Please define for me "bettering the breed".
I ask, because I pointed out the collie breeder who to their mind, and the mind of the collie community was bettering the breed by producing dogs that better fit the Collie standard.. By using a dog that was bred KNOWING that 25% of the litter would be blind and deaf. There was only one puppy, blind, and deaf that the breeding produced.
To the Collie club, his breeder is a reputable, ethical breeder, because they didn't break any rules.
This dog blind and deaf double merle dog has produced the number 1 collie in America at one time. His progeny and their progeny are show stopping champion winners. They HAVE improved the breed to their mind.
And these are people that are "active in the Collie breed for over twenty years.... kennel is comprised of top Champion & National Specialty-winning breeding stock with an emphasis on health, temperament and breed type. .... Collies are bred to exude a picture of breathtaking elegance, and possess physical soundness and exquisite head qualities, including the melting "Collie Expression"."
But I consider the breeder of this collie to be no better than any puppy mill churning out hundreds of poorly bred, ill puppies.
I could use the PETA argument how can a show breeder be reputable, when every pet quality puppy they breed and sell takes a home away from a shelter dog.
But we know that is ridiculous.
If someone wants a yorkie, they want a yorkie, if they want a yorkie puppy, they go to a breeder (cause we're not likely to find them in the shelter). If they want a Lab, they want a Lab. If they want a Morkie, a Shorkie, or a Labradoodle, that is what they want.
The DD greeders didn't create the demand, the demand was there, all they did was create the supply.
NOT that I find that ethical or reputable. Dogs are NOT a commodity, nor should they be treated like one.
And I go back to my statement. Not ALL cross breeders are breeding to fill a demand. MOST of them, I can agree, YES, they ARE. But I am not going to say ALL of them, because the fact is neither you, or I know everyone that is cross breeding their dogs, nor do we know their motivations.
MOST of them, yes I am sure MOST of them are in it for the money. But I have found proof that ALL of them are NOT. I have found proof that SOME are indeed crossing their dogs to create a new breed, and are working on a standard, and a registry, and encouraging generational breedings. That they are as careful as any of the top show breeders in who gets their puppies, they do the same tests that reputable breeders do. The ONLY difference is that they are not breeding pure bred dogs, and that to some peoples minds make them less than ethical. Less than reputable. Because they chose to work on the creation of formation of a new breed, rather than "stick with" the breeds that are already available.
There is no difference between these people and the people that formed any of the new breeds that the AKC is in the process of recognizing. Yes, DD greeders are different in that they are for the most part, only breeding the one generation crosses and only doing it for the money.
But IF there are breeders that are doing the correct health tests for the parent breeds, and IF they have iron clad contracts that rivals anything thing that a reputable breeder may use, and IF they guarantee the health on their pups the way a reputable breeder would, I cannot say that they are NOT reputable, just because they are crossing their dogs for a market.
YES DD breeders like this WOULD be few and far inbetween. I confess I do not know anyone that meets this criteria. But I cannot say that there isn't one, and I cannot in good conscious call them a bad breeder if they are doing everything right, other than breed pure bred dogs to a standard.
Dogs dying in shelters not withstanding.
As I said before, I could take the same position that PETA takes that EVERY pet quality puppy sold by a reputable breeder also takes a home away from a shelter dog. And again, we both know that would be a ridiculous statement.
@LDMomma
I actually agree with you.
But my point was about when people are breeding crosses into a breed type. No, there will not be any kind of consistency within one generation. It takes a minimum of 4 generations to even have what one would consider a true breeding "line" within a pure breed.
Speaking of labradoodles, the original labradoodles were indeed bred to be non shedding, and low allergen, with the pups being tested for allergen levels. I am pretty certain this information I got over 10 years ago, from the Australian Labradoodle site, but I cannot prove it.
And yes, things have changed since I found that information (which came from me looking to persuade a friend from getting a labradoodle).
However, there is a Labradoodle club, they have a standard, they have multi generational labradoodles..
Australian Labradoodle Association
And yes, this is VERY different then crossing a poodle and a Lab and saying hey, I have labradoodle pups!!!
But there will be people that say even though these people are working towards creating a breed, even though they are doing everything right, because they are not working within AKC aegis, they are unethical and disreputable.
@gracielove
I agree with you all that MOST of the dogs being bred for the designer dog craze are being bred by greeders.
I agree that cross breeding does nothing to help the parent breed gene pools.
What I cannot agree with is the blanket statement that has been made again and again that anyone that cross breeds dogs is not reputable, so matter what they do. That the simple fact that they have crossed bred dogs, no matter what their reasons, no matter what tests they have done, no matter what contracts and guarantees they have, they cannot and will not ever be an ethical or reputable breeder because they crossbreed dogs.
I am not FOR the crossing of dogs, especially not to meet the designer dog craze. But I am not going to say that everyone that cross breeds their dogs are unethical or disreputable.
And that is what I cannot agree with. And that is what I have been arguing against.
And for the record, I have only had two cross bred litters in my life. One was when I cared for a stray female dog that made my house a part of her feeding rounds who decided to whelp her litter under my shed when I was 10-11 years old.
The other litter wasn't exactly my fault. I sold a female on breeders terms and she was bred to MY male, and some how, she was left alone with the owners male when she was returned home. No one saw them breed, but it was possible.
That litter had to be DNA tested so I could be assured of the true parentage of the pups. It was a headache and a half, and should not have happened. I blame myself, because I should have kept the bitch on hand until I knew for sure she was out of heat, especially knowing that they had an intact male. I didn't, I paid for it.