Creating New Breeds

Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
7,099
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Illinois
#1
I was reading an older chaz and enjoying the arguing over the making of new breeds so I figured I would make a new thread.

So, what are your thoughts on creating new breeds? Why or why not?

Is there any new breed you would like to see?

Any newer breeds created that you think shouldn't have been?

Would you get upset if they used your breed in the mix for the new breed or bred away from standard in an existing breed to get what they were looking for?

Would you be more, less or the same level of ok with people changing, tweaking or "watering down" a breed to get what they were looking for vs just creating a new one?

Ready, set, go!




Please argue so I can enjoy a snarky thread
 

Paviche

Duuuuude.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
1,297
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Aurora, CO
#2
So, what are your thoughts on creating new breeds? Why or why not?

I think it's incredibly conceited for a person to say nope, we definitely have enough breeds, shut it down, no more. I am a believer in people breeding whatever the hell they want as long as they keep the wellbeing of the dogs as the main priority.

Is there any new breed you would like to see?

I would kill for a slightly calmer Brittany. Keep everything else about them, just tone some of the crazy down. I also think that there is a shortage of large, *healthy* breeds bred specifically for companionship.

Any newer breeds created that you think shouldn't have been?

American Bullies are a hot mess and that's not limited to just the Toadline dogs. I think a companion-bred bully breed is a great idea but not when you breed for crappy conformation and without regard for health.

Would you get upset if they used your breed in the mix for the new breed or bred away from standard in an existing breed to get what they were looking for?

No and no. The dogs that other people want don't affect the dogs that I want. There's room for both. Same as above, as long as they're breeding healthy, sound dogs and keeping them out of shelters, I don't care what people breed.

Would you be more, less or the same level of ok with people changing, tweaking or "watering down" a breed to get what they were looking for vs just creating a new one?

I'm a little torn on this one because I see both sides. On one hand, I think if you're going to significantly alter the dog, you should separate it into a new category (in this case, new breed), for clarity's sake - if Bob meets Joe's docile, cuddly Presa Canario and decides he wants one, then gets one of Mary's high drive, guardy, suspicious dogs... well, we all know how that ends. But the flip side is that I'm really not okay with further narrowing gene pools and cutting populations off from each other more than they already are (and I am a strong advocate for outcrossing pretty much every breed for diversity and health.) I'll be honest, I haven't come up with a satisfactory answer to this question yet.

Bring on the drama
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#3
I am so un-opposed to the idea of creating new breeds that first generation crossbreeding doesn't even bother me.





I BRUNG IT.
 
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
493
Likes
0
Points
16
Location
Fond du Lac, WI
#4
Same. I don't really care WHAT someone is breeding, as long as they are being responsible about it. And by that I mean, keeping dogs they produce out of the shelter system, screening buyers, raising puppies in an enriching environment, doing everything within their power to make sure their puppies live long, safe, functional lives.
 

Kat09Tails

*Now with Snark*
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
3,452
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Upper Left hand corner, USA
#5
It really depends on what someone is doing and why. Does the world really need more pit bull or lab mixes dressed up with a snazzy name when we shovel these dogs into dumpsters at the local shelters? How about a breed of border jacks descendants bred only for a life as a flyball or agility dog but fairly incapable of being a house pet or even a decent farm dog? How about a breed that only has a purpose as a inbred lab or meat animal in some foreign meat packing district?

I have less problem with genetically terminal crossings that end at F1 than people throwing money and lives into a world that has no real demand for it or create animals that only live to suffer.

Otherwise I really don't care anymore - the western world needs pets that fit their lives and I think it's kind of vain to not think that need won't evolve existing breeds and wants for new breeds.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#6
Same. I don't really care WHAT someone is breeding, as long as they are being responsible about it. And by that I mean, keeping dogs they produce out of the shelter system, screening buyers, raising puppies in an enriching environment, doing everything within their power to make sure their puppies live long, safe, functional lives.
Yeah pretty much.

