal shelter and killed after his notice is up, or put in the hands of some "dog fighter" who just sees him as a "feeder", or left to wander the streets like some wild dog...

(Please don't attack me. I mean well!) PEACE!


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

I'm a breeder of purebred dogs and I have to say that -oodles and -uggles and other designer dogs are the BEST THING to happen to dogdom in the last 100 years.

Yeah, you heard me right.

Here are a few things to consider:

(1) Purity implies quality and health, neither of which are really true in "purebred dogs." I challenge you to name for me 10 diseases that have been "bred out" of purebred dogs. Supposedly breeding for health has yet to produce a single accomplishment in that regard in any of the hundreds of breeds.

On the contrary, many recessive diseases have become manifest.

(2) There is no such thing as "purebred" ... all breeds come from an original mix of animals. And most of them are only a hundred years old or so. Many breeds are the intentional mixing of landrace dogs or previously established breeds.

Some breed only becomes "purebred" when a few people get together and decide to start a registry and then keep some dogs in and other dogs out. All breeds are limited by this group of founders.

(3) The majority of what you'd call purebred dogs now were fad bred dogs ... just like doodles and uggles and poos ... only they were a fad of the Victorian era. An old fad becomes "tradition!" and thus is somehow better than a new fad.

(4) Nearly no one is actively reforging our established breeds. We're not re-domesticating wolves, we're not re-mixing the breeds which make up more recent composite breeds (like the Australian Shepherd) and we're not even outcrossing to other breeds to maintain diversity. Our breeds are just wasting away into guaranteed inbreeding.

(5) Border Collies, one of the more healthy breeds which still has a large and active working community who breeds for performance instead of looks, is not much better despite all good things that come from breeding for work vs. show. The entire working population in the UK only has the genetic diversity of 8 individual genomes.

(6) The limited founding gene pool, plus factors like the "popular sire effect" where one dog in a generation is so popular that his genes get spread far and wide, so wide that unlike most animals whose genetic contributions are dispersed and lost and go down with time, these dogs actually have the % of the genes in the pool that are theirs GO UP with time, has made it where even though the Coefficient of Inbreeding over the last 6 generations is going down in Border Collies (people are outcrossing more and more), the COI over all generations is still going up!

This means that even if we find the most diverse dogs in our gene pool to mate, we're still making more inbred dogs each generation because of past genetic stupidity.

(7) Hybrid vigor is real. Even with dominant diseases. The major problem with lack of genetic diversity is also homozygosity... meaning that within an individual, any given gene has two copies of the same allele. It is GUARANTEED to pass along the one allele.

With dominant diseases, sure, if one copy in the offspring is the bad gene and it's dominant, the offspring will have that disease. But it's worse if both parents are homozygous for that allele... then their children will be homozygous, their grandchildren are guaranteed to have the disease even if the children are bred to 100% clear mates.

With outcrossing, even if you have a dominant allale, it's better to have heterozygosity so that even a dog that has a disease will have puppies that don't have it.

(8) Designer dogs are the first new breeds in a long time. These dogs, even if bred for money and fads, are going to increase genetic diversity.

(9) Oh, they're most likely being bred from crap dogs who shouldn't be bred even to their own breed, you say?

Well, all mutts and designer breeds, intentionally bred or not, come from purebred stock. Being mixed doesn't suddenly create new diseases, in fact, it lowers the incidence of a lot of them. The goal is not to eliminate disease causing genes, the goal is to reduce the incidence of the actual disease.

Just think about it, a Maltipoo is going to be 50% purebred Maltese and 50% purebred poodle. Even if that Maltese and Poodle aren't breeding worthy, they are only not breeding worthy because the concept of "purebred" has failed, right?

Really, why are so many purebred dogs not worthy to be bred themselves if being purebred is so great? If being purebred means "breeding true" why isn't every puppy of purebred parents worthy of being bred?

Often, the answer to that question is that there is some stupid fad that has nothing to do with health or temperament that is the current rage among the show crowd and that trait hasn't had time to be overbred into the pool meaning that all the puppies aren't "show quality" and thus not "breeding quality."

This has nothing to do with true quality.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

BorderWars said:


> Really, why are so many purebred dogs not worthy to be bred themselves if being purebred is so great? If being purebred means "breeding true" why isn't every puppy of purebred parents worthy of being bred?
> 
> Often, the answer to that question is that there is some stupid fad that has nothing to do with health or temperament that is the current rage among the show crowd and that trait hasn't had time to be overbred into the pool meaning that all the puppies aren't "show quality" and thus not "breeding quality."
> 
> This has nothing to do with true quality.


I agree with you about ring fads. Many people just want to WIN, whatever that takes, even if it means changing the breed from what it was _supposed_ to be. Many breeds aren't being 'preserved' as much as being changed to suit the current fads to win ribbons, even if that ends up creating dogs that are a mockery of their standard.


----------



## ladyshadowhollyjc (Oct 28, 2008)

BorderWars said:


> I'm a breeder of purebred dogs and I have to say that -oodles and -uggles and other designer dogs are the BEST THING to happen to dogdom in the last 100 years.
> 
> Yeah, you heard me right.
> 
> ...


Okay no biting off my head, I'm going by the average person who isn't a breeder or any sort of animal's mindset. So please, help me grasp these concepts and please excuse my ignorance.


1. I would assume that breeding diseases out of any sort of animal would take many many generations. If these breeds are only 100 years old or so, then there has not been enough time to breed out diseases. That's why so much health testing is done on breeding stock... isn't it?

2. How are designer dogs going to increase genetic diversity?

3. Mixing breeds does not create new diseases, but it certainly does not lower the incidences of disease. Mixing Goldens that are prone to HD to Poodles who are not prone to HD would 'create' a poodle mix with an added health risk wouldn't it? 

4. I don't understand why people want to create new breeds. We have many wonderful breeds as it is. Okay hypo-allergenic breeds is understandable, sort of. I was always under the assumption that Poodles were hypo-allergenic, which is why people started to breed them with other breeds. If you want a mixed breed, what is so wrong with going to the shelter? These dogs NEED homes. Why create more mixed breeds if there are so many mixes that already need home? If you want a specific mix, check the shelter, I'm sure it's there.


----------



## Tmarie423 (Jan 1, 2009)

Keechak said:


> I wouldn't ever breed a mixed breed but I don't see whats wrong with it *IF* the breeder does OFA testing and only breeds tempermentaly stable dogs, and sells the dog on a spay/neuter contract to a Sporting home with a return request if the new owner desides they don't want the dog anymore.
> There is no absolute garauntee that the dogs would be spayed or neutered or returned to the BYB.
> my breed wouldn't exsist if dog breeds weren't allowed to mix for proper reasons.
> 
> ...


Breeding is all about the betterment of a BREED and creating sound, healthy dogs within the standard. The shelters are overly crowded with mixed breeds and if someone wants a mixed breed that is the place to go. Letting 2 dogs breed who are not of the same breed and who do not have certs for the elbows, hips, eyes, heart, etc. is careless and proves only that the person allowing their dogs to breed care nothing about the animals and the thousands that die daily in this world due to neglect, abuse, abandonment, or being PTS in a humane society!!


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Variations of this have shown up on numerous threads over the years, but here's what I would expect of ANY breeder:


Health testing (not vet check) of both parents
All puppies are pre-sold before they are born
Contractual agreement that dogs are returned to breeder if they are surrendered
Prescreening of potential buyers
I am amused by the frequent argument that ALL of today's breeds started out as mixed breeds. The Plott hound, for example, was developed in the 1750s by the Jonathon Plott family for a very specific purpose - big game (particularly boar) hunting. It was some twenty generations before anyone outside the Plott family could own one and 250 years before the breed was recognized by the AKC.

If someone were marketing a new mix of bloodhound and cur today, they would be calling them "Blurs" and selling first generation mutts as the newest thing.


----------



## Tmarie423 (Jan 1, 2009)

tirluc said:


> i think what Keechak is asking here is, if a person has in mind a certain look/temperment/purpose/etc. in a mix and are striving to obtain that, and is going thru all the "right" tests, etc, what is wrong w/ taking say a Lab and a Poodle to make the ultimate service dog for those that are sensative to the coats of Labs.....i'm not saying that it's going to happen overnight, it takes yrs and generations to achieve, but, let's face it folks, alot of our breeds (actually, i'm assuming all, here) we have today wouldn't even exist if it weren't for even those mishap breedings....they happened, someone saw a whole new type of dog in that litter, for something more than what the parents were used for, and continued the lines....no, you won't get the same things every single time so, just like when you don't get exactly what you want in a purebred dog, you "weed out" (not allow the breeding of) the unwanted traits and concentrate on the wanted.....this is how all new breeds developed over time....even in the best of lines today you will have pups that just don't measure up...it happens...some gundogs are gun shy, some herding breeds could care less about livestock, etc.....but they still make someone a good pet (s/n)......


Think for a second about all the poor dogs in shelters and how big a percentage of those dogs are mixed breeds...... I'm sure the ones who allowed those dogs to breed didn't have the creation of a new breed in mind. Attempting to create a new breed takes a lot of time, money and Years......and plenty of dedication to creating the desired breed, breed standard, etc. Your post has now given any BYB the excuse they need to create mixed breed puppies so shelters around the world can continue to be over crowded.



KaseyT said:


> It's not about what "should" be, it's about what "is". Puppies are a commondiy. You may not like this fact, but that doesn't make it less true.
> Puppies are living beings who need love, nurture, and constant care.
> If you reduce the supply without reducing the demand, the value of the commodity will increase. As the value increases, someone will find a way to supply the demand and reap the additional profits. Who would you prefer that someone to be?
> 
> ...


If someone is a responsible person who truly WANTS a dog in their life and family then they would be able to WAIT until the COE breeder of their choice has a litter and go from there to find the RIGHT dog for them. Your way of thinking that there HAS to be a supply of dogs for every person, responsible or not, is ludicrous. It's almost uncomprehensible.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

RonE

*If someone were marketing a new mix of bloodhound and cur today, they would be calling them "Blurs" and selling first generation mutts as the newest thing.*

I see 2 problems here, 1. Plotts are handsome rascals, cute does not apply. 2. They are too big to carry in a purse. Obviously not enough money to be made with a Blur to draw the BYB crowd to the breeding program.


----------



## GroovyGroomer777 (Aug 21, 2008)

Border, your analogy to marriage and divorce isn't quite right, IMO....marriage/divorce is between two consenting adults.... I would like to know how many dogs looked at their owners and said, 

"You know, this isn't working out, I think I'd be better off at the shelter. I'll send for my things. You can keep everything, except I'd really like all the dirty socks."


----------



## skelaki (Nov 9, 2006)

This is a very interesting thread with the debate staying nicely civil. Way to go guys!


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

*All puppies are pre-sold before they are born*

A lot of breeders don't like to do that. Anything can and sometimes will/does happen to puppies. I know of a breeder that pre sold a pup and then the silly thing somehow managed to drown herself. She had to replace the pup with her top bitch out of that litter.

And I know other cases where pre-selling the pups didn't turn out well for either party.

And if I, personally, was buying another pup. I wouldn't buy before birth. Or even at 4 or 6 weeks. 

A waiting list is fine, deposit is okay also, but I don't really care for purchasing unborn or very young pupppies.


----------



## skelaki (Nov 9, 2006)

txcollies said:


> *All puppies are pre-sold before they are born*
> 
> A lot of breeders don't like to do that. Anything can and sometimes will/does happen to puppies. I know of a breeder that pre sold a pup and then the silly thing somehow managed to drown herself. She had to replace the pup with her top bitch out of that litter.
> 
> ...


That makes good sense. And I don't mind having to give a reasonable deposit to be on a waiting list.

txcollies, I do have to ask what lines your collies are from. They are lovely.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

Ron, the problem with your second point (and I agree with your other three) is that I just don't think it's realistic. I have 6 people on a waiting list for Rittie's litter. All want SHOW pups, five want females and one wants a male (tricolor rough only). The chances that I will have 6 show quality pups are not good (I may have 6 show POTENTIAL pups, but the chances of all 6 maturing to be of a quality *I* would consider breeding on from is probably not high, since typically you only get improvements on both parents with a fraction of the litter.) I have a few people interested in pet puppies, but we'll figure out who is getting what later- I have a LOT of variables involved in matching pup to person, and from a practical standpoint? It's reasonable to have a waiting list that should cover some fo your puppies, and then the rest will come from referrals once the litter is on the ground. 

Cait



RonE said:


> Variations of this have shown up on numerous threads over the years, but here's what I would expect of ANY breeder:
> 
> 
> Health testing (not vet check) of both parents
> ...


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

I agree. My pre-sold clause was poorly stated.

I just don't wanna see the pups in the newspaper classifieds, on a roadside sign or listed on Craig's list. (Or advertised on dogforums.)


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

I know of some breeders who require a microchip of the puppy BEFORE it goes to it's new home so that if it were to ever make it into a shelter the breeder would be the first one notified.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

wvasko said:


> RonE
> 
> *If someone were marketing a new mix of bloodhound and cur today, they would be calling them "Blurs" and selling first generation mutts as the newest thing.*
> 
> I see 2 problems here, 1. Plotts are handsome rascals, cute does not apply. 2. They are too big to carry in a purse. Obviously not enough money to be made with a Blur to draw the BYB crowd to the breeding program.


 
Wvasco, 
Designer breeds are NOT limited to purse puppies. Right now the MCOA (Mastiff Club of America) is in a fight because of the the so called "American Mastiff" a cross of English Mastiff and Anatolian Sheperd being marketed as a dry-mouthed, 'healthier' version of the English. I'ts a TOTAL myth and the pack of lies that have been spread is atrocious. The breed is prone to serious temperment issues as well as ALL the health problems that Plague BOTH the Anatolian and the EM. They are poorly bred and I don't know of ANY of the breeders involved in this mix that health test, breed for temperment or screen the potential owners much less take back the offspring they produce. 

