Reputable cross breeder?

[Teresa Ford]

[QUOTE=lillymae;3630341]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.[/QUOTE

I absolutely agree ! I have dealt with rescues for years. (I even kept two myself, because I fell so in love with them.) I wish everyone looking for a pet would check with local shelters, and rescues first. My SUV has a magnetic sign that says You Can Adopt Your Best Friend Today!
My bumper sticker says : Want to Live longer ?
Adopt a pet at the ASPCA

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by Belle Noir

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.



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.



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.



Oh I agree with you 100% here



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.

I don't think you understand the purpose of showing a dog. It's not to see who has the prettiest bitch or stud. It's to assure that you are breeding the best of the stock. It's not a "bonus" to have genetic testing as well as hips/knees/ eyes checked and certified- it's a bare minimum.

As far as breed clubs and registries,I do believe that the AKC is the only reputable registry in the USA. At this point, the AKC has zero plans to admit any new "breeds".

I think you have a problem with reading. I said quite clearly that not all breeders of pure breds are ethical or reputable either. Simply put, if ANY breeder isn't breeding for the betterment of the RECOGNIZED BREED, then they are no better than the greeder who purposely crosses breeds to fulfill a pet market.


Now, I'm done with this topic. I'm sure this would bring up an interesting debate over on the Maltese boards, too.

[Belle Noir]

That is a fallacious argument. Because you don't agree with my position, I must not know what showing is all about.

Rest assured, I DO know the purpose of showing a dog. Just because I am new to yorkies doesn't mean I am new to dogs. In my breed, I have shown, had top winning dogs, and mentored many people in showing.
I just have never shown AKC, which is a whole different bag of politics, lol.
I began when I was 10, had to stop when I was 28, and at 35, I am beginning again in a new venue, but that doesn't mean I have lost what I have learned.

Let's be VERY blunt

Showing dogs IS all about the ribbons. It's ALL about who has the prettiest dog.
You can say it's not, but the simple FACT that NO dog has to produce a SINGLE health test in order to get it's championship shows that it is.
OTHERWISE, the AKC could simply make it a rule.
Your dog doesn't get point credit for the next year of shows until you provide a CERF for that dog.
Your dog cannot be awarded championship, unless your dog is HD fair or better.
The AKC COULD implement ANY rule it wanted about REQUIRING minimal health tests for the diseases a breed is known for, before allowing that dog to have it's championship acknowledged, but it won't.
Because in the end, it's ALL about who has the dog that best fits it's standard, and NOT about the genetic health of the dog, OR of the breed.
That is where we breeders who truly care about our breed, short and long term comes in.
WE are the ones that decided, no, we're not going to breed defective dogs. We are going to breed the best to the best, and that includes GENETIC best. And ANYONE that does not do the best they can for their future breeding stock by testing their dogs, and eliminating from the gene pool genetic defects, or worse, deliberately breed together dogs that you KNOW will produce genetic defects.. Even if that genetic defect produces award winning top of the line show pups.. is NOT in ANY way a reputable, OR ethical breeder, even if they are not breaking any of their club rules.

The AKC doesn't ask for, or require any health tests to be done on any dog that it registers or issues championship certificates for. The ONLY thing it issues certs for are the dogs that... what?
Are the best representatives of their breed according to their breed standard (or current fad), and THAT is all about what dog is the prettiest.

You say
"At this point, the AKC has zero plans to admit any new "breeds"

Check out the AKC Miscellaneous class.
Chinook
And in their own breed club
Chinook Cross Breeding Program
From the Wiki
The registry has a cross-breeding program under which Chinooks are bred to individuals of other breeds thought to have contributed to Chinook development; fourth-generation backcross descendants of such crosses may be accepted as UKC purebred Chinooks if they meet the Chinook Owner Association's CrossBreeding Program requirements.

Granted that is UKC, I am sure the AKC has closed their studbooks now.

Also
The Dogo. Which is very much a crossed bred dog.