I used to be really pro purebred breeding only and then went through a must be working dogs only in working breeds phase. I don't really care now? If you are breeding healthy dogs that stay out of shelters then whatever. It's not a big deal.

New breeds are fine. They've always been created as human needs change. Some breeds will go extinct and some will be created.

Crosses I am fine with probably because I fit the demographic for some of the sport type crosses. I like them, they fill a niche that I don't see other breeds able to fill. Doodles,etc- not my thing but they're here to stay. People love them.

Changing existing breeds.... if I am honest, I feel like I have a better chance getting what I like in a 'sporter collie' vs a working bred BC. Just because that's what I'm around and I know dogs I like bred for sport. Ideally I like preserving breeds but needs change and breeds change. Some breeds are not used for their original purpose at all so they are going to change. There's not a way around it. Having different lines could potentially be beneficial in the future. If one line starts having issues they will have somewhere to cross to. I don't like splitting breeds arbitrarily and I have no idea how you even would. In a lot of cases it's not so cut and dry and people do breed across 'breed splits'. The only thing is that people need to be honest about what they're breeding. If you breed agility dogs then if farmer Joe comes looking for a herding dog the breeder should be honest about what they're producing.

As for breeds I'd make- Hank with some modifications. Tail, add some more angles both front and rear, long coat, more color options. Temperament though he is just perfect, performance wise he's great, and I'd like more.

How about a breed of border jacks descendants bred only for a life as a flyball or agility dog but fairly incapable of being a house pet or even a decent farm dog?
To me that is like saying we shouldn't breed BCs for agility and flyball or malinois for protection sports or *insert whatever highly specialized dog breed here* They're not for everyone/most but that doesn't mean they aren't the dogs for anyone.

FWIW the ones I've known have been as good of a house dog as any sport bred/working bred type dog. I'd actually be all up on a small sport type dog breed though.... I like a lot of the more extreme sporty temperaments, really natural/unexaggerated builds but I like small dogs and I like less coat than shelties tend to have. And a tail unlike MAS. (and less coat there too)
 

*blackrose

"I'm kupo for kupo nuts!"
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
7,065
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
33
Location
WI
#7
I really don't care what dogs people are breeding to an extent. I would rather see a breeder with F1 crosses that is health testing, taking good care of their dogs, and breeding/placing their dogs responsibly than the asshat with his 5 purebred Labradors that he purchased purely to send away for training, make them "good dogs", then breed them for $$$$$, all while not doing any basic upkeep on them, they live in kennels, they have heartworms and intestinal parasites, they're all shells of themselves due to the training environment they're in (robotic dogs because they're terrified, much?), and letting one of their "kennel founding" dogs get bred at 10 years of age and then when her puppies all die two weeks after being born they think maybe something is wrong and the dog's entire mammary chain is just full of puss and her uterus is, too. (And don't forget the heart failure, because, heartworms). Oh, and it's okay to euthanize, because "he can just get another one".

THAT is what I have a problem with. The fact that breeders like him aren't immediately seen with a red flag (and honestly, his front is probably very good, it is because we see his dogs for veterinary care that we know what goes on behind the scenes) bothers me. Bad breeders come in every size, shape, and breed. They shouldn't be villanized based on the "breed" they're breeding, but on the health of their dogs and the quality of their breeding program.

Breeds come and go. I find it kind of ironic that the breeds that were created back in the day were just fine to create because they were being created with "a purpose". Even if that purpose was companionship or to be a scary looking dog that would personally defend you against threats. But if you want to create a breed in today's climate that is a great fit for a suburban family with kids and a busy schedule, you're told, "You don't need a new breed for that, just find one that's already around or adopt".

On that note, I also think breeds evolve. And while everyone is always going to want to preserve what they remember the breed to be, I don't have any issues with people "changing" the breed (color, coat, size, temperament) - so long as they don't spout their dogs as "true" X breed, or "better" X breed, or "rare" X breed. No. Say you started out with X breed, but wanted certain traits, so you bred towards those. Because that is the truth. Whether those traits are "better" or "rare" or "more true" than other traits depends on who is seeking out your dogs, not the dogs themselves. If that makes sense.