Add to this that there is also a breed of "Bandogge" being called the "American Mastiff" that's a Mix of pit, Neopolitan and Cane Corso bred specifically for their 'gameness' against humans (they are frequently used by drug dealers as gaurd dogs).


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

Keechak said:


> I know of some breeders who require a microchip of the puppy BEFORE it goes to it's new home so that if it were to ever make it into a shelter the breeder would be the first one notified.


This seems to vary by breed. I'm trying to find someone that will tattoo puppies with ID #s before they leave, but if not, they're going chipped. All my rescues have ALWAYS left chipped, and I think MOST reputable breeders are getting on board with this. (There ARE some folks who are not comfortable with chipping for various reasons, and some that just are 'well, we never have BEFORE' types but still.)


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

ladyshadowhollyjc said:


> 1. I would assume that breeding diseases out of any sort of animal would take many many generations.


Not really. An affected dog can produce clear offspring in only 2 generations.
Affected X Clear = Carriers 
Carrier X Clear or Carrier will produce some Clear puppies. 
Done! This could take only a few years.

People who have done out crosses to other breeds, like the Dalmatian back cross to get rid of the uric-acid stone problem, did so in only a few generations and a few years. 

In the 100 or so years, we've created many many more diseases than we've cured. I can't find a single "cured" disease. But the deformities we've selected for have created many problems.

A disease is no different than, say, a color pattern genetically and breeders have been VERY successful in getting rid of unwanted color patterns in only 1 or 2 generations. They did so because they wanted to get rid of them that fast and because the show ring judge can see the color, not so much the disease.



> 2. How are designer dogs going to increase genetic diversity?


Designer dogs are outcrosses. The total dog genome is very diverse, but within each breed, not so much.



> 3. Mixing breeds does not create new diseases, but it certainly does not lower the incidences of disease.


It does lower the incidence of disease. Recessive diseases (most of them) require a copy from both parents to become expressed. Within breeds, most dogs have a high degree of homozygosity. This means that both copies of a single gene are the same. They are guaranteed to pass along that copy.

This quality is what people inbreed for, as it increases "type" in the puppies. Most of the puppies will look the same if both parents have only the same gene to pass along.

Homozygosity applies to wanted and unwanted diseases. Wanted diseases are things like the white coat in Dalmatians which also causes deafness, achondroplasia in Corgis, etc.

When you breed two populations, one of which has a high incidence to another which has no or low incidence, it does lower the incidence. It's simple math. 

I can walk you through an example if you want. We have two breeds. One is 100% diseased, with both copies of their gene disease. The other breed is 100% clear. If we do a bunch of RANDOM breeding, we get this:

Parents: 50% disease 50% clear
1st Generation: 100% Carrier

So in 1 Generation, we've gone from 50% disease to 0% incidence. 

If we breed a child back to a diseased dog, we get 50% disease, 50% carrier.
If we breed back to a healthy dog, we get 50% carrier, 50% clear.
If we breed randomly to the 1st Generation: 25% disease, 50% carrier, 25% clear.

All of these scenarios are equal to or better than our original 50/50, and none of it required any selective breeding or testing (which is the case when we don't have a test for a disease or it's a disease we don't even realize exists yet).


----------



## animalcraker (Nov 9, 2006)

Dogstar said:


> I'm trying to find someone that will tattoo puppies with ID #s before they leave, but if not, they're going chipped.


Why would you prefer a tatoo over microchip? In my area most vets won't tatoo. You'd have a tough time finding a vet that still has a tatoo kit.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

BorderWars said:


> Not really. An affected dog can produce clear offspring in only 2 generations.
> Affected X Clear = Carriers
> Carrier X Clear or Carrier will produce some Clear puppies.
> Done! This could take only a few years.
> ...


Sounds really fancy. Someone did really well in high school biology.

It's really unfortunate, though, that the vast majority of heritable diseases are not inherited through dominant-recessive. Most are inherited through much more complicated means than this and can only be tracked through several genetic markers, not a single gene.

Traits that are controlled in a dominant-recessive fashion are usually limited to gross physical characteristics like coat pattern, not complicated traits such as susceptibility to cancer, vascular disease or musculoskeletal problems.

Except for specific types of diseases (such as dwarfism), we can NOT breed them out in a matter of a few generations.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

animalcraker said:


> Why would you prefer a tatoo over microchip? In my area most vets won't tatoo. You'd have a tough time finding a vet that still has a tatoo kit.


I like them because they're instantly visible (if not readable), particularly since collies tend to be pretty pale and and not terribly hairy on the thighs, where the gal I who used to use does it. Microchips are great- but if the dog has VISIBLE ID it's a lot less easy for the finder (if the dog has gotten lost) to play the "The dog is missing, it MUST belong to careless owners, I'm keeping it!" card. So all three forms of ID is ideal. (Chip + Tattoo + tag)


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

GroovyGroomer777 said:


> Border, your analogy to marriage and divorce isn't quite right


It is right. It shows how well intentioned people making supposedly life long decisions fail all the time in high numbers. Same with having children. 

The shelter death rate will never be zero any more than people will stop having abortions or getting divorced or putting their children up for adoption. 

You want some more examples? Look at the drop out rate from high school. The number of people who lease a car instead of buy one. Or even the people who buy new cars when used ones are available. 

How about how often people move houses and jobs. Even careers. 

The common mistake is that people are fixated on the idea that there is something wrong with the dogs, but as I've shown, most of the reasons dogs are dumped has nothing to do with them being good or bad. And none of them have to do with breeders are mixbreeds or anything like that.

People dump dogs because they get themselves into human problems.


----------



## ladyshadowhollyjc (Oct 28, 2008)

BorderWars said:


> It is right. It shows how well intentioned people making supposedly life long decisions fail all the time in high numbers. Same with having children.
> 
> The common mistake is that people are fixated on the idea that there is something wrong with the dogs, but as I've shown, most of the reasons dogs are dumped has nothing to do with them being good or bad. And none of them have to do with breeders are mixbreeds or anything like that.
> 
> People dump dogs because they get themselves into human problems.


I don't think there are as many "well intentioned" people getting married as you think. When I was in high school my first year 34 girls were pregnant. The next year that number doubled. These are not "well intentioned" people having babies and then giving them up for adoption or getting married.

People dump dogs. In a way it has to do with breeders. By selectively breeding dogs and choosing homes and being responsible breeders, the numbers of dogs dumped can be reduced, not by much but it's better than nothing. The problem with mixing breeds is that I've never seen a breeder like that. There are way to many BYB ad mills breeding puppies for profit. These people could care less where their dogs end up as long as in the end they have earned a dollar. So please direct me to responsible breeders who are mixing and creating designer breeds.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Wvasco,
> Designer breeds are NOT limited to purse puppies. Right now the MCOA (Mastiff Club of America) is in a fight because of the the so called "American Mastiff" a cross of English Mastiff and Anatolian Sheperd being marketed as a dry-mouthed, 'healthier' version of the English. I'ts a TOTAL myth and the pack of lies that have been spread is atrocious. The breed is prone to serious temperment issues as well as ALL the health problems that Plague BOTH the Anatolian and the EM. They are poorly bred and I don't know of ANY of the breeders involved in this mix that health test, breed for temperment or screen the potential owners much less take back the offspring they produce.
> 
> Add to this that there is also a breed of "Bandogge" being called the "American Mastiff" that's a Mix of pit, Neopolitan and Cane Corso bred specifically for their 'gameness' against humans (they are frequently used by drug dealers as gaurd dogs).


Carla
Yes I knew there were other Frankenstein breeding programs out there, you got to cover the Purses, Pick-Ups, SUVs crowds and definitely the gang-bangers, a dog for each.

But I did not know they were still using the Tatoo kits surely they have to be upgraded from the torture devices we used for the AKC AF - GSP field futurity dogs years ago.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

ladyshadowhollyjc said:


> please direct me to responsible breeders who are mixing and creating designer breeds.


You should really do the research on where the Labradoodle comes from. 

And I have to wonder about your use of "responsible breeders" this is such a loaded term. Let me ask you this:

Is there a responsible breeder of a Corgi? All Corgis have achondroplasia dwarfism. We recognize this as a disease in humans and the dogs do have problems from this disease.

Is there a responsible breeder of Dobermans? More than half of them can die at any moment from a heart condition. They are also plagued by other diseases.

How about a responsible breeder of German Shepherds? Their backs and spines are so horribly disfigured leading to pain, paralysis, and other disease.

Is there a responsible breeder of Dalmatians? They're mostly deaf.

How about Fawn Cocker Spaniels? They rage.

How about the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel? Their skulls are too small for their brains causing fits and pain.

How about the Rhodesian Ridge Back? That Ridge... it's a congenital disease that isn't without negative complications.

What about the smushed face Pugs? Can you have a responsible breeder of those when they are so deformed as to cause horrible complications with their eyes, their noses, their palates, their brains, etc.? 

How about the bull dog which can't even give birth on its own? 

You can claim "we have so many breeds already!" ... but so many of those breeds are genetic messes. Unsustainable and already past the point of no return. 

Selective inbreeding has magnified thousands of horrible diseases in dogs and has gotten rid of very few, if any. The record speaks for itself.

The same will eventually happen with Labradoodles if people continue to overbreed popular sires and inbreed to set type and whiplash the gene pool with certain fads that limit the number of dogs being bred. But the creation of a new breed is like a do-over. A jump back in time to a point where the inbreeding is a lot less than it is now.

It buys us time.

Sure, you can snicker all you want at the puppy mills that will jump on any breed that is popular. They have done so with every other breed. That they do so now on -oodles is no different. But it's not a problem specific to designer dogs. I can walk into any mall and find a pet store selling nearly any other "official" breed.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I don't understand this statement

*You should really do the research on where the Labradoodle comes from.*

What's the point of Labradoodle research, to what end.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Keechak said:


> I know of some breeders who require a microchip of the puppy BEFORE it goes to it's new home so that if it were to ever make it into a shelter the breeder would be the first one notified.


Icesis' breeder does this. She never transfers ownership of the chip, either, so she will be the first one contacted in the case of Icesis ending up somewhere (God forbid!). 

I think it's a great idea, myself. I've heard of buyers who, even though they signed the contract to return the dog to the breeder for any reason, still end up giving it to a shelter or abandoning it anyway. And then the breeder loses that dog.



> I don't understand this statement
> 
> You should really do the research on where the Labradoodle comes from.
> 
> What's the point of Labradoodle research, to what end?


Labradoodles were originally created to be guide dogs for blind people with allergies to dogs.


----------



## Moonshadow (Nov 9, 2008)

BorderWars said:


> You should really do the research on where the Labradoodle comes from.



Please do tell me where these Labradoodles are coming from. Were they dropped from the mothership like I'm suspecting someone else here was?

Since you claim to know so very much about breeding dogs please tell us about your breedings. How many of your dogs are champions? What working titles do they have? What health testing do you do on your dogs prior to breeding?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pai said:


> Icesis' breeder does this. She never transfers ownership of the chip, either, so she will be the first one contacted in the case of Icesis ending up somewhere (God forbid!).
> 
> I think it's a great idea, myself. I've heard of buyers who, even though they signed the contract to return the dog to the breeder for any reason, still end up giving it to a shelter or abandoning it anyway. And then the breeder loses that dog.
> 
> ...


How is that working out for the Labradoodles or better yet for the blind people. Just curious.


----------



## Moonshadow (Nov 9, 2008)

Pai said:


> Icesis' breeder does this. She never transfers ownership of the chip, either, so she will be the first one contacted in the case of Icesis ending up somewhere (God forbid!).
> 
> I think it's a great idea, myself. I've heard of buyers who, even though they signed the contract to return the dog to the breeder for any reason, still end up giving it to a shelter or abandoning it anyway. And then the breeder loses that dog.


Does anyone else worry about the microchips? I'm still on the fence about them. I do have a couple here that are chipped but they were not done by me (they were done prior to coming here). I'm still not convinced that it's completely safe to do it. There have been cases of cancer in the area of the chips. I just don't know....If I had to choose I think it would be a tattoo rather than a chip.


----------



## ladyshadowhollyjc (Oct 28, 2008)

BorderWars said:


> You should really do the research on where the Labradoodle comes from.
> 
> And I have to wonder about your use of "responsible breeders" this is such a loaded term. Let me ask you this:
> 
> ...



As Pai said Labradoodles were created because someone needed a guide dog that didn't irritate the blind woman's husband's allergies. That being said the litter they produced, only ONE of those dog didn't irritate the husband's allergies. Personally that's no reason to start a whole new "breed". 

When referring to mills, all breeds are included. 

Are Dalmatians all really mostly deaf? By doing a quick bit of research, I found 8% of Dals are born deaf and 22% to 24% are born with unilateral hearing. That does not constitute MOST Dalmatians being deaf.


I second Moonshadow's questions.
What "purebred" dogs do you breed? How many are champions? What titles and health certificates do they have? How litters do you have a year? What's your return rate on puppies, for any reason whether it be health issues, family troubles, or anything else? Do you have pictures you could post on the Dog Picture Forum?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

wvasko said:


> How is that working out for the Labradoodles or better yet for the blind people. Just curious.


I believe the Australian Guide Dog Association still breeds them as they're needed. How many breeds nowadays were created from a single individual from one litter? You'd be surprised, if you did the research. MANY breeds come from only a handful of ancestors that a few people decided to create a breed from.