And looking at the FSS
Czechoslovakian Vlcak
From the wiki
The Czechoslovakian Wolfdog is a relatively new breed of dog that traces its original lineage to an experiment conducted in 1955 in Czechoslovakia. After initially breeding 48 working line German Shepherd Dogs with 5 Eurasian wolves, a plan was worked out to create a wolf-dog hybrid that would have the temperament, pack mentality, and trainability of the German Shepherd Dog and the strength, physical build, and stamina of the Eurasian wolf. The breed was engineered to assist with border patrol in Czechoslovakia but were later also used in search and rescue, schutzhund, tracking, herding, agility, obedience, and drafting.

So the AKC has in it's FSS a breed that is nothing more than a GSD/Wolf cross from an experiment beginning 1955.

The Eurasier
From the wiki
Eurasiers originated in Germany in 1960, when the founder, Julius Wipfel, set out together with Charlotte Baldamus and a small group of enthusiasts to create a breed with the best qualities of the Chow Chow and the Wolfspitz. The initial combination of the breeds resulted in what was first called "Wolf-Chow" and then, twelve years later, after crossing with a Samoyed, was renamed "[Eurasier]" (Eurasian) and recognized by the FCI in 1973.

Miniature American Shepherd
From the parent club site MASCUSA
"The Miniature American Shepherd Club of the USA (MASCUSA) was selected in May 2011 as the parent club of the Miniature American Shepherd for the American Kennel Club. The breed was formed by a split of the Australian Shepherd breed in AKC, and the incorporation of dogs previously known as Miniature Australian Shepherds and also known as North American Shepherds. MASCUSA was originally known as the Miniature Australian Shepherd Club of the USA, and then the North American Miniature Australian Shepherd Club of the USA, and was founded in 1990 as original parent club for the Miniature Australian Shepherd"

Russian Toy
American Kennel Club - Russian Toy History
The Wiki
"Towards the start of the 20th century, the English Toy Terrier was one of the most popular toy dog breeds in Russia. Between 1920 and 1950, their numbers were greatly diminished following the October Revolution as these types of dogs were linked to the aristocracy and frowned upon. When the breeding was re-started almost all of the dogs used had no pedigrees or were even purebred.
The original long haired Russkiy is considered to be a dog named Chikki who was born on 12 October 1958 from two smooth haired terriers. One its parents had no recorded pedigree, but had slightly longer hair than normal. Chikki was mated with a female named Irma, who had longer hair than normal and together they had three long haired puppies."

This is just from me checking out the Miscellaneous class and FSS dogs on the AKC site, and pointing out breed I myself knew to be relatively new and crossbred dogs.
So I then would ask you, when does a "breed" not become new any longer?
I again point to the Cockpoo Club of America Cockapoo Club of America
On theior first page they state
"The Cockapoo Club of America is dedicated to protecting and promoting this superior hybrid, encouraging and supporting its members and member breeders, and to preserving and perpetuating the Cockapoo as a breed unto its own. We do this by educating both the public and breeders, and encouraging meticulous breeding standards of successive generations."

I may disagree with their subject statement of it being a "superior hybrid" but I cannot find fault with that, especially when you look further down and see..
"Breeders are being encouraged to produce successive generations and to keep detailed breeding records that will be able to stand the scrutiny required for our upcoming registry. "

And indeed, you have a few people working on 3rd and 4th generations, as they should, to produce a new breed. Again, I cannot find fault with that, as they are beginning to put together their blueprint of a new breed, working on a standard, and beginning to register their dogs and pedigrees.
At what point do these hybrids become a new breed in of themselves? My mother was born 1955. She grew up with a Cockapoo by the name of Curly. Both his mother and father were Cockapoos. When I was very very young my godmother, who grew up with my mother (they are like sisters) had a dog that was a direct descendent of Curly, (who Aunt Kitten also grew up with). This dog, whose name I cannot for the life of me remember, was born from multi generations of cockapoos.
At what point are they not just designer dogs and are a breed unto themselves?
That is what the Cockapoo Club of America is working towards.

