Mixed breeds-the truth behind them

[imported_Matty]

I also found this in the same website I listed before. I think its pretty interesting.

[quote]Mixed Breed Dogs

You can't predict what a mixed breed will look or act like Because...A mixed breed is not necessarily a mix of purebreds.
Someone will say, "My dog's a Shepherd-Husky," as though his dog is the offspring of a purebred German Shepherd and a purebred Siberian Husky.
Or "He's a mix of Shepherd, Husky, and Collie," as though his parents and grandparents were purebred members of these three breeds.

In reality, such pure crosses are not that common. It is just as likely that a mixed breed dog is the offspring of TWO OTHER mixed breed dogs. The closest purebred in his heritage may be a single grandparent or great-grandparent. He may even be the product of many generations of mixed breeding...
...with nary a purebred to be seen anywhere.

The term mixed breed, then, is misleading, because it suggests that a dog who is not a purebred has to be a MIX of purebreds. Not true.

ONE-MINUTE HISTORY LESSON
It isn't as though the first dogs started out as fancy purebreds and everything that isn't pure is some degenerate form of these purebreds.
On the contrary. The first dogs were what we might call original village dogs. They roamed the edges of early villages and reproduced randomly. The purebreds that came along much later (mostly in the 1800s) were developed from these village dogs.

But the original dogs have gone right along reproducing themselves, as well, and we still see the results of their random breedings today.

So unless you know FOR SURE that a puppy had purebred parents, trying to guess "what breeds are in him" may be a waste of time. Because the truth may be, "No breeds at all. He comes from a long line of original village dogs."

In other words, his parents and grandparents and great-grandparents may have been totally random mixtures of plain old CANINE genes -- not the more limited subset of PUREBRED genes.

Personally, I think "non-purebred" is a more accurate term than "mixed breed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if you THINK you see some recognizable breed in a non-purebred dog...You may be mistaken.

You're looking at a dog with black and tan markings. Does that mean he has Rottweiler in his heritage? Or Doberman? Is he part German Shepherd?

Maybe not. There are only so many ways that canine parts CAN look -- and these "looks" can occur in any dog. A dog doesn't have to "get" his black and tan markings, or prick ears, or curled tail from some purebred. A non-purebred is entitled to the same basic canine genes and canine characteristics as a purebred is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if a dog really IS a mix of purebreds...You can't accurately guess which ones.

You're looking at a stocky white dog with a big head. A Pit Bull mix? Maybe.

But other breeds come in white (say, a Boxer). Other breeds have stocky builds (say, a Labrador Retriever). Other breeds have large heads (say, a French Bulldog). Combine these other breeds and you could get a stocky white dog with a big head who LOOKS like a Pit Bull -- and yet has no Pit Bull heritage at all!

In mixed breed dogs, what you see on the outside often doesn't reflect the true genes on the inside. Don't jump to conclusions that just because a non-purebred dog LOOKS LIKE some breed, then he probably IS a mix of that breed.

The old saying, "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck," simply doesn't hold true for mixed breed dogs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if someone TELLS you what breeds are in there...They're often just guessing.

Animal shelters and humane societies often post information tags about their dogs, such as "Lab mix." But in most cases, they are...Assuming that every dog MUST be a mix of some purebred.

Assuming that because a dog has some body part (size, head, color) that LOOKS like a purebred, he must BE part purebred.

Assuming that they can guess which purebred that might be.

Even when the owner TELLS the shelter that their dog is a mix of some specific breed... the owner is often guessing, too. Or he was given misinformation from the original person HE got the dog from.

Moral: Don't make your decision about which dog to adopt based on guesses of "which breeds are in him."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if you know FOR SURE which breeds are in him...You don't know whether those parents and grandparents were "typical" of their breed.

Remember when we were talking about purebreds, how there are many purebreds who don't have the temperament and behavior typical for their breed? There are Jack Russell Terriers who are calm and quiet, Doberman Pinschers who love everyone, and Golden Retrievers who are aggressive.

