"New" Breeds

[bullygirl29532]

The AST is from the APBT. some people consider the APBT and AST to be the same breed, with the AST being show dog while APBT is the work dog. It has been said that the AST is non to little dog aggressive, as it was never designed to be a fighting dog. For structure purposes the AST is shorter and stockier. but since the AKC doesn't acknowledge the APBT and the UKC does. it possible for one dog to be registered as 2 different breeds with 2 different organization. did that just confuse you more? :)

[OldGloryReignsSupreme]

On this topic, I can honestly go both ways. You certainly need to look at the big picture here. Creating new breeds for money is obviously absurd and should never happen. But if you are honestly trying to just breed, then I believe you need some very good reasons to back up your program. Most people who create new breeds are making them for people to have a good companion animal, which we have plenty of as of now. Others are making a new type of work dog that people who have allergies will not be affected by and can enjoy both the pet side and working side of the dog. Still others are in it, of course, all for money top waste away on themselves. But, there is that teensie weensie percentile who believe what they are doing is for the good of dogs all over. This is the part I find odd, but very truthfull. [People agreeing with AKC or breed standards may not want to read past this point]

AKC and other breed clubs have set certain standards for dogs. Unfortunately, these standards, which involve selective breedings, have brought with them, not only awards and Westminster winnings, but also many health disorders as well. Take the Bernese Mt. Dog for an example. It has an extremely high risk of cancer and hip displaycia. This breed is one of the shortest lived large breeds out there. Most live no longer {from what iI have seen} than about 10 years. The life expectancy of Berners is about 8 or 9. This is mostly due to the fact that they are no longer bred for working, but rather for showing. Conformation is all the rage these days it seems, have the best conformed dog, win the prettiest ribbons and trophies. But is it really worth have all these health problems in the end? I do not think so, that's why I am not currently a fan of showing dogs are breeding to strict standards. Anyway, my point is,some people are creating new breeds because of their belifes that AKC and other breed club standards have ruined the original healthy dogs of the world.
There you go, something to think about for the rest of this thread.

[Guest Anonymous]

Just to give all you "outraged" people out there something to think about before you go complaining about things. New breeds of dogs are real. It isn't someone trying to be cute or to make money. Yes there are those out there who thats all there after but use your heads. Every single dog any of you own was bread into what it is today. Do you think that a dachshund was always a long skinny dog. No if you trace back you will see that afew diffrent breeds were specialy bread to create that certian breed. Huskies same story, lets look at an Irish Wolf Hound. Very close to original but still bread to make a large, fast, strong dog or hunting. I am in agreement it takes more than a few months for a new breed to be a seperate and real breed. But give me a break all the people complaining just to complain. It is for health reasons, for the dogs not the people, puggle sto get rid of the pugs breathing problems and a beagles hip problems. As for adopt a pet that already needs a home instead of breeding more dogs, you have my full support. I have a 8 yr old golden who I adopted, and a 11yr old beagle that I adopted. Two of my best friends. But lay off the new breeds and think before you start to complain. Thanks for listening to me ramble.

[OldGloryReignsSupreme]

Bigdog, we all know that all breeds were originally mixes, but nowadays we consider them purebreds. {Yes, breds, not breads!} If you read my post, you'll see what I feel about this. And most of the other member's posts have made a lot of sense as well.

[Guest Anonymous]

Yeah for the most part bullygirls got it except for one thing the size. I cant stress enough what the show people did to the APBT when they made the AmStaff. the APBT was always a small dog usually 30 to 50 lbs max and 50 was considered big. The AmStaff was made to be a heavier and more musclular dog so that it looked good in the show where as the APBT was always meant to FUNCTION. But now the AmStaffs are being crossed with the APBT and the dogs are just getting bigger, its not uncommon to see 80, 90, or even 100+ lbs APBTS and AmStaffs. :o
this comes from the American motto BIGGER is better the jury is still out on this one.
beyond just the look the APBT is more stable around people but more quick to the trigger around dogs. the AmStaff is a medium dog there are way more likely to bite a person but they are also a little less proned to dog aggression...ITS STILL A WORRY though. dont think you breed out 400 years of gut instinct. But the game quality(remeber that post, when talking about an APBT you had better have this word in there) is lost quickly in most cases it takes only a few generations to lose it from a line and in the case of the AmStaff its not even a memory. but the fight drive is alive and well.

the reason i brought the names up was that they are a very clear instance of what a controlled breeding program consists of. now adays the breeds are in turmoil and its hard to find good lines but now anyone with two dogs and the want to "make their own breed" has desimated the dogs, the breed, and the proud history they had with this country. they went from American favorite dog to public enemy number 1 and it only took a few decades of careless breeding. now you can walk into any shelter in the counry and you will see a pit bull or a bully cross or you will see them euthanized without hesitation because of BSL, that is the reason that this topic is ignorant the public at large does not have the time resources or the patience to effectively and accurately have a breeding program no matter how good thier intentions. just because you love dogs doesnt mean that you should breed them. period.

that is my opinion

[starcastle]

a) All countries do not have an overpopulation of dogs. In my country, Sweden, we do not have rescues and ponds and shelters. We don't need them.
True, the entire Swedish dog population isn't bigger than to be just about equal to the number of dogs put down by American shelters etc annually.


b) There are lot's of breed creation projects going on. If you know where to look:-) And they are seldom going very public with it, they are working for decades on it before telling any one, small groups of breeders who are not making a penny out of their life's project, at least not the first decades.
In several of these projects (that require breeders with knowledge but also a lot of money, land and resources) dogs are simply not sold.
Period.

c) breeds that already are a couple of decades on the way, actually do have clubs, national as well as international. And some of them start to be recognised here and there, usually in some obscure country at first who doesn't have the prestige to think of, like the big well known kennel clubs :-)

d) In several of these projects the participants are vets, genetists etc, very often people with a long life's experince of breeding animals, and not just dogs.

