Jump to content
BC Boards

Designer Breeding Make Me Sick


maggiesmommy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I present you with... The "borador":

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images22/BoradorBorderCollieLabradorRetrieverHybridDozer1.jpg

The "borgi":

http://lovemyborgidog.webs.com/borgiLeviFeb12_8423.JPG


The "border aussie":

http://cdn.greatdogsite.com/resources/photos/from_owners/Border-Aussie-1238961729.jpg

The "bordoodle":

http://www.breederinfocenter.com/images2/20100406044947_050859_1.jpg

The "border staffie"

http://paintedstarsfarm.com/border-staffy (whole gallery)


...This stuff just disgusts me. I would gladly adopt ANY of these dogs if they were rescues. They're adorable and I'm sure many of them are bright and wonderful companions... but why are people paying hundreds of dollars for a BC that not only hasn't been bred for work, but has been deliberately crossed with an unrelated breed? I can almost see the utility in crossing with other herding breeds, but why not work to perfect the herding instincts of the individual breeds instead of just crossing them willy-nilly just to see what happens? What's the point?

Of course, the BC crosses at least look healthy, but I've also found tons of very deformed-looking designer dogs, especially toy mixes, that look like they're prone to cherry eye, trachea collapse, and hip dysplasia, (so much for hybrid vigor)...

The pugapoo:


http://puppyer.com/img/other_dogs/pugapoo_988_0.jpg

The brug:


http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images16/BrugLouisOskarPICT0005.JPG

The miniature St. Bernard:


http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images21/MiniStBernardIzzy1Year23pounds.jpg

The Boston pug:

http://www.puppypoopy.com/images/bugg15.jpg

The pugtzu:

http://www.tailwaggers2.co.uk/sid.jpg

I think pugs are adorable and sweet but it seems like most/all pugs and pug mixes are bred with little to no regard for their health.

Again, I'd be fine with rescuing a designer breed (whether it was bred deliberately or not) but breeding these animals just for kicks seems so cruel and twisted... Not to mention, it seems like most designer breeders are either puppy millers or BYBers.



Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All breeds are designer breeds--it's just the designing was a lot longer ago for many of them. All dog breeds were created by human beings for our own ends.

 

I think the creation of breeds is a completely different issue from poor breeding practices such as you mention with puppy mills and BYBs--conflating creating breeds with poor breeding practices can lead to confusion and make people focus on the former while believing they are addressing the latter.

 

Personally, I don't think purebred [insert breed here] are any more or less laudable than deliberate [insert breed here] crosses. Plenty of purebred [insert breed here] are bred for kicks, to earn money, and without regard to their health, well-being or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good question. I think it's because when I think of purebred breeders whom I have personally known (and this is likely biased because the circles I run with), they have been very responsible and have been careful to preserve the breed's integrity and original purpose. My dad bred working BCs, there's a kennel not too far from here that breeds GSDs for police and service work, and I have a cousin who breeds beagles for hunting. I'm guessing I have a lot of bias because I know "purebred" breeders who are actually breeding dogs for a specific purpose, but I only know of designer breeds that have been made as companion animals. There are so many animals that would make wonderful companions already out there, so I see little purpose in making more of them. I don't entirely oppose the breeding of companion dogs, but something about the way designer breeders are going about it just strikes a chord with me.

A lot of it is also because of what I see locally... I stopped going to my local pet store because they were selling toy designer dogs (no purebreds, toy or otherwise) and making a fortune on them, but wouldn't give the names or contact information for the breeders. That just screams "puppy mill" to me. When I see people selling non-designer dogs, even on Craigslist and in the newspaper, it's usually people who seem more than willing to talk to you about their breeding programs and to provide information on the parents' backgrounds.

The shelter where I volunteer gets about a 2:1 ratio of designer dogs to purebreds-- with most of the designer dogs being toy crosses-- and about 80-90% of the purebreds we get are pits. That tells me that designer dogs are (at least in my area) much more overpopulated than purebred dogs and much more likely to end up in irresponsible hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thoughts?

Fine looking mutts (with the exception of the "borgi") Were I looking for a pet I´d have no problems taking one of those in (with the exception of the borgi, and I have no interest in half staffs either). For a mutt "price" of course (that is a thank you from the owner of the "oops" litter for taking one of his mistakes of his hands...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine looking mutts (with the exception of the "borgi") Were I looking for a pet I´d have no problems taking one of those in (with the exception of the borgi, and I have no interest in half staffs either). For a mutt "price" of course (that is a thank you from the owner of the "oops" litter for taking one of his mistakes of his hands...).

 

Awww, I thought the borgi was cute. :3 I just wouldn't breed them deliberately. It seems like a borgi could be great cattle dog, but I don't think anyone's actually breeding them as cattle dogs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stopped going to any pet store that sells puppies, purebred or mixed. ALL of these puppies come from puppy mills. Not sure why it's worse to sell mixed breeds for exorbitant amounts than it is to sell purebreds for exorbitant amounts. The end result is the same - paying way too much for a puppy produced through puppy milling.

A lot of it is also because of what I see locally... I stopped going to my local pet store because they were selling toy designer dogs (no purebreds, toy or otherwise) and making a fortune on them, but wouldn't give the names or contact information for the breeders. That just screams "puppy mill" to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stopped going to any pet store that sells puppies, purebred or mixed. ALL of these puppies come from puppy mills. Not sure why it's worse to sell mixed breeds for exorbitant amounts than it is to sell purebreds for exorbitant amounts. The end result is the same - paying way too much for a puppy produced through puppy milling.

 

Right. One is not worse than the other. I was pointing out that most puppy-mill/pet-store dogs in my area are designer dogs, so it makes me think that irresponsible breeding is more common with designer dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point. It just does seem like designer breeds attract more than their fair share of irresponsible breeders.

 

Hmmm . . . do you thing that the genetic bottleneck resulting from over breeding popular studs in an already closed gene pool in purebred dogs, including border collies, is a good thing?

 

There's something to be said for hybrid vigor. Judicious, carefully planned outcrossing would do a lot of breeds a world of good.

 

That said, I agree that creating all these "designer" dogs for the purpose of capitalizing on their novelty without regard to anything else is pretty ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm . . . do you thing that the genetic bottleneck resulting from over breeding popular studs in an already closed gene pool in purebred dogs, including border collies, is a good thing?

 

There's something to be said for hybrid vigor. Judicious, carefully planned outcrossing would do a lot of breeds a world of good.

 

That said, I agree that creating all these "designer" dogs for the purpose of capitalizing on their novelty without regard to anything else is pretty ridiculous. :rolleyes:

 

That makes a lot of sense. And, no, I don't think that the traits that appear in a lot overbred/inbred dogs are positive at all. I think yo hit the nail on the head by saying that the issue here is that people are creating novelty animals without regard to anything else about them. Responsibly breeding a dog for a specific purpose s fine by me. Breeding a dog because you think "puggapoo" would be a funny name or because you think border collies would look cuter with short legs is pretty ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm walking distance to my neighborhood's off leash park and am there nearly every night and thus know the other regulars and their dogs quite well. I'd there therre's an even split among the the number of designer breeds, the number of purebreds and the number of rescue mutts.

 

Of the designer breeds I see regularly, there are:

 

3 Golden Doodles

1 Sheepadoodle (old English Sheepdog X Poodle)

1 pomeranian X poodle cross (not sure what this breed is called, he told me once, some kind of doodle)

2 Border Collie X Golden Retriever crosses

1 Cockapoo (they still make those?)

 

All of the 'doodle' owners bought their dogs because they believe that the dogs shed minimally and are hypoallergenic. I don't know if these claims are true, but I know a lot of folks believe that it. I believe the original Golden Doodle was a noble attempt to create a hypoallergenic service dog. Two of the three golden-doodles are lousy temperaments and are a general pita, but they are owned by the same person so that could be environmental.

 

The rest of the dogs are all quite nice in temperament and *seem* healthy.

 

The 2 BC X Golden crosses are interesting. They were intentionally bred to be service/therapy dogs for children with developmental disorders (or something like that). They are *very* nice dogs, great temperaments, friendly, good with the kids that they're supposed to be service dogs for... Their owners paid a lot of money for them.

 

So, there's all kinds of stuff going on.

 

I think serious breeders trying to create a hypoallergenic service dog is valid. I can't really say that sincere breeders working to create hypoallergenic companion animals is any less valid than breeding to an aribtrary appearance standard. In fact, i think it's a bit better than, say, breeding for an 'egg shaped head' or whatever.

 

That said, I *do* get a sense that there is marketing going on with these new breeds and that there is some unsavory behavior around cashing in on their novelty with the public. and I hate their names ("*doodle", "*poo", etc). I also know how much folks paid for certain of these dogs, and it's 4 figures, in one case, over 2 grand - for, well, a "mix". I think it's foolish when there are plenty of good mutts at the local humane society, but I don't know all of the variables involved in the decisions that were made so I try not to judge.

 

PS - Any pet store that sells dogs in the area I live generally get picketed until the relent of go out of business. I'm not sure you could buy a petstore dog in my area if you wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard the pomeranian x poodles referred to as pomapoos. :rolleyes: And, yeah, I'm totally with you about the exorbitant sums many of them are going for.

