Reputable cross breeder?

[DvlshAngel985]

Originally Posted by Bella Yorkie

This blogpost was published on my teacup yorkie dogs website but contained gross misinformation. One of our previous writers, hired through a writing co-op but who is no longer involved with our site wrote an article, meaning no harm, about "bigger" yorkies and the "world's biggest yorkie" because he thought it would be a fun, novel idea. However after reviewing some comments here on the forum I changed the post because, as commentors have said well & accurately, the article wrongly gave the impression that dogs up to 20 and 30 pounds could be called "yorkies"- however that is indeed NOT the case. 20-30 pounds is SO far outside the required weight for a yorkie...I do apologize, this is rather embarrassing to be honest.

The updated & more accurate post: 20 pound yorkies are Impossible & Cannot Exist!

I don't mean to ruin your day, but a 20 pound yorkie can and does exist. I met the proud parent of one. Yes it makes the dog not be within standard, but it's not completely impossible.

Aside from size, there are many things that can make a dog be "off standard." Take my dog for example. (the one in my avatar)
- Coat: the desired coat is silky, smooth straight and evenly parts down the middle of he dog's back. My pup has a soft coat, thick, and fluffy. Think lush new Teddy bear, and that's what my dog's coat feels like.
- Color: the breed standard describes a yorkie's coat color as steel blue, and tan. My pup is 3 years old and still has yet to finish breaking color on his head. He has more gold in his face, but also has a lot of black intermingled with the gold. His coat also is very dull on his body. It does not reflect light like a silky coat would.
- Ears: for starters, ears are errect, small, and set too far apart. My pup has floppy ears, and with my untrained eye, I see them as set too far apart.

Those three things make my pup an off standard yorkie. There may be more, but I am unfamiliar with proper toplines, tail placement, and how the legs should look. Regardless of all my dog's faults. He's still all yorkie. He has the yorkie spunk, stubborness, and the toungue curl yorkies have when they pant. He's a poor example of the breed, his parents were probably poor examples of the breed, and as a poor example of the breed, he should not be bred. However, that does not mean he can not be loved. He's adored by his human companion, flaws and all.

So you see, the standard is a guideline that should be followed when choosing breeding stock. But, like any other rule, there are exceptions to the rule. Size is not the only way to see an off standard dog. It also does not mean a 20 lb yorkie cannot exist. They can, and do exist. They're just simply lovable, adorable, off standard yorkies.

[gidget529]

Originally Posted by Bella Yorkie

This blogpost was published on my teacup yorkie dogs website but contained gross misinformation. One of our previous writers, hired through a writing co-op but who is no longer involved with our site wrote an article, meaning no harm, about "bigger" yorkies and the "world's biggest yorkie" because he thought it would be a fun, novel idea. However after reviewing some comments here on the forum I changed the post because, as commentors have said well & accurately, the article wrongly gave the impression that dogs up to 20 and 30 pounds could be called "yorkies"- however that is indeed NOT the case. 20-30 pounds is SO far outside the required weight for a yorkie...I do apologize, this is rather embarrassing to be honest.

The updated & more accurate post: 20 pound yorkies are Impossible & Cannot Exist!

I'm a little confused. This thread is almost a year old, and the article quoted in the quote that goes w your post is from March of 2009?

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by Bella Yorkie

This blogpost was published on my teacup yorkie dogs website but contained gross misinformation. One of our previous writers, hired through a writing co-op but who is no longer involved with our site wrote an article, meaning no harm, about "bigger" yorkies and the "world's biggest yorkie" because he thought it would be a fun, novel idea. However after reviewing some comments here on the forum I changed the post because, as commentors have said well & accurately, the article wrongly gave the impression that dogs up to 20 and 30 pounds could be called "yorkies"- however that is indeed NOT the case. 20-30 pounds is SO far outside the required weight for a yorkie...I do apologize, this is rather embarrassing to be honest.

The updated & more accurate post: 20 pound yorkies are Impossible & Cannot Exist!

Well, what ELSE would you call a 20 pound yorkie? Weight, even when it's outside of the accepted AKC standard does not change breed at all.

