Cross breeds, designer breeds or mongrels - always bad?

[PolarSkye]

I didn't see the BBC prog, but I read the thread on here with interest and it got me thinking about the place cross breeds, mongrels and/or designer breeds (which to me is just a cross breed) have in the dog world.

I get that both the KC and reponsible breeders want to be able to both preserve the integrity of the breed and promote healthy and safe breeding practices to eliminate deformities and health problems . . . and the best way of doing that is not to "sully" the breed with out crosses.

I also get that thoughtless cross breeding to produce these so-called designer breeds without considering possible deformities and health problems is hugely irresponsible and should be monitored, controlled and, in some cases, actively discouraged.

However - cross breeds and mongrels result from all sorts of matings - many of them accidental . . . and the resulting puppies are a reality. I have two of them sitting on my sofa . . . both border collie crosses, both rescues, one of them almost certainly a "tinkers" dog (came from Ireland, very young, dumped when she was only 5 weeks old) . . . they are both healthy, well put together, fit, sound and generally a delight to be around. They make excellent family pets.

Does the rather vocal insistence that people should ONLY obtain dogs from responsible, KC-registered breeders who have their dogs hip/eye/elbow/left toenail scored mean that people looking for a family pet are irresponsible if they keep adopting mongrels/cross breeds from shelters? After all, we could be seen to be feeding the market? (I'm playing devil's advocate here) . . .

By way of example - most shelters spay or neuter older puppies/dogs and insist new owners sign a waiver saying they will have the puppy they adopt spayed or neutered (we adopted both of ours as little puppies), but I know several people who have kept their rescue dogs entire . . . which means more unwanted pups, which means more dogs in rescue centres/shelters . . . and so the cycle continues.

And, if people shouldn't be feeding this market by adopting dogs and pups from shelters (and should only be buying from reputable breeders) then what happens to all these unwanted, unfortunate rejects?

I'm not trying to be provocative (well maybe just a little ) - but it's something that struck me reading the thread . . . thoughts?

P

 

[Ranyhyn]

I don't think it feeds the market, because the back street breeders don't GET money from their dogs going into rescue so it doesn't encourage them to do it more.

Basics are these people are trying to make a living, if people stop buying these substandard dogs from them, eventually these scrotes will find another back-hand way to make money.

In the meantime there will ALWAYS be abandoned dogs, plenty of pedigrees abandoned and a HUGE backlog of dogs wanting homes. There will also always be accidental matings. So no, we wont end up with zero rescue dogs. We're still such a throwaway society.

ETA: fwiw I'm not hugely PRO rescue organisations, I'm not hugely PRO pedigrees either.

 

[Bosworth]

I really do not think anyone is objecting to a mongrel, or buying from a rescue kennels. And not everyone wants a breed specific dog, they just want a family friend. However, the designer mongrels are being bred in their hundreds, totally unethical deliberate breeding, with no thought as to the hereditary problems that will come out. Just because you have paid a fortune does not make your dog healthy or a good example. An accidental mating is just that, however spaying or neutering your dog does prevent accidental matings, so few matings are truly accidental, or happen to the people who really care for their animals. I neutered my lurchers as soon as I could. One of them did get mated by a lab which broke into the kennel and run through a solid door and mated with her. I had her aborted and spayed as I did not want a litter from her. I adored her, but she was a cross breed and as such I did not want to breed from her.

I think all rescue centres should do more to ensure their animals are neutered. I got really annoyed with a rescue centre down here who were collecting in town, with a badly deformed great dane who had an enormous set of balls. When I asked why he was not neutered the idiot man said 'oh its not fair he is too old' he was 4 and an amazingly bad example. While ever there are rescues like that then breeding will continue by people who rescue. Some how rescue centres need to keep contact with the rescues and if necessary retain ownership till they are neutered so they have the legal right to get it done.
Vets should also be give powers to spay/ neuter anything that shows aggressive tendencies, anything that has a genetic problem, anything in fact that should not be passed on. I see so many entire dogs at the vets with problems mongrel as well as pedigree they are accidents waiting to happen. More vets need educating re neutering, as how many have you heard say 'oh we can't neuter till after the first season Oh if we neuter early it will stop them growing, oh the bitch needs a litter of puppies before we spay.

Then you have the pig ignorant people who see breeding a litter as a money making opportunity. Our freeads is full of them. No planning, no research just any dog and bitch together and there is a designer name

 

[Ranyhyn]

And maybe some incentive to get your dog neutered early? ie, maybe a dogs trust initiative (like the one we just had Lil spayed under ((farm dog scheme)) ) whereby early neutering is subsidised?

 

[Spudlet]

I would buy a responsibly bred cross-breed over an irresponsibly bred pedigree dog any time. There are plenty of pedigree breeders that care deeply for the health of their dogs, but not all do. Some seem more focused on winning, sadly, at any and all costs.

What boggles my mind is why some are so opposed to outcrossing to improve health - such as the dalmation on last nights programme, descended from a pointer outcross, to make the dogs able to produce uric acid. Surely some of the most severely affected breeds could benefit from something similar - either introducing working lines or even other breeds? Seems obvious to me - for example, crossing a pug with another breed with a normal nose could help to eliminate the breathing problems these dogs can suffer.