As for a breed I'd like? A Cynder-esque breed. Medium sized (25-35lbs), solid, athletic, off leash reliable, quiet, low activity in the house, does NOT need exercise to thrive, but loves getting out, short double coat (wash and wear), polite/friendly with all other living creatures (NOT boisterous), not aggression or anxiety prone. Only add moderate toy drive, moderate food drive, and a love of water and we'd be set.
 

milos_mommy

Active Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
15,349
Likes
0
Points
36
#8
So, what are your thoughts on creating new breeds? Why or why not? - As others have said, I'm all for it if the dogs were bred responsibly, ethically, etc. I don't really care what anyone is mixing/breeding as long as 1) They consider genetic repercussions (IE please don't breed your male husky to a female pomeranian because you saw a picture of an Alaskan Klee Klai mislabeled as a pom X husky on pinterest and you want 5 of them). and 2) They're using the same responsible breeding standards I hold purebred/established breed breeders to - parental health and temperament testing, prenatal care for momma dog, homes lines up for puppies, lifetime contract with puppy homes, spay/neuter contract for homes that you aren't confident can breed responsibly, heavy puppy socialization, and 3) the dogs have a purpose.

That last one might be where me and some other chazzers differ. And, it's not that I'm necessarily against it, although I don't particularly like it, it's more that I don't get it. Particularly with toy/companion breeds. Like "cavachons" or "morkies". I can somewhat understand some of them, like cockapoos, ok, you don't want a poodle but don't want to deal with shedding and cockers have a bad rap here because of over/inbreeding, or puggles...people don't want to deal with pug health problems or beagle temperament...but WTF are you getting out of your morkie that you couldn't find in a more mellow yorkie or energetic maltese? In the same vein as thinking for most average american families, rescue is a better option than the mediocre breeders they go to, I think when so many healthy, adoptable small or companion dogs are being put down in rescue, it's not particularly responsible to be breeding mixed companion dogs that can easily be filled by an established breed or shelter mix. Is it the worst thing? No. But I do think there are more positive ways to put your energy into the dog world.

Is there any new breed you would like to see? - Not that I can think of.

Any newer breeds created that you think shouldn't have been? - uh, morkies. I'm a little skeptical of cavachons, but I don't know much about cavalier health issues (besides they're rampant) and I wonder if that has something to do with it. I've also seen a good amount of people crossbreeding pits X rotties, and a guy here breeds American Bulldogs X Neo Mastiffs. IMO you're either trying to create the temperament of a dog that a) already exists and b) people already have trouble handling or you're trying to create a watered down golden retriever temperament bully dog with the biggest head you can get. To be fair, the Am Bull X Mastiffs around here are freakin' awesome dogs. But, I'm pretty sure they'd be just as awesome if they were one or the other.

Would you get upset if they used your breed in the mix for the new breed or bred away from standard in an existing breed to get what they were looking for? - these are, IMO, two separate issues. I think I'd rather see the first than the second. I'd be kind of annoyed if someone started breeding upsized JRTs or mellow dogs for sports or pets, but border jacks don't bother me. I'd rather see someone start mixing APBT with a more mellow dog like a Staffy to increase the odds of dog-safe dogs with a higher working drive and bigger size than see someone start breeding APBT who are 100% aggression free towards other animals but also aren't going to have the drive to do anything.

Would you be more, less or the same level of ok with people changing, tweaking or "watering down" a breed to get what they were looking for vs just creating a new one? - See above answer. But I think the ideal lies somewhere in the middle. You don't need a new breed for everything. But I'd rather see a new breed pop up than an existing one be ENTIRELY altered from their original/historical context. I think of Shar-peis and English Bulldogs. In the past few decades they've been entirely transformed into something different. This is largely due to breeding for aestetics, but if it was more for temperament, I think I'd want to see a new breed developed to be more user-friendly for more pet owners than see a breed's historical likeness die out. I'd rather people just find a breed that fits them. There's a lot to choose from.

