Purebred mixes

I've noticed from looking into and reading about so many kinds of dogs lately that there are a lot of recognized mix breed dogs now. Why are poodles such a popular dog to mix??

Anyway, are their ways to know what you will get out of a mix of two purebreds? Is mixing breeds frowned upon? What is generally the intension when two breeds are combined?

Chris Steele said:

I've noticed from looking into and reading about so many kinds of dogs lately that there are a lot of recognized mix breed dogs now. Why are poodles such a popular dog to mix??

Click to expand...

Not really sure. I think, currently, it is because they do not shed. And. let's face it, they can be darn cute.

Chris Steele said:

Anyway, are their ways to know what you will get out of a mix of two purebreds? ?

Click to expand...

Nope, not with reliability.

Chris Steele said:

Is mixing breeds frowned upon? What is generally the intension when two breeds are combined?

Click to expand...

Mixing "breeds" is one of the time honored ways of creating new breeds. The dogs certainly don't frown on it. I think that the "human" issue regards responsibility. It is fun and interesting to see what will be produced and what the pups will look like. But, have loving and appropriate homes been secured BEFOREHAND for each pup? Irresponsible breeding is a major contributor to the homeless pet problem. Do you know how many thousands of thousands of dogs and cats are euthanized in the US alone every year just because there are no homes for them?

Generally, the intention when "intentionally" breeding parents of different breeds together is to improve some aspect of one of the breeds, to try to eliminate some congenital defect or to create a new breed that is better suited to a particular niche. But this takes dedication and a looong time.

coyote said:

Irresponsible breeding is a major contributor to the homeless pet problem. Do you know how many thousands of thousands of dogs and cats are euthanized in the US alone every year just because there are no homes for them?

Click to expand...

I think this is absolutely true. I think that by far, most pets should be spayed/neutered to help prevent the heartbreaking problem of having to euthanize homeless dogs and cats.

Those who wish to improve a breed should do so in a calculated way, with resources for vet care, and homes lined up for the puppies prior to the breeding.

Dedicated breeders who are trying to improve the breed, or create a new one actually don't bother with finding very many homes for the pups, they cull ruthlessly. Any dog they produce which doesn't at least meet the standards of the breed is destroyed. When trying to improve on a certain trait they cull even more.
Dog breeders who are breeding for the standard aren't like snake breeders, if a pup doesn't meet their requirements it isn't allowed the possibility of entering the gene pool, and many see letting an imperfect dog go to a home is just taking up a spot that one who fits the standard could have taken.

I'm not saying I agree with this practice but that's how those who take the standards or their breeding goals seriously do it, and it is the most effecient way to improve a breed.
I have two minature schnauzers who neither one meet the breed standard due to coat color. They're great dogs but if they were born to other breeders they would have been killed at birth. Money was the reason they weren't, the breeders I purchased from were more interested in the income than improving the breed.
I do see the point in bettering the breed, and reptile breeders could take some lessons in that area to a degree, but I'd hate to have missed out on the years I've had with my dogs.

Clay Davenport said:

Dedicated breeders who are trying to improve the breed, or create a new one actually don't bother with finding very many homes for the pups, they cull ruthlessly. Any dog they produce which doesn't at least meet the standards of the breed is destroyed. When trying to improve on a certain trait they cull even more.
Dog breeders who are breeding for the standard aren't like snake breeders, if a pup doesn't meet their requirements it isn't allowed the possibility of entering the gene pool, and many see letting an imperfect dog go to a home is just taking up a spot that one who fits the standard could have taken.

I'm not saying I agree with this practice but that's how those who take the standards or their breeding goals seriously do it, and it is the most effecient way to improve a breed.
I have two minature schnauzers who neither one meet the breed standard due to coat color. They're great dogs but if they were born to other breeders they would have been killed at birth. Money was the reason they weren't, the breeders I purchased from were more interested in the income than improving the breed.
I do see the point in bettering the breed, and reptile breeders could take some lessons in that area to a degree, but I'd hate to have missed out on the years I've had with my dogs.

Click to expand...

