Some nerve!

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by BellaDonna

You have to admit we have to thank the BYB'rs of the 1800's for coming up with the Yorkshire Terrier in the first place.
They bred different breeds together coming up with a mutt we now call the Yorkie.
Yorkie Info Center | Origin of the Yorkshire Terrier

Yes, but it is now an accredited AKC breed. These breeders were cross breeding for a purpose and not in the name of money. There was no money to be gained back then.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by BellaDonna

You have to admit we have to thank the BYB'rs of the 1800's for coming up with the Yorkshire Terrier in the first place.
They bred different breeds together coming up with a mutt we now call the Yorkie.
Yorkie Info Center | Origin of the Yorkshire Terrier

The difference is, they were breeding for a purpose...to produce a dog better equipped to perform a specific task. They kept loads of records, bred for specific traits, closely studied and compared the outcome of their breeding, eventually set a standard based off the results, and there was a widespread, combined effort by lots of breeders.
Not at all the case with what is being discussed here. While that may be how the YT originated, the two situations are not comparable at all.

[mommadog1]

Originally Posted by Cerise

Sorry, but ANYONE who mixes breeds to sell is either a BYB or owns a PM...period. There is no politically correct sugar coated way to say it. It does not matter how many years of experience, what they think is a wonderful mix, how many uniformed customers they have requesting and waiting for a puppy, or how much they love their business and think they are doing right...it's all the same...a lack of integrity, not humane towards the breeds used and unethical.

That is YOUR opinion..Not a fact.

[Cerise]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

Yes, but a person can find justification for doing what they do. So, arguing the poing with someone that is doing this type of breeding at times does no good....You are banging your head against the wall and never change their minds. Why? When money is the big motivator it does prevent one to think rationally.

You are so right because my head hurts reading about breed mixing

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by mommadog1

I think a lot of them were already breeding the parent breeds and then just started adding the mixes. Know someone who was a very respectable shih tzu breeder and started breeding shih-poos and then shorkies because, (her words) her shih tzu's were not selling as well any more and she is now living off only breeding.

I no longer speak to her, but she isn't lazy.. She spends her whole day caring for those dogs and puppies and manages to keep a clean house.

I am not defending the mixing she does and living off them (I am against breeding for profit..period!), only making a point that she isn't anywhere near lazy.

I do call it lazy because her "shih tzus" aren't selling very well...so she needs to move the dogs instead of keeping them until she could find a suitable home OR since they aren't selling she needs to pull back until she can...but again I consider it lazy because can't move them out quick enough...

I mean I clean my house, work a full time job, care for dogs and on occassion keep my grandkids, travel ect, so I'm not a lazy person in that aspect but I would be lazy if I didn't take the time to breed correctly that goes hand in hand and yes it's LAZY!
Donna

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by mommadog1

I think a lot of them were already breeding the parent breeds and then just started adding the mixes. Know someone who was a very respectable shih tzu breeder and started breeding shih-poos and then shorkies because, (her words) her shih tzu's were not selling as well any more and she is now living off only breeding.

I no longer speak to her, but she isn't lazy.. She spends her whole day caring for those dogs and puppies and manages to keep a clean house.

I am not defending the mixing she does and living off them (I am against breeding for profit..period!), only making a point that she isn't anywhere near lazy.

Here's some information taking from information in the YT Library

Genetics
If a purebred dog of breed X mated with a purebred dog of breed Y, both meeting health standards for their breed, is there a better chance the offspring would be healthier than a same breed mating because the gene pool is larger?

In terms of health alone the first answer would be that in breeding two healthy dogs it shouldn't matter if they're the same of different breeds, you're apt to get healthy pups. But this doesn't take into account the question of recessives. Suppose you breed two dogs of different breeds that both have the same incidence of a recessive health problem. The pups would have the same odds of having that health problem as purebred pups of either breed. On the other hand, suppose the two dogs were of breeds that have no recessive health problems in common. This would reduce or eliminate the odds of the puppies of having the health problems of either breed. This is the classic explanation for the theory of first generation hybrid vigor. The resulting pups should not be bred though, since they'd have a good chance of having the recessives from BOTH breeds, so the grandpups would be inclined to be worse off than the purebred offspring of their grandparents. An excellent set of articles dealing with "hybrid vigor" can be found in DogWorld, Jan 1997 by George Padgett DVM. Another very important point to keep in mind is that when a purebred carrying a genetic defect is crossed with another breed or mixed breed, the "bad" genes do NOT "go away" even though they may not be expressed in the offspring. If crossed with another dog carrying the same defect, the offspring of that breeding will demonstrate the defect.