Don't make the mistake to think that everyone wanting to make a new breed goes out to the public during the first 10 generations, wanting to SELL!

I know. Because I've been involved in such a project for several years.
So far I've only bred 3 litters. Never sold one single puppy and do not intend to sell one single puppy in the next 2-3 generations at least.
All breeders in our group do not keep every puppy, simply because they are doing it a much larger scale than I am. At some point even a big place busts at the seams :-)

And we do of course have a standard, an international club that is at the top of things, emerging national clubs, the breed spreading over the world, shows in different part of the world etc.
A closed studbook based entirely on DNA proven heritage is a given.

If you think new breeds is just about Cockerpoo, etc, you are gravely misinformed.



[quote name='RR']There is an outbreak of "breeders" breeding these poo and oodle mixes. I am against creating new breeds because:

1- There are already millions of dogs are PTS because of lack of homes

2- I repeatedly read about mix breeders condoning this practice, and see them posting all over to sell puppies, but don't know the name of 1 "breeder" working toward establishing and actual breed club (which is where they would need to start before breeding) with a realistic "breed" standard for the new breed. How would an agreement between "breeders" be reached to determine if the oodledoodle should mirror the traits type and temp. moreso of the oodle or the doodle? How does one say it is alright for "me" to breed my mix but not alright for you to breed your mix?

3- A serious fancier would spay/neuter all of these "test" puppies who are not going to be the right result for several generations until consistency is set. This includes temperament, health, type, ability. Can you see these breeders altering all of their pups before they are purchased?

4- For every 1 serious breeder hoping to establish such a breed there will be a dozen unscrupulous breeders "cashing in". Leading to #5

5- An Explosion in the numbers of dogs being bred, resulting in MORE dogs in shelters.

6- It is essential these "breeders" have a great understanding of canine genetics & health and knowledge of canine anatomy/conformation however many don't.

7- Buyers are under the false impression that because these mixes are $$ Expensive they are getting a well bred quality dog. They are also being made to believe these mixes are already recognized breeds.[/quote]

[Sanvean]

[quote name='"bigdog"']Just to give all you "outraged" people out there something to think about before you go complaining about things. New breeds of dogs are real. It isn't someone trying to be cute or to make money. Yes there are those out there who thats all there after but use your heads. [quote]

No one is saying that these dogs don't exist. The point is that there is NO reason for someone to go creating more "breeds" of dogs when there are more then enough out there to satisfy any possible combination of traits a person might want. People who breed mixed-breed dogs do it for their own entertainment (what will the puppies look like?) and for their own pocketbooks. I'm sure no one honestly believes people are breeding these dogs for altruistic reasons.

[imported_nea]

[quote name='starcastle']a) All countries do not have an overpopulation of dogs. In my country, Sweden, we do not have rescues and ponds and shelters. We don't need them.
True, the entire Swedish dog population isn't bigger than to be just about equal to the number of dogs put down by American shelters etc annually.
[/quote]
Actually there is one rescue, [url]http://www.hundstallet.org[/url]. But in a year only about 400 dogs get there, and 300 of them are runaways who go back to their families once they are found.


In a dog book I borrowed from the library there are some of the Poo mixes. There is Labradoodle, Bichon/Yorkie, Cockerpoo and Bull Boxer. What it says about some of them is this. And I've tried to translate from Swedish to English, but its going to sound wierd.

Labradoodle
This is a classic example of logic and planned mixbreeding with the goal of creating a new "breed" with the best traits from both. Its to early to tell if this mix - between labrador retreiver and poodle - will be succesful. Wally Conrons idea is to get handikapp dogs that don't shed. The Labradoodle as seeingeye dog has been trained and placed with blind people in Australia and Hawaii, but the sheding problem isn't completely solved. But temperament wise this seems like a very succsesful combination.

Cockerpoo
Cockerpoo - the mix between american cocker spaniels and toy poodle - is very sought after in Northamerica. Like alot of mixes the first puppies were the result of unplaned breeding but nowadays, when the number of dogs has increased, they have been purpously bred. That the poodle is in the mix is obious, both in the face and fur structure, as well as in this new "breeds" personality. Like alot of poodles the cockerpoo is a watchfull observer, without the hyperactive tendencies that so many american cockers have. Another advantage is that the cockerpoo has less skin problems than the american coccker spaniel.