Don't assume that purebreds ALWAYS have certain characteristics.

You're looking at a puppy at the animal shelter. The shelter manager assures you that the puppy is a Fox Terrier mix -- he personally saw the mother, he says, and she was a purebred Fox Terrier.

You're concerned, because you've read that terriers can be energetic, noisy, and stubborn. You reject the puppy.

But what you don't know is that this particular Fox Terrier mother was one of the calmest, quietest, and most obedient dogs you could ever hope to find. She was not typical of her breed. Perhaps her puppy may have been the same way.

Now here's an example from the other side of the fence...

You're looking at a puppy at the animal shelter. The shelter manager assures you that the puppy is a Saint Bernard mix -- he personally saw the mother, he says, and she was a purebred Saint Bernard.

You're pleased, because you've read that Saint Bernards are good-natured, friendly dogs. You take the puppy.

But what you don't know is that this particular Saint Bernard mother slunk around with her tail between her legs, scared of her own shadow and nervous around strangers. She was not typical of her breed. Her puppy may be the same way.

If you don't SEE the parents, you can't assume that they automatically have the temperament and behavior their breed "is known for."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if you know FOR SURE which breeds are in him, and you know the parents VERY WELL...You still don't know WHICH genes a puppy will inherit from WHICH breed -- and which genes will "trump" the others.

You're looking at a "Pek-a-poo" puppy. His father was a Pekingese, his mother was a Poodle. You know for sure that both of them act normal for their breed, because they live next door to you. But...since a Pekingese is very different from a Poodle, the Pekapoo puppy inherits conflicting characteristics.

Will he shed heavily, like a Pekingese?
Will he not shed at all, like a Poodle?
Or something in between?

Will he be stubborn (Pekingese)?
Will he be eager to please (Poodle)?
Or something in between?

Perhaps the Pekingese genes will trump the Poodle genes in appearance... while the Poodle genes trump the Pekingese genes in temperament. Or vice versa.
Or perhaps the genes will all blend together so that the puppy doesn't resemble either breed in appearance or temperament.

You can't get around it. Non-purebred dogs are unpredictable.

Now, I don't mean they're unpredictable as DOGS, as though you can't tell what they're going to DO from day to day! No, no! All I mean is that you cannot look at a non-purebred puppy and predict what he will grow up to look like and act like.

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "A non-purebred puppy is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

The solution, of course, is to look for an adult who already HAS the appearance, temperament, and behavior that you want. The difficulty with this solution, of course, is finding him!

Non-purebreds tend toward the moderate
The extremes of temperament and behavior often seen in purebreds are less common in non-purebreds. It is certainly possible for non-purebreds to be "very" energetic or "very" independent or "very" prone to chasing things.
But many purebreds were specifically BRED to have those temperaments and behaviors because they aided the breed's performance of his work. In non-purebreds, extreme temperaments and behaviors are by happenstance rather than deliberate design.
Because their temperament and behavior is more middle-of-the-road and less strongly "programmed," non-purebreds tend to be more flexible. They often adjust more easily to a greater variety of households and living conditions.

If you want a dog with specific skills, such as herding sheep or pointing pheasants, or to compete in some specialized canine event such as schutzhund or lure coursing, a non-purebred is not the way to go. These are the areas where purebreds are at their very best.

Health problems in non-purebreds
Most individuals have good genetic diversity, i.e. their genes are unrelated and include a little of this and a little of that, which tends to promote overall health and vigor.

Because their genes are usually unrelated, the chances are good that the parents of a mixed breed puppy did not both have the same defective genes. It is the pairing up of the same defective genes that causes some of the worst health problems.


