Reputable cross breeder?

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by lexipoo

Thanks...Lexi is so amazing to us I agree with your thoughts in all of this. You know when someone makes up there mind it is hard to change that. There are all kinds of breeders out there and they are in it for all kinds of reasons. Some good and some bad...I count my blessings for being as so many say "the lucky one" but I have friends who have "Pure" breed Yorkies who have health issues. I think we just need to keep in mind that we are not all the same and because someone wants a mixed breed dog isn't a "BAD" thing. Yes there are so many dogs in pounds needing homes and I do understand the frustration in that but it's not just because of "ALL" the mixed breed dogs being born. I work for the county and I know there are "MANY" pure breed dogs in the shelter too. It seems as if we are saying hmmmmm, ok you want a "Pure" breed dog ok look for a reputiable breeder. You want a mixed breed dog "Mutt" as so many like to call them....well, go to the pound....just my opion. Please don't jump all over me for this but some people really want to raise a "puppy" I know we got Lexi as a puppy and have enjoyed watching her grow up.
I really do understand where everyone is coming from I guess I just think we need to be a little more understanding too.....they are "ALL" wonderful little creatures and should be loved and cared for regardless of how they got here

There are puppies galore in rescues and pounds, as well as older dogs. Sometimes you have to spend sometime looking (it took me a few months to find Rhett- he was 10 weeks). Other times they just fall in to your lap (Scarlett was 6-8 weeks and I wasn't even really looking). My Mom's rescues were 3 months and 10 weeks old, too. Not all rescue pups come with issues, either. Scarlett, her mom and littermates, were surrendered due to the flooding in TN. Oliver was picked up by the rescue he came from because he was too small to survive being shipped off to a pet store- so the rescue drove 10 hours to bring him back to Atlanta to keep him from being put down.

It just comes down to the fact that there really is zero reason for supporting a BYB when you are looking for either a purebred or a mix.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by manina

U get what u pay for !!!!
Pure Yorkie don't came cheap ......
When u cross breed , u also cross breed their health problem ....
I have alway brought my furbabies fr breeder and byb , alway been happy with what I have gotten.
I will never , never buy fr a pet store , first the owner of the pet store don't care how or what the puppies were breed from. U don't know what health issue u will get later on in their life 10-14 years .... And the cost of tests and meds. What u don't pay in front, you will pay in the end .
If u have a good and healthly furbaby fr a pet store count your luckily star, not everyone can said that.
bark@ulater !!!
manina,mileymax

Just because a Yorkie "doesn't come cheap" doesn't mean they will be healthy! An expensive dog is not necessarily healthier. Pet stores charge up to $4000 for dogs but they are not from a good place.

Originally Posted by pawever Yorkie

BTW. whenever I read your thread, it makes me feel like Brister's talking to me with this calm voice... He looks like a wise man

"Britster" is me, aka Brittany. Jackson is my dog!

[Beamers Mom]

Originally Posted by Britster

"Britster" is me, aka Brittany. Jackson is my dog!

When I first saw your posts I associated "Britster" as someone who was British, wasn't until later I discovered it was because of your name not that you were British - or an Anglophole

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

I think Thor is adorable. I love his picture in your avatar.

Thanks so much! As it happens, he agrees with you.

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Maybe I'm just bored, or want to play devil's advocate, but, for the sake of debate I'll take issue with some of this.

While all dogs were, at some time, created for a purpose, that is not entirely true in all cases. In the case of the Yorkshire, it was bred from ratters but quickly lost its purpose and became a companion dog. There was certainly no 'need' for the Yorkshire Terrier. The British Isles was the home of the ratting terrier and there were enough terriers already to fill any need. I have to wonder how a single mouse has managed to survive there, but they have LOL.

What the Yorkshire Terrier did was to supplant the Clydesdale/Paisley Terrier as the most beautiful terrier. The Clydesdale/Paisley, a variation of the Skye, was the first British terrier I have seen referenced that was bred mainly for looks (the silky coat). Old Terriermen of the day bemoaned this dog for its uselessness as a terrier (due to the silky coat) and grumbled about its winning the ribbons over their Skyes. Fact is, a silky coat was not desirable in a terrier and the best justification for them was mainly for looks. The Yorkshire merely replaced the Clydesdale/Paisley so it can be said that a Yorkshire was bred for looks and was never bred for its ancestors' true purpose.

Which begs the question....why breed a dog just for looks? Maybe because it is fashionable and there is a market for them? The Yorkshire was bred by miners and weavers but quickly became lap dogs for aristocrats. Does anyone really think they would have become so popular at the beginning had there not been a demand (i.e. money to be made) for a beautiful lap dog?

