To Georges Nana- I'm so thrilled to hear my pups and young adults ding well-- they always have a placein my heart here on the red river( Rio Grande) in New Mexicoi- Doing some retraining myself on a girl who was out showing and finished her G ch with some gr placements who definintely needs some reacquaintance with her home virtues- back to rehoming as she is a beautiful talented girl- My original trainer died this week of pancreatic cancer quite suddenly so I am on my own only with her parting words to guide me- so I hope my successful training program continues Her uncle Tibby andI are working with her together.
Why do breeders mix Basenjis with other breeds?
-
IMO, it would be amazing to find 5 generations of health testing to identify whether certain traits show up or not, regardless if it is a pure or mixed breeding. When I was looking for my current puppy I was lucky even to find complete health testing one to two generations back much less five. And even those one to two generations was not necessarily complete via CHIC standards.
This is why the old timers are sooo important. There isn't a lot of health testing now that was available even two gen back in some lines. So how do you know what happened to what dogs? Listen to the long time breeders. You'll be amazed at what comes out. If you can get a couple of long time breeders (I'm talking 20-40 years back) to start talking, they know the lines and have tidbits of info that could be important.
I also agree with Pat. Just because you are breeding two breeds doesn't mean you will get a better dog. You will get an inconsistent dog with the tendencies to develop problems on both sides of breeds. This could result in many, many different problems and new ones as well. What we do know is that poodles have the highest instances of health issues (approx 29 of serious problems at the very least. This does not include same basic ones such as fatty lumps, blindness, hearing loss, etc) of almost all breeds. So you're breeding a highly probable health issue breed with one with different health issues and the odds are astronomical in what they will get. It just gets scary.
-
IMO, it would be amazing to find 5 generations of health testing to identify whether certain traits show up or not, regardless if it is a pure or mixed breeding. When I was looking for my current puppy I was lucky even to find complete health testing one to two generations back much less five. And even those one to two generations was not necessarily complete via CHIC standards.
And it wouldn't necessarily give you a clear picture either, because so many genetic diseases at this point have an unknown pattern of inhertitance. You really have to see a vertical pedigree, which includes as many siblings at each generation, and their offspring as possible…and since most of the dogs that are sold as non-breeding stock are never tested, or even reported on ...you don't really get a clear picture.
-
Direct quote from your post #15
"Also: I'm not planning on breeding my Poodle to my Lab to start a new breed and breed their offspring.. I'm just breeding my Poodle to my Lab to get cute puppies that go to good homes to be a beloved family pet.. I don't see anything wrong with that."
I thought I would add this quote from your post #15 because it differs from what you are claiming in this one. You reference it as "Third" in your response here.
How far back are you going to study that line. If the trait has not surfaced in the last 5 generations are you going to go back further or you are you going to accept that as sufficient? When can you be absolutely sure that you have bred Healthy Happy Puppies. Even after they are born, they could be subject to a late-onset disease.
I will admit that it is possible to use some statistical analysis if you have a large enough sample. Unfortunately when your sample size shrinks, your ability to predict an outcome becomes less effective or accurate. I am sure if you are attending Veterinary school, then you are probably familiar with statistical analysis of genetics and its value. This type of analysis would retain its value whether it be dogs, cats, horses, or humans that you are studying.
Jason
I'm glad you are paying attention to my exact words, but I think I have mentioned in almost every post I'm planning to use tested, healthy (blah blah blah) parents to produce healthy (well.. hopefully) puppies.
My question is: what's the difference between breeding two dogs of two different breeds and two dogs of the same breed if you are doing everything exactly the same.. (health testing, looking at the pedigrees, having new homes before breeding etc. etc.) besides getting Mutts that you can't show..
(If I would ever add a mix to the family, I'll definitely call it Mutt :D)About the part in red, that also counts for breeding purebred. (Maybe even more..?)
-
Well, not really… ... you can't register them... you can't show them.. no real difference then dogs... Only with a couple of horse breeds can you register what would be sort of considered a cross bred, but not with any "Tom, Dick or Harry" that came down the road if you are into showing/breeding... Appaloosa come to mind, but it has to be crossed with a known registery... ie: Quarter Horse, TB, Arab, Morgan... Quarter Horse with only a TB, TB with only TB... and it must be a live breeding...
Well.. I see this as being 'more accepted'. I can't think of any example of cross breeding that's accepted in the world of dog breeding. (sometimes it's not even accepted to mix a short haired whatever to his long haired nephew)
And remember: I wasn't into showing/breeding my Mutts
And I'm not talking about any "Tom, Dick or Harry".. I have a Champion Lab and a Champion Poodle… :p -
I'm glad you are paying attention to my exact words, but I think I have mentioned in almost every post I'm planning to use tested, healthy (blah blah blah) parents to produce healthy (well.. hopefully) puppies.