Mother Nature tends to make dogs moderately sized, with natural builds. For example, in non-purebreds you seldom find faces as short as a Pug. You seldom find bodies as long as a Dachshund, or as barrel-shaped as a Bulldog, or as huge as a Great Dane, or as tiny as a Maltese. Which is good, because these physical features are associated with increased health problems.

It is almost unheard of for a mixed breed dog to have even one parent who has been tested for any genetic disorder. With a mixed breed dog, you have to put your faith in his genetic diversity, rather than in medical testing.
Some mixed breed dogs are crosses of purebreds that share similar health problems. This means the same defective gene could come over from both parents and pair up in their puppies. For example, "Cockapoo" puppy has one Cocker Spaniel parent and one Poodle parent. Both of these breeds are prone to a long list of similar defects that could easily pair up.
Some mixed breed dogs are inbred just as much or worse than purebred dogs. For example, some people who breed "Cockapoos" have only a few dogs whom they keep interbreeding. Whether purebred or mixed, it is much easier for defective genes to pair up when the gene pool is small and the dogs are related.

Non-purebreds are inexpensive
Many people are reluctant to spend $500 or $1000 for a purebred dog. You can get a non-purebred at the animal shelter for $25 to $75. Classified ads in the newspaper may charge the same, or may even give their puppies away free.

Dog breeders sometimes speak scornfully of people who don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for a dog. "If you can't afford the purchase price," they say, "how will you afford monthly food bills or emergency vet bills?"
I believe these are entirely separate situations. If a beloved dog is ill, countless owners will scrape and scrounge to come up with however many hundreds (or thousands) of dollars it takes to help him, whether they found him as a stray, or paid $1000 for him. In fact, if they had to pay $1000 for him, they have that much less available to pay for health care.

With all of the problems purebred dogs are facing, breeders do not have a compelling argument that you're automatically getting a better dog for all that money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To sum up, a non-purebred can be a fine choice...

if you're willing to accept whatever characteristics he grows up to have -- or if you adopt an adult so you can already see what he looks like and acts like

if you raise and train him correctly

if you're willing to accept the potential for genetic defects and health problems (greater in some mixes than in others)

if you don't want to pay a high purchase price

and if you like the idea of saving a life that no one else may have wanted [/quote]

[BuddysMom]

I loved this and found it very interesting. I personally prefer the terms mutt or heinz-57 over non-purebred or mixed breed.

[CincoandDahlilasgirl]

[quote name='desertlady']I loved this and found it very interesting. I personally prefer the terms mutt or heinz-57 over non-purebred or mixed breed.[/quote]

I use heinz 57 but we only used it on Max cuz the only breed that the vet could point out was what the mother was and that was pekaneeze and the dad was a mutt.

[kendalyn]

I've read this before but it's a great article!

It always bugs me when mutts are labeled as mixes of 2 breeds. I realize it's conventient and meant to identify what may be the dominant breed, but I think it's incredibly inaccurate and misleading.

When people ask me what kind of dog I have I say I have a mutt who looks very much like a small lab.

[AllAmericanPUP]

Like it really matters what you call a dog.

ALL dogs are mutts.

I prefer to say call sheeba a chow/akita mix instead of just a mutt.
i think mutt or mongrel is degrading..dont know why..but I do..

but it really does NOT matter what the heck someone calls a dog.

Shadow IS a great pyrenees/lab mix. her daddy was a pure great pyrenees and her momma was a pure black lab.
so that is what i call her.

i mean really, are people THAT worried about what someone calls their fricken dog? :roll:
i mean i understand when someone gets a lil ticked off or whatever when someone calls their dog a doodle or some other rediculous name, but there is nothing wrong with calling a dog a shepherd/husky mix or what the heck ever.

[kendalyn]

[quote name='AllAmeicanPUP']i mean really, are people THAT worried about what someone calls their fricken dog?[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are:

[quote name='AllAmericanPUP']i think mutt or mongrel is degrading..dont know why..but I do.. [/quote]

[quote name='AllAmericanPUP']there is nothing wrong with calling a dog a shepherd/husky mix or what the heck ever.[/quote]

Except that in most cases it probably isn't accurate. Usually that would only describe some characteristics of what the dog looks like. In the average mutt there are probably lots more breeds mixed in.