As to how carefully Yorkshire were bred, it is widely stated that the early breeders were mostly illiterate. That's not to say they didn't know what they were doing, but careful records were not kept. As for breeding for health, I have seen references in early books on the Yorkshire stating that the average lifespan was only 4 to 5 years.

I don't think there's a lot of difference in the hows and whys of the creation of the Yorkshire and the mixed breeds of today. The differences came about through adhering to a standard and dedicated breeders breeding for the betterment of the breed. Who's to say that couldn't happen with some breeders of mixed breeds today? As mentioned earlier, there are Cockapoo and Labradoodle clubs, so obviously some of these breeders are serious about their breedings. They will never get AKC recognition due to the rule of any new breed needing to be made up of at least 3 breeds. This change was made the year after the Silky Terrier was recognized by the AKC. The Silky, a mix of an Australian Terrier and a Yorkshire Terrier, is a designer dog by today's definition that had the good fortune of getting AKC recognition. Under today's AKC requirements, the Silky would not be recognized as anything more than a designer dog.

As to the health of the designer dogs, any breeding, be it pure bred or cross bred, has unknowns until the pups are born. A happy combination of genes can bring great results and an unlucky pairing, even with well bred healthy dogs, can bring disappointment and unexpected issues.

I do think that, statistically speaking, mixed breeds are healthier than pure breds. I remember the University of Tennessee study from a few years ago on liver shunt. All pure breeds had a higher incidence than the mixed breeds studied. Of course, a statistic is meaningless when applied to an individual, but it is telling in some ways.

All that being said, I don't advocate for mixed breedings and feel that it's true that most of those breeding 'designer' dogs don't have a clue about what they are doing. The same could be said for many breeding pure breds, however, so one has to be careful, no matter what. And it is very true that shelters are full of mixed breeds, which is probably the biggest reason not to support 'designer' breeders. There are too many of these dogs that already are in need of a home and I think getting one of these dogs would be a great choice for someone looking for a cute mixed breed.

Woogie, you always bring something interesting into the mix. Thank you for bringing up the point that many breeds today are the result of unethical breeding. The biggest example I can think of it the "smushy faced" dogs. These are very cute, but those faces aren't good for BREATHING, which is a pretty important face function. Other older breeds like the bulldog have been bred for more and more extreme traits that again, are awful for the dogs that have to live with them.

That being said, our standards for humane treatment of animals are hugely different than they were 100 years ago. I'm thankful that today it's not considered okay to randomly breed dogs together and if you get puppies you don't like, you can just put them in a sack and drown them.

I don't particularly care about breeding yorkies so they all have silky coats and black saddles. I do care that breeders keep records to make sure they are not perpetuating health problems, and that they take lifelong responsibility for every life they create.

I have a hard time believing that someone who is breeding morkies is carefully screening for health problems in both breeds and keeping multi-generational records, because morkies seem to be a "why not?" kind of cross. I understand poodle crosses because of the low allergen factor and because a lot of poodles have health problems. But a morkie seems to just be another way to get a cute, small, low allergen companion.

Again, nothing against morkies, and I too would be happy to own one.

A lot of people don't believe that anyone should breed until the dog overpopulation problem is fixed. Hence, "don't breed or buy while animals die". I think this is an extreme stance though, and it basically means that you'd have no animals bred with forethought after 5 years. I do think that people should think carefully about bringing more dogs into the world when there are already so many without homes. It's not something to do on a whim.

[QuickSilver]

Also meant to say, pet insurers give better rates to "mutts", and they have the data to back it up. It's definitely a complicated issue. But I don't think that's an excuse to say, there are lots of bad breeders of all kinds out there, so I'm just going to do what I want without thinking about the larger issues.

[CJxDanielle]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Woogie, you always bring something interesting into the mix. Thank you for bringing up the point that many breeds today are the result of unethical breeding. The biggest example I can think of it the "smushy faced" dogs. These are very cute, but those faces aren't good for BREATHING, which is a pretty important face function. Other older breeds like the bulldog have been bred for more and more extreme traits that again, are awful for the dogs that have to live with them.

That being said, our standards for humane treatment of animals are hugely different than they were 100 years ago. I'm thankful that today it's not considered okay to randomly breed dogs together and if you get puppies you don't like, you can just put them in a sack and drown them.

I don't particularly care about breeding yorkies so they all have silky coats and black saddles. I do care that breeders keep records to make sure they are not perpetuating health problems, and that they take lifelong responsibility for every life they create.

