"New" Breeds

[Guest Anonymous]

I am new here and might not make any friends with this post but I am going to pipe in on this one. I am a form over function guy when it comes to dogs. Its great that people rescue. Mixed breeds and shelter dogs are great pets. But its not for me. Its not that I feel that I am above owning a rescued dog. I won't apologize for prefering a dog from good working stock. I grew up in a family that used working dogs every day. We worked dogs on cattle and used them for hunting wild hogs and birds. (not all the same breed) I may never work another dog but I cannot or will not ( probably some of both) change the my feelings on my dog selection. I strongly feel that a dog should be able to perform the task for which it was bred.

I am not a big fan of the AKC. The AKC emphasizes conformation. In other words, that every dog of a breed looks as close as possible to the written standard. The AKC does sponsor some field trials, working trials, obedience, and other competitions. But... In my opinion those are just after thoughts compared to the conformation show ring.

That being said, my current dog is AKC registered. I happen to own a breed that is recognized by the AKC and registered him shortly after I got him. In the past I have owned breeds that were not recognized by the AKC. I registered those dogs with the registry that recognized them. I stated earlier that I am a form over function guy. The breed standard is important to a point. The dog should be sound and fit the description of the breed. But I don't like the idea of cookie cutter dogs. There are starting to be a fairly noticable difference in looks between working lines and show lines in some breeds recognized by the AKC. Laborador Retrievers are an example. As are German Shepherd Dogs. I was sad when the AKC accepted the Jack Russell Terrier. I know a couple of JRT breeders and there was much debate and worry over this. The JRT club standard had a function over form statement written into the standard. In essence the AKC already had a similar dog in the Terrier group. The Fox terriers have a common ancestry with the JRT. Much like the American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier. The fox terrier being the show dog and the JRT being the worker. So why did the AKC recognize the JRT? Money. The same reason some posters are bashing the development of new breeds. The JRT became popular so the powers that be at the AKC wanted to cash in on registration fees.

I am also concerned with the American breeders obsession with bigger is better. That is an American problem. Not just an AKC problem. You can see it in Rottweilers among other breeds. Its very noticable in APBTs. I would have to guess that the average size of Pit Bulls has increased 30 pounds in the last 30 years.

I feel that development of a new breed because of fad or profit is wrong. However if someone has a plan and a realistic goal and purpose for a new breed, I have no problem with such a project.

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote]Its primary make-up is of Spitz or Spaniel origins (as opposed to Terrier).

The above is giving a summary of the maltese's origins. When reading about the beginnings of developing the maltese I found reference to the fact that the breeders in that day deliberately enclosed the dogs in extremely small cramped cages so as to force the breed to become smaller. So, if people in those days had been ethically minded & argued forcefully to discredit such breeders for that practice, the maltese would not exist as it does today.

Breeders today who are allowing a mix to be sold for a profit are, imo, not even close to being compared to the horrid example given above as to how a popular "purebred" (the maltese) was bred for the pure pleasure of having a cute little lap dog.[/quote]

[Sanvean]

[quote name='Anonymous'][quote]Its primary make-up is of Spitz or Spaniel origins (as opposed to Terrier).

The above is giving a summary of the maltese's origins. When reading about the beginnings of developing the maltese I found reference to the fact that the breeders in that day deliberately enclosed the dogs in extremely small cramped cages so as to force the breed to become smaller. So, if people in those days had been ethically minded & argued forcefully to discredit such breeders for that practice, the maltese would not exist as it does today.

Breeders today who are allowing a mix to be sold for a profit are, imo, not even close to being compared to the horrid example given above as to how a popular "purebred" (the maltese) was bred for the pure pleasure of having a cute little lap dog.[/quote][/quote]

If this is true -- and I've never heard it before -- it is truly reprehensible. But you can't hold modern-day breeders responsible for what their predecessors did.

I don't think anyone here is acknowledging my argument about overpopulation. I am NOT anti-mutt. I know and love MANY mixed-breed dogs and have devoted five years of my life to rescue. What I AM against is reckless breeding by people who don't know what the fuck they're doing, and 99.999 percent of people who are breeding mixed-breed dogs fall into that category.

And for those who say I should chill out -- YOU spend every Saturday trying to find homes for these poor dogs. YOU take the calls from animal control begging your group to take this sweet shepherd/pit bull/lab/litter of puppies/etc.

[meehs]

The Cesky Terrier keeps being brought-up for comparison's sake. However the creation of the Cesky started in 1949. Fifty-five years ago. They were developed for a specific purpose as a working breed. The creators were trying to create a hunting terrier with drop ears (so they wouldn't have to be cropped or glued) and an easy to maintain coat. I think they were also trying to maintain significant pigmentation so that the hunting terriers were easier to spot while they were working. They did use Sealyham and Scottish terriers as the foundation stock. They also crossed-in other breeds to acheive a very specific "type".