[RR]

[quote]a) All countries do not have an overpopulation of dogs. In my country, Sweden, we do not have rescues and ponds and shelters. We don't need them.
[b][color=red]If that is true and I highly doubt it, one country that may or may not have an overpopulation problem doesn't account for all the other countries, sometimes we have to look further than our own stomping grounds -- just because you don't see it doesn't mean its nonexistant [/color][/b]


b) There are lot's of breed creation projects going on. If you know where to look:-) And they are seldom going very public with it, they are working for decades on it before telling any one, small groups of breeders who are not making a penny out of their life's project, at least not the first decades.
[b][color=red]I'm well aware there are breed creation projects and there are breeders who are trying to establish something, but the unscrupulous breeders breeding for profit, popularity etc are harming the breeds in the mean time - they will breed anything with no regard to health testing. They are more numerous than the handful of dedicated breeders working toward a goal -- and are ruining what these breeders are working toward! I am sure this is upsetting to them[/color][/b]

In several of these projects (that require breeders with knowledge but also a lot of money, land and resources) dogs are simply not sold.
[b][color=red]So the dogs not sold are not euthanized? The breeders pay to have them all spay/neutered? They are also paying the huge expense of having all of these dogs tested and certified clear of health problems? With that many dogs these breeder still have time to love, care and provide for all of these dogs each litter for at least 10 years without having them live in cages AND still continue to breed and experiment on more dogs and litters? I doubt it. Maybe that is what they are not going "public" because if they did animal rights groups and dog fanciers would be quite upset!![/color][/b]
c) breeds that already are a couple of decades on the way, actually do have clubs, national as well as international. And some of them start to be recognised here and there, usually in some obscure country at first who doesn't have the prestige to think of, like the big well known kennel clubs
[b][color=red]Like a said before anyone can start a club or registry, a handful of shady breeders does not constitute a reputable club.[/color][/b]

Don't make the mistake to think that everyone wanting to make a new breed goes out to the public during the first 10 generations, wanting to SELL!
[b][color=red]Not everyone but the MAJORITY do and are doing that right now!!!! Hence the hefty price take of a mixed breed ___poo.[/color][/b]
I know. Because I've been involved in such a project for several years.
So far I've only bred 3 litters. Never sold one single puppy and do not intend to sell one single puppy in the next 2-3 generations at least.
All breeders in our group do not keep every puppy, simply because they are doing it a much larger scale than I am. At some point even a big place busts at the seams
[b][color=red]A big place busts at the seams? What do you mean? Sounds comparable to a puppy mill to me. Please enlighten us, if they do not sell their test puppies and they do not keep them then what do they (and you) do with all of these innoncent puppies? Surely after all their "hard work" they wouldn't be giving them away................[/color][/b]


If you think new breeds is just about Cockerpoo, etc, you are gravely misinformed.
[b][color=red]When was it stated that the new breeds are just about cockapoos? I only wish it were about one new breed <SIGH> I'll never understand, that with so many breeds and mixes in existence right now, why there needs to be more "new" breeds created???? - especially when so many do not have homes as it is.[/color][/b]

[Rosebud]

:klacz:

A big hand to RR. I completely agree

Sorry starcastle but your breeding practices are not necessary and are only fueling an already shady and questionable market; ie. puppy mills.

:angel:

[starcastle]

[quote name='Rosebud']:klacz:

A big hand to RR. I completely agree

Sorry starcastle but your breeding practices are not necessary and are only fueling an already shady and questionable market; ie. puppy mills.

:angel:[/quote]

Oopsie, I always thought puppy mills SOLD dogs...
Apperantly anyone breeding dogs and keeping them at home is a puppy mills by definition.

Sorry, I did not know, we don't have anything that qualifies for the expresson "puppy mills" in my country.

[courtnek]

I know this is a point of contention for a lot of people, but there are some good uses to crossbreeding certain dogs. I will use mine as an example. He was a golden retriever/yellow lab mix. Had the short hair of the lab (and yes, he did shed alot less than my purebred golden did, and did not require the continual brushing necessary to keep the coat unmangled),
he had the calm, laid back personality of the golden, with the intelligence of both breeds and the stamina of the lab. I know that the Seeing Eye, and the Assistance Dog societies have been actively trying to breed these
dogs, for help with disabled people. They are not trying to create a new breed, per say, but rather trying to create a dog that the disabled can live easily with. A blind person might not have a problem brushing their golden every night, but someone confined to a wheelchair might. And if you dont brush a golden, the hair gets matted and messed up. Also, the goldens
tend to be calmer, less hyper and less prone to wandering off. They are usually more gentle than labs. However, in a situation where the dog is leading someone around in a wheelchair, basically having to pull the chair,
the strength and stamina of the lab is desired. Goldens are strong, but dont have the broad and stronger chests of the lab, for harnessing. I can see their logic in this (dont hate me) because I have known people who
rely soley on their dogs to get them around. There is a lady here in a
wheelchair who has a Golden Lab, she wouldnt want any other dog because this one is so easy to take care of, and so capable of taking care of her....He comes to the grocery store with her and pulls her chair.
She is a paraplegic....I have actually seen this dog remove things from high shelves that she asked for by pointing....she told me she had once had a purebred golden, but couldnt brush him effectively and he shed something terrible (my golden did too, foot long tail and flank hairs everywhere...)...so while I am against mixed breeding for profit, I can
see the uses of a dog like this......Alex's hair was extremely short, and so extremely easy to sweep or vacuum up - my Golden's hair ruined two vacuum cleaners - if you didnt vacuum every day, the motor would burn out trying to contend with the long hair....

I am not advocating creating new breeds by any means, but creating a dog specifically to help the disabled I can be ok with....