As for your last comment..
"I'm sure this would bring up an interesting debate over on the Maltese boards, too."
In other words, you are implying that I am myself one of the people that would cross breed yorkies and maltese, because IMO, I think that there are people that can do it, do it right, and still be reputable, or ethical?
If not, why would you suggest I take my opinions to the Maltese boards?

What is seems to me, is that you are discounting everything that I have to say, because you have wrongly come to the conclusion that I am a "designer dog greeder".
Instead, I am one that stands outside the box, I come to my own conclusions after researching on my own, I don't follow trend, I don't care about fads.
And I am not one to condemn people because they do not do what I would have them do.

I have already shown how we have well known recognized breeds that have split into their own breeds, and I have shown how the AKC IS indeed recognizing (relatively) new breeds or at least working towards that (with FSS recognition).

I stand by my opinion.
IF a person is doing ALL the needed health tests for the parent breeds. IF that person carefully screens their buys.
IF someone has a lifetime return policy for their pups.
IF they have REAL health guarantees on their pups.
IF they are doing EVERYTHING that a reputable breeder of show dogs is doing, EXCEPT they are crossing their dogs, and thus, they cannot have show dogs...
How are they not a reputable breeder.

Your answer is because they are not bettering a show breed. I understand your point. I just don't happen to agree.

[ASTPhi877]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well said!!!!

[chachi]

Why do we need more mixed breeds when there are tons dying in shelters daily. How can a cross breeder be considered reputable when they dont even consider that fact. Show breeders are breeding to better the breed. Cross breeders are breeding to supply the latest trend

[LDMomma]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

The reason crosses will never be accepted by reputable breeders is that there is zero chance of controlling what the final genetic makeup will be. My neighbor paid thousands for a malti-poo because she wanted a little soft coated white dog that wouldn't shed, and that's what the breeder told her she would get. Now, Bailey is adorable, but she has coarse curly hair that sheds like crazy. They love her to pieces (as do we-she's Rhett's 'girlfriend'), but she isn't even close to what they were promised. They'll keep her no matter what because they are responsible people- but how many others out there wouldn't? We also have another family in my GS troop that recently purchased a labradoodle. They are already considering giving it away because of the shedding issue.

A thousand times YES.

I have a Shorkie (Shih tzu/Yorkie cross) from a breeder. My MIL has her litter mate. The two dogs are the exact opposites of each other. One is 7 pounds, my Lily is almost 14 pounds. One has a shih tzu snout, the other the Yorkie snout, their temperment and energy level are opposites. They are nothing alike. How can someone want a "Shorkie" when they have no clue what the dog will actually look/act like?

[gracielove]

There is a problem with closed gene pools in the purebred community of dogs there is no doubt about that. Much of the problem has been caused by those who have been inbreeding dogs to concentrate on a particular feature of a dog that has become popular to make larger or smaller. However, that has little to do with the problem at hand concerning the crossing of one purebred with a whole other breed of purebred. It is not being done to add a new pool of genes to either breed. It is being done to meet a demand for small fluffy little dogs in the market place. For the most part puppy mills are responsible for meeting this popular market and for the most part the puppies are being sold to people who have little knowledge or honest affection for the dog. Many live horrible lives either in the owners home or they are disposed of in one awful way or another.
I know some have gone to wonderful loving homes and to people that take care of them, however, the point is this "cross breeding" is being done for profit and not for the good of either breed.

[Belle Noir]

@chachi

Please define for me "bettering the breed".
I ask, because I pointed out the collie breeder who to their mind, and the mind of the collie community was bettering the breed by producing dogs that better fit the Collie standard.. By using a dog that was bred KNOWING that 25% of the litter would be blind and deaf. There was only one puppy, blind, and deaf that the breeding produced.
To the Collie club, his breeder is a reputable, ethical breeder, because they didn't break any rules.
This dog blind and deaf double merle dog has produced the number 1 collie in America at one time. His progeny and their progeny are show stopping champion winners. They HAVE improved the breed to their mind.
And these are people that are "active in the Collie breed for over twenty years.... kennel is comprised of top Champion & National Specialty-winning breeding stock with an emphasis on health, temperament and breed type. .... Collies are bred to exude a picture of breathtaking elegance, and possess physical soundness and exquisite head qualities, including the melting "Collie Expression"."
But I consider the breeder of this collie to be no better than any puppy mill churning out hundreds of poorly bred, ill puppies.

