Jump to content
BC Boards

Designer Breeding Make Me Sick


maggiesmommy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Awww, I thought the borgi was cute. :3 I just wouldn't breed them deliberately. It seems like a borgi could be great cattle dog, but I don't think anyone's actually breeding them as cattle dogs...

 

Erm - Cardigan Corgi?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience may be somewhat out of the ordinary, I grant you, 20 years in Hollywood gave me a number of experiences that could be seen as out-of-the-ordinary. But I assure you, people dump dogs for these and many other equally frivolous reasons.

 

Sorry, without actual evidence, I'm not assured (here on the claim of cycling through breeds as you described. I don't need assurances about the varied reasons people dump dogs. Witnessed many of those firsthand).

 

And the reason that matters to me such that I continue to engage in this is I think spinning out tales of these awful hypothetical people cycling through dogs as they redecorate (for the monied) or as they get caught up in some new, slightly more affordable fashion like steampunking (for the teen-aged proletariat) takes away from the complicated and often difficult to evaluate situations that have led to the dog overpopulation problem. And I don't believe that problem is the result of deliberate crosses done for whatever reason. It is the result of a constellation of social norms and economic pressures and motives that are complicated and difficult to untangle.

 

But "designer mutts" are bred, in large part by people with no motive except making a bundle off the latest fad with the smallest outlay of cash and effort possible. This means that these little dogs are being mass-produced by puppy-mills and individuals who are acquiring their breeding stock cheaply - the genetically bankrupt dregs of the AKC's defective population, and selling them to the gullible at Tiffany's prices. This is clearly a different kettle of fish, and for my money - morally reprehensible.

 

If you have any actual evidence that this is truer of "designer" breeders than other breeders, please provide it.

 

My own conjecture (I don't have hard evidence of this, so take it for what it's worth) is that the majority of dogs for sale at any given time in the United States, purebred or not, are bred for exactly the same reasons and under the exact same conditions. And I agree, it is morally reprehensible (but not because it involves new crosses)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Borgis look like Cardigan corgis, but they're not the same thing. Maybe Pembrokes were outcrossed to border collies (or related dog types) to produce Cardigan corgis way back in the day, but there's a difference betwen a Cardigan Welsh corgi and a designer-bred borgi.

 

I know, but the point is that dogs that look like the "borgi" have been bred for a very long time to work cattle and are now almost exclusively a pet breed, so the "borgi" seems rather superfluous.

 

You say they aren't the same thing but if a dog looks like another and pretty much serves the same purpose to me that is the same thing. If it looks like a duck etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most toy dogs were developed to be companion animals, especially to upper-class women, across cultures - who tended to live rather circumscribed lives. They were also employed by those same people as pest control. Spend a few hours with "Fifer" in your lap - or your bed, and then hand him off to the maid, who bathed him to rid him of his collection. People bathed a lot less then. They considered it bad for the health. And no wonder. You try scrubbing yourself down in a drafty, stone manor-house and see what it gets you. But dogs can cope...

 

 

This is a somewhat Eurocentric view.

 

If the Pekingese Club of America account is accurate, Pekes were developed as guard dogs for the (male) rulers. http://www.thepekingeseclubofamerica.com/Origin%20of%20Pekingese-for%20website.pdf

 

And Lhasa Apsos were guard (watch?) dogs in noble households and Buddhist monasteries.

 

And while Europeans were quite dirty during some periods in history, not all culture were. Many Native American accounts tell of their being appalled by the filthiness of the newcomers.

 

Not picking on you by any means. Just pointing out (in all good fun :) ) that there are other perspectives (and origins) of toy dogs, the origins of which, btw, are now generally recognized to be in Asia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. Look at these. If it's not enough, try googling "The dog doesn't match the sofa."

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247346/My-dog-doesnt-match-sofa-Animal-charities-reveal-shocking-excuses-owners-given-getting-rid-pets.html

 

http://www.echodogs.org/reasons.htm

 

As for "the majority of dogs for sale in the United States at any given time in the United States, purebred or not, are bred for exactly the same reasons and under the exact same conditions,"

 

I'm not going to chase down video of breeders facilities for you, but I've been to a lot of breeder's establishments over two decades of rescue, and at least 85% of these were producing no more than three litters a year, and never turned a profit on their dogs. While I may or may not have agreed with their reasons for breeding at all - as in ribbon-chasing - they produced few litters, did health checks appropriate for their breed, socialized their pups and screened their puppy buyers. How is that the same as a puppy mill or someone who produces litter after litter to sell for megabucks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a somewhat Eurocentric view.