Do you also have a problem with people having Bassets, Irish Setters, Goldens, or other working breeds as pets? Because 90% of all dogs originally created for a working purpose are just used as pets nowadays, with only a tiny fraction doing their original 'work'. I would say that would equal those breeds being bred just for their looks/temperament and to appeal to certain people without any other 'purpose' just as much as a doodle. There is nothing wrong with breeding a dog to be a pet, period. That is a weak reason to say a type of dog should not exist. That criteria would say that every single toy breed out there is an unethically-made breed -- because they were created just to be cute pets!

I don't care if people breed mutts. I care that they're breeding their animals ethically with health and soundness, not that they're breeding according to what show people think should be bred. Show people think any dog created for any reason than the show ring is immoral, which I find ridiculous. The conformation ring and the trial ring, while a helpful guide to a dog's quality, is far from the final word or only valid criteria of a dog's breeding worth. Both things, if held to the exclusion of every other aspect of reality, are blind to the many other factors that make a dog a 'good pet' besides working drive and looks. Until show registries REQUIRE health tests and proof of soundness before a dog can be admitted into the ring, the conformation CH means little by itself. Many breeders have dozens of titled dogs but never health test, and treat their dogs like garbage. Their dogs win CH by the time they're 2 and then break down with disease by the time they're 4 or 5. But the ring judged them 'worthy' to be bred!

Dog breeds were created and maintained for thousands of years before dog shows and registries existed, and neither of those things has the moral monopoly on dog creation. Until dog people can stop being so dogmatic (lol) about how only THEIR reasons are the RIGHT reasons to breed dogs, we'll keep squabbling amongst each other while the AR nuts slowly chip away on our right to own or breed ANY dog, period.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Moonshadow said:


> Were they dropped from the mothership like I'm suspecting someone else here was?


This thread has been rolling along with relative civility.

Let's keep it that way and leave the personal insults at the door.

(I almost said, "Leave the insults at the playground," but that would be insulting.)


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

GroovyGroomer777 said:


> Border, your analogy to marriage and divorce isn't quite right, IMO....marriage/divorce is between two consenting adults.... I would like to know how many dogs looked at their owners and said,
> 
> "You know, this isn't working out, I think I'd be better off at the shelter. I'll send for my things. You can keep everything, except I'd really like all the dirty socks."



This is such a sad topic but to this I say "ha ha ha ha ha"


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> the vast majority of heritable diseases are not inherited through dominant-recessive.
> 
> we can NOT breed them out in a matter of a few generations.


(1) You said "vast majority...not through dominant-recessive" ... please provide evidence for this statement. 

Not that it really matters though, because

(2) Outcrossing works just as well with diseases controlled by more than one gene. The concept is the same: decreasing the chance that the "bad" genes will come together in an individual. 

(3) The limitation of multi gene diseases is not outcrossing, it's the current lack of effective tests and the ignorance of which specific genes are responsible. They are harder to track down in a lab.

(4) The response is still the same. Breed to healthy stock. In highly inbred breeds (almost all of them)... healthy stock is much more likely to be found in another breed.

(5) Given that many diseases have carriers (and affecteds) that have saturated the gene pool, yes, without a significant outcross to another breed, it might take more generations given that we don't want to simply throw out all affected and carrier dogs for one disease, this will simply limit the gene pool for all other genes. Cutting off the nose to spite the face, so to speak.

Or perhaps throwing the baby out with the bath water.

(6) Not that this matters as the biggest breeders in breeds, the show people, are still using the stupid techniques of inbreeding and linebreeding all the time. In fact, even those who try to "outcross" are faced with gene pools that are so limited that even if you find two distinct dogs over the last few generations to breed, the COI over all generations still goes up. There's no way out at this point, the breed is guaranteed to become more inbred.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case with most breeds. A few, like the Australian Shepherd, are new enough where this might not have happened yet.

Still, outcrossing, even within a breed, will prolong the time we have genetic diversity.

===========
As for Labradoodles, try using google and start with Wally Cochran, 1988, The Royal Guide Dogs, and Victoria Australia. 
===========

And as for my titles, testing, etc. none of that matters. That is a logical fallacy. Google "Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Misleading Authority" ... The things I have said stand on their own merits, they are not any more or less true if I'm a show person or a working person or a dog sport person, a breeder, a seller, a puppy mill, or none of those things. 

You're trying to make the argument personal with poor logic. Look at the facts and the arguments and deal with those. What I've said wouldn't be any more or less true if Satan or Santa Claus, Hitler or Mother Teresa said them.


----------



## ladyshadowhollyjc (Oct 28, 2008)

BorderWars said:


> .
> 
> ===========
> As for Labradoodles, try using google and start with Wally Cochran, 1988, The Royal Guide Dogs, and Victoria Australia.
> ...



That is who I did the google search on. They tested 33 poodles to see if the blind woman's husband was allergic to them, all came back positive. I don't see why they would come up with the idea to cross Poodles with Labs. The litter have 3 pups, and one of those by chance the man wasn't allergic to. Who's to say that testing Poodle #34 or 35 wouldn't have resulted in a negative allergy.

Actually your reputation does matter. I don't care how many "facts" your throwing out at me. If you're milling puppies to send to pet stores your words mean as much to me as the dog poop in my backyard. Until you can prove to me that you are a reputable breeder who care for the general well being of whatever "purebreeds" you chose to breed, I will dismiss any fact you spit out. I have looked up one of your "facts" about Dalmatians, and found out it was false. I'm not expert with genetics, that's why I cannot dispute some of the things you say. But as I said before, you did state a fact about Dalmatians that was untrue. Also many of the breeds you have mentioned are "popular" breeds. Those dogs were bred by people who had no idea what they were doing and that's how 8% of Dalmatians were born deaf. It isn't a problem with purebred dogs so much as it seems like it's a problem with people breeding these dogs and having no idea what they're doing.
If Hitler was a quality breeder who health tested his dogs, showed them, had champions and was very selective about his dogs, and he said the same "facts" you are, I'd believe him. Same with any one else. 

You say there's so much inbreeding, which is true, so as a breeder what are you doing to help this? Why breed "purebred" dogs if purebreds have so many problems?


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

ladyshadow-

"It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition."
--Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

If you choose to rely on conformity and authority instead of facts and evidence, that is your problem. You are not a rational person having a rational debate. You're having a popularity contest or something else. But it's not reason.

If you'd like to see what people who show their dogs and put titles on them can do, please watch the BBC Documentary, Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=44215931

You asking for my details is as irrelevant as people in this thread talking about microchips. It's off topic and has nothing to do with "breeding mutts" the topic of this thread.

From your tone, you sound like a show person who likes ribbons. But tell me, does any registry or show require you to test your animals for disease? No.

Does having a disease keep any animal from winning a show championship? No.

Will any show champion have his Ch revoked if he is later found to be diseased? No

Are there even convenient pre-symptom tests for many diseases? No. 

Can you get a show championship before your dog is likely to show any symptoms of diseases like Hip Dysplasia or Epilepsy, etc.? Yes! You can start showing a dog as a puppy.

Can you breed your dog before said diseases are displayed? Yes!

Are traits which are detrimental to breeds rewarded in the show ring? Yes!

Do show breeders chose to inbreed and linebreed their dogs? Yes! 

Do show breeders overuse popular stud dogs, limiting the gene pool and spreading any bad genes that dog has? Yes!

Is there anything about the show ring that guards against disease? No. 

And it's not "the bad breeders." In my breed, the person who runs a health database still inbreeds her dogs. She bred dogs tested with all the common available tests (even though things like HD and Epilepsy have no test and are as common or more common than diseases there are tests for), but she still produced a litter that mostly died after a few weeks from a "new" or previously under-appreciated disease.

She was stupid and thought that you could inbreed with abandon simply because she did a few tests. There are only a few tests and there are many diseases. And there are likely many potential diseases out there that come from mutations that occurred in one dog and have yet to meet up, doubled up, because none of that dog's descendants have been bred together.

The reason that all show dogs are suspect is because show breeders are willing to inbreed to short cut their way to "setting type" and making cookie cutter puppies. The have no interest in genetic diversity, they want just the opposite. What they want are little clones of the dogs who win the most ribbons, and so they inbreed that dog's lines. 

=====
As for my divorce comparison, it's just as valid. The central point is the betrayal of the human-dog bond that happens when people dump their pets. We should not expect the human-dog bond to be any more secure than the human-human bond in marriage and having children.

Some divorces are mutual, but many are not. It's no different with dogs simply because you think it's cute that a dog would ask for the socks. If anything, it's a lot easier to dump a dog than it is to dump your spouse... so my point is actually stronger. 

People only dump 5% of their dogs, even though it's easier and doesn't have nearly the same legal ramifications.


----------



## GroovyGroomer777 (Aug 21, 2008)

Inga said:


> This is such a sad topic but to this I say "ha ha ha ha ha"


Sorry, Inga...I try, but that's all I got.


----------



## ladyshadowhollyjc (Oct 28, 2008)

The OP asked what's wrong with breeding mutts? 
I gave my opinion whether or not you see my opinions as legitimate or reasonable is your problem, just as I see yours as irresponsible answer to a problem.
Creating new breeds with not stop people from inbreeding. It will not stop disease in dogs. It will not stop corruption in the show ring. It only will increase the dog population.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

ladyshadowhollyjc said:


> The OP asked what's wrong with breeding mutts?
> I gave my opinion whether or not you see my opinions as legitimate or reasonable is your problem, just as I see yours as irresponsible answer to a problem.
> Creating new breeds with not stop people from inbreeding. It will not stop disease in dogs. It will not stop corruption in the show ring. It only will increase the dog population.


Opinions are like..... everyone has one and most of them stink... remember that? I'll go back to the quote I posted above... it doesn't matter WHAT you think, it matters how you arrive at your beliefs and why you are confident in them.

That's the difference between having a rational debate and sharing opinions. Sharing opinions is a waste of time unless you're simply curious. A discussion is not a survey, we're talking about more than mere opinions, we're applying reason and observations, the WHY behind beliefs.

====

Dalmatians: What are you getting on about? I didn't lie about Dalmatians. The point with Dalmatians is that they are a highly diseased breed. This is true. If we run with the 1996 data which estimates upwards of 30% deafness (read: affected), we are likely to have an even higher percent of carriers who are not symptomatic. This puts the deafness gene or genes in well over 50% of the breed. Even if we only count the 30%, that's more than an epidemic. If it pleases you, change "most" to "many" or "all" to "an alarming number."

It really makes no difference to any of my points. 

To my knowledge, the exact genes and even deafness process is not perfectly known. Deafness could have genetic and environmental causes... i.e. two clones might have different degrees of deafness, as the process happens as the dog is young and is believed to be linked with blood supply to certain vessels and the genes involved in pigment (their piebald color).

"It should be noted that a unilaterally deaf dog can be as great a genetic risk for transmission of deafness to its offspring as is a bilaterally deaf dog."

And, before you get all huffy about deafness, my point with Dalmatians and outcrossing has to do with the Uric Acid Imbalance. The genes for this are either widespread or universal in the entire breed. Feel free to find the exact percent.

It is this inbred condition which the Dalmatian back-cross project sought to fix. And was successful in doing. And, even though the breeder who solved this issue has since bred his "fixed" mix-bred Dalmatian crosses back to Dalmatians and kept only the unaffected dogs, so that his dogs are over 99% (a lot more than 99%, but again, feel free to google the project and the results) "pure" Dalmatian.... other breeders will not breed to his dogs simply because of this "impurity" nor will the closed registry system allow these dogs to be registered.

30% of Dalmations have deafness not because people didn't know what they were doing, it's because the deafness is likely related to the dog's distinct coat color. Either it is controlled by the same genes, or when they were creating the breed, the founding stock who had the rare spotting also had the deafness gene. And likely they also had the genes for the uric acid problem. 

The same genes, linked genes, or unavoidable genes due to lack of diversity in the founding stock.

===

Again, what I do is irrelevant. Doing things like dog shows and such don't change your dog's genetics. 

But let me provide some answers to what you're really trying to ask.

Do I find any value in a show championship? No. I am able to determine if my dog is beautiful and moves well without the help of an 80 year old judge. I have shown a dog in several dog shows to see what it was all really about. I didn't find it that valuable. There is no feed back and none of the things I really value are on display in the show ring.

My dog won ribbons each and every time. We won ribbons if there were no other dogs in the same class, or if there were 10. And there are so many classes, the level of competition was pretty low. And we always won our class. I think getting a ribbon for just showing up is stupid. 

I also think that being able to show a dog that is only 6 months old is like the Jean-Bennet pageants in humans. Rather ridiculous. 

Really, the whole show ring is rather ridiculous. It's about politics, spending a lot of time and money, and grooming. Temperament, health, agility, are in no way tested in the ring.

If you watch the above video, you'll see those poor GSDs that are wobbly as heck earning points toward their championships and BIBs and even BISs. 

The other reason that I don't plan on continuing to show a dog in the conformation ring is that the championship itself has little meaning. Some dogs can earn a championship in one weekend, others can be shown hundreds and hundreds of times, and finally get a Ch. Since it is subjective, and not objective, it doesn't really mean much.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

BorderWars said:


> (2) Outcrossing works just as well with diseases controlled by more than one gene. The concept is the same: decreasing the chance that the "bad" genes will come together in an individual.


I wasn't trying to deny that in any way. The part I was refuting was the part about "within a few generations".

If done responsibly, out-crossing could eventually get rid of even complex inheritance traits, but it's not going to happen in a few generations. 

As far as the amount of diseases that are inherited through simple dominant-recessive genetics, I don't have any straight up list, but out of the dozens of diseases that I'm familiar with, the only simple inheritance one I can think of dwarfism, and like one presentation of seizures iirc. So yeah, the list is based purely off of my own experiences. If you have a ton to add that are, I would definitely be glad to know about them for my own education

As far as the comments about conformation, I couldn't agree more. The breeding for that has gone to the point that it is unhealthy for way too many breeds. 

