Most likely (actually, definitely) I will be heading to my local shelter the SECOND I am allowed to have a dog and adopting either:

a. The ugliest dog there and/or
b. The dog that's been there the longest

Paying for his/her shots and heading straight home.

I have no intentions of paying hundreds of dollars for something "designer" or even purebred when there are just as cute puppies without a loving owner every day. However if that puppy that's been there the longest just happens to be a chug, well... ;)

All 3 of our dogs and our cat are rescue animals and we have personally rescued some 20 animals for other families. We work with the humane society in numerous projects. However:

I still reserve the right to laugh at some of these dogs! Boston Terrier plus anything? What were these breeders thinking?:D

On the whole these aren't legit "breeders" in the first place. So they weren't thinking of anything other than trying to make some money off a mixed breed. Legit breeders take care with animals to avoid genetic problems and reinforcing positive traits (leaving aside that some 'positive' traits are net negatives for the animal.) "ACHC" registered or not, my guess is the vast majority of designer dogs come from backyard breeders and I shudder to think what happens to the mixes that don't "work" or the puppies who aren't "cute enough."

I think I finally convinced my coworker not to stud her bulldog. He's purebred, and it would be to create another purebreed, but she's already complaining about his behavior since he hasn't been neutered. But that's another story.

I showed my BFF a photo of the cocker spaniel-shar pei, and he said, "That dog looks unhappy to be alive."

He looks hungover!

I was ROTFL about the Brussels Griffon-Cocker and the Brussels Griffon-Shih Tzu, who also look photoshopped! Actually, the last one looks like one of my former bosses--bald with a goatee.

Co-sign.

BLESS YOU!!! Of All of the breeds that should NOT be bred by "amateurs", it is the bulldog. What a health & genetic mess that breed is. You know why? Because MAN created the bulldog and we are not such great canine engineers.

Exactly. I don't know if she would have stud him back the to breeder she purchased him from or not, but either way.... uh uh. That's why I said what I did about "positive" traits. While on one hand, breeders breed for health, they also breed for standards that often have their own negative affects on health.

I am getting rather tired of attacks on "Designer Dogs". All the published scientific research shows that crossbreds are healthier and live longer than purebreds.

Most people just want a happy, healthy family pet. But say “Boxer” and think heart disease; say “Golden Retriever”and think hip dysplasia. The incidence and severity of inherited diseases increases every year, and yet purebred breeders continue with outdated practices that continuously limit genetic diversity. The recent BBC program “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” did much to bring the health problems in purebred dogs to the attention of the general public (see http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=44215 931).

In addition, changing fashions and fads in the show ring have caused some purebred breeders to exaggerate physical characteristics that make dogs more susceptible to health problems problems (bulging eyes in Pekingese, elongated backs in Dachshunds etc). Recently the RSPCA in the UK cut it’s ties with the Kennel Club dog shows for “encouraging the breeding of deformed and disabled dogs” (see http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKGRI63987020080916).

On the other hand, hybrid “Designer Dogs”, can provide the best of both worlds, purebreds and mutts: the ability to carefully select the parent dogs for health and temperament, and test for inherited diseases (like you can with purebreds); and the increased health and longevity provided by genetic diversity (like mutts).

I don't believe adoption should be the only option for families who choose a crossbred dog. It's great that people take dogs from shelters, be they are purebred or cross. I've had rescue dogs myself in the past, no doubt will have more in the future, and also help out at my local shelter once a month. However, as anyone who works in rescue can tell you, adoption isn't for everyone. I see no reason why those people who want a healthier dog, and hence choose a crossbred for their family, should then be forced to choose a dog from rescue (and likely with unknown history of health and temperament) while those that choose a purebred may opt for a puppy from a breeder.

I believe families that choose a crossbred pup should have exactly the same rights as those that choose a purebred. They should be able to buy a pup from a breeder who carefully chooses their breeding dogs, carries out the necessary health testing, and provides a comprehensive health warranty. To say that puppy buyers must either buy a purebred or take their chances with a shelter dog is just discrimination, pure and simple. The option to buy from a breeder or to adopt from a shelter should be open to everyone, regardless of what type of dog they decide is right for their family.

