Originally Posted by Belle Noir  I have to politely disagree to some small extent.
It used to Farmer John had a good herder, Shep, and Farmer Brown had a good herder bitch, Gyp, and they decided to breed them to get good herder pups. Farmer Smith buys a Shep/Gyp pup, and raises it, and then breeds it to Farmer Gibbs dog who was bought at the fair and brought from out country by Trader Finch, who is a really good dog, even if they don't know exactly where it came from.
This is how it happened for hundred of years before anyone thought to keep a pedigree anywhere but in the head.
This is why most dog breeds do not have pedigrees that can be traced to before the 1850's at best. First because no one kept deep in depth pedigrees outside of the first couple generations, and that was in their head, and second, because few of the people that actually developed these breeds into working animals were literate.
Records were NOT kept, except as an after thought when the dog was sold of and the farmer goes, "Aye, and now that I remember, it's like that bearded collie of Farmer Reed might have bred this litter. We saw him sniffing around when her was on heat."
After the gentry, the "fancy" got a hold of these breeds, THAT was when records began to be kept. And ONLY because of the eugenic idea that pure dogs were.. well.. pure... and better, and above common mongrels. Records were not kept before there was anything to register the dogs with.
And a good number of the records that were kept were falsified, either through deliberate means, or by ignorance. I am recalled a sighhound blog (I want to say Desert Windhounds, but don't quote me). One dog was shown as a Saluki, a Persian Greyhound and an Afghan.
These dogs are a result of Form Follows Function.
No one said, Hmmm.. I do believe that a dog that is bred to do this should look like that (except in the English Bulldog). They bred a dog to herd, if the dog could not herd the dog was killed, and didn't breed.
As a result the dogs that herd began to all look a certain way physically.
They bred a dog to run fast. The dogs that could run fast were bred the ones that weren't were killed. As a result, dogs that are bred to run fast look a certain way.
They bred a dog to point. The ones that were good pointers were bred, the ones that weren't were killed. The good ones started to look a certain way.
This is through the history of the formation of most of our breeds.
THEN color began to matter to people. THEN muzzle length, and stop, and tail set. These were arbitrary things.
Look at a field setter and a bench setter and tell me again which is the purest form.
For me, it is the field setter. It's form follows it's function. It's not an artificial construct.
I believe that it is possible for someone to make a "Morkie" breed. Just as the Cooka-poo people have been working on their breed for a while. They have developed a standard. Have you seen their site?
Here is a quote in the standard section..
"SHOW STANDARDS: (planned for the future) will most likely judge 75% on disposition and health, 25% on physical. Additional points will be given to dogs that have proof of clearances for CERF and OFA certificates for hip dysplasia, patellar luxation and elbows."
Wow, I wish the AKC would do this. I wish the AKC would require certain tests on any breed with a predisposition towards a certain genetic or structural issue, and refuse to issue registration on pups of dogs that have not had those tests done.
But they're just a registry, as they themselves would say.
What people are saying is this. If I join the Cockapoo Club of America, and began to breed Cockapoos.. EVEN THOUGH they have a standard, and a registry and a cold of ethics, BECAUSE someone has decided that I am only breeding for the money, or because the puppies are cute, in their opinion, I am not reputable.
Even if I am only doing 1 generation crosses. Even if I test for all the problems that Maltese and Yorkies have, even if I have a guarantee that rivals that of the top Maltese and Yorkie breeders in the world..
THAT is what I mean by this purity is all mindset that some people have, and I don't understand.
As for the number of cute crossbred dogs looking for homes in the shelter. They have to come from somewhere. If it's a top of the line pet quality puppy stolen before they could be sterilized, or someone that decided they didn't care if the paperwork was limited or not, or the survivor of a designer dog puppymill, they come from somewhere.
The fact of the matter is people want puppies. And would it not be better to be a GOOD supplier of healthy dogs, to be with your customers until the puppy dies of old age, to provide that need, rather than say no matter how good a breeder you are, no matter how clean, how healthy, how much time and effort you put into your litters, you suck if you deliberately cross breed?
If people WANTED pure bred dogs, they would by them. That people are willing to put more out for "designer dog" says a lot about the state of pure breeders today. The number one reason people say this is because "mutts are healthier", and that they have the impression show people are breeding for looks regardless of the health of the dog.
Last of all, the ONLY reason a "designer dog" breeder may make more money, is because people are willing to pay more. If I am a reputable breeder of Yorkies and Maltese.. And I never cross my dogs, I do all the tests, and so forth, and barely break even on my litters... Am I to have sour grapes because someone who puts the same work into their dogs that I do, does the same tests, have the same contracts and so on, but makes more money off their pups because they cross their Maltese and Yorkies?
How can I say they are not reputable, JUST BECAUSE they are not producing registered show quality dogs? |