Designer Dogs

[livingdustmops]

Originally Posted by Britster

Boy, I've missed your posts around here.

Totally agree.

I think there ARE some responsible, respectable breeders out there who are not puppy mills or BYB and really want what's best. Cockapoo's have been around since the late 1940's (or early 1950's) and they've been trying to get accepted into the AKC for years. They're great dogs. My mom had one, she was smart as can be. Golden Retrievers weren't accepted for a LONG time either. They were a mix of some hound and something else, I believe. All dogs come from mixes somewhere and as long as your doing it responsibility, I don't see anything wrong with it. Some people LOVE the Labrador breed but don't like shedding or have allergy issues; hence the Labradoodle... which I believe is a true breed in the UK.

Now if you're just the average joe that says "Hmm... my pug would look cute with this Yorkie!" that's just dumb.

Just as an FYI - There are only two ways a dog breed can get into AKC. The 1st is through the FSS (Foundation Stock Services)of AKC. It takes a great deal of dedication and requirements before a new breed is accepted. In the case of the Cockapoo I doubt they ever tried to get into AKC as a new breed as it takes 3 different breeds to make one new breed before you can enter into FSS. Also the cockapoo is not on the FSS breed list. American Kennel Club - List of FSS Breeds.
Also please note the Labradoodle is also not on the FSS list and is not recognized by any of the top registries in the world. There is no consensus as to whether breeders should aim to have Labradoodles recognized as a breed. Some breeders prefer to restrict breeding to early generation dogs (i.e. bred from a Poodle and Labrador rather than from two Labradoodles) to maximise genetic diversity, to avoid the inherited health problems that have plagued some dog breeds.
Others are breeding Labradoodle to Labradoodle over successive generations, and trying to establish a new dog breed. These dogs are usually referred to as Multigenerational (abr. Multigen) or Australian Labradoodles.[9] Australian Labradoodles also differ from early generation and Multigenerational Labradoodles in that they may also have other breeds in their ancestry. English and American Cocker Spaniel/Poodle crosses (ie Cockapoos), Two Irish Water Spaniels and Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers have variously been used in some Australian Labradoodle lines. The Curly Coated Retriever were used too, but these lines did not work out and they were discontinued.[10]
The only way the Labradoodle could be accepted into AKC or England’s Kennel Club The home for dog owners and those working with dogs - The Kennel Club or Austrilia’s National Kennel Club.. Australian National Kennel Council. is through one of these FSS programs. The world kennel clubs have an agreement on acceptance of any new breed and the requirments which is the second way to get into AKC. Now having said this, there are many, many different kinds of registries in the world, same as here in the states (CKD, APRI etc) and so the LaborDoodle could be registered in the same type of registry.

Not sure about your information on Golden Retrievers as they were accepted by AKC in 1925 but following is their history from AKC.

American Kennel Club - Golden Retriever

Golden Retriever History
In the early 1800s game was plentiful in England and Scotland, and hunting was both a sport and a practical way of obtaining food. Retrievers came into prominence because of the desire for a medium-sized dog that would do well in wild-fowling, both waterfowl and upland game. During the 19th century, gamekeepers at the Guisachan estate of Lord Tweedmouth at Inverness-Shire, Scotland, kept records of the development of the Golden.
Lord Tweedmouth bought his first Yellow Retriever in the mid-19th century. The location of Tweedmouth’s estate on the Tweed River had a direct bearing on the program pursued by the Lord to produce the characteristics he desired in his Yellow Retrievers. Along the shores of this river was the light-colored Tweed Water Spaniel, the hardy type of spaniel used for retrieving and known for their intelligence, courage and ability. The Tweed Water Spaniel had tremendous influence on Tweedmouth’s developing breed, as he bred his original stud "Nous" to "Belle," a Tweed Water Spaniel, to produce four yellow puppies. Later on down the line, cross-breedings integrated Irish Setter, Bloodhound, and more Tweed Water Spaniel to obtain the Golden Retriever we recognize today.
Yellow or Golden Retrievers became popular in England toward the end of the 19th century, and they were first shown in England (listed as Golden Flat-Coats) in 1908. In 1913 they obtained separate status when the Golden Retriever Club (of England) formed, and the breed arrived in North America in the 1920s. The first Golden was registered by the AKC in 1925, and the breed flourished in the 1930s and ’40s. Used predominantly as hunters, Goldens proved strong in the show ring also, although unlike today, the darker gold colors were initially favored over the light. Over the years, the Golden Retriever has grown to become one of the most successful, recognizable, and popular breeds in history in all areas.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

