Forums

dogsites wrote:
<b>Oracle wrote:</b>
<span class="fb_quote">There is no problem with breeding crossbreds, as long as it is done ethically. All the studies that have been done in this area in fact show that crossbreds are generally healthier and live longer than many purebreds.

The real problem is that many unethical breeders are trying to cash in by jumping on the &amp;quot;designer dog&amp;quot; bandwagon, and are breeding dogs without any regard to their health or welfare.</span>

Thanks for your post and I agree that any breeder should only be breeding for the right reasons. However I think we will have to agree to disagree about the ongoing breeding of cross breeds. In my view I have no issue with people owning cross breeds, however I do have issue where people continue to breed cross breeds.

While your studies (researched) may show some cross breeds as working very well and being quite healthy and live long lives I wonder how many studies there are (or should be) where the cross breeding has not done well and the dogs health has been very poor. I guess I look at it from a point of view of the context of the study being questioned. Is it pro cross breeding, or pure breed biased? It is easier and more positive to write a paper about what went well rather than one that did not.

I have a big issue with cross breeds being sold as purebreds when in fact they are not.

I dislike greatly pet shops that sell dogs period let alone one that sells cross breeds, or as the topic title suggests &#039;designer dogs&#039; at exorbitant prices.

Cheers and a good discussion...

Thanks for your response.

However, the fact remains that more families today are choosing a crossbred or "designer" dog over purebreds. The majority of people are not looking for a dog to show - they simply want a happy, healthy family pet. In my opinion, the reason for the surge in sales of "Designer Dogs" is that people have become increasingly concerned with the number and incidence of health problems showing up in many purebreds, and the failure of the national canine associations and breed clubs to take any meaningful action to remedy the problems.

As I stated earlier, all the research that has been done shows that on average crossbred dogs are healthier and live longer that their purebred counterparts. These are not articles or opinion pieces, but genuine published scientific studies, that have been peer reviewed for any possible bias. I know of at least 10 independent studies that have been done in this area, all with similar findings, and not a single scientific study that shows the reverse.

I don't believe that there is anything unethical about breeding crossbreds, providing it is done responsibly. That means carefully choosing and nurturing the breeding dogs, testing them for any possible inherited problems, choosing the pup's new families with care, and providing ongoing advice and support, i.e. the very same things you would expect of any responsible breeder, regardless of the type of dogs they breed.

I don't think anyone here disputes the fact that puppy mills should be banned, and that pet shops should be prohibited from selling puppies. But that should apply regardless of whether they breed and sell purebreds or crossbreds or (as is usually the case) both.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

I believe & this is through general community discussion that people think that ANKC registered dogs from Breeders are just for competitive sports/conformation/herding etc..

The number of people who go"Oh I got her from xyz pet shop because I didnt want to have to show/compete etc" is phenomenal,if we can educate that Purebreds are the perfect pet first & foremost in our homes,it will be a big positive step in the right direction.

Good on SACA for taking a proactive step. Has much more happened with them on this front since the OP?

Affengiel Kennels wrote:


Good on SACA for taking a proactive step. Has much more happened with them on this front since the OP?

I'm not sure but I'll make a note to check it out further and see if I can report back with more info later, unless of course any of our knowledgeable members can post an update first

Education is one of the keys you are correct but we need to market our purebreds better. The fact is that the pet shop breeds are in their face so to speak, they go shopping and they get the cute puppy syndrome. Getting people to dog shows is not really going to happen (except for those that show their dogs also). Hopefully though through mediums such as this we can slowly turn that tide and hopefully more people will do a little more research before they buy their next dog - too little research is done before hand....

Cheers

Greg

dogsites wrote:
Thanks for your post and I agree that any breeder should only be breeding for the right reasons. However I think we will have to agree to disagree about the ongoing breeding of cross breeds. In my view I have no issue with people owning cross breeds, however I do have issue where people continue to breed cross breeds.


I too agree with the above statement. As a child my parents owned a cross that Dad picked up from a farm for free - he lived a full life before liver failure, heart problems & going blind became an issue - this attributed to 'old age'

As and adult I've been involved with several aparent purebred dogs - some with papers from eithical breeders, some without from BYB & even 1 from a Pet Shop. We now have 2 Purebred Siberian Huskies on Main ANKC Register (both now desexed) and my gorgeous HamiltonStovare ....

I would never trade my purebreds, from registered ETHICAL breeders for a cross - the frienships that have been formed are amazing, the back up assistance which we received and now offer is wonderful.

