"New" Breeds

[Rosebud]

:-?

Lisa - I just don't agree that someone should try to create a new breed by cross-breeding two "pure breds". In my own honest opinion I feel that it is just not necessary.

However, if someone is breeding these crosses for a working purpose, (and I also do not feel "they are cute" to be a working purpose), making sure that the stock they are starting from is coming from sound, working and structurally correct lines, doing all of the required health tests on each breed involved and analyzing the possibility of the emergence of new health problems, only breeding the best of the litters and altering the rest (and I'm not talking about just a couple of gens, I talking years of gens), being ethically and morally responsible for all the offspring of their crosses, etc, etc, etc. then I can believe that this breeder is not trying to make a pretty penny off of the current fad and is being a responsible breeder, therefore, even though I disagree with there being a need for any new breeds I can respect that breeder for being responsible. If that's not the case, then yes I will label them a BYB or Mill.

:angel:

[Elsastarr]

You know the REALLY BAD thing about this topic...I've sat here & in reading these pages & pages of post, I truly wonder why the people that are sooooooooooooo in favor of new breeds can't respoond to the questions asked in the spirit they were asked?
I am a breeder, I only have had one litter so far, & as you can see from my intro. it took years to produce them. Because it wasn't for money but the betterment of the breed. I can honestly say, as WONDERFUL & BEAUTIFUL AS THESE BABIES ARE still we had most of them "fixed"...I can also say that if I am unable to find the right mating...one that will continue to enhance the breed I WILL LET MY PARTICULAR LINE "Elsaspride" DIE OUT. THAT IS NOT AN EASY THING TO DO WHEN SHE~MY ELSA~IS MY HEART! BUT, I LOVE RIDGIES MORE THAN I LOVE BREEDING [u]MY WAY! [/u] See, it doesn't mean I can't be a breeder if I don't find the proper match, it just means I have to start over w/ other lines. You also know this litter cost a lot of money (from my intro) & yet not one puppy was sold. WHEN YOU FIND BREEDERS THAT WILL ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS, THAT ARE WILLING TO PUT THE "BABIES" BEFORE PROFIT OR PERSONAL GAIN....WHEN YOU CAN COME ONLINE & BE OBJECTIVE ABOUT THE QUESTIONS, & RESPOND! THEN YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET SOMEWHERE.
Some of the things previously posted have been opinion & some facts, why can't you respond in a like fashion. Your opinion could be one thing & the facts the same or something else. If you feel strongly about something that's GREAT, you can tell from my "ALL CAPS" I feel strongly, too, but for goodness sake, have some REAL ANSWERS. It seems (& maybe you that want "new breeds" should re-read ALL the post, that generally the rest of us are trying to find out why?) Asking someone "why?" does mean you think they are wrong it hopefully means your smart enough to know you don't have all the answers? So, questions have been asked about these breeding programs, why, act offended. I tell you what, if someone wants one of my babies & they don't GRILL me, they need to learn that's WHAT THEY SHOULD DO!!!
And to hide behind the statements, that's we are just being snobby about purebreds, is just that~hiding! Rosebud & other have asked some excellent questions, why do you dismiss them? It has also been brought up time & again, that~MUTT's are wonderful, that if you want a unique dog GO TO THE SHELTER or POUND it is likely you will find a one of a kind, or at least a one of a litter (no other litter would be quite like that ones babies). I'll even go so far to say that if a "breeder" does ALL THE RESEARCH/HEALTH TEST/TEMPERMENT, ETC & HAS FULL PLACEMENTS~DO IT! I say this because the expense & years of education WILL not be what these "breeders" really care about & since you can usually "follow the money" I doubt it's being done. Also, for you that are fighting for the"poo" breeds here, realize that REAL BREEDERS are caretakers FOR LIFE!!!! Be sure and add that to the list. Any baby that my kennel ever produces can be brought back to me @ any age & in any health condition. Do you get this from them? If so, if they do ALL that is required then you have my vote. So, are you going to ignore me, attack me or convince me? Because, you have my word, I'm willing to be completely open-minded. And, I'm willing to bet (so to speak) many of these posted replies have tried to be open-minded but you keep avoiding breeding practices questions & throw the "oh, ya'll only like purebreds" smokescreen up & "all of you have crosses" ~by the way, that's not true I can't give you a list of the breeds God Himself created, but He did, so some people actually do have PUREbreds.
The bones back on your side of the fence~do you want to play? I'll be waiting. I love learning, teach me. Or is this NOT really about learning, sharing, knowledge & betterment of the dog world but just a place to pick a fight? :angel:

[Elsastarr]

:P WOW, I really appreciate, that, as with most of the people here~ I LOVE BABIES. And, I can handle just about anything is there is a REAL reason.
Just give the facts, you know what I mean.