 

If the Pekingese Club of America account is accurate, Pekes were developed as guard dogs for the (male) rulers. http://www.thepekingeseclubofamerica.com/Origin%20of%20Pekingese-for%20website.pdf

 

And Lhasa Apsos were guard (watch?) dogs in noble households and Buddhist monasteries.

 

And while Europeans were quite dirty during some periods in history, not all culture were. Many Native American accounts tell of their being appalled by the filthiness of the newcomers.

 

Not picking on you by any means. Just pointing out (in all good fun :) ) that there are other perspectives (and origins) of toy dogs, the origins of which, btw, are now generally recognized to be in Asia.

All good points, and truth to tell, I think that several Asian cultures were way ahead of the average European in the personal hygiene department. In fact I was thinking of European countries in that post.

 

Also to consider is that fact that many breeds now described as Toys were much larger dogs in time past. The Pomeranian, for example, was within the last couple of centuries a much larger dog, with several uses, if various accounts are to be believed. Certainly true of the Lhasa Apso. The Pekingese may always have been small, I don't know. But I do take the historical veracity of some breed club accounts with a grain of salt. Certainly it is true that there are an awful lot of dog breeds that came out of Asia. But then they got co-opted by Europeans, and the result was not always great. The "Dutch Pug" was no more Dutch than the Australian Shepherd is Australian. And the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel clearly had Asian ancestors.

 

The "designer dogs" most populous in my neck of the woods are toys. Certainly bigger ones are numerous as well. But one thing stands out for me here in my neighborhood. When I ask where the owners got their pups, the most common answer is a breeder on line that had "so many choices" or a pet shop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most designer "breeds" are not really breeds; they are simply hybrids.

 

Breed: “When bred together, animals of the same breed pass on predictable traits to their offspring, and this ability—known as "breeding true"—is a requirement for a breed.”

 

Hybrid: “The third type of hybrid consists of crosses between populations, breeds or cultivars within a single species. This meaning is often used in plant and animal breeding, where hybrids are commonly produced and selected because they have desirable characteristics not found or inconsistently present in the parent individuals or populations. This flow of genetic material between populations or races is often called hybridization.

 

How many of these designer “breeds” are actually more than just hybrids (crosses of two breeds)?

Labradoodles ( Multigenerational or Australian Labradoodles) and ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Lhasa Apsos were guard (watch?) dogs in noble households and Buddhist monasteries.

 

Not to go off topic, but the Lhasas I’ve known seem to have retained their breed’s original purpose. Mine trots around with a snotty attitude and is very unwelcoming to people he sees as outsiders. Of my three current dogs, I’m pretty sure he’d be the only one to come to my defense, though other than tripping the bad guy, he’d be of limited use. He may have the heart of a lion, but he’s still a little guy.

 

While I may or may not have agreed with their reasons for breeding at all - as in ribbon-chasing - they produced few litters, did health checks appropriate for their breed, socialized their pups and screened their puppy buyers. How is that the same as a puppy mill or someone who produces litter after litter to sell for megabucks?

 

So, are you saying that breeders of designer dogs are more frequently pupply millers than those of purebreds? Is there research on that? Because I've heard of a few doodle breeders who were definitely in the backyard breeder category. I'm sure they feel they are making good choices for breeding and the puppies are raised in the home and they seem very sincere in their affection for dogs. I'm just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh. My.

 

Can you imagine the horrific coat that dog must have? My OCD self is shuddering,

 

re: sheepadoodle - it's actually not that bad. It looks most like an large, black standard poodle with a puppy cut. We have a lady that also brings a black std. poodle with a puppy cut and if someone told me the dogs were littermates, I'd believe them. Which begs the question, why not just get the std. poodle?

