"Designer" dogs or just plain old mutts?????

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Yes, it's true that our purebred dogs all originated from mixed blood if you go back far enough. I think the problem today arises from so many unwanted dogs in shelters being euthanized, and the fact that many,(not all, but many) 'breeders' are breeding designer dogs for profit without any thought for temperment,health, structure, etc. It's all willy-nilly based on making a profit and not on producing a healthy, happy dog.

Edited to say no attack intended in any way, just providing a devil's advocate thought process
 
Last edited:
I don't like irresponsible greedy breeders and I'm sure No One here does. We got ours from what we found to be a very good breeder. Our girl doesn't know she's a "Designer" dog. She thinks she's a farm dog, LOL. And is treated as such.

I will stand up for her breed ( mix ) though and if anyone is fortunate enough to find one like her at a shelter it would probably make a wonderful family dog. And a true Labradoodle doesn't shed which is huge for me and my allergies. But they are high maintenance for grooming bc the hair grows so fast and can get matted easily. And not that I'm against it but our dogs DON'T sleep with us for reasons stated and sheer size.......she's 80 lb.

I remember many years ago when Disney put out 101 Dalmatians and that was the craze of the time. Suddenly the shelters were flooded with Dalmatians. I suppose it will always be that way to some degree.

I also think people have become more responsible with their pets as far as spay/neuter than they were years ago. The shelters were worse when I was a kid.

Dogs are probably treated better now than anytime in history.......just look at the pet product business.
 
As with most things, you can find the answer if you follow the money. Although I think the whole "designer" dog movement is silly, it is, in my opinion, one of the most brilliant examples of business marketing found today. I mean, you basically create a mutt, list potential great characteristics of the parents' breeds and presto, you can charge twice the price. I realize many of these breeds are poodle mixes to create a dog that is hypoallergenic and I don't even have a big problem with that. But I honestly believe the whole blending of names (Labradoodle, Goldendoodle, etc.) is all about making extra money on a mixed breed dog. Unfortunately, as has already been stated, there will continue to be high-priced designer dogs as long as there is a demand for them.

However, there is an equally high demand for pure bred dogs. I happen to have a pure bred border collie that was given to us last year. She comes from great working lines and is the smartest dog I've ever had. I would never consider her breeding quality. She has an incredibly submissive temperament and is really pretty skittish. I have read up on all the great border collie qualities, she has some, but not all. If I had paid $300-400 for her, thinking I was getting a pure-bred with ALL the qualities of the breed, I would have been disappointed. A litter from her would do nothing to improve the breed, despite her parentage. Although I know I could make some money selling her pups, I could not in good conscience even consider it, so she is spayed.

The dog business is alive and well here in New England. Our local shelter charges $150-$200 for a dog. Rescues charge $300-$450 and many of the dogs are shipped from the Southern states. I even saw an ad in the local trading magazine for Lab/Sherherd/Beagle mix puppies for $250!! Irresponsible pet owners trying to make a buck. It's sad.

But again, as long as people are willing to pay that kind of money it will continue to happen.
 
the thought did occur to me that if no one ever tried to create new breeds then there would not be so many pure breeds out there. How does a pure breed begin?

Exactly
big_smile.png


I think there is a bit of a snobbery factor involved too. When pure bred breeders start selling their dogs at cost, maybe then I will believe they are just doing it for the benefit of the breed.​
 
Quote:
Exactly
big_smile.png


I think there is a bit of a snobbery factor involved too. When pure bred breeders start selling their dogs at cost, maybe then I will believe they are just doing it for the benefit of the breed.

Actually snobbery factor isn't involved in breeding true. To create a "new" breed, it takes generations and generations. The offspring must be able to keep the "traits" i.e., the boston terrier - one of their "traits" is their muzzles, their round eyes, their tails.

With the "labradoodle", you breed a poodle and a lab - you get a labradoodle. You then take said offspring and bring it to another unrelated labradoodle, you may or may not get the same "traits".

For people that believe the myth that a mutt, mixed breed, designer breed is going to be healthier then a well bred pure breed is silly. You could be breeding each "fault" into your designer breed.

Snobbery really isn't a factor.
 
"The Fallacy of Breed Purity
THE PRESENT STRUCTURE of The Canadian Kennel Club's studbook registry (and others like it) embodies a fallacy which is directly responsible for the current genetic crisis in purebred dogs: the fallacy of breed purity. The ideal of the purified lineage is seen as an end in itself; accordingly, the studbook has been structured to reflect and to enforce that ideal rigidly and absolutely. This insistence on absolute breed purity arises from nineteenth-century notions of the "superior strain" which were supposedly exemplified by human aristocracies and thoroughbred horses; this same ideal, pushed to an illogical conclusion on the human plane, resulted in the now discredited "scientific racism" of the Nazis, who tried through selective human matings to breed an Aryan superman. The idea of the superior strain was that by "breeding the best to the best," employing sustained inbreeding and selection for "superior" qualities, one would develop a bloodline superior in every way to the unrefined, base stock which was the best that nature could produce. Naturally the purified line must then be preserved from dilution and debasement by base-born stock. There is no support for this kind of racism in the findings of modern genetics -- in fact, quite the opposite: population groups that are numerically limited and closed to new genetic inflow are now thought practically certain to be genetically inferior. Certainly towards the close of the nineteenth century it became embarrassingly obvious that the human aristocracies of Europe were degenerating rapidly under their own version of the "closed studbook."