I have a hard time believing that someone who is breeding morkies is carefully screening for health problems in both breeds and keeping multi-generational records, because morkies seem to be a "why not?" kind of cross. I understand poodle crosses because of the low allergen factor and because a lot of poodles have health problems. But a morkie seems to just be another way to get a cute, small, low allergen companion.

Again, nothing against morkies, and I too would be happy to own one.

A lot of people don't believe that anyone should breed until the dog overpopulation problem is fixed. Hence, "don't breed or buy while animals die". I think this is an extreme stance though, and it basically means that you'd have no animals bred with forethought after 5 years. I do think that people should think carefully about bringing more dogs into the world when there are already so many without homes. It's not something to do on a whim.

Absolutely agree with that! I believe that is a positive to crossbreeding. It could improve a otherwise unhealthy breed. For example, breeds like pugs and bulldogs could use a lot of work. Why breed a purebred with that extreme face to the point where it has a problem breathing or to the point where it can't even reproduce on its own (bulldogs anyway). That is a problem and I believe with responsible crossbreeding it could eventually make the breed better in the long run.

[pawever Yorkie]

"Britster" is me, aka Brittany. Jackson is my dog! [/QUOTE]
Oops...
Sorry, I meant Jackson
I'm serious, whenever I read your thread, his pic makes me feel like he's talking to me.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by CJxDanielle

Absolutely agree with that! I believe that is a positive to crossbreeding. It could improve a otherwise unhealthy breed. For example, breeds like pugs and bulldogs could use a lot of work. Why breed a purebred with that extreme face to the point where it has a problem breathing or to the point where it can't even reproduce on its own (bulldogs anyway). That is a problem and I believe with responsible crossbreeding it could eventually make the breed better in the long run.

But then it wouldn't be a bulldog or a pug. It would be a mixed breed. That's NOT improving the breed. The only responsible way of improving the breed is to take only the healthiest and best representatives of the breed to continue the lines.

[gemy]

Cross breeder? Reputable? How would one even know? There are very few breed clubs to help educate, monitor, and provide a place where these breeders can come in fellowship, to exchange and share information.

Cross breeder... umm.... Cross dresser... Each foot planted in different worlds.

I think simply put, I would say, that I understand you want a reputable breeder of..... put in the designer dog of your choice; however I don't know of any "breed" clubs of this mixed breed, so it would be hard to refer you to one.

[gemy]

[QUOTE=Woogie Man;3301063]

I do think that, statistically speaking, mixed breeds are healthier than pure breds. I remember the University of Tennessee study from a few years ago on liver shunt. All pure breeds had a higher incidence than the mixed breeds studied.

Could you post the link for me to that study? Thanks

[Woogie Man]

Gail, I think the page has been taken down. I was doing a search the other day, looking for any updated info, and couldn't find it.

I hate referencing something and being unable to provide the source. I'm sure many here are familiar with the study as the link has been posted here in the past.

Just going by memory, the study was done around 2001. I believe there were over 2,000 dogs included in the study......probably about 15 different breeds plus a group of mixed breeds. The highest incidence of liver shunt (percentage wise) was with the Havanese, at a little over 4% affected. The Yorkshire Terrier came in at over 3%. Other pure breeds had smaller percentages affected. The mixed breed group had a very low percentage...under 1/10 of a percent. It wasn't spelled out what mixes the mixed breeds were, so I don't know if they were cross bred from 2 pure breeds, a Heinz 57 mix or some combination of both.

[FlDebra]

I am always reading posts that the Yorkshire Terrier used to be so much bigger. That is a little misleading. Here is an excerpt from Joan Gordon's History of the Yorkshire Terrier on the YTCA site:

"Yorkshire Terriers were given their breed name by 1874, although it had been around since 1870. Originally they were known and shown as Broken Haired Scotch Terriers or Toy Terrier (rough and broken haired).
Almost all of the classes were divided by weight. The classes were for Broken Haired or Rough Scotch Terriers less than 5 lbs. or 6 lbs. and under; Toy Terriers 4 lbs. and under, or 5 lbs. not exceeding 7 lbs., or 6 lbs. and over; or Blue Scotch Terriers under 7 lbs. or 7 lbs. not
exceeding 9 lbs. The largest weight class in which they were reported
to have been shown was for Broken Haired Scotch Terrier 9 lbs. not exceeding 12 lbs. This record should prove that although there were larger Yorkshires they were not being shown at the dog shows. The record proves that the small size was available for breeding from early days. "

So, except for the one large Broken Haired Scotch Terrier (if 9-12 lbs can be considered large) all clases were as small or smaller than our modern day "not to exceed 7 pounds" standard.