I see this type of explanation a lot, but it's a contradiction in itself. How can one satisfy their desire for one breed if they are getting something else altogether? It's like saying you love Yorkies, but don't like what color they are, so you get a Maltese instead.
First off, allergies are mostly aggravated by pet dander, not the shed hair. A dog that is a non shedding breed still has pet dander. I find the whole "hypoallergenic" label that is given to some breeds or used as justification for making mutts to be a complete load of crap. Secondly, it's not a sure bet that a mix of the two breeds will even result in a non shedding dog--there is a good chance that the dogs will inherit the Lab coat type and shed anyway. So if that is the reason for breeding "Labradoodles", then what does that make the pups that didn't inherit the desired traits? Worthless?

Your first paragraph... doesn't really make sense... and wasn't at all what I was trying to say. If I want a Yorkie, but don't like the color, you've got the parti's and the biewers, so I'd get one of those, I suppose. Or get one in the shelter. If I wanted a maltese... I'd get a maltese? If you get a well bred Labradoodle (it is a breed in the UK) you WILL know what you're getting and what personality. And if you happen to get a mutt of some other kind, if you know what they're mixed with, you can have a general idea of their temperament. Most mixes will have traits and qualities of one breed, mixed in with the other breed. Is it always 50/50? No, of course not. That's a risk you're taking. All the talk about Labradoodles though... I'd never own one. I don't like the "poodle" look so much so I'd prefer to just have a regular Lab but I don't have allergies. All I'm saying is there IS going to be at least ONE Lab trait in there somewhere since it is in it's blood.

Well, of course you're going to get some that do shed and some that don't. I'd hope a person with allergies would take into consideration what kind of coat the pup has. A more poodle coat would obviously be less likely to shed. Also, with all the F1's, etc, you should know the further down the line you go, the less likely to shed you're going to have if you get a pup bred from a labradoodle x labradoodle, NOT Lab x poodle or lab x labradoodle, etc. And, my step-dad is highly allergic to dogs and never had 1 reaction to our cockapoo we owned. A Labradoodle IS a breed in the UK so technically, it's not JUST a "designer dog." I'm not into the whole design dog fad either and I'd never pay what some people pay for them. I'd much rather go to the shelter and get a mix. Then again, I'd never pay what some people pay for Yorkies either. The Yorkie was once not a "breed" but a mix! It was a slow evolving process and standards were set... eventually a cockapoo, for example, will have a standard, if not already.

I'm not for breeding just for the hell of it, or irresponsibly, with no research. All I'm saying is... all breeds of dogs came from somewhere and for a reason. HUMANS sculpted dogs into what they wanted... specific traits, looks, temperament, some were bred strictly for companionship, some for rat hunting, some for guarding, some for herding. Humans did this to them by mixing certain already existing breeds. As I said, Golden Retrievers took forever to be "accepted" into the AKC. Cockapoo's may be accepted one day, who knows?!

[Britster]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

Just as an FYI - There are only two ways a dog breed can get into AKC. The 1st is through the FSS (Foundation Stock Services)of AKC. It takes a great deal of dedication and requirements before a new breed is accepted. In the case of the Cockapoo I doubt they ever tried to get into AKC as a new breed as it takes 3 different breeds to make one new breed before you can enter into FSS. Also the cockapoo is not on the FSS breed list. American Kennel Club - List of FSS Breeds.
Also please note the Labradoodle is also not on the FSS list and is not recognized by any of the top registries in the world. There is no consensus as to whether breeders should aim to have Labradoodles recognized as a breed. Some breeders prefer to restrict breeding to early generation dogs (i.e. bred from a Poodle and Labrador rather than from two Labradoodles) to maximise genetic diversity, to avoid the inherited health problems that have plagued some dog breeds.
Others are breeding Labradoodle to Labradoodle over successive generations, and trying to establish a new dog breed. These dogs are usually referred to as Multigenerational (abr. Multigen) or Australian Labradoodles.[9] Australian Labradoodles also differ from early generation and Multigenerational Labradoodles in that they may also have other breeds in their ancestry. English and American Cocker Spaniel/Poodle crosses (ie Cockapoos), Two Irish Water Spaniels and Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers have variously been used in some Australian Labradoodle lines. The Curly Coated Retriever were used too, but these lines did not work out and they were discontinued.[10]
The only way the Labradoodle could be accepted into AKC or England’s Kennel Club The home for dog owners and those working with dogs - The Kennel Club or Austrilia’s National Kennel Club.. Australian National Kennel Council. is through one of these FSS programs. The world kennel clubs have an agreement on acceptance of any new breed and the requirments which is the second way to get into AKC. Now having said this, there are many, many different kinds of registries in the world, same as here in the states (CKD, APRI etc) and so the LaborDoodle could be registered in the same type of registry.