[Gabs]

I was uneducated and purchased my cross-breed (yorkie/westie aka fourche terrier) from a newspaper add. The lady met us at a gas station with "the last puppy." Gabby was sick with perisites & we had to spend a lot of money to save her (within hours she couldn't even walk). We didn't pay a lot for Gabby ($200 compared to $800 for Yorkies in my area), but that wasn't the reason we got her, I talked to the "breeder" she seemed like a "good person" and what she described sounded like a beautiful, smart dog (which Gabby is). However, my point is choose a reputable breeder and do your research (which I learned the hard way!) whether you are choosing a pure bred dog or a cross-breed. There are non reputable breeders of pure bred dogs, just like there are non reputable breeders of cross-breeds. Gabby is now over a year old & healthy, but the beginning was tough on us, and even a few weeks ago we had to give her medicine for low blood sugar (like a diabetic, this happens to her occasionally, but not a regular med) and if she lays on her back or drinks water to fast she gets strangled.

I know I have rattled on and I'm sorry. Although my dog is a purchased cross-breed and I would not trade her for any pure bred dog in the world, I wish I would have been more educated when I made the decision to purchase from a breeder I neglected to research. I have learned a lesson, and worried worried worried about my furbaby. So please do your research regarless of what type of dog you want to purchase!

[OwnedByJezebel]

Originally Posted by Bella Yorkie

This blogpost was published on my teacup yorkie dogs website but contained gross misinformation. One of our previous writers, hired through a writing co-op but who is no longer involved with our site wrote an article, meaning no harm, about "bigger" yorkies and the "world's biggest yorkie" because he thought it would be a fun, novel idea. However after reviewing some comments here on the forum I changed the post because, as commentors have said well & accurately, the article wrongly gave the impression that dogs up to 20 and 30 pounds could be called "yorkies"- however that is indeed NOT the case. 20-30 pounds is SO far outside the required weight for a yorkie...I do apologize, this is rather embarrassing to be honest.

The updated & more accurate post: 20 pound yorkies are Impossible & Cannot Exist!

Do you know what "standard" means, as in the "breed standard?" It is the description that a specimen of that particular breed must meet in order to be PERFECT. It is used to judge a dog in the conformation show ring, and only one of many factors in deciding which dogs are breeding quality. Here is the breed standard for the Yorkshire Terrier:

General Appearance
That of a long-haired toy terrier whose blue and tan coat is parted on the face and from the base of the skull to the end of the tail and hangs evenly and quite straight down each side of body. The body is neat, compact and well proportioned. The dog's high head carriage and confident manner should give the appearance of vigor and self-importance.

Head
Small and rather flat on top, the skull not too prominent or round, the muzzle not too long, with the bite neither undershot nor overshot and teeth sound. Either scissors bite or level bite is acceptable. The nose is black. Eyes are medium in size and not too prominent; dark in color and sparkling with a sharp, intelligent expression. Eye rims are dark. Ears are small, V-shaped, carried erect and set not too far apart.

Body
Well proportioned and very compact. The back is rather short, the back line level, with height at shoulder the same as at the rump.

Legs and Feet
Forelegs should be straight, elbows neither in nor out. Hind legs straight when viewed from behind, but stifles are moderately bent when viewed from the sides. Feet are round with black toenails. Dewclaws, if any, are generally removed from the hind legs. Dewclaws on the forelegs may be removed.

Tail
Docked to a medium length and carried slightly higher than the level of the back.

Coat
Quality, texture and quantity of coat are of prime importance. Hair is glossy, fine and silky in texture. Coat on the body is moderately long and perfectly straight (not wavy). It may be trimmed to floor length to give ease of movement and a neater appearance, if desired. The fall on the head is long, tied with one bow in center of head or parted in the middle and tied with two bows. Hair on muzzle is very long. Hair should be trimmed short on tips of ears and may be trimmed on feet to give them a neat appearance.