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that this just is not the case with the cocka-poo and terri-poo and whatever else. I think that these dogs are usually crossed once and dubbed whatever breed name they can come-up with to produce a "cute" companion dog and sold for cash. Often in pet stores.

[Rosebud]

:(

Sanvean - I understand what you are getting at. Unfortunately cross-breeders ignore that part of breeding, they will just plain not acknowledge the point has been made, they are seeing toooooooo many $$$$$$$$ to see anything else.

Now I would like to back-up mees point. Ridgebacks were not cross-breeds, the original Ridged dog already existed, the european settlers inter-breed their hunting stock to better the african dog, they needed the dog to be more loyal, more this and that. Somebody did not sit down and decide one day that they needed to create a new breed with a ridge down its back and call it a Rhodesian Ridgeback so that they could make a lot of money. Unfortunately, most of the cross-breeds bred today are purely comestic, no working functionality to them.

[quote]I am new here and might not make any friends with this post but I am going to pipe in on this one. I am a form over function guy when it comes to dogs. Its great that people rescue. Mixed breeds and shelter dogs are great pets. But its not for me. Its not that I feel that I am above owning a rescued dog. I won't apologize for prefering a dog from good working stock. I grew up in a family that used working dogs every day. We worked dogs on cattle and used them for hunting wild hogs and birds. (not all the same breed) I may never work another dog but I cannot or will not ( probably some of both) change the my feelings on my dog selection. I strongly feel that a dog should be able to perform the task for which it was bred. [/quote]


Johnny as educated as you sound and make yourself out to be, one thing you need to learn is that [b]form is the way the dog looks and function is what it's breed to do[/b]. If you are a form over function guy then you could care less about the function of the dog your only interested in what it looks like.

:angel:

[Guest Anonymous]

Rosebud you are correct. I transversed the statement. I meant it to be I am a function over form type or person. My bad....

[Guest Anonymous]

Ok, I too am new as can be and really don't have business posting on such an old post, but everything Encyclopedia said, I completely agree with it. Mixed breeds are mutts, nothing more nothing less. They make amendable companions just like purebreds, but the fact stands still. They usually end up tossed out of the home by fashion fanatic people. Please don't breed a Cockerpoo or Doberdoodle just because it is cute, if you really are truly serious about making a new breed, then look at the Labradoodle. It is, of course, a mix, but unlike the Cockerpoo, it was made with a specific SET purpose other than merely companionship. The Shiloh Shepherd was made to improve the German Shepherd, but came out as another breed instead. Please please don't breed mutts, no matter how healthy and pretty and well-mannered they are.

[Sanvean]

Rosebud, of course I wasn't referring to you! ;)

I totally agree with what you posted about the Ridgebacks, though. The were crossbred with a WORKING PURPOSE in mind -- not, "Hmmm, what will the puppies look like if we breed Fifi and Buster?"

Solodogsmom, I also concur with what you wrote. There are occasionally legitimate reasons to create or even re-create a breed, as with the Olde English Bulldogge and Victorian Bulldog, which try to weed out the health problems of today's English Bulldog. But this sort of thing should obviously be attempted only by VERY experienced breeders who know a ton about canine genetics, health, temperament, etc.

[Guest Anonymous]

Hi guys, please forgive me if this has already been covered as I admit I did not read EVERY single post, but here goes:

I was wondering what everyone thought about the practice of breeding mixed-breed dogs for service to people? Canine Companions for Independence has a regular breeding program where they mix labradors and golden retrievers. Any thoughts?

[Sanvean]

As long as they have a good reason, it doesn't bother me. I kind of wonder WHY they're mixing them, but I assume it's to try to create a better guide dog, not some cutesy-poo mix.

However, I DO love it when guide dog candidates are rescued from shelters! Our group recently placed a beautiful mix who was going to be trained as a guide dog but, sadly, failed his hip X-ray.

