Question:
What is your view on this? The fact that all breeds we have today are the results of cross-breeding at some point in time, so what makes the breeding of "designer mutts" so wrong other than making money?

I know very little about breeding or genetics, so I don't actually know if there is any truth in such claim. There are many diverse views on the Internet, just want to hear what you think.

Answer:
Mixed breeds are no more healthier or sicker than other breeds.

Answer:
I heard once that mutts are healthier than purebreds...I can't see how that is and no one has ever told me if it's true or not. I'll be interested in what others have to say.

Answer:
As we were leaving the emergency clinic with our little mutt, Moose - still mostly lifeless - and an $800 bill.. I said something about wishing I had known more about his parents and felt this was the danger of adopting a puppy 'blind'... And the receptionist at the clinic got a little snotty with me and said 'Mutts are healthier than pure bred dogs - pure breeds are so inbred it's ridiculous'. As I recall - her timing was really really bad and I was quite miffed...

Answer:
I'm just guessing by what I learned in my Grade 9 Science class, so I might be wrong.

There is more genetic variation in mutts, which makes them stronger. If you're breeding purebred dogs, there are only a certain number of dogs you can breed them too, and the genetics of dogs of the same breed came be very similar. For this reason, even if there is a recessive gene, such as hip dysplasia (this is interchangable with genetic disease), there's an increased chance that both parents have the recessive gene, hence the offspring getting hip dysplasia. However, if that dog with hip dysplasia is bred with a dog of another breed, which isn't prone to getting hip dysplasia, the dominant gene should be present in the offspring.

As far as I know, the vast majority of genetic diseases are recessive so when you have so much genetic variation, the chances of two recessive genes occuring is vastly reduced.

Some purebred dogs might be healthier because ones from reputable are screened for health defects, whereas very, VERY few mixed breeds are, so if you're looking for a puppy, you shouldn't have this problem if you go to a reputable breeder. Some people don't believe this reasoning because there is still genetic variation within a breed, but there is more if there are genes from a couple of breeds in a dog. Of course, having a mixed breed dog does not guarantee against genetic diseases, many mixed breed dogs do get them because some, such as hip dysplasia, are common.

Again, this is just a guess, so I could easily be wrong.

Answer:
Mutts are outcrosses, when you mix unknown genes you get surprises, some good some bad. In general correctly bred purebreds are healthiest.

Also, mutts have a greater chance of being structurally unsound as you mix up the shape of the dog.

Answer:
So is it correct to say that given the same competing ground, i.e. same breeder, same process of breeding, same everything, mutts will be healthier than purebreds?

db7: I'm not sure if I understand what you meant by "being structurally unsound".

Answer:
mixed breeds are not more suseptable to being healthier or sicker then purebreeds.

If everyone was a responisble breeder there would not be as many genetic defects in purbreeds as there are. because of the puppy mills and byb there are a lot of defects because the dogs are not screened before being bred.

Mixed breeds have the possibility of having many of the same genetic defects because many breeds carry some of the same common genetic disorders. For instance if you were to cross a german shepherd with an australian shepherd the puppy would have a high chance of having hip dysplasia since both breeds are suseptable to this genetic disease. So you see even if you crossbreed you can still get the same genetic diseases as if you had a purebred.

Answer:
i think when you get a pet your rolling the dice, it could be a pet thats prone to being healthy, or one thats prone to illness, or something in between


mixed breed or not.

thats my personal opinion

Eleni

Answer:
Mutt or purebred, any dog is only as good as the parents. Lousy breeder = unsound or genetically flawed dogs.

Since people who are breeding mixes deliberately for $$ usually know nothing and couldn't care less about health defects, a responsibly bred purebred should be healthier, generally speaking, as the breeding dogs have been tested and ascertained to be free of known defects.

Of course, irresponsibly bred purebreds can be riddled with problems too.

And the receptionist at the clinic got a little snotty with me and said 'Mutts are healthier than pure bred dogs - pure breeds are so inbred it's ridiculous'.
You might want to ask her if genetics is her field of expertise.

As for what is wrong with breeding mixes ("Puggles, Labradoodles etc) excellent post by someone named Pat B. on another board on this subject!
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Breeding should be left to the ethical breeders who are not breeding for the sole purpose of having puppies to sell, and it is the shared responsibility of informed dog lovers to educate people about what constitutes Responsible Breeding (v.s. all the other kinds).

What makes a dog breed? There are something like 400 or so breeds of dogs in the world today. The chance of any "new breed" being truly *new* in light of those odds is pretty slim. Chances are that whatever characteristics a dog buyer is seeking in a breed, that somewhere out there is a breed which already has those characteristics. Unless - of course - the only thing the person is interested in is a "designer breed".