My question is: what's the difference between breeding two dogs of two different breeds and two dogs of the same breed if you are doing everything exactly the same.. (health testing, looking at the pedigrees, having new homes before breeding etc. etc.) besides getting Mutts that you can't show..
(If I would ever add a mix to the family, I'll definitely call it Mutt :D)About the part in red, that also counts for breeding purebred. (Maybe even more..?)
Seriously I think at this point you are debating for the sake of debating. Yes I certainly do pay attention to your words, because I wish to quote you properly and you keep modifying your position by the words you are choosing to use or how you choose to present them. So to make sure I did not take anything you said out of context and to preserve consistency, I chose to quote you instead of paraphrase.
It would have been nice if you paid the same attention when the words **"Form and Function" **were used, thusly rendering the Bulldog example useless.
Apparently now you are describing the dogs you wish to use as Champions. It does not matter if they are champions or how tested they are, you still have completely unpredictable outcome. This is why I mentioned Statistical Analysis of Genetics in another post. The main reason for that is because** there is always a margin of error. **It's a fact that you cannot get away from, just like the fact that there are entirely too many mixed breed dogs already without homes, why make more?
It goes back to the only responsible breeding is to improve the breed in Form and Function. Without regard to that purpose it appears that your desire to breed these two different breeds is more out of curiosity than anything else.
At this point, we just going to agree to disagree because we do not see scientific or valid foundation for continuing further.
Jason and Miranda
-
IMO, it would be amazing to find 5 generations of health testing to identify whether certain traits show up or not, regardless if it is a pure or mixed breeding. When I was looking for my current puppy I was lucky even to find complete health testing one to two generations back much less five. And even those one to two generations was not necessarily complete via CHIC standards.
Nemo you make an excellent point here.
Jason
-
At this point, we just going to agree to disagree because we do not see scientific or valid foundation for continuing further.
Jason and Miranda
Well, then there is nothing to add anymore. Thanks for your clear opinion on the subject.
-
@AJs:
I guess some folks try to come up with "designer" breeds to sell puppies. They try to make them cuter, or try to combine the better parts of both breeds to get a better dog. That's where we got that funny-looking conglomeration called the Labridoodle, among others.
At one time, it was a good idea. A fine example is the Australian Cattle Dog (or Heeler, as I am accustomed to calling it) wherein they mixed border collie with a couple of other breeds from England and Dingo to come up with a hardy dog who could herd cattle and survive in the Outback. My question now is: (as asked earlier in another thread) Do we have the bases covered yet?Im sorry AJ'S Human, but I need to correct you on the Australian Cattle Dogs heritage, (NOT Heeler, although you are welcome to call it whatever you wish :D)…
There is absolutely NO Border Collie in the ACD 'mix', perhaps you are thinking of the Australian Kelpie ??? Depending on the line of thought you read, the following breeds, may or may not have been used in the development of the breed, Bull Terrier, Australian Kelpie, Dingo, Dalmatian, (?SP?), Smooth Collie, The Barb, (A forerunner to our Australian Kelpie...)..
These are the recognised breeds, (depending on whichever train of thought you wish to believe
that were used in the beginning of the ACD, over the years of its development... NO Border Collie was ever in the mix, sorry ;). -
Saba: Thanks for the correct. I had the pleasure of having an ACD in my household. (Over here in the States, we did call it Heeler for the longest time. It has been only recently this has been changed.) He was larger than most, about 22 in (55 cm) and was an excellent companion and very intelligent dog. I didn't spend a lot of time researching his genetic background, so that's where my incorrectness came in. Thanks
Regarding other mixes: Yesterday, I met a "Jug." Whaaaaat??? A Pug/Jack Russell Terrier mix. (I've heard Jack Russell is no longer the correct term, but whatever.) The man paid $500 for this animal. Ridiculous, in my opinion.
My issue with breeding and selling these mixes is this: In order to sell these animals for a higher price, the "breeders" (no offense meant , Janneke, please don't take it that way) tack a catchy name to the animal which is usually a hybrid of the breeds it came from, often coming up with some cutesy "new breed name" that the new owner of the animal can brag to his or her friends about. There are those of us who feel the person who buys these mixed breeds are often mislead to think their animal is a "rare breed" when, in fact, it is a mutt. I disagree with the marketing tactic. At least be honest with the final owner and be sure they understand they are not getting an animal that can be registered with AKC. Also warn them that when bragging to purists such as myself about their "purebred" Labradoodle, they may receive a snicker in response.Regarding the change within purebreds, I have noticed a bit of change even within the Basenji breed. People looking for a stronger looking dog, longer toes or a tighter curl of the tail…My AJ has a lovely, lazy, single-loop tail which I don't think detracts at all from his appearance. If it wasn't for his parrot bite, he would be a perfect specimen. However, he makes for an excellent pet and a very hardy and sharp looking dog. I don't have to worry about his eyes popping out when he gets upset (Pekingnese) or breathing problems (Bulldogs) or any of that other nonsense. We do have issues within the breed, most notably, Fanconi, but it appears to me the responsible breeders are trying to eliminate them. The health of the breed seems to be the main point of registering animals.