[Guest Anonymous]

this whole thing makes me think of people who move into a nice development but as soon as another developer comes along to build "next door" they raise up in arms against such encroachment!! Saying such things as We were here first, how dare you ruin our space, blah, blah, blah. Pretty arrogant stuff, imo - they fail to realize there was someone there before THEM who might have felt just as strongly about THEIR lovely subdivision from being built.

anyway, here's some clippings about the maltese. I'm not meaning to step on any one poster's toes except it seems to me the maltese was bred specificially just to be cute lap dog and even had poodle ancestry!! Eeeek!! Now why would anyone purchase a maltese knowing full well they're supporting such breeding behavior! Also in regard to the maltese, maybe some breeding should be done to eliminate the "white shaker dog syndrom" - a tremor found in small white male maltese adult dogs. Perhaps breeding should eliminate the "smallness" & the "white". Afterall, as you'll see from the following, color & size was a point of breeding, so why not change it again??? Oh, BTW, those of you who are Bichon Frise owners have no right to own such a dog due to the possibility it is a creation of some maltese breeders whimsey.

and jumping to future generations, how dare anyone today deny a future generation of the 'newest' maltese 100 years from now???

here's a brief history of the maltese:

As the Maltese was developed using miniature [b]spaniel and poodle blood[/b], and was primarily bred as a hunting dog, they were much larger in size than their present-day counterpart. [b]When the smaller-sized Maltese began to gain ground in popularity, early breeders would often confine their breeding stock in pens too small for them to even turn around, so as to promote a smaller progeny. [/b]

...During these times, the Maltese was a favorite [b]lap dog [/b]of fashionable men and women about town, being carried wherever their masters went. Roman women carried them in the sleeves of their garments, and took them to bed with them. (A trait passed down, no doubt, since most Maltese want to sleep with their owners!)

England and the Laps of Queens
Maltese were first imported into Britain during the reign of Henry VIII. They were certainly favorites in the time of Queen Elizabeth I, and were eagerly accepted by the British aristocracy. British Queens would serve the most choicest of foods from golden vessels to their Maltese pets. The cleanliness and dignified bearing of the modern-day Maltese stems from the fact that for centuries, they were the "[b]lap dogs" of the people of culture and wealth. [/b]
Maltese dogs appear in British literature and they have been immortalized by famous British artists. Queen Elizabeth's personal physician, Dr. Johannus Caius, one of the most respected and frequently-quoted canine historian of all time, comments about the Maltese:


"There is among us another kind of high bred dog...That kind is very small indeed, and [b]chiefly sought after for the pleasure and amusement of women. The smaller the kind, the more pleasing it is, so that they carry them in their bosoms, in their beds, and in their arms while in their carriages." [/b]

The Maltese in the U.S.
Maltese were first seen in the United States in the late 1800's, and were participants in the earliest versions of the Westminster Kennel Club shows in the 1870's. [b]There were periods when a tan or mottled-color Maltese was highly regarded. In fact, the first Maltese registered in America was born in 1873 and was white with black ears. However, as a sign of things to come, the first Maltese exhibited in America was "solid white[/b]" (as are all of the members of the breed today).

The Maltese Today
Through time, the Maltese has been labeled with many names -- as the "Melitae Dog," as "Ye Ancient Dogge of Malta," as the "Roman Ladies Dog," as well as being called "The Comforter," the "Spaniel Gentle," and the "Bichon" (not to be confused with the[b] Bichon Frise, which may also have been developed partly from the Maltese[/b]). Its primary make-up is of Spitz or Spaniel origins (as opposed to Terrier).

[Rosebud]

:-?

To visiting:

If you would like to have a respectable conversation about breeding practices, puppy placement and breed related health issues please feel free to join us, tell us who you are and about your dogs (pics included).

If you have come hear to bash the breeds of members who disagree with you then we are not interested in discussing this issue with you.

With that said I have nothing more to say to a guest who is attacking my co-members breed.

Sanvean - I wouldn't waste your energy getting upset over that post.

:angel:

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm not attacking anyone's breed. I came here to find out about mixed puppies because I'll be a loving owner of one in August. What I found was a lot of dissing of the idea of mixing breeds. From my understanding ALL breeds are mixed - that's how they started. If anyone can identify what the adam & eve of dogs were, I'd be more than interested.

I "picked on" sanvean because she specifically spoke out against breeding for the sole purpose of cutsey-poo - so I just thought I'd educate her that the only reason there's such a breed that she adores & finds perfectly matched for her family is due to some possible relative of hers or mine or yours many generations back who wanted to breed a small cutsey white lap dog, who happened to have some poodle in there somewhere.

I'm sincerely not meaning to be disrespectful of anyone or any dog. I do however find my analogy to the homeowners who don't want anyone new moving in to be pretty accurate.

[Sanvean]

Don't worry, Rosebud, I'm not ticked off when people show their ignorance ;)

The Maltese was developed for a specific purpose: companionship. Breeds that people of the time felt were suitable were used in the creation of the Maltese (although the Maltese IS considered one of the oldest breeds, and it is generally the other way around!).