I have to strongly disagree with what you said, Clay. I know a LOT of GOOD breeders out there..yes, SHOW breeders, even a couple that were there at the beginning of the "Black Russian Terrier" development. The majority of breeders do NOT cull as you say. They work diligently to improve their breed, and the puppies who are not "up to standard" are placed in good homes, either spayed/neutered before placement, or sold on a spay/neuter contract. I won't deny that there are some out there who do it, but there's a whole lot more that don't.

That said....I think this whole idea of every backyard breeder out there crossing breeds and selling them as new and hot breeds is completely wrong. It takes many generations of diligent breeding to be able to accurtaely predict what these dogs will end up being as a whole, and what good traits and possible getetic problems the mixing can create. I'm starting to see a lot of "Labradoodles" showing up in pounds and in the "giveaway" section of the paper......

There are enough mutts (as well as purebreds) dying in shelters every day, there's no need to purposely create more just to shamelessly make some quick cash. Breeding should be left to those who truly care enough about the dogs to not only make sure they are physically healthy (vaccinations, wormings, OFA certs, elbow certs, eye certs, etc) but that the animals they are breeding are genetically sound as well as in temperament. MOST breeders know very well that a even a dog that doesn't meet the exact "breed standard" can still make a wonderful companion, and work hard to make sure that they are placed in loving "forever homes".

I hate the term "backyard breeder" and the negative implication it carries. I wouldn't want a dog that wasn't raised in a back yard without kids, and other dogs/animals. What's the alternative to a backyard anyway? A damp, dark basement or a 4'x6' concrete kennel? When my family raised shelties, they were around lots of people (including children) and played in the backyard a LOT. Bigger breeders referred to my mom as a "backyard breeder" as if it was some horrible thing. IMO, a pup should be raised with a backyard. How else would it be socialized from an ealy age? All of our pups grew up to be great with people and other animals--I wouldn't have it any other way.

Oh yeah, purebreds and mixes. lol Different breeds seem to be mixed for three reasons:

• People knowledgable of breeds' traits look to create a dog that possesses positive attributes of two different "breeds"
• Joe Schmoe thinks it would be "cool" to see what the pups would look like
• Oops. Accidental breeding from careless non-neutering of dogs.

The problem with any one of these reasons is that even if desirable traits are looking to be enhanced, the UNdesirable ones can be enhanced as well. Sure, maybe a dachsund x golden retriever would be a great family dog, but can you imagine the potential for serious joint problems? I'm not in any way saying that mixes are "bad" or should be avoided. It's just that I think with established breeds that you'd have a much better idea of what to expect in terms of "typical" health and behavioral aspects. Again, just my opinion.

I guess the term "backyard breeder" perhaps isn't the most "correct" of terminology, or at least can be very misunderstood, but that is what was somewhere along the lines coined to represent a person who buys some dogs, "tosses them out in the backyard" and lets them breed indiscriminantly. With no real knowledge of the proper physical or mental care, temperament, or basic genetics of the animals they are producing, no thought given to their future as long as they are raking in the $$$$. No love and care......just left out in the backyard, alone.

I apologize if you found the term offensive Paul, it was not meant in that way at all. You know that I feel that the best place for a dog to be is playing in the backyard with his family (or hogging my pillow in bed, lol), but when they are done playing, they aren't LEFT there. The LAST place a dog deserves to be is stuffed in a kennel in the backyard and left on their own. Ya know what I mean?

Cat_72 said:

I apologize if you found the term offensive Paul, it was not meant in that way at all. You know that I feel that the best place for a dog to be is playing in the backyard with his family (or hogging my pillow in bed, lol), but when they are done playing, they aren't LEFT there. The LAST place a dog deserves to be is stuffed in a kennel in the backyard and left on their own. Ya know what I mean?

Click to expand...

No worries, Cathy, I know what you mean. I've heard the term a lot, I just don't like how it makes backyards seem like such a horrible place! lol

Thanks for all of the info everyone. If anyone has implied that I'll be breeding dogs anytime soon, don't worry about it. I have 4-6 years before I'll have kids and I want them around pups when they are young so they can grow up together like I did with my dog. Until then I'll be taking care of my baby brothers dog and teaching him how to take care of and love animals.

