@eeeefarm said in Designer Dogs:
We will have to agree to disagree on this one, Debra. ...Most had a purpose when they were created or refined. Unfortunately few dogs actually serve their original purpose these days. If the main purpose of the majority of dogs is that of family pet, then why not strive to produce the best candidates to fulfill that role? If a cross between breeds consistently performs better than either of the purebreds, it will be more likely to remain as a cherished member of the family and not end up in a shelter because of undesirable traits. It is getting more common to find Golden Retrievers of poor temperament than it used to be.<<<
Hard to know where to even begin.
The creation of a breed takes generations. Designer pets aren't people working to make a breed, they breed to sell dogs that uninformed people pay big bucks for. The creation of a breed takes generations because you need a lot of progeny to find out what genetic hells you may be creating, or helping. Designer dog breeders haven't a working brain cell about genetics, they sure as hell don't start with quality well bred dogs. Go take a look at about 100 ads, ask for sire and dam akc and you'll find that MOST were sold on neuter/spay, or from generations of pet breeders.
Take the man who created Labradoodles in the late 1980s. He did it for a reason (low shedding and possibly less allergy inducing... plus temperament for guide dogs). Instead, it became a huge fad. Very few have worked generations to actually develop a consistent line. Looking at the breeder sites is sickening... claims of being RESPONSIBLE because they will note any issues a puppy owner informs them of and do not breed a bitch until 12 mos. (Far too young, and certainly too young for hip certification etc.) But beyond that, there are already dogs with known decreased problems with allergies. A RESPONSIBLE breeder would have taken such a breed (for example a standard poodle) and bred for temperament.
Btw, that creator's view: >>Conron has since repeatedly stated he regrets initiating the fashion for this type of crossbreed and maintains it caused "a lot of damage" together with "a lot of problems". He also felt he was to blame for "creating a Frankenstein", adding that problems were being bred into the dogs rather than breeding away from problems. He is further quoted as claiming: "For every perfect one, you're going to find a lot of crazy ones."<<<
There certainly are people working to develop a breed, but they aren't selling the offspring as designer pets. It takes a lot of money, many years, massive genetic testing, consistent health clearances, etc to develop a breed that has consistency. Reading histories of some breeds, you will find that hundreds of puppies were euthanized that didn't fit the desired qualities.
As for Goldens... any time a dog is popular, more byb/puppymills breed them to make a buck... temperament and health be damned. But I promise you that if you go to responsible breeders' dogs, you'll find very little temperament issues. Ditto on, for example, Pit bulls. While I find the "responsible" breeders' defending breeding their dogs to be highly dog/animal aggressive to be appalling, I have to applaud that they are seriously committed to removing any human-aggressive dogs from their breeding programs. A well-bred Pit is never human aggressive. But every Tom, Dick and Harry breeding them without a clue, in fact encouraging human-aggressive breeding, are behind the huge issue of bites. So then you cross a Pit Bull, that is bred to fight animals, and start crossing them with other dogs. So no, introducing another breed with goldens isn't what is needed to fix the issue--- it is breeding only sound temperament. Dear spirits look at Rottweilers. The worse thing on earth was their popularity... and the public only hears and sees the poorly bred, stupidly trained dogs. It was rare for me to go evaluate a Rottie in the shelter and not advise the dog to be put down.
Sometimes, there are genuine needs to open up a registry to add new genes. The Maine Coon cat had to do that a while back. Basenjis tried with the African dogs, but not very successful. A breeder here gave the stats and it was very discouraging how limited the use of the new dogs were. Some breeds, like the Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, have so much heart issues it is really frightening. ( Not going to go on about it, but we looked for one for my daughter and I found only ONE breeder in our state and surrounding states who had followed the protocol to not breed until age 5 and clear of early onset. http://cavalierhealth.org/overview.htm#Mitral_Valve_Disease_(MVD) ) Some breeders have talked about bringing in another breed to help, but I have no idea if the club has applied for AKC permission. So I guess we do agree that sometimes you mix... but for me only to help an issue with a breed, not to create a new one.
PS: Can you tell by my excessive wordiness that I am sleep deprived? We just got a Samoyed puppy. Sleep for a while is going to be spotty :)