[starcastle]

[quote name='"RR"'][quote]a) All countries do not have an overpopulation of dogs. In my country, Sweden, we do not have rescues and ponds and shelters. We don't need them.
[b][color=red]If that is true and I highly doubt it, one country that may or may not have an overpopulation problem doesn't account for all the other countries, sometimes we have to look further than our own stomping grounds -- just because you don't see it doesn't mean its nonexistant [/color][/b]

No, but my point is that you can't always judge the whole wide world from the American point of view. The world happens to be bit bigger place than that and things are more different in some places than others.


b) There are lot's of breed creation projects going on. If you know where to look:-) And they are seldom going very public with it, they are working for decades on it before telling any one, small groups of breeders who are not making a penny out of their life's project, at least not the first decades.
[b][color=red]I'm well aware there are breed creation projects and there are breeders who are trying to establish something, but the unscrupulous breeders breeding for profit, popularity etc are harming the breeds in the mean time - they will breed anything with no regard to health testing. They are more numerous than the handful of dedicated breeders working toward a goal -- and are ruining what these breeders are working toward! I am sure this is upsetting to them[/color][/b]


But you have to admit there are at least 2 different types of breed creation going on. The serious ones and the not so serious.
Not everything comes in entirely black or white, but everything isn't about money for everybody.

In several of these projects (that require breeders with knowledge but also a lot of money, land and resources) dogs are simply not sold.
[b][color=red]So the dogs not sold are not euthanized? The breeders pay to have them all spay/neutered? [/color][/b]

Now I am talking for my breed, the Silken Windhound, I can't answer for anyone else.

You have to keep all dogs to evaluate them as adults. Such adults as are not considered to be of breeding quality, are sold for low pet prices (in the $250 range) to people who are waiting for dogs to eventually be for sale.
Some people, especially if they are hung up on a special color, markings etc, wait for years until a dog of their liking finally becomes available.
They are sold to people who are already fans of the breed, not advertised.[b][color=red]


They are also paying the huge expense of having all of these dogs tested and certified clear of health problems? With that many dogs these breeder still have time to love, care and provide for all of these dogs each litter for at least 10 years without having them live in cages AND still continue to breed and experiment on more dogs and litters? I doubt it. [/color][/b]


Doubt it all you will, but until lately only people who with the means to have large dog populations at home, anywhere like 50+ have been even attempting to breed. With big ranches, big families and employees, everything is possible.
And no, every single dog is not sleeping in the bed, that would be impossible. But then you can't equate creation of a breed with ordinary breeding of an already established breed. You can't create a breed with no more than 10 dogs at home. You need more than 10 to even start, as founders...




Maybe that is what they are not going "public" because if they did animal rights groups and dog fanciers would be quite upset!![/color][/b]


c) breeds that already are a couple of decades on the way, actually do have clubs, national as well as international. And some of them start to be recognised here and there, usually in some obscure country at first who doesn't have the prestige to think of, like the big well known kennel clubs
[b][color=red]Like a said before anyone can start a club or registry, a handful of shady breeders does not constitute a reputable club.[/color][/b]

Sure, anyone can do that, but it seems like you have made up your mind from the beginning that as soon as it comes to the new creation of a breed, those people HAVE to be shady and almost criminal.
With all the work we put into our dogs, the club, the community, most people in our club would be very upset to be discarded just like that.
Most people in our club can be said to be fanatics, everything in their lives circle around their dogs.



Don't make the mistake to think that everyone wanting to make a new breed goes out to the public during the first 10 generations, wanting to SELL!
[b][color=red]Not everyone but the MAJORITY do and are doing that right now!!!! Hence the hefty price take of a mixed breed ___poo.[/color][/b]


Yes I know there are that type of people too. But it still doesn't make it fair to all others, to just decide people are worthless and doing a bad job when you haven't even investigated each group.


I know. Because I've been involved in such a project for several years.
So far I've only bred 3 litters. Never sold one single puppy and do not intend to sell one single puppy in the next 2-3 generations at least.
All breeders in our group do not keep every puppy, simply because they are doing it a much larger scale than I am. At some point even a big place busts at the seams
[b][color=red]A big place busts at the seams? What do you mean? .[/color][/b]



Even a big ranch with lot's of people can only take care of a certain number of dogs, when the number of dogs exceeds that limit, the dogs can no longer be cared for in a proper way. That is what I mean "bursting at the seams". They have reached their limit.
And when that is the case, you have to select who to keep and who to put into a pet home. Even if it hurts real bad to let anyone go.


[b][color=red]Sounds comparable to a puppy mill to me. Please enlighten us, if they do not sell their test puppies and they do not keep them then what do they (and you) do with all of these innoncent puppies? Surely after all their "hard work" they wouldn't be giving them away................[/color][/b]

Personally I have my dogs for myself.
Since I am the only breeder in my country and the only one importing Silken Windhounds, I have to make sure I have the necessary breeding material myself. Since every import cost me 4-5000 dollar including shipping and quarantine, it seem rather stupid to try to sell away puppies for an average puppy price, only to have to replace them with new imports of the above mention costs. Believe me, I can only get a very small fraction of that cost as a sale price for a puppy.

I have placed a dog with my old grandfather who lost his old dog, but I still own that dog, pays for food, vaccinations, vet care and everything else.
It *is* my dog after all.

Since I have puppies growing up now, born in 2002, I will probably not decide that all of them are breeding quality. That is no problem.
I have lot's of friends actually begging me to let them have one, so I still do not have to sell any, but is still able to provide a good home for them, with people I know.

Where is the crime in that?