I agree paul, I would much rather buy from a breeder like you've described.

I don't understand why anyone would cull whether they want money or not, wouldn't the best thing to do be spay/neuter..

Cat_72 said:

The majority of breeders do NOT cull as you say. They work diligently to improve their breed, and the puppies who are not "up to standard" are placed in good homes, either spayed/neutered before placement, or sold on a spay/neuter contract. I won't deny that there are some out there who do it, but there's a whole lot more that don't.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the practice has decreased in recent years or decades. All the "show dog" breeders I've known, albeit a relatively small number, have practiced culling.
It was one of the things that gave me a dislike/disinterest in breeding for show in the first place. I prefer to have a dog that is a companion rather than a trophy. My dogs are wonderful companions who want nothing more that to be near their family even though they would be disqualified from a show on sight.

As for the term "backyard breeder" I usually use the term "puppy mill" in that context. I like the small time backyard breeder who has a few dogs they love dearly and quietly produce a litter or two per year for a little extra money and because they love the dogs.
Technically many of us would fall under a backyard breeder catagory when it comes to reptiles. We are small time hobbyists, and just as in the dog world, there are a few "big breeders" who look down on us as well.

I would have to agree with Clay AND Cat. I can see both sides. Like mentioned, it has toned down in recent years in the US do to more and more people becoming animal aware, and more humane treatment laws getting enforced, but not necessarily in other countries. I still hear of much culling going on in European breeds from My mother now and again. Just one continent that I know of, and many others with less.....Uhmm....ethics?

Though I do not agree with the process myself, I have learned since being on line that there are so many differences in the cultures around the world, that I have to start wondering about "right and wrong", "moral or immoral". What may seem wrong to us is perfectly right to another culture based on their beliefs and upbringing........


Rick

And then we have the other end of the spectrum. Breeders who do not cull puppies that really should not be placed.

Breed standards are, at least in part, defined so as to recognize and eliminate certain "terminal/fatal" traits that show up in specific breeds or breed lines.

For example: a boxer breeder had a litter of pups, two of which were born white. Not albino, white. she had brought the pups in to the hospital for tail docking. She was very distressed about the white pups because she knew that breed standards prohibit a white coat. She knew, as a reputable breeder, that the pups had to be euthanized but couldn't bring herself to do it. Granted these were handsome dogs. The receptionist convinced the breeder to allow the pups to be weaned and homes would be found for them.
Which, indeed, is what happened. And easily too. White boxers are a novelty and were quite handsome.

Fast forward about seven months. We see one of these now growing pups at the hospital. Skin problems, allergies, sun sensitivity. This dog continued to have chronic skin disease and was requiring constant treatment. OK, this was not a "terminal" defect, but what quality of life did the dog and its family have. I don't remember if the dog was deaf or not.

My take on all this; breeding any animal is a great responsibility. It is a TRUST. It is not a business venture or a thrill for the kids. Some breed standard faults only render a dog unsuitable for showing. They do not interfere with health or suitability as companions, or compromise performance. Such pups should be responsibly spayed or neutered. But, those faults that do affect health and quality of life really should be culled. It is not heartless, but it is hard. That's where the concept of responsibility and trust come into play. That and insuring that there are homes for every potential pup that might be produced BEFORE breeding.

I know of many people who have had white Boxers as pets, and one out of many was deaf, and none of the others suffered any ill effects. I knew a show breeder (yes, SHOW breeder) who had white pups on occasion, and always found wonderful homes for them on a spay/neuter contract or "pre-fixed". The deaf dog got along just fine, it never knew any different, and it lead a normal, happy life. It was trained using hand signals, was always on a secure leash away from home and they had a well fenced yard. Deaf humans are fairly common, I believe?

And you said you see ONE out of 2 pups at the clinic...is the other one "normal"? I can understand if the one with the skin disorder is really having a poor quality of life, that perhaps at this point, it should possibly be humanely euthanized. But the one showing no ill effects should be culled as well, just because the possibility was there that it could have such problems?

Yes, if it is a problem that will obviously case the dog to lead an unpleasant life, it should be euthanized. Cleft palate, severely luxating patellas, what have you....but I just can't see not giving an outwardly normal a chance.