Colors
Puppies are born black and tan and are normally darker in body color, showing an intermingling of black hair in the tan until they are matured. Color of hair on body and richness of tan on head and legs are of prime importance in adult dogs, to which the following color requirements apply: Blue: Is a dark steel-blue, not a silver-blue and not mingled with fawn, bronzy or black hairs. Tan: All tan hair is darker at the roots than in the middle, shading to still lighter tan at the tips. There should be no sooty or black hair intermingled with any of the tan.

Color on Body
The blue extends over the body from back of neck to root of tail. Hair on tail is a darker blue, especially at end of tail.

Headfall
A rich golden tan, deeper in color at sides of head, at ear roots and on the muzzle, with ears a deep rich tan. Tan color should not extend down on back of neck.

Chest and Legs
A bright, rich tan, not extending above the elbow on the forelegs nor above the stifle on the hind legs.

Weight
Must not exceed seven pounds.

Disqualifications:
Any solid color or combination of colors other than blue and tan as described above. Any white markings other than a small white spot on the forechest that does not exceed 1 inch at its longest dimension.

I guess you weren't aware that there is no such thing as a dog that meets the breed standard 100%. 100% is what they try to achieve, but even with the best of efforts and knowledge applied, the resulting dogs in a litter will always have one or more faults.

By your logic, if anything is outside the standard, then the dog isn't a Yorkie. Well, then, that means there are NO Yorkies, or no dogs of any other pure breed, because no dog meets the standard (goal) perfectly.

Just because a dog has a fault according to the breed standard, does not mean it is not pure bred or is not a member of that particular breed. This includes the size stipulated in the standard. If all you had to do is slap together two pure bred Yorkies and you would always get a dog under 7 lbs, then there would be NO need for the standard to even mention "not to exceed 7 lbs." Just the fact that they have to mention this as one of the goals of the standard illustrates clearly that some will not meet this goal.

By your logic, if anything is outside the standard, then the dog isn't a Yorkie. Well, then, that means there are NO Yorkies, or no dogs of any other pure breed, because no dog meets the standard (goal) perfectly.

The ancestors of Yorkies included much larger terriers. Through selective breeding, the size in the majority of Yorkies has been decreased, but the genes for the larger size are still there, albeit in much smaller numbers in the population. Get the right two dogs together, and get the right egg and sperm together, and BOOM, those genes can express themselves again in a genetic throwback to a larger Yorkie.

The statement in your "article:" Those desiring to own one should look for yorkies that at full adulthood are estimated to weigh between 3 -7 lbs. These are the weight requirements for yorkies to be considered full bred, and should be considered by anyone reasonably interested in yorkies healthy.

Any estimate of what a puppy will be when full-grown is nothing better than a guess. If you have a history of the breeding pair and what they have produced together in past litters, then you can give a better guess, but there are no guarantees. And the size result has NOTHING to do with whether the dog is pure bred.

I would also like to see the source for your claim that "These are the weight requirements for yorkies to be considered full bred, and should be considered by anyone reasonably interested in yorkies healthy." Size has nothing to do with health. They can be tiny and healthy, meet the size standard and be healthy, or be larger than the standard and be healthy. They can also have a multitude of problems at ANY size. There is no link that I have found between size of the dog making a dog healthier. (The inverse can sometimes be true, since a liver shunt dog won't eat well so it tends to be smaller, but it is the health problem that influences the size in this case, not the size having an influence on the health).

I sure hope people are not reading your site and taking the information as fact, because there many problems with your "facts" and "logic."

[Belle Noir]