Considering the vast number of breeds already in existence, anyone who decides that they really, really need to create yet another should have to be able to make a pretty strong case for it. Because the fact is that many, MANY unwanted dogs of all breeds as well as mixed-breeds ARE dying every day for lack of homes who will take them in and commit to them for life. EVERY new canine life that comes into this world has the potential to add to that burden, and therefore EVERY new canine life that is created should be done so for only very good and well-thought-out reasons. And that reason needs to be able to hold its own against the horror of the many needless deaths of dogs every day.

It SHOULD be hard for someone to create a new breed. They SHOULD expect difficult questions and active opposition to their efforts. It's not supposed to be easy. Because if it's easy, then every Tom, Dick and Harry out there will be putting together a Rottweiler and a Pomeranian so they can be the first one on the block to go on the Internet selling Pomweilers or Rotteranians.

Crossing two breeds does not create a breed. A breed is created only when subsequent offspring are produced that continue to reproduce individuals like themselves that are true to type for many, many successive generations. This takes time. It takes LOTS of homes for all the puppies produced along the way. It takes a serious, committed base of people who are working together united in the belief that this new breed is really needed and ready to press forward in the face of opposition because they believe in what they're doing and are ready to face and handle the hard questions. And if they succeed, they succeed because of this longtime concerted effort in the face of that opposition. They will have EARNED that success.

Nope, I'm sorry. I care WAY too much about the dogs who die for lack of homes who want them to sit silently by while people throw together a couple of purebred dogs, give the puppies a cute little name, and claim they have "created a breed".

The dogs who live and die at our whims deserve far, far better than that."

Answer:
By structurally unsound I mean that each breed has been selected over the years to be a certain shape. The bones are particular lengths and fit together at particular angles to make the dog efficient at what it was breed to do. Such as good angulation in the rear legs for a hunting breed so it has good drive and stamina to run all day. Short legs and all jaws on a Scottish Terrier to get into tight places but kill like a large dog.

When you mix up shapes and sizes as in a mutt all that careful planning is out the window. You can end up with dogs with skelatal shapes that cause stress in certain areas due to a lack of efficeint conformation.

Answer:
In my opinion, 2 healthy parents= healthy offspring, mutt or not. A mutt offspring of two genetically tested parents will probably be healthier than an overly inbred pure-breed.

But if you don't know the parents and the mutt is of two breeds that are both highly susceptible to certain diseases, chances are the mutt will have the disease. At least with a pure doggy, you know the major diseases to test for or look out for.

The cockapoos and such, in my view, are not right because the breeders are selling them as something they aren't-- both calling it a breed, and saying what it's for. A German Pointer that comes from a long line of serious hunters is more likely to have the exact instincts than a mutt. You might get the instincts of the cocker, you might get the instincts of the poodle, and you might get nothing at all. Even the so called hypo-allergenic fur is not a guarantee. How can they guarantee that a dog won't provoke allergies? Impossible. That to me is where the bad is-- in the misinformation when they are selling them.

Answer:
db7: Your argument sounded very convincing to me, but again without pratically no knowledge in genetics, it's realy hard to say if mix and match would actually produce disastrous results.

Can someone educate me on the history of dog breeds?

Using common sense, I'd say that chocolatecoffee's comment made the most sense: with purebreds, you are indeed breeding from a smaller gene pool which could in turn increase the risk of disease-carrying genes from re-occurring (Prin, please correct me). So the majority of arguments that are anti designer breeds or anti-BYB centers around moral aspects of cross-breeding rather than the scientific side of it.

I've read that Australians have been breeding labradoodle since the 70s. I've also read that if there are more than 300 dogs of the same "breed" spread over at least 20 states, it would be possible to register a new breed with the AKC. So really, what makes these Australian labradoodle breeders any different from an ethical breeder at all? Isn't the label "designer mutt" a little fuzzy?

Personaly I think there are more than enough dog breeds in the world that we do not need yet another one, but who's to say that someone else with particular need or interest cannot produce new breeds? As far as I can see, the issues with "designer mutt", "byb", "unethical breeders", "puppy millers" are all mixed up, we tend to use one to criticize another without clearly understanding what it is.

Answer:
Using common sense, I'd say that chocolatecoffee's comment made the most sense: with purebreds, you are indeed breeding from a smaller gene pool which could in turn increase the risk of disease-carrying genes from re-occurring (Prin, please correct me).
I agree with that, but the breeders' side says that because they've kept track of the genes, the dogs are in fact better off because they can filter the diseases out. I say diseases aren't everything. There is a lot more involved in creating a healthy dog than just testing for hip dysplasia and heart troubles, etc.

