Reputable cross breeder?

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

I could be wrong here... but I think even breeding a simple cross like a maltese/yorkie might be likelier to be healthy than its two parents. I think that because these undesirable traits are driven by recessive genes, breeding to another breed without them makes it more likely that the dominant, healthy expression will cover. I also think this would only be true in the first generation.

I don't think this is what's driving the designer dog market, but I saw on APL some crosses that seemed sensible to me. There was a ... puggle? I think, that was a pug with a less extreme face. And I do like cockapoos, though I'm not sure there's a real program behind that or just indiscriminate crossing.

Anyway, I agree with Mardelin's bottom line, and would also add anyone breeding should carefully consider if what they are offering the breed is worth it, considering the horrendous dog overpopulation problem. It's not something anyone with a dog and a dream should embark upon.

Breeding a Maltese and Yorkie maybe not be the most desirable. Since both have a higher % change of obtaining shunt. And since shunt can produce itself at any generation, it's shooting in the dark.

And you're right breeding although an art, it is also a science. So, when embarking on such an endeavor it should be done with a great deal of study and thought. It isn't for the faint at heart. I guess that is why I breed so minimally and not without a great deal of planning, preparing and believe me a lot of second thoughts.

I love all dogs. I've had cross breeds and pure breds all my life. And I think more about the fact that they are living, breathing creatures and they depend on humans to take care of them and do the best by them. Not make money off of them.

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

Breeding a Maltese and Yorkie maybe not be the most desirable. Since both have a higher % change of obtaining shunt. And since shunt can produce itself at any generation, it's shooting in the dark.

Good point. I haven't seen any good reasons to breed morkies. Of course they are cute and lovable, but the practice itself seems just about feeding a fad.

[CJxDanielle]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

Bottom line is that if one is embarking on breeding, it should be done responsibly. Breeding for health/structure/temprement should always be at the forefront.

My point exactly.
If I were a breeder, if it were for the bettering of my breed then I wouldn't see anything wrong with crossbreeding. As long as I don't try and claim it as something it isn't then I don't see the problem.

I guess my first step would be to talk with my breed club and bring up the problem and see what they would have to say, but anyways I'm sure I've stated my point.

Hopefully that wasn't too much rambling.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by CJxDanielle

My point exactly.
If I were a breeder, if it were for the bettering of my breed then I wouldn't see anything wrong with crossbreeding. As long as I don't try and claim it as something it isn't then I don't see the problem.

I guess my first step would be to talk with my breed club and bring up the problem and see what they would have to say, but anyways I'm sure I've stated my point.

Hopefully that wasn't too much rambling.

But that's the whole point, when you are mixing breeds, you are NOT breeding for the betterment of the breed, as it doesn't fix nor improve the breed. You are creating an entirely new beast, complete with it's own set of problems.

[Beamers Mom]

Originally Posted by CJxDanielle

My point exactly.
If I were a breeder, if it were for the bettering of my breed then I wouldn't see anything wrong with crossbreeding. As long as I don't try and claim it as something it isn't then I don't see the problem.

I guess my first step would be to talk with my breed club and bring up the problem and see what they would have to say, but anyways I'm sure I've stated my point.

Hopefully that wasn't too much rambling.

But how is crossbreeding bettering a breed? When one crossbreeds (for example) a Yorkie with a Maltese, you get a Morkie, not a better Yorkshire Terrier or better Maltese.

To better the Yorkie you take Yorkies that have the best characteristics (traits) and breed them together to pass on those characteristics to their offspring. The offspring should be as good as the parents, ideally should be better. You try and attain perfection in the breed by breeding those with the best traits together.

[CJxDanielle]

Originally Posted by Beamers Mom

But how is crossbreeding bettering a breed? When one crossbreeds (for example) a Yorkie with a Maltese, you get a Morkie, not a better Yorkshire Terrier or better Maltese.

To better the Yorkie you take Yorkies that have the best characteristics (traits) and breed them together to pass on those characteristics to their offspring. The offspring should be as good as the parents, ideally should be better. You try and attain perfection in the breed by breeding those with the best traits together.

That is my point though! If there is NOTHING healthy about the breed crossbreeding might be the ONLY option. I'm not even really talking about yorkies, I'm mostly talking about breeds like Bulldogs, etc. That are bred with these crazy health problems for the standard.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by CJxDanielle

That is my point though! If there is NOTHING healthy about the breed crossbreeding might be the ONLY option. I'm not even really talking about yorkies, I'm mostly talking about breeds like Bulldogs, etc. That are bred with these crazy health problems for the standard.