The interesting thing about dog breeders, that cannot be said for breeders of other types of animals (with very few exceptions), is this insistence on purity of blood, this cry for pedigree back to recorded history, and any deviation from that is a mongrel.
Livestock programs have grade animals that can be bred into pure, and after a certain number of generations considered pure. I am not sure why we dog breeders don't feel the same way. Grade programs have helped to increase genetic diversity in many breeds of animals.
Dog breeders as a whole refuse to do that, even when it's to fight a genetic disorder that is costly, painful, and deadly to a number of that breed.
The LUA Dalmatians brought up earlier in this thread points out the hue and cry over ONE pointer in a pedigree. Even though Dals at one point were called Spotted Pointers, and it is agreed that there IS pointer in the genetic mix that created the Dal.
However, what isn't said is that some people continued to breed those LUA Dals, testing each pup, maintaining pedigree records, and breeding to the Dalmation standard, to the point where in Europe where they were allowed to be registered and shown (by which means I forget, as it has been a while).
A LUA bitch began to consistently win over HUA Dals, and was invited to go to Crufts.
I was on a blog, and the vitriol spewed by the HUA breeders was shocking. They had all kinds of excuses as to why the LUAs were detrimental to the breed, that they didn't know what defects could be introduced to the Dalmatian as a result of that one pointer cross 12 generations back, and no one knew the results of breeding LUA to LUA, because at that point, most of the breeding was LUA to HUA...
What it came down to is that anti LUA people didn't want any mixed bred dogs in their registry.
More excuses here
The Great LUA Debate
This is my opinion, and some even stated it. I wish I had the links, but since I was lazy, and didn't bring over my bookmarks when I got my new computer, I am a little lost as to where I should start to even LOOK for those links.
I do believe the Border Wars Blog was one place that lead me to other blogs where people were fighting about why the LUAs were such a bad thing for the Dal breed. And really, I could not understand it.

The LUA site gives me this quote "News of registration of Dr. Schaible’s Dalmatians, cause a great deal of controversy. In 1984 a majority of Dalmatian Club of America members voted that they were opposed to registration of descendants of the Dalmatian-Pointer backcross. In response to that vote, the AKC put a hold on registration of any more Dalmatians from the line created by Dr. Schaible. DCA considered the matter closed and the subject was off limits at meetings and in the club magazine for the next 22 years."
And that was true, they could not even discuss it in meetings, however, I am glad that saner minds and burning passions for doing what was right for the breed prevailed, and though the Dalmatian CLUB still fought them, the LUA people went over their head to the AKC which is now allowing the LUAs to be registered.
And all I can say is thank god for that.

As for the tailless Boxers?
Here is what someone said "You see no matter how I look at it, to me those Boxers that were crossed with a corgi are not a true Boxer, they are a crossbreed."
Sounds like the LUA debate all over again.
In fact, one registry has gone so far as to say that boxers MUST be born WITH tails, and have the tails docked, or they will be denied registration. I am looking and cannot find it, but I believe it was the Germany Boxer Club.
Here is what someone else says..
"So is it morally correct to change a breed like that?
To me, it is altering an already established breed. It looks the same, but, clearly isn't.
I'm not disagreeing with the practice, I think they look spot on, and I dislike docking, so that is good
But it is not the same as an 'orginal' Boxer. It is now part corgi."

Even if the dog genetically is 99.98% boxer.. it is still a cross bred to them. Even though Animal Welfare laws are pushing the banning of docking and many people are decrying the loss of the look in certain breeds (Boxers, Rotts and Dobes for a few examples) because of the proposed ban on docking (which is a reality in some European nations)..
The interesting thing about the above comment is that first sentence. It looks the same, but clearly it isn't. I can't see how if it looks the same, it clearly isn't, especially as the bobtail Boxer has been winning in some shows, and the quality over each generation is improving.
Some people mentioned short legged, long fur boxers were a possibility, indicating their lack of canine genetics, as long fur and short leg are dominates, and so picking the long legged short coat pups eliminated that possibility in the first generation.

So cross breeding with purpose can be cone, and in some cases, it should be done. Pure breeding doesn't cause genetic disease, breeding within a closed registry, and concentration of genes through a small breeding pool , that is arbitrarily made smaller through human intervention and personal tastes (popular sire syndrome, anyone?).
I'd like to ask, was not the Cairn Terrier and the Westhighland White the same breed but for a difference in coat color, with the Cairn being a short coat version of the Skye terrier, and the Westie being the white version of the Cairn? I am not too sure about that, but I know once Norfolk and Norwich Terriers were once the same breed, being born in the same litter, the only difference being the prick ears of one, and the fold ears of another. And this was not so long ago.. In the 50's maybe?
Can I point out that the same was true of the Cocker and Springer spaniels, born in the same litter, but breed was determined by adult size, the little ones being Cockers, the larger being Springers.