I could love a cross-breed just as much as my Yorkie but I still believe they should not be bred. We have plenty of variety in the breeds currently within AKC. Their standards are written, reviewed and backed up by science and history. The problem with indescriminate cross-breeding, is that no one is really looking to see what undesireable traits may be accented by the cross.

Another problem is that no one ever really knows what the future of the line is going to look like. One person winds up with a puppy looking like all yorkie, it winds up being registered in one of the penny-ante registries as a pure bred Yorkie because it looks like one, and pretty soon someone is breeding it. Then you get puppies this generation or the next that are NOT close to standard. It dilutes the Yorkie gene pool! That is how some of the Yorkies with pure-bred papers wind up having tiny, pointy noses, curly hair, poor color placements, over size, etc.....

If someone is cross-breeding, they really cannot develop a line of dogs which as a breeder should be their goal -- to improve their line over time. The only true cross breed is going to be from two pure-bred dogs of different breeds. After that, any puppies are now a cross themself and cannot be bred to produce a true cross-breed. Even from one litter, puppies can look entirely different -- so there is no way to get a standard going at all. You are basically just taking a crap shot everytime you breed and hoping puppies are cute enough to be profitable. Can't think that can be right.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Gail, I think the page has been taken down. I was doing a search the other day, looking for any updated info, and couldn't find it.

I hate referencing something and being unable to provide the source. I'm sure many here are familiar with the study as the link has been posted here in the past.

Just going by memory, the study was done around 2001. I believe there were over 2,000 dogs included in the study......probably about 15 different breeds plus a group of mixed breeds. The highest incidence of liver shunt (percentage wise) was with the Havanese, at a little over 4% affected. The Yorkshire Terrier came in at over 3%. Other pure breeds had smaller percentages affected. The mixed breed group had a very low percentage...under 1/10 of a percent. It wasn't spelled out what mixes the mixed breeds were, so I don't know if they were cross bred from 2 pure breeds, a Heinz 57 mix or some combination of both.

Thanks for trying. I'm always interested in any studies done that involve health testing.

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by FlDebra

I am always reading posts that the Yorkshire Terrier used to be so much bigger. That is a little misleading. Here is an excerpt from Joan Gordon's History of the Yorkshire Terrier on the YTCA site:

"Yorkshire Terriers were given their breed name by 1874, although it had been around since 1870. Originally they were known and shown as Broken Haired Scotch Terriers or Toy Terrier (rough and broken haired).
Almost all of the classes were divided by weight. The classes were for Broken Haired or Rough Scotch Terriers less than 5 lbs. or 6 lbs. and under; Toy Terriers 4 lbs. and under, or 5 lbs. not exceeding 7 lbs., or 6 lbs. and over; or Blue Scotch Terriers under 7 lbs. or 7 lbs. not
exceeding 9 lbs. The largest weight class in which they were reported
to have been shown was for Broken Haired Scotch Terrier 9 lbs. not exceeding 12 lbs. This record should prove that although there were larger Yorkshires they were not being shown at the dog shows. The record proves that the small size was available for breeding from early days. "

So, except for the one large Broken Haired Scotch Terrier (if 9-12 lbs can be considered large) all clases were as small or smaller than our modern day "not to exceed 7 pounds" standard.

I'm honestly asking: if this is the case, why are there so many large yorkies at this point, some even exceeding 20 pounds? Generally speaking, small dogs produce small dogs. I know that's not a law, but it seems like if people were consistently breeding 7 lbs and under for 100 years, getting three times that simply wouldn't happen nowadays.

[lexipoo]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

There are puppies galore in rescues and pounds, as well as older dogs. Sometimes you have to spend sometime looking (it took me a few months to find Rhett- he was 10 weeks). Other times they just fall in to your lap (Scarlett was 6-8 weeks and I wasn't even really looking). My Mom's rescues were 3 months and 10 weeks old, too. Not all rescue pups come with issues, either. Scarlett, her mom and littermates, were surrendered due to the flooding in TN. Oliver was picked up by the rescue he came from because he was too small to survive being shipped off to a pet store- so the rescue drove 10 hours to bring him back to Atlanta to keep him from being put down.

It just comes down to the fact that there really is zero reason for supporting a BYB when you are looking for either a purebred or a mix.

Great stories about those little furbabies...glad they have wonderful homes. I agree with you about zero reasons for supporting BYB. But, unfortunately we can't stop them they will always be out there and people will find them one way or another. Education is the key and I do understand everyone's thoughts and concerns. I just know that my DH and I are so happy we have Lexi in our life and we are gratiful for the lady that bred her mommy & daddy P.S. I really do appreciate all of your knowledge...I have learned alot from this post.