I could use the PETA argument how can a show breeder be reputable, when every pet quality puppy they breed and sell takes a home away from a shelter dog.
But we know that is ridiculous.
If someone wants a yorkie, they want a yorkie, if they want a yorkie puppy, they go to a breeder (cause we're not likely to find them in the shelter). If they want a Lab, they want a Lab. If they want a Morkie, a Shorkie, or a Labradoodle, that is what they want.
The DD greeders didn't create the demand, the demand was there, all they did was create the supply.
NOT that I find that ethical or reputable. Dogs are NOT a commodity, nor should they be treated like one.

And I go back to my statement. Not ALL cross breeders are breeding to fill a demand. MOST of them, I can agree, YES, they ARE. But I am not going to say ALL of them, because the fact is neither you, or I know everyone that is cross breeding their dogs, nor do we know their motivations.
MOST of them, yes I am sure MOST of them are in it for the money. But I have found proof that ALL of them are NOT. I have found proof that SOME are indeed crossing their dogs to create a new breed, and are working on a standard, and a registry, and encouraging generational breedings. That they are as careful as any of the top show breeders in who gets their puppies, they do the same tests that reputable breeders do. The ONLY difference is that they are not breeding pure bred dogs, and that to some peoples minds make them less than ethical. Less than reputable. Because they chose to work on the creation of formation of a new breed, rather than "stick with" the breeds that are already available.

There is no difference between these people and the people that formed any of the new breeds that the AKC is in the process of recognizing. Yes, DD greeders are different in that they are for the most part, only breeding the one generation crosses and only doing it for the money.
But IF there are breeders that are doing the correct health tests for the parent breeds, and IF they have iron clad contracts that rivals anything thing that a reputable breeder may use, and IF they guarantee the health on their pups the way a reputable breeder would, I cannot say that they are NOT reputable, just because they are crossing their dogs for a market.
YES DD breeders like this WOULD be few and far inbetween. I confess I do not know anyone that meets this criteria. But I cannot say that there isn't one, and I cannot in good conscious call them a bad breeder if they are doing everything right, other than breed pure bred dogs to a standard.
Dogs dying in shelters not withstanding.
As I said before, I could take the same position that PETA takes that EVERY pet quality puppy sold by a reputable breeder also takes a home away from a shelter dog. And again, we both know that would be a ridiculous statement.

@LDMomma
I actually agree with you.
But my point was about when people are breeding crosses into a breed type. No, there will not be any kind of consistency within one generation. It takes a minimum of 4 generations to even have what one would consider a true breeding "line" within a pure breed.
Speaking of labradoodles, the original labradoodles were indeed bred to be non shedding, and low allergen, with the pups being tested for allergen levels. I am pretty certain this information I got over 10 years ago, from the Australian Labradoodle site, but I cannot prove it.
And yes, things have changed since I found that information (which came from me looking to persuade a friend from getting a labradoodle).
However, there is a Labradoodle club, they have a standard, they have multi generational labradoodles.. Australian Labradoodle Association
And yes, this is VERY different then crossing a poodle and a Lab and saying hey, I have labradoodle pups!!!
But there will be people that say even though these people are working towards creating a breed, even though they are doing everything right, because they are not working within AKC aegis, they are unethical and disreputable.

@gracielove

I agree with you all that MOST of the dogs being bred for the designer dog craze are being bred by greeders.
I agree that cross breeding does nothing to help the parent breed gene pools.