In my opinion, there COULD be reputable cross breeders. They COULD work to the formation of a new breed. It has happened in the past, and it likely will happen again. If the Norfolk and the Norwich are the same breed, and they ARE, they have the SAME pedigrees, go back to the SAME dogs and at one time were born in the SAME litters. How am I cross breeding by putting the two together?
But there will be those that will say they are different breeds, they have been bred away from each other.. But again, HOW when they are the same breed not too long ago. If 50 years is enough to make two varieties of the same breed different breeds, then it should be enough to make the results of an outcross of one breed, when back bred into one of the parent breeds, a pure bred member of that parent breed.
But there will be people that are deeply opposed to this.

The artificial closed gene pool is the most detrimental thing to a dogs genetic health. This is when the idea of "purity" and sanctity of blood" gets taken to a new level, with the idea that some how a pure blood is better than a mixed bred. That some how all pure breds are better than mixed breds. Regardless of how carefully the crossbreds have been bred.

Even in this thread, I see that mindset popping up.
If some one deliberately crosses dogs, they are not a reputable breeder, yet here are two examples of crossings being done BY reputable breeders, who in at least one case, was also a mammalian geneticist, and was done for the betterment and improvement of the breeds long term health, and to stop the need for a procedure that many places have come to determine is cruel and unnecessary, preserving the ASCETIC nature of one breed.

Someone else pointed out the Black Russian Terrier, may I also point out the Sulimov Dog, which is another Russian breed, crossed with a JACKAL of all things.
Two other breeds spring to mind, the REAL Shiloh Shepherd, which requires not only health testing, but breed show placement in order to be bred, as well as not allowing people to just breed together two Shilohs willy-nilly.
This dog started as a GSD, but yes, it DID have crosses added to it. It is now it's own breed, though admittedly still in development.
The other would be the Canis Panther. Yes, that is the name, lol. As I recall it is a Dobe/Dane/Pit bull cross that over the last 40 years has been groomed into it's own breed, created by personal protection trainers for personal protection.

Why not do the same for companion dogs?
IF a breeder is willing to test for known genetic and structural issues within the parent breeds, and breed out and away from those problems, and IF the breeder is willing to do EVERYTHING that a reputable breeder of show animals is willing to to do, and IF there are a number of these people working together on a standard, as well as to increase available genetic lines, how are they not reputable.. because the dogs are mixed? They are not registered with a breed club?
All breeds have to start somewhere and there are many people that are working towards breed recognition within their cross.

Mind you, I am not talking about designer dogs.
Though I would not have a problem with that, IF someone would test their cross puppies for everything the parent breeds are known to have, and this is assuming the parent breeds are also tested clear for their breeds genetic and structural issues.
In the main, I am referring to people working together to create a new breed using crosses.
Some may think that is unethical. That people that do this are disreputable. And they are welcome to believe that.
I happen to feel that opening a gene pool, while testing for known problems within the parent breeds can only be a good thing for the resulting puppies IF people are willing to do that.
And there ARE people willing to do it.

[BarneyandBella]

Why is wanting a cross breed bad if you want to just love it as a pet? I understand if you want to show the dog or you love a certain breed. Isn't there a benefit to reducing an inheritable disease in a certain breed as well? I've heard dogs are breed not to inherit diseases but there are certain illnesses that can be inherited. I bought Bella from a breeder who has breed for 15 years and saw both mom and dad, the puppy before purchasing, and signed a health guarentee. She plans on even visiting Bella this thursday with her sister whom she's keeping. Bell is a shorkie and everyone thinks she's soooo adorable!