Not sure about your information on Golden Retrievers as they were accepted by AKC in 1925 but following is their history from AKC.

American Kennel Club - Golden Retriever

Golden Retriever History
In the early 1800s game was plentiful in England and Scotland, and hunting was both a sport and a practical way of obtaining food. Retrievers came into prominence because of the desire for a medium-sized dog that would do well in wild-fowling, both waterfowl and upland game. During the 19th century, gamekeepers at the Guisachan estate of Lord Tweedmouth at Inverness-Shire, Scotland, kept records of the development of the Golden.
Lord Tweedmouth bought his first Yellow Retriever in the mid-19th century. The location of Tweedmouth’s estate on the Tweed River had a direct bearing on the program pursued by the Lord to produce the characteristics he desired in his Yellow Retrievers. Along the shores of this river was the light-colored Tweed Water Spaniel, the hardy type of spaniel used for retrieving and known for their intelligence, courage and ability. The Tweed Water Spaniel had tremendous influence on Tweedmouth’s developing breed, as he bred his original stud "Nous" to "Belle," a Tweed Water Spaniel, to produce four yellow puppies. Later on down the line, cross-breedings integrated Irish Setter, Bloodhound, and more Tweed Water Spaniel to obtain the Golden Retriever we recognize today.
Yellow or Golden Retrievers became popular in England toward the end of the 19th century, and they were first shown in England (listed as Golden Flat-Coats) in 1908. In 1913 they obtained separate status when the Golden Retriever Club (of England) formed, and the breed arrived in North America in the 1920s. The first Golden was registered by the AKC in 1925, and the breed flourished in the 1930s and ’40s. Used predominantly as hunters, Goldens proved strong in the show ring also, although unlike today, the darker gold colors were initially favored over the light. Over the years, the Golden Retriever has grown to become one of the most successful, recognizable, and popular breeds in history in all areas.

Thanks for the information.

I watched a special the other day on National Geographic I believe about the "creation" of dogs basically and they talked of the Golden Retriever not really being accepted at first. They also talked much about the Australian Labradoodle.

[livingdustmops]

Originally Posted by Britster

Your first paragraph... doesn't really make sense... and wasn't at all what I was trying to say. If I want a Yorkie, but don't like the color, you've got the parti's and the biewers, so I'd get one of those, I suppose. Or get one in the shelter. If I wanted a maltese... I'd get a maltese? If you get a well bred Labradoodle (it is a breed in the UK) you WILL know what you're getting and what personality. And if you happen to get a mutt of some other kind, if you know what they're mixed with, you can have a general idea of their temperament. Most mixes will have traits and qualities of one breed, mixed in with the other breed. Is it always 50/50? No, of course not. That's a risk you're taking. All the talk about Labradoodles though... I'd never own one. I don't like the "poodle" look so much so I'd prefer to just have a regular Lab but I don't have allergies. All I'm saying is there IS going to be at least ONE Lab trait in there somewhere since it is in it's blood.

Well, of course you're going to get some that do shed and some that don't. I'd hope a person with allergies would take into consideration what kind of coat the pup has. A more poodle coat would obviously be less likely to shed. Also, with all the F1's, etc, you should know the further down the line you go, the less likely to shed you're going to have if you get a pup bred from a labradoodle x labradoodle, NOT Lab x poodle or lab x labradoodle, etc. And, my step-dad is highly allergic to dogs and never had 1 reaction to our cockapoo we owned. A Labradoodle IS a breed in the UK so technically, it's not JUST a "designer dog." I'm not into the whole design dog fad either and I'd never pay what some people pay for them. I'd much rather go to the shelter and get a mix. Then again, I'd never pay what some people pay for Yorkies either. The Yorkie was once not a "breed" but a mix! It was a slow evolving process and standards were set... eventually a cockapoo, for example, will have a standard, if not already.

