Designer Dog Breeds

[PixieSticksandTricks]

I'm not so against people that would like to make a hybrid dog into a standard breed such as the cock a poo which has been around far before the "designer" trend and the labradoodle. I think the people that are really committed to one day having their breed be recognized and do all the health and temperament testing aren't that bad.

The problem stems from people who are like, my dog is so cute i'll bred them, or i wonder what THIS would look like! and they breed irresponsibly

FINALLY someone else who realizes that the Cockapoo is nothing new lol. Lol just had to throw that out there.

 

[Laurelin]

FINALLY someone else who realizes that the Cockapoo is nothing new lol. Lol just had to throw that out there.

I wrote that too.

Nice post tempura tantrum.

 

[bubbatd]

I am so lucky to own a one of a kind designer !! Ollie is so rare , I don't even know if his Mom or Dad was the Golden and who they bred to !

 

[krisykris]

FINALLY someone else who realizes that the Cockapoo is nothing new lol. Lol just had to throw that out there.

Yeah, I read a book about the cock a poo and I think it said they've been around since the early 70's! I feel like anyone that's dedicating that much time on a dog that they want to turn into a certified breed one day is okay in my book. Clearly not the BYB or petstore cock a poo suppliers, but the decent and reputable breeders out there

 

[pancho]

Lets look at the toys and see if any can be called designer dogs.
Take the Papillon. There was already a dog very similiar, small continental spaniel, the only difference was the ears. Could the Papillon be considered a designer dog? Did someone study genetics to see what breed to combine to get a dog similiar to the spaniel with about the only difference the ears?
Take the Bichon Frise. It was derived from the Maltese. What could be the reason for developing such a dog?
What about the Mexican Hairless Dog? Careful breeding or designer dog? What reason would there be to develop a hairless dog? What combination was used, was it careful breeding and selection for a hairless dog or an accidental crossbreeding that resulted in the dog before the idea of raising them was ever thought about?
Chinese Crested dog. In the same litter there can be both types. Could it be considered a designer dog? It does not always breed true.
The Pekingese, an old breed, but it came from the Spitz. Was it carefully thought out and bred for what it is now?

 

[Laurelin]

Lets look at the toys and see if any can be called designer dogs.
Take the Papillon. There was already a dog very similiar, small continental spaniel, the only difference was the ears. Could the Papillon be considered a designer dog? Did someone study genetics to see what breed to combine to get a dog similiar to the spaniel with about the only difference the ears?
Take the Bichon Frise. It was derived from the Maltese. What could be the reason for developing such a dog?
What about the Mexican Hairless Dog? Careful breeding or designer dog? What reason would there be to develop a hairless dog? What combination was used, was it careful breeding and selection for a hairless dog or an accidental crossbreeding that resulted in the dog before the idea of raising them was ever thought about?
Chinese Crested dog. In the same litter there can be both types. Could it be considered a designer dog? It does not always breed true.
The Pekingese, an old breed, but it came from the Spitz. Was it carefully thought out and bred for what it is now?

Eh, you've got your papillon history messed up for one. The papillon IS the direct descendant of the continental toy spaniel. The erect eared variety now are what began as a rare occurance, a Continental Toy Spaniel which has sufficiently strong enough ear leather to hold it's ears erect. Both drop eared and erect eared varieties still exist today. There was no breed combined to the continental toy spaniel. It just so happened the erect ears showed up here and there, as evidenced by several old time paintings, and they allowed that type to coexist with the original type and specifically bred for it. They did breed for type within the continental toy spaniel, but that's what defines the creation of a breed- breeding for a certain type. The rumour that chihuahuas were added is by the experts considered just that, a rumour to account for the erect ears. The timing of the Spanish conquest when chihuahuas were said to have come over and have been added does not match the time when the papillon variety showed up. The breed has been documented from the 1500s to modern day through paintings, starting with Vecellio's paintings (he was called Titian, whereas the name Titian spaniel derives from) and the papillon variety dogs start being seen frequently in the 1800s. However, they can be seen before then. (late 1600s- early 1700s http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h126/Gloriedogz/StillLife.jpg) No one knows where the continental itself came from- Greece, Rome, China, and Spain (hence spaniel) have all been theorized, but none can be proved remotely. Another thing of note- the papillon is still called the Continental Toy Spaniel in many countries.

