Designer Dog website-hahahaha!

[Gem]

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 The incidence and severity of inherited diseases increases every year, and yet purebred breeders continue with outdated practices that continuously limit genetic diversity.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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Gem

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."

[MysticCat]

^^^ This.

And I'm guessing Gem breeds designer dogs.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

^^^ 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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Gem

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.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

Fair enough. Apology accepted, with thanks

[AOII Angel]

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Gem

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?

[AlphaFrog]

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

(And if you're hooked on the purebreeds, there are rescues for them too!)

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.

[thetalady]

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.

[BraveMaroon]

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.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by thetalady

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

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Gem

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.