ARGHHHHHH Stupid designer breeds

[Guest Anonymous]

Okay I realize that it's not the dogs fault but the owners but still STUPID DESIGNER BREEDS!

I foster for the National Anatolian Rescue Network so this really peeves me off. We have enough on our plates thank you. Last thing we need is for some idiot to make a new breed-

http://www.analabs.org/

Anatolian Lab mixes. Not only does it not sound appealing it just doesn't seem like the personalities would good well. Hello ASD's are aloof with strangers and protective of their families and Labs (at least the ones I know) have never met a stranger!

[Smooshie]

:lol:

Admires has completed a three-year study of this breed during which time we have been able to observe the personality of the Analabs from birth to adulthood, to determine any aggressiveness in the animals and how they relate to other household pets, stock animals, and humans of all ages

The combination of registered, well-bred Labrador Retrievers and Anatolian Shepherds (Mountain Breed) has produced a good-looking, affectionate dog with the trainability of the Lab and the guardianship qualities of the Anatolian Shepherd.

WOW....a whole THREE YEAR study huh?.....hardly one generation of dogs and they've developed a perfectly stable companion "breed" :roll:

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm so using that quote on generations in their guestbook :evilbat:

[izzy]

I signed their guestbook... morons. :evil:

[imported_Kat]

:roll:

[Guest Anonymous]

Well how is this for a follow up....NASRN has a litter of 9 ASD/Lab mix puppies come in. Not an intentional breeding but all the same!

I put my name on the list to foster a puppy.

[Carolk9s]

While I know that all of todays 'purebred' were mixes at some point, I just don't see the point of mixing Anatolians and Labs. Oh wait, they want to make money right? That clears it up.
They are using the term hybrid. I read somewhere a long time ago that a hybrid refers to the mixing of two different species, not just mixing two breeds of the same species. Such as a mating between a horse and a donkey or a horse and a zebra, a lion and a tiger, etc.

[TDG]

carol, not necessarily. in livestock for example F1 crosses of two breeds are referred to as hybrids. these are always produced from purebred parents tho, as the qualities of the hybrid are desired but they decline significantly if you continue interbreeding them.

that's just semantics tho. people breeding such "designer mutts" need a more elegant expression than "mixed breed", "mutt" or whatever to cash in, after all who would pay ridiculous amounts of money for something that's just referred to as a mix?

if it weren't so sad, it would actually be funny. you could buy "whatever" mixes from the shelter, stick a fancy label on them and make a boatload of money if you just know how to advertise right and fool people into buying something they think is new and better than anything else. *sigh*

[courtnek]

definition of hybrid is two different "species", genetically close enough that they can produce offspring, but ordinarily do not.

"A classic example of a hybrid in mammals is the mule. Normally, horses and donkeys do not interbreed and are considered separate species. However, if a male donkey breeds with a female horse, they create a "mule". The mule is sterile and cannot create any babies. The mule has traits of both its mom and its dad - it is easy to train, strong and has great endurance. Because there can never be a "group" of mules living and breeding in the wild, mules cannot be their own species."

dogs do not "hybreed"....they are the same species, and all can mate and produce offspring. Their offspring can also produce offspring. same as wolves and dogs. or coyotes and dogs. two different "purebred" dogs can breed, but their offspring are not hybrids. they are then "mixed breeds".
If there are enough mixes in the pot, it becomes a Mutt, defined as a canine with no distinguishing recognizable allegience to a specific breed.
Interestingly enough, if the dog cross breeds with other dogs for enough generations, the eventual animal ends up looking like....a wolf. Full circle.

[Guest Anonymous]

Very true!

When these designer mutt "breeders" use the terms Hybrid or Hybrid Vigor it's a selling point and nothing more.

[Horsefeathers!]

courtnek napisał(a):

defined as a canine with no distinguishing recognizable allegience to a specific breed.

This made me laugh. I'm in a weird kind of mood today, anyway (hey, it's karaoke night!), but when I think of "allegiance," I think of it being more of a state of mind. You know, like "I pledge allegiance to the flag..." This quote gave me images of some breedist extremist radical dog group. "Poodle pride, worldwide! Power to the Poodle!" Before you know it, terroristic groups of breedist extremist dogs will be committing canicide trying to annihilate other breeds and then...