If you think new breeds is just about Cockerpoo, etc, you are gravely misinformed.
[b][color=red]When was it stated that the new breeds are just about cockapoos? I only wish it were about one new breed <SIGH> I'll never understand, that with so many breeds and mixes in existence right now, why there needs to be more "new" breeds created???? - especially when so many do not have homes as it is.[/color][/b][/quote]

When it comes to the Silken Windhound, if fills a niche that hitherto had been empty, a small longhaired sighthound.

Having had Borzoi for 15 years, loving them, the Silken Windhound was irrestable, finally I had found my "almost Borzoi" but in a smaller package.

Judging from the comments I, as well as all the other Silken Windhound people get all the time, I am not the only one finding "an almost" Borzoi in a smaller size, to be nice.
Lot's of people say they have wished for many years that there were a smaller longhaired sighthound. Borzoi are nice, but the size alone make them dogs that are not for everyone.

The Silken Windhounds trace back to the first foundation during the 1950's. They have been around for awhile, but not until now have they gathered some interest.

In US they are shown at rare breed clubs, in my country there is no concept of rare breeds, just recognised breeds and mutts.
They are also participating unofficially at agility, LC and racing, quite a few Silkens work as service dogs, we have 2 in the project for training dogs to sniff out cancer.

And in 2 weeks we have the international Silkenfest in Europe, with people coming from Europe as well as USA.

The only difference betwen Silkens and any other recognised breed is that they are a little bit later in creation, but the club, the people and the activities are no different from the established breeds. Well, the puppies aren't really available for the "market", just to the people finding their ways to us anyway.
Breeding quality dogs are sold only to other breeders.
Since SW are not recognised, there is no "market" for them in the wide sense of the word, they are also sighthounds, not easy to sell even if they are recognised.
Silkens are for the fanciers, not for everyone. And nobody will ever be rich in breeding Silkens. So far every breeder of Silkens has put a fortune into their breeding programs, not even getting money back to cover the cost of the food of the dogs at home. That is beside the point.
Nobody in Silkens are in it for the money, but for the dogs.
Anyone wanting to make money out of dogs would choose some other kind of dog, easier to sell. Some small cutsie dog perhaps.

And to have to hear (another post) that "my breeding practises are not wanted" is a bit odd when I've only bred 3 litters but kept them all.
That happens all the time in any established breed and nobody even raise an eyebrow at that.

So I really don't know what you are getting at, except trying to find faults and be pretty nasty to just everyone who is outside "your" idea of "normal".

Unless you really do study the Silken Windhound breed, the work done by the club, the time and devotion spend by the people involved, I don't have any more to add to this discussion since it is pointless.

[Rosebud]

[quote name='starcastle'][quote name='Rosebud']:klacz:

A big hand to RR. I completely agree

Sorry starcastle but your breeding practices are not necessary and are only fueling an already shady and questionable market; ie. puppy mills.

:angel:[/quote]

Oopsie, I always thought puppy mills SOLD dogs...
[color=red]Apperantly anyone breeding dogs and keeping them at home is a puppy mills by definition.[/color]

Sorry, I did not know, we don't have anything that qualifies for the expresson "puppy mills" in my country.[/quote]

please don't misunderstand my statement. I just stated that cross--breeders that are trying to create a new breed just open up doors for BYB's and puppy mills to cash in on a new trend.

As far as your statement about this discussion being pointless. You are missing the main point that most people here are making and that is that new breeds are not necessary, there are plenty of pure breds and accidental cross-breeds to fit peoples needs. I would also suggest that if someone wanted a smaller long-haired sighthound they might have a look at the Saluki, the long-haired Chinese Crested might be an option for someone who wanted a toy size dog with that particular frame.

:angel:

[gooeydog]

I must've missed this while my computer was broken, but here's my thoughts...

[quote]New breeds of dogs are real[/quote]
Not until they're breeding true to type. Which we all know isn't happening in 99% of these "designer breeds", as the only thing being seen is the F1 crosses irresponsible breeders like to charge overly inflated prices for. Until then, they're just another expensive mutt. When these "breeders" can show that their dogs are producing uniformly in temperament and physical characteristics, and have been for several generations, THEN they'll have a "breed".

[quote]puggle sto get rid of the pugs breathing problems and a beagles hip problems.[/quote]
Or make a dog who inherits the pug's breathing problems and the beagle's bad hips... a dog who can't walk OR breathe. Genetics are rough sometimes.

[quote]It has been said that the AST is non to little dog aggressive, as it was never designed to be a fighting dog. For structure purposes the AST is shorter and stockier. [/quote]
[quote]The AmStaff was made to be a heavier and more musclular dog [/quote]
The AmStaff WAS at one time a fighting dog. That was before it was known as the AmStaff, but the breed is still not that far removed from it's fighting dog history. There are plenty of dog aggressive AmStaffs out there, not as many as APBTs, and many are not as reactive as some APBTs, but dog aggression is still there.

The standard for the AmStaff is almost identical to the one for the UKC APBT, it's breeders who breed for stockyness, etc. There are some breeders who are still producing AmStaffs that are not to extreme in type, AmStaffs the way they should be. Staffy bulls are short and stocky... the ideal AmStaff is similar in proportion/size to the ideal APBT.