[bk_blue]

Excellent post, Elsastarr. :)

There was an article in the weekend paper magazine (Age/SMH Sunday Life) about the new "designer" dogs eg. labradoodles. It said they were crossbred 30 years ago in aust. for guide dog purposes. I never actually knew that. But of course we had to have a few quotes from Australia's favourite alleged puppy farmer/gardener, Don Burke, doing some nice self-promotion for designer dogs. :evil: there was also a contrasting view from some guy who is as sick as I am about people buying "in" breeds so they can carp on at dinner parties about their "maltipoo" or "yorkiepoo" or whatever. He put out a fake ad for some exotic South African crossbreed and were inundated with requests to buy. No checking out breeder, size, temperament etc. They just offered to BUY. :roll: Just proves how dumb some people are and why some people should never be allowed to take on the responsiblity of owning a dog. :evilbat:

[courtnek]

earlier in this thread I had posted about Golden Labs as guide dogs, and I still defend that post. I didnt know that lab/poodles were being bred as guide dogs (less shedding and allergies, is that it?) but even so, if that's the case I wont argue it, however PICK A DIFFERENT NAME!!!

those 'oodle' names are the most pitiful thing I have ever heard - give the poor dog some dignity at least.....

[meehs]

As far as I know, "God" didn't create any purebred dogs. Every single purebred dog that exists today is a result of selective breeding by man. All stemming from a single species. The most recent DNA data indicates that all dogs originated with a certain species (in fact they've pinpointed a specific family line) of Asian wolf. Yes it's true and amazing! Selective breeding brought us all the variations of purebred dogs that exist today.

This is just an observation I'm making based on a post that someone made on this thread suggesting that God created some of the purebred dog breeds.

[Elsastarr]

I wasn't trying to place purebreds in the place of being superior. I do know that what God created was PURE though. It wasn't a mix of anything & it HAD A REAL PURPOSE!!!!!!!!!!! And that if it or they are is still around in it's orinignal form then some people DO have a true purebred. It was really just a thing to go HHHUUMMMMMMMMMMM, over & not trying to start I big brew-haha. I know that some dogs to come from wolves but I also believe in the actual creation of dogs or a dog by God Himself. And, I can't image why anyone would have a probably w/ that line of reasoning. Unless you don't believe in Creationism. See, how the discussion goes....my point is still, there was a reason for dogs & I don't believe they are ALL man-made. Why would it bother you, if there is a true purebred? It doesn't deminish the love you can have, get or give to your mix, mutt or organized breed. Aren't we talking here about the reason for creations of new breeds, through, fads and improper money-hunger irresponsible breeders and people that aren't really thinking beyond the moment & cuteness of the name or look of the puppy. I wasn't trying to cloud the issue with God, just the re-statement that anything mankind is doing should have a soild reason & good foundation of fact before being set into motion~you know~THE BIG PICTURE not just your needs/wants or ego. ALL LIFE IS VALUABLE & SHOULD BE PROTECTED, BUT JUST BECAUSE "WE CAN" IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO CREATE MORE.

Thank you for your response, I'm glad to have had the opportunity to explain further.
:Fade-color :B-fly: :Fade-color

[Guest Anonymous]

I didn't mean to start a brouhaha either. I was just pointing out the facts as I understand them. The issue was fresh in my mind because I had just read an article in a recent issue of "Dog World" magazine that detailed the latest scientific data on the origin of domestic dogs.

I don't have any problem at all with your belief that some dogs were created by God. Eveyone is entitled to their own beliefs! And I certainly don't want to turn this into an issue of religion. Personnally however, do not believe that. It doesn't "bother" me that some folks might believe that, I just don't share that belief.

[imported_Cassie]