Other thoughts:

What's the difference between a goldendoodle and labradoodle? I don't understand why when we already had labradoodles, we started breeding goldendoodles, although I will say I've noticed labradoodles tend to be less dog-friendly and often more reserved with strangers, while goldendoodles are a bit more happy-go-lucky and friendly. So there's definitely a niche for them - people who want a friendlier dog than a labradoodle/Spoo but want the coat of a poodle cross. But it seems like you could just find a labradoodle or even poodle breeder that bred for more outgoing/friendly/energetic dogs?

As people become more urban and cities become more dog friendly, I think the need for smaller/miniature dogs that are not in the toy/companion group becomes more prevalent - cue mini aussies, "mini golden doodles", and maybe even sporting border collie Xs. While I think breeding for a height dog is a bit extreme, if you're a hardcore agility person living in a 500 sq foot apartment or a place with weight limits, who wants a dog-friendly/lower prey drive dog than a small terrier, a border jack or border staffy or mini aussie makes a lot of sense.

I hope that was remotely coherent and grammatically correct.
 

milos_mommy

Active Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
15,349
Likes
0
Points
36
#9
Breeds come and go. I find it kind of ironic that the breeds that were created back in the day were just fine to create because they were being created with "a purpose". Even if that purpose was companionship or to be a scary looking dog that would personally defend you against threats. But if you want to create a breed in today's climate that is a great fit for a suburban family with kids and a busy schedule, you're told, "You don't need a new breed for that, just find one that's already around or adopt".
I both agree and disagree with this, and definitely think it's taken to the extreme among rescues. BUT:

Historically, people were creating dogs to do jobs that were very, very specific, often difficult, and needed a lot of carefully selective breeding, etc. I'm going to think of a breed developed not TOO long ago but not a "new" new breed. Let's go with Australian Shepherd.

Bred as farm dogs, largely when Americans began to move out west. I believe they were generally going to be used for cattle. They're larger and physically hardier than a BC. Prior to them you had, for niche cattles dogs, corgis, and maybe ACDs? Corgis are small, ACDs are temperamentally harder than aussies, not always great with kids or other dogs. Aussies fit the niche for a farm dog that could herd cattle, but also come home and be a family dog, a medium-large dog, who was also going to get along with other household pets, tolerate children, and even pull carts. They were a dog that could work the farm, safely hang out at your party while still being a deterrent to human and animal predators, without the unmanageability of a guardian breed, and still sleep at the foot of your kid's bed. That's a lot to ask of a dog.

A similar breed, new-ish but not NEW, is APBT. Farm dog, that could hold it's own/win money in dog-fighting, rat out the barn, and still come inside and watch TV with your kids. They're versatile, but they also fit a specific niche. Other terriers at the time weren't as child/stranger friendly, few terriers were that big, none had wash-and-wear coats. Breeds they came from - staffies, bull terriers, just didn't fit the same needs. The bully breeds may have been more protective, more prone to HA, or just too big.

Back then - maybe you could go to a city pound and find a dog like the one you needed....but shelters weren't nearly as overcrowded, and it wasn't like we had social networking or large private rescues to help us locate the right dog. You could pretty much only go to your own city pound and hope you found something to fit - or breed or buy a working dog. And an "active family pet that's good with kids" is asking a lot less of a breed or individual than "dog that can herd cattle, pull a cart, gets along with kids, won't eat my chickens but will bark at strangers" or "a hunting dog that can flush birds out of brush and swim out to retrieve a downed duck in cold weather and can come home and play with my kids and cat".

