Cross Breeds - To Breed Or Not To Breed

[TrishB]

This came up in another thread - but it really should be it's own topic.

How do you feel about the current trends of cross breeds? Cock-A-Poos, Malti-Poos, Schnoodles, etc. ? Should they be bred at all?

Personally, my concern lays more with if the dogs are bred responsibly. If the puppies find responsible loving homes, if the breeders will take them back if it doesn't work out - just like any responsible breeder should - why not?

Some would argue that they should get a pure-bred dog and they shouldn't cross breed at all. Others would argue that this may be the beginnings of new breeds - bred to meet new, developing, specific needs (i.e. adding more variety to the breeds for those with light allergies). If your needs aren't being met by an exisiting breed, then you need to create a new one, if the call is large enough for it. ;)

For me - it's more about how they're bred than what they've bred. If they're responsible about it and the pups don't end up in shelters - why not? And yes, they must be HONEST. There's no such thing as a pure bred Cock-A-Poo. It's a cross between a Cocker Spaniel and a Poodle. Nothing more, nothing less. Until someone petitions to have it added as a recognized breed.

[Judi W]

"Responsibly" cross bred is an oxymoron

[Miabella]

Here are my objections:

1) There are already more than enough crossed breeds, mixed breeds, and just plain ol' mutts in the shelters and rescues that anyone should be able to find a dog to fit their needs.

2) As I mentioned in the Red Rotties thread, there is no breed standard that these "breeders" must strive to meet. We often say that the only reason to breed is to "better the breed". If there is no breed, or even any idealization of what this breed should be, how can the "breeder" know what characteristics to look for in the purebred breeding stock? Even in purebreds, 2 nice dogs will not necessarily make a nice litter. The breeder must take the faults of each dog into account (and every dog has some fault) and judge how those characteristics will mesh with those of the potential mate. If the breeder does not even have a picture of what they want the end result to be, how can they make this decision?

3) In our society, purebred dogs are seen as more valuable. While I know that there are many purebred dogs in shelters, there are also many purebred rescues to help with the load of these dogs. Mixed breeds and crossed breeds seem to be the most disposable of all, so why add to the problem.

[alexav]

Originally posted by TrishB

If the puppies find responsible loving homes, if the breeders will take them back if it doesn't work out - just like any responsible breeder should - why not?......

If they're responsible about it and the pups don't end up in shelters - why not?

Those are three BIG "IF's". ANY pup can and will find it's way to a shelter (if it's lucky!)or worse when the novelty wears thin. (usually when they're not so cute anymore...)

Aren't there enough homeless pets dying every day already?

In an ideal world without a HUGE overpopulation problem, the occasional accident will occur anyway. In an ideal world, there would indeed be homes for those pups because thier lives would be valued for the reasons they should be, NOT because they are a new trendy posession to be discarded at the first sign of inconvenience.

As long as we are living in the REAL world, let's keep the breeding to a minimum! Let's fight to preserve the breeds we ALREADY HAVE. There are a HELLOVALOT of people out there breeding "purebreds" that aren't doing it responsably. To diliberately produce a crossbreeding is irresposible already. It could only go downhill from there....

[rottcrazed]

Most cross bred dogs are the result of accidental breedings although many people make a lot of money selling a 'popular' cross breed like the bichon-shihtzu. Most of these people don't health test their animals because there truly is no reason to.

It's not as thought they are trying to strengthen their 'breed' or eliminate a particular problem in their 'breed' like we do with out rottweilers.

The health of their animals alone not being a concern (and when I say health, I am not talking about yearly vaccinations, worming, good food, I mean hip dysplasia, eye and heart disorders, etc..) is enough to say that these breeders are not responsible. Consider the fact that a lot of these breeders supply pet stores too.

Responsible? I think not!

Kristi

[halliebear]

Against - But then I'm sure that's no surprise. People have "oops" litters all the time. This does not make a "breed" it makes a mix. To charge large sums for a "purebred" mix is ridiculous. Especially since I get the feeling that "cockapoo" breeders aren't checking hips, eyes, etc.

Halliebear

[Vivianne]

Originally posted by rottcrazed
Most cross bred dogs are the result of accidental breedings...

Not only accidental, but how many haven’t heard one neighbor say to another that they think there pets should get together because they are so cute, or I wonder what we’d get if our pets mated. Unfortunately the majority of cross-bred dogs are created because of this dog owner mentality not to mention their ignorance in getting their pets fixed so that Barney the Lab doesn’t get out and get Rita the Dalmatian from 4 blocks down the street pregnant.

Whether it’s accidental or intentional there is no real responsibility in the minds of these pet owners. Yes they may find them a home, but 99% will have no clue how to qualify a buyer, they will not offer to take the dogs back if there is a problem and they cannot answer any temperament or behavior questions because of the cross they’ve made.