-
AJ I wish the main point of registering animals was health but I am yet to see that as its purpose. It appears that anyone that has the proper accepted paperwork to prove their dog is purebred can register their dog at least with the AKC and as far as I know that is without regard to health. At least in the US this includes Puppy Mills, backyard breeders, and anyone else with the proper paperwork can register a dog.
In my opinion, health is a fine example of where responsible breeders come in. From what I have always understood the goal of breeders has always been to improve the dog in regard to Form and Function and for responsible breeders this includes health. The question that I find most commonly asked by responsible Breeders is _What does a particular pairing or Breeding offer the Breed?
_
Unfortunately breeders will never eliminate Fanconi from the Basenji Breed, but through careful responsible breeding the likely-hood can be significantly reduced.Jason
-
Jason: We are agreed on this. Puppy mills and backyard breeders can be curtailed through the AKC, but they have to be found and reported. It's a balance between collecting the regi$tration fees and keeping the breeds pure. Kind of a tightrope the AKC walks.
I did threaten one kennel with reporting to AKC and her breed's rescue group over an issue I had with her. She immediately straightened it out because she did not want to lose her registry. Papered dogs are more valuable than non-papered dogs, even though pet quality is no different.
Cheers
-
I agree with AJ's words above…my main problem with designer dogs is that people are willing to pay big bucks for the same dog they could adopt at the shelter. If you want a mixed breed...go to a shelter!!! Don't pay someone to make cute puppies.
People who are breeding for the right reasons, do it to preserve the breed they love..and protect its heritage. Not to make money, and not to make cute puppies for families. Great pets, great show dogs, great working dogs...they are by-products of the work and committment that great breeders put into protecting their breed's heritage.
-
AJ I wish the main point of registering animals was health but I am yet to see that as its purpose. It appears that anyone that has the proper accepted paperwork to prove their dog is purebred can register their dog at least with the AKC and as far as I know that is without regard to health. At least in the US this includes Puppy Mills, backyard breeders, and anyone else with the proper paperwork can register a dog.
In my opinion, health is a fine example of where responsible breeders come in. From what I have always understood the goal of breeders has always been to improve the dog in regard to Form and Function and for responsible breeders this includes health. The question that I find most commonly asked by responsible Breeders is _What does a particular pairing or Breeding offer the Breed?
_
Unfortunately breeders will never eliminate Fanconi from the Basenji Breed, but through careful responsible breeding the likely-hood can be significantly reduced.Jason
Jason is correct. Technically, registered dogs have no claim to better health than non-registered. They DO have the benefit of being able to trace back their ancestory, so that one can do the legwork of finding out what health issues are in the pedigree. Some registeries are notably more reliable than others as far as accuracy…AKC being the best, and most stringent as far as requirements. Oops...best in the US...sorry
-
These mixed breed dogs are always for sale. I hate that!!! Years ago most people gave away their "Mutts". I will never buy a mixed breed dog. It seems like everyone is out to make money on something that isn't genuine!!!
-
I have to agree with Janneke. There are some sport mixes that are very responsibly bred. Most often these dogs are bred for Flyball, and involve a herding breed mixed with a terrier.
The border-staffy mixes mix the drive of the Staffy with the intelligence and trainablility of the herding dogs, but also to mitigate a bit of the herding breed sensitivity. I think a team of 4 Borderstaffys holds the flyball record right now?
They are supposed to be great for what they are bred for. Super-fast, drivey, but with the "off-switch" that is missing in a lot of terriers. They supposedly breed pretty consistent, and the breeders heath test, and try to be responsible.
The border-jack is also really popular in flyball and agility. They are smart, super drivey and hyper.
As far as I know, neither of these mixes has been picked up by the BYB's and Puppy Mills. Neither of these mixes should go to non-sports homes.
Lots of mushers mix greyhound or whippet into their northern breeds to add some speed to their teams. Or they often choose to breed mixed breed dogs that are superior lead dogs or the like.
I see no problem with purpose-bred mixes, as long as their breeders are as responsible with their planning and placements as we would expect from any responsible purebred breeder.