The working lines for GSD's, at least, are really clean of roaching and crippled backs now. They've also dang near eliminated HD in the good working lines.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

Here are some interesting reads:

Dog diseases are so inbred that purebred dogs offer an excellent place for scientists to look to help them ferret out which genes cause disease. 
http://www.eurolupa.org/public.html

So why keep up the "pure" gag in "purebred." As someone just asked. Good question. I don't believe it's good or healthy to insist on 100% "purity." This isn't even a concept that the Victorians who started most of the hundreds of dog breeds believed in.

It happened later when the big wigs decided to keep pedigrees and to close their registries to new blood.

Most "breeds" started as mixes, and some are actually maintained as crosses, like the Lurcher.

Adding in new blood to a "pure" breed isn't dangerous or wrong, it's simply a custom which isn't done. It was done at the start, but not now. And that's a problem.

This is especially true for most/many breeds which have no other purpose than to be pets. And in the many dogs in other breeds that still work or have a purpose who are still, just pets. For all these dogs, my guess is that the most important thing to the owners are: looks and behavior.

It looks like a Lab, it acts like a Lab, therefore it is a Lab. I seriously doubt that many or any of these people care that "it's 100% lab." 

Well, you don't have to give up any of those traits to perform a successful outcross. You don't have to make a Labradoodle, which is neither a Lab nor a Poodle. The people who did the Dalmatian backcross have dogs which are in every way indistinguishable from other Dalmatians, they just don't have kidney and bladder sludge.

I think it would be best if registries like the AKC opened up their stud books and allowed in new blood. 

I think it would be helpful if many breeders would choose to outcross, even to other breeds, and increase genetic diversity for the sake of increasing genetic diversity. I.e. not only looking to get rid of one disease, but to bring in new blood for all the things that we can't see.

Even in open breed registries, very few Breeders do this.

The problem is that people are convinced that "purebred" equals quality. And that "one drop" ruins the entire thing. I don't know how this can be solved easily, but it is a destructive mentality.

===

Good reads:

http://www.canine-genetics.com/

http://www.caninegeneticdiseases.net/

http://www.terrierman.com/mcgreevey-some-practical-solution-dog-breeding.pdf

http://server.vet.cam.ac.uk/index.html

And here are over 130 diseases in dogs that are known to be single locus. The site also lists almost 500 total diseases.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

I think what we have here is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of Internet forums.

IMO, they are ALL about opinions. 

Sources and references are glorious for those who have, and will take, the time to chase them all down. Failure to do so may reflect the recreational nature of forums like this. If it's not fun, or at least compellingly interesting, we aren't going to do it.

I think there is also a tendency to skip over posts that look like they will take too much time to wade through. Again, you could call it laziness, but most people are visiting this forum, and perhaps others, during brief, stolen moments.

That doesn't dispel or dismiss the validity of anyone's arguments but, if the time you're spending presenting them is taking time away from your families, your dogs or your job, it might be good to remember that opinions are rarely changed on an Internet forum.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

RonE said:


> I think what we have here is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of Internet forums.
> 
> IMO, they are ALL about opinions.


I think you're wrong. And that's my opinion.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

And you're certainly entitled to that opinion.

Mine is based on close observation of this forum over a couple of years, but you may be the new member who actually changes the posting and reading habits of 6,000+ dogforum members.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

Things are what you make of them, and you can curse the darkness or you can light a candle. I don't have high expectations from a forum where a popular thread is "selling pupies is wrong," but I was brought here because an informed person linked to my blog. 

There is hope. And if people are shallow and want to only read short posts that are along the lines of "ur sooo right11!!!!!one!" then that's fine. I can choose not to behave in that manner and to enlighten people to some facts and perspectives they don't currently appreciate.

I haven't insulted anyone or made anything personal. Nor have I said that the things I say are right because I'm better or smarter or do special things that other posters do not. Despite several people trying to bait me into such frivolity. 

There are so many myths in the dog world, and many people don't even realize that they are not true. I enjoy providing evidence.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

BorderWars said:


> Things are what you make of them, and you can curse the darkness or you can light a candle. I* don't have high expectations from a forum where a popular thread is "selling pupies is wrong,"* but I was brought here because an informed person linked to my blog.
> 
> There is hope.* And if people are shallow and want to only read short posts *that are along the lines of "ur sooo right11!!!!!one!" then that's fine. I can choose not to behave in that manner and to enlighten people to some facts and perspectives they don't currently appreciate.
> 
> ...


I find the above statements conflicting

I also agree with Ron....to me this forum is recreational...I enjoy my time on here and I'm on between work, home life, and time spent with the dogs....so the time that I am on is limited....so yes many times I'm going to skim through the longer postings and links......I have a hard time thinking you can classify someone as being shallow buy just thier DF reading preferences


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

pugmom said:


> buy just thier


So I'm scaring you with facts, proper spelling, and grammar then? 

I'll note that the long posts aren't nearly so hard to read if people don't quote the entire thing in their replies. 

tl:dr? LAbradoodles R Awesome. Inbreeding sux.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

BorderWars said:


> So I'm scaring you with facts, proper spelling, and grammar then?
> 
> I'll note that the long posts aren't nearly so hard to read if people don't quote the entire thing in their replies.
> 
> tl:dr? LAbradoodles R Awesome. Inbreeding sux.



Wow very mature statement

I'd like to know where I posted that any thing you have said "scares" me?


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

pugmom said:


> Wow very mature statement
> 
> I'd like to know where I posted that any thing you have said "scares" me?


I didn't say that either but some of what she says scares me. I guess it is all the years in rescue mopping up after people who think breeding tons of dogs including new doodles is a good thing. 
To be fair, I have not read most of this thread I just pop in here and there. Most of it might be wonderful.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Periodically, someone joins dogforums determined to educate all of us poor, stupid dog owners.

It's perfectly okay. You're not here to make friends. But, historically, those people last about 4-6 months.

Again, you could be the exception.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Maybe so RonE. I am thinking Hell might freeze over too. I bet the chances of that happening are greater then me suddenly starting to believe that breeding oodles of doodles will somehow HELP the dog world. It will actually cut down on the numbers of unwanted dogs dying in shelters. I am just a tough nut to crack though.


----------



## Moonshadow (Nov 9, 2008)

Borderwars, I am thrilled that you have the time and energy to sit at your computer and gather all of your information....good for you! 

Some of what you have said here does scare me a bit, but not nearly as much as what I have read in your blog does. Ron has asked that we remain cival and I respect him and will simply leave it at "you do scare me".

You are absolutely entitled to your opinions and so am I. I will never support the breeding of Mutts, Hybrids, Mixes, or whatever you would like to call them. It goes against everything I believe in. I show my dogs, I was born into showing dogs and I will die showing dogs. I see no reason for people to breed dogs unless they are doing something with their dogs, whether that's conformation, obedience, herding or field work. If people aren't putting titles on their dogs and doing proper health testing on their dogs then in my opinion they have no business breeding dogs. That is my opinion, you need not agree with it but I am entitled to it.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

"_What I've said wouldn't be any more or less true if *Satan* or *Santa Claus*, *Hitler* or Mother Teresa said them._"

Satan is the father of all lies. He's never had an original or honest thought in his head. 

Hitler, well, I'd never trust anything he said, even if he had a gun to my head.

Santa Claus, like he is that people think of him today, is a fictitious character. However, if he were real, he _might_ agree with you, since that's probably how he gets all of his Christmas puppies. 

I only see one credible person on that list.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

BorderWars said:


> And here are over 130 diseases in dogs that are known to be single locus. The site also lists almost 500 total diseases.


Oh cool, so they agree with me. I would say that 74% being complex inheritance would classify as a vast majority.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Moonshadow said:


> Borderwars, I am thrilled that you have the time and energy to sit at your computer and gather all of your information....good for you!
> 
> Some of what you have said here does scare me a bit, but not nearly as much as what I have read in your blog does. Ron has asked that we remain cival and I respect him and will simply leave it at "you do scare me".
> 
> You are absolutely entitled to your opinions and so am I. I will never support the breeding of Mutts, Hybrids, Mixes, or whatever you would like to call them. It goes against everything I believe in. I show my dogs, I was born into showing dogs and I will die showing dogs. I see no reason for people to breed dogs unless they are doing something with their dogs, whether that's conformation, obedience, herding or field work. If people aren't putting titles on their dogs and doing proper health testing on their dogs then in my opinion they have no business breeding dogs. That is my opinion, you need not agree with it but I am entitled to it.


Moonshadow 
When you're right you're right. The thread hasn't been a total loss because I found out Labradoodles were started to guide the blind. I tried to follow more in the thread but most of it was stuff I really did not need to know as it was not going to change my opinion or lifestyle at all. I loved to hunt over a well bred GSP that had stamina and eye-popping style on point. I have been very fortunate and lucky to have had that happen many times. With all the problems I have heard with GSDs I have also been fortunate to own some butt-kickers out of working stock that would bite but had the intelligence to know who and when to bite. (hope my training had something to do with both breeds) The dogs had to be good stock to start with or all the training in the world would not have helped. I got to end with this statement and then I am gone. I have never seen a doodle guiding a blind person, not saying there aren't any, I just haven't seen one.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

BorderWars said:


> So I'm scaring you with facts, proper spelling, and grammar then?
> 
> I'll note that the long posts aren't nearly so hard to read if people don't quote the entire thing in their replies.
> 
> tl:dr? LAbradoodles R Awesome. Inbreeding sux.


You know, I find your attitude toward the membership here bordering on insulting. You seem to have an agenda of promoting irresposible breeders of mixed breeds. You've insulted the other moderators as well as the members with your last three statements. I've read your blog too and it fits the aganda you're trying to promote here. 

As a rescuer and the daughter of a breeder that was ahead of her time 40 years ago when she was requiring that her offspring be returned TO HER if hey needed to be rehomed, Having a health contract, screening potential buyers very strictly, and whelping box socialization I can clearly see what you're here for. I shudder at the misinformation you're spreading.


----------



## chul3l3ies1126 (Aug 13, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> *I shudder at the misinformation you're spreading.*


Misinformation INDEED... oh well... that is how some people get their kicks. 

Nessa


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

Moonshadow said:


> You are absolutely entitled to your opinions and so am I. I will never support the breeding of Mutts, Hybrids, Mixes, or whatever you would like to call them. It goes against everything I believe in. I show my dogs, I was born into showing dogs and I will die showing dogs.


Then you need to find a new breed. Your "collie" isn't a purebred dog. It's just like a labradoodle, except it was a fad that started 100 years ago instead of 20 years ago. 

I'm surprised you don't know this about your own breed. The Scotch Collie used to be a dog that could herd, do a day's work. That's not true any more. When the dog became a show dog, the fancy decided to mix in some Borzoi blood to make the dog look more angular and elegant. This, in addition to ignoring the dog's purpose as a working dog, ruined the breed for its original purpose.

The Labradoodle has more "purpose" in being a mixed breed dog, which is now a breed since they have bred them long enough to "breed true" than does the Collie which was mix-bred simply to meet a fashion fad on what looked elegant.

And for the record, Queen Victoria didn't love your collies, she loved Border Collies. The photos, paintings, and her writings show all dogs that would never be confused for a Lassie collie. 

http://www.gis.net/~shepdog/BC_Museum/Changing/QueenVictoria.html



txcollies said:


> Santa Claus, like he is that people think of him today, is a fictitious character. However, if he were real, he _might_ agree with you, since that's probably how he gets all of his Christmas puppies.


The great problem of Christmas Puppies is mostly a myth.


----------



## reverend_maynard (Aug 4, 2007)

Considering how much misinformation that BorderWars is spreading, you'd think someone would, I don't know, refute some of it?


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

I think a lot of us gave up on this thread quite awhile ago... I know I did... just caught your post... it gets tiring repeating yourself over and over and over and over


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> Oh cool, so they agree with me. I would say that 74% being complex inheritance would classify as a vast majority.


It doesn't really say that 74% are of complex heritance.

If you take a little time to look at the list, most of the diseases are of "unknown" single/multiple locus. 130 are known single loci. I don't believe they have an easy to find count of the complex ones.

And the number of diseases has no relation to the prevalence of disease. One single loci disease that affects 51% of a gene pool is more significant than 99 complex loci that together affect 49% of the gene pool.

If make a calculation like you are doing, you'd say that single loci disease is only 1% even though it's 51%. The number of total diseases is interesting, but you really need to weigh those against incidence to get a picture of how problematic single loci diseases are vs. muli/complex loci diseases are.

I'm not dismissing complex diseases, as Hip Dysplasia and Epilepsy are both believed to be complex heritance.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

BorderWars said:


> Then you need to find a new breed. Your "collie" isn't a purebred dog. It's just like a labradoodle, except it was a fad that started 100 years ago instead of 20 years ago.
> 
> I'm surprised you don't know this about your own breed. The Scotch Collie used to be a dog that could herd, do a day's work. That's not true any more. When the dog became a show dog, the fancy decided to mix in some Borzoi blood to make the dog look more angular and elegant. This, in addition to ignoring the dog's purpose as a working dog, ruined the breed for its original purpose.
> 
> ...


 
The Collie has been breeding true for over 100 years, the Labradoodle still hasn't proven consistent in type, even after 4 generations. The Collie was bred as a herding dog, the Labradoodle has no purpose that hasn't been met by other breeds, I know of NO assistance organization that is consistently using Labradoodles, most prefer the Lab, Golden or poodle. 