The 'original type' still exists today as well- http://www.papillonclub.org/2005_Specialty/images/2005-Best-Phalene.jpg

So that argument doesn't work for me.

 

[Laurelin]

Lets look at the toys and see if any can be called designer dogs.
Take the Papillon. There was already a dog very similiar, small continental spaniel, the only difference was the ears. Could the Papillon be considered a designer dog? Did someone study genetics to see what breed to combine to get a dog similiar to the spaniel with about the only difference the ears?
Take the Bichon Frise. It was derived from the Maltese. What could be the reason for developing such a dog?
What about the Mexican Hairless Dog? Careful breeding or designer dog? What reason would there be to develop a hairless dog? What combination was used, was it careful breeding and selection for a hairless dog or an accidental crossbreeding that resulted in the dog before the idea of raising them was ever thought about?
Chinese Crested dog. In the same litter there can be both types. Could it be considered a designer dog? It does not always breed true.The Pekingese, an old breed, but it came from the Spitz. Was it carefully thought out and bred for what it is now?

That's not right either, the two types are purposely kept in the breed for a reason. It does breed true, coat is the only difference. It's like dog breeds coming in more colors than one, or more ear sets than one (papillon, skye terrier), natural bobtails or not, etc. ONE factor does not mean it's not a breed.

For Chinese cresteds, the hairless gene is dominant, and lethal. Similar to the merle gene. You cannot breed a hairless to a hairless or a merle to a merle. Birth defects and death usually occur when this happens. The powder puff variety is kept for that purpose. You must breed a hairless to a powder puff, you cannot breed hairless x hairless. If they bred for only hairless dogs, the breed would die out. All powder puffs are homozygous recessive and all hairless dogs are heterozygous dominant. The only way to prevent a homozygous dominant dog (aka lethal) is to breed a heterozygous one to a homozygous one. That way you keep the dogs half hairless and half powder puff. You keep the hairless variety without risking the production of puppies suffering from the lethal condition.

Please study the breeds before making such assumptions that there is no reason breeds are the way they are.

For the record, I don't mind designer dogs. I dislike the breeders who breed them irresponsibly, and I think it's stupid to compare the majority of these crosses to the developed breeds because they are just F1 crosses. They are nowhere near the same. I've already stated that I have no problem with the few crosses being developed into a breed responsibly. Those breeders have my full support.

 

[PixieSticksandTricks]

Yeah, I read a book about the cock a poo and I think it said they've been around since the early 70's! I feel like anyone that's dedicating that much time on a dog that they want to turn into a certified breed one day is okay in my book. Clearly not the BYB or petstore cock a poo suppliers, but the decent and reputable breeders out there

Yeah I definatly agree. When my mom was a kid they had two Cockapoos at two seperate times. But she can't exactly remember when the trend set in. She was born late 50s early 60s though.

 

[Alexa's~Mom]

Otherwise known as a Mini Rottweiler...

Nah, that's Aubrey, the oh so adorable beagle/Rottie/??? mix my ex and I picked up from a local shelter a year ago.

I just like to mess with people I run into who go on and on about their DD and how much they paid for it, etc. I tell them my dog is extremely rare, in fact, there are probably only 5-8 of them in the world, but she is the only one that I know of for sure.

Aww! She looks like my Alexa.

Cept Alexa is a Rottie/Lab cross. Kind of a funny story. My neighbors took their lab in to get fixed, found out their rottie had knocked her up, haha.

What should I call her? Hmm.. Rottidor? Haha. Labreiler? OY.