I'm not for breeding just for the hell of it, or irresponsibly, with no research. All I'm saying is... all breeds of dogs came from somewhere and for a reason. HUMANS sculpted dogs into what they wanted... specific traits, looks, temperament, some were bred strictly for companionship, some for rat hunting, some for guarding, some for herding. Humans did this to them by mixing certain already existing breeds. As I said, Golden Retrievers took forever to be "accepted" into the AKC. Cockapoo's may be accepted one day, who knows?!

Show me where it is a recognized breed in England maybe I missed it.... I posted the site for the England Kennel Club (same as the AKC) and it is not a listed breed. I don't care but I think it is important the correct facts are given. They might be with an other registry in England but not the Kennel Club of England.

You might say the Golden Retriever took forever to be recognized in AKC but that is not what shows in the history of the dog.

[MaddiesMommie]

All this talk about mix breeding got me to researching the Yorkie history, and guess what...they are a mixed breed!!! LOL
Huddersfield Ben, the sire of the breed, was from the Scottish Terrier, the Clydesdale Terrier and the Paisley Terrier. (The Scottish being the only one who still exists.)
Also, the original Yorkshire's were 30 lbs! and came in a variety of colors.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

Show me where it is a recognized breed in England maybe I missed it.... I posted the site for the England Kennel Club (same as the AKC) and it is not a listed breed. I don't care but I think it is important the correct facts are given. They might be with an other registry in England but not the Kennel Club of England.

You might say the Golden Retriever took forever to be recognized in AKC but that is not what shows in the history of the dog.

I was wrong... I just googled, I must have heard another dog breed on the show I watched! Damn my memory! lol. Sorry about that, it seems it's still a work in progress, as you say. But I know they stated the history of the Golden on there. I wish I could find the show, I can't.

My main point is that simply because a dog is AKC registered... doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be healthy. I am one of those people that believe mutts from the pound generally live healthier lives. I have no scientific evidence to back this up -- but I have read some in the past, but just from experience. A family friend has some black lab mix, who is turning 17 years old this year, as well as 15 or so other people I've known in my lifetime have had mutts that lived to be almost 20, whereas most all the purebreds wind up having health problems. A friend's 7 month old Golden just got diagnosed with *drawing a blank* but it's going to be a $5000 surgery. There's so much nasty inbreeding going on. Half the dogs, probably more than half, from BYB's and puppy mills are AKC Registered. I don't know, I just find them to be not as reputable as people claim them to be. But maybe I just don't know enough information.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie

All this talk about mix breeding got me to researching the Yorkie history, and guess what...they are a mixed breed!!! LOL
Huddersfield Ben, the sire of the breed, was from the Scottish Terrier, the Clydesdale Terrier and the Paisley Terrier. (The Scottish being the only one who still exists.)
Also, the original Yorkshire's were 30 lbs! and came in a variety of colors.

Yep!

[Keion]

Originally Posted by Britster

My main point is that simply because a dog is AKC registered... doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be healthy. I am one of those people that believe mutts from the pound generally live healthier lives. I have no scientific evidence to back this up -- but I have read some in the past, but just from experience. A family friend has some black lab mix, who is turning 17 years old this year, as well as 15 or so other people I've known in my lifetime have had mutts that lived to be almost 20, whereas most all the purebreds wind up having health problems. A friend's 7 month old Golden just got diagnosed with *drawing a blank* but it's going to be a $5000 surgery. There's so much nasty inbreeding going on. Half the dogs, probably more than half, from BYB's and puppy mills are AKC Registered. I don't know, I just find them to be not as reputable as people claim them to be. But maybe I just don't know enough information.

Agreed totally with Brister here! Neo Mastiffs are on of the purebreds that apply. Just because they are purebred and AKC recognized doesn't mean they are healthy. Neo Mastiffs are one of the most unhealthy breeds and people still breed them! Honestly I think crossbreeding would do some good with these dogs. They have a ton of health problems and it is a wonder they make it to 10 years old (the life expectancy).

[Cha Cha]

Originally Posted by Britster

I was wrong... I just googled, I must have heard another dog breed on the show I watched! Damn my memory! lol. Sorry about that, it seems it's still a work in progress, as you say. But I know they stated the history of the Golden on there. I wish I could find the show, I can't.