That said, I think some newer breeds certainly fill a niche for families - so called "hypoallergenic" breeds or low-shedding breeds, smaller dogs that are more active than typical toy breeds, or larger breeds that fit the need for an easily-trained, lower energy companion animal that isn't a giant breed and can be trusted off leash. But, I think most of these families can go to a shelter and pick out a family dog (or look on petfinder.com or a local facebook page for rescues) than people 50 years ago could find a working dog in a shelter.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#10
I think most stats show that shelter populations are actually on the decline and have been for a while. I'm not sure when the peak was but...

There have always been companion and status type breeds. Papillons for example. In the past it was usually just smaller dogs. In modern day there are more and more companion breeds popping up- eurasier, leonberger, klee kai, silken windhound, markiesje, etc. Some with more working roots than others but still not ever bred for hardcore work. Cockapoos have been around since the 1950s. Breeding for companion/pets is not new but it is definitely more common now when most people are just looking for a pet.

The shelter issue is a complicated one. I think people can find great dogs in the shelter or rehomed, even people looking for more than 'nice pet'. But it's not enough dogs for everyone looking for dogs. And the big issue is the types of dogs in shelters are not evenly dispersed. Ie: what people want is not what is filling up the shelters. I volunteered in a pretty high intake shelter for a couple years and there were relatively popular breeds we absolutely never got in. If you wanted a sheltie you would never have gotten one. So telling people who want a pet to go to the shelter doesn't always work. It's a good thing to encourage for sure but we do no one any favors if their ideal dog is a cockapoo and we tell them to go pick out a bully or hound from the shelter.
 

*blackrose

"I'm kupo for kupo nuts!"
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
7,065
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
33
Location
WI
#11
I think most stats show that shelter populations are actually on the decline and have been for a while. I'm not sure when the peak was but...

There have always been companion and status type breeds. Papillons for example. In the past it was usually just smaller dogs. In modern day there are more and more companion breeds popping up- eurasier, leonberger, klee kai, silken windhound, markiesje, etc. Some with more working roots than others but still not ever bred for hardcore work. Cockapoos have been around since the 1950s. Breeding for companion/pets is not new but it is definitely more common now when most people are just looking for a pet.

The shelter issue is a complicated one. I think people can find great dogs in the shelter or rehomed, even people looking for more than 'nice pet'. But it's not enough dogs for everyone looking for dogs. And the big issue is the types of dogs in shelters are not evenly dispersed. Ie: what people want is not what is filling up the shelters. I volunteered in a pretty high intake shelter for a couple years and there were relatively popular breeds we absolutely never got in. If you wanted a sheltie you would never have gotten one. So telling people who want a pet to go to the shelter doesn't always work. It's a good thing to encourage for sure but we do no one any favors if their ideal dog is a cockapoo and we tell them to go pick out a bully or hound from the shelter.
This is kind of what I'm saying, too.

I'm from up north, where essentially every single shelter in the state was low kill. Not no kill, because they would euthanize, but euthanizing for space was almost unheard of. And when I tried to help some relatives of mine find a dog, and they were adamant about adopting, there were NO dogs that fit their criteria. None. There were no young adult, healthy, low shedding, sturdy, small(er) dogs. Absolutely none. I maybe found a handful that would maybe have worked, but they were all a.) older, b.) bigger than what they really wanted or c.) at least a good half a day's drive away. The only dogs in the local shelters were pit bull mixes, lab mixes, and generic hound/shepherd type mixes. That was it. The best thing they could have done, I think, to get the right dog for their family, would have been to find a breeder that bred very nice Cockapoos and see if the breeder had an older puppy or retired breeder that she wanted to place.

Now I live down south where there are just SO many homeless dogs. It is unreal. The dynamic down here is completely different and I'm not really sure why (maybe a cultural thing?). A lot of pit bull mixes and Labrador mixes, but also a ton of small, purebred, or otherwise great medium sized average dogs, too. A local shelter routinely has shipments of dogs that head north to shelters, because while there is an influx of dogs down here and their chances of finding a home are slim, they are highly desirable up north. So I've seen both sides of the coin, but it all remains the same: the dogs that aren't routinely adopted (or transported to where they can be adopted) are the ones that no one wants, be it age, size, behavior, coat type, what have you. Which really sucks, because they're good dogs, but that doesn't change the fact that they have certain character traits that not a lot of people seek out.