As far as the the problem of Christmas puppies being a myth, I'd love for you to visit any shelter in 5-6 months and tell the workers and rescuers that! I fully expect to get FLOODED even worse than we are now in May-June with people that can't handle their Christmas Mastiff pup and hearing the old "the pet store didn't tell me the dog would get this big" excuse. It's bad enough that more and more dogs are being made homeless by the mortgage crisis, that Christmas puppies we'll see will put us so far over capacity, I may have to make horrific choices mid-year about what dogs to save and what dogs to leave in the shelters.


----------



## MyRescueCrew (May 8, 2008)

Wow... as a fellow rescue volunteer, some of the things in this thread just make me sick.

And I laugh at the Christmas puppies being a myth statement. Someone obviously hasn't volunteered in a shelter to see it first-hand, and all the excuses that come with it. "It got bigger than it was supposed to!" "It sheds!" "My kids got tired of it." And on and on and on. 

*Sigh*


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

reverend_maynard said:


> Considering how much misinformation that BorderWars is spreading, you'd think someone would, I don't know, refute some of it?


BorderWars has already exhibited the fact that she is promoting her agenda. we all know it. She's obviously a breeder of the 'doodle influence trying to justify what she does.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> You seem to have an agenda of promoting irresposible breeders of mixed breeds.


How is that? If you think that breeding a mixed breed is irresponsible on its face, then whatever. I don't think it is. But being a "responsible" breeder has nothing to do with your dog being purebred or mixedbred.

There might be puppy mills churning out -doodles because they're popular, but that says nothing about -doodles themselves. That says a lot about puppy mills. Puppy mills also churn out a lot of Cocker Spaniels. Does this make the cocker breed a horrible thing?

I don't believe that any puppy mill is responsible. I don't believe that pet stores are good places to buy pets. But you are trying to equate mixed bred dogs with puppy mills, and that's not the case.

I'd never buy a doodle from a pet store or a puppy mill or someone who had a poodle and something else and decided not to get them fixed and make a little money.

Nothing I have said would suggest otherwise.

But if you do a little research on the history of dog breeds, you'd see that many of them are only a hundred or so years old, were created as a fad, and have no other purpose for existing other than Victorian fancy. 

If you believe so strongly in "pure" breeds, then you should probably get rid of the vast majority of our current breeds because they are simply crosses from the original landrace breeds, or much more recent crosses.

I don't understand why it was ok to make new breeds 100 years ago on a whim, but it's not ok to do so today.

As a rescuer and the daughter of a breeder that was ahead of her time 40 years ago when she was requiring that her offspring be returned TO HER if hey needed to be rehomed, Having a health contract, screening potential buyers very strictly, and whelping box socialization I can clearly see what you're here for. I shudder at the misinformation you're spreading.



cshellenberger said:


> BorderWars has already exhibited the fact that she is promoting her agenda. we all know it. She's obviously a breeder of the 'doodle influence trying to justify what she does.


I'm not a she. And I don't breed doodles. Don't own doodles. Or any other recent (last 100 years or so) mixed bred dog.

I'm simply stating my observation that (1) hybrid vigor is real. (2) many "pure"bred dogs are genetic messes, and (3) the creation of new breeds is nothing new or novel, most of our existing breeds were created just the same way. A few people decided they wanted to create something different and it caught on.

Many of our most cherished breeds come from one kennel mixing a few breeds or strains together and coming up with something new. Just dig into the history of the labs or the terriers and see how those breeds came about. Many of them used to be the same breed, then someone decided they wanted a certain color or a certain coat length, mixed here and there, and eventually they became distinct breeds.

This often happened for not other reason than because they could.


----------



## MyRescueCrew (May 8, 2008)

> I don't understand why it was ok to make new breeds 100 years ago on a whim, but it's not ok to do so today.


SIMPLE! 100 years ago, we didn't have shelters busting at the seams with unwanted dogs. 100 years ago, we didn't have all the breeds we do today. 100 years ago, breeds were created for a PURPOSE! Hunting, fishing, sledding, guiding the blind, herding, guarding, ect. 100 years LATER, we now have a breed, and several of them, for every single purpose that dogs are needed for. Need a good hunting dog? GSD's, Labs, Goldens, Walkers, Coonhounds, Beagles, Bassetts... need a sled dog? Akita, Malamute, Husky... need a guide dog? Labs, Goldens, Poodles, and even GSD's.

There is no need to create any more breeds, we already have PLENTY to do any job in the world that needs to be done. Shelters are overcrowded enough, why make the problem worse. No one needs oodles of doodles for guide dogs. We already have several breeds for that.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I never equated Doodle breeders with Puppymills, you don't have to be a pupplymill to be an irresponsible breeder. I see irresponsible breeders all over the place, including a few that are involved with breed clubs, using them as an avenue to make money. 

That said, what is the quality of the stock you've used to breed YOUR doodles? Are they from Conformationally sound, Work proven dogs? In other words, have they earned the Championship titles for both conformation and work? 

What about health testing? Do you health test for ALL the known diseases in both parents? What about your F1-F2-F3 stock? Have you health tested them for ALL the genetic problems that BOTH of the breeds you're using have? 

Do you take back pups that need to be rehomed so they don't end up in the pound or rescue? 

Do you do Whelping box socialization? 

Do you screen the potential puppy buyers? 

Do you require Spay/Nueter contracts for pet homes (which all should be because you can't show Labradoodles in any accepted Kennel Club)?



BorderWars said:


> As a rescuer and the daughter of a breeder that was ahead of her time 40 years ago when she was requiring that her offspring be returned TO HER if they needed to be rehomed, Having a health contract, screening potential buyers very strictly, and whelping box socialization I can clearly see what you're here for, I shudder at the misinformation you're spreading.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Why are you Plagiarizing me?


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> The Collie has been breeding true for over 100 years, the Labradoodle still hasn't proven consistent in type, even after 4 generations. The Collie was bred as a herding dog, the Labradoodle has no purpose that hasn't been met by other breeds.


No it hasn't. You should read about the "Borzoi head" debate that raged in the Collie breeders from the end of the Victorian era all the way up through the 40s and 50s. Even today!

The collies of today don't even look like the collies of 100 or even 50 years ago. That really isn't "breeding true" is it?

And no one has used a Lassie Collie to herd, certainly not one with Borzoi blood in it. For that matter, almost all the dogs in the Herding group could disappear tomorrow and no one who actually herds would notice. 

And what about all the dogs that have no other purpose except to be decorative companions? 

And what about your Dobes? Don't nearly all of them have a heart murmur and upwards of 20%+ of them can drop dead from heart problems at a young age? They aren't really used for anything than pets anymore. And they're riddled with inbred disease.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

Well, I know the history of my min pins and they were bred to be ratters on ships. The breed is over 400 years old and comes from Germany. Shelties are from the Shetland Islands and used to be much smaller than they are now.

The reason most people are against the breeding of new dogs is that there are enough dogs out there now. There is at least one breed of dog out there for every job you could possibly find for a dog.

It is possible the doodle breeds will someday become a real breed, recognized by the AKC, the CKC and the UKC or whatever the UK is called but, until then, there are a LOT of irresponsible people out there making a fortune off breeding mutts and saying they are hypo allergenic or other such B.S. 

When original dog breeds were "created", there was no one out there selling the "mistakes" for thousands of dollars and the breeding was done very matter of factly, with lots of culling involved and such that no one does now. We are much more soft hearted now and to create a true new breed is a TON of work, research, breeding, culling, etc., etc., etc. to have that dog breed true EVERY SINGLE TIME and to be a HEALTHY, SOUND dog of good temperament.

I deliberately researched to find a dog breed that was well founded, healthy, sound, good personality, etc., and found a good breeder. I have lovely dogs and I really love this breed.

There are a LOT of "reputable" breeders out there today who are little more than puppy mills. Because of the interent, this is getting prolific. It's turned into a money making scheme where the ones who lose are the dogs.

It's very sad. There's just no need for more new breeds. We have plenty now. Breeding mutts for money is just wrong.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

*And no one has used a Lassie Collie to herd, certainly not one with Borzoi blood in it. For that matter, almost all the dogs in the Herding group could disappear tomorrow and no one who actually herds would notice.*

You are off your rocker. I know of many working stock collies and collies that are out competiting (and winning!) in herding events. 

This male is a couple fries short of his Happy Meal. And he has no proof or any real life experience that he's willing to share with us.

I'm finsihed.


----------



## MyRescueCrew (May 8, 2008)

txcollies, I know a woman who has two collies that are herding competitors too, and are winners as well.

New Years is over, time to go back to non-alcoholic beverages.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

Interestingly enough, Collies have more dual champions than any other AKC herding breed. I think this is mostly because the AKC border collie people, for the most part, can't be bothered with herding (either they take it more seriously and trial with another organization or they are candy-bar agility breeders), but it's still an interesting statistic. 

The AWCA - the performance collie breed club- is, I believe, the MOST active single-breed performance club in the country. I think the biggest handicap that collies suffer from when working is low expectations on their owners' part.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

cshellenberger -

I don't breed doodles or any other mixed breed.

I do extensive testing on my breeding stock, DNA and PennHIP (OFA is worthless). All my dogs have also given DNA to several national research projects. I also have researched my dog's pedigrees and contacted every living breeder to ask about diseases where there are no tests. I have contracts. I take dogs back at any time for any reason. I have spay/neuter clauses for people not in a position to breed. I screen homes. I remain in contact with my buyers. I only breed when I keep a puppy. I have participated in almost every activity that you can with my dogs. I have shown, didn't find it worthy of pursuit. I compete in Frisbee, flyball, and agility. I train in sheep trialing. 

But none of that has anything to do with mixed bred dogs. And none of it has anything to do with what I've said. 

And for the record, your "rules" for being a good breeder don't say anything about inbreeding. I've seen plenty of breeders who think that testing for diseases means their stock is safe and they inbreed encouraged by a handful of test results. 

And as far as shelters go, I believe in No Kill. I think Nathan Winograd's book "Redemption" is a must read for any pet owner. I've made a donation to a no-kill shelter near me in the name of every puppy I've sold, and I donate in kind equipment to the breed rescue in my area (like a color printer, food, and crates).

Again, despite your rampant desire to make personal attacks against me, it doesn't change any of my observations about creating new breeds being a natural and good thing in the dog world, the horrible state of many pure bred dogs not at the hands of puppy mills but show breeders who are "responsible."


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

BorderWars said:


> or that matter, almost all the dogs in the Herding group could disappear tomorrow and no one who actually herds would notice.
> 
> And what about your Dobes? Don't nearly all of them have a heart murmur and upwards of 20%+ of them can drop dead from heart problems at a young age? They aren't really used for anything than pets anymore. And they're riddled with inbred disease.


Except for the fact that I personally know MANY shepherds using BCs. I also know a good number of cattle farmers that have acd stock dogs. There are people on this very board that have GSD that they use for work on their farm every day.

Go look up french ring or PPD. There are at on of Dobe's competing and winning world championships in them.

I'll agree with you as far as breeding dogs only for show, because I'm not a fan of that myself. Our similarities end there. There is a HUGE world of breeding and competition going on out there where the dogs work. Where they are bred for temperament, drive and HEALTH.



BorderWars said:


> creating new breeds being a natural and good thing in the dog world, the horrible state of many pure bred dogs not at the hands of puppy mills but show breeders who are "responsible."


This statement isn't disagreeable one bit. The problem is that you need to add a HUGE caveat to it: when done correctly. I'm sorry, but doodles have just gotten way out of hand. How did it happen? People making really bad choices about how they advertised the breed, and letting their stock go to really really shady people. 

There are breeds out there that are trying to get established that are keeping things under control, and not letting it become a huge fad. Yeah, they have been working on it with mixes of mixes for many years, and are getting really good foundation in breeding true. However, they keep a very tight rein on where their dogs go, and who has access to their "stud books" (I'm not sure you call them that in the dog world). If you want an example of it, go have a look at tamaskans. They've been actively working on establishing the breed for a few decades and have only had one incident of a "bad" breeder getting ahold of their stock. They now have dogs that breed true to a given standard of conformation, temperament and health 100% of the time, and the quality is only getting better. The same cannot be said for any of the varieties of doodle, unfortunately because the terrible breeders have ruined it for the ones actively trying to accomplish something.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

BorderWars said:


> No it hasn't. You should read about the "Borzoi head" debate that raged in the Collie breeders from the end of the Victorian era all the way up through the 40s and 50s. Even today!
> 
> The collies of today don't even look like the collies of 100 or even 50 years ago. That really isn't "breeding true" is it?
> 
> ...


The Borzoi head is the same as the Pied gene in Mastiffs, an old gene that occasionally appears, and yes, it's debated as are the Pied Gene in Mastiffs. 

The change in appearance is due more to in ring fashion, the same has happened to the Pekenese, Siamese cat, and many other breds of cat and dog. Unfortunately what's in 'fashion' is what gets bred, that's why I usually opt for work/show lines, they tend to stay truer to the standard.

And no, the majority of Dobes from REPUTABLE breeders don't have heart problems, because reputable breeders HEALTH TEST and don't breed dogs that turn up with the condition. As far as Dobes not being used for anything other than pets, I invite you to join a Dobe forum such as this one http://www.dobermantalk.com/ and tell them that. Many Dobes still have jobs and most that my mother produced had jobs as Police dogs and Home Protection dogs. True they aren't as popular with departments as they once were, but they are still working. I'm personally GLAD they've lost popularity with the general public as well, it's helping the breed recover from fad of the '70's and '80's when they were grossly overbred. Trust me, I'm aware of what BYB and puppymills did to the breed. 



> And no one has used a Lassie Collie to herd, certainly not one with Borzoi blood in it. For that matter, almost all the dogs in the Herding group could disappear tomorrow and no one who actually herds would notice.