As mentioned EDUCATION is the key. My dogs are show quailty and have been shown but I'm not a go get em showie - I prefer our Hamiltons get out and about with the general public - being a rare breed here in Australia it is difficult to educate the public so you have to get out there in their face & I agree, a dog show is not where you will find Ma & Pa Kettle (unless it's a Royal Show in major cities). My mother has 2 of my babies (now fully grown) and they regularly visit the off lead park and walk (on lead) around the streets. It is truly wonderful to see the reaction of the general public to these stunning, HEALTHY, purebred dogs out and about.

Sites like these also help promote our Purebreds ...
Gotta run - will be late for work ... but would love to see this topic continue

I totally agree that education is the key. I try to get my dogs out as much as possible. If people want IN YOUR FACE then I am in their face lol. I will sit outside Wal-Mart or the malls, with my dogs & pups, if I have a litter at the time (great for socialization too) & if people get the cute puppy syndrome, there I am Also gives me a chance to suggest breeds more suitable to them as well. So many people think that they want a small breed yet they have toddlers at home ???? Advertising & thanks Paris Hilton Luckily Mall & store managers know me & know that I don't sell my dogs there. I am just there to socialize so I haven't had a problem. I always ask before I stand there with the dogs & If someone does give me a little trouble, I say I am waiting for my SIL, who's shopping, & don't want to leave the dogs in the hot car I am not standing there yelling at people or protesting either ha ha, I am just standing with my dogs, having a smoke.

I also get sick of people saying that they can't afford a reg'd purebred but then turn around & spend $1000's on a mutt? I don't get people lol. If I hear that all breeds were once crossbreds once more I'm going to kill someone! Sure they were all once crossbreds but they were bred for a PURPOSE not because they were oh so cute & for money.

There are how many recognized breeds in the world (including FCI, CKC, AKC, ANKC, NZKC etc) but people are creating crossbreeds? Sure it CAN be done eithically *insert sarcastic snort here* & with healthy dogs but why? Why when surely there is the perfect breed for someone if they only LOOK for it.

As for the argument (studies bah) that crossbreds are healthier, how easy is it for a vet to say "This particular crossbreed has this problem or that problem" when there are so many different types of crossbreds that come in the door to their clinic. Of course purebreds look like they are less healthy since vet clinics can check their records & tick off all dogs of a certain breed. Crossbreeds are too varied. Anyone understand what I'm trying to say?

I've met some really great crossbred dogs with great temps but how can someone recreate that? Who knows whether it was a product of the dog's genes or how it was raised, that made those xbreds great? Nature vx nurture. Give me a purebred every time so I know what I am getting, what health problems to watch for, what tempermant traits to love & what job to give it.

I have tried a couple of other dog sites but am appalled at how much the crossbreds & bybing are welcomed. Don't get me wrong, I love crossbred rescue dogs so I'm not bashing them at all but I am sick of hearing anything about crossbreds being produced for the pet market, being superior to purebreds & I thank the creators of this site to creating another site for the love of purebreds!

It's great to see people working at grassroots level, but I doubt that touting pups at local shopping malls will do much to reverse the worldwide trend. "Designer Dog" sales are already outstripping those of registered breeders.

The general public thinks purebreds are unhealthy, and that mutts are a better bet, and why wouldn't they? All the scientific research agrees. That's the sad fact, and unfortunately we have nobody but ourselves to blame.

It's pointless getting mad, cursing Paris Hilton or the media, or simply hiding our heads in the sand. We all as individuals, breed clubs, and national bodies need to take urgent action to improve the health of our chosen breeds.

Oracle wrote:
It&#039;s great to see people working at grassroots level, but I doubt that touting pups at local shopping malls will do much to reverse the worldwide trend. &quot;Designer Dog&quot; sales are already outstripping those of registered breeders.

The general public thinks purebreds are unhealthy, and that mutts are a better bet, and why wouldn&#039;t they? All the scientific research agrees. That&#039;s the sad fact, and unfortunately we have nobody but ourselves to blame.

It&#039;s pointless getting mad, cursing Paris Hilton or the media, or simply hiding our heads in the sand. We all as individuals, breed clubs, and national bodies need to take urgent action to improve the health of our chosen breeds.

Can you provide me with some links to or references to this scientific research. I'd like to read it and then shoot holes in it.

As has been said how can science put together quality data and quantify it when with cross breeds each dog has individual differences. Even the do called designer dogs are different for each litter as it takes many many many years to establish a well balanced standard. I would bet that this so called scientific research has been backed by and paid for by puppy mills and I know in my previous line of work a consultant doing a research paper will write what the person paying wants so much of this 'research' is invalid and a waste of time.

Now having said that we still need to get back to the grass roots and educate the public as the public is neither reading the research or going to dog shows or researching breeds on the internet. Many are as much as we hate it shop buyers and buy on impulse as well as many simply picking up the local paper and seeing a mutt for free or cheap. Yes I know there are many that also pay very exorbitant dollars for mutts but I don;t think that is a majority more a small number but very vocal.

We need to continue to lobby for and remove the ability for shops to sell puppies - that is the first step. Once done it will remove that puppy in the window syndrome and require people to go and find a dog themselves - I also believe this will reduce the number of dogs needing rescue. Step two will be to legislate and mandate that only a breeder that is registered be it with a government organsiation or a canine controlling body (or both) may breed dogs and this is policed and penalties apply for non adherence. Where a litter is reported by an unregistered breeder they litter should continue to be made available but any proceeds are provided to a) pay for the sterilisation of the dogs that resulted in the breeding and b) funded to a rescue organisation.

I am sure others have a other options or suggestions to reduce or remove back yard breeders but I think the above is s start in the right direction. SO how do we get this to happen, well it is actually quite easy. We as purebred dog lovers and breeders and buyers of purebred dogs need to be a lot more vocal, more vocal than the minority designer dog breeders and we need to constantly lobby our local, state and federal ministers and this needs to be done each and every month. You need to send a letter to each relevant body once a month every month until it is dealt with, yes every single month not just once. If we ALL did this how many would they get every month just image the annoyance factor let alone the content of the letters so if you want it go for it and do something about it I say

Interesting topic so keep up the discussions

Cheers

Greg

dogsites wrote:
Can you provide me with some links to or references to this scientific research. I&#039;d like to read it and then shoot holes in it.

Here are a few published scientific studies I've been able to dig up:

R. Beythien, Tierarten- und Hunderassenverteilung, Erkrankungshäufigkeit
und prophylaktische Maßnahmen bei den häufigsten Hunderassen am Beispiel
einer Tierarztpraxis in Bielefeld in den Jahren 1983-1985 und 1990-1992,
1998, Diss., Tierärztl. Hochschule Hannover
Mongrels less often in a vet surgery

B.N. Bonnett, A. Egenvall, P. Olson, Å. Hedhammar, Mortality in Swedish
dogs: rates and causes of death in various breeds, The Veterinary
Record, 12/7/1997, S. 40 - 44)
Insured dogs, "Mongrels were consistently in the low risk category" (S. 41)

A. Egenvall, B.N. Bonnett, P. Olson, Å. Hedhammar,Gender,
age, breed and distribution of morbidity and mortality in insured
dogs in Sweden during 1995 and 1996, The Veterinary Record,
29/4/2000, p. 519-57
Insured dogs. "The low risk for morbidity of mongrels also agrees with
previous findings that mongrel dogs are less prone to many diseases then the average
purebred dog." (S. 524) Second lowest morbidity and mortality of mongrels in ten "most
common breeds" (again, without size distinction in mongrels).

H. Eichelberg und R. Seine, Lebenserwartung und Todesursachen bei Hunden
I. Zur Situation bei Mischlingen und verschiedenen Rassehunden, Berl.
Münch. Tierärztl. Wschr. 109, 292-303,1995
Longer life expectancy in crossbreeds across all categories

A. R. Michell, Longevity of British breeds of dog and its relationship
with sex, size, cardiovascular variables and disease, Vet. Rec., 27 Nov.
1999, S. 625-629
"There was a significant correlation between body weight and longevity.
Crossbreeds lived longer than average but several pure breeds lived
longer than cross breeds, notably Jack Russell, miniature poodles and
whippets" (S. 627) , thus only small and toy breeds, as to be expected

G.J. Patronek, D.J. Walters, L.T. Glickman, Comparative Longevity of Pet
Dogs and Humans: Implications for Gerontology Research, J. Geront.,
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 1997, Vol 52A,No.3, B171-B178
"The median age at death was 8.5 years for all mixed breed dogs and 6.7
years for all pure breed dogs… For each weight group, the age at death
of pure breed dogs was significantly (p=.0001) less than for mixed breed
dogs." (p. B173) Mongrels lived 1 - 3 years longer.