I think it's important to remember that so people know they're not getting a Shephard/Husky mix, they're getting a totally unique mix of various breeds.

[pyrless]

I think it's important to remember that so people know they're not getting a Shephard/Husky mix, they're getting a totally unique mix of various breeds.[/quote]

i think that for people like us on the board that is accurate because we have more than a passing interest in dogs and their behavior. however for joe average dog owner who goes to the pound i don't think there is anything wrong with saying "shepherd/husky" or whatever if the physical characteristics and behavior of the dog seem to indicate that. why confuse the issue? people by nature like to label things and will tend to simplify things. as long as they treat the dog well and accept its unpredictable characteristics, what difference does it really make, except to the shepherd and husky fanciers who might know better?

[imported_Matty]

[quote]i think that for people like us on the board that is accurate because we have more than a passing interest in dogs and their behavior. however for joe average dog owner who goes to the pound i don't think there is anything wrong with saying "shepherd/husky" or whatever if the physical characteristics and behavior of the dog seem to indicate that. why confuse the issue? people by nature like to label things and will tend to simplify things. as long as they treat the dog well and accept its unpredictable characteristics, what difference does it really make, except to the shepherd and husky fanciers who might know better?[/quote]
[b]Quote by pyrless[/b]

I think what they and kendalyn are trying to say that some mixed breeds are not really mixes of purebreds. Some mixed breeds are older than purebreds and may not have any purebred in them at all. Although they may resemble some of our current purebreds they are far older than purebred dogs. :wink:
So although a dog may look like a pit mix or look like a husky mix or what ever. It may actually never have had a purebred in it at all. I think this is what they are saying and by saying this they are proving they are more dog fanciers than any one who thinks that all dogs had to come from modern day purebreds. Make sense? :lol:
Really read this part over.

[quote]ONE-MINUTE HISTORY LESSON
[b]It isn't as though the first dogs started out as fancy purebreds and everything that isn't pure is some degenerate form of these purebreds. [/b]
On the contrary. The first dogs were what we might call original village dogs. They roamed the edges of early villages and reproduced randomly. The purebreds that came along much later (mostly in the 1800s) were developed from these village dogs.

[b]But the original dogs have gone right along reproducing themselves, as well, and we still see the results of their random breedings today.[/b]

[b]So unless you know FOR SURE that a puppy had purebred parents, trying to guess "what breeds are in him" may be a waste of time. Because the truth may be, "No breeds at all. He comes from a long line of original village dogs." [/b]
In other words, his parents and grandparents and great-grandparents may have been totally random mixtures of plain old CANINE genes -- not the more limited subset of PUREBRED genes. [/quote]

I saw this book as suggested reading on this site. I bought it, still reading it :lol: and it is finally dawning on me that not all dogs come from purebred breeding programs. Just because you see a mongrel running around don't assume it may have had any purebred dogs in it at all. Remember, Mongrels are far older than any purebred you see around today.

kendalyn & Courtnek, you guys make a lot of sense. I am still trying to comprehend all this stuff and open my eyes :lol: I have been so programmed that all dogs come from purebreds that its hard to digest at first. When you really get thinking about all this stuff it really opens your eyes. I just started reading on this, before I always just listened to what every one else said. :lol:

[imported_Kat]

Does it matter if they are called crossbreeds/mongrels/mutts/mixes as long as they are loved?