[quote]the APBT was always a small dog usually 30 to 50 lbs max and 50 was considered big[/quote]
That's going by "fit" (conditioned) weights.... not "show", "couch", or "chain" weights. A dog at fit weight would be "trimmed" down to the lightest weight possible, in order to keep all the dog's strength and ability. They would have very little or no fat, water weight, etc, yet be extremely muscular and fit. The difference between a dog at catch weight and that same dog at "show" weight can easily be 10-20 lbs. Colby's Pinscher was a pretty big APBT for the time, at about 75 lbs chain weight, but I remember reading that he was under 60 lbs when conditioned (56 or 58, I think). To give a more current example, Goo weighed just under 60 lbs at one point when I weighed her over the winter, yet didn't look fat (normally she bounces around between 56 and 58 lbs)... I've had her down below 52 lbs (you could see some ribs, but no hips or backbone, and she looked healthy at that weight, not starved) , and if I had gotten her REALLY conditioned, she would have probably ended up at about 48 lbs by the time all was said and done. With how fat a lot of dogs are kept today, I can see how even "80 lb APBTs" would be feasible.


[quote]But now the AmStaffs are being crossed with the APBT and the dogs are just getting bigger, its not uncommon to see 80, 90, or even 100+ lbs APBTS and AmStaffs.[/quote]
The huge sized APBTs aren't caused by mixing in AmStaffs, they're caused by mixing in Dogue De Bourdeaux, Presa, AB, and other "mastiffy" breeds.

[quote]the AmStaff is a medium dog there are way more likely to bite a person[/quote]
Not much more likely than an APBT from show lines, or one who's scatterbred (all different lines). If you want to use the argument that they're too far removed from the fighting pit to be as safe around people as the APBT, then take a look at Staffy bulls... they've been "not-pit dogs" for longer than AmStaffs, yet somehow have kept a good enough temperament to have earned the title "nanny dog".

[Carolk9s]

Susann,
I looked at your web, photos and some of the movies. Beautiful dogs, lovely photos and great movies!
I personally do not feel you fit the description of a miller or byb. I do feel you care quite a bit on how your dogs live, both now and down the road.
Your replies to some pretty inflammatory remarks were calm and polite, kudos to you!
Best of luck to you and all your dogs.

[Guest Anonymous]

I find it so objectionable that anyone has the right to determine when there are "enough" breeds of dogs. Just because you have found the companion that suits you doesn't mean everyone else has. My husband is an avid hunter and has searched through hundreds of breeds of dogs looking for a dog whose breed was strong in both pointing AND retrieving, but was also gentle enough to be a beloved family pet. Also there have been so many inherited traits that limit some dogs ability to enjoy full lives, free from pain JUST because of their "perfect" blood lines. Our beautiful golden retriever was a champion show dog, and very well pedigreed. She even gave her breeder a spectacular litter of pups, but due to a prolapsed uterus could not be bread again. Before she was adopted out she was spayed and tattooed so that they could keep track of her. They checked up on her regularly. Unfortunately her new owner abandoned her and the breeder could not find out where she was. Through her tattoo she was identified and returned to her breeder who then adopted her out to us. We were contacted by her breeder regularly until she passed away. But she came with inherited traits that are standard for a hybrid. Skin allergies, susceptibility to ear infections and hip displacement. All of these made it difficult for her to perform her much loved and inbred duties as a retriever. She loved the water so much we had a pool just for her in our backyard but because of her skin allergies it was always a difficulty and an expense to keep her skin free from irritation. She LOVED to retrieve but could never seem to point, which wasn't surprising because she wasn't a pointer. Our new dog is great at retrieving(she is a Hungarian Vishla crossed with a golden retriever) and at pointing. She has the traits that we want in a dog and has been free of the problems that hybrids often have. She is getting very old now though and will have to retire from hunting. We will never find this same type of dog unless someone decides to cross these two breeds again. When you stick to the standards that the AKC sets for a perfect example of a specific breed you get all the traits of that breed weather they are good or bad. The AKC is not God and they are not the only ones who have the right to say what makes a champion dog. It is my opinion that you want a dog with as many desirable traits as possible and as few undesirable as possible. Sticking to only standard breeds will never allow this to happen. It seems to me that it is the people who want to limit breeds that are trying to play God and say "we have enough different breeds of dogs so you are wrong to try to create any more". You are discouraging the chance to give dogs longer life spans, stronger immune systems and in general a BETTER more enjoyable life. It is called evolution. A species bettering itself by encouraging stronger traits and weeding out the weaker ones. It is as bad as saying that blacks and whites shouldn't marry and have children because they are of a different race. Yes people need to be responsible and take care of the animals that they bring into this world but it is not cross breeding that is creating the overpopulation of dogs it is plain and simply IRRISPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP, weather that be the breeder or the subsequent owner. I feel that a responsible breeder should never let a puppy leave their establishment with out first tattooing or microchipping and secondly ensuring that, unless they are selling to another responsible breeder, that the animal is spayed or neutered. I would give anything to be able to find another Vishla/Golden Retriever cross with the same traits as our current dog. The result was an absolutely perfect combination and it would take careful and selective breeding to produce those traits again but it could only be done through cross breeding. I realise that the dogs that would be produced would not always have the traits desired but once spayed or neutered would still make great pets. The ones with all the traits that are desired could continue the line as breeding stock and that would be the standard to go by. Who is allowed to decide weather it is responsible or not when you are trying to better the lives of both the dogs and their owners. As long as it is done responsibly there is nothing wrong with breeding OR crossbreeding. It all boils down to RESPONSIBILITY and ACOUNTABILITY and it doesn't matter if it is a so-called purebred or a crossbreed, a breeder who takes the appropriate measures to limit overpopulation should not have to undergo such abuse just because they want to see certain traits eliminated and others perpetuated. If there is a demand for specific traits by certain segments of the population and they are not found in any one specific breed, why is it wrong for those traits to be developed through cross breeding when done responsibily.

