To think there’s nothing wrong with cross breeds?

[sophialagiraffe]

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with cross breeds, whether that’s lurchers or cockerpoos. People are allowed to like what they like.

What DOES matter is where the dog comes from. But all this sneering about “mongrels” is fucking nasty and says more about the poster than the dog.

Most people don’t want a Crufts champion, they want a pet.

It's MN. Snobbery is literally the bread and butter here!

"Allergies are really common nowadays, so we're attempting to create hypoallergenic breeds. They're serving a purpose."

Where do you think the hypoallergenic part of these dogs comes from?

Actually, could someone explain why if the goal of oodlepoodly type owners is a low shedding, hypoallergenic dog why in the name of all things good and holy do they insist on buying dogs crossed with Labs? Labs are renowned for their ability to shed an entire dogs worth of fur and dander on a daily basis during shedding season.

I think the most important thing is to do your research and only buy from a reputable breeder.

We bought our cockapoo from a breeder who is licensed by the local council and who let us visit several times to see the puppies with their mum. We also had lots of conversations with her about what we were looking for. She warned us that there is no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog and that the puppy's coat could change colour and texture so there was no guarantee.

We didn't choose a cockapoo so that we could have a "designer dog", we chose a dog that we felt suited our needs and - more importantly - we could meet his. I love collies but there is no way we could meet the needs a collie has in terms of exercise and mental stimulation. I'm perfectly well aware that our dog is a crossbreed, and I'm really happy with that. He is also the best dog in the world (I might be biased...)

I had relatives back in the day who had proper heinz 57 mixes and they were the best dogs. You don't see them much anymore, I do wonder why. Although I doubt they were ever responsibly bred by today's standards.

I always see posters on here claiming they've offended people by calling their dog a mongrel, are people genuinely so bloody rude?!

I have a sprocker so technically not a breed (although its hotly debated) but I'd be pretty if some randomer in the street delighted in telling me I had a mongrel as MNers seem to do! Frankly I dont give a fuck, hes the greatest

Allergies are really common nowadays, so we're attempting to create hypoallergenic breeds. They're serving a purpose

No, they’re creating less hypoallergenic dogs. Why on earth, if you are actually allergic, would you think it’s a good idea to take a breed you aren’t allergic to, and cross it with one you are. Do you not get how genetics works?

@EmmaGrundyForPM may I ask why a cockapoo suited your needs but a poodle or cocker did not?

Also, a license from the council is generally not a good thing as it's required if you breed 5 or more litters a year or breed as a business i.e if you're a puppy farmer.

Some people have some odd ideas, when it comes to dogs.

• You can only do so much health-checking, and DNA testing hasn't even been around for that many years (i.e. there are no guarantees in life). Some are obsessed with the health-check aspect, but I'd guess that it's more likely for crossbred dogs to be healthy than not.

• Certain breeds are far more likely to have health problems than a crossbreed or "mongrel".

• People can charge and pay whatever they like for dogs. It's nobody's business if someone is foolish enough to pay "too much" for what used to be a cheap "mistake" dog. Trying to regulate supply and pricing will probably only lead to a black market, where dogs are even more likely to be mistreated.

• Humans who have children generally choose to "breed" regardless of their health histories. I assume those who want tight control on which dogs are bred wouldn't dream of suggesting that people shouldn't become parents if they're likely to pass down genetic disorders or predispositions.

There is nothing wrong with well produced cross breeds. @LaurieFairyCake You talk about health checks. There are plenty of pure bred dogs with known, horrific health issues. Take the pug, with it's breathing problems and eyes that can potentially pop out of it's head. Look at something like a cocker poo in comparison. Which do you believe are generally healthier dogs? If a breeder does all the right checks, hip scores, eyes etc, many cross breeds will be far better in terms of their health.

Also: Who gets to decide that it's no longer acceptable to nudge dog breeds or create new ones? "We have XXX accepted breeds, but this where it stops." Why? Why are the current breeds any better than what someone may possibly develop 50 years in the future?