 

fwiw, speaking of useful crosses, my border collie looks like like she comes from a line that may have included lurchers or something. She has a really tucked waist, long legs and long, flexible back, narrow muzzle and 'flying nun' ears. She's fast as hell and cuts corners and changes direction like a rabbit. Almost looks like there's some sighhound somewhere back in her ancestry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I do take the historical veracity of some breed club accounts with a grain of salt.

 

Oh, yeah. Me, too. Which is why I added the part about if it was accurate.

 

I'm not sure I'm buying the Afghan Collie "history" that Tommy Coyote told us about in another thread, either. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, yeah. Me, too. Which is why I added the part about if it was accurate.

 

I'm not sure I'm buying the Afghan Collie "history" that Tommy Coyote told us about in another thread, either. <_<

Sure! Anybody can do it! Here's mine, in response to the Scarlett Point Terrier that Terrierman had up on his blog.

 

http://pedanticmystic.blogspot.com/2013/08/true-facts.html

 

Hey, yawannabuyapup? Very rare! Only 3 left in the country!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin's point is that this:

But there are people of the monied classes who change dogs every time they redecorate. Want a rustic, LL Bean sort of look for your house? Let's get an Irish Setter. Won't it look nice sprawled in front of the wood-burning stove? Oh, but two years later when they tire of the rustic thing and decide to do an "Oriental motif" the Setter simply won't fit! A couple of Pugs will fill the bill.

 

The proletariat is no better. This summer's hit romantic comedy features a Chihuahua? Oh yes! I want one of those, blonde hair and a pink vinyl skirt! Next year it will be black leather, studs (for me and the dog), a spiky black doo and an Am Staff - or maybe a black GSD. But it has to be black! Tres chic, no?

 

Black and white is so cool! Let's get a Dalmatian and a split-faced Border Collie. When we go all Steampunk we can get a chocolate Lab (Steampunk is what happens when Goths discover the color brown) and have him wear brass aviator glasses around his neck.

 

isn't supported by this:

 

In the first quote, you seem to be saying that people cycle through dogs the way that they cycle through shoes, or throw cushions. Then you post links that describe some of the excuses given for turning in dogs/cats to shelters. Neither of those links supports the idea that Lady A purchased a Chi last year, but is turning it in because she wants to get a Teacup Yorkie this year. The gist of each of your links is that people come up with idiotic/selfish reasons for getting rid of dogs, a point which Robin is not disputing. Yes, idiotic reasons are given for turning in dogs. My Bear was turned in to the SPCA because his people were moving, and I guess it wasn't convenient to move the dog too.

 

Robin's point, and I agree, obviously, is that this isn't a new problem that can be laid at the feet of designer breeds and more specifically, their breeders. I suspect that people have been purchasing puppies on impulse for as long as puppies have been available to purchase, and then have abandoned the pups when the novelty wears off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin's point, and I agree, obviously, is that this isn't a new problem that can be laid at the feet of designer breeds and more specifically, their breeders. I suspect that people have been purchasing puppies on impulse for as long as puppies have been available to purchase, and then have abandoned the pups when the novelty wears off.

 

Of course it isn't a new problem. But the "designer mutt" phenomenon is relatively new - at least on the scale that it's seen nowadays. We live in a consumer-oriented society, and I believe that the purveyors of the designer mutt are pandering to a societal trend that I believe is getting worse. And there are structures like puppy mills which are already tooled up to jump on the band wagon and make a bundle. If you have Mini Dachshunds, Yorkies, and Chihuahuas in the plant already, you have several options for creating popular designer mutts to offer people without investing in more breeding stock. And you don't owe the AKC a nickel for registration - they're mutts! So, more profit. And if you're Joe Blow Chihuahua owner who's having trouble making the mortgage this month you can hook up with your neighbor Joe Blow Mini Dachshund owner and whip up a litter of Chi-weenies. No papers, no problem - they're mutts! But now they're designer mutts, so getting rid of them can be lucrative.

 

There have always been fashions in dog breeds, but I believe this is something more. You don't have to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the people spending big bucks for designer dogs the same people who used to spend big bucks for various popular pure bred dogs? Is it better for the long term health of the different purebreds that got popular which led to massive overbreeding and horrible results it had for those breeds - like cockers or border collies or now mastiffs - you know what I mean.