[Horsefeathers!]

Can I interject something here? Paragraphs, please, for those of us oldsters who simply can't wade through a long post with words all jumbled together, no matter how well written. I couldn't make heads or tails of it. I'm sure it was insightful and articulate. Too bad I couldn't read it.

Cut an old lady a break (ok, I'm not THAT old, but my eyesight sucks)...? :-?

[RR]

First of all I am not American and I don't quite know what your getting at about the American POV. Dog overpopulation is a world wide problem. There are many countries where dogs are scavengers wandering the streets, homeless and many countries with shelters too full to home every dog.

The indiscriminate breeders I am referring to are those cashing in on the dollar with the dozens of emerging mixed breeds like maltepoos, cockapoos, schnoodles..., who sell them as "designer" dogs, registered breeds, purebreds, and other lies. I've seen some advertised for $800-900 dollars which is more than the cost of many purebred dogs! You sound much more dedicated than those of whom I am referring, and I am certain that as one who is working hard to establish a new breed, you can understand it only takes a few unscrupulous breeders putting any two dogs together with no regard to health, consistency, & type to ruin a breed (or potential breed etc). I'm sure if your silken woolhounds were suddenly advertised all over and bred by anyone, you too would be upset - no? IF these "type" of people were breeding purebred dogs, dog fanciers would refer to them as Backyard Breeders, commercial breeders, puppy mills etc. What isn't evident is that poo mix breeders I'm talking about are not working toward a goal but like I said before, for every few that have a goal dozens more have ulterior motives.

Why is being "nasty" because of an opposing view on unscrupulous mixed breeding? One thing I most advocate is being fully responsible for life for the dogs a "breeder" (*and by breeder I mean anyone having a litter, intentional or accidental) brings into this world, when shelters and rescue are full of unwanted dogs - I see this is not happening and until then I can not support people making new breeds for personal gain. It isn't about my ideals or idea of normal its about the dogs.

As far as a pointless discussion goes -There are very few things I see pointless, anything educational serves a purpose. With every post someone learns something - i learned about Silken Woolhounds a name I hadn't heard before. Curious to know (and no I am not being nasty just genuinely asking) but aren't these also referred to by some as the so called 'long haired whippets" or lurcher type dogs? What is the difference?

[RR]

Well "guest" I find it difficult to believe with some 400 breeds (??) one can not find a suitable hunting companion. I grew up with sporting/hunting dogs who were great hunters, more than capable of pointing and retrieving so I know such a dog exists.

Just because your golden had inherited problems and diseases and was from a pedigreed line doesn't necessarity mean that if she was or one of her parents were bred to another breed these problems would be gone. For one, any responsible breeder will have their dogs tested & certified before they breed to lessen the chances, and breeding to another breed won't fix these diseases but add to the equation because a responsible breeder now not only has to contend with problems common to the golden but test for the problems associated with the other breed.

[quote]It is my opinion that you want a dog with as many desirable traits as possible and as few undesirable as possible. Sticking to only standard breeds will never allow this to happen. [/quote]

Neither will this consistantly happen with breeding mix breeds. You could end up with all of the "undesired" traits of both breeds. The chances are 50/50

[quote]You are discouraging the chance to give dogs longer life spans, stronger immune systems and in general a BETTER more enjoyable life. [/quote]
As does bad breeding, poor diet, and overvaccinations but it still occurs. Please show me how you can be certain there will be longer live spans, stronger immune systems and better lives????

[quote]It is called evolution. A species bettering itself by encouraging stronger traits and weeding out the weaker ones. [/quote]

Funny that in some 15,000 years of domesticity, "weak" dogs are still around.

[quote]It is as bad as saying that blacks and whites shouldn't marry and have children because they are of a different race. [/quote]

No sorry this is not the same at all.

[quote]Yes people need to be responsible and take care of the animals that they bring into this world but it is not cross breeding that is creating the overpopulation of dogs it is plain and simply IRRISPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP, weather that be the breeder or the subsequent owner. [/quote]
Uh - this is my point, I am refering to irresponsible owners who breed without standing behind their puppies for the life of the dog. Believe it or not there is a surge of irresponsible cross breeding breeders as well.

[Guest Anonymous]

I find it interesting that people w/ supposedly pure bred dogs don't realize that all dog breeds are a fairly "recent" development.

I loved mixed mutts; have owned only 3 "purebreds". First was a rescued Irish Setter - turned out to be a wonderful pet. Second was a paid for Irish Setter - horrible temperment (a LOUSY breeder was to blame) - I had to give her to a guy w/out kids because she was snapping (after obedience training, etc). Third was a free basset - she was a good dog, however could never fully housetrain her plus the invisible fence didn't work w/ her so I gave her to a guy w/ a farm. All of the mutts I've owned have been wonderful! Easily trained, good temperments, etc

I strongly believe purebreds over time lead to weak species. Yes, w/ highly ethical breeders, this could be slowed, but never stopped.

I'm about to join the ranks of purchasing a "new" mix. I want/need a guaranteed small dog. Humane Society NEVER has the small dogs - any they have they claim will be small will actually be more in the 20 lb range. I love mutts, so I'm willing to purchase a mutt. Yes, in the eyes of some, she'll be classified as one of the "new" breeds. To me, she'll just be a good old mutt.