Here is a quote from Raymond & Lorna Coppinger (biologists) this quote is from a biological view point:
[quote]Many dog breeders have poduced a contrary effect in trying to preserve breeds. They treat breeds as if they were species, and sexually isolate small populations of them in an attempt to preserve their historic, ideal phenotype. Sexual isolation from the greater population of dogs leads almost inevitably to dire consequences for those dogs that get trapped in a purebred. Indeed, the idea of trying to modify a breed's behavior into a more tractable type of pet, while holding its form constant, seems not to work very well. Holding the size and shape constant while changing the behavior might well be one of those developmental constraints that don't work, like trying to get ocular overlap and robust drooling in the same animal.
Another severe problem with locking dogs up reproductively is the problem of inbreeding. Once the stud book is closed on a breed, it is unbelievable how fast thay become inbred. I was sitting in a review session at The Seeing Eye in New Jersey one afternoon with John Pollak, a geneticist from Cornell, and I asked how fast inbreeding will occur once a population is isolated. A true teacher, he led me through a little exercise.
How many founding sires do you strt with? if you have just one, than all the first generation will be siblings or half-siblings. By the second generation, all breedings are inbreedings. If there are two founding sires (unrelated), then the third generation is inbred. So he developed a formula for me to go home and practice with. If I started with five hundred unrelated founding males when I closed the stud book, then by the tenth generation I will start inbreeding. That could be only fifteen years after the stud book was closed.
If I created a breed of dogs in 1900 (that is, closed the stud book) with 500 males, currently that breed would have been inbreeding for eighty-five years. They are caught in a genetic trap. And what can possibly be done about it? open the stud book.
The pure breed story is worse than that. Starting with five hundred males, I get ten good breeding years if I use all the males equally. If the members of the breed club begin to breed only to the champions, then the inbreeding is accelerated. If the stud book closed on five hundred males but every female is bred to this year's grand champion, then inbreeding starts next year. Is it such a wonder, then, that our purebred dogs have so many breed-specific diseases, increasing all the time? Consider the advice of the experts who counsel breeders to eliminate from their breeding programs those dogs that exhibit retinal atrophy or hip dysplasia. The inbreeding coefficient increases more rapidly. The breed is in big trouble.
The old-fashioned breeders who continue to create dogs by cross-breeding for specific, specialized tasks, like the lurcher breeders of Europe or the sled dog drivers, are, by and large, disdained by pure breeders. I have been chastised many times by newcomers to the world of the uncommon guardian breeds. How could I possibly crossbreed the pure white Maremmano-Abruzzese with those gray and black Sarplaninac? Well, I say, in the first place, my understanding of the transhumance leads me to believe that the Maremmano-Abruzzese and the Sarplaninac are not pure breeds at all. And in the second place, improvement of plants and animals, when performance is the goal, relies on crossbreeding and hybridization. The ability of agriculture to produce the quantity and quality of animals and plants it does depends heavily on crossbreeding and hybridization. The successful techniques of cross-breeders of working dogs are practically unheard of outside of their fields. What purebred breeders forget is that golden retrievers and every other modern breed are poducts, originally, of crossbreeding. That is why they have been good dogs. At least in the beginning, they had the health and energy that are known as hybrid vigor.
Surely we owe dogs more than tightly restricted lives and distorted body shapes. Surely we can give up the eugenics of the pure, the perfect dog, and create instead a population of well-adapted, healthy pet dogs. In my wildest dream, I imagine people who have given up the "What kind of dog should I get?" question and gone to "I would like to make a dog for this task"[/quote]

[meehs]

The above post by "guest" was me. I forgot to log-in... AGAIN! :oops:

[imported_Cassie]