If people cared about animal welfare they would rescue animals in need rather than pay for new ones to be bred, thereby supporting an unethical industry.

All of these 'breeds' were only created in the Victorian era anyway. The idea of 'pure bred' dogs in itself is actually ridiculous

[quote Frequency]A straight cross between two purebred parents is a known quantity

There is nothing known about "straight crosses". A cross of any pedigrees can inherit both desireable and undesirable qualities from any parent. A curly, non shedding coat is not a guarentee in a 'poo cross.

happyoodles.com/2020/04/is-an-oodle-dog-right-for-you/

Hybrid vigour aka the idea that crossbreeds are healthier is a myth.

www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/the-myth-of-hybrid-vigor-in-dogsis-a-myth[/quote]
Dogs are not different than all the other domestic animals. There is a certain amount of predictability in crosses, while increasing genetic diversity is a good thing when you are looking to avoid the genetic defects that are not endemic in many purebreds.

And the research suggests that mongrels do have fewer health problems than either purebreds or crossbreeds.

In any case, you are not likely to end up with anything worse than what you risk with a purebred dog, when show-winning champion purebreds include dogs that can't run, can't breath, can't control their own temperature, and can't breed or whelp naturally.

You do realise that most of the registered breeds started out as crosses, often with more than two types of dogs, until breeders were satisfied with what they had produced?

If you have no money for vet fees/insurance you have no business owning any pet.

You don't say! I was simply saying that it is hardly something unique to owners of crossbreeds like the poster who originally posted it was implying.
Where I live 98% of dogs are bred by people for profit, that goes for crossbreeds, fullbreeds, whatever. People want pets, it is too difficult for most people to get a dog from a rescue here just having kids rules you out. Pretending that people who walk around with a pedigree dog on the end of a lead are anymore virtuous than those that walk around with a cockawhatever or chiwhatever is a fools game.

[quote Frequency]**@SmokedDuck* I get the idea from the fact that the only* semi-ethical reason to breed a dog is to carry on a specific desirable bloodline such as a champion show or sporting dog. Breeding for profit immediately qualifies as a breeder as a bad breeder because it is simply not possible to breed responsibly and make a profit.

There is literally no reason other than money to breed a crossbreed. They can't be shown, they cannot compete in working breed trials. They have no desirable bloodline to carry on.[/quote]
Champion show lines are often useless and unhealthy dogs. Many show dogs are completely useless at what the breed is actually meant to do and serve only to give some sort of ego satisfaction to their owners.

There is a reason that people who use dogs for actually work often do not care that much about having a purebred, and that many working dog groups have resisted KC membership. Border collies, JRT, Duck tollers - all of these groups resisted membership for years and many still consider that membership has been detrimental to the dogs. (And serious hunters who used duck tollers now tend to go for the still-unregistered lines which now go by a different name.)

It isn't people selling dogs that has created a state where dogs are now genetically inferior, having conformation defects praised and encouraged, unable to work, shortened lifespans, etc.

And it isn't people selling dogs that have created a focus on a particular name, be it a cocker spaniel or a cockapoo, that has little relation to the real needs of the pet owner.

@Austriana

If people cared about animal welfare they would rescue animals in need rather than pay for new ones to be bred, thereby supporting an unethical industry.

You’re saying that like it’s easy to rescue a dog. I know many people who were unable to due to their garden size, having children or having other pets. It isn’t as simple as you’re making out and these barriers tend to force people to buy dogs.

I think the best thing is to do your own due diligence then to not give a flying fuck what other people think.

@Stroppyshite

All of these 'breeds' were only created in the Victorian era anyway. The idea of 'pure bred' dogs in itself is actually ridiculous

Yes, the whole idea is unscientific.

What peopel don't realise is that the KC and the system for organising dogs was set up before genetics was really understood. They had just begun to understand natural selection, but they had a lot of ideas about it that were incorrect. This is where scientific racism and eugenics came from, they were theories based on the early, and incomplete, understanding of genetic inheritance.