[imported_Matty]

Kat, No it doesnt really matter what they are called. :wink:
I think what matters to some people is that people who are into purebred's almost make it sound like all dogs were orginally purebreds and every thing thats not a purebred is a mix of purebreds. I think that its interesting to actually learn more about dogs and to realize that purebreds are really poorly named :lol: they shouldn't have "pure" in front of the name breed. It makes it sound like they are a pure species and created by mother nature which their not. I think its kinda of a deceiving name. :lol:
I think their just trying to point out that nature creates her own purebred animals and man just can't seem to do it without starting all kinds of horrible problems. I think its also for people not to look at purebreds as if they are like a pure animal that has been around for thousands of years. Cause people really think like that, honestly I have talked to some people who seem to have this big history of how their breed has been around since time began. What they are actually seeing in those pictures are mongrels or just village dogs (currs) that developed without man. It's just kinda interesting to see how wonderful of a job mother nature does on making her creations. It makes man look kinda silly in comparison when he created his purebreds :D
I'm still trying to get through this book. Its really quite a complex book and I have a hard time understanding the genetic parts of the book and the talk of motor patterns and man made created enhanced behavior patterns. Its quite a book. I'll let you know in a year or two when I finish reading it :lol:

[pyrless]

Matty, I like what you said about "purebred" being a misnomer.
And also what you said in response to my post does make perfect sense! :wink: This is a very interesting and informative topic!
i am always seeing things on National Geographic or the Discovery channel about the village dogs (scavengers) and the pariah dogs. As much as I love the Pyr and respect what the old-school French and American breeders have done for it, I also like the idea that the so-called pariah dogs kind of evolved without us (humans).

[imported_Matty]

pyrless, I just started reading the book. It really is interesting. And those village dogs, they are so neat. They talk of them a lot in the book called "Dogs" by Raymond Coppinger. They studied these dogs in villages and learned that they live a lot longer than our purebreds. They also don't have all the high enhanced drives that our purebreds have. They are low key dogs that just blend in and evolved to not have a high prey drive. A lot of them when you look at their pic's look like Pits, some look like Fox hound type dogs and from regions like up north they look like Husky or spitz type dogs. Just depending on the region they come from they formed their looks naturally to suit it. Like Mastiff type dogs, grey houndish type dogs etc. Its really interesting when you read up on them. :wink:
Thanks for understanding what I am talking about :D :wink: some times I get so excited about a website or book I read I don't explain it well. Or I misinterpit what I mean. :wink:

[pyrless]

i saw somewhere in a magazine about the ancient "types" of dogs, spitz, molossus and sighthound. ie dogs as they naturally occur. so maybe we should think of our purebreds as "types".... where did you find this book, i would like to read it too! :D

[JackieMaya]

I don't like to call my girls "mutts" because I just don't like the word. I like to call them Golden-mix girls, because that appears to be the most predominant breed in them. Jackie is a complete guess because she was rescued from the pound. Maya was an owner surrender, and her former owners said she is Golden/Husky.

That was an interesting article.

[imported_Matty]

pyrless, heres the book and how to order it. Its really good reading. I found it kinda hard to understand and had to reread some chapters. It talks a lot about genetics as well. :wink:
[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684855305/ref%3Dnosim/yourpurebredpupp/103-0992005-6320600[/url]

[Lucky Chaos]

I'm gonna start calling Chaos a "purebred village dog" now when people ask. :lol:

She really dosn't look like any breed. I don't mind calling her a mutt, I really don't know for sure whats in her cept her body looks like a kelpie and her head often resembles a pittie head. So she's my little mutt. Personally theres nothing degrading about it, its JUST a label. Calling her a purebred village dog dosn't make her more "valuable" and calling her a mutt dosn't mean I love her any less because she's not "purebred"

[pyrless]

Thank You! I look forward to it, and again, this has been a really great topic!

[BuddysMom]

Maybe we should really call "purebreds" ... "inbreds"?
(ducking in fear now :lol: )

[Guest Mutts4Me]

I [b][i]Love[/i][/b] the term [size=6][color=red]MUTT[/color][/size]

And I love my MUTT :angel:

I often refer to Sasha as a Chow mix. Sometimes, I say I have a Chow/Shepherd mix. I think the chow is more likely than the shepherd. Just the same, I best like to call her a mutt. Because she is.