here is an interesting quote from Raymond & Lorna Coppinger (both are biologists)
Quote:
[quote]During the past one hundred years, hobby breeders have taken the working-sporting breeds and bred them specifically for the household market. I understand that throughout history breeders have bred miniature and gargantuan forms of dogs simply for display: the bonsai-garden type of breeding. But few of our modern household breeds are much older than a hundred years. The "perfection" of breeds is coincidental with the interest in expositions in which owners or trainers submit their dogs to judges who decide which which dogs are superior in looks. Over the past hundred years, the hobby breeding program has succeeded quite well in isolating subpopulations of working-sporting breeds from their greater populations for the specific purpose of public display and sales to the household market. This is an important concept to understand. The modern hobby breeder specializes in a breed. A breed is a population of dogs that is mechanically isolated from all other dogs.
It also points up a very different process than the one producing pet or show dogs. A dog purchased from inbred stock (closed stud book), untested in the field for many generations, is the product of a breeding program (maybe) that has little to do with its working behavior. The expectation of the new owner is that the dog will be good because it is a purebred golden retriever."What kind of dog should I get?" "Get a golden retriever because they have a friendly nature and disposition, athletic ability, love of water, and natural instinct for hunting and retrieving".
That sounds ridiculous to a working-dog person, or to a population geneticist. Friendly disposition is genetic? Love of water is genetic? Athletic ability has something to do with golden color? Is the implication that all goldens have this same set of genes, and all these traits? Is there no variation in golden retrievers? Lord Tweedmouth had good dogs because he had a good breeding program that included a high percentage of crossbreeding and because he hired people to work those dogs from their youngest days and develop the best dogs. He liked to hunt, he liked to have the best hunting dogs, and he was proud of his eye for working dogs. And he culled the bad ones.
Increasingly, the modern household dog becomes a genetic prisoner trapped in an isolated population. With each succeeding generation the behavioral and physical misfits get eliminated from the gene pool while breeders try to hold on tho the ancestral form. But in each new generation we see a host of new genetic problems. Lists of breed-specific genetic diseases are now part of the professional and popular literature. And it is worse than that. Breeders and owners forget what the historical dog looked like. They select for the exagggerated form. They select for the longest face. They select for the really big ones. They select for the flattest face. The breeds end up with weird conformations. Each breed takes on an unnatural shape, becoming a freak of nature. They are loved the way the hunchback Quasimodo was loved-a dichotomy between the grotesque form and the honorable personality...As the decades go by, every part of the household dog's life is increasingly manipulated for the human host's benefit. The dog is capriciously manipulated for human pleasure. The more bizarre and exaggerated the animal is the more benefit it seems to confer. This recent breeding fad for the purebred dog is badly out of control. It appears that selection for the exotic is the goal, We are producing unhealthy freaks to satisfy human whims. This is terribly unfair to dogs.
The same reduction in gene diversity takes place when a breed club tries to select against hip dysplasia, retinal atrophy, and some other so-called genetic disease. Every time an animal is culled for genetic problem, the genetic variation in the closed population is further reduced. It's not just the bad genes that are affected, it is all the animal's genes. Any time there is selection for or against single characters, ie, "tame" or "hip dysplasia," then one must be prepared for the appearance of new or altered characters because of what Darwin called "the mysterious laws of correlation" Today the phenomenon is called pleiotropy, or saltation-the fact that more than one characteristic can be controlled by a single gene, and selection can result in unintended and unpredictable changes.
Many breeds are living to pay a terrible price for the temporal increase in population or the luxury of expensive food and care. It is not simply that the dogs have access to the kind of medical care that is given to humans, but that they have been bred so they need such care to survive. Breeds like the English bulldog are in a dead-end trap. There probably is not enough variation left to get them out of their genetic pickle. Unless the breed clubs open their stud books and and allow outside breedings, Bulldogs and the other breeds caught in these eugenic breeding practices are headed for extinction. The problem here is that unlike the wild counterpart becoming extinct because of habitat loss, these purebred individuals will increasingly suffer ill health. What is troublesome is that modern society seems to have little realization of what it is doing to dogs..owners don't seem to be disturbed about deformation.... [/quote]

[meehs]

Excellent post Cassie! Very, very intersting!

[imported_Cassie]

Thank you meehs,
I really enjoyed reading this particular book by these biologists...it really opened my mind up to different ideas regarding dogs.

[Elsastarr]

Cassie~I really enjoyed reading that, too. And, agree that you MUST be able to keep the health/temperment of the dog the foremost concern. I don't have a probably with "new genes". I think anyone could benefit from reading this info. And when it states>>>>"It appears selection for exotic is the goal, We are producing unhealthy freaks to satify human whims"<<<<makes the point that any breeding on whim or fad is WRONG! Which is what I think I understand us "con-poo" people are trying to say to the "pro-poo" people. You must be responsible. Because in the case of the "poo's"~ it's the rose & the name that they change & it doesn't smell sweet.

Oh, Meehs~I'm not trying to be religious either. My life is based in Jesus, & I'm not going to discredit Him by acting ugly if I can help it...He"s perfect but I'm FAR from it. I know we are all just giving our opinions here & can agree to disagree if needed. I enjoy listening to others points of view & being able to express my on, too. I only asked so I would know where you where coming from. I wasn't trying to pick @ you. :buzi:

[meehs]

The point that the author of the article or book that Cassie is posting is that all purebred dogs are in danger because of their limitied gene pools and that every generation of purebred dogs suffers from further limitation of that gene pool. Therefore the inherited diseases and health problems that are prevelent in purebred dogs are only destined to become worse.

What the author is saying is that "opening the stud books" (or allowing studs of differing or mixed breeds) to allow diversification in genetic lineage is the only way to save purebred dogs from a very perilous future. He says for example:

[quote]Breeds like the English bulldog are in a dead-end trap. There probably is not enough variation left to get them out of their genetic pickle. Unless the breed clubs open their stud books and and allow outside breedings, Bulldogs and the other breeds caught in these eugenic breeding practices are headed for extinction.[/quote]

If anything this data makes the argument [i][b]IN FAVOR [/b][/i]of mixing breeds. According to the argument that this author is making; the "poo" breeds (et al) are inherently destined to be healthier than [i]any[/i] purebred line of dogs because of the virtually endless diversification of genes that the breeders have to draw from.

