The interesting thing about dog breeders, that cannot be said for breeders of other types of animals (with very few exceptions), is this insistence on purity of blood, this cry for pedigree back to recorded history, and any deviation from that is a mongrel.
Livestock programs have grade animals that can be bred into pure, and after a certain number of generations considered pure. I am not sure why we dog breeders don't feel the same way. Grade programs have helped to increase genetic diversity in many breeds of animals.
Dog breeders as a whole refuse to do that, even when it's to fight a genetic disorder that is costly, painful, and deadly to a number of that breed.
The LUA Dalmatians brought up earlier in this thread points out the hue and cry over ONE pointer in a pedigree. Even though Dals at one point were called Spotted Pointers, and it is agreed that there IS pointer in the genetic mix that created the Dal.
However, what isn't said is that some people continued to breed those LUA Dals, testing each pup, maintaining pedigree records, and breeding to the Dalmation standard, to the point where in Europe where they were allowed to be registered and shown (by which means I forget, as it has been a while).
A LUA bitch began to consistently win over HUA Dals, and was invited to go to Crufts.
I was on a blog, and the vitriol spewed by the HUA breeders was shocking. They had all kinds of excuses as to why the LUAs were detrimental to the breed, that they didn't know what defects could be introduced to the Dalmatian as a result of that one pointer cross 12 generations back, and no one knew the results of breeding LUA to LUA, because at that point, most of the breeding was LUA to HUA...
What it came down to is that anti LUA people didn't want any mixed bred dogs in their registry.
More excuses here
The Great LUA Debate
This is my opinion, and some even stated it. I wish I had the links, but since I was lazy, and didn't bring over my bookmarks when I got my new computer, I am a little lost as to where I should start to even LOOK for those links.
I do believe the Border Wars Blog was one place that lead me to other blogs where people were fighting about why the LUAs were such a bad thing for the Dal breed. And really, I could not understand it.
The LUA site gives me this quote "
News of registration of Dr. Schaible’s Dalmatians, cause a great deal of controversy. In 1984 a majority of Dalmatian Club of America members voted that they were opposed to registration of descendants of the Dalmatian-Pointer backcross. In response to that vote, the AKC put a hold on registration of any more Dalmatians from the line created by Dr. Schaible. DCA considered the matter closed and the subject was off limits at meetings and in the club magazine for the next 22 years."
And that was true, they could not even discuss it in meetings, however, I am glad that saner minds and burning passions for doing what was right for the breed prevailed, and though the Dalmatian CLUB still fought them, the LUA people went over their head to the AKC which is now allowing the LUAs to be registered.
And all I can say is thank god for that.
As for the tailless Boxers?
Here is what someone said "You see no matter how I look at it, to me those Boxers that were crossed with a corgi are not a true Boxer, they are a crossbreed."
Sounds like the LUA debate all over again.
In fact, one registry has gone so far as to say that boxers MUST be born WITH tails, and have the tails docked, or they will be denied registration. I am looking and cannot find it, but I believe it was the Germany Boxer Club.
Here is what someone else says..
"So is it morally correct to change a breed like that?
To me, it is altering an already established breed. It looks the same, but, clearly isn't.
I'm not disagreeing with the practice, I think they look spot on, and I dislike docking, so that is good
But it is not the same as an 'orginal' Boxer. It is now part corgi."
Even if the dog genetically is 99.98% boxer.. it is still a cross bred to them. Even though Animal Welfare laws are pushing the banning of docking and many people are decrying the loss of the look in certain breeds (Boxers, Rotts and Dobes for a few examples) because of the proposed ban on docking (which is a reality in some European nations)..
The interesting thing about the above comment is that first sentence. It looks the same, but clearly it isn't. I can't see how if it looks the same, it clearly isn't, especially as the bobtail Boxer has been winning in some shows, and the quality over each generation is improving.
Some people mentioned short legged, long fur boxers were a possibility, indicating their lack of canine genetics, as long fur and short leg are dominates, and so picking the long legged short coat pups eliminated that possibility in the first generation.