And also, kind of ironically, the great medium sized mixes that are a dime a dozen down here and make fantastic dogs are around in such prevalence because of the culture concerning dogs down here. And it's those dogs that are shipped up north to be adopted out, because the north doesn't have those types of dogs, because the dogs that end up in shelters are coming from a breeding population that is 90% pit mix and lab mix, not multi-generational-medium-sized-average-temperament mixes. (Holycraprunonscentence.)
 
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
493
Likes
0
Points
16
Location
Fond du Lac, WI
#12
That's not really how breeds were created though. Historically most breeds were generalists, not "very, very specific, often difficult, and needed a lot of carefully selective breeding." Breeds as we know them don't develop until the 1800's, and even that's largely restricted to the UK and associates. Specialization comes out classism, you're much fancier if you have five different dogs that are only good for one thing each. Mostly, dog "breeds" are just "the dogs that this group of people have."

Aussies weren't designed to fill a niche, they were just the dogs Basque shepherds had in the American West. No one thought "these bull and terrier breeds aren't good enough at fighting, we should create a new breed of fighting dogs," they just bred dogs to fight. Staffy bulls, Am staffs, APBT are all the same dogs, just different lines selected for different things. Breed lines are entirely arbitrary, and political. Asian breeds considered to be the same type of dog in their country of origin are splintered into dozens of different breeds when imported to the UK. The US has half a dozen Midde Eastern sighthounds, in their COO phenotype roughly corresponds to local terrain, but they're pretty much all recognized as the same dogs.

The ownership of purebred dogs is absolutely tied to class in the US. Owning a dog with "papers" was a mark of being middle class, to have that kind of disposable income to spend on a status symbol.
 

Kat09Tails

*Now with Snark*
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
3,452
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Upper Left hand corner, USA
#13
To me that is like saying we shouldn't breed BCs for agility and flyball or malinois for protection sports or *insert whatever highly specialized dog breed here* They're not for everyone/most but that doesn't mean they aren't the dogs for anyone.
I am not saying that they aren't dogs for anyone but you run into problems when dogs are literally unsuitable for most homes but people are breeding them anyway for some reason despite the deficit of good homes. When a dog is literally without value (as in you cant give them away) nothing good will come of it.

I am actually a little sad people would breed working/herding dog breeds based on flyball or agility as a primary selection but to each their own.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#14
I am not saying that they aren't dogs for anyone but you run into problems when dogs are literally unsuitable for most homes but people are breeding them anyway for some reason despite the deficit of good homes. When a dog is literally without value (as in you cant give them away) nothing good will come of it.

I am actually a little sad people would breed working/herding dog breeds based on flyball or agility as a primary selection but to each their own.
I don't really see this happening though? I don't think there's a ton of dogs being produced through flyball that need homes? I've really looked for BC cross types and there's not that many people breeding them.

Note: I don't and won't play flyball.
 

BostonBanker

Active Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
8,854
Likes
1
Points
36
Location
Vermont
#15
I don't have a breed, so maybe that is the basis of my apathy. I'm not worried about "my" breed being destroyed or altered. If someone is breeding dogs that are likely to do well in the type of home that is likely seeking them out, if the sire and dam are well cared for and healthy, if the breeder is willing to take full responsibility for any dogs they produce...I'm okay with it. I may not understand the appeal of some of what is being produced, but that's fine. I don't understand a lot of things.