Hmm, again I'd like you to say that to those around the country that still use many of these dogs to herd. I know quite a few Cattle Dogs, Corgis, and Border Collkies that work daily on the ranchs and farms in the very county I live in.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

txcollies said:


> *And no one has used a Lassie Collie to herd, certainly not one with Borzoi blood in it. For that matter, almost all the dogs in the Herding group could disappear tomorrow and no one who actually herds would notice.*
> 
> You are off your rocker. I know of many working stock collies and collies that are out competiting (and winning!) in herding events.


Find me one working farm that uses Lassie Collies. There are none. People who actually herd for a living use Border Collies and a few other breeds for cattle.

And there are poodles and other non-herding breeds who compete and win titles in AKC arena events. Getting a HIC is pretty easy.

This is not working, this is playing at herding.

Before the Borzoi business, collies of the Lassie type used to compete in real sheep trials. So did a few bearded collies. Within a few years, it was only the Border Collie and has been for over a 100 years. 

The International I(and the regional championships in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales) and almost all other working competitions are open to any breed, but the winners have only been Border Collies. This is true of USBCHA trials in sheep and cattle here in the USA. Open to any breed, no other winners except working Border Collies.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I'm just curious if you're the BorderWars that got banned from the BC boards. Sorry to drag up other forums but it's still interesting because if you are then I've heard interesting things to say the least from the working bc people.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

BorderWars said:


> And for the record, your "rules" for being a good breeder don't say anything about inbreeding. I've seen plenty of breeders who think that testing for diseases means their stock is safe and they inbreed encouraged by a handful of test results.
> 
> And as far as shelters go, I believe in No Kill. I think Nathan Winograd's book "Redemption" is a must read for any pet owner. I've made a donation to a no-kill shelter near me in the name of every puppy I've sold, and I donate in kind equipment to the breed rescue in my area (like a color printer, food, and crates).
> 
> Again, despite your rampant desire to make personal attacks against me, it doesn't change any of my observations about creating new breeds being a natural and good thing in the dog world, the horrible state of many pure bred dogs not at the hands of puppy mills but show breeders who are "responsible."


I believe LIMILTED line breeding is acceptable, however I know htat over inbreeding dogs, or breeding too closely can have devestaing effects. No, I wouldn't buy from a breeder that line breeds too closely or too often. 

As far as No KIll, it's an ideal. The reality is that very few shelters are 100% No KIll, it's the nature of the beast that some dogs should NEVER be adopted and should be euthinized. It's not the dog fault really, but that of the owners who have made the dog too sick or too aggressive to be rehomed. 

I haven't attacked you, I have asked you valid question about your breeding program and puppy placement procedures. Yes, I have HIGH standards when it comes to a breeder. I have very good reason for that having been burned by a bad breeder before I was as educated as I am now. That bad breeder is the reason I'm now involved as a state Coordinator for Mastiff rescue. I lost my wonderful Mastiff to CardioMyopathy at 15 months and do what I do now as my way of helping the breed. 

You may not breed 'Doodles but your defence of doodle breeders is unjustified all the same. IF there are ANY doodle breders that are doing it right they are extreamly rare.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> Except for the fact that I personally know MANY shepherds using BCs.


No argument there. But they're not using show BCs. The working border collie registry doesn't recognize the AKC or the KC, and they kick out any dog with show champion titles or blood. And the BC is one of the few breeds that the AKC doesn't own the majority of the gene pool.... they have only about 9%.

If you don't believe me that people who actually work stock for a living and compete in trials think the AKC herding system is mostly a joke, then read Donald McCaigs "The Dog Wars" or search for "AKC Controversy" and border collie. 

There are plenty of sheeple who will fill you in on their opinion of the show community.




> There is a HUGE world of breeding and competition going on out there where the dogs work. Where they are bred for temperament, drive and HEALTH.


True, true. I've said so myself. AKC vs. ABCA. Third Estate of the Border Collie.




> This statement isn't disagreeable one bit. The problem is that you need to add a HUGE caveat to it: when done correctly. I'm sorry, but doodles have just gotten way out of hand. How did it happen? People making really bad choices about how they advertised the breed, and letting their stock go to really really shady people.


This is probably true. But the argument needs to be around fake Labradoodles (puppy millers who pick a lab and poodle and have at it), and shady people who do this with any popular breed. They do it with any dog who gets a movie to come out or becomes popular.

This has nothing to say about the concept of "breeding mutts" and everything to say about "breeding crap dogs for a quick dollar."

I believe in free markets and supply and demand. The problem with doodles is that there simply wasn't enough supply by the people who "did it right" than there was demand. 

The demand is not going to go away, so hopefully there will be a group of breeders who will get together, agree on a code of ethics, and establish a healthy stock and keep their registry open.

But again, these are human failings not problems with mutts.

The rest of what you said about control and establishing new breeds... I agree with all of that. No problem here. I don't know about Tamaskans, but I know of the breeder who is trying to recreate a healthier and more sound GSD calling them Shiloh Shepherds and she TM'd the name to maintain control in that respect.

But I don't think the "pure" breed mentality is healthy. I think that all our existing breeds should be allowed to have new blood brought in. This can be done without giving up conformation (I think this is mostly a joke.... more harm has been done than benefits gained from the conformation world) and temperament (so many people say they breed for this, but don't) and health. 

I worry about my breed because they are the smartest, most agile, and only breed who works in the manner they do. There really isn't another breed that would be easy to breed to without sacrificing something. Even though we do have an open registry, I don't see anyone taking advantage of it bringing in new blood.


----------



## Moonshadow (Nov 9, 2008)

BorderWars said:


> And for the record, Queen Victoria didn't love your collies, she loved Border Collies. The photos, paintings, and her writings show all dogs that would never be confused for a Lassie collie.



Oh my God! You have to be kidding!?!?! Queen Victoria liked Border Collies and not "Lassie Collies"? This changes EVERYTHING! And here all these years I've had these "Lassie Collies" because I wanted to be just like Queen Victoria. Thank you so much for this information. I'm going to call all of my friends and let them know about this too.


----------



## MyRescueCrew (May 8, 2008)

I'm also curious -- is this your blog? http://borderwars.blogspot.com/


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> The Borzoi head is the same as the Pied gene in Mastiffs, an old gene that occasionally appears, and yes, it's debated as are the Pied Gene in Mastiffs.


No it's not. All Lassie Collies have the Borzoi head now. Compare a Lassie Collie with an English Shepherd or a Border Collie, all of which looked pretty much the same before the Borzoi business. 

No stop, long nose, funky eye set. That's a part of the breed now, not a rare old gene that occasionally appears.

And it's been magnified, a lot. As you said, by ring fashion.

As for Dobes, 50% incidence seems like an epidemic to me, a major problem. So much so that even if you only breed dogs with the myopathy, my guess is that your gene pool is very condensed.



> What is the incidence of DCM in the Doberman Pinscher?
> Work performed at the University of Guelph has demonstrated that about 50% of all symptom free Dobermans in our area will develop/acquire DCM. Reports out of the University of Georgia indicate that about 50% of symptom free Dobermans studied there will go onto develop/manifest DCM.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

> many "pure"bred dogs are genetic messes


THAT is something we can agree on. I call them "genetic dead-ends."

I just don't see it as a justification for repeating the mistakes of the past.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> You may not breed 'Doodles but your defence of doodle breeders is unjustified all the same. IF there are ANY doodle breders that are doing it right they are extreamly rare.


I'm not defending any Doodle breeders. BREEDERs. Nope. Not one. I'm defending the concept of a mixed bred dog and creating new breeds and mixing in new blood to old breeds.

Entirely different.



RonE said:


> THAT is something we can agree on. I call them "genetic dead-ends."
> 
> I just don't see it as a justification for repeating the mistakes of the past.



The mistake isn't in creating new breeds, it's in closing your gene pools to new blood, then breeding for very specific fads that require continued inbreeding.

The other mistake is the constant "improvement" of the breed. Most breeds have been "improved" to death. Because the faults that people were improving, weren't really faults, but things like "that coat color isn't popular now, we should ban it" or "we want cuter dogs" or "this stud is so great, let's breed the hell out of him."

Not things like health or temperament or ability.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

No, I would say he definitely DOES have a stop. It's small, but it's certainly present.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

MyRescueCrew said:


> SIMPLE! 100 years ago, we didn't have shelters busting at the seams with unwanted dogs.


Shelters in my area aren't busting at the seams. They actually import dogs from other states and from Mexico. They actually kill local dogs to make room for imported dogs.

You should really read Nathan Winograd's "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation."



> There is no need to create any more breeds, we already have PLENTY to do any job in the world that needs to be done. Shelters are overcrowded enough, why make the problem worse. No one needs oodles of doodles for guide dogs. We already have several breeds for that.


There was never a NEED to create most breeds. It has always been about what people WANT. Not what they NEED. The market rules desires, and a lot of people don't want existing breeds. It's really that simple. If there is a demand, someone will show up to supply.

Most breeds have outlived their original purpose, or function, if they even had one to begin with. We don't NEED them, but plenty of people WANT them.

And if shelters are your real concern, why are you here harping on doodles instead of complaining about the over breeding of Pit Bulls?



RonE said:


> THAT is something we can agree on. I call them "genetic dead-ends."


Funny, so do I.

* BC Boards *

The working folks (many on those boards are just jock sniffer wannabes who play at "work" (they hate it when you call it herding) and aren't really workers, but retirees or gentlemen farmers) HATE to be reminded that their trial obsessed culture has harmed the Border Collie gene pool just as much as anyone who inbreeds for show.

Popular sire effect and inbreeding are just as prevalent in the "working" BC world as in the "show" BC world. 

The sheeple believe that breeding for trial success instead of for show success makes them immune to health disorders.

While Border Collies do not have issues like Pugs do with their noses, mostly white dogs do with their hearing, GSDs do with their roached backs, or CKCSs have with their small skulls, (i.e. the intentionally bred diseases caused by conformation fads) we do have unintentionally inbred diseases caused by small gene pools and inbreeding.

Sheeple believe that showing in conformation will be the doom of the breed, but they have already done so much damage chasing after a few hot trial dogs. It's like the Commies vs. the Fascists. They are both authoritarian and harmful.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

BorderWars said:


> And if shelters are your real concern, why are you here harping on doodles instead of complaining about the over breeding of Pit Bulls?


The over breeding of Pit Bulls has been discussed at length ...many, many times


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

pugmom said:


> The over breeding of Pit Bulls has been discussed at length ...many, many times


So why are you for Education and against BSL with Pit Bulls (your signature), but seemingly hostile to some education on the benefits of mixing breeds and the history of mixing breeds?

Don't you believe in "punish the deed, not the breed" ??

How is this any different?


----------



## MyRescueCrew (May 8, 2008)

Thank you pugmom, that saves me the trouble, LOL.



> Shelters in my area aren't busting at the seams. They actually import dogs from other states and from Mexico. They actually kill local dogs to make room for imported dogs.


What a joke. You obviously aren't in America. I can't think of any dog SHELTER that would kill local dogs so they import dogs from other states and Mexico.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

Collies do have a stop. It's slight, but perceptible. Read the standard you wacko. 

I've known a lot of insane BC people, but you beat all.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

BorderWars said:


> So why are you for Education and against BSL with Pit Bulls (your signature), but seemingly hostile to some education on the benefits of mixing breeds and the history of mixing breeds?
> 
> Don't you believe in "punish the deed, not the breed" ??
> 
> How is this any different?



Yes I believe in "punish the deed, and not the breed".....I would never "punish" a doodle for being a doodle...and I would love to "educate" all the irresponsible breeders /byb and puppy mill breeders out there


----------



## MyRescueCrew (May 8, 2008)

The only thing that freaked me so out far is BorderWars' blog. I mean... really, it looks like someone who's about to go to war. Border collies and rifle guns? Holy cow.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

BorderWars said:


> Shelters in my area aren't busting at the seams. They actually import dogs from other states and from Mexico. They actually kill local dogs to make room for imported dogs.
> 
> You should really read Nathan Winograd's "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation."
> .


The myth huh? I wonder if the poor people that have to euthanize hundreds even thousands of perfectly good dogs each year would enjoy that read? Sorry pal but I have seen first hand the down side of shelters. We had a wack job Executive Director at our local shelter here for awhile that killed off a bunch of the local dogs to make room for cute little puppies from other states as well. I guess the dogs that died were not good enough. Some of them were only 6 months old, many were pure breeds. How much time have you spent at your local shelter to know that they are not busting at the seams? All of the rescues and shelters around here are right now. Especially now with the economy. People are dumping their dogs as they are losing their homes and houses. What we don't need is more dogs to fill them up even more.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

It's been said a zillion times that "only" 5% of dogs in the U.S. are killed in shelters every year. What about those that die, but not in shelters? I have known SO many dogs who were shot, hit in the head, starved, etc. by their owners because they weren't wanted. Way more than ended up in shelters. 

I'd say the animals in shelters are the lucky ones. You can't go by shelter statistics to tell you how many unwanted pets ther are in any given area. You can only see how many had owners who cared enough to actually take them to the shelter. I guarantee you that there are far more unwanted dogs than the shelter statistics would indicate.


----------



## deege39 (Dec 29, 2008)

You make a good point Willowy. My step-mother lives next to neighbors that had a pit-bull that gave birth to a litter of puppies. Word has it that most of the puppies died, and a couple that were left weren't worth anything, and they "mysteriously disappeared". No joke. There are tons of animals, starved, abused, beaten, poisoned, shot, or used as "feeders" in dog-fights. It's terrible, but it's so hard to rescue animals like that; It's easy to get one from the shelter, but you can't just walk over to your neighbor and say, _Hey, since you're not taking care of your mutts, can I have'em_?"...