What I cannot agree with is the blanket statement that has been made again and again that anyone that cross breeds dogs is not reputable, so matter what they do. That the simple fact that they have crossed bred dogs, no matter what their reasons, no matter what tests they have done, no matter what contracts and guarantees they have, they cannot and will not ever be an ethical or reputable breeder because they crossbreed dogs.
I am not FOR the crossing of dogs, especially not to meet the designer dog craze. But I am not going to say that everyone that cross breeds their dogs are unethical or disreputable.
And that is what I cannot agree with. And that is what I have been arguing against.

And for the record, I have only had two cross bred litters in my life. One was when I cared for a stray female dog that made my house a part of her feeding rounds who decided to whelp her litter under my shed when I was 10-11 years old.
The other litter wasn't exactly my fault. I sold a female on breeders terms and she was bred to MY male, and some how, she was left alone with the owners male when she was returned home. No one saw them breed, but it was possible.
That litter had to be DNA tested so I could be assured of the true parentage of the pups. It was a headache and a half, and should not have happened. I blame myself, because I should have kept the bitch on hand until I knew for sure she was out of heat, especially knowing that they had an intact male. I didn't, I paid for it.

[Ringo1]

I will fully disclose that I did not read this entire thread!

But didn't I read an article somehwere that the guy who 'created' the labradoodle - greatly now wishes he had not?

Gotta find it.

[gracielove]

Belle Noir: Since you admit that the person who is cross breeding for the true purpose of creating a breed may not even exist right now it seems you are arguing against the idea that anyone would dare to pronounce an absolute statement that there is no one cross breeding for the right purposes. It seems that the principle of absolutes bothers you and it has little to do with the dog breeding business at all.
You say you don't know if any "reputable" cross breeding program is going on right now. The fact is that even if there were such a program it is highly unlikely that any reputable registry would consider allowing any of these breeds for consideration with the misuse of breeding that is going on in this country and in the world. To do so would just increase the level of abuse we have already.

[Ringo1]

Found it!

Labradoodle Creator Has Massive Regrets Over the Craze He Started - Paw Nation

[Belle Noir]

Gracielove, I NEVER said "the person who is cross breeding for the true purpose of creating a breed may not even exist right now", so please don't misrepresent my words.
In fact, if you have read my posts, I have pointed out again and again where there ARE people that are cross breeding for the purpose of creating a new breed.
I have pointed out the Labradoodle, the Cockapoo, the Canis Panther, the Shiloh Shepherd and even several cross breeds that have recently gained AKC affiliation either through FSS or have been accepted into the Miscellaneous Class.

What I DID said is
"But IF there are breeders that are doing the correct health tests for the parent breeds, and IF they have iron clad contracts that rivals anything thing that a reputable breeder may use, and IF they guarantee the health on their pups the way a reputable breeder would, I cannot say that they are NOT reputable, just because they are crossing their dogs for a market.
YES DD breeders like this WOULD be few and far inbetween. I confess I do not know anyone that meets this criteria."

THIS was in regards to the designer dogs, and I would assume that as I had pointed out both the cockapoo and the labradoodle, that people would be cognizant of the fact that I was NOT referring to those two DD crosses.
I would also add that I meant I do not PERSONALLY know anyone crossbreeding any dogs. I can honestly say I do not know anyone that is breeding English Pointers with the express purpose of bettering the breed, and that statement would still hold true, as I do not personally know anyone that is breeding English Pointers, reputable, ethical or otherwise.

There are two salient points to this debate. First is the question brought up by the OP, which was
"However, is it really impossible to find some breeder who has been cross breeding certain breed for long enough time(invest enough time educating oneself to insure quality of mixed breed) to be not considered as unethical breeder?"

MOST of the people answered with an emphatic no, they are and will always be unethical, simply because they are cross breeding dogs.
When the hypothesis of a DD breeder that is doing all the correct and needed tests of the parent breeds was brought up, again, the answer was an emphatic no, they will always be unethical and disreputable because they are breeding crossbred, no matter what kind of tests, no matter what kind of contract, no matter what kind of guarantee, because the pups they produce are not being produced to better the breed.