 

I'm not defending the practice. I hate the puppy mills. I hate that dogs are sold in puppy stores to anyone that walks in the door.

 

I'm just thinking it might be better for the purebreds not to be so popular any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. One more post, and then I'll shut up. (On this thread anyway...) ;)

 

I agree with liking the idea that purebreds are on the wane. if you look at AKC registrations that would seem to be the case.

 

But so many of these designer mutts are created from AKC stock, and you can bet they aren't spending top dollar on the best (healthy and sound - mentally and physically) of the breeds they're using. Are they doing testing for inherited problems? If they are they aren't talking much about it on many of the sites I've visited. So they are probably just mating screwed up AKC dogs with other screwed up AKC dogs. Hybrid vigor is a real thing, but inherited disorders don't just magically evaporate - especially in first crossings.

 

Put a bow on it, stick it in a basket with some artificial flowers and voila! Cuteness for sale!

 

My bottom line is, if you're OK with a mutt, go to the pound! There's tons of them going begging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin's points are well-taken, but I also feel that there is something, if not more insidious, at least somewhat uniquely insidious about the designer breed craze, and in that I think I get where Geonni is coming from.

 

First of all, the sale of these dogs seems to play even more directly than normal on ignorance of dogs and animal husbandry from the purchaser. As Mark pointed out, these aren't real breeds, in the sense that they are hybrids (and to my knowledge largely F1 hybrids) and can't be expected to breed true. The dogs seem to be marketed on people's perceptions that you will get something that is all the best qualities of each breed and none of the bad qualities. Or at least, that it will be 50% (meaning equally like both parents). Whereas a hybrid can have characteristics that are almost 100% like one parent or the other, or anything in between. Thus the main reasons to buy a pedigree dog (that you weren't going to have to do a specific job like stockwork or hunting) is that 1) you are supposed to be able to know what your dog is going to be like to some degree, as it should be true to breed if bred well, and could be bred to produce more dogs that breed true, and 2) your dog is registered. You get neither of these things with a deliberate cross breed.

 

And they are so popular right now, at least where Geonni and I live, that these dogs seem to go for even more money than really good examples of registered purebreds - i.e. 1000s of dollars. One woman told me proudly that she had been on a waiting list for her goldendoodle and paid $3000 for it. My neighbor in my office complex with the gorgeous, well-bred GSD from Schutzhund lines (her back is excellent!) who bought his dog in the same area, paid only $1200. So, it's almost as if people who just want to spend way too much money on the purchase price of their dog, of whom in 99% of cases I'm sure would be equally happy with a shelter mutt, have seemingly found an EVEN BETTER way to spend stupid amounts of money on that purchase price, which really can be a status symbol. Without even getting the two (probably dubious in many cases) benefits that a high purchase price on a purebred was always supposed to get you. The hypoallergenic claims bug me too on the doodles, because that is just out and out wrong, but that does seem to be what many people think they are purchasing.

 

So, now we have a whole class of people willing to pay $3000 (and probably more in some cases) for dogs that may or may not be like either parent, and will not be true breeding. A fool and his money are soon parted, and it does make me wonder how many of these $3000 dogs are bred out of really poor BYB or puppy milled parents from the original breeds, as anyone selling a non-true-breeding, unregistered dog for such exorbitant fees is in my mind likely to be out for the money almost exclusively. There are terrible examples of purebred breeders, but there are also ok or even wonderful examples of people who are really not in it for the money but for the good of the breed. It's harder for me to see that being likely from anyone breeding deliberate mixes and charging massive fees. I would love to see data on the QUALITY of the papered parents producing these crosses, and compare that to similar parent quality in similar priced purebreds. I would not be surprised if a lot of the parents of these $3000 dogs are very poor examples of their original breeds to begin with.

 

Finally, while I do appreciate that on one hand people seem to be getting into mixes, it's almost as if this whole trend is the exact wrong message. The message I would have liked to see infiltrate our culture, would be one of, wow, why would I go buy a purebred dog from a petstore when I just need a companion and there are so many wonderful mutt companions to choose from out there in rescue or shelters. Instead, it seems like what is being ingrained, and moreso all the time in this affluent area, is that some mutts are way fancier and better than others, and can be something you can really spend gobs of money on too.