Of course all puppy buyers need to be careful. There are puppy mills and "backyard breeders" with bad breeding practices, producing purebred and crossbreds both. However, there are also many dedicated hybrid breeders whose main aim is to produce healthy dogs, without the genetic problems that have plagued many purebreds. They aren’t trying to create new breeds, or to compete in the show ring - these breeders simply want to provide happy, healthy family pets.

JMHO

There are plenty of mutts (a word I say with love) who need homes who are naturally all of the things that "Designer Dogs" are created to be except they don't have cutsie names (and they're not questionably hypoallergenic). The idea that a shelter dog (or, gasp, puppy) is any more of a risk than a bred dog is rather silly. Throughout your post there are hints that a shelter dog is inherently unhealthy and risky. And that's just not true. The majority of responsible breeders still breed purebreds, just not the excessively characterized ones that the RSPCA is complaining about. The majority of Shit-Poo breeders are irresponsible and making a buck.

So yeah, YMMV, but we're talking about OVERALL here. The vast majority of people would do well to go to a shelter and find a dog. Odds are they'll find a healthy dog who wags his tail so hard that they can't bear NOT to take him home. (And if you're hooked on the purebreeds, there are rescues for them too!) Dogs are put down every day purely for the reason that there are no homes for them, not because they're dangerous. Until that's handled, you're not going to convince me to get behind "designer dog" breeding because "people deserve a choice other than risky shelter dogs."

^^^ This.

And I'm guessing Gem breeds designer dogs.

The best dog my family ever had was a maltesse mixed with a Yorkie-poo (yorkie & poodle mix) shelter dog. I guess if we wanted to get cutsey, he was a Morkie-Poo. You couldn't have told him that, though - in his heart, he was a St. Bernard.

The dogs my parents have now are two purebreed malties and they have a serious case of TEH DUMBZ. They are 6 years old and still not housebroken...and my parents have tried everything. It's not like they're new ar it, either...they've always had dogs.

My dog was a vet rescue - she had parvo and would have been put down if someone hadn't taken her. She's kind of ridiculous, though - face of a golden retriever on a slightly large corgi body. She's still cute, though. I wish my husband let her stay inside more often...he was horrified the first time I let the dog in the house. Animals do not belong in the house In his culture.

Lucky would have gone to Heart Bandits had the vet who rescued him not known that Live-in's family already had an Eskie and might love another one.

As it is, Lucky's been a fantastic dog and a loving companion for over 10 years to Live-in and his family (and now me). Smart as a whip, too.

As far as "heredetary" illness, he does have diabetes but I'm under the impression that Eskies aren't genetically predisposed to diabetes. He did not have serious sight problems prior to developing diabetes - well, no more than any other 14 year old dog.

Just saying - he was a rescue and they knew little to nothing about him before they got him. Not everyone has that experience but I would venture a guess that it's more common than not.

Gem is totally clueless. This BS of "hybrid vigor" has been disproven many times. It is the line of crappola that lousy breeders use to justify breeding MORE dogs for which there are not enough homes.

Myth of Canine Hybrid Vigor

Just so you do not assume that I do not know what I am talking about, I am the current president of a Labrador rescue and have worked actively in rescue for more than 20 years.

If having a fun name for your mixed breed is critical, may I recommend DNA testing?

http://whatsmydog.com/

We had our mutt tested and she came out as a mix of:

-English Setter

-Boston Terrier

-Tibetan Spaniel

-Unknown Terrier (likely Jack Russell or Pit Bull)

We call her a Tibostunk Terrietter

Now, as to whether she's healthier for being a mixed breed - who knows - she has terrible skin problems, but even at her age still acts like a puppy.

In fact, my parents found her on the side of the road on 2/13/99 age 6 weeks, so we're about to celebrate 12 years of love and friendship together.

I wouldn't take a dozen Morkie-Tzus, Boxo Apsos, or Cock-Teses to replace her.