No, what you do is find a good specimens of the breed and begin breeding in the good traits. A process that will take years to complete but, it can be done. It is being done. You don't incorporate another breed. Once you do that you no longer have a pure bred dog.

[Mardelin]

In addition:

The first thing one does is emerse themselves in the breed, study genetics, breeding and study some more. Work with experts to fix those problems.

A few years ago. Luxating Patella's were not being paid attention too by Yorkie Breeders. They were considered as a problem that plagues the Toy breeds. Serious Yorkie Breeders are slowly working LP out of the gene pool. They are testing (CERFs) prior to breeding and breeding dogs that have great knees and hips. It's working. It's being done with other diseases and issues. There is research being done today with such afflictions. Donations and partnership by the mother club is helping. It doesn't happen overnight. But, it is working. What doesn't help is breeders that breed just for $$$ with no concern in testing and improving the breed.

[Beamers Mom]

Originally Posted by CJxDanielle

That is my point though! If there is NOTHING healthy about the breed crossbreeding might be the ONLY option. I'm not even really talking about yorkies, I'm mostly talking about breeds like Bulldogs, etc. That are bred with these crazy health problems for the standard.

But an ethical reputable breeder will not be breeding unhealthy specimens.
Crossbreeding is not an option, that is just creating a mixed breed.

Doesn't really matter what breed is being discussed, the same goes for all breeds. Ethical reputable breeders will strive for perfection and not crossbreed.

[QuickSilver]

Wouldn't that mean that there are no ethical breeders for bulldogs, french bulldogs, pugs, mini daschunds, or any of the hairless breeds?

What about Woogie's examples, where there is very limited crossing?

I don't understand the contention that cross breeding is *never* acceptable, because "pure breds" aren't really pure. One thing I also wanted to bring up was that in the YT Animal Welfare section, the AKC's stud book validity was called into serious question.

It seems to me it should be like any science; it takes a lot of evidence to change a long established practice, but nevertheless, things do change.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Wouldn't that mean that there are no ethical breeders for bulldogs, french bulldogs, pugs, mini daschunds, or any of the hairless breeds?

What about Woogie's examples, where there is very limited crossing?

I don't understand the contention that cross breeding is *never* acceptable, because "pure breds" aren't really pure. One thing I also wanted to bring up was that in the YT Animal Welfare section, the AKC's stud book validity was called into serious question.

It seems to me it should be like any science; it takes a lot of evidence to change a long established practice, but nevertheless, things do change.

Yes, breeding has been done to satisfy a fad and has caused some serious health issues in dogs. You've mentioned several breeds that are suffering because of poor breeding practices. Changing their standard to incorporate these fads. That is why it is so important to maintain a standard.

And yes things can be reversed, with the proper breeding practices. The UK is in the process of doing this and if breeders don't adhere to these changes a dog cannot be registered. I do hope that this practice takes place in the US. But, until it does, it is up to the breedes as well as the mother clubs to stand firm in maintaining the standard and only make changes when it concerns the health. Change takes time but, it can be done.

[QuickSilver]

The thing is, I think it can go both ways. I don't always think it's a lack of ethics that gets a breed into trouble. I think it can simply be a lack of foresight. Sometimes when you breed for one trait, you accidentally lose traits that seem unrelated. I think there is also a natural tendency in competition to reward increasingly extreme expressions of a trait. I think that's how the "budweiser" dog ended up with that incredible curvature in the muzzle.

For instance, the bulldog standard explicitly stated that the dog should have a "massive" head. It was only after major negative publicity that this requirement was changed.

[QuickSilver]

To use another example, I personally doubt there is any way to breed a healthy hairless dog. I happen to think these dogs are beautiful in a weird way, but I also think that whatever blocks the hair growth is the same thing that causes bad teeth, bones and eyes. Actually, for hairless dogs, I'm not sure these dogs should be bred at all. I think there our standards for how much suffering we're willing to let the average dog endure have changed over the past one hundred years.

I also don't know how to feel about the extremely large breeds that only live 8 years. Is it fair to breed a dog you know will have an exceptionally short life?

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by CJxDanielle

If there is NOTHING healthy about the breed crossbreeding might be the ONLY option.

So what you're saying then is when there are no good specimens left, do away with the breed and use them to create a new line of mutts instead....
That is essentially what you would be doing. You wouldn't be 'bettering the breed.' You would be changing it to something else altogether.

[Bella Yorkie]

Originally Posted by Beamers Mom

...And funny that this should be on a site "teacupyorkies.com"

Fairly Odd Yorkies|Teacup Yorkie Dogs

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

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