My main point is that simply because a dog is AKC registered... doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be healthy. I am one of those people that believe mutts from the pound generally live healthier lives. I have no scientific evidence to back this up -- but I have read some in the past, but just from experience. A family friend has some black lab mix, who is turning 17 years old this year, as well as 15 or so other people I've known in my lifetime have had mutts that lived to be almost 20, whereas most all the purebreds wind up having health problems. A friend's 7 month old Golden just got diagnosed with *drawing a blank* but it's going to be a $5000 surgery. There's so much nasty inbreeding going on. Half the dogs, probably more than half, from BYB's and puppy mills are AKC Registered. I don't know, I just find them to be not as reputable as people claim them to be. But maybe I just don't know enough information.

It is not necessarily that mutts in the pound are healthier, they are forced by their environment to be survivors. Many farmers around me have mixed breed dogs guarding their places and livestock (that they often get from the pound). Those dogs rarely get vet visits, they live out in the elements, they work long hours with their farmer owners. BUT, they get their yearly vaccinations and they get food and water. Those dogs always (ok, most of the time) live long long lives. I can't tell you how many times I drive up to a farmers house and his old, old dog comes hobbling out with his tail a waggin. No, he's not the best groomed dog in the world, but he is dang sure a happy dog regardless. Now, many of these dogs are not fixed, and do sire strays or neighbor's dogs. Those puppies are going to be born survivors. They are not pampered pets. The are survivors, and they pass on those genes. Just because we (yes me to) pamper our pets, and take them to the vet for any little mishap, does not make them a healthier pet.

Oh, and in regards to breeding any animals.... Crap in is crap out! I totally believe only the most superior animals should be allowed to reproduce regardless of it being pure bred or a cross breeding program.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by Britster

Your first paragraph... doesn't really make sense... and wasn't at all what I was trying to say.... If I wanted a maltese... I'd get a maltese?

I know it doesn't make any sense, but I can't think of another way to put the thought I'm trying to convey into words...

Originally Posted by Britster

And if you happen to get a mutt of some other kind, if you know what they're mixed with, you can have a general idea of their temperament.

Temperament is not a quality that is determined by breed/combination of breeds. (Or is it?) If that were the case, then ALL Pit Bulls could be deemed as dangerous animals just because of the type of dog that they are.

Originally Posted by Britster

Is it always 50/50? No, of course not. That's a risk you're taking.

Exactly...it's a risk...not predictable. Sometimes you may get all positive qualities, but other times you may double up on pairings of non desired traits. So is it really worth the risk?

Originally Posted by Britster

Well, of course you're going to get some that do shed and some that don't. I'd hope a person with allergies would take into consideration what kind of coat the pup has. A more poodle coat would obviously be less likely to shed.

That's just it...a non-shedding dog is just that...a dog that does not shed. It has nothing to do with the pet dander of the dog, which is what typically causes allergy issues.

In regards to Labradoodles in general. They were just one example of crossbred dogs that were mentioned and used in the conversation. I don't think the issue was with that specific combo dog though. If anything, IMO, I would think that Labradoodles--at least those being bred ethically--would be the exception to the rule as there are organized groups in Australia that have been working intensively on developing them.

The issue is, Australian Labradoodles aside...
Yes, I believe that everyone here is fully aware the the Yorkie we know today is the result of mixed breeding. (Why that is thrown out there as justification every time this subject is brought up is beyond me.) That is the way that MOST of the breeds that we have today came to exists. The difference is, the process and tests and research that is required to establish a new breed is not something that the breeders of these "designer dogs" is not something that they give a rat's backside about. There is no push to set a breed standard. No combined efforts of several breeders carefully selecting stock and recording their findings. No push to breed several generations or try to consistantly produce offspring that all meet the same standard. Basically, there is no "goal" other than "producing a litter of cute pups that the public demands at the current moment."

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by Britster

My main point is that simply because a dog is AKC registered... doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be healthy.

I don't think anyone would argue that point with you! A dog is only going to be healthy if it is carefully bred with a goal of eliminating health issues when possible. I think that what Cindy meant with her references to being AKC registered was not insinuating that the dog was healthy, but rather regarding that it was a recognized breed.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

Temperament is not a quality that is determined by breed/combination of breeds. (Or is it?) If that were the case, then ALL Pit Bulls could be deemed as dangerous animals just because of the type of dog that they are.

