Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama  I can say categorically they are NOT reputable because their only end goal is to fulfill a pet market and not to improve the breeding stock. |
So if they were indeed working to produce a new breed, therefor working towards a standard, and had a breed club, would that then make them reputable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama Why do you think the breeders of mixed breeds make a profit in their breeding adventures? It's because they don't put any money in to testing, certifying and showing to get approval on breeding stock. It's not sour grapes, it's simply cutting corners. |
But IF a crossed breeder WAS doing ALL the required tests for the parent breeds, they would STILL come out ahead of the show breeder, since people are willing to play more for those crosses WITHOUT health testing. Genetic and structural tests done by a crossed breeder is a bonus, and I cannot in good conscious call them a bad breeder, when in my opinion they are doing all the right things, EXCEPT have a show quality dog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama Now, no matter how you try to justify it, today's purebreeds did not come from Farmer A randomly breeding a dog with Farmer B's stock. What we consider pure breeds are the result of very careful selections. Were there some happy accidents? I'm sure there were. But what we call purebreeds come from carefully selecting which traits we wanted expressed and culling out those that we did not. Breeding just because something is "cute" doesn't cut it. |
No, they came about by breeding dogs that did a good job at what they were bred for. The ones that did a good job were bred to others that did a good job, the ones that did not, were not bred, and often killed because who can afford to feed a dog that can't do their job.
I never said anything about randomly. They bred dogs together that could do the job they were bred to do, and because most of these people were illiterate, they kept the pedigrees in their heads, NOT written down, and often they kept the pedigrees secret, so only those in their own little community which were isolated due to the lack of things like telephones knew to any extent how any of the dogs were really bred.
I'll sell you the soup, but not the recipe was a common saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama I'm not sure where you are getting the "show standards" for morkies and cockapoos. As far as I know, the AKC (the only legitimate registry in the USA) has no plans to allow mixed breeds to show in the traditional sense, but they are allowing them to compete in certain events such as agility. There is no way to have them "show" because there is no such thing as a breed standard due to the variety in the genetic compositions. |
So the UKC is not a legitimate registry? That's why you have to watch it with blanket statements.
And I am not sure I said anywhere that there was a morkie standard. I am sure though there are people working on one. Just as there are people working on a Cockapoo standard.
As to where I got the standard information, I clearly stated I got it from the Cockapoo Club of America website.
Now, if you have a group of breeders that are working together to make a breed from a mixed line, working on a standard, working on "legitimizing" their dog, how are they so wrong?
Everything has to start somewhere. In fact the AKC recently recognized the Black Russian Terrier, did they not? A breed we know is a cross breed.
My point, was that there ARE people working within their own groups to create new breeds, and these breeds in the future, when the standard has been made, and dogs are consistently producing to that standard, MAY in fact be eligible for AKC recognition.
I am not going to say they are wrong, or disreputable, because they are not breeding and showing todays currently available breeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama People are unfortunately misguided when they say "mutts are healthier". There is no empirical data to support this assertion. Because most diseases are caused by multiple genetic factors, when you start mixing breeds you end up with all new, non-studied, configurations. Certain diseases MAY be less prevalent, but others are showing up (some with earlier presentations than expected normally). I seriously doubt there will ever be any good data on the disease patterns mainly because of high incidence of mixing lines (again, why don't morkie breeders breed strictly morkie to morkie? Why do they need to always need to start with a yorkie and a maltese?) The true test of the health claim will be when they are exclusively breeding mixed to mixed with no further introduction of "pure" in to the line. |
Oh I agree with you 100% here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama There is no justification for mixing breed purely for a pet market. I realize some will need to defend why they paid a high price for their dog, but in the end all they did was enrich someone who isn't reputable. Isn't marketing fun? They can get us to buy something that they used to have to pay us to take away. |
I cannot disagree with you. But rather than assign motives to everyone who does these breedings, I am working under the assumption that there MIGHT be a FEW people working on creating a new breed.
I realize that MOST people that are doing the cross breedings are doing it for money. And to be honest, I don't have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem is ANYONE doing breedings without doing the needed health tests for their breed (or breeds) and then not informing their buyers of any potential genetic issues.
And today I found my personal pet peeve... A REPUTABLE breeder, breeding top show dogs, who DELIBERATELY bred two blue merles together for a double dilute double merle stud. WHAT??!!!
This poor dog has no eyes. He produces gorgeous puppies though. And everyone out there says they're reputable breeders because they are working to "IMPROVE" (can you hear me spit that word out with revulsion?) the breed.
And THIS is why I don't feel anyone has the right to point fingers at anyone else about what a reputable breeder is.. So long as they are producing healthy puppies and are willing to stand by their puppies. It is NOT about the BREED to me, it is about the DOGS!
If I produced HEALTHY, HAPPY, VIABLE, dogs, then I HAVE improved the breed.
And to see what has me up in arms, quotes from the breeder of that double merle
"
Our hope in doing the breeding was not to produce a MM, but that is ultimately what we got. Aiden was a singleton puppy with no other littermates conceived. He has always been extremely healthy, happy and robust."
"We have never experienced or heard of any health issues in the Collie breed tied to the merle gene. Litter sizes, health and vigor are just as strong as with non-merles. "
You know what, have fun and read yourself.
This kind of back of the barn side dealing is common in ANY breed, so I could care one jot about so called reputable breeders "IMPROVING" the breed, when you have people that do THIS kind of thing to "IMPROVE" the breed.
Who’s Your Double Merle Daddy? Double Merle Breeders Don’t Want You to See This Double Merle Breeders: In Their Own Words 1 http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2011/07/double-merle-breeders-in-their-own-words-2.html
Where this an isolated incident, I wouldn't much be bothered. But when you have this going on with "reputable breeders" and the breed club doesn't even address the ethics of even producing these dogs, going on about AKC showing, and breeding to the standard starts to mean less and less to me.
To me, there is no justification for breeding anything that has the potential to make a diseased dog, in the hopes of having ONE perfect show winning, or potential show winning PRODUCING dog.
There is NO justification in taking the chance on that genetic roulette.
And so called reputable breeders of top winning dogs improving the breed do it every day.
It's about honesty, and it's about ethics. You feel as though people that cross breed their dogs, no matter what health tests and checks they may be doing, no matter what kind of follow up they may have, no matter what kind of contract they put in place are unethical.
Fine.
I feel that people that do things such as in the links I posted are unethical, no matter what their standing in their breed.
Again, IMO it's not about the breed, it's about the dog. Improve the DOG you improve the BREED.