GreekChat.com Forums - Designer Dog website-hahahaha!

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- Cool Sites (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - Designer Dog website-hahahaha! (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=118174)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2029250)

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."

I do agree with you, to a point. However, I did not mean to infer that a shelter dog is riskier health wise that a dog from a breeder. Statistically, in fact, you'd have a better chance of getting a healthy mutt from a shelter than buying a purebred dog from a breeder. However, it's true you'd have an even better chance with a crossbred from a responsible breeder, who carefully selects the breeds they use, and test the parent dogs for any possible inherited problems.

My main point is that if people can choose to buy a purebred puppy from a breeder, they should be able to choose a crossbred puppy for their family exactly the same way. Why discriminate against crossbreds at all, regardless of whether they come from a shelter or a breeder?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2029254)

^^^ This.

And I'm guessing Gem breeds designer dogs.

I own two crossbred pet dogs, and both have been neutered. I also help out at my local shelter one day a month. But enough about me :)

It's a pity that issues regarding animal health and welfare can't be discussed without some resorting to personal attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gem (Post 2029400)

It's a pity that issues regarding animal health and welfare can't be discussed without some resorting to personal attack.

It's only a "personal attack" if you assume that I suggested that being someone who breeds designer dogs is inherently bad or wrong. I simply meant that your response read like the response of someone with a vested interest in the discussion rather than the response of a neutral observer. This is especially so in light of the fact that your only posts have been on this topic, which leads to an inference that you joined GC for the purpose of commenting on this topic.

An observation, even if it is a flawed one, is not a personal attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetalady (Post 2029356)

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.

Hi thetalady

I'm afraid that's not correct. I realise this is an emotive issue, but as a scientist with a special interest in animal health and welfare, I prefer to stick with the facts. And all the scientific research in this area has found that the average mutt is healthier and lives longer than the average purebred. Here are just a few references:

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

2) P.D. McGreevy & W.F. Nicholas, Some Practical Solutions to Welfare Problems in Pedigree Dog Breeding, Animal Welfare, 1999, Vol 8, 329-331
"Hybrids have a far lower chance of exhibiting the disorders that are common with the parental breeds. Their genetic health will be substantially higher." (P338)

3) A. Egenvall, B.N. Bonnett, P. Olson, . 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
"Mongrel dogs are less prone to many diseases then the average purebred dog." (S. 524)

4) R. Beythien, Tierarten- und Hunderassenverteilung, Erkrankungshufigkeit und prophylaktische Manahmen bei den hufigsten Hunderassen am Beispiel einer Tierarztpraxis in Bielefeld in den Jahren 1983-1985 und 1990-1992, 1998, Diss., Tierrztl. Hochschule Hannover
Mongrels require less veterinary treatment

5) 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", thus only small and toy breeds, as to be expected (S. 627)

6) 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 less than for mixed breed dogs." (p. B173)

7) 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 (grouped together). Age of death weight groups mixed breeds 8,11,13 years; purebreds 6, 10, 12 years (Q1 Q2 Q3)

In short, the average mutt in the street has a better chance of living a long and healthy life than the average pedigree dog. I've yet to find a single piece of scientific research that shows otherwise ( I'm talking published scientific papers here - not opinion pieces on somebody's blog). If you know of any, I'd be only too happy to read it.

Gem

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2029409)

An observation, even if it is a flawed one, is not a personal attack.

Fair enough. Apology accepted, with thanks :)

I just read the Myth of Hybrid Vigor blog. I agree with some of her thoughts, but she has a poor understanding of genetics. Sorry, a puppy CAN have a genetic disease that neither of her parents carry. It's called a de novo mutation. A puppy can also be born healthy with two diseased parents. There are many diseases with incomplete penetrance, recessive patterns, etc. There is more to genetics than simple probabilities. Yippee..let's all adopt a dog from the pound. There are people who just aren't going to do it, so fighting over it is useless. Have your dogs spayed or neutered to decrease the unwanted dog population.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gem (Post 2029416)

Fair enough. Apology accepted, with thanks :)

What?

Second: if you're going to address people by their usernames, use the full name. Her name isn't The Talady, it's thetalady. We're members of a greek life organization forum - theta refers to her sorority.

Third: WTF is this crap?

Quote:

Originally Posted by agzg (Post 2029425)

if you're going to address people by their usernames, use the full name. Her name isn't The Talady, it's thetalady. We're members of a greek life organization forum - theta refers to her sorority.

Thanks. Inadvertent error corrected :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gem (Post 2029397)

My main point is that if people can choose to buy a purebred puppy from a breeder, they should be able to choose a crossbred puppy for their family exactly the same way. Why discriminate against crossbreds at all, regardless of whether they come from a shelter or a breeder?

Well, I think if people are that set on a purebred, they should be getting it from a rescue, instead of enabling people who turn out litter after litter because OMGZ PUPPEEZ ARE SOOOOOO CUTE. If I had my way, dog breeding programs would be like zoo breeding programs - i.e. more tightly regulated - and just enough breeding would be done so dogs wouldn't be their own grandpa. When we get down to zero population growth, then I'll take a look at your Box-O-Poo or whatever the eff it's called.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gem (Post 2029397)

First, the grammar thing, you implied, I inferred.

Ok that taken care of your implication is that somehow crossbreeders are MORE responsible than purebreeders? How does that even make sense?

Quote:

They're allowed to do whatever they want. If you eliminated all BYBs and all puppy mills and we no longer had such an overpopulation of perfectly healthy dogs, I wouldn't care as much. My ideal world would have very few breeders at all, and many of our current breeds wouldn't exist or would be seriously back-bred to a more functional standard. (And pointless show-only breeds? Right out.) So I'm not exactly leaping to support the INDUSTRY - for that is what it is - of crossbreed/designerdogs on top of that.

Bob Barker has it right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gem (Post 2029400)

So, you think being a designer dog breeder is a bad thing then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gem (Post 2029416)

Fair enough. Apology accepted, with thanks :)

He didn't apologize, he very politely pointed out that you were wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gem (Post 2029397)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2029448)

Ok that taken care of your implication is that somehow crossbreeders are MORE responsible than purebreeders? How does that even make sense?

Your inference is incorrect, and I'm happy to explain.

There are of course responsible and irresponsible breeders of purebreds and crossbreds both. However, both genetically and statistically speaking, there is a better chance of crossbred being healthier and living longer than a purebred. This has been shown in numerous published studies, whereas there is zero evidence for the reverse.

You can enhance your chances of obtaining a healthy puppy (purebred or cross) by choosing a responsible and careful breeder, who performs genetic testing etc. Nevertheless, the average crossbred puppy from a good breeder will still have the edge on a pedigree dog from a good breeder in terms of health and longevity.

Apart from the obvious recessive genetic problems etc. being expressed within a single breed, there is a demonstrated correlation between diseases such as cancer and decreased genetic diversity. With an intentional hybrid from a responsible breeder you can effectively get the "double whammy" of genetic testing etc (as you do with a responsible purebred breeder) and increased genetic diversity (as with mutts).

There is no new science here; it's all pretty basic stuff. Unfortunately, it's just not what the purebred hobby breeders like to hear. Again, I'd be only too happy to see any published research anyone has that shows otherwise. If anyone would like to do some further reading on some practical solutions to the health problems in pedigree breeding, and advantages of F1 hybrids as pets, there is an excellent paper my Paul McGreevy and Frank Nicholas of Sydney University at http://www.terrierman.com/mcgreevey-...g-breeding.pdf

I can't even reply to you because you fuck with your font too much.

In short, crossbreeders, the vast majority of which are either irresponsible "won't fix my dog" BYB or just cashing in on the latest craze, don't win any points just because they, by happenstance, have a better random chance of having healthier puppies than purebreeders (who, if responsible breed out negative traits themselves.)

Any "good" they do is outdone by the fact that they're BREEDING MORE DOGS when shelters can't home the ones they have. Stop arguing the scientific point because it is irrelevant here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2029491)

Drolefille... thank you SO much for this well written reply. My head hurts too much from reading Gem's garbage to continue to comment. He/she is so determined to justify breeding more & more dogs that no amount of contrary information is going to change his/ her mind. I give up.

Yes, some of those pictures of crossbreeds are terribly cute. Especially he ones that are crossbred with my silly little terrier's breed. That being said, responsible champion breeders (read not puppy mill or oh I wanted my children to experience the miracle of life idiots) work toward making the breed more vigorous and test extensively for known breed issues. They are also really into that breed. Why in hell would they want to breed their dogs to those of another breed for the sake of coming up with some hot for the moment mix? Yes, there are a couple of crossbreeds that have become popular (labradoodle comes to mind), but come on. So I don't believe that the top breeders are doing this. AND, if a crossbreed puppy comes from two purebreds that exhibit breed specific issues, i.e., temperment, heart, hip, respiratory, etc. issues, you can't tell me the puppy will not exhibit any of those problems and will automatically be healthier than any purebred.