So cross breeding with purpose can be cone, and in some cases, it should be done. Pure breeding doesn't cause genetic disease, breeding within a closed registry, and concentration of genes through a small breeding pool , that is arbitrarily made smaller through human intervention and personal tastes (popular sire syndrome, anyone?).
I'd like to ask, was not the Cairn Terrier and the Westhighland White the same breed but for a difference in coat color, with the Cairn being a short coat version of the Skye terrier, and the Westie being the white version of the Cairn? I am not too sure about that, but I know once Norfolk and Norwich Terriers were once the same breed, being born in the same litter, the only difference being the prick ears of one, and the fold ears of another. And this was not so long ago.. In the 50's maybe?
Can I point out that the same was true of the Cocker and Springer spaniels, born in the same litter, but breed was determined by adult size, the little ones being Cockers, the larger being Springers.
In my opinion, there COULD be reputable cross breeders. They COULD work to the formation of a new breed. It has happened in the past, and it likely will happen again. If the Norfolk and the Norwich are the same breed, and they ARE, they have the SAME pedigrees, go back to the SAME dogs and at one time were born in the SAME litters. How am I cross breeding by putting the two together?
But there will be those that will say they are different breeds, they have been bred away from each other.. But again, HOW when they are the same breed not too long ago. If 50 years is enough to make two varieties of the same breed different breeds, then it should be enough to make the results of an outcross of one breed, when back bred into one of the parent breeds, a pure bred member of that parent breed.
But there will be people that are deeply opposed to this.
The artificial closed gene pool is the most detrimental thing to a dogs genetic health. This is when the idea of "purity" and sanctity of blood" gets taken to a new level, with the idea that some how a pure blood is better than a mixed bred. That some how all pure breds are better than mixed breds. Regardless of how carefully the crossbreds have been bred.
Even in this thread, I see that mindset popping up.
If some one deliberately crosses dogs, they are not a reputable breeder, yet here are two examples of crossings being done BY reputable breeders, who in at least one case, was also a mammalian geneticist, and was done for the betterment and improvement of the breeds long term health, and to stop the need for a procedure that many places have come to determine is cruel and unnecessary, preserving the ASCETIC nature of one breed.
Someone else pointed out the Black Russian Terrier, may I also point out the Sulimov Dog, which is another Russian breed, crossed with a JACKAL of all things.
Two other breeds spring to mind, the REAL Shiloh Shepherd, which requires not only health testing, but breed show placement in order to be bred, as well as not allowing people to just breed together two Shilohs willy-nilly.
This dog started as a GSD, but yes, it DID have crosses added to it. It is now it's own breed, though admittedly still in development.
The other would be the Canis Panther. Yes, that is the name, lol. As I recall it is a Dobe/Dane/Pit bull cross that over the last 40 years has been groomed into it's own breed, created by personal protection trainers for personal protection.
Why not do the same for companion dogs?
IF a breeder is willing to test for known genetic and structural issues within the parent breeds, and breed out and away from those problems, and IF the breeder is willing to do EVERYTHING that a reputable breeder of show animals is willing to to do, and IF there are a number of these people working together on a standard, as well as to increase available genetic lines, how are they not reputable.. because the dogs are mixed? They are not registered with a breed club?
All breeds have to start somewhere and there are many people that are working towards breed recognition within their cross.
Mind you, I am not talking about designer dogs.
Though I would not have a problem with that, IF someone would test their cross puppies for everything the parent breeds are known to have, and this is assuming the parent breeds are also tested clear for their breeds genetic and structural issues.
In the main, I am referring to people working together to create a new breed using crosses.
Some may think that is unethical. That people that do this are disreputable. And they are welcome to believe that.
I happen to feel that opening a gene pool, while testing for known problems within the parent breeds can only be a good thing for the resulting puppies IF people are willing to do that.
And there ARE people willing to do it.