The person adopting the other pup utilized a different vet. So we never saw it.

I suppose the significance of a "defect" or fault will depend on the breed and the intended use of the dog. I have a Blue Heeler. Although he would love to be out moving cattle, he is not suitable to do this job. He is epileptic. He is a fabulous companion and I have no intention of euthanizing him just because of seizures. But, if I was breeding working dogs, or bought him to work, this would be a fatal defect. He is neutered.

Too many people grow weary of the day to day requirements of caring for a healthy, normal dog. Throw special needs into the mix and many people grow weary much faster. And novelty, unfortunately, attracts many who are motivated less by the best interests of the dog and more by the desire for temporary status that the novelty will inject into their lives.

My philosophy is simply this, if a person truly loves a breed and is committed to it, hard decisions have to be made sometimes. The breed standard defines what is acceptable. The commitment is to improving the breed. It is not always correct or kind to make pets of animals with life affecting faults. A breeder can even lose his/her standing and compromise his/her reputation for not culling. People buying dogs to show expect the pedigrees of their dogs to be reliable.

coyote said:

The person adopting the other pup utilized a different vet. So we never saw it.

I suppose the significance of a "defect" or fault will depend on the breed and the intended use of the dog. I have a Blue Heeler. Although he would love to be out moving cattle, he is not suitable to do this job. He is epileptic. He is a fabulous companion and I have no intention of euthanizing him just because of seizures. But, if I was breeding working dogs, or bought him to work, this would be a fatal defect. He is neutered.

Too many people grow weary of the day to day requirements of caring for a healthy, normal dog. Throw special needs into the mix and many people grow weary much faster. And novelty, unfortunately, attracts many who are motivated less by the best interests of the dog and more by the desire for temporary status that the novelty will inject into their lives.

My philosophy is simply this, if a person truly loves a breed and is committed to it, hard decisions have to be made sometimes. The breed standard defines what is acceptable. The commitment is to improving the breed. It is not always correct or kind to make pets of animals with life affecting faults. A breeder can even lose his/her standing and compromise his/her reputation for not culling. People buying dogs to show expect the pedigrees of their dogs to be reliable.

Click to expand...

I agree, it is NOT always right to make pets of animals who have significant, "life altering" defects. But are the people that are buying show dogs going to be buying the ones with minor defects? Certainly not. Culling any "defective" animals is not going to change the pedigree....it simply hides the fact that this breeder produced them. How "reliable" does this make the pedigree? How is that "improving the breed"?

I started showing dogs as a junior handler at 8 years old, and showed (and bred select litters) for many years. I've been out of the loop so to speak for a few years now, but from my experience, it was the people who DID cull their defective pups that ended up having a poor reputation. Their culling was considered "hiding" the problems their stock had. Perhaps it is different raising strictly "working dogs", but is not the goal of improving the breed not only to create a "working animal", but also companions? No matter how selectively you breed, you will never produce "nothing but" show dogs. In a litter from 2 BIS winners, you will have pups that are not "show quality". This is a fact.

You speak of your dog having epilepsy as being a "fatal defect" if you were breeding working dogs.....yet I'll bet he is a wonderful pet for you. Why does this have to be a "fatal defect"? What is wrong with making certain he is neutered and finding him a "pet home"? I just don't understand the thought of "well, I can't breed him, so I'll have to kill him." I'll bet you are glad the breeder didn't cull him as a puppy.

I guess it all comes down to a difference in where some people will draw the line as to what is "life altering" and what isn't. When a breeder will simply cull a puppy that has an underbite or a coat the wrong color, because it doesn't fit the standard, I find it completely ridiculous. These pups would make wonderful pets. If their "reputation" is more important than the lives of pups, then they are in the wrong business. To me, a reputation should be built not only on the "quality" of your animals, but the love you have for them as well. If the animal is going to suffer, by all means have the courage to not put them through it......but if they can lead a happy life as someone's pet......why kill them? Take the time needed to find them a suitable, loving home, and to make sure they are spayed/neutered so they will not reproduce their defect. To me, that too is a "responsibility" of an ethical breeder....taking responsibility for the life you have created.