 

As far as the hypoallergenic thing, I have to wonder at it. First of all, my allergist insists there's no such thing as a truly hypoallergenic dog, just some that seem to produce fewer allergens and spread them around less because they're not attached to falling fur that spreads it everywhere.

 

But there are already plenty of non-shedding breeds to choose from. Why do we need to cross them with other shedding breeds -- or, more confusing to me, cross 2 non-shedding breeds? And the ones crossed with shedding breeds produce approximately 50% of pups that shed anyway, taking after the shedding parent. I knew someone who bought a corgi-poo because she didn't want dog hair in her house and was assured the dog wouldn't shed. It was one on the worst shedders I've known, shedding constantly like a GSD. As soon as she had another baby, the dog was gone. :angry:

 

There can definitely be good reasons for purposely breeding mixes for specific working attributes. I know that in Britain it's not at all uncommon to cross different herding breeds to produce specific characteristics for particular conditions, and they're also the originator of luchers, which are purpose bred crosses. But, perhaps because I dislike how the whole breeding-for-appearance thing has gone so horribly awry at the expense of the dogs they produce, I'm not terribly invested in breed purity anymore.

 

Besides, It's kinda amusing to sit back and watch foolish people getting ripped off for such foolishness as the designer breed craze! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoy seeing "foolish people getting ripped off" by buying designer handbags that turn the owners into walking ads. But handbags don't have trouble breathing, get weird cancers or epilepsy.

 

People who breed dogs (or any animal) for the dog-as-accessory crowd are animal abusers, plain and simple. Making a purpose-bred dog for some kind of work by crossing two or more purebreds is different, as is out-crossing to improve useful/ health-related characteristics in a breed.

 

Most people just need a sane and healthy dog as a companion. The rest is window-dressing.

 

I like the way a Jaguar XKE looks. But I know that they tend to spend as much time in the shop as they do on the road. Add to that the sticker price (and a couple grand to change the spark plugs) and the Dodge Caravan starts looking pretty darn good.

 

Way back in the dark ages when I did all-breed dog and cat rescue, we used to heave a big, sad sigh when a large black dog came into the shelter. Typically it would be there a long time, and it often left "feet first." Little white dogs, on the other hand, turned around in days. People are very frequently stupid in their reasons for choosing a dog. Choosing a cute name like "poo" and "doodle" is one of the stupidest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who breed dogs (or any animal) for the dog-as-accessory crowd are animal abusers, plain and simple. Making a purpose-bred dog for some kind of work by crossing two or more purebreds is different, as is out-crossing to improve useful/ health-related characteristics in a breed.

 

THIS! Absolutely this. As I mentioned, I could see the utility in out-crossing for a purpose. The BC/golden crosses that loggerboots mentioned sound like they could be great service dogs. If you could breed BC intelligence and work ethic into a non-herding breed, I can see how it could be *outstanding* service animal. And, as I mentioned, I could see how borgis could be great cattle dogs; it's too bad they only seem to breed them as a novelty.

 

The -poo thing seems like a fashion trend to me more than anything. Most of the people who buy them aren't people with allergies, and as another poster mentioned, there's little to no evidence that any dog breed is "hypoallergenic." Non-shedding, yes, but an allergy to dogs is an allergy to their dander and saliva. Dog fur itself is made of keratin just like human hair; no one is allergic to hair. I think a lot of people just think the curly coats are cute.

 

But, yes... Animals are not accessories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The shelter where I volunteer gets about a 2:1 ratio of designer dogs to purebreds-- with most of the designer dogs being toy crosses-- and about 80-90% of the purebreds we get are pits. That tells me that designer dogs are (at least in my area) much more overpopulated than purebred dogs and much more likely to end up in irresponsible hands.

 

That's what my experiences have shown. That wee little toy dog puppies are super cute (to certain populations) and the fact that you can buy yourself a puppy between the frozen yogurt stand and Forever 21 with just a credit card. This means that many of thses buyers drop them off at the shelter when they figure out that unlike a dress that doesn't fit - you can return a puppy AND you have to potty train it. or in 6 months, it's a nervy, bitey thing. or you weren't allowed dogs in your rental in the first place.

 

Anytime you enable humans to impulse buy another living creature - you chances of that home failing probably go up exponentially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogs have been bred to be fashion accessories for centuries--Most of the toy dogs we see today were bred to be fashion accessories (the Peke is one of the oldest known breeds and was developed specifically to be a lap dog for royalty). 16th century paintings of noble women with cute little dogs in their laps can be found in any museum. Of course that doesn't make it any more or less ethical to do it today; however, it's not at all a new practice and by the logic some are espousing about "designer" breeds, you'd have to scoff at virtually all production of toy breeds--perhaps you do.

 

I guess it all depends on how you define "fashion" and "accessory." Seems to me that the majority of the dogs in the US are a kind of accessory (in the sense that their primary purpose is to be a companion--not to perform a specific function).

 

Mass production of dogs, now that's a different story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that an animal as "fashion accessory" is an animal that is meant to bring attention to the person - "I have a rare ____ and you don't so I am something special and people notice *me* for that" sort of thing. When an animal is less a companion and more an attention-getter, or less a companion and more a status-promoter. And purpose for any other reason really doesn't enter into it at all.

 

A friend who has what we used to call Mexican hairless because that is the one dog that her very allergic child can have without health issues does not have a "fashion accessory". The person who has that breed because the new name is darn near unpronounceable and hardly anyone else has it and therefore he/she is somehow "special" for having it, whether or not it is well-suited to its situation and environment, has a "fashion accessory".

 

Kind of like the person who has a certain purse because it is functional and goes with her outfit and doesn't make sure everyone else around knows she has a "designer bag" (which is often hard to do because most "designer bags" seem to promote themselves with obvious logos), has a purse. Someone who has a "designer bag" simply *because* it is a "designer bag", whether or not it is really useful, and enjoys/wants everyone else to notice her "designer bag", has a fashion accessory.

 

JMO. I don't have time for either sort of person...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogs have been bred to be fashion accessories for centuries

 

Animal cruelty has existed for centuries, too, often in much worse forms than we typically see today.

 

That's beside the point, though... I'm well aware of the history of toy breeds. I don't have a problem with their existence. They were bred to be companion dogs while other breeds were bred for other purposes. If they are being used as COMPANIONS, that's fine by me, but I'm not okay with them being purchased on impulse by people who only want something that looks cute, and who don't realize what a tremendous commitment it is to adopt or purchase an animal. People who buy toy dogs are companions can be wonderful owners. People who buy them as accessories tend to dump them in shelters as soon as a problem arises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the moral calculus for those who buy them as fashion accessories but don't dump them at shelters and don't treat them poorly and perhaps even love them and enjoy their company even as they like to parade them around?

 

What's the moral calculus for someone who buys a carefully bred working border collie as a companion because they love how smart they are but who then discovers the dog is bad with kids and, oops, we plan to have a couple, so off goes the dog.

 

Better or worse than the fashion accessory buyer?

 

My mom bought a dog on impulse--a toy breed from a pet store (this was years ago) that was undoubtedly from a huge puppy mill--which my mom knew full well when she bought it. It was a breed she loved because no one else had it and it made her feel really special. She loved that it had AKC papers; she loved that people asked her about it; she loved walking it around, trotting along on her arm; she loved having a little carrying bag for it. She also loved it unconditionally (even when it bit her); made its food by hand; gave it the best vet care and was inconsolable for months after it died. What's your judgement there?

 

My point in all of this is that people have created dogs for a whole variety of things that *people* are interested in--including being fashionable in whatever ways fashionable might be defined.

The creation of breeds (or crosses) is independent of people's motives for getting them and of what people are likely to do with the dogs once they have them. You can't really read the latter off the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogs have been bred to be fashion accessories for centuries--Most of the toy dogs we see today were bred to be fashion accessories (the Peke is one of the oldest known breeds and was developed specifically to be a lap dog for royalty). 16th century paintings of noble women with cute little dogs in their laps can be found in any museum. Of course that doesn't make it any more or less ethical to do it today; however, it's not at all a new practice and by the logic some are espousing about "designer" breeds, you'd have to scoff at virtually all production of toy breeds--perhaps you do.

 

I guess it all depends on how you define "fashion" and "accessory." Seems to me that the majority of the dogs in the US are a kind of accessory (in the sense that their primary purpose is to be a companion--not to perform a specific function).

 

Mass production of dogs, now that's a different story

 

Most toy dogs were developed to be companion animals, especially to upper-class women, across cultures - who tended to live rather circumscribed lives. They were also employed by those same people as pest control. Spend a few hours with "Fifer" in your lap - or your bed, and then hand him off to the maid, who bathed him to rid him of his collection. People bathed a lot less then. They considered it bad for the health. And no wonder. You try scrubbing yourself down in a drafty, stone manor-house and see what it gets you. But dogs can cope...

 

They also served to alert the staff to intruders. Yap, yap, yap!

 

And if they happened to be cute, well, so much the better!

 

But there are people of the monied classes who change dogs every time they redecorate. Want a rustic, LL Bean sort of look for your house? Let's get an Irish Setter. Won't it look nice sprawled in front of the wood-burning stove? Oh, but two years later when they tire of the rustic thing and decide to do an "Oriental motif" the Setter simply won't fit! A couple of Pugs will fill the bill.

 

The proletariat is no better. This summer's hit romantic comedy features a Chihuahua? Oh yes! I want one of those, blonde hair and a pink vinyl skirt! Next year it will be black leather, studs (for me and the dog), a spiky black doo and an Am Staff - or maybe a black GSD. But it has to be black! Tres chic, no?

 

Black and white is so cool! Let's get a Dalmatian and a split-faced Border Collie. When we go all Steampunk we can get a chocolate Lab (Steampunk is what happens when Goths discover the color brown) and have him wear brass aviator glasses around his neck.

 

When a dog is acquired to complete a look it's a fashion accessory. When it's acquired to enhance a life, it's a companion animal. There is no comparison.

 

You think a companion animal doesn't perform a specific function? Try telling that to the elder shut-in about her/his little dog. Or the mobility-challenged, emotionally fragile and various others who are shunned by family and avoided by everyone else. That person's companion animal serves a very precise function. It preserves their sanity, and holds depression in abeyance. If that isn't an exalted calling I don't know what is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a dog is acquired to complete a look it's a fashion accessory. When it's acquired to enhance a life, it's a companion animal. There is no comparison.

 

You think a companion animal doesn't perform a specific function? Try telling that to the elder shut-in about her/his little dog. Or the mobility-challenged, emotionally fragile and various others who are shunned by family and avoided by everyone else. That person's companion animal serves a very precise function. It preserves their sanity, and holds depression in abeyance. If that isn't an exalted calling I don't know what is.

 

 

I agree with you on the difference. Where we may depart company is in how easy I believe it is to tell the difference between the two beyond anecdote. I'd like to see an actual concrete example of what you have described as cycling through breeds. I doubt that is particularly common among the monied or the prols.

 

People of all sorts, from all kinds of background, with all sorts of motives do all kinds of things with animals--some of which I find morally repugnant; some of which I find dazzling in magnificence. But their actions and motives are distinct from the creation of breeds (the original topic of the post).

 

On your final point--yes, of course, your bristle is fully warranted. Dogs do important companion work for lots of people, me included. It's as exalted as the greatest altar, magical and poetic.

 

I made no claims about callings, though, exalted or otherwise. I was trying to convey my opinion that you can't read people's motives or likely behavior off the creation of new breeds. The judgement that crosses made for some purposes might be o.k. but crosses made for others are sickening struck me as problematic [ETA: probably less problematic than oversimplified in a way that detracts from the problem of deplorable breeding practices]. That was all I was trying to convey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you on the difference. Where we may depart company is in how easy I believe it is to tell the difference between the two beyond anecdote. I'd like to see an actual concrete example of what you have described as cycling through breeds. I doubt that is particularly common among the monied or the prols...

 

...The judgement that crosses made for some purposes might be o.k. but crosses made for others are sickening struck me as problematic. That was all I was trying to convey.

My experience may be somewhat out of the ordinary, I grant you, 20 years in Hollywood gave me a number of experiences that could be seen as out-of-the-ordinary. But I assure you, people dump dogs for these and many other equally frivolous reasons.

 

 

People who are trying to eliminate a characteristic from a breed of dog may resort to outcrossing. (A notable example was the Dalmatian breeder who brought a Pointer into his breeding program.) These are people who have chosen to try an outcross on valuable stock, and will carefully evaluate both parents.

 

Or, a person may try to create a breed which is useful for a particular function - like the Russian who created a breed of bomb-sniffing dogs from dogs mated with jackals.

 

But "designer mutts" are bred, in large part by people with no motive except making a bundle off the latest fad with the smallest outlay of cash and effort possible. This means that these little dogs are being mass-produced by puppy-mills and individuals who are acquiring their breeding stock cheaply - the genetically bankrupt dregs of the AKC's defective population, and selling them to the gullible at Tiffany's prices. This is clearly a different kettle of fish, and for my money - morally reprehensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing in particular to add, except that we had a "borgi" for about 14 years - found him (rescued him at 6 months) before they became fashionable, I guess. He looked like a fox-faced, prick-eared border collie on a corgi chasis. All he liked about livestock was their poop, though. :P

The "border Aussie" kind of cracks me up. Back when hubby and I were cowboying, they were just called "cow dogs." We had two of those, too. ;)

~ Gloria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...