 

[pancho]

That's not right either, the two types are purposely kept in the breed for a reason. It does breed true, coat is the only difference. It's like dog breeds coming in more colors than one, or more ear sets than one (papillon, skye terrier), natural bobtails or not, etc. ONE factor does not mean it's not a breed.

For Chinese cresteds, the hairless gene is dominant, and lethal. Similar to the merle gene. You cannot breed a hairless to a hairless or a merle to a merle. Birth defects and death usually occur when this happens. The powder puff variety is kept for that purpose. You must breed a hairless to a powder puff, you cannot breed hairless x hairless. If they bred for only hairless dogs, the breed would die out. All powder puffs are homozygous recessive and all hairless dogs are heterozygous dominant. The only way to prevent a homozygous dominant dog (aka lethal) is to breed a heterozygous one to a homozygous one. That way you keep the dogs half hairless and half powder puff. You keep the hairless variety without risking the production of puppies suffering from the lethal condition.

Please study the breeds before making such assumptions that there is no reason breeds are the way they are.

For the record, I don't mind designer dogs. I dislike the breeders who breed them irresponsibly, and I think it's stupid to compare the majority of these crosses to the developed breeds because they are just F1 crosses. They are nowhere near the same. I've already stated that I have no problem with the few crosses being developed into a breed responsibly. Those breeders have my full support.

So the chinese crested is a breed and it does not reproduce its self. You cannot breed a hairless to another hairless and produce hairless. That definately sounds like a designer dog. What is the difference in it and some of the modern designer dogs? You can breed them the same way. I was saying why breed a hairless dog in the first place. What long range planning and selective breeding was there in the first place. Do you really think the idea of producing a hairless dog was the plan from the start? More than likely it was a chance cross breeding that produced a hairless, no planning at all, just luck.

 

[pancho]

Eh, you've got your papillon history messed up for one. The papillon IS the direct descendant of the continental toy spaniel. The erect eared variety now are what began as a rare occurance, a Continental Toy Spaniel which has sufficiently strong enough ear leather to hold it's ears erect. Both drop eared and erect eared varieties still exist today. There was no breed combined to the continental toy spaniel. It just so happened the erect ears showed up here and there, as evidenced by several old time paintings, and they allowed that type to coexist with the original type and specifically bred for it. They did breed for type within the continental toy spaniel, but that's what defines the creation of a breed- breeding for a certain type. The rumour that chihuahuas were added is by the experts considered just that, a rumour to account for the erect ears. The timing of the Spanish conquest when chihuahuas were said to have come over and have been added does not match the time when the papillon variety showed up. The breed has been documented from the 1500s to modern day through paintings, starting with Vecellio's paintings (he was called Titian, whereas the name Titian spaniel derives from) and the papillon variety dogs start being seen frequently in the 1800s. However, they can be seen before then. (late 1600s- early 1700s http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h126/Gloriedogz/StillLife.jpg) No one knows where the continental itself came from- Greece, Rome, China, and Spain (hence spaniel) have all been theorized, but none can be proved remotely. Another thing of note- the papillon is still called the Continental Toy Spaniel in many countries.

The 'original type' still exists today as well- http://www.papillonclub.org/2005_Specialty/images/2005-Best-Phalene.jpg

So that argument doesn't work for me.

So the erect ear was just a result of sloppy breeding or a result of a breed that didn't breed true. If they would have bred true there wouldn't be an erect ear dog every once in a while. Another case of a breed that does not breed true.

 

[tempura tantrum]

LOL. Pancho my dear, I believe you're a tiny bit lost. The way you speak of breeding true...well there isn't a breed on EARTH that does that, LOL.

I have an "oversized" Shiba. He's about 2-3 inches over standard. It doesn't mean he's NOT a Shiba. I also know Shibas that have mismarked coats...too much urajiro, a reverse mask...still...doesn't mean they aren't Shibas, or that the breed AS A WHOLE doesn't breed true.