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by BarneyandBella

Why is wanting a cross breed bad if you want to just love it as a pet? I understand if you want to show the dog or you love a certain breed. Isn't there a benefit to reducing an inheritable disease in a certain breed as well? I've heard dogs are breed not to inherit diseases but there are certain illnesses that can be inherited. I bought Bella from a breeder who has breed for 15 years and saw both mom and dad, the puppy before purchasing, and signed a health guarentee. She plans on even visiting Bella this thursday with her sister whom she's keeping. Bell is a shorkie and everyone thinks she's soooo adorable!

What's bad about it is that you have no control over what genes the pups inherit. It's possible that you will end up with a pup that doesn't inherit a certain disease, but it's also just as likely that you end up with a pup that has inherited the worst diseases of both sides. It all depends on whether or not a disease is a dominant or recessive trait.

You also have no control over what the adult dog will look like. It can look more like the one side or the other or look nothing like either of them.

Reputable breeders aren't breeding for a pet market. They are breeding to improve the lines pure bred dog to get the healthiest and most close to ideal standard as possible. The world (and consequently the shelters) is full of these so called "hybrids" or "designer dogs" or "mutts", most here as a result of careless owners. A breeder who is trying to convince you that they are doing a service by purposely cross breeding is feeding you a line of bull. They are doing it for the dollars and nothing else.

[gracielove]

Originally Posted by pawever Yorkie

I'm pretty sure that there are some YT members who have yokrie cross.
Not all of them are from shelters, so where did you (yorkie mixed breed) get your baby? I feel like there should be something that we can do more than just tell people who wants yorkie cross, to go to theshelter, beacue most likely they'll go to the pet store instead...
My understanding is that many people who ask for yorkie cross in YT , feel like they are being attacked by YT members(although we tell them in the best interest of the furbaby). They get upset and log out and go to the pet store to get their cross breed. We want to stop people from going to the pet store, not make it as an only option... Is telling them that there's no reputable breeder who cross breed(which I agree) and telling them to go to the shelter are only answer for people who seek cross breed(if we can't change their mind from getting yorkie cross)?

I understand what you are saying. I don't know what the solution is. There is such a demand for small cute little dogs and there are not enough reputable breeders to meet the demand. Anyone who has bought from a reputable breeder knows that generally it means being on a waiting list and paying a decent amount of money. I am not in anyway against that but the public in general just want a pet for a reasonable amount of money and they don't want to wait a year for it. I am not saying that this is right but that is the way it is many times. Many years ago when I bought my Maltese from a show breeder my family about flipped out when they heard what I paid for her. To say I was shunned would be putting it lightly.
Personally, I would prefer that many people would never have a dog of any kind. I have seen way too many abused and neglected dogs to care about meeting the demand of the public. That still leaves us with the problem though. I would hope that when people come on YT looking for a mixed breed that the members would be polite and kind and yet explain to the person about puppy mills and about people who breed substandard dogs. It is an opportunity to educate a person on the horrors that occur when defects in a breed are brought forward. Millions of dogs are being put down daily in this country. There are rescue groups that help the morkies and shorkies and other mixed breeds and I think it would be a good idea to point those who ask in that direction. Maybe a list of various groups could be kept handy so the information could be given to people who are interested.

[autumn_girl]

I disagree with this. A good percentage of cats and dogs are a result of mixed breeding. The Yorkie itself is a mixed breed. In order to get a breed recognized, you have to mix, keeping the puppies with the characteristics that you feel would be good. Whether it be a strong personality, low shedding, or high energy. The people who breed animals in general (the "good" ones at least) do the same thing. They take the best of the litter and breed them with the best of another litter.
Overpopulation aside, all-in-all, they're just doing what any other "founder" of a breed has done. So I think, that yes, there can be a responsible cross breeder. If that breeder is in turn choosing the best of the litter and looking to make that breed better, then why would you say they're not responsible? Because they mixed two breeds together? Well, then I say that's bull!

[lillymae]

Have you all heard of petfinder.com ? WHY keep adding to the problem when shelters all over the world are FULL of perfectly fine cute little mixed breeds of which most will die because of ignorance.

[autumn_girl]

Originally Posted by lillymae

Have you all heard of petfinder.com ? WHY keep adding to the problem when shelters all over the world are FULL of perfectly fine cute little mixed breeds of which most will die because of ignorance.