They are in a lot of states and counties. A few counties in my state have banned them and deemed the entire breed as dangerous and unallowed to live there anymore. Some even want the breed extinct. Which I think is unfair.

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

That's just it...a non-shedding dog is just that...a dog that does not shed. It has nothing to do with the pet dander of the dog, which is what typically causes allergy issues.

Yes, this is true. But a lot of the non-shedding dogs have very little dander hence why people with allergies have no issues with most of them. That's what my stepdad is allergic to, the dander on dogs, cats, horses... and he's had no issues with our old cockapoo or my yorkie.

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

In regards to Labradoodles in general. They were just one example of crossbred dogs that were mentioned and used in the conversation. I don't think the issue was with that specific combo dog though. If anything, IMO, I would think that Labradoodles--at least those being bred ethically--would be the exception to the rule as there are organized groups in Australia that have been working intensively on developing them.

I agree -- but there's also a FEW other "mixed" breeds attempting to produce a recognized breed as well, such as the cockapoo. I agree that most of these designer dogs are just fads and being produced as a cash crop most of all and not as a pet. But I find it unfair to judge ALL breeders of these, because there's quite a few who DO want what's best. Just like I find it unfair to judge all pit bulls!

[aqeuous18]

The talk of Labradoodles makes me think about the two I remember. They were brothers from the same litter, beautiful black Labradoodles. One had a rough coat and looked like a Lab with wavy wirehair. He shed like nuts. The other had the soft poodle hair and didn't shed at all. So even from the same litter it is difficult to determine how the pups will turn out!

[Britster]

Originally Posted by aqeuous18

The talk of Labradoodles makes me think about the two I remember. They were brothers from the same litter, beautiful black Labradoodles. One had a rough coat and looked like a Lab with wavy wirehair. He shed like nuts. The other had the soft poodle hair and didn't shed at all. So even from the same litter it is difficult to determine how the pups will turn out!

Yep, I'm pretty sure this is the main reason they're I guess still not considered a breed of their own yet... (despite what I originally thought) because of the inconsistency of the pups.

[livingdustmops]

Hybrid Vigor
Before reading, please go here and check out genetics and why hybrid vigor as it is applied to crosses is often an incorrect assumption.
In the late 1990's the late geneticist Dr. George Padgett found more hereditary diseases in cross bred dogs than is found in the Cocker Spaniel. His findings were printed in a several issues of Dog World Magazine.
More fantastic information can be found here (DogPlay) and at a couple links at the bottom.