H.F. Proschofsky et al, Mortality of purebred and mixed breed dogs in
Denmark, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2003, 58, 53-74
Higher average longevity of mixed breed dogs.

We know that generally the larger the dog, the shorter the lifespan. However, in every weight category, mongrels live longer than purebreds. I also have access to some as yet unpublished data giving the same result. As I said earlier, all the scientific research shows that crossbreds on average live longer and are healthier lives tha do purebreds. I'd be very interested to see a single study that shows the reverse.

dogsites wrote:
As has been said how can science put together quality data and quantify it when with cross breeds each dog has individual differences. Even the do called designer dogs are different for each litter as it takes many many many years to establish a well balanced standard.

All humans differ too, but of course that doesn't mean you can't study the health of groups or populations. That's what the majority of health related research (be it human or animal) involves.

dogsites wrote:
I would bet that this so called scientific research has been backed by and paid for by puppy mills and I know in my previous line of work a consultant doing a research paper will write what the person paying wants so much of this &#039;research&#039; is invalid and a waste of time.

It's an interesting idea that puppy mills would have any interest in funding scientific research, let alone the resources to do so, but I'm guessing you were joking. I can't imagine the average puppy buyers in a shopping mall (where most puppy mill dogs end up) picking up a scientific journal. As I'm sure you're aware, this kind of research is prohibitively expensive, and for that reason is either usually funded by large corporations, or (less often) by governments. I'm a scientist myself, and funding a single researcher at post doctorate level for a one year is usually estimated in the region of US$500K, and most of these type of studies involve multiple researchers over several years.

On a more serious note, if you want to find who's funding the studies, as with most things, follow the money. In the case of animal health research, that's the veterinary drug companies, who provide funding for virtually all the research done in this area. They have a multi-billion dollar vested interest in tracking the trends in dog ownership, and how it effects the consumption of products used in the diagnosis and treatment of canine disease,

dogsites wrote:
Now having said that we still need to get back to the grass roots and educate the public as the public is neither reading the research or going to dog shows or researching breeds on the internet. Many are as much as we hate it shop buyers and buy on impulse as well as many simply picking up the local paper and seeing a mutt for free or cheap. Yes I know there are many that also pay very exorbitant dollars for mutts but I don;t think that is a majority more a small number but very vocal.

I am sure others have a other options or suggestions to reduce or remove back yard breeders but I think the above is s start in the right direction. SO how do we get this to happen, well it is actually quite easy. We as purebred dog lovers and breeders and buyers of purebred dogs need to be a lot more vocal, more vocal than the minority designer dog breeders and we need to constantly lobby our local, state and federal ministers and this needs to be done each and every month. You need to send a letter to each relevant body once a month every month until it is dealt with, yes every single month not just once. If we ALL did this how many would they get every month just image the annoyance factor let alone the content of the letters so if you want it go for it and do something about it I say

Interesting topic so keep up the discussions

Cheers

Greg

Impulse buying puppy mill dogs from pet shops, the internet etc (be they purebred or crossbred) is a whole separate issue. By all means lobby for general animal welfare legislation to stop the sale of dogs in pet shops, shut down the puppy mills, place controls on backyarders, and encourage the spay/neuter of dogs sold as pets.

However, this won't do anything to improve the health of purebred dogs, nor change the perception by the general public of purebreds as an expensive health risk.

The people who are serious about their choice of dog are reading the research (as are their vets) and there lies the problem. The general public believes that purebreds are unhealthy, and that mutts are a better bet. All the scientific studies agree, so what else are they supposed to think?

The health of purebred dogs can and should be improved, but urgent reform is required. Mandatory and transparent testing for known breed related diseases needs to be established, and limits placed on the breeding of affected dogs. Interpretations of breed standards that may be contributing to health and/or welfare related problems must be actively discouraged. Programs should be introduced to limit the use of popular studs, and encourage genetic diversity (there's an interesting article, writtenby as purebred breeder in the UK on this subject at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2007/03/07/ftcrufts107.xml)

If we really want public perception to change, individuals, breed clubs, and national bodies need to take urgent steps to improve the health of the breeds they administer.

You will find though that many dedicated reputable breeders do test for genetic issues whether required to or not, for myself with the Boxers {as an example} I have long been pro hipscoring & cardiology for AS & CM,however the breed clubs dont require it.

For preservation of our breeds and our breeds health many breeders do the testing whether required or not.