Answer:
There is a lot more involved in creating a healthy dog than just testing for hip dysplasia and heart troubles, etc.
I agree. What about temperament? Reputable breeders also breed for stable temperaments. BYB and puppy mills breed for profit, regardless if they are breeding purebreds or designer mutts.

When you purchase a purebred from a reputable breeder you pretty much know what you are getting. You know the temperament and you know what the puppy will look like when he/she is fully grown. A reputable breeder will breed to produce the best representatives of their particular breed. In addition to this they are also breeding for sound dogs, temperamentally, physically and genetically.

When you get mix breed puppy, you don't know for sure what the temperament will be when the puppy has fully matured nor what he/she will look like. Take for example a cockapoo. My family has owned two. The first one we owned, I was little. We basically grew up together. She didn't look like a poodle nor a cocker spaniel. She had a medium coat, blonde in colour. She did shed, alot. She was very protective. She was 15 inches tall and weighed 30lbs. Our second (currrent) cockapoo is grey, 15 inches and weighs 20lbs. He has the body structure of a poodle and doesn't shed (he must be trimmed). Health wise, our first cockapoo was never sick her whole life. Never had a huge vet bill with her and she was a great dog. Our current cockapoo, same thing. He was healthy up until two years ago when he was diagnosed with heart disease.

Both purebreeds and mixes are subject to the same illnesses. The toy breeds are prone to slipped stifles, regardless if they are purebreeds or mixes. It all depends on the parents and their genetic makeup. JMHO

Answer:
Temperaments are difficult to predict, even for the most experienced breeders, correct?

Answer:
I just kinda skimmed this thread, so if I repeat anyone, please forgive me.

I'd say yes and no to the "mutts are healthier" paradox.

On one hand, they do tend to have less genetic problems. That's because certain breeds tend to carry genetic problems with other traits. For example, pugs tend to have respiratory problems, and that's a genetic thing, and there's little you can do about it, except try to breed your best stock.

So when mutts breed, they've got a bigger gene pool, and bad genes are more likely to be covered by dominant genes, and prevent illness and whatnot.

However, mutts DO still have genetic problems, they're just usually hard to identify as genetic problems. If you've got a 2 year old Heinz 57 with breathing problems and a 2 year old pug with breathing problems, it's easy to say the pug has genetic problems, just knowing the makeup of the breed. However with the Heinz 57, you can't be sure.

Answer:
Nymph,

Mix and match doesn't equal disasterous results it equals unknown results.

In terms of creating a breed, it would take something like 10 generations to "set" a new breeds' genetics by first breeding to unlike dogs then breeding pups to parents and siblings to siblings. After a couple of generations you would need to re-introduce new genes by breeding in a dog similar to one of the original dogs. And carry on until all the pups are the same.

So something like the Labradoodle is technically a true purebred dog. However, as it is a simple mix of two breeds. Lots of idiot breeders out there are not breeding from the original "set" bloodlines. They are just taking one of each and breeding them. They are cross breeds not pure breeds. ANd that's why there is so much divergence in the dogs.

Now to the question as to whether there are enough different breeds or not. I say no. The idea that man should now stop the evolution of the domestic dog I think is wrong. We have been interacting with dogs for 140,000 years. And both man and dog affected each others evolution all along, even prior to domestication. Many breeds are quite ancient while many are fairly new. Humanity is dynamic and has created new breeds to suit its needs at the time. And let other man-made breeds disappear as they were no longer of use, or were replaced by better options.

As mans needs change so shall our breeds.

Answer:
Designer mutt breeders like to talk about hybrid vigor. In other species it's true. In creating dogs it's not.

Answer:
My last dog Travis was a mutt a cross between BMD and GSD. They say that crosses are healthier as they don't carry all the genes of one certain breed that can carry a health issue but like Lucky Rescue said they are as healthy as their parents. My dogs mother was a mess and his owner never took care of them properly including their food ect. I guess you could say Travis was kind of a rescue as I felt so sorry for the conditions he was living in. He was full of worms, filthy dirty, living in a make shift pen in a dirty barn with 8 other pups fed chicken greese for food. Anyways in his life time he had (spelling?) Osteo Crondosis in his shoulder, allergies especially to fleas, bloat and had his stomach stiched to his abdoman wall, and in the end he was pts due to bone cancer. These things could happen to a pruebred or a cross so I guess that mutts aren't really healthier, this time I have the purebred and I got him from a breeder that cared for her dogs properly so I'll see how it goes so far touch wood he is as healthy as a horse. I hope he stays that way.

Answer: