[SallyintNorth]

I thought I would start another topic for this ongoing discussion, to which we could route spillovers from Marketplace when crossbreeds are advertised. 

I'll bring the discussion from the Boxador ad here next.

[SallyintNorth]

Here's the link from the Marketplace ad for Boxadors :

I must admit that i agree with Doganjo's sentiments (and I hope that i am understanding them properly.).. that it is bizzarre that people can charge hundreds and hundreds of pounds for puppies which are, after all, mongrels!! ...and that because there is ...probably... not a Mongrel Breed Society to regulate and ensure the health of the breeding programme the puppys could have all sorts of health issues!!  Is that right Annie??

It's an ongoing debate and there are different views. 

It's been a fantastic development over my lifetime that pedigree breeders are now so knowledgeable about the disease risks of their breed(s), and that they have the availability now of so many tests to help them assess the likely health of any offspring they are planning.  There's quite a bit of awareness now amongst the puppy-buying public, too, all of which has made a huge improvement in the lot of most pedigree dogs.

Good, reputable and careful breeders like doganjo then understandably get upset when they see other people breeding any puppies - whether pedigree or crossbreed - without making use of the available health checks.

The other viewpoint is that by crossing two breeds who do not share the same health issues, hybrid vigour plus halving or removing the risk of any of the diseases of either parent breed should result in healthy pups.  (Depending on the genetic inheritance mechanisms, the risk may be almost entirely negated, but would at worst be halved where the second breed has no genetic predisposition to the condition.)

It would be hard to argue for not having health checks for any conditions which can still be expressed even if only one parent contributed a predisposing gene.  And you could say negligent in any case to propogate into the worldwide gene pool the genes of a dog expressing significant predisposition to disease

The other aspect of the debate is the 'cross or mongrel' versus pure-bred one.  Some of us like, even prefer, bitzers and other non-pedigree types, and some love their breeds and can't understand why anyone would deliberately mix one lovely breed with another.

Now, I am a sheep farmer in the north of England.  There quite possibly wouldn't be sheep farmers in the north of England if it weren't for the North Country Mule, a ewe whose mother is a hill sheep (usually Swaledale or Blackface) and whose father is a Blue-faced Leicester.  The best attributes of both parents combine to make the Mule a magnificent ewe for breeding fat lambs.

(And I could tell a very similar story about the Blue-Grey cow, whose mother is a Galloway and father a Whitebred Shorthorn.)

So does that mean that every Labradoodle will be an intelligent, non-moulting, soft-mouthed, retrieving family dog?  Well, no.  Some will, and some won't.   The farmers in these hills have bred Swales and Blackies for the production of top quality mules for generations upon generations.  The Blue-faced Leicester now comes in two variants - one a pure-bred blue-faced one, bred for rosettes as a BFL in a BFL class and the other often speckledy-faced and -legged, bred for the production of the optimum mule when used on a Swale or Blackie.  His rosettes come from the pen of his mule ewe lambs.  Rarely if ever will a tup of the first type produce the best mules, and conversely, rarely if ever will a tup of the second type win rosettes in a BFL class.

So, whilst I am a fan of crossbreeds and mongrels, I do completely understand where doganjo and others are coming from in feeling that people are misled into thinking that they know what they'll be getting when they buy a first cross of two pedigree dogs of different breeds.  And that therefore it is unreasonable for breeders to charge, and customers to pay, similar or even higher fees for the pups of such an alliance as they would for purebred pups of either parental breed.

My take is this.  I think some of these 'designer crosses' really have legs - the best make super dogs, really suited to 21st century life.  I would like breeders to continue to develop these crosses, to gain understanding of the characteristics of the parents which produce the best and most consistent outcomes in the pups, and in time to evolve strains of the parental breeds which are most suited to using for breeding the crossbred pups.  In order for these breeders to do this, they have to be able to produce and sell litters of the crossbred pups at a reasonable price.

At the end of the day, I think we all want only healthy pups to be produced, for whom there will be sufficient knowledgeable and capable homes to give the dogs happy lives. 

And after we get that, world peace next, yeah? 

[Berkshire Boy]

Fare comments Sally but as I have said before I object to being preached to by people who are members of an organisation that has over the years done more harm to some breeds than people could  ever do selling a few designer dogs.
The Kennel club has been disowned by most big companies who steer well clear of any association and in my opinion quite rightly.
Also why is it that a dog of mixed breed is a mongrel whereas a pig,sheep,cow or horse is just a crossbreed, could that be down to pedigree breeders. If my pedigree Lab mates with a pedigree collie the pups are cross breeds from pedigree parents.

[SallyintNorth]

Also why is it that a dog of mixed breed is a mongrel whereas a pig,sheep,cow or horse is just a crossbreed, could that be down to pedigree breeders. If my pedigree Lab mates with a pedigree collie the pups are cross breeds from pedigree parents.

I think there is sometimes a degree of using the term 'mongrel' in a derogatory sense.  (For those of us who love our mongies, no offence should be taken, of course!   )

When I were a gal, you had :

• pedigree : anything where both parents were the same breed, and their parents and so on.  May or may not have had papers to prove it but properly should have been called purebred rather than pedigree if no papers
• first cross : the outcome of a mating between two purebred dogs of different breeds
• (other) cross : a purebred on anything else, or a combination of a maximum of two breeds (but could be two first crosses crossed, or 1/4 one breed, 3/4 the other, etc)
• mongrel : anything involving more than two breeds, or of uncertain parentage

First crosses were popular even then; we didn't have designer clothes then let alone designer dogs! 

In the late 80s I was adopted by a couple of stray bitches.  They were clearly sisters but were more dissimilar than similar.  Up until then I had always described non-purebred dogs in terms of the (major) breeds in them - Lab x Collie, Collie X, terrier-type, etc - now, with these two, I became convinced that some mongrels were so far removed from any purebred (in Kennel Club terms) ancestry that there should be another term for a 'pure mongrel'! 

Taking this further, back then there were distinct regional types of mongrel.  My part of the midlands we had a medium sized brindly sort of a smooth-coated one and a rough-coated, slightly larger, often sandy or red-coloured, one.  Other areas would have more dark-coloured wire-haired terrier-type ones, or smooth-coated black-and-white medium-sized ones, for instance.  These were the dogs that roamed the streets and parks where the working population was most dense.  They mostly had homes, but would wander at will, returning home for a feed and a warm hearth when they wanted.  These days, very few dogs roam, and the 'native mongrels' have perhaps all but died out.

[pikilily]

I agree with both of you, the points you both make are valid and well evidenced, and I also admit that my use of the word mongrel was not the best. 

However, I do stand by my point that it is, to me, weird that the breeder of a cross breed/or mongrel...given a hybrid name (labradoodle, jackadoodle, jackayorkie, yorkawawa, pugadane...and so on) can command equivelant or even higher prices than those selling purebred registered dogs. The former has no requirements to pay for registration with a society, or obligation to register the pups and is not regulated by said society; the latter has these things to contend with....and probably more!
 
one of my favourite entertainments is to look at adverts for puppies and just laugh at the prices expected . But as my husband would say.... 'market forces' !!

I have a young collie bitch from very good working dog lines, her relatives were competing in Trials on TV the other week, others are Champions working all over the world. Yet more work hard for their living around this country as sheep dogs. She came to me registered, vaxcinated, chipped wormed etc. for £300, and I got the pick of most of the litter! 

I also have a Border Terrier X collie..£50 from the local rescue centre.  Hes a real character and very proud of himself.  I clip Oddy every so often, for comfort reasons. One year he was fully clipped except from a tuft of hair at the end of his tail.  That year when asked his breed I called him a 'Manchurian Gerbil Terrier'....  I was offered hundreds and hundreds of pounds for him as a stud dog...pestered for contact info for breeders.   

Its all in the name.
Emma T

[SallyintNorth]

I also have a Border Terrier X collie..£50 from the local rescue centre.  Hes a real character and very proud of himself.  I clip Oddy every so often, for comfort reasons. One year he was fully clipped except from a tuft of hair at the end of his tail.  That year when asked his breed I called him a 'Manchurian Gerbil Terrier'....  I was offered hundreds and hundreds of pounds for him as a stud dog...pestered for contact info for breeders.   

Its all in the name.

Great story.   

On similar lines, I used to have an 'East Anglian Mountain Dog'.  Hardly anyone did a double-take, although you would see some people wandering off looking a bit thoughtful...    (Yep, that's right, flattest county in three countries.  )

[pikilily]

 

ET

[robert waddell]

interesting view points  on this subject        i breed collie dogs not registered or anything these pups have had good success at agility and have had one go on to be a mountain rescue dog if i could get £300 per pup i would be dancing all year round     i did hear of one farmer that bought a trained sheepdog i could do everything asked at the demo and when he got it home totally useless (it was the sheep that had been trained not the dog)
pedigree pigs verses mongrel pigs is something that should get aired as well but does not command the high prices that are common in the dog world

[oink]

I don't know a whole lot about this subject but surely widening the gene pool would be good thing for the dogs?  I don't understand how eventually pure breeds aren't just all interbreeding?

I was reading about the increase in mixed race marriages (in humans) the other day and apparently they believe this will lead to more robust, healthy children that would be able to cope with changes in the environment better as the greater gene pool has more options.

[robert waddell]

some of the true doggie lovers will come on and explain the line breeding malarkey
i do not believe in this close breeding of any animal it only creates problems for latter on  it is best to get something totally unrelated to breed from  sometimes this is not always possible given the small number of some of the species and then you have to try just that little bit harder

[bigchicken]

 I have no objections one way or the other, What  I will say is these so called designer dogs seem to be popular  can fetch good prices and there are people who are catering for this market. Cross bred dogs are not anything new. Lurchers are cross bred and some shepherds like a beardy cross border. Border lakeland terriers have there followers. Horses for courses

[deepinthewoods]

for the sake of debate.
surely all types of dog are the result of selective breeding from the various types of canine across the continents. so mans intervention IS the catalyst for the development of new types.
  i can fully understand the need to be responsible when breeding, surely the whole point is to breed out negatives such as disease and physical weaknesses, and to breed in desirable qualities, if these desirable qualities happen to be desirable due to fashion, then that has to be accepted as valid too, as has always been the case. dogs have always been crossbred to produce workers and companions.

  it seems to me that there is no such thing as a 'purebreed'. the term relates solely to a set of standards artificially implemented by man.
 
 however to willfully and with full understanding, breed a dog with inherent genetic life debilitating or even life threatening  problems in the name of fashion, i believe to be morally wrong.

 
 

[doganjo]

The other viewpoint is that by crossing two breeds who do not share the same health issues, hybrid vigour plus halving or removing the risk of any of the diseases of either parent breed should result in healthy pups.  (Depending on the genetic inheritance mechanisms, the risk may be almost entirely negated, but would at worst be halved where the second breed has no genetic predisposition to the condition.)

This is not actually strictly true.  Dogs do not automatically have hybrid vigour.  If an untested Labrador is mated to an untested Poodle, both breeds having, for the sake of argument, hip dysplasia rife in their lines, it is quite possible for the offspring to have HD problems too.  Same goes with many other inherited diseases. 
My stance is that any dog that is to be bred from should
A) have proven success is some field or other - anything at all - agility, obedience, field work, tracking, showing - anything, 
B) have been tested for the known inherited diseases for that breed, prior to being mated, and
C) that if an accidental mating occurs the bitch owner should have the mis alliance vaccination for their bitch

Only then can we expect dogs of any breed, crossbreed, or mongrel to have the benefit of a long, happy, healthy life for the following reasons:
There would be less dogs so
1) their value would be more appropriate
2) They would be more appreciated
3) They would be healthier

In addition, there would be less reason to have them destroyed like the hundreds of thousands which are put down right now.  The Dogs Trust doesn't put healthy dogs down but local authorities and other charities on keep them for a short period of time.  This is why I am against these designer dogs - they are a fashion which can be dropped at any time.  My friend had a litter of doodles which took 6 months to sell and i believe she still has two of them.  She and I both have the facilities to look after and exercise any puppies we do not sell at 8 weeks but how many others do?

[bigchicken]

Lets be completely honest here anyone who breeds dogs whatever breed does so for money and all the dressing up in the world can not get away from that, If the situation was any different dogs would be free or sold at the cost for rearing etc. Or am I talking rubbish ?

[kingnigel]

Lets be completely honest here anyone who breeds dogs whatever breed does so for money and all the dressing up in the world can not get away from that, If the situation was any different dogs would be free or sold at the cost for rearing etc. Or am I taking rubbish ?

i beg your pardon

i have been in my chosen breed for about 20 years, in that time i have had 3 litters and have only ever sold one pup to some very good friends, that sale in no way covered my costs.

the reason some people breed dogs is because they believe they have a superb example of the breed and that they have managed to gain the use of an equally good stud dog. in my case i wanted more dogs as pets and as workers, with absolutely no financial gain whatsoever.
kn