However, as I have pointed out before, MANY breeds now meet this need. People of, say, 15th-century Malta didn't have access to hundreds of breeds of dogs to choose from when they wanted pets. We do.

So tell me about the breeder of your mixed-breed puppy, Visiting. What tests does he/she run on the parents? What are the parents' temperaments like? What does this breeder do when people can't keep puppies?

I know that Macy's patellas were checked, as were all of the other dogs'. (Luxating patellas are a common Maltese problem.) I met her father, her sister and other members of her family -- they all had gorgeous temperaments. Her mother lived with a different breeder, as Macy was 5 at the time I adopted her. Her breeder told me that she was responsible for Macy for the rest of her life, and that she was to be the FIRST person I called if I ever couldn't keep her, for any reason. I seriously doubt anyone who's cross-breeding "poos" or "oodles" will do those things.

[Sanvean]

[quote name='visiting']When the smaller-sized Maltese began to gain ground in popularity, early breeders would often confine their breeding stock in pens too small for them to even turn around, so as to promote a smaller progeny. [/quote]

I forgot to add that this is a load of codswallop, as anyone with an elementary notion of genetics knows. I dye my hair red, but it doesn't mean my kids are going to have red hair.

(And the Maltese breeder whose site you got that off of is not particularly reputable, either.)

[meehs]

I have to admit that the "visiting" guest makes a pretty good point. I don't think that he/she was "bashing" anyone or anyone's breed at all. They were pretty much just stating the facts as they interpret them. Folks seem to get defensive too easily here sometimes.

It's true that almost EVERY breed was at one time or another a "new" breed and it's likely that when these (at the time) new breeds were introduced, people were saying "there's no need for another new breed" and things like that. Just like some of us are now.

I have to say that I'm against these one time crosses and then trying to sell the puppies for inflated prices. Trying to pawn them of as "purebred" cocka-poos or doberdoodles or whatever the flavor of the day is.

And while I'm not entirely supportive of the creation of a new breed (there are a lot of breeds out there already); if there is a concerted, gradual effort over a period of time to develop a new breed that fufills a niche, which fanciers see as being empty; it's hard to argue with them. Afterall, that's where ALL of our favorite breeds started!

[Rosebud]

:D

[quote]People of, say, 15th-century Malta [color=indigo](or anywhere)[/color] didn't have access to hundreds of breeds of dogs to choose from when they wanted pets. We do. [/quote]

Sanvean: This is probably the most forgotten point.

Today's society has more resources, it wasn't even 10 years ago that you had to actually call breeders to research a line you wanted to breed to, today you can pull the pedigree up online, look at pictures of dogs 20 generations back and then go to that breeders web-site to find out what there breeding standards are and how their line has changed.

You know I think 15th-century Malta would probably have done some research and networking if they had had the same resources that we have today.

:angel:

[Guest Anonymous]

well, i guess I need to defend myself here, although surely no one is accusing me of being an uneducated doofus. I wonder how the board rules of etiquette look on referring to someone as "ignorant", however. Oh, well, I won't get my panties in a wad over such...

Of course the practice of confining in a small space didn't get passed on in the genes BUT it did show breeders' practices (even tho THEY hadn't yet learned all about genetics they did what they did because they believed the OUTCOME would be desired - the whole reasoning behind ANY breeding choice). Questionable breeders' practices seem to be one of the major issues being debated - that's why that example was included - historical unethical breeding practices contributed, indirectly, to today's maltese. Deliberate breeding practices led to today's maltese. (actually every so-called purebred...)

I'm in this debate because I think it's unfair to automatically label any breeder who deliberatly breeds 2 separate breeds as a bad breeder. I'm an animal lover & certainly don't want to be tainted as contributing to dog over-population because I'm purchasing such a deliberate mix. As explained in a previous note, I've spent many months looking for a new family member - I don't want anyone to think I fall into a category of "oh, isn't that quaint/cute/neat/trendy" so let's make an impulsive decision. I also believe mutts are best.

sanvean, you have some strong arguments. However, I'm not the type to see things totally as black & white. There are gray areas, imo. And again, I don't like the mentality of "not in my back yard"...

[Sanvean]

[quote name='Anonymous']I'm in this debate because I think it's unfair to automatically label any breeder who deliberatly breeds 2 separate breeds as a bad breeder.[/quote]

But you still haven't told us the kind of breeder you're getting YOUR dog from, if you think that some folks who breed mixes can be so great. Do you mind answering my questions from my previous post?

Again, here they are:

What tests does he/she run on the parents?

What are the parents' temperaments like?

What does this breeder do when people can't keep puppies?