The Myth of Hybrid Vigor in Dogs
by Karen Peak
The concept of hybrid vigor assumes that a crossbred animal (and this term is most often used in discussing dogs) will be healthier than a purebred. In reality, this is often false.
In order to be a hybrid, an animal must be the product of two different species: donkey and a horse, offspring is a mule; lion (m) and a tiger (f), offspring is a liger; tiger (m) and lion (f), offspring is a tigon; wolf and domestic dog, offspring is called a wolf hybrid. Remember high school Biology, animal classification: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species? Each animal in the crosses mentioned share the same Family (Equus, Felis, Canis) but are different species. The offspring are hybrids. Domestic dogs are the same species familiaris. When you cross breed domestic dogs (Canis familiaris ), you are within the same species; therefore, not creating a hybrid.
Hybrids are not problem free. In Ligers, no fertile male has ever been found and necropsies have proven sterility in them. Other issues in ligers and tigons: ligers may be prone to gigantism and tigons may be prone to dwarfism. Both hybridizations have shown an increase in cancer rates and decrease in lifespan. (Tiger Territory, M. Annabell, 2001). In wolf/dog hybrids, there are often behavioral issues. The domestic dog differs greatly in behavior from a wolf. Dogs were bred to be cooperative with humans while wolves fear humans and try to avoid us. Even domestic Wolves are far different from dog in terms of behavior. Dogs often accept leadership happily while adult wolves will fight for leadership within the pack. The wolf/dog hybrid can be a time bomb temperamentally when they hit full maturity. Wolves also differ from dogs in other ways including: skull structure, nutritional needs, estrus cycles, etc. (Canine Hybrid Issues Surrounding the Wolf Dog , M. Sloan, J. Moore Porter, 2001)
Returning to the domestic dog: Canis familiaris. A breed is not a separate species, it is just a set of genes specifically bred to exhibit certain traits like the coat an Old English Sheepdog has or the build of a Rottweiler. With C. Familiaris, we just took traits in dogs of the same species and developed them to various breeds. An example that may clarify this: all humans are Homo sapiens regardless of color, eye shape, etc. Nature helped develop certain traits to best suit the environment the H. sapiens were developing in. All domestic dogs are C. Familiaris; we just developed them into different breeds. Species is the same but there are differences based on need.
What determines a breed in the loosest sense is that when bred to another of the same breed, you will end up with the same traits. When you breed a German Shepherd Dog to another GSD, you only get GSDs. You will not get something that looks like a Labrador Retriever. If you cross a GSD and a Lab, you can get offspring that look more GSD, more Lab or resemble both parents in varying ways. With purebreds you have a predictable outcome. With crosses, you do not. It takes many generations to fix the traits in a new breed – not just four or five. For example, the Shetland Sheepdog, a breed from the Shetland Isles is NOT a miniaturized Collie. But the Sheltie is a breed that is only about 100 years old – relatively new. Collie was crossed into the early Sheltie to add to certain traits, but this also added the problem of oversized Shelties – something breeders have struggled with for many decades to correct due to the infusion of Collie blood into a developing breed.
Crossbred dogs such as the Cock-a-poo are NOT hybrids nor are they breeds. The Cock-a-poo Club of America states in its guidelines that in order to be a cock-a-poo, that you breed Cocker (American or English) to a Toy or Miniature Poodle. This is not a breed; it is a cross – a mutt. Cock-a-poos may look very Poodle, very Cocker or somewhere in between. Even a Cock-a-poo bred to a Cock-a-poo is not a breed. Remember, it can take decades or more to get true-breeding traits – or to repair damage done when something else is crossed in during the early history of a breed just beginning to come together.
There is research that states the domestication of what we know today as a dog may have started longer ago that assumed – maybe as much as 100,000 years ago based on mitochondrial DNA studies of wolves and dogs. (The Truth About Dogs, S. Budiansky, 1999) No one really knows for certain when wild canines began domesticating themselves or we began domesticating them. Therefore, the creation of specific breeds is relatively new in the grand scheme of the history of the domestic dog. Bones of truly domesticated dogs were found dating back to as early as 5,000 BC. Ancient pictures show dogs that were of definite sight hound type. (Dogs of Ancient Egypt, J. Dunn).
Back to Hybrid Vigor: is it true? No. Returning to the cock-a-poo example. Poodles and Cockers have many of the same health problems; therefore, a cross of them might actually stand a higher risk of inheriting a problem than a purebred pup from a good breeder. Some of the problems in both breeds are: hip dysplasia, progressive retinal atrophy, epilepsy, poor temperaments, allergies, skin and ear problem, Legg-Calve-Perthe's, luxating patellas, hypothyroidism, cryptorchidism, gastric torsion ( Cock-a-poos, Cindy Tittle Moore, 1997). Yes, things like ear infections, allergies, temperaments and gastric torsion have hereditary as well as environmental influences.
Now, why did I state a cross might stand a higher risk of a hereditary problem than a dog from a good breeder? Rarely do people breeding crosses do any health tests – genetic or otherwise. They assume that an annual veterinarian visit and shots are all that is needed. Maybe for a pet dog, but breeders need to consider the genetic health of puppies produced. Things such as Hip and Elbow Dysplasia, Luxating Patellas, various eye problems, von Willebrand's (a bleeding disorder) and Thyroid function are common in many, many breeds and crosses. The myth that purebreds are unhealthy or nasty came about due to bad breeders who either did not care about health testing or who were ignorant and felt that dogs who show no outward signs of a problem do not have it. A purebred dog from a good and educated source has a greater chance of being healthier than a crossbred.
So, the next time you hear about hybrid vigor and how mutts are healthier, remember this: hybrid vigor as related to dogs is a myth.
FMI on hybrid vigor and how it is misused in dogs, please read:
http://www.bullmarketfrogs.com/pages...ngprograms.htm
Practical genetics for dog breeds: breeding myths
and read from the late, great canine geneticist Dr. George Padgett who discovered over a hundred hereditary health issues in crossbred dogs.