Quote:
Originally Posted by concretegurl  First, Thanks for opening up your post OP!...  hopefully there will be a constructive conversation on this topic since it is so often debated.
Rhetts_mama:
1.You don't need to beg I'm always open to someone's opinion, as long as you aren't rude. You are differing with what, the meaning of a term? Yes I do read-I also use a dictionary-look up the term hybrid as it applies to animals...hmm I have read extensively on the history of Yorkies...on multiple sides of the arguments over their beginnings and accepted history, controversial, from both YTCA, AKC, EKC etc. But I'm no expert (genetics are an interest of mine so are Yorkies, thus I've read specifically on the origins) I continue reading, and learning if you have some reference you'd like to share I actually do spend the time looking at what people post...FYI look up Chessie history again, three breeds mixed due to an accident-and Yorkie history is debated because historically records weren't kept in even close to the detailed manner they are today, records exist they are good, but not as detailed as needed thus there's great debates on the origins.
2. My exact point was on breeding standards, not just freaking out saying an animal is badly bred because it is a mix of any form (a mix being a hybrid if 50/50 or generational the crossing of only two, or mix being a "mut" "designer dogs" which are of the general term a mix-exactly what I said before). Badly bred Yorkies-who doesn't love one for being an dog anyways right? Its a shame they were badly bred though-wish there was more accountability to breeding methods (i.e. required genetic testing, paternity maternity verification prior to registration, OFA {chic} certifications required, let alone the proper methods of breeding age appropriate dogs and proper care prior, during , after breeding with adequate times between litters etc).
3. I will add my personal opinion here on this I think poorly bred purebred is far more detrimental to any breed than any hybrid or mix could ever be. Again that's my opinion, I know many would say mixes are often snuck in and that's horrible but poor breeding vs mixing in controlled responsible breeding lines-well I'm sure everyone can see my position weather you agree with it or not. |
What I am differing with is the contention that mixing breeds should be considered anything OTHER than bad breeding the way it is done now. What's the end goal in mind? Are breeds being mixed to create a healthier dog? Are they being mixed to create a dog that does a specific task? Nope. Though we often hear antectodal "evidence" that mixed breeds are healthier, the fact is there is no scientific proof of it and neither is it the intention of the breeders. Rather, the motivation is greed, IMO.
It wasn't that long ago (I'm talking no more than 5-10 years) that anyone with an "oops" mixed litter was standing in front of Wally World holding a "free to good home" sign. Then along came the story of the Labradoodle and faster than you can say "bad idea" comes a proliferation of these so called "designer dogs" or "hybrids". These litters weren't created to fulfill a need as the Labradoodle was, but rather to fill the greeders pockets. There was a link here to an article with the creator of the Labradoodle expressing his regret for ever creating it because of the fall out. I'll have to see if I can find it.
So, in short, I do consider mixed breeders to be in the same category of the worst of the worst BYB's. People who are doing nothing to improve or even maintain a breed, but rather making money off the backs of animals just to fullfill a fad.