If there is to be the creation of a new breed, from cross-breeding existing breeds, then I’d like to see a lot of reasons and research going into the development of this new breed by qualified persons, not the classified section of my local news paper.

[angrygenius]

Serious, responsibly thought out cross breeding is, like line breeding, a tool for the highly educated breeder that is already thinking about an end result. As it has been pointed out here many times, todays Rott probably does'nt look much like a rott from 500 years ago, and this is a result of breeding other lines into the Rotty line. HOWEVER, breeding "cute little dustmops" with some fancy name to sell to the nearest pet shop is, at the very least, irresponsible. To actually set up shop to breed lots of these crosses should be criminal, since it has nothing to do with the animal, except as a product to make a quick buck. Apparently I'm coming in on the anti side as well.

[DailyDouble]

Originally posted by Judi W
"Responsibly" cross bred is an oxymoron

Indeed. Accidental breedings, although the blame still falls back on the owner of the bitch irregardless of how responsible they may have been in the past, is not intentionally breeding a Labradore Retriever with a Rottweiler simply to see what the result will be.

It is beyond my imagination where a person would get off charging purebred prices for mixed breed dogs.

More over; I have to wonder about any buyer who would seek out a person who would call themselves a breeder; who produces "Cock-a-poos".

Responsible would be spaying a Cocker and neutering a Poodle if no suitable mate can be aquired within their breed.

[rottcrazed]

And also keep in mind that most people that are intentionally breeding these cross-breeds never purchased their own breeding stock from a reputable breeder to begin with. Most of their stock is unregistered, initially purchased fromsomeone who decided to breed their own dog to whatever they thought would be a nice mate, same breed or not.

It's really sad. And frustrating. I was at a dog show in April and had a lady come up to me and ask me if I would ever consider breeding Justice, my male, to a bull mastiff or english mastiff to make larger puppies? I looked at her like she had just grown a second head and asked her to leave before I say something I might regret.

Kristi

[alexav]

Originally posted by rottcrazed
I looked at her like she had just grown a second head and asked her to leave before I say something I might regret.

ROFL! I find myself doing that very same thing at least once a week.

[TrishB]

You've all made wonderful points. All are well taken. :) My question was more out of curiosity than intent. Rest assured that I have no intentions of breeding RottnPoos. :p

[Mattweiser]

I am against, but for entirely different reasons.

First of all, I would like to point out (for the millionth time), that all breeds (the Rottweiler included) started as mixed breeds. The GSD for example has only been around for close to 200 years.. and was clearly invented by a German Military Officer.

That having been said, a breed registry (AKC, CKC, UKC, FCI etc..) are nothing more than a registry (read, money), just because a breed does, or doesn't exist means very little... for example the AKC only recognizes around 150 breeds, the FCI (the international registry) recognizes a few hundred more... and the various registries have different rules (the UKC will allow an owner to change the dog's "registered" name)

so to use the registries as a "rule" is a bit of a stretch..... <rant over>

now back to the actual thread;

take for example the Belgian Malinois and its "cousin" the Dutch Shepherd. These dogs, by in large, are unregistered, does that mean that they are not quality dogs?? also, for those that are not aware, these dogs are often "cross bred" with GSD's to add or take away certain traits.. I own a NVBK registered Malinois that has a NVBK (Belgian Ring Sport) national champion 2 gens back in his pedigree.. I was doing some research the other day, and discovered that, that very dog (Joeri NVBK Cat I Ch 1992) has German Shepherd in its background (2 gens back)... so technically my dog is a cross breed... but it has "papers".... are the papers AKC? NO... but they are Belgian papers.. the dog ha "papers" has "registered" parents. etc...

Another example is the APBT.. according to the AKC, this is a mutt...
there are a few breeders in the US that would fight over those words. They take all the time and effort that any "reputable" breeder would (even more in some cases).. but they are "technically" cross breeding...

Yet another example is the American Bulldog......... OK, I have made my point
;)

[Miabella]

Originally posted by rottcrazed
And also keep in mind that most people that are intentionally breeding these cross-breeds never purchased their own breeding stock from a reputable breeder to begin with. Most of their stock is unregistered, initially purchased fromsomeone who decided to breed their own dog to whatever they thought would be a nice mate, same breed or not.

This is another great point. Most responsible breeders of purebred dogs have spay/neuter contracts on pet quality puppies and strict breeding guidelines on show puppies. I find it highly unlikely that a responsible breeder of a purebred would consent to having one of their show quality produce bred to a dog of another breed to intentionally produce crossbreds. So it's not like the parents of planned crossbreds have any likelihood of being champions or top quality working dogs.

[Teena]

I wish everyone who breeds for greed would have to spend a week working in a kill shelter.
Maybe their hearts are so hard they wouldn't care, but it would kill me to have to put MANY animals to sleep because there aren't enough homes for them.

My sister in law got a boxer "oh with AKC papers!" and wants to breed it one time before they have her fixed.
If my husband wasn't sitting there I would have strangled her .