 

People will do what they will do, but I agree the trend bugs me as well. I do appreciate, like Robin, that I don't think puppy millers or BYBs of any purebred have the moral high ground. And at least these people making border-crosses are not likely to be able to hurt the real breed as much as people who are selling registered BCs who look 100% BC but have not had a whit of thought put into working ability when breeding. No one is trying to claim a Borgi is a full on normal BC, and no one would mistake a borgi for the exact same thing as a well bred BC either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my friends daughters bought a little cockapoo. I swear they had no idea that cockapoos were not a breed of purebred dog.

 

People just don't know. They listen to what they are told by the store or breeder selling the dogs and they believe what they hear.

 

What I am seeing a lot of around here are shitzhus. (or however you spell it) There are tons of them in rescue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin's points are well-taken, ...

...No one is trying to claim a Borgi is a full on normal BC, and no one would mistake a borgi for the exact same thing as a well bred BC either.

Hear hear! The whole post. Said it better than I did and with less heat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the designer dogs around here I've seen are of the 'hey, I have a dog, and the neighbour has a dog' variety.

 

So yes, foolish impulse purchases, and overpriced, but not in the same ballpark as the (largely purebred or advertised as such) puppy mill dogs. At least the sales aren't usually funding that kind of horror, and the pups are relatively healthy. By which I mean not actively infested with every parasite under the sun. This obviously won't be the case everywhere.

 

I would also have a whatever-poo in preference to a lot of 'well-bred' dogs of certain breeds. I'd have a bulldog crossed with anything with a nose in preference to a purebred bulldog. It wouldn't be what I'd look for in a dog, but random chance and picking the closest trendy dog would probably be an improvement on the breeding selection some people are doing. I certainly wouldn't pay much money for it.

 

The worst bred dogs I know, or those with the worst provenance, are in good, loving homes and have never seen the inside of a shelter. So, to pursue Pippin's Person's point, it might not be all bad for the future of the individual 'designer' dogs.

 

But yeah, shelter mutt obviously a much better idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, while I do appreciate that on one hand people seem to be getting into mixes, it's almost as if this whole trend is the exact wrong message. The message I would have liked to see infiltrate our culture, would be one of, wow, why would I go buy a purebred dog from a petstore when I just need a companion and there are so many wonderful mutt companions to choose from out there in rescue or shelters. Instead, it seems like what is being ingrained, and moreso all the time in this affluent area, is that some mutts are way fancier and better than others, and can be something you can really spend gobs of money on too.

 

^^ Here, Here! Your entire pose was great Ooky.

 

I can't stand "designer breeds".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We live in the developed world at a time when most people don't have to struggle for the right to exist or risk starvation.

Life, food and shelter are essential - pretty much everything else is a luxury.

 

Frivolous purchases are no longer the preserve of the rich and the sense of entitlement of people raised in a culture where conspicuous consumption is king is bound to lead to people all to ready to satisfy the hunger for new status symbols. Designer dogs are just one manifestation of this trend where too many people have more money than sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The doodles I see belong to regular folks like me (though maybe I should confess to a love of certain, overpriced purses :lol: ). They seem just as attached to their dogs as I am to mine. I am wiling to bet, at least around my area, doodle prices are not way up there. For one thing, there are so many of them! I even saw one that I actually liked (but would not want to own) this morning when I was at the beach with Quinn. It was small, goofy, sweet and very obedient to her fond owner. She was still very puppyish and had the typical cluelessness of a doodle. When Quinn found he couldn’t snark her away, he displaced his frustration into extra enthusiastic retrieving while she danced around him in the surf.

 

My point is, I don’t see the guy this morning or the other doodle owners I meet as engaging in conspicuous consumption. I think they are looking for nice dogs and have bought the hype about getting the best of both breeds, hypoallergenic, hybrid vigor, etc. I think many of them are very happy with their choice. And I really don’t think they are spending thousands of dollars for those doodles. Maybe they’re spending purebred prices, but again, I don’t get into conversations with them. This is just based on casual observations of people when I am out walking with Quinn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...