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

> * BC Boards *
> 
> The working folks (many on those boards are just jock sniffer wannabes who play at "work" (they hate it when you call it herding) and aren't really workers, but retirees or gentlemen farmers) HATE to be reminded that their trial obsessed culture has harmed the Border Collie gene pool just as much as anyone who inbreeds for show.
> 
> ...


So... what do you do with your dogs? Are you a 'real' worker? what makes what you do different than everyone you condemn (which seems to be well.... everyone)

I think it says a lot that no one on either side of the show or working split tends to agree with you.


----------



## Moonshadow (Nov 9, 2008)

MyRescueCrew said:


> The only thing that freaked me so out far is BorderWars' blog. I mean... really, it looks like someone who's about to go to war. Border collies and rifle guns? Holy cow.


That was interesting but I really got a kick out of the naked men....one with things written on his butt and another riding a bike. You need to click on all of the links in the yellow area....it's a hoot. Maybe I would have been ok if the guys were hot....oh, but they were FAR from it!


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

pugmom -

While we're talking about dogs that NEED to be bred versus dogs people WANT... why do we need to breed Pugs?

They aren't useful dogs, no one "works" them. The serve no purpose other than being pets.

And they're incredibly deformed. They have fragile little bones, their noses are so smushed up that they can't breathe and easily overheat. Their teeth are a mess. Their curled tails are prone to infections and they have spine problems from those tails too. They also need to have excess bone and skin removed from their mouths so they can eat and breathe properly. Their eyes bug out because their skulls are too small to hold them and they damage them because they bulge so much. 

And all of that is just in their conformation.

Can you ethically breed even a single Pug? Is it ethical to produce an animal that has so many problems?


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

I can't really give an opinion on pugs either way but....

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/dog_breeders_issue_massive_recall


....is worth reading.


----------



## MyRescueCrew (May 8, 2008)

Willow, good point. I have 12 rescues, only ONE came from a shelter, that would be Audubon. My mom's Pom mix was pulled from the pound by me, when I was there pulling other dogs for the rescues. Out of 12 rescues, 11 didn't even come from a shelter. So I agree with the percentage being off if only including shelters.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

BorderWars said:


> pugmom -
> 
> While we're talking about dogs that NEED to be bred versus dogs people WANT... why do we need to breed Pugs?
> 
> ...


ahhh....here come the personal attacks 

yes along w/most of the toy breeds ...the pug is a companion animal....

i have 2 right now....with no tail problems, teeth problems, or abnormal bone growth....and I would say of all the toy breeds the pug is one of the least fragile


----------



## MyRescueCrew (May 8, 2008)

OMG Trumpet, that link was hilarious.

Moon, I'll have to check out the other links, LOL!


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> So... what do you do with your dogs? Are you a 'real' worker? what makes what you do different than everyone you condemn (which seems to be well.... everyone)
> 
> I think it says a lot that no one on either side of the show or working split tends to agree with you.


It does say a lot. I think they're both ruining the breed with highly selective breeding practices. Just like the Commies and the Fascists, I think they're both wrong.

Inbreeding in the name of good looks and inbreeding in the name of a top trialing dog are both destructive IMO.

And no, I'm not a "real" worker, there are only a very few of those. Many are hobby people who own a few sheep. Even many of the top trialers in the country don't really "work" their dogs. They train them on sheep for trials. 

They like to call it "work" instead of "herding" but they are really no different than people who put AKC herding titles on their pet dogs and who have no connection to any real working ranch. They don't think so, but there's no industry push to keep sheep trials going. 

In fact, there's a pretty good debate between people who actually work their dogs and people who just trial. It's eclipsed by the hatred for the show community (and with it the sport community), but it's there.

I'm perfectly happy being hated for pointing out that both of these groups are harming the breed.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

BorderWars said:


> It does say a lot. I think they're both ruining the breed with highly selective breeding practices. Just like the Commies and the Fascists, I think they're both wrong.
> 
> Inbreeding in the name of good looks and inbreeding in the name of a top trialing dog are both destructive IMO.
> 
> ...


And you breed for....?


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

BorderWars said:


> It does say a lot. I think they're both ruining the breed with highly selective breeding practices. Just like the Commies and the Fascists, I think they're both wrong.
> 
> Inbreeding in the name of good looks and inbreeding in the name of a top trialing dog are both destructive IMO.
> 
> ...


The first mistake a working owner can do is consider the AKC a working dogs registry. I think pretty much everyone around here knows it's nothing of the sort. I like the akc for their dog sports like agility, but for actual working trials, it's bogus.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

Inga said:


> The myth huh? I wonder if the poor people that have to euthanize hundreds even thousands of perfectly good dogs each year would enjoy that read?


Those are exactly the people who SHOULD read the book. 

Here are some choice bits:



> New York City offered Bergh's ASPCA money to run the dog pound... Henry Bergh [Founder of the ASPCA] refused.
> 
> He believed that the ASPCA was a tool to champion and protect life, not to end it. He believed that its role to protect animals from people was fundamentally at odds with that of a pound. Bergh understood implicitly that animal welfare and animal control were two separate and distinct movements, each opposing the other on fundamental issues of life and death.
> 
> ...





trumpetjock said:


> The first mistake a working owner can do is consider the AKC a working dogs registry. I think pretty much everyone around here knows it's nothing of the sort. I like the akc for their dog sports like agility, but for actual working trials, it's bogus.


The second mistake you can do is to consider the ABCA a working dogs registry. They register 20,000 puppies per year and there are only a small handful of people who really work their dogs. 

They have no working standard, no dog is ever kicked out of the registry for not being able to work. They don't have any health standards or inbreeding standards or really any standards at all except "no AKC dogs."

The post I link to above, AKC Vs. ABCA, says it all.

Registries are just paper pushers. Everything else is just a lot of hot air.



Laurelin said:


> And you breed for....?


(1) Myself. I don't breed just to breed and sell puppies. And I breed very rarely.
(2) Temperament, Genetic Diversity, Health
(3) Intelligence and Agility (in the broad sense)
(4) Looks and Stock Sense

There are other breeders who flip that list, and they're welcome to. But I don't believe that everyone should be clones of the show and trialing folks.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

BorderWars said:


> pugmom -
> 
> While we're talking about dogs that NEED to be bred versus dogs people WANT... why do we need to breed Pugs?
> 
> ...


 
Fragile Bones? *HA HA HA*, my pug pulls my 120 lb daughter in a skateboard he's ANYTHING but 'fragile'. No they may not work in the sense you speak of but many are therapy dogs and health alert dogs. My Pug is as healthy as any other dog I've seen and wrestles with Mastiffs, Bulldogs and Dobes. The eyes do NOT bug out if properly bred though they are prominent and a pug with eye damage due to their set is rare. I'm a member of my local Pug club and go to meet ups regularly often there are 100-200 pugs at he meets and nearly all are healthy, hearty and sweet tempered. The pugs existance and that of many other breeds you've disparaged in this thread and your blog are JUST as justified as any other breed or mix. 

You've clearly bought into the tripe in you blog about purebred dogs, the things I see there are insulting and scary.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

> (1) Myself. I don't breed just to breed and sell puppies. And I breed very rarely.
> (2) Temperament, Genetic Diversity, Health
> (3) Intelligence and Agility (in the broad sense)
> (4) Looks and Stock Sense
> ...


And how do you go about testing that? If you don't really work your dogs (which you said you don't) then what do you need to breed them for? Obviously you don't show or trial and you don't sound like you do sports.

How do you go about increasing genetic diversity? Is that the idea about crossing show lines and working lines that I've heard mentioned?


----------



## PugChick (Nov 5, 2007)

BorderWars said:


> Their teeth are a mess. Their curled tails are prone to infections and they have spine problems from those tails too. They also need to have excess bone and skin removed from their mouths so they can eat and breathe properly.


Thank God no one ever let my pug read anything like this. 

The only thing that sort of applies is the overheating, but when it's 110F out I can't really point to that as a massive flaw. Everything is overheating at that point.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

PugChick said:


> Thank God no one ever let my pug read anything like this.
> 
> The only thing that sort of applies is the overheating, but when it's 110F out I can't really point to that as a massive flaw. Everything is overheating at that point.


yeah mine too ...I don't get the tail infection thing?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

PugChick said:


> Thank God no one ever let my pug read anything like this.
> 
> The only thing that sort of applies is the overheating, but when it's 110F out I can't really point to that as a massive flaw. Everything is overheating at that point.


 
LOL, same here, my boy has NEVER had an infection in his tail, I don't know of any pugs that have spine problems other that from old age or abuse. We've never had any kind of eye problem and I know of few that have had to have any surgery on their palates. 

Trust me, if you want to talk about health problems, I've owned the #1 breed for them (English Bulldogs). However it's mostly from poor breeding practices, especially here in San Diego where the EB is the #3 breed owned and we have a guy that imports poorly bred EBs from Eastern European puppymills, he also breeds Labradoodles and Mastweilers.


----------



## Great Dane (Nov 18, 2008)

I've only read this thread quickly and skimmed through it because the same thing is being said ad nausea and it's giving me a headache.

That said,

You've presented a very well thought out opinion BorderWars but at the same time no more or less qualified than anyone here. That said, there is one thing I'd like to address.

Hybrid Vigor.

It does not exist, health problems can not be avoided by mixing breeds. On the same token, Purebreds aren't unhealthy on the basis of being inbred although I know a lot of people like to use that as a staple to their arguments. Purebreds are widely being bred with poor structure and the dams and sires shouldn't even be bred in the first place. In terms of responsible/irresponsible breeders, I'd wager to say that irresponsible breeders outnumber responsible breeders 95% to 5%. So really, how many does that leave who are constantly refining their lines, improving the breed and generally putting out healthier and longer lived dogs? This so-called hybrid vigor is nothing but a marketing ploy to the unsuspecting public who think that they're getting a dog whom is not susceptible to the diseases that a purebred is exposed to. Many of these 'hybrid' breeders are simply outcrossing two unhealthy gene pools, but really many of the hereditary diseases are asymptomatic. All these breeders who are breeding mutts, or hybrid dogs as you like to call them can not get proper health checks done on their dogs, they don't know the pedigree. When the puppies pop out these people don't have a clue as to what genes they inherited from their parents so if the dam or sire had unhealthy genes guess what the puppies will have? Purebred dogs are not the problem, it's irresponsible breeders of purebred dogs whom are the problem here and it's only a matter of time until the same thing happens with these so-called designer breed mixes, hybrid dogs or mutts.

A dog is a dog; it is one species whether it's a Great Dane or a Chihuahua, they have certain genes bred to exhibit certain traits. Hybrid vigor is scientifically proven in other species of animal, but yet nothing has been proven with Canis lupus familiaris. Anyway, back to this supposed hybrid vigor, many of these breeds crossed have similar health issues so a cross could actually pose more problems than that of a purebred from reputable lines. Do these people do testing on Thyroids, Willebrand's, Luxating Patellas, Hip and Elbow dysplasia, eye problems? I'd easily and confidently wager that these things a mere afterthought to most of these people who breed these 'hybrid' dogs. I'll take my chances health wise with a purebred dog from strong lines and a reputable breeder over a hybrid dog any day of the week.

Here is an excellent link for you: http://www.bulldoginformation.com/breeding-myths.html

Hybrid vigor is nothing more than a ploy.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well I'm not a small dog person but a Pug would be one of my very 1st choices cause I think they are cool. ( I don't know if this helps your little dogs after being abused by the bad person)


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

You clearly have excellent taste then wvasko!  Pugs are extremely cool! I find the idea of a Pug being fragile rather hysterical as well. My Pug runs circles around Labs and Goldens, has no spinal problems, no breathing problems, and has never had a tail infection. I've NEVER heard of a Pug having a tail infection, lol. I'm a member of a local Pug group, and an international Pug forum, and Kuma is by no means unusual either.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Trust me, if you want to talk about health problems, I've owned the #1 breed for them (English Bulldogs). However it's mostly from poor breeding practices, especially here in San Diego where the EB is the #3 breed owned and we have a guy that imports poorly bred EBs from Eastern European puppymills, he also breeds Labradoodles and Mastweilers.



Oh yes, I have known several English Bulldogs with health issues. I do have an issue with the breeding of any breed of dog that cannot even whelp on its own. My friends English Bulldog was a constant problem. It's tail had to be completely removed because it was growing back into the dogs spine it was curled so tight. The under bite has become so extreme it causes all kinds of breathing issues and dental problems. That said, I am sure there are people that love them. I do too. I just could not condone breeding a dog that has such known health issues. Made me sad seeing my friends dogs. 

Oh, and Mastweilers? yeah, we really need those.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> And how do you go about testing that? If you don't really work your dogs (which you said you don't) then what do you need to breed them for? Obviously you don't show or trial and you don't sound like you do sports.
> 
> How do you go about increasing genetic diversity? Is that the idea about crossing show lines and working lines that I've heard mentioned?


Oh drop the pretense. You haven't heard anything mentioned, you've spent your time trying to google who I am and find anything you can to throw in my face and make this personal.

I don't believe many people "really" "work" their dogs. Let me rephrase, their Border Collies. There are scant few other breeds that have any "work" at all. 

But I do what people who call it work, do. I take my dogs out and train them and myself on moving sheep. But this is for fun and I have no illusions about that. And I've shown, won ribbons, and think it's useless. But if you actually spend some time reading my blog and looking at the hundreds and hundreds of photos, you'll see that we do flyball, Frisbee, and Agility. Last time I looked, those were sports.

*But again, all this is entirely irrelevant. You are trying to trash talk simply because you can't debate. This thread isn't about Border Collies or me, it's about "breeding mutts."