 

[MurphysMinder]

I don't think many people have anything against cross breeds, or people getting dogs from rescues. My bugbear is people selling designer crosses of totally unsuitable breeds, with no health checks and generally at higher prices than responsibly bred purebreds. They often try and claim they are healthier than purebreds which just isn't true.
As the programme showed there are irresponsible breeders of kc reg dogs, and sadly some are at the top of their breed, I cannot justify that and don't know how anyone can. I would just like anyone who is buying/rehoming a dog to do their research very thoroughly. If you want a pedigree puppy make sure the breeder has done all health tests with good results, and ideally has a real indepth knowledge of the breed and is prepared to tell a prospective buyer that the breed is not right for them.
Bosworth, ime vets aren't reluctant to neuter - my daughter couldn't wait to get Pickles bits off, poor lad. Seriously though they may advise against neutering a larger breed too soon, but it is a long time since I have heard of a vet suggesting a bitch has a litter before spaying.

 

[AmyMay]

If I'm honest (and lord knows I love our Bichon) but mongrels always seem so healthy. So no I definitely do not think they are always bad.

All breeds at one point were a cross breed - refined and refined until they reached the characteristics of the 'breed' they finally became. And what did that do to the dog we end up with eventually........?? In many cases a terrible genetic mess.

 

[CorvusCorax]

Of course not always bad, the best two dogs I have seen training recetly are GSD x Malinois (she said grudgingly ) but their parents were scored and titled and they were bred for a purpose and the mix of breeds and those individual parents were a good match for each other. One looks exactly like a Mal and the other looks like a shep, you would never know they were crosses.

No issue on the whole with x-breeds, I have owned one.

But just going to copy MM here but agree My bugbear is people selling designer crosses of totally unsuitable breeds, with no health checks and generally at higher prices than responsibly bred purebreds. They often try and claim they are healthier than purebreds which just isn't true.

PS, you ask: Does the rather vocal insistence that people should ONLY obtain dogs from responsible, KC-registered breeders who have their dogs hip/eye/elbow/left toenail scored mean that people looking for a family pet are irresponsible if they keep adopting mongrels/cross breeds from shelters?
No, it means that in this day and age, in my own breed certainly, there is no excuse with all the info out there not to breed from stock with good health results and it is detrimental to the breed.
If a pet owner/potential buyer going to pay money for a dog from unknown parents, you might as well put that money into rescue, not reward people who are not breeding responsibly.

JMO.

 

[PucciNPoni]

Personally I have no issue with cross breeds or even designer breeds (though the cutesy names give me the willies). No problem with mongrels. I *prefer* to have a purebred (registered or not I care not - but healthy specimen with good temperament is important) because at least with a purebred you've got a rough idea of what the coat type/temperament/life expectancy and so on might be.

I do have a problem with those who breed dogs without much thought or care with regard to all those issues above and then go on to sell them for a profit. (see my post about the bichon x lhgsd!).

Dogs were originally bred for purpose. Now many are being bred with the sole purpose of yielding a cash crop. I have spoken to clients of mine who say they intend to breed their inferior bitch to an equally inferior dog - tried to get them to understand the pitfalls, and why they should reconsider. 100% of the time this has fallen to deaf ears. Every single person who I've tried to convince them to do otherwise has done it anyway - and every single one of their pups have had serious health/temperament issues.

Meanwhile I also groom some *lovely* labradoodles who were bred with strict health screening protocols, all owners were instructed about socialisation, grooming, had guarantees of a home should the buyer not be able to keep them. I don't blame the breeder for making this litter, and I don't blame the buyers for wanting them, they are lovely.

But there's so many cross breeds/designers and even pure breds that are poorly bred, socialised and kept. That's my pet peeve.

 

[PolarSkye]

Interesting discussion!

Good points raised from all . . . re unscrupulous/backroom breeders only out for profit (and some who are KC registered).

However, what about all those owners of dogs with questionable breeding (often bought from their mates' next door neighbour - or some such nonsense) who keep their dogs entire (particularly males) b/c they love their dog so much they want another one just like him . . . ? They're not doing it for profit . . . sometimes their entire dog escapes and knocks up a neighborhood bitch (usually not a dog that has been appropriately screened/scored/selected) and there are accidental puppies. How is that EVER going to be regulated or controlled?

As an example, an acquaintance of mine got a staffy cross puppy - probably from someone in the travelling community - and has completely failed to socialize or train said dog. As a result he is ill-mannered, bossy and downright nasty. I don't know how much of that is nature and how much nurture - but . . . he still has his boy bits because . . . she wants to breed from him! She doesn't know what his parentage is . . . nor does she care. She will, doubtless find homes for any resulting puppies - but that's entirely beside the point. Because she bought the dog, she has signed nothing to say that she will have him neutered (which, IMHO, she should do).

This young woman isn't alone . . . sadly. What's to be done? She's had her ear bent by her vet, by her friends . . . and the resulting puppies may or may not be lovely and ideally suited as family pets . . . or they may end up in the wrong hands (i.e., wannabe "hardman" youfs who will train 'em up to fight or be 'ard).

I know I'm rambling . . . not sure if I have a point - unless it's that regulating dog ownership (including breeding) is far from a black and white issue.

P

 

[galaxy]

I don't have anything against mongrels/cross breeds at all. It's all about the people behind the matings. ALL dogs, regardless of KC or not should be health tested. This "mongrels are healthier" thing doesn't wash with me. Some pure "breed" dogs, as a breed are healthier than others and it is unfair to say because one breed throws more unhealthy dogs that pure breeds as a whole are unhealthy.

The breeders behind these crosses also get my back up by the ridiculous guarantees they place on their pups. Whether is be non shedding etc. There is nothing guaranteed about a cross, even down to what they will look like, whereas at least with a pure breed you do have a fairly certain idea of what will be at the end of your lead in a years time!