I'm sorry, Courtnek. I'm truly not making fun of you. I just sometimes perceive things differently. :oops:

[courtnek]

no worries! I took that out of my old term paper, from college. If I bothered to look it up, it would probably fall under line 15 in the various different definitions and usage of "allegience"....


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[courtnek]

ok I'll change it to say "no distinguishing recognizable TRAITS to any known breeds"...I actually think that's more accurate. Thanks HF!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Aroura]

I signed the guest book, but is there anywhere you can view the guestbook? I think I got my general impression about these mutts across, lol, I wasn't nasty but I certainly stated my mind!

[Guest Anonymous]

if the dog cross breeds with other dogs for enough generations, the eventual animal ends up looking like....a wolf. Full circle

Actually ALL of our purebreds were created from mongrels. If you let a purebred crossbreed and then cross breed more you would have a mongrel which would adapt to its environment. You do realize there are purebred mongrels all over the world which have no help from man in breeding. The ones in Africa (some parts) look like hounds except with tulip ears, some have floppy ears etc. They do not go back to a wolf like state. There have been some breeds which developed naturally like the lab...except they probably didn't look like our lab today.

So the idea of our dogs ending up looking like wolves is completely false. Take a look at some "purebred" mongrels around the world in 3rd world countries...they have not gone back to being wolves and they are probably older than any of our current purebreds.

As for crossbreeding I think this is a healthy plan for our current purebreds which have become stagnant and suffer from having small gene pools which "create" genetic diseases.

[Aroura]

I don't know where that quote is from, but it makes no sense what so ever. Wolves evolved, survival of the fittest, they evolved to be as best suited to their natural environment as possible, there is no way a dog in australia would naturally evolve to look like a wolf, thats why we have dingos, if dogs were left to breed willy nilly here they would probably end up more similar to a dingo than a wolf. There is no "full circle", just evolution created by the survival of the fittest - the fittest in one environment is certainly not the same as it is in the next.

I have absolutly no problem with "mutts" as such, just people who intentionally cross breed dogs and slap a label on them in an effort to make money :evil:

[courtnek]

I got that quote from a book by John Fisher, a behaviorist, who I believe got it from a geneticist. Not all wolves look the same, by any means, and it was not to say the animal would become a wolf, but rather look more like one. The ears would be erect, the coat would be doubled and somewhat weather resistant, the snout would be long, like a shepherds.
Now this would be a genetic mixing of ALL kinds of today's dogs, not just a few. All of our dogs originated from the wolf. His point was if we mixed them all up together again, the eventual result would look like a wolf. not BE a wolf. That would again take a long evolutionary trail.

[Guest Anonymous]

I think some people actually believe that we humans took wolf pups and raised them to be pets...then they evolved to be dogs. Our domestic dogs evolved on their own to be scavengers of humans. Once humans had permanent settlements and had garbage areas wolves & wild dogs (not our current wolves - the fore fathers of our Canines is extinct) started hanging around, they evolved to be scavengers off humans which made them friendly towards humans and easy to domesticate.
It is very interesting after I read a bood on mtDNA studies that alot of our candids actually have Coyote DNA including our wolves of today.

Any way, I think people get confused on the fact that Mongrels are the orginal dog...not purebreds. Our current purebreds are fairly new, their forefathers would be mongrels which evolved to adapt to thier environment. The further north the larger the dog, the further south the smaller and shorter the coat.
So, just keep in mind that our mongrels survived due to survival of the fittest. They still run rampede around the world with no help from man and seem to live long life spans with few genetic diseases. Some biologists have been doing studies on domestic wild dogs which live scavenging off humans still to this day and have never been domesticated by man. They live a long time and diseases such as parvo and rabies are what will wipe out the population, by they are survivors and their numbers increase quite rapidly.

Our mongrels which live throughout the world breeding naturally have not repressed back to a wolf like state or even to a dingo state or any other wild candid. They are a seperate species which has evolved to scavenge off man and they are doing very well. Depending on the continent and the environment our mongrels have adapted in physical shape and size to adjust...evolution does not go back ward :wink:

[Guest Anonymous]

As for the ideas on this board regarding "designer breeds". In my own personal opinion and perhaps that of a person who has studied genetics I would list designer breeds as to be dogs bred specifically for conformation shows. When you take a working dog, try to keep the same basic physical conformation without the working ability or try to repress it...that is a designer breed. I also consider on my list of horrible designer breeds which are inhumanely created to satisfy some weird human sense of cuteness are:
Designer breeds which are bred solely for freakish looks:
English Bulldog
French Bulldog
Great Dane
Chinese Crested
Basset Hound
Dachshund
Lhasa Apso
Bichon
Dalmation
I could go on. There are many purebreds which are bred solely for looks and nothing else. Plus think about this, our purebreds forefathers are mongrels - mongrels evolved naturally. By taking a mongrel from its wild environment (village scavenger) they selected the cutest ones and then man started breeding them for certain abilities such as herding abilities, scenting abilities etc. they then enhanced these abilities by selectively breeding dogs which showed enhanced drives or behaviors. Our mongrels or scavenger dogs do not have the enhanced drives that man selected for, the village dog or mongrel tries to maintain contact with the huamn, which is the source of food. Village mongrels never threaten humans which makes them a perfect pet. You then have people who started selectively breeding for certain drives then they created purebreds, gaurdian dogs, herding dogs, sled dogs etc. - which could be horrible house hold dogs as they were not laid back like their forefathers the mongrels.
So now we have created a purebred, we took a small group of dogs and kept breeding them until we got the desired looks that we wanted. We put these dogs in conformation shows to see which dogs we have manipulated the most to keep it in the conformation which some one wrote up the breed is supposed to look like. If you keep doing this sooner or later the breed will start to fall apart creating health problems, allergies (auto immune disorders) etc.

So let me put this question this way, what do people think is more healthy have a small group of dogs which we call purebreds.
Which in a sense they are not a purebred in the content of being a seperate species. We manipulate some of these dogs to have freakish looks, small hips, big pushed in faces etc. all for the sake of human selfessness.
Then people have the nerve to say that this is ok, because, they are purebreds :o is this really ok??? :-? I don't think so, I think its quite cruel and very selfess of us as humans. You can have different races of dogs which adapted to their environment perhaps the Lab and border collie and alaskan huskies would be good examples; they had at one time been healthy races before man got their greedy little hands on them and decided to make the perfect race and improve the dog. :-? some what like little hitlers. I think god did a pretty good job creating canines. Man only created health problems and genetic problems and then justifies continuing to breed purebreds by stating they are doing health clearances on the dogs before breeding??? :-? lets see, they are screening for man made diseases that they created in the first place when keeping dogs locked in a purebred and breeding for only looks...then the dogs end up with more and newer genetic diseases by trying to keep other diseases out of the lines, then they do health clearances on the new diseases and further decreasing the gene pool which is already small. And let us not forget that all purebreds had to have some inbreeding in their lines to get the looks we were after.

That doesnt sound healthy to me. To put down people who breed for so called cross breeds, and then to say that purebred breeding is right is being a hyprocrite. :-?
You could probably have better pets just by adopting pups from village scavenger mongrels from different areas of the world. You would know geographically how large they are going to be and what they are going to look like.

Just my opinion. Don't mind the spelling mistakes as I am a horrible speller. :wink:

[Guest Anonymous]

Really I am not wrong, there were races of dogs which looked some what like our Danes of today (not human intervention ) they were certainly not as large as our danes today and back then they were not exactly what we would classify as purebreds, they were "races" of dogs.
They are breeding Danes which are much too big and unhealthy with short life spans, what is the sense in that.

Basset hounds developed due to a dwarfism gene which appeared, this is a mutant gene. Mutations produce radical and unpredictable changes, with the achondroplasia of dachshunds and basset hounds. Short legs are the result of mutations.

In my opinion neither of these show healthy breeding or good ethics. Perhaps we should start breeding for dwarfism in humans so we can have people to get into areas regular sized humans can't get into.

I consider purebred breeding to be a Hilter minded breeding program. All of our purebreds are fairly new. The dogs they orginated from were "races" of dogs which adapted to their environment. There are not alot of simularities between our current purebreds and their ancestors. It is a human down fall to mutate and destort dogs to fit into "cute" or freakish looks. And dog show people breeding for conformation are the worst.
Purebred breeding is very new. Its the fade of the new yuppy generation. Back in the day of old people did not have the facilities or the caring to isolate small groups of dogs and focus on making them into purebreds. They were much more concerned about survival. When sheep herders had their herding dogs helping them move sheep hundreds of miles, the shepherds were not keeping their dogs teethered and away from the local village dogs. They mated and produced wonderful herding dogs.

[Aroura]

Guest, I hear what you're saying but when we say "designer breeds" we're talking about two purebreds slapped together and given a fancy name and sold at a ridiculous price. There is no such thing as an analab, or a chipoo, or a puggle... they are all just made up names, made up purely so they can be sold to well meaning people at horrendous prices and with promises such as "it wont shed" or "it will have the intellegence of a poodle, but be as docile as a cocker spaniel". Purebreds are bred for predictability, by no means is every purebred predictable, unfortunatly I found this out the hard way, but with conformation shows etc at least you can research the lines. If someone wants a mutt, or what could be considered a "designer dog" there are plenty at pounds waiting for someone to give them forever love and comfort. The funny thing is, people who just let their dogs breed willy nilly have the impression that the pups have just as good a chance of going to a good, forever home then those who are pure bred, in my experience this simply isn't true, the number of mixed breed and "designer breed" dogs at pounds is astounding, also, considering that about one in 10 dogs is purebred, I find it also astounding that about 9 in 10 dogs that go to dog training are pedigrees... do the calculations, where are all the lovable mutts? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with mutts, but it is clearly evident that they have less of a chance of finding a good home than a purebred with champion lines and a breeder who looks into all potential homes before rehoming. I myself need predictability in a dog, I need a dog that I can see the parents and research the lines before bringing it into my home, this is why I'm getting a purebred, designer dogs don't give you this, all you get is 50% from each breed, and you've as much chance of getting good traits as you do of bad, and the "good" breeders with good lines tend not to waste thier champion lines with proven temprement in mixing them intentionally with other breeds.

[courtnek]

Just FYI...bassets, beagles and dachsunds were bred to hunt to the ground. both bassets and beagles hunt rabbits, dachsunds were bred for vermin. They needed those long bodies and short little legs to slither thru holes too big for other dogs. they werent intended to look "freaky", their form serves a real purpose. My foxhound has long legs, knobby knees,
huge hocs, feet like a cat, and dewclaws. A foxhounds footprint is sometimes mistaken as a big cats. her feet are much bigger than the average dogs her size. My lab is physically larger, but has smaller feet, and no dew claws.

so reasons: (from the hunt club)

1. Long legs, longer than normal for a dog her size....to empower her to run. this dog runs so fast that she blurs on a still camera. Her legs come together like a big cats, rather than like the average dogs.

2. knobby knees....her knee bones and cartilage are larger than the average dog, because she is putting all of her weight on them in the all-out sprint.

3. huge hocs. Same reason. Her ankles are larger to help support the intense amount of pressure being put on her feet during the run.

4. feet like a cats. her pads are larger and more spread out, to gain the most traction she can for the sprint.

5. Dew claws. For turn-on-a-dime stability, the dews will grab the earth and hold on so she doesnt slide.

fox run very fast. in order for a foxhound to catch up with them, they need all of the above. same with the bassets, and the beagles and the dachsunds. that shape was for a reason, not just looks.

[Guest Anonymous]

You need to make a distinction between breeding toward a type and designer dogs. As has been stated, designer dogs are not usually bred for a purpose

Neither are most of our breeds in the dog shows :roll:
They have been crossbreeding for seeing eye dogs for better dogs for the blind, bouviers/Lab's is one example of purpose crossbreeding. They found that by keeping Golden's and Lab's in purebreds they were experiencing way too many genetic health problems even with extensive health tests conducted. Its pretty hard to keep genetic diseases out of purebreds.
Many working dogs are still crossbred quite a bit; for example the Alaskan Husky, they have a little bit of every thing in them including border collie, there is no other dog which could beat them in a sled race. So crossbreeding is used extensively in working dogs, especially sled dogs. :wink:

I myself need predictability in a dog, I need a dog that I can see the parents and research the lines before bringing it into my home, this is why I'm getting a purebred

Just to point out that in some countries where dogs still live as wild domestic dogs. Living within villages and scavenging off humans, these dogs are very predicatable and their genes have alot more diversity than our purebreds. These dogs have not had any humans to bred them to display any enhanced drives which could cause aggressive tendancies which we see a great deal in alot of our purebreds. These dogs are races of dogs and are uniformly the same size and temperment. You don't need man to breed for that.