THE IDEAL OF BREED PURITY as applied to purebred dogs has resulted at the end of the twentieth century in a subculture that holds "purebred," registered animal stock to be qualitatively superior to crossbred or "mongrel" stock. (The word "mongrel" is in fact part of the vocabulary of racism, being applied equally to canine stock of no recognisable breed, to animal crossbreeds, and to persons of mixed race!) In this subculture -- presided over in Canada by the CKC -- it is thought to be of paramount importance that purebred stock be maintained unsullied by any genetic influence external to the supposedly superior strains that are produced by registered breeding in a closed studbook from a small group of foundation stock. New members of the CKC are required to subscribe to "Conditions of Membership" whereby they promise to have nothing to do with "dogs which are not purebred" (with the exception of family pets and boarders), "purebred" being specifically defined as referring only to dogs "registered individually or eligible for registration in records of the CKC." Litters which are made the subject of complaints that they may not be purebred are investigated and in many cases ceremoniously withdrawn from the registry by resolution of the Club's Board of Directors. Whether you like the word or not, this is effectively a special variety of racism in concept and in practice.
Not all dog breeders are in agreement with the proposition that breed purity is more important than anything else, particularly when they are confronted with the problem of breeding dogs to demanding performance standards. Mostly such dissenters are obliged to carry on their breeding without the benefit of centralised pedigree record keeping and official certificates of registration -- for example, those who breed "alaskan huskies," the high-performance racing sleddogs that dominate both short and long-distance dogsled racing, keep pedigree records and maintain sophisticated breeding programmes, but only as individual breeders. Yet sometimes even participants in established purebred registries engage in a subtle kind of rebellion, quietly breeding according to their own judgment in defiance of formal restrictions. Thus the Racing Greyhound Club of Australia, when it recently subjected a broad sample of stock from its registry to DNA testing, is rumoured to have discovered that many pedigrees failed to match DNA ancestry findings and that considerable interbreed crossing had apparently occurred. Similarly most Siberian Husky fanciers are aware that some CKC bloodlines may have received surreptitious infusions of genetic material from non-purebreds or from other breeds. In some circles one even gets the distinct impression that "it's OK to crossbreed occasionally if you have a good reason for doing it and you manage it in such a way that no embarrassingly obvious mongrels are produced" -- i.e., "just don't get caught!" Thus the sanctity of breed purity may sometimes be less than inviolate in actual practice.
Population geneticists insist that limited populations under strong artificial selection, subjected to high levels of incest breeding -- such as our own CKC purebreds -- simply cannot maintain genetic viability and vigour in the long term without the periodic introduction of new and unrelated genetic material. They are referring, moreover, to true outcrossing, the introduction of stock unrelated to the breeding line, not merely the use of a dog which might be from someone else's kennel but is derived from exactly the same foundation stock some generations back."
http://documents.seppalasleddogs.com/html-documents/pbdb21c.htm
 
Well I dont think there is a problem with designer dogs, although some people do breed just for profit. Others are responsible breeders who try to create breeds that fit peoples needs.
And shelter dogs in my opinion do not fit into the catergory of a desinger dog.

And one more thing. It really bugs me when people see a black goldendoodle and think it is something else.
The golden is not to name the color but to give credit to the Golden Retriever. You cant call a black goldendoodle a blackerdoodle it just dosent make sense.
 
I guess if it wants to be called a "goldendoodle" I kinda think it should look gold....maybe breed to a poodle that isn't black?
hu.gif
And really, the "doodle" part doesn't make sense either considering the "d" is just added there without reason.
hu.gif
I mean, Labradoodle is from LabraDor and Poodle. So, it should be a Goldenoodle. But that isn't what this was about.
smile.png


How could shelter dogs not fit the category of designer dogs? If they come from 2 pure parents then they are exactly what others are selling as designers.


This is about the mass breeding of dogs with no forethought. The new mindset that if you have two purebreed dogs, no matter WHAT they are you can breed them and sell the babies as a designer. I realize some did put some thought into it. I don't know how the Labradoodle started, but it seems to be a combination that works and that people like. A large part of these, however, are just haphazard mixings. If these were chickens maany of them would be culled. With dogs, they just get abandoned or sold to unsuspecting people.
 
The difference between raising dogs and improving breeds and raising chickens ( I have been told that you can't have too many chickens) is that when you breed something that isn't exactly what you want in a chicken, no problem Chickens can be culled and go to freezer campor sold for the same purpose. Dogs on the other hand are sold as pets or companions. I am pretty sure no one on here would want someone telling them what or how many chickens they can breed or raise and I am sure most Breeders of dogs feel the same. As long as there is a market for Designer dogs or Purebred dogs there will be people breeding them. Just about everything in the U.S. is determined by money ( not a bad thing) Most people that raise dogs will tell you it is a lot more expensive than most people can imagine. So just as people sell eggs and chickens to support their hobby a lot of people raise dogs and sell dogs so that thy can afford to do what they can to improve the breed. And as with Great Danes and Great Pyrinees and all other pure breeds and the designer breeds that also result from pure bred dogs, Without the breeders, there would be no purebred dogs........ Also as with chickens, a person raising any kind of livestock or pets ....and Dogs will general make a better profit financially from breeding good stock and feeding and caring for their livestock, or breeding animals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom