Reputable cross breeder?

[autumn_girl]

Originally Posted by 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?

Keeping in mind that I never said anything about purebreds being mutts, I just pointed out that in order to create a specific breed you mix other breeds. Thus using the Yorkie as an example. Especially since no one knows exactly what Yorkies are mixed with, they just have a general idea.
I guess it just depends how everyone looks at it. I myself don't have a problem with mix breeding, the "morkie" may be called something else in a few years, and may be an even better breed than that of the Yorkie and Maltese themselves. I just think that people who want a mixed breed should research what people already know about that breed, and that of the two it's mixed with.

To each their own.

[autumn_girl]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree with this completely!

[renee6645]

I'm not debating anything but truly want to have a better understanding of this issue. NO ONE gives free puppies. Whether it is pure-bred or a mix, there is always (almost always) a fee attached to owning a new pup. Why do breeders of pure-breds get a pass on that while breeders of mixed puppies are labeled as "making money off the puppies"? Everyone has the same expenses attached to breeding I suppose (vet bills, etc...) No?

[BarneyandBella]

The reason I fell in love with Bella, a shorkie, is that I loved the shih tzu's gentle, calm, friendly personality and the yorkie's endearing size, coloring and face. I don't care for the shih tzu's eye protrusion which causes it to have eye problems( I happen to be a eye tech). Bella has the yorkie eyes, is tri-colored and hoping for a calm, sweet disposition as adult because I want to train her to be a therapy dog. I bought her from Delmac puppies. Her name is rose and she referred me to this site.
She breeds yorkies, maltese, poodles and designer. It is her hobby and life. I paid higher than I'd like, but love, love this dog.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by renee6645

I'm not debating anything but truly want to have a better understanding of this issue. NO ONE gives free puppies. Whether it is pure-bred or a mix, there is always (almost always) a fee attached to owning a new pup. Why do breeders of pure-breds get a pass on that while breeders of mixed puppies are labeled as "making money off the puppies"? Everyone has the same expenses attached to breeding I suppose (vet bills, etc...) No?

Up until about 10 years ago, these so called "designer dogs" actually were given away free on the side of the road in front of Wally World, as they were considered "oops" litters. No one is giving pure bred breeders a free pass. In fact, many of them are breeding for exactly the same wrong reason as the the ones who purposely cross breed- $$$. There is no end goal of improving the lines or strengthening the breed. A truly reputable breeder whose goal is to improve the line is not making money off of their litters. They are spending far more than they bring in between vetting, testing and showing.

Originally Posted by autumn_girl

Keeping in mind that I never said anything about purebreds being mutts, I just pointed out that in order to create a specific breed you mix other breeds. Thus using the Yorkie as an example. Especially since no one knows exactly what Yorkies are mixed with, they just have a general idea.
I guess it just depends how everyone looks at it. I myself don't have a problem with mix breeding, the "morkie" may be called something else in a few years, and may be an even better breed than that of the Yorkie and Maltese themselves. I just think that people who want a mixed breed should research what people already know about that breed, and that of the two it's mixed with.

To each their own.

The original breeding to get what we consider "pure breds" was done very carefully in order to select and develop specific traits. It was also more than two breeds brought in to the mix. Records were kept and the crosses were bred to each other to further develop the lines. That's not happening with today's trend. You don't see these people breeding mix to mix because they know that they have zero control of what the outcome will be. They continue to take a pure yorkie and a pure maltese to create these "hybrid" dogs. Why? Because someone came up with the cutesy name "Morkie" which sounds a whole lot nicer than mutt.

I'm not knocking mixed breed dogs. 2 out of the 4 in my house are mixes and both of them came from rescues. What I do knock is people jumping on the "let's make a quick buck by throwing two dogs together to see who we can sucker" band wagon. I think it's very fair to say that you won't be seeing many of these breeders 10 years down the line because they will have moved on to the next quick buck trend.

[scrapindee]

I am just reading this now but I want to say that I think the title to this is an oxymoron--should not be used in the same sentence. There are way too many mixed breed dogs out there and so many of them land up in the pound because they don't grow up to be "real" yorkies. JMHO

[Belle Noir]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

The original breeding to get what we consider "pure breds" was done very carefully in order to select and develop specific traits. It was also more than two breeds brought in to the mix. Records were kept and the crosses were bred to each other to further develop the lines. That's not happening with today's trend. You don't see these people breeding mix to mix because they know that they have zero control of what the outcome will be. They continue to take a pure yorkie and a pure maltese to create these "hybrid" dogs. Why? Because someone came up with the cutesy name "Morkie" which sounds a whole lot nicer than mutt.

I'm not knocking mixed breed dogs. 2 out of the 4 in my house are mixes and both of them came from rescues. What I do knock is people jumping on the "let's make a quick buck by throwing two dogs together to see who we can sucker" band wagon. I think it's very fair to say that you won't be seeing many of these breeders 10 years down the line because they will have moved on to the next quick buck trend.

I have to politely disagree to some small extent.
It used to Farmer John had a good herder, Shep, and Farmer Brown had a good herder bitch, Gyp, and they decided to breed them to get good herder pups. Farmer Smith buys a Shep/Gyp pup, and raises it, and then breeds it to Farmer Gibbs dog who was bought at the fair and brought from out country by Trader Finch, who is a really good dog, even if they don't know exactly where it came from.
This is how it happened for hundred of years before anyone thought to keep a pedigree anywhere but in the head.
This is why most dog breeds do not have pedigrees that can be traced to before the 1850's at best. First because no one kept deep in depth pedigrees outside of the first couple generations, and that was in their head, and second, because few of the people that actually developed these breeds into working animals were literate.
Records were NOT kept, except as an after thought when the dog was sold of and the farmer goes, "Aye, and now that I remember, it's like that bearded collie of Farmer Reed might have bred this litter. We saw him sniffing around when her was on heat."
After the gentry, the "fancy" got a hold of these breeds, THAT was when records began to be kept. And ONLY because of the eugenic idea that pure dogs were.. well.. pure... and better, and above common mongrels. Records were not kept before there was anything to register the dogs with.
And a good number of the records that were kept were falsified, either through deliberate means, or by ignorance. I am recalled a sighhound blog (I want to say Desert Windhounds, but don't quote me). One dog was shown as a Saluki, a Persian Greyhound and an Afghan.

These dogs are a result of Form Follows Function.
No one said, Hmmm.. I do believe that a dog that is bred to do this should look like that (except in the English Bulldog). They bred a dog to herd, if the dog could not herd the dog was killed, and didn't breed.
As a result the dogs that herd began to all look a certain way physically.

They bred a dog to run fast. The dogs that could run fast were bred the ones that weren't were killed. As a result, dogs that are bred to run fast look a certain way.

They bred a dog to point. The ones that were good pointers were bred, the ones that weren't were killed. The good ones started to look a certain way.

This is through the history of the formation of most of our breeds.
THEN color began to matter to people. THEN muzzle length, and stop, and tail set. These were arbitrary things.
Look at a field setter and a bench setter and tell me again which is the purest form.
For me, it is the field setter. It's form follows it's function. It's not an artificial construct.

I believe that it is possible for someone to make a "Morkie" breed. Just as the Cooka-poo people have been working on their breed for a while. They have developed a standard. Have you seen their site?
Here is a quote in the standard section..
"SHOW STANDARDS: (planned for the future) will most likely judge 75% on disposition and health, 25% on physical. Additional points will be given to dogs that have proof of clearances for CERF and OFA certificates for hip dysplasia, patellar luxation and elbows."

Wow, I wish the AKC would do this. I wish the AKC would require certain tests on any breed with a predisposition towards a certain genetic or structural issue, and refuse to issue registration on pups of dogs that have not had those tests done.
But they're just a registry, as they themselves would say.

What people are saying is this. If I join the Cockapoo Club of America, and began to breed Cockapoos.. EVEN THOUGH they have a standard, and a registry and a cold of ethics, BECAUSE someone has decided that I am only breeding for the money, or because the puppies are cute, in their opinion, I am not reputable.
Even if I am only doing 1 generation crosses. Even if I test for all the problems that Maltese and Yorkies have, even if I have a guarantee that rivals that of the top Maltese and Yorkie breeders in the world..
THAT is what I mean by this purity is all mindset that some people have, and I don't understand.

As for the number of cute crossbred dogs looking for homes in the shelter. They have to come from somewhere. If it's a top of the line pet quality puppy stolen before they could be sterilized, or someone that decided they didn't care if the paperwork was limited or not, or the survivor of a designer dog puppymill, they come from somewhere.

The fact of the matter is people want puppies. And would it not be better to be a GOOD supplier of healthy dogs, to be with your customers until the puppy dies of old age, to provide that need, rather than say no matter how good a breeder you are, no matter how clean, how healthy, how much time and effort you put into your litters, you suck if you deliberately cross breed?

If people WANTED pure bred dogs, they would by them. That people are willing to put more out for "designer dog" says a lot about the state of pure breeders today. The number one reason people say this is because "mutts are healthier", and that they have the impression show people are breeding for looks regardless of the health of the dog.

Last of all, the ONLY reason a "designer dog" breeder may make more money, is because people are willing to pay more. If I am a reputable breeder of Yorkies and Maltese.. And I never cross my dogs, I do all the tests, and so forth, and barely break even on my litters... Am I to have sour grapes because someone who puts the same work into their dogs that I do, does the same tests, have the same contracts and so on, but makes more money off their pups because they cross their Maltese and Yorkies?

How can I say they are not reputable, JUST BECAUSE they are not producing registered show quality dogs?

[MikaTallulah]

I could be wrong but all dog breeds were at some point crossed with another breed to create a new breed. The yorkie is a cross of several breeds for it's creation. Believed combinations per AKC website are several other terrier breeds. New breeds would not exist if breeders did not cross breeds with a purpose to IMPROVE the dog.

I would never pay a higher price or even the same price for a mixed breed as a purebred.

We should support others not cut them down.

[Teresa Ford]

Thank You #157 you have some good insight. I have learned a great deal about what people think. About having puppies LOL you are so right, I rarely break even, let alone make a profit. I only breed about one litter a year (yes they are AKC Yorkies). These are my pets and I am not a kennel. If I didn't groom, pet sit, walk, teach puppy classes, sew doggie stuff and write, I would not be able to keep them in way they are accustomed to, Ilove my little divas and prince so they are worth it.

[Valenie]

I know it makes me sick because the pet shop her advertise the crosses and sell them for 150-400$ and ppl here just eat them up.

[MyTrixie143]

Hmm, I was debating whether to post or not.

I own 2 yorkiepoos that I love dearly. I got one from a breeder and yes I would do it again (though not that same breeder). Rescuing is great and I fully support it but for me I like to meet the parents, know the background plus I most likely have the advantage of not getting a dog with issues. To me there is a huge difference between a mutt and a cross breed. A mutt is a dog with unknown parentage, it could be mixed with who knows how many different breeds which of course leads to unknown possible inherited diseases. A crossbreed is deliberately mixed with just two breeds, you still have a much better idea of what to possibly expect opposed to a mutt.

I happen to love the yorkiepoo cross. It has resulted in both mine being, energetic and very intelligent (inherited from the poodle side). I love my yorkies but wish they had the intelligence of my yorkiepoos, they are just so much smarter.

I do believe there is such a thing as a reputable cross breeder but I believe it is rare. Someone who studies the pedigrees of both dogs, tests for both breeds genetic diseases, has a set standard even if it is their own, a great health guarantee, etc. But this is usually not the case. Most just breed for money and will breed anything together and don't care what happens to the pups later on. But then again many who have purebreds are the same way.

I at one time wanted to breed yorkiepoos. Not for money but because I truly loved this cross and wanted others to experience it as well. If you met my two you would understand.
I decided not to because I wanted to focus on my yorkies. But I did have one unplanned litter. I tested the parents, knew their backgrounds, pedigree, etc. Of course once I decided not to go ahead with it we end up with a litter anyways. This was right before they were spayed/neutered.
We had 4 pups. Based on the parents and their backgrounds and watching the pups grow I had a very good idea of how they would end up looking and I was actually right.
I sold 3 of the pups with a health guarantee and on spay/neuter contracts with all the same rules as with my yorkies. Oh and no I didn't charge an outrageous price for them. They were less than half of what I sold my yorkies for but you still have to charge for all the testing, vet care, etc to break even. I interviewed many potential owners and yes I did turn some away. They didn't leave until after atleast 12 weeks old. I also have in my contract that they are not allowed to sell, give away or abandon the dogs at any time. So I know these pups won't end up in a shelter so no I didn't add to the overpopulation of dogs. The 4th pup I kept. To this day I still get updates on them, all are healthy spayed/neutered and I have had many many more requests for more. I actually had more requests for the yorkiepoos than the yorkies at the time. And wouldn't you know, all the pups are very intelligent, I love hearing their stories.

But I guess I would be considered unreputable for having a litter of yorkiepoos. Even though I did everything else right, it is just because they weren't show worthy or able to be AKC registered.

I totally get why most are against cross breeds. Most people who are breeding them are doing it with poor intentions and poor ethics, are adding to the overpopulation of dogs in shelters and should not be supported. But I can't see lumping everyone into that category when they try to do everything the right way.

[MyTrixie143]

Originally Posted by Valenie

I know it makes me sick because the pet shop her advertise the crosses and sell them for 150-400$ and ppl here just eat them up.

Wow no wonder people are buying them up so quick. Around here crosses in pet stores are twice to three times more expensive. It truly baffles my mind when they price them almost the same as the purebreds. A friend of mine bought a cockapoo from a pet store for $800. I think you can get a purebred cocker from a good breeder for that price or less. Unfortunately I didn't know her at the time or I would have told her about pet stores.

[lillymae]

Originally Posted by 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.

Keep in mind that those shelter dogs with behavioral problems are Most of the time as easily trained as the puppy you get from a breeder of mutts , designer dogs or purebreds. The majority of those shelter dogs are simply the victims of Bad owners who never bothered to properly train their pet and the majority that stray & roam only do so to find the Love their Bad owner did not give once that cute little puppy grew up at which time the dog was thrown out in the yard & thrown food , usually once a day & that was the extent of the dogs human contact. Remember that dogs are pack animals & when they are separated from that pack they will & Need to find another as they do not like to be alone.
I have had many shelter dogs in my life , of all ages & all were very good dogs & easily trained and/or broke of any bad habits they had when I adopted them. Also shelter dogs are very grateful & eager to please. I really feel it is important to stress this as way too many people are under the assumption that shelter dogs are nothing but rejects & this is so far from the truth, in fact just the opposite & it was their owner that was the reject.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by Belle Noir

I have to politely disagree to some small extent.
It used to Farmer John had a good herder, Shep, and Farmer Brown had a good herder bitch, Gyp, and they decided to breed them to get good herder pups. Farmer Smith buys a Shep/Gyp pup, and raises it, and then breeds it to Farmer Gibbs dog who was bought at the fair and brought from out country by Trader Finch, who is a really good dog, even if they don't know exactly where it came from.
This is how it happened for hundred of years before anyone thought to keep a pedigree anywhere but in the head.
This is why most dog breeds do not have pedigrees that can be traced to before the 1850's at best. First because no one kept deep in depth pedigrees outside of the first couple generations, and that was in their head, and second, because few of the people that actually developed these breeds into working animals were literate.
Records were NOT kept, except as an after thought when the dog was sold of and the farmer goes, "Aye, and now that I remember, it's like that bearded collie of Farmer Reed might have bred this litter. We saw him sniffing around when her was on heat."
After the gentry, the "fancy" got a hold of these breeds, THAT was when records began to be kept. And ONLY because of the eugenic idea that pure dogs were.. well.. pure... and better, and above common mongrels. Records were not kept before there was anything to register the dogs with.
And a good number of the records that were kept were falsified, either through deliberate means, or by ignorance. I am recalled a sighhound blog (I want to say Desert Windhounds, but don't quote me). One dog was shown as a Saluki, a Persian Greyhound and an Afghan.

These dogs are a result of Form Follows Function.
No one said, Hmmm.. I do believe that a dog that is bred to do this should look like that (except in the English Bulldog). They bred a dog to herd, if the dog could not herd the dog was killed, and didn't breed.
As a result the dogs that herd began to all look a certain way physically.

They bred a dog to run fast. The dogs that could run fast were bred the ones that weren't were killed. As a result, dogs that are bred to run fast look a certain way.

They bred a dog to point. The ones that were good pointers were bred, the ones that weren't were killed. The good ones started to look a certain way.

This is through the history of the formation of most of our breeds.
THEN color began to matter to people. THEN muzzle length, and stop, and tail set. These were arbitrary things.
Look at a field setter and a bench setter and tell me again which is the purest form.
For me, it is the field setter. It's form follows it's function. It's not an artificial construct.

I believe that it is possible for someone to make a "Morkie" breed. Just as the Cooka-poo people have been working on their breed for a while. They have developed a standard. Have you seen their site?
Here is a quote in the standard section..
"SHOW STANDARDS: (planned for the future) will most likely judge 75% on disposition and health, 25% on physical. Additional points will be given to dogs that have proof of clearances for CERF and OFA certificates for hip dysplasia, patellar luxation and elbows."

Wow, I wish the AKC would do this. I wish the AKC would require certain tests on any breed with a predisposition towards a certain genetic or structural issue, and refuse to issue registration on pups of dogs that have not had those tests done.
But they're just a registry, as they themselves would say.

What people are saying is this. If I join the Cockapoo Club of America, and began to breed Cockapoos.. EVEN THOUGH they have a standard, and a registry and a cold of ethics, BECAUSE someone has decided that I am only breeding for the money, or because the puppies are cute, in their opinion, I am not reputable.
Even if I am only doing 1 generation crosses. Even if I test for all the problems that Maltese and Yorkies have, even if I have a guarantee that rivals that of the top Maltese and Yorkie breeders in the world..
THAT is what I mean by this purity is all mindset that some people have, and I don't understand.

As for the number of cute crossbred dogs looking for homes in the shelter. They have to come from somewhere. If it's a top of the line pet quality puppy stolen before they could be sterilized, or someone that decided they didn't care if the paperwork was limited or not, or the survivor of a designer dog puppymill, they come from somewhere.

The fact of the matter is people want puppies. And would it not be better to be a GOOD supplier of healthy dogs, to be with your customers until the puppy dies of old age, to provide that need, rather than say no matter how good a breeder you are, no matter how clean, how healthy, how much time and effort you put into your litters, you suck if you deliberately cross breed?

If people WANTED pure bred dogs, they would by them. That people are willing to put more out for "designer dog" says a lot about the state of pure breeders today. The number one reason people say this is because "mutts are healthier", and that they have the impression show people are breeding for looks regardless of the health of the dog.

Last of all, the ONLY reason a "designer dog" breeder may make more money, is because people are willing to pay more. If I am a reputable breeder of Yorkies and Maltese.. And I never cross my dogs, I do all the tests, and so forth, and barely break even on my litters... Am I to have sour grapes because someone who puts the same work into their dogs that I do, does the same tests, have the same contracts and so on, but makes more money off their pups because they cross their Maltese and Yorkies?

How can I say they are not reputable, JUST BECAUSE they are not producing registered show quality dogs?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

[Belle Noir]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.