So...would your idea of a breed that "breeds true" be a group of dogs with absolutely NO variation? I hope then, it doesn't come as a giant shock to you, that GENETICS doesn't work that way. (A good genetics class can clear that up, though ). By your standards a red Malamute, or heck, even a black and white Malamute would be the results of "sloppy breeding," and would be "untrue" to their breed simply because they aren't wolf-gray.

Some genetic variations CANNOT be predicted, no matter HOW GREAT the breeder is. In fact, the BEAUTY of genetic variation is that it allows us to actually HAVE DIFFERENT BREEDS. And yes, within those breeds, different coat colors, different ear sets, and different sizes.

So yes, this ear, the result of an UNPREDICTABLE GENETIC VARIATION (ie: no "sloppy breeding involved") may not have been in the original plan of the breeders. But once they saw the result, and liked what they saw they continued to select for it. Nowadays you're hard pressed to find Phalenes (the drop-eared version), at least in the US. Now if that's not "breeding true," I don't know what is.

Your idea of "breeding true" is from a world of fantasies. Nice to think about (for some, maybe), but not based in any sort of biological understanding or reality. Genes just don't work that way, and frankly we humans aren't that smart yet.

 

[pancho]

LOL. Pancho my dear, I believe you're a tiny bit lost. The way you speak of breeding true...well there isn't a breed on EARTH that does that, LOL.

I have an "oversized" Shiba. He's about 2-3 inches over standard. It doesn't mean he's NOT a Shiba. I also know Shibas that have mismarked coats...too much urajiro, a reverse mask...still...doesn't mean they aren't Shibas, or that the breed AS A WHOLE doesn't breed true.

So...would your idea of a breed that "breeds true" be a group of dogs with absolutely NO variation? I hope then, it doesn't come as a giant shock to you, that GENETICS doesn't work that way. (A good genetics class can clear that up, though ). By your standards a red Malamute, or heck, even a black and white Malamute would be the results of "sloppy breeding," and would be "untrue" to their breed simply because they aren't wolf-gray.

Some genetic variations CANNOT be predicted, no matter HOW GREAT the breeder is. In fact, the BEAUTY of genetic variation is that it allows us to actually HAVE DIFFERENT BREEDS. And yes, within those breeds, different coat colors, different ear sets, and different sizes.

So yes, this ear, the result of an UNPREDICTABLE GENETIC VARIATION (ie: no "sloppy breeding involved") may not have been in the original plan of the breeders. But once they saw the result, and liked what they saw they continued to select for it. Nowadays you're hard pressed to find Phalenes (the drop-eared version), at least in the US. Now if that's not "breeding true," I don't know what is.

Your idea of "breeding true" is from a world of fantasies. Nice to think about (for some, maybe), but not based in any sort of biological understanding or reality. Genes just don't work that way, and frankly we humans aren't that smart yet.

I realize there can be a lot of differences in dogs of the same breed. My intent was to explain how the breeds came to be. All breeds were a result of some person who decided they could breed a better dog or many were just accidents that happened and caught the eye of some dog person. Lots of people do not like the designer dogs. Without people doing a little expermintation we would not have all of the choices we have today.
Any domestic animal, dogs, cats, cows, horses, chickens, were all developed by crossing the animals. Some work, some don't. I am just glad there were some that did the expermenting, cross breeding, or looking for different animals.
It would be a very boring world if we all had to have the same type and breed of animal.
According to a few people there should never be crossbreeding, experimenting. I can see the good that has come of it.
It was my hope to get some to realize the need for people who are not satisfied with the same old breeds.

 

[carlar]

Well, I always wondered what we would create if we accidently mixed our Yorkies and Doxies and had a Dorkie. Now I know. Thanks.

 

[shadowfacedanes]

The person who thinks there will not be any more dog breeds developed is very short sighted. The only way to develop these new breeds is to cross, there has to be a starting point. The people with imigination will continue to develop different breeds, those without will just take what they happen to find.

I think you are taking people's disgust with DD breeders out of context. Forgived me for speaking for what I feel to be the majority, but people are not upset with the concept of a "new breed". They are upset with the needless breedings occuring and the lack of thought or consequence carried out by these breeders.