I also realize there is a problem with over population, and I also realize that every one gets upset with the designer dogs. I also get upset every time I see a malformed and misshapen Shih Tzu or Lhasa from reputable breeders, it bothers me to look at the grotesque forms of our GSD's which are competing in the show rings. It really upsets me to see dogs with abnormally squashed in faces. All for the benefit of man kind who likes a freakish looking deformed animal. Its the dog which is suffering and the genes of the dog. This I pity and shudder when ever I go to a show and see some of these freaks people are purposely breeding.
As for the over population of dogs, I don't think any one should be breeding dogs any longer.
One more thing I would like to point out. I have seen more genetic diseases in purebred dogs than mixed breeds, I have also seen more auto immune disorders in purebreds; for example suffering from poor immunities etc.

I am not trying to start an argument, I am just throwing out my beliefs. I just don't feel purebred breeding is healthy breeding. When you think about it our purebreds are not that old, they are relatively new. To keep a small group of animals isolated from the greater population is creating problems. I think we as man are very narrow minded.

I also want to bring up another point of view. Lets look at our domestic cat. Basically over the thousands of years they have not changed very much in their basic appearance. You had different races for different continents. Just recently within the last perhaps 100 years man has started to develop new breeds of cats, the scottish fold, the hairless varieties so on. Cats normally were always very hardy animals, now, with the purebreds you see an unusually high increase in genetic diseases etc. I just like looking at the new domestic animals humans are ruining in the race of making certain "purebreds' rabbits, hampsters, all of them suffer when man tries to make his purebreds. :(

One last thing I will say, if I saw a champion conformation line on a purebred dog, I would run, not just walk away from the purchase.

the "good" breeders with good lines tend not to waste thier champion lines with proven temprement in mixing them intentionally with other breeds.

This is what scares me. This leads to inbreeding. Hey, every one wants to breed to this years champion or top dog.
People who bred Alaskan huskies crossbred all the time, they do this to keep a good sled dog and to make it faster. A purebred wouldn't stand a chance against a good crossbred sled dog.

I just want to add that I am not saying that we should all just let our intact dogs loose and let them breed freely. What I am saying is I don't agree with purebred breeding, I think it is unhealthy and dog shows (conformation) are a joke.
I have seen many purebreds sold to the "wrong" homes. I can go to my local pound and count more purebreds (mainly purebred Rottweilers) than I can count mixed breeds.

[courtnek]

to an extent, I believe in that. I have often stated that breeding "only" for looks, or "conformation" is bad for the dog. You can only rein in the gene pool so far before you have auto-immune deficiencies, disease, and a weaker gene pool. I am one who believes that all show dogs should be able to show that they can "do" what they were originally bred to do. Herd Sheep, guard, hunt fox, retrieve fowl, pull sleds. I think if that was required (and as far as I know in the U.S. it is not) the breeders would be forced to vary the gene pool more, to get the desired "working" traits.
Now, with Lap dogs, I dont know how that would go. But Dachsunds, beagles and bassett hounds should be able to show they can hunt. Foxhounds should be clocked at a normal speed for chasing fox (whatever that is, mine is field trialed, no good for show) Sled dogs should be able to pull. My lab mix retrieves better than most show dogs (after talking to show dog owners of labs, she also points, she's part pointer. Never been trained) my foxhound runs like the wind. (as seen in the pictures) both of them are extremely healthy and have no issues with genetic defects (yet).

I dont like the current slope in the GSD's back, the narrowing of the head in the lab (lab's heads should be wide and diffuse, and their necks should look like cannons on their shoulders, for pulling fish nets to shore), or the almost white tones of the Golden Retriever. Goldens should be "Golden"...

I think the narrowing of the gene pool is harming them. You cant be a physically strong individual if everyone has the same set of genes. a Small set of genes...the British and French Royalty tried it, and ended up with hemophilia and various other auto-immune diseases.

[Guest Anonymous]

Oh speaking of breeding dogs just for the show ring and not for working ability. Recently this was posted across the ASD list:

http://www.ecmistyacresfarm.com/anatolians.htm

This family has working dogs that are champions.

Direct link to their pages:

http://www.ecmistyacresfarm.com/yasemin1.htm

http://www.ecmistyacresfarm.com/kaan1.htm