[Rosebud]

[quote name='Sanvean'][quote name='Anonymous']I'm in this debate because I think it's unfair to automatically label any breeder who deliberatly breeds 2 separate breeds as a bad breeder.[/quote]

But you still haven't told us the kind of breeder you're getting YOUR dog from, if you think that some folks who breed mixes can be so great. Do you mind answering my questions from my previous post?

Again, here they are:

What tests does he/she run on the parents?

What are the parents' temperaments like?

What does this breeder do when people can't keep puppies?[/quote]


[b]I would like to add a few more question.[/b]

What is the main purpose this breeder is trying to acheive by breeding these particular lines, regardless of breed, together?

Is s/he trying to establish a more reliable temperment, a dog with less health problems, etc, etc.?

Is this breeder currently showing the registered dogs to have others evaluate whether they are breeding stock to begin with?

How many generations has the breeder bred and were the ones sold to families outside the kennel sold on a spay/neuter contract?

:angel:

[Guest Anonymous]

I asked questions my vet recommended I ask & was fine w/ the answers I got. I wasn't interested in a 'purebred' so only asked about one generation - the parents. The question about what happens to unwanted puppies after a guarantee period never entered my mind to ask since I'll be a responsible owner.

so sorry I can't provide all the answers you're interested in. I guess I could ask further questions of this particular breeder but I won't - because I'm not too interested in satisfying your curiousity because I'm sure you wouldn't be pleased w/ all the answers - [b]BECAUSE AFTER ALL THIS BREEDER IS ALREADY IRRESPONSIBLE IN YOUR MIND BECAUSE OF BREEDING FOR MIXED PUPPIES[/b]. I'm also sorry to think of how judgmental some people can be. I can understand caution, I can support licensing, etc., to prevent puppy mills, etc., but again, there are shades of gray which I accept, which you apparently don't so we'll just end here w/ an agreement to disagree.

[Rosebud]

[quote name='visiting'][b]BECAUSE AFTER ALL THIS BREEDER IS ALREADY IRRESPONSIBLE IN YOUR MIND BECAUSE OF BREEDING FOR MIXED PUPPIES[/b]. I'm also sorry to think of how judgmental some people can be. I can understand caution, I can support licensing, etc., to prevent puppy mills, etc., but again, there are shades of gray which I accept, which you apparently don't so we'll just end here w/ an agreement to disagree.[/quote]

Our questions are for you to educate us as to why we should feel this breeder is being irresponsible, as I stated regardless of breeds being bred together.

You asked in a round about way for us to be a little more open-minded and my questions are asked with honesty and with sincere interest as to what the answer would be. I would be more accepting of a breeder that considers the whole picture and not just their litter than I would of someone who is just making a pretty penny off of the current pet-shop fad.

I will restate my main opposition to cross-breeding is that there are enough breeds currently available that should be able to fill a persons needs. Although your secrecy with who [u]you[/u] are is starting to be a little suspicious in my own mind.

:angel:

[Sanvean]

We're asking these questions because a breeder who can't give a satisfactory answer to them shouldn't be breeding dogs. But apparently that doesn't bother you.

[LisaLQ]

What about deliberate working crossbreeds such as my two lurchers? I adopted them, I didn't buy them, but lurchers are lovely dogs, and should they die out because they are not pure? They are bred for a reason, all be it one I don't agree with, but they're not designer dogs.
Also, not that I'm condoning back yard breeders or anything, but it sounds a little like the only dogs you think are worth anything are pure breeds. :(
Sometimes, however daft and irresponsible, accidents happen. Are those pups supposed to get homes, or be put to sleep? And are those who offer a good home, promoting bad breeders, or giving a home to a dog. Which is more important?
After all, if we all boycotted crossbreeds, there would be none left. And that means my Sky and Badger.
Dont get me wrong, I would not go to someone breeding crossbreeds on purpose for profit, I would always adopt.
But if everyone was a responsible breeder, and only bred pure breed dogs, there would be no crosses left - in an ideal world that would be great, and I'm very pro neutering etc etc.
But how boring, having to pick the same old dog that everyone else has :wink:
Anyway, all dogs are crossbreeds if you go far enough back in their ancestry. :o

[Sanvean]

Lisa, as I mentioned above, I'm not opposed to crossbreeding as long as it's for a good reason. (But I don't consider "it would be cute!" a good reason!)

I have NOTHING against the dogs themselves -- my only problem is with irresponsible breeding. I am a rescue volunteer and know and love many, many mixes. I work very hard every week to get them good homes, and I think that they are excellent dogs. But yes, in my ideal world, every dog would be born to a loving, careful breeder who very carefully researched health, temperament and conformation before breeding.