I said overpopulation aside. And if you really think about it. I'm sure that puppies from breeders on here have had at least one of their puppys given up for adoption.
And some people don't want a "used (as I've seen it put before) dog." Granted, they're a hell of a lot cheaper from a shelter or the pound, but a lot of those dogs have problems with children, other animals, or have a severe health problem. And yes, I know, if you don't have hundreds of dollars to put aside for vet bills on the dog you already spent hundreds of dollars on to get, then why are you going to get a dog. Thus half the benefit from getting a puppy.
Don't get me wrong, I understand where everyone is coming from on here, but if it wasn't for the overpopulation, no one would have a problem with it. If you're really that worried about the overpopulation, why don't you do something about it, and start by not breeding your own animal. That would help too.

[DvlshAngel985]

I have one question to those that say that all purebreds are mutts. I agree that the yorkie is a descendant of the Scotch terriers (consisted of many breeds) there's no argument there. But, after a while you can't keep claiming a certain descent right?

For example, let's talk about people. I think I can claim Mexican heritage because both my parents were born and raised in Mexico. My grandparents, great grandparents, great great great grandparents, and great great great great grandparents were born and raised in Mexico. But, looking at genetics you can see there must be some Spanish blood in there somewhere. Can I claim Spanish heritage? Probably not. I know nothing of the customs, I don't have their sexy Spanish accent. I know that after a few generations, my children's, children's, children's wont have a connection to being Mexican.

Does it matter now that I'm 1/1563486 part Spanish? Argentinian, or whatever? Not really. I'm Mexican.

I think similarly it happens with pups. They at one point were Scotch Terriers mixed with, whatever. The original craftsmen of the breed bred for a reason. They wanted, well.... I can only guess what they wanted. A compact, fearless, dog to keep the rat population down.

Today, if someone was to mix a two breeds with a purpose, I have no problem with it. They need a smart dog to guide the blind, that is hypoallergenic and is easy to groom, then ok. Breed goldendoodles. (by the way, totally made the last part up. I don't know why people breed goldendoodles) But when you think of Morkies, what purpose is there? Just to have cute puppies?

For the record, mixed breeds dogs are as awesome as purebreds. They all deserve wonderful loving homes. Neither should be bred if not for the betterment of the breed.

Ha! I'm going to unsubscribe to this thread because it's just going to keep going in circles.

[RachelandSadie]

no such thing as a reputable "designer" breeder.

[Teresa Ford]

Breeding dogs deliberately, that are not the same breed, is extremely controversial. Having said that and wanting to continue this debate I would like to add some fuel to the fire. 1. If nobody wanted a dog that looked like a _____ people would stop breeding them. There has to be a market for a pet. 2. Without human design and controlled breeding programs, many dog breeds would not exist. 3. Why people may not want to adopt from a dog pound or humane shelter. Many dogs that end up there, are medium to large in size, the majority will weight over 20 lbs when full grown. Many dogs in the dog pound are already adults and come with established problems. A few common problems are, roaming, barking, jumping, digging,nipping, fighting, and not housebroken. Many dogs in the system are mixed breeds of unknown parentage, they are seldom a result of a deliberate breeding of two dogs chosen by a human. When a puppy mill, hoarder, or disaster happens and small dogs are put up for adoption, there will be more people interested, than dogs to adopt. 4. The American culture is changing, many people want smaller dogs and the demand is huge. Sadly like older children with special needs, older dogs are not often adopted quickly. The demand for healthy infants, both human and canine is greater. 5. Many people just want a healthy cute pet ( I am saying healthy with tongue in cheek, meaning without obvious deformity, or illness.) They are not interested breed purity, show quality, or even a breed standard. They don't know about good breeders, puppymills, or breed specific rescues. They buy a puppy because it is cute, available right now, and they can afford it. 6. As long as there are people who will buy mixed breed puppies, someone will breed them. Some of the people who breed mixed breed puppies are motivated to do so, because they love dogs and think that all their puppies will get good homes. And feel like making money off the puppies is an honest thing to do.