When you breed two different breeds together, what kind of variation can you expect?
Pfaffenberger's book has some interesting data on this. He did some experiments with four different breeds. They were dogs of approximately the same size, but very different physical appearance AND behavior. The results he saw in the first and in subsequent mixed generations are pretty interesting.

Let's look at a common crossbreeding: "cockapoos" (which are not purebred dogs, nor registered with any registry). These are crosses between Cocker Spaniels and Minature or Toy Poodles. The dogs actually vary quite a bit, some being more poodle like than others, and some being more cocker like than others. However, they are generally all a small sized, buff colored shaggy dog. If you breed two cockapoos together (not generally done), you get an even wider variation of dogs -- some look like Minature Poodles, others like Cocker Spaniels. The reason for this is the recessive genes hidden in the first cross that came out in the second generation. This is actually a visual example of why "hybrid vigor" doesn't hold.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

Yes, but it is now an accredited AKC breed. These breeders were cross breeding for a purpose and not in the name of money. There was no money to be gained back then.

One anomaly that sticks out to me is the Silky Terrier. It is essentially a 'designer breed' that has been recognized by AKC. That will never again happen as the rules for recognition now preclude mixing of any 2 recognized breeds. There must have been some howling at the time as it only took the AKC one year after admitting the Silky to change the rules.

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

The difference is, they were breeding for a purpose...to produce a dog better equipped to perform a specific task. They kept loads of records, bred for specific traits, closely studied and compared the outcome of their breeding, eventually set a standard based off the results, and there was a widespread, combined effort by lots of breeders.
Not at all the case with what is being discussed here. While that may be how the YT originated, the two situations are not comparable at all.

I'm not sure the Yorkie is better suited as a ratter than other terriers. In fairness, there was some vanity in the creation of the Yorkie as it was developed for a 'look' and other similar breeds disappeared due to the Yorkie's winning in the ring.

Not saying any of this in defense of mixing breeds....just feeling a little anal this morning.

[Mardelin]

[QUOTE=Woogie Man;3085948]One anomaly that sticks out to me is the Silky Terrier. It is essentially a 'designer breed' that has been recognized by AKC. That will never again happen as the rules for recognition now preclude mixing of any 2 recognized breeds. There must have been some howling at the time as it only took the AKC one year after admitting the Silky to change the rules.


However, AKC will accept the mixing of two breeds if it is being bred for a purpose: Case in point the Laberdoodle is being seriously being looked at for acceptance. There are those that are breeding, with the correct documentation and purpose.

I'm not sure the Yorkie is better suited as a ratter than other terriers. In fairness, there was some vanity in the creation of the Yorkie as it was developed for a 'look' and other similar breeds disappeared due to the Yorkie's winning in the ring.

The Yorkie is soon to be joining the Earth Dog arena So, it will be going back to it's original breeding purpose.

QUOTE]

[Woogie Man]

Could you clarify? I'm basing my earlier post on this, taken from the AKC site, plus other things I've read on the Silky.

"The FSS® is not open to "rare" breeds that are a variation of an AKC-registrable breed or the result of a combination of two AKC-recognized breeds. This includes and is not limited to differences such as size (over and under), coat type, coat colors, and coat colors and/or types that are disqualifications from Conformation Events by AKC breed standards"

[Bianca]

How come all these threads are started and the original OP only posted once in it Unreal.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by Bianca

How come all these threads are started and the original OP only posted once in it Unreal.

I think you know the answer

[Brooklynn]

Originally Posted by Bianca

How come all these threads are started and the original OP only posted once in it Unreal.

to stir a pot? LOL...I'm guessing to get a rise out of some I'm sure...I know I've posted on here and I hope the OP has figured out by now in my case I don't get riled up but answer honestly

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Could you clarify? I'm basing my earlier post on this, taken from the AKC site, plus other things I've read on the Silky.

"The FSS® is not open to "rare" breeds that are a variation of an AKC-registrable breed or the result of a combination of two AKC-recognized breeds. This includes and is not limited to differences such as size (over and under), coat type, coat colors, and coat colors and/or types that are disqualifications from Conformation Events by AKC breed standards"

There have been several breeds have or about to be recognized by AKC over the past year or recent past. Will go over my information as what they are, I can't pull from the top of my head.

[Bianca]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

I think you know the answer

I do , but I didn't want to say it

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Cerise

You are so right because my head hurts reading about breed mixing

Just use a hammer it works much quicker!