Again this is a very interesting post and it really makes you (or me anyway) wonder about the validity of breeding purebred dogs. Even as much as I do love them! :oops:

Is this an article from a magazine Cassie? Or is it from a book or what? Please provide the source because I'd (and I bet others would also) very much like to read it. Thanks for the post!

[meehs]

Oh and sorry if I gave you the wrong impression Elastarr! I wasn't trying to pick on you or anyone else either. In fact I didn't even know that it was your post when I wrote my response. I just remembered reading the "God" remark when I was reading through the thread and I wanted to get my two-cents in.

I'm definitely not the ultimate authority on dogs and I know that everyone has their own opinions and beliefs. I just wanted to give my own point of view based on what I know. I'm always interested in hearing someone elses opinion. [b]Especially[/b] if it is differnent from my own. Thanks! :)

[Elsastarr]

Meehs, those of us against the "poo's" were only against them as a fad or money making venture. That's why in my first post I asked for them to give reasons & what kind of info they have on the breeder. Is the breeder responsible. See, what I mean. Not, the making of a new breed for profit or ego only. In the acticle, there were REAL reasons presented.
See the different ....
1) for health/temperment betterment of the species or gene pool (Good or Con-Poo)

or

2) as a fad, chic or moneymaking venture, a impluse buy type attitude (Bad or Pro-Poo)

is what I have meant all along, which I think, maybe you agree w/.....
in a word~RESPONSIBLE~

What ya think? :angel:

PS For Goodnes Sake~Ridgies haven't been around here very long & you all ready have to be careful of the gene pool, people that have more ancient breeds like Pharoh Hounds I'm sure could really shead some light on this subject for us &, w/ these breeds there was & is still careful breeding & you would go back to one of the breeds already used for the new genes needed. You wouldn't just decide, what the heck, lets breed a lab & poodle together~Labradoodle-doo...LOL :roflt:

[imported_Cassie]

[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684855305/ref=pd_sim_books_4/102-1057671-5451328?v=glance&s=books[/url]

meehs,
Above you will find a site on how to order the book I have been reading by Raymond Coppinger and Lorna Coppinger - Biologists
the book is called
[b]Dogs, A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution [/b]
This is probably one of the first dog books written by biologists.
I have found this book very interesting and it has given me alot to think about...

Happy reading! :wink:

[meehs]

I'm definitely going to order the book. Thanks Cassie!

[Guest Anonymous]

as i agree with people breeding mixes for a profit. it is the same as people breeding pure breeds for a profit as well. i have seen pure bread shih tzus that are registered for 2,000. now tell me does it really take a genuis to realize that those people are breeding for profit as well. and honestly. it would be WONDERFUL if ALL BREEDERS WOULD STOP BREEDING dogs for a few years. that way the shelter dogs could get adopted its sad how many people will even adopt pure breed dogs that are breed intentionally to sell, when their are so many dogs already in the shelters needing homes and mutts, no matter what breed are just as good, if not better than any pure breed. they are less likely to have dieses of a pure breed and are just as sweet.

[kendalyn]

I agree. I really don't understand the difference between people buying "new" breeds or established purebreds. It's still taking away homes from shelter animals.

But than, people who are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a pure bred or "new" breed, probably aren't the people who will adopt a shelter or rescue animal anyways.

Overall, I think the best way to get people to adopt more rescue animals would be to change public opinion away from thinking they have to have a purebred dog from a breeder in order to have a good pet. Some people really belive that the old saying "you get what you pay for" applies to dogs. That's really too bad because many people who think like this also think that those purebreds won't need as much training and won't have behavior issues. Obviously a big misconception.

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote name='kendalyn']I agree. I really don't understand the difference between people buying "new" breeds or established purebreds. It's still taking away homes from shelter animals.

But than, people who are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a pure bred or "new" breed, probably aren't the people who will adopt a shelter or rescue animal anyways.

[/quote]


You are RIGHT. Breeders are NOT taking homes away from shelter animals.

If someone wants to rescue a dog from the shelter, they WILL. No matter how many breeders are out there.

As far as the other poster. Even IF everyone stopped breeding for a couple of years. That would STILL not solve anything. Becuase those same people that WANT to buy from a breeder rather than go to a shelter will just WAIT.

[Guest Anonymous]

I have a Yorkepoo and he is awesome Just because you have a piece of paper saying your dog is pure ITS NOT! , All dogs are mutts just created over time. Well weather you so called breeders want to admit it or not its all about the Money and the profit you

[Guest Anonymous]

*Deleted*

[Guest Anonymous]

*Deleted*