Someone brought up that all breeds had to come from somewhere, and all our dogs are crossbreeds to some extent in the beginning history of our breeds, and the reply given was that the cross breeders are not working towards a breed goal, and that the AKC isn't recognizing crossbreeds.

To which I pointed out the different cross breeds that are working toward breed recognition, as well as breeds that fairly recently were crossbreds that have gained recognition of some kind within the AKC.

And this is why, yes, I have an issue with "absolute statements", especially when a little bit of google shows the inaccuracy of those absolute statements.
But again, please do not misrepresent what I say. People can "dare" to make any pronouncement they care to. I am not one to quash intellectual debate. However, when one is making absolute statements, there is always going to be the exception to the rule, and if one is prone to making absolute statements, one must be willing to defend those statements with more than just emotion.
And that is why it behooves anyone debating for or against a stance to carefully consider the implications of their words.

The fact is, IF I were a DD breeder, that went above and beyond in health tests, contracts and guarantees on my parents and pups, I have been condemned, because someone DOESN'T LIKE what I am doing, because 1) I am cross breeding, 2) my dogs cannot be registered (unless they're labradoodles or cockapoos), and because 3) I am not bettering any breed, (see point 2), which goes back to because they don't like what I am doing.
NOT because I am producing genetically defective dogs, Not because my puppies are unhealthy, not because my buyers are not carefully screened, not because I am a puppy peddler.. But because some people don't LIKE what I am doing.

And as for a reputable registry allowing these breeds. I already pointed out the Eurasier, the Miniature American Shepherd and the Russian Toy, which has the misfortune of being exactly the kind of dog people are looking for AND rare to boot attaining FSS with the AKC.

The rest of that is a subjective statement, and I don't see what facts they are based on. The AKC is only a dog registry. They have said that time and again themselves. If they can get another breed in their books that meets their pedigree and standard requirements, rest assured, they WILL register it. Otherwise the hybrid WOLF DOG breed they have accepted into their FSS program would NOT have been accepted.
Have you SEEN the FSS/Miscellaneous Class list?
Close to 60 breeds, and several I can anticipate a lot of potential for abuse. Specifically the Coton de Tulear and Bolognese (both small white and fluffy!!!), the Russian Terrier (small and feathered almost like a Papillon ), the Dogo (looks like a white pit, but it's not), the Canary Dog (Presa Canario), and the Tosa (Japanese Fight Dog) among them. I also have some concerns for the Pumi, the Rat Terrier, and the Russell Terrier.

I HIGHLY doubt the AKC is going to say even though you have created a breed from these crosses, even though you have a standard and this breed is breeding true to the standard, even though you have a breed club, and pedigrees on this breed, you have created for 50 years/25 generations (assuming 2 years per generation), and it is recognized with the UKC, the ARBA, or the FCI, we're not going to recognize this breed with FSS status because people might abuse these dogs by over breeding them.

@Ringo, in that link, did you see this? "I don't regret the dog, not for the purpose I bred it for," Wally Conron tells Paw Nation, "I regret all the people who got on the bandwagon willy-nilly. People who are breeding poodle crosses for the money, who have no concern for parentage."

It's not the dogs, it's the crazed DD GREEDERS that he has a problem with.
And that is where I think we all agree. There are far too many people breeding these designer dogs for the money, and most of them do zero health tests on their stock, producing poorly bred puppies, in terrible conditions and they don't care.
These people shouldn't be allowed to breed feeder guppies, let alone dogs.

[concretegurl]

What a touching question to ask, the short answer I've learned after YT education after education is no.

Prior to I'd have told you;

Mr. & Mrs. Biewer
Mr. & Mrs. Beers
I'm at a loss of an Australian breeders name.
There is another breeder in Washington striving to cross certain breeds to eliminate health issues, but they do not sell hybrids, cross, breeds, 'designer dogs, and do not want to be known for their breeding practices breeds...I believe they are following the foot steps of the Biwers.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

Found it!