Playing private eye character assassination is juvenile. Please move along unless you have something to say about the arguments that are relevant instead of irrelevant digging in who I am.*



Kuma'sMom said:


> You clearly have excellent taste then wvasko!  Pugs are extremely cool! I find the idea of a Pug being fragile rather hysterical as well. My Pug runs circles around Labs and Goldens, has no spinal problems, no breathing problems, and has never had a tail infection. I've NEVER heard of a Pug having a tail infection, lol. I'm a member of a local Pug group, and an international Pug forum, and Kuma is by no means unusual either.


Feel free to watch Pedigree Dogs Exposed. They do a wonderful job of documenting all the problems in Pugs.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Borderwars,
Please refrain from telling other members what to do or what they can discuss in a thread. That's the job of the Moderators.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

Great Dane said:


> Hybrid Vigor. It does not exist, health problems can not be avoided by mixing breeds.


It does. What you're saying is just show people lies. It's very real and it works. I'm not going to bother going line by line on a link from a BULL DOG breeder. They can't even reproduce themselves, they require C-sections to deliver and rape-cages to even get pregnant. 

There is little genetically healthy or natural about the bulldog. 

At least no one really "works" them any more... baiting bulls is barbaric.




> On the same token, Purebreds aren't unhealthy on the basis of being inbred


Oh yes they are. If you want to deny this, go ahead, it will only spell doom (and likely already has) for whatever dogs you are involved in.

Please find me one example of an inbreeder who has taken some "unhealthy" breed and made it healthy. There is not a single genetic disease which has ever been bred out of dogs.

And the trends are all going negative for health and longevity. Dogs aren't living longer or healthier by being inbred.


And health testing and hybrids are not mutually exclusive and they in no way inhibit each other. 

The TRUTH is that there are more problems, many more, than there are tests for. Outcrossing has a much greater chance of diluting those problems, even when breeding blind. 

No one is saying that blind outcrossing is going to guarantee healthy dogs without diseases.... nothing except gene manipulation in a lab can remove a carrier gene. The only way humans can do so is to breed away from those genes. Hybrids are, by definition, and reality, less likely to have the genes you want to get away from.

The genes don't disappear, they are simply prevented from doubling up to a much greater degree than happens when you have both a highly homozygous breed and you inbreed.

It has been proven to work in dogs, simply look up the Dalmatian backcross. That is the proof of out-crossing. 

And purebreds ARE diseased because they are inbred. Bad genes that people either can't or don't test for, that they don't want, get concentrated right along with the "good" genes they do want.

People inbreed to concentrate the genes, to achieve homozygosity. To make sure that the dog is guaranteed to pass along the same genes every breeding and every generation.

This concentrates the disease genes, just like the coat color or anything else people breed for.

Humans and dogs share diploid status. We have two copies of each gene, and they may not be the same. If each copy is the same, we are homozygous. If they are different, we are heterozygous.

If I have a dog that has a brand new mutation in one gene, and it's ok if he just has one copy, but deadly if he has two... then that brand new mutation is not a problem until someone inbreeds on my dog, because that is the only way that the new mutation is ever going to double up. (It could occur randomly in another dog, but this is a one in a bazillion chance).

But if my dog is a hot dog and then hundreds of people stud him and then as the generations go down, people eventually recross those lines, then that mutated gene can get doubled up. It doesn't happen any other way.

And this is exactly what happens with inbred, purebred dogs.



cshellenberger said:


> Borderwars,
> Please refrain from telling other members what to do or what they can discuss in a thread. That's the job of the Moderators.


Then why don't you do your job as a moderator and delete the posts that are trying to dig up irrelevant things from my blog? 

Not only is it off topic, it's meant to harass me and distort the truth. One poster is even suggesting that I traffic in naked pictures! They obviously can't read and see that I was pointing out how stupid and hypocritical the people in said photo were being.

I haven't asked anyone to post their IQs or their salaries or where they went to school and what degrees they have, nor how they breed their dogs or what dogs they have. I find the "let me find something I can use to hurt BorderWars by digging on his blog" very juvenile and against this forum's code of conduct rules.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think it's very relevant. You've said x is useless, y is useless. so what's the point? Why breed if there's no point?

No, I haven't googled you at all. I just remembered reading something a long time ago.


----------



## BorderWars (Jan 7, 2009)

MyRescueCrew said:


> Thank you pugmom, that saves me the trouble, LOL.
> What a joke. You obviously aren't in America. I can't think of any dog SHELTER that would kill local dogs so they import dogs from other states and Mexico.


Read this, then google "shelter import mexico" or "animal shelter import"... be creative. You might learn something.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/call7investigators/14194783/detail.html

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11189913

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/download/2008/1211/18249402.pdf

The Colorado (that's in the USA, last time I checked) Humane Society and SPCA has just been busted because they:



> Euthanized nearly 30% of animals at their Englewood facility despite advertising themselves as a "No-Kill" shelter with a 92% adoption rate.
> 
> Falsified reports to the Secretary of State and the Department of Agriculture, distorting the number of animals adopted, returned, transferred, and euthanized to artificially maintain the organization's claimed euthanasia rate.
> 
> ...





Laurelin said:


> I think it's very relevant. You've said x is useless, y is useless. so what's the point? Why breed if there's no point?
> 
> No, I haven't googled you at all. I just remembered reading something a long time ago.


Everyone breeds because they want to. No one is putting a gun to the head of anyone demanding they breed dogs. No one is going to die if any one breeder doesn't breed.

I didn't say anything was useless. I said justifying inbreeding dogs for show was irresponsible. I said justifying inbreeding dogs for trials is irresponsible. And I said that I.... I.... don't choose to place conformation or trial results as the most important things to me.

You can read why I got into breeding on my blog, but the short of it is that there are very few breeders in my area, and I don't like the trends of where the breed is going the last 10 years. It took me a long time, several years, to find dogs who were not highly inbred, from breeders who did testing and had a more versatile view of the breed. And who had previous litters that I could meet and evaluate.

I'm not out to save the breed for anyone but myself. And I've found excellent homes for all the puppies I didn't keep. Luckily, those homes agreed with the traits that I like and wanted dogs like my dogs. 

Everything else is just window dressing. It wouldn't matter if I didn't have a contract or didn't take my dogs back or any of those things if the underlying qualities were actually crap.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Borderwars,
You have been walking a VERY thin line on this site. By telling a mod how to do their job, you've crossed it.


----------



## MyRescueCrew (May 8, 2008)

That's a shelter that got busted for wrong doing. You won't find too many reputable shelters importing dogs from Mexico.



> be creative. You might learn something.


Be polite. You might learn some manners.

Thank God! *Hugs Carla*


----------



## Codabella (Dec 27, 2008)

I never understood how people who go out and PURCHASE pure bred dogs when healthy dogs in need are ignored at shelters. 

If we decided to breed for temperament and ignore ridiculous physical standards we might not have so many with no home. We can breed for character and ignore physical features like unnaturally long or short noses, which in the end shouldn't matter. 

A varied gene pool is the healthiest existence for a species. The very essence of breeding today is minimizing the pool and giving dogs unnatural health problems that continue through generations.

Go to a shelter and stop buying purebreds


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

lol, I had a little private bet with myself about how long it would take Borderwars to get himself banned, and I won.


----------



## Great Dane (Nov 18, 2008)

Codabella said:


> I never understood how people who go out and PURCHASE pure bred dogs when healthy dogs in need are ignored at shelters.
> 
> If we decided to breed for temperament and ignore ridiculous physical standards we might not have so many with no home. We can breed for character and ignore physical features like unnaturally long or short noses, which in the end shouldn't matter.
> 
> ...


Um, excuse me?

I will do whatever I want when I go out and purchase a dog. Shelter dogs are all fine and dandy and I commend the people who rescue them but people who seek out reputable breeders and want a great purebred dog from champion lines and very strong lineage, what's wrong with that exactly?

People talk about purebred owners being snobby? 

Seems like you just have something against purebred dogs in my opinion.



cshellenberger said:


> Borderwars,
> You have been walking a VERY thin line on this site. By telling a mod how to do their job, you've crossed it.


I was just starting to have fun too.

I actually enjoyed his view points.


----------



## Tmarie423 (Jan 1, 2009)

Codabella said:


> I never understood how people who go out and PURCHASE pure bred dogs when healthy dogs in need are ignored at shelters.
> I do so because I love the Rottweiler Breed and I applaud what COE breeders do to maintain the breed and the breed standard, while working hard to improve the breed in general. I've also rescued rotti's, but NO ONE will tell me that I can't contact the COE breeder that I know and respect and obtain one of their puppies if I want too.
> If we decided to breed for temperament and ignore ridiculous physical standards we might not have so many with no home. We can breed for character and ignore physical features like unnaturally long or short noses, which in the end shouldn't matter.
> Are you serious? I understand completely about you wanting people to adopt from shelters, but you obviously do not understand the world of purebred dogs at all.
> ...


I will always have a purebred rottweiler, period. ; )
My Zena girl is a purebred rottweiler and I done nothing wrong for bringing my girl home. I also have my little rescue fur baby Cain. Their absolutely precious. And with your way of thinking there would eventually be an end to the wonderful rottweiler breed, with the exception of poorly bred, unstable rotti's from BYB's and puppy mills. So I will stand by the COE breeders I know personally because they truly love the breed and desire to make it better. Better yet with your way of thinking it would be the end of all breeds with the exception of puppy mills and BYB's. So thanks, but no thanks. 

COE breeders breed their dogs in an effort to better the breed, this includes healthwise. They aim at producing stable, healthy, well rounded dogs with good temprements. I believe puppy mills and BYB's should STOP breeding, but the COE breeders is what keeps our wonderful breeds going and they do not breed often. People should, however, STOP buying purebreds from puppy mills or BYB's because there is no telling what you're getting into. 

As for going to a shelter to get your pet, that is a good idea, as is rescue, but people should refrain from paying for purebred puppies from BYB and puppymills, this includes pet stores, malls, etc.etc. If you want a purebred people, do your research and talk to several COE breeders before making a decision. : )


----------



## reverend_maynard (Aug 4, 2007)

What a ridiculous banning.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

MyRescueCrew said:


> That's a shelter that got busted for wrong doing. You won't find too many reputable shelters importing dogs from Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Carla 
Another thank you from me. You must be very good with dogs as when training dogs patience is a very high priority. You have shown much patience but it was time. Pug owners among others will fall to sleep with small smiles on their faces.(me too)


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Codabella said:


> I never understood how people who go out and PURCHASE pure bred dogs when healthy dogs in need are ignored at shelters.
> 
> If we decided to breed for temperament and ignore ridiculous physical standards we might not have so many with no home. We can breed for character and ignore physical features like unnaturally long or short noses, which in the end shouldn't matter.
> 
> ...


I own purebreeds AND I rescue (State Coordinator for Mastiff rescue) it's possible to do BOTH, you just have to find the right breeder. I have a breeder that will take back ANY offspring if they need to be rehomed so her dogs DO NOT end up in shelters or rescue. She also does rescue for her chosen breed. 

As far as breeders minimizing the gene pool, it's not true. Reputable breders use dogs from other lines that aren't related to their dogs to outcross. I know many in the Dobe world that are crossing American lines with Euro and South American lines to improve work drive, structure and health. I may be joining these ranks when my husband retires from the military and I'm not moving around so much. 

When it comes to features that are exagerated, yes it can have some draw backs, but often those features were originally bred in for a function; the short nose of the bulldog and related breeds was to help it breath when it had a bull by the nose, the Flews of the Mastiff and other breeds that were protection/hunting to keep blood from gagging the dog when it was on a kill, the short legs of the Dachshund so it could go down a badger hole and the dwarfism of the corgi to keep it from getting kicked by the cattle it herded. They weren't bred for fashion, but for function. 

Before you make such broad statements you should do some research. not everything you read online is 100% true, there are alot of people with agendas that twist facts to their liking such as the one earlier in the thread. Look at all sides of the debate and remember that.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Thank You Carla! :d 

Codabella Our local shelter is usually running at about 60% purebreds. There are also all kinds of purebred dog rescues. If a person wants a purebred dog there are multiple options for them that do NOT cause over production of dogs. Staying away from the millers and byb is the best way. Adopting a dog from a rescue or purchasing from a reputable breeder is the other way. The problem people have with the reputable breeder is sometimes you will have to wait for a dog. They do not have a dog at the ready right away. They breed only after they have enough approved homes for their puppies.


----------



## sw_df27 (Feb 22, 2008)

well I will always own purebreeds and infact the next purebreed we get will be from the shelter our shelter is full of purebreed dogs that are surrenders that come with papers............. Oh and I never paid a penny for any of the purebreed dogs I have ever owned.


----------



## Sirtexx (Apr 4, 2021)

wvasko said:


> One big problem I can see is that the 2 dogs being bred with all the health tests and temperament tests etc could indeed pass tests/exams etc with flying colors. What about their parents/grandparents, great grandparents etc. Who tested them? I believe this is another question throw out here that will just a useless ruckus. Instead of asking what's wrong with the breeding, the question should be what's right with it. I'm in and out of this thread. Everybody have fun and play nice.





wvasko said:


> I believe to that 50 or 75 yrs and much longer ago when many breeds were started there was much more control of the started new breed. Now when somebody hears about a doodle online they want to try their hand at doodling. then you have new doodles coming up all over the world. I don't believe this helps start anything. I hope all this doodling was not confusing.


Well some dogs are succeful at that and others are not... humans aren't animals and communication has existed for along time even after the grave its all about really approving of someone when it comes to humans


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

This thread is over twelve years old and most of the participants haven't been active on this forum in some years. I'm closing it to further comments to avoid confusion, but feel free to join in current discussions or start your own thread!


----------