Are you honestly saying that you think DD breeders are trying to create a new breed?

MAYBE a handful of the labradoodle breeders are undertaking a serious effort to create a new breed, and some of the existing breeders/fanciers of the older, pre-fad DDs (Cock a poos, as mentioned for one)....but I don't see the average person slapping two dogs together doing it with an ounce of thought about creating a new breed. My proof? The breeders of these DD's frequently have websites that show numerous mixed breed litters... For example, They may have a yorkie stud and breed it with every other female dog they have so they can appeal to the masses. That's not creating a new breed.

I also have a problem with people creating a new breed that serves no purpose.

 

[tempura tantrum]

According to a few people there should never be crossbreeding, experimenting.

Who on here has EVER given you the idea that we are against the creation of new breeds? (Or RESPONSIBLE cross/mix-breeding?)

I think you're honestly a little bit confused, or you just plain ignore a fair number of our posts, (did you not read the last 2 I posted at all?) because we've said time and time again that we DON'T have a problem with the creation of new breeds when it is done RESPONSIBLY, and we DON'T have a problem with RESPONSIBLE mixed breeding when it is done for a good reason. (Ex: Alaskan Huskies, which are the ONLY type of dog you'll see competing *seriously* in the Iditarod, but is NOT a breed). The people creating this insanely fast, incredibly drivey mix however, are doing it RIGHT. They aren't pumping out masses of puppies and then selling them to everyone with cash. In fact, trying to get one of these guys for a "pet" home is very nearly impossible. The circles in which these dogs are kept, are VERY small. They are OBVIOUSLY health testing their dogs- you simply can't have a dysplastic animal as your wheel dog in the Iditarod. And they have a **** good reason for adding each breed to the mix that they do. Please tell me how MOST Labradoodle and Cockapoo, and "Chidoodle" breeders even VAGUELY resemble Alaskan Husky breeders?

As for the creation of new breeds- I'm ALL FOR IT. Once again, as long as it is done RIGHT. Did you miss my post where I talked about the Silken Windhound? If you did, I really encourage you to 1) go back and read my post, 2) go look up Silken Windhounds. Then please TELL ME how you can even come close to comparing the way these people went about creating a breed to the way people in Labradoodles (once again, AMERICAN Labradoodles), are breeding their dogs. There is NO comparison. Labradoodles have been around since the 70s but....they're still not a breed. Silken Windhounds (well have you even heard of them? ), are incredibly young- the breed was developed within my lifetime, and I'm 22. But these dogs are breeding true already. As I mentioned before, they're already having specialties.

So yes, you are RIGHT that all breeds do come about from experimentation and a little bit of "playing with" genes. NO ONE here, has argued that. But where you are wrong is in saying that the WAY it's done is comparable between DD breeders and RESPONSIBLE breeders or breed creators. It really isn't.

 

[pancho]

I think you are taking people's disgust with DD breeders out of context. Forgived me for speaking for what I feel to be the majority, but people are not upset with the concept of a "new breed". They are upset with the needless breedings occuring and the lack of thought or consequence carried out by these breeders.

Are you honestly saying that you think DD breeders are trying to create a new breed?

MAYBE a handful of the labradoodle breeders are undertaking a serious effort to create a new breed, and some of the existing breeders/fanciers of the older, pre-fad DDs (Cock a poos, as mentioned for one)....but I don't see the average person slapping two dogs together doing it with an ounce of thought about creating a new breed. My proof? The breeders of these DD's frequently have websites that show numerous mixed breed litters... For example, They may have a yorkie stud and breed it with every other female dog they have so they can appeal to the masses. That's not creating a new breed.

I also have a problem with people creating a new breed that serves no purpose.