And the thing about eugenics is not just that it is, when applied to humans, morally bankrupt. It's actually untrue - it's based on faulty science.

Well, guess what, the faulty science is just as bad when you apply it to dogs.

My issue with cross breeds, as a professional in the canine world, is that people don't realise they're cross breeds.
They get this cockerpoo thinking they're going to have a great dog the kids will love, like waffle the dog on cbeebies. What they don't know is they are getting ANY cocker traits, and ANY poodle traits. They will also get any health issues attributed with the breeds. How much of each you get is known, you could get great bits, you could get not so great bits.
I have worked with about a dozen cockerpoos in the last 6 months who guard food bowls, toys, sofas from their owners and these people did not know that guarding objects is not uncommon within cocker spaniels - and their cockerpoos had this trait too.

People also get a female designer breed and want to make a quick buck from them when they have no idea about responsible breeding.

And lastly, I recently chatted to somebody about how she had paid two thousand pounds for a 'pure bred, pedigree sprockerpoo'.

....there is no such thing as a pure bred pedigree sprockerpoo.

You have a springer x cocker spaniel x poodle cross.

@Austriana

If people cared about animal welfare they would rescue animals in need rather than pay for new ones to be bred, thereby supporting an unethical industry.

Rescue dogs come from the same places non-rescue dogs come from.

Dogs that cannot breed are no longer allowed to be bred and have their pups KC registered. Ditto dogs who have to have C-sections. The surgery is reported to the KC by the vet and the pups are at risk of not being able to be shown therefore ensuring the breeder does not breed from that dog again.

And yes, I know how dogs came to be as they are today, just as I know the KC are now taking steps to breed out health concerns. Admittedly they're not doing enough but not doing enough is better than not doing anything at all a la BYB and puppy farmers.

Hybrid vigour is a myth. There are many, many scientific papers disproving it if you have access to any science libraries I suggest you take a look.

And yes, I am well aware of the history of dogs. I have worked with and studied canines and their behaviour for most of my adult life.

I, personally, don't believe anyone who lines the pockets of a breeder has any right to call themselves virtuous but if you must buy a puppy at least buy from someone who is doing all the neccessary health and DNA screening and doing it for the love of the breed rather than someone who is doing it profit.

And finally, not all rescues have blanket bans on children and if you're turned down by every rescue you approach there is probably a reason for that and it's probably not the right time to get a dog.

edit - First sentence should read "dogs that cannot breathe"

I should add to my post that I have actually no issue with crosses. They are, like most dogs, lovely. All dogs have their challenges and their strengths, and we should always look at the dog we have in front of us, not the dog we had ten years ago as a child iyswim. They can also in come cases be healthier than some purebred dogs, although that is a fairly sweeping generalisation.

I just wish people would stop saying they have insert designer cross name here, and just say they have a cross...sometimes people tell me they have something like a chaltese... what on earth? Just call it a chihuahua x maltese.

Allergies are really common nowadays, so we're attempting to create hypoallergenic breeds. They're serving a purpose.

There's no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog.

Re: hybrid vigour: the point is that a restricted genetic pool is prone to all kinds of problems that are less likely to manifest if there is more genetic variation. A breed registry is an artificial genetic bottleneck, that's what it is for.

Selling something does not make the person doing the selling uninterested in the quality of the thing being sold. If that were true it would be impossible to find craftmen or tradespeople or farmers who take pride in their work and strive for excellence.

Whether a person can really make much or any money selling pet dogs is doubtful, mind you. Part of the reason is all of the genetic and health testing though - which is necessary because of the health problems created by inbreeding. So you have as a result high prices where an unscrupulous person can make money by neglecting these things - a situation which would not have developed to the same degree if they were unnecessary in the first place.

The KC has always done what is best for the KC, and payed lip service to anything else. If people think that can be reformed within the outlines they have set, great, I have doubts but who knows.

But criticising people because they don't accept the arbitrary and counter-productive ideas about dog breeding that created this situation? Or claiming they won't get a healthy dog when you look at the dogs produced under the KC model?

That's pretty frikin rich.