She likely has chow, and maybe shepherd. When her tail's down, her back quarters strongly resemble a collie, and when she stares contemplatively, her face looks rather Akita-ish. She's very spitzy, but that's very vague. I'm often inclined to think there's kitty, kangaroo and wookie in her lineage as well. Who knows??

I'm proud to own a good, honest MUTT, and I'm proud to call myself a 100% purebred, American MUTT as well.

The only time I don't like the term Mutt is when people refer to Poo/Doodles as "mutts," because I think mutt is an honest term of mixed, uncertain heritage, and a simple crossbred doesn't merit the term ;)

[Cairn6]

I call my girl Mandy a mutt too. (pictured in the middle of my signature)I have no idea what she is I know it's some sort of terrier but other than that who knows. To me she reminds me of every little stray dog that comes along on a t.v. show with the little fuzzy face. She was a stray too. :lol:

[CincoandDahlilasgirl]

[quote name='kendalyn'][quote name='AllAmeicanPUP']i mean really, are people THAT worried about what someone calls their fricken dog?[/quote]

It kind of sounds like you are:

[quote name='AllAmericanPUP']i think mutt or mongrel is degrading..dont know why..but I do.. [/quote]

[quote name='AllAmericanPUP']there is nothing wrong with calling a dog a shepherd/husky mix or what the heck ever.[/quote]

Except that in most cases it probably isn't accurate. Usually that would only describe some characteristics of what the dog looks like. In the average mutt there are probably lots more breeds mixed in.

I think it's important to remember that so people know they're not getting a Shephard/Husky mix, they're getting a totally unique mix of various breeds.[/quote]

But most mixes have breeds in them that stand out. For instance...
We know Dahlila has shihtzu/jackrussel in her color is jack russel and she's got the fur of a shihtzu
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/shootingstar167/The%20dogs/Dahlilainmommysroom.jpg[/img]
Cinco we know is a springer/hound/possible lab cuz his color supports springer his body supports hound and ears support lab
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/shootingstar167/The%20dogs/elegantCinco.jpg[/img]

[imported_Matty]

[quote]Maybe we should really call "purebreds" ... "inbreds"?
(ducking in fear now )[/quote]
desertlady,
Exactly! the name pure gives a person a reason to think that these dog breeds have been around for thousands of years and that some how man is perserving the breed :roll:
Purebreds should be called Inbreds because all purebred dogs were created by man by inbreeding to set behavior and conformation standards.
You shouldn't feel as though you have to duck in fear :lol: This is an open forum and we are discussing things that concern us. We are discussing dogs, and we as dog lovers are concerned about the wellbeing and health of our animals. When you find out that purebred breeding is killing them then yes, we should discuss it :wink: especially when so many people tell us and jam it down our throats that purebred breeding is healthy, now we find out that its not healthy at all. Experts in the feild of genetics are warning purebred breeders about opening up their stud books and cross breed to impove the breeds. When you think a reputable breeder is usually just someone who takes an interest in a dog breed, goes to shows gets a mentor (who learned the same way). Then they get a puppy, get advise from another breeder who doesnt really have much of a clue about genetics then they breed dogs They then show them in a conformation show which we all know that you can't tell a dog is healthy just by going to a show. Then the dog that wins the shows is the one they breed cause that dog is the most talked about champion. This is even worse for dogs and its a scary and deadly way to get weak genetics and make genetic diseases. The scary part is they label these people as reputable breeders :o yikes thats scary. I can understand people labeling them responsible breeders cause yes they are responsible, they are responsible for Hip Dysplasia, Elbow dysplasia, luxating patellas and all those other wonderful genetic diseases. Purebred dogs don't fit right together anymore, they are literally falling apart. :(