No, I agree that most if not all of the DD breeders are not trying to create a new breed. I am also not saying all of the breeds we have nowdays was the result of careful planning and selective breeding. Many of the different breeds were a result of a crossbreeding done by accident. Some even are the result of a stray dog having the quality one person was looking. The history on many breeds cannot even be traced. There are many different stories about the development of just about every breed. If each was carefully thought out and only planned breedings were used and carefully researched why is there so much confusion? Each breed should have a history easily seen and recorded.
Look at all of the recognized breeds we have today. How many can be traced back to a cross breeding made with careful planning on the result?
How many of the breeds are bred for a special purpose? How many that were really bred for a special purpose remain able to do that job.
If we would have depended on our ancestors to only breed and develop a useful animal we would have a short list of dogs available. If we could have placed breed restrictions on our ancestors what breeds do you think would be available today?
I have a hard time understanding some people. They think it is right to breed a dog to improved hunting, herding, or guarding skills to assist humans but feel it is wrong to breed dogs for profit.
They think it is right to selective breed, crossbreed, and cull except when it is done for profit.
The development of a great herding breed allows man to have larger herds with less manhours. There is a profit made from the development of the dog. The development of a dog with better hunting skills improves mans life by making it easier to find and capture or kill game. The profit is les money has to be spent on buying meat. The development of a guard dog allows man to have property protected a lot cheaper than hiring a person to guard. There is your profit.
Breeds were not developed just because we have the ability to do so. Many were developed because they increased the profit for mankind. Many by their skills in different jobs and many for their use as companion animals. Profit drove 99% of these developments. Get rid of the profit and we do not really need the dog. Dog breeds were developed because of a reason, most times the reason was profit.
The hunting dogs, the herding dogs, the guard dogs, the companion dogs, the working dog, the designer dog, all were developed for and because of profit to mankind.

 

[Laurelin]

So the chinese crested is a breed and it does not reproduce its self. You cannot breed a hairless to another hairless and produce hairless. That definately sounds like a designer dog. What is the difference in it and some of the modern designer dogs? You can breed them the same way. I was saying why breed a hairless dog in the first place. What long range planning and selective breeding was there in the first place. Do you really think the idea of producing a hairless dog was the plan from the start? More than likely it was a chance cross breeding that produced a hairless, no planning at all, just luck.

No, a chinese crested is a breed that DOES reproduce itself. You breed a crested to a crested and you still get a crested. If it did not reproduce itself, you might end up with a dog that looked like the ancestor breeds and not a chinese crested. If you breed two designers, the offspring could look like each of the original breeds or a mixture of any degree. It's totally different. Difference in coat does not make them separate breeds. The structure under the hair is the same. As you are describing it, for a breed to be a breed all individuals must match identically. That cannot happen. Genetic diversity to an extent is unavoidable.

Since the desired state is a heterozygote, it is GENETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for it to breed true. Basic Mendelian genetics:

You have a cross, like you said, if you want the condition to breed true-

You end up with half the offspring that is like hairless and heterozygous. The other half- one is homozygous dominant and lethal (HH) and one is homozygous recessive (coated). You cross the hairless dogs again and you get the EXACT SAME statistics. It's impossible to get a heterozygous condition to breed true. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 'sloppy breeding' as you called it. It is just plain IMPOSSIBLE.

The RESPONSIBLE way to do things is this:

Hh (hairless heterozygote) x hh (homozygous recessive coated dog). You will see the amount of hairless puppies is the same as the cross above. You end up with half heterozygous and half homozygous recessive. This avoids producing puppies that have the homozygous dominant (lethal) condition.

It in NO WAY compares to designer dog crossing. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Laurelin]