[Sanvean]

I have known great purebreds and great mutts. I have no problem with mutts -- I agree with you that many of them are fine dogs. My problem is with people who purposely breed mixed-breed dogs.

There are enough mixed-breed dogs out there already. No one needs to go making more of them, least of all people who don't give a rat's patootie about health issues. A cockapoo whose parents were badly bred themselves isn't going to be the picture of health. And reputable breeders, the ones who test knees and eyes and hearts, don't crossbreed.

If you MUST have a small dog and can't find one in rescue -- and I sympathize, because I had the same problem -- find a reputable breeder who can talk to you about the problems in that breed and tell you how he/she works to weed them out. We adopted our wonderful 5-year-old Maltese, Macy, about two months ago from a fabulous breeder. She is in perfect health (except for a tiny luxation in one knee, which doesn't bother her at all) and has an extremely sweet and loving temperament.

Also, have you tried looking on Petfinder or in breed rescue groups? We had very specific requirements -- a dog that was small, nonallergenic and good with cats and kids, so this didn't work for us -- but there are many small wonderful dogs out there, both purebreds and mutts.

[Guest Anonymous]

just a real quick scan - picked the Ridgeback, 'cause a friend has one & paid BIG bucks for her - this example, however could be applied to every one of your dogs:

The Rhodesian Ridgeback is presently the only registered breed indigenous to southern Africa. Its forebears can be traced to the Cape Colony of southern Africa where [b][quote]they crossed with the early pioneers' dogs and the semi-domesticated, ridged Hottentot hunting dogs[/quote][/b]. Hunting mainly in groups of two or three, the original function of the Rhodesian Ridgeback or Lion dog was to track game, especially lion, and, with great agility, keep it at bay until the arrival of the hunter. The original standard, which was drafted by F.R. Barnes, in Bulawayo, Rhodesia, in 1922, was based on that of the Dalmatian and was approved by the South African Kennel Union in 1926.

You see, it's a mixed dog. A lovely dog, etc., but a mutt nonetheless. Time-wise, it hasn't been very long (and have to add that who knows exactly WHAT the pioneers' dogs were...).

I don't want to give the impression I'm for puppy mills. They exist & are way too numerous. There are breeders of the so-called pure bred that have no scruples. There are everyday type of people w/ a purebred who want to have a litter but don't have the knowledge, experience, desire or resources to make sure the litter is of high standards. The argument should solely be on how to deal w/ all of those puppies, & of course the recognized mutts. But I'm still adament that all of your "purebred" owners have mutts.

purchasing a deliberately mixed dog w/ a new cute name from a breeder, imo, is the same as purchasing a 'purebred' from the same breeder (as far as I can tell, they all have purebreds as well as the mixes). There's a fine line somewhere & I'm not an expert as to how to judge a breeder's standards in regard to selecting pairs for mating, etc. I don't think judging them solely on the fact they're willing to mix is fair. Personally, I really don't care much for the looks of many of the "purebred" small dogs but I'm thrilled w/ the appearance of the mixes.

I've checked rescue groups w/out finding any - I'm limiting myself to a geographical range. I've been looking for quite some time - I absolutely prefer mutts so if one would have been available she'd be home w/ me now.

[Sanvean]

I think you're glossing over my main argument. RESPONSIBLE people aren't breeding Malti-Poos, Labradoodles, and the like. People who want to make a quick buck are the ones doing this.

You may have problems with purebred dogs, and that's your right, but Macy's breeder can tell me all about every dog on Macy's pedigree. She knows what their strong and weak points as far as conformation, health, temperament, etc., are. I would be VERY surprised if you could find a breeder of, say, peke-a-poos, who could do that. If you want to financially support these folks, you WILL be supporting irresponsible breeding practices.

To respond to your point about purebred dogs actually being mutts, I disagree. A mutt will not breed true: If you mate a Cocker and a Poodle, you will get some pups that look like Cockers, some that look like Poodles and some that look like a mix. If you mate two Cockapoos, you will still get a lot of variation. But if you choose a particular look, size, temperament, etc., and breed only dogs that meet that standard, eventually -- over many generations -- you're going to have pups that all look pretty similar.

Yes, some breeds originally were mixed with whatever breed the owner thought would turn out useful pups. But today, we have enough breeds so that ANY possible need could be met by SOME breed. I personally wanted a small, calm, gentle dog that wouldn't bother my fiance's allergies, would be good with our cats and (someday) our kids, and that I could do pet therapy with.

After a lot of careful research and no success in rescue, I decided on the Maltese breed. I found an experienced breeder who loves her dogs, makes sure that are sound in conformation, health and temperament, and adopted one of her retired females. I did NOT financially support someone who had a poodle and thought it would be really cute if she let her dog have pups with the neighbor's schnauzer.

[danyell]

judgment, judgement, judgement. I'm sure I won't be too popular after saying this but CHILL OUT. live you life how you want to live it and let others live thier's. I'm sorry but I don't think anyone is making millions off of breeding purebreds or mixed breeds. No one can convince me that my dog which is a mixed breed (Georgia's mum and dad were very heathy) has any more or less of a chance of living a long and healthy life that a purebred. I've also asked a few Vet's about this and they have all given me this same answer. Although if anyone has any specific facts I'd love to hear them.

"Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress." - Mahatma Gandhi