There's a good sized market for sport dogs at this point; I would expect as big or bigger than the market for "real working dogs". Why not produce what that market is looking for? The buyer seeking out a sport bred dog is likely a highly experienced owner, who has had success in training previously, and who researches and studies the best way to care for the animal. That dog is going to be worked with regularly, fed top quality food, given regular vet care, and be an integral part of their owner's life. There's a small segment of the sport world that treats their dogs like means to an end, and happily moves the dog on to another home if it doesn't meet all their goals by the age of 18 months. But there's a segment of the working dog world that treats animals as nothing more than tools, and a segment of the pet world where the dogs live tied outside their entire lives. I don't see a big difference in breeding for sports, pets or working dogs - as long as the dogs are cared for well and there are homes out there looking for those dogs.
 

yv0nne

Vizsla mom
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,152
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Cape Breton
#16
I'm desperate for someone to keep everything the same about Vizslas BUT breed in a little more handler focus..
 

Elrohwen

Active Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
1,797
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
#17
I'm on the same page as most other posters here. If the breeder takes good care of her dogs, does health testing, chooses dogs with appropriate stable temperaments, and chooses homes carefully, I don't care what people are breeding.

A lot of breeds we have now we created in the last 100-300 years just because people wanted them, and are basically for the show ring. But you don't hear people complaining about Irish wolfhounds because they have good PR and a backstory that makes them seem legit, or Field spaniels who were ruined by showing in the 1800s and recreated in the 1900s to be functional dogs. There are plenty of breeds that were just created because people wanted to create them, so I don't understand why it was ok then and not ok now. Breed whatever you want if there are homes for them.

There are also plenty of breeds who were just types for a long time, and only split out into distinct breeds more recently. A lot of times I think we would be better off going back to that idea of "type" vs closed studbooks.

I'm also fine with people breeding different lines or versions of breeds for pet/sport/working purposes. I'm against splitting the breed into separate breeds and studbooks, because I think we have enough issues with closed studbooks as it is. Even if nobody ever breeds a confo bred BC to a working bred BC, the option should still be there. Why narrow the gene pool even more if you don't have to? I do know of breeders who mix confo and field line Goldens all the time to get sport dogs, and I'm glad that they're able to do that. Needs evolve and breeds will evolve with them.

I don't have any issues with my breed being crossed out or used for another breed. Welshies were crossed to Tollers in an effort to fix some of the genetic issues in Tollers and I think that's great. If someone wanted to breed more hunting ability back into Welshies by crossing in field bred ESS or ECS, knock yourself out.
 
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
493
Likes
0
Points
16
Location
Fond du Lac, WI
#18
I don't have any issues with my breed being crossed out or used for another breed. Welshies were crossed to Tollers in an effort to fix some of the genetic issues in Tollers and I think that's great. If someone wanted to breed more hunting ability back into Welshies by crossing in field bred ESS or ECS, knock yourself out.
That's... actually a sensible cross. Do you have a source for that? Do you know if it ever went anywhere?
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
3,557
Likes
1
Points
36
Location
Hudson Valley
#19
I both agree and disagree with this, and definitely think it's taken to the extreme among rescues. BUT:

Historically, people were creating dogs to do jobs that were very, very specific, often difficult, and needed a lot of carefully selective breeding, etc. I'm going to think of a breed developed not TOO long ago but not a "new" new breed. Let's go with Australian Shepherd.

Bred as farm dogs, largely when Americans began to move out west. I believe they were generally going to be used for cattle. They're larger and physically hardier than a BC. Prior to them you had, for niche cattles dogs, corgis, and maybe ACDs? Corgis are small, ACDs are temperamentally harder than aussies, not always great with kids or other dogs. Aussies fit the niche for a farm dog that could herd cattle, but also come home and be a family dog, a medium-large dog, who was also going to get along with other household pets, tolerate children, and even pull carts. They were a dog that could work the farm, safely hang out at your party while still being a deterrent to human and animal predators, without the unmanageability of a guardian breed, and still sleep at the foot of your kid's bed. That's a lot to ask of a dog.
But by that theory, since the English Shepherd was being registered prior to the Australian Shepherd to fulfill basically the same requirements, why was the Australian Shepherd breed created?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top