No, I agree that most if not all of the DD breeders are not trying to create a new breed. I am also not saying all of the breeds we have nowdays was the result of careful planning and selective breeding. Many of the different breeds were a result of a crossbreeding done by accident. Some even are the result of a stray dog having the quality one person was looking. The history on many breeds cannot even be traced. There are many different stories about the development of just about every breed. If each was carefully thought out and only planned breedings were used and carefully researched why is there so much confusion? Each breed should have a history easily seen and recorded.
Look at all of the recognized breeds we have today. How many can be traced back to a cross breeding made with careful planning on the result?
How many of the breeds are bred for a special purpose? How many that were really bred for a special purpose remain able to do that job.
If we would have depended on our ancestors to only breed and develop a useful animal we would have a short list of dogs available. If we could have placed breed restrictions on our ancestors what breeds do you think would be available today?
I have a hard time understanding some people. They think it is right to breed a dog to improved hunting, herding, or guarding skills to assist humans but feel it is wrong to breed dogs for profit.
They think it is right to selective breed, crossbreed, and cull except when it is done for profit.
The development of a great herding breed allows man to have larger herds with less manhours. There is a profit made from the development of the dog. The development of a dog with better hunting skills improves mans life by making it easier to find and capture or kill game. The profit is les money has to be spent on buying meat. The development of a guard dog allows man to have property protected a lot cheaper than hiring a person to guard. There is your profit.
Breeds were not developed just because we have the ability to do so. Many were developed because they increased the profit for mankind. Many by their skills in different jobs and many for their use as companion animals. Profit drove 99% of these developments. Get rid of the profit and we do not really need the dog. Dog breeds were developed because of a reason, most times the reason was profit.
The hunting dogs, the herding dogs, the guard dogs, the companion dogs, the working dog, the designer dog, all were developed for and because of profit to mankind.

When we say 'breeding for profit' we mean breeding for money without any regard to the product of your breeding. You combine two dogs to get a cute puppy to sell for money. There is no regard to health or temperament of these dogs. Breeds are bred for specific looks and temperaments. Responsible breeders do health testing. True, they didn't health test back then, but that is NOT an excuse for people to not do so now. I'd hope we'd have learned a bit about genetics and the way things work since humans began breeding dogs. I do not approve of irresponsible breeders of either pure breds or mixes. I honestly don't see a purpose for most mixes, however, I can not criticize a breeder that takes the precautions I have mentioned when breeding their dogs. Yes, breeding for profit is wrong, and I do not agree with it at all.

 

[tempura tantrum]

Ahh but Pancho, once again we have to look at HOW the profit was made.

And once again HOW makes a HUGE difference in the lives of the ANIMALS. Which is what WE are all concerned about.

If the profit is made because the breeder ignores CERF, OFA, PennHipp, BAER, PRA, (the list goes on and on...) testing- then the ANIMALS suffer.

If the profit is made because the breeder ignored testing for sexually transmitted diseases (yep, they CERTAINLY exist in dogs)- then the ANIMALS suffer.

If the profit is made because the breeder doesn't bother to use outside studs because they're expensive (and thus may not find the best match for his bitch)- then the ANIMALS suffer.

If the profit is made because the breeder will sell to ANYONE with the purchase price, whether or not they are actually a good fit for the puppy- then the ANIMALS suffer.

If the profit is made because the breeder lies about the health or "hypoallergenic qualities" of the animal in order to sell it(and thus when "Sophie" the Labradoodle drops her puppy coat, and lo and behold DOES induce allergies)- then the ANIMALS suffer.

If the profit is made because the breeder refuses to take dogs back at ANY age, and instead lets dogs of his/her breeding languish in shelters- then the ANIMALS suffer.

If the profit is made because the breeder breeds each bitch at every heat, and has a multitude of dogs- then the ANIMALS suffer.

No one is arguing that dogs aren't being used to profit mankind in some way, shape or form. But when those profits are made SPECIFICALLY due to shortcuts taken in a breeding program, shortcuts that can negatively impact the health and safety of the dogs...well THAT is a problem.

You're painting with some pretty broad strokes there, cowboy . It's just not that simple.

Sure, farmers profit from having great stockdogs. But you can bet that those great stockdogs are pretty **** healthy as well. (Not to mention, they live for what they do). I doubt an ACD with grade 4 hip dysplasia is going to last that long, NOR would you want to base a breeding program off of him. You'd shoot yourself in the foot like that- eventually producing puppies that wouldn't be able to run, much less work cattle.