Labradoodle Creator Has Massive Regrets Over the Craze He Started - Paw Nation

I've read that before. His own statements show exactly why mixing two dogs is not considered creating a new breed:

"One of our litters had 10 pups in it and only three were actually allergy-free," says Conron. "Let's face it: they're a crossbreed. You never know what you're going to get. It's a bit like buying a pig in a poke, yet people all over are charging more for labradoodles than purebreds."




There was another good article on exactly what it takes to create a separate breed and why the designer dog trend that we see today does not fall in to that category.

Creating A New Breed · by Dr. Carmen Battaglia


CREATING A NEW BREED
By definition, a breed can be described as a unique group of animals whose phenotype and genotype distinguish it from all others. Both are central to a breed’s identity. The AKC is able to support pedigree accuracy with its DNA program that can include and exclude sires and dams with pinpoint accuracy. Generally speaking, those who attempt to create a new breed will give more attention to the secondary traits of expression, coat texture, pigment, and eye color than to structure and temperament.

[Belle Noir]

*sigh*

I think we are all agreed that mixing two breeds is NOT creating a new breed. Not in F1, not in F2, and not in F3. By the time you get to F4-10, though, I think we can say that you may well be on your way towards a new breed.

The Biewer is showing as a unique genotype after less than 30 years... And other than the rumor that the dogs that produced Schneeflocken might have possibly had a cross somewhere in the background of the founding kennel of his parents lines.. the Biewer is said to be all Yorkie in it's inception..

The fact is a tightly in/linebred line can after a period of time have a genotype distinct from the general parent breed, as well as a distinct phenotype.
We that show have always looked at a dog and said to ourselves, that looks like a <____> bred dog, and sure enough we were right.

The question I have asked, is when does a series of breeding made from crosses in the course of creating a new breed actually becomes a new breed?
At least one rare breed, the Chinook, has a backcross program to increase genetic diversity.
"The breeding method employed during this process is to begin by breeding a non-Chinook (dog zero) with a full Chinook. "Dog zero" must meet the following four criteria: It must have a four generation traceable lineage with no known hereditary health faults. It must be a purebred dog selected from a breed purported to have contributed to the development of the Chinook, be a working breed of dog or be an unregistered working dog with a documented four generation pedigree. If purebred, it must possess a registration number from a recognized registry. It must be a good specimen of its breed and possess no major faults. Acceptable progeny of the first breeding will then mate with a full Chinook. This process is continued until the fourth generation. Fourth generation Crossbred Chinooks are then eligible for consideration as purebred Chinooks."

*A descendant of a C.O.A. CrossBreeding program attains full Chinook status when it conforms to the U.K.C. Chinook Breed Standard, is at least a fourth generation descendant of a "dog zero", statistically carries 93% of more Chinook genes, and qualifies for acceptance through the requirements established for the program."

Are we then to say that those dogs are NOT their own breed, because with today's DNA tests we can see what crosses are being used in the dog, and they do not have their own geno type?
For that matter, have you SEEN these dogs? They look like the horror of a yellow lab/ GSD breeding program gone wrong... and I am sure if I went to the local shelter, I can find at least 3 dogs that look like Chinooks.
So I think they don't have an as yet distinct phenotype either.
Of course this is my opinion only.

But for some people, this is still crossing. Even though it is done with the breed clubs approval, and they have a program, and it's to increase the genetic diversity.. And because of the accepted crossing in the bred, there is no way these dogs have a unique genetic profile or phenotype at this time.
Are they not still a breed?

And SHOULD a group of Chorkie breeders (or Morkie, or Shorkie, or what have you) decide to create a breed and begin multi generational crosses, and even implement a back cross program... How soon before they can be considered their own breed?

When do they stop being a cross, and become their own breed?
The Biewer makes a timeline that shows 25 years is enough to produce that distinct genotype and phenotype, but is that enough to call something a distinct BREED" Any line that is in and linebred over time can also produce a distinct geno and phenotype, and yet still be within the same breed.
The Chinook blurs that line. They have their own registry, they have a standard, they are working towards AKC recognition, but they still have a cross breed program.

I don't know the answers to these questions, and that is why I am opened minded about the possibilities.