I was referring specifically to Jake (and dogs bred in the same way as him)... given that there was no reason for the breeding... the cross is unknown (all the SSPCA could tell us was BCx, and the litter were handed in so they actually spoke to the 'breeders'), he was infested with worms, he was underweight and extremely scrawny etc. So, they weren't the best cared for.

That is why I said...



I wouldn't support a breeder, who obviously knows very little like that. I don't think his 'breeders' are 'bad' people... they handed the litter in to the SSPCA when they could have done many other things with them, but they gave them to people who were in a much better position to find good homes for the pups. I wouldn't give them that... I was more than happy to give that money to the SSPCA though.

That isn't about the dogs being a crossbreed though, that is about the breeders... and I wouldn't pay a breeder for a pedigree dog, if the conditions were similar.

Dogs are living, breathing animals, and so yes, I think crossbreeds are worth more money than many people think they should. Most dogs will provide you with love, loyalty, be your best friend etc for all the years they can. You are paying for an animal who can possibly live to 15 years + (depending on breed), although of course even the best bred dogs don't always live up to that.

I think Jake is worth more than £70 (well, given all that was included in that money, he was practically free!), crossbreed or not, health tests or not.

My point was mainly, that people seem to assume that crossbreed breeders = bad, and pedigree breeders = good.

I'm not sure I am making myself very clear

All breeds were "mixed stock" originally -- what is your point?

If they are Siberian Huskies crossed with a Malamute they are cross breeds and not mongrels.

Tbf getting into debt to help the dog you already have v's getting into debt just to get the dog in the first place is a bit different.

My point is that I do not consider NI's and Utes cross breeds because several breeds went into the mix. There is far more to them than just mal x sibe.

I'd take a bet that there are more dog owners worldwide that know sod all about breeders and breeding and good vs bad breeders than those who do (or think they do).

I mean you could own dogs all your life and come onto a forum like this and not have a clue what half the acronyms stand for, not have heard of some of the breeds and, like me today, be really surprised (well appalled actually) to read there are dogs being bred who cannot give birth naturally?

That surely can't be an example of breeders working to improve the breed and eliminate problems can it?

When did this type of dog start to be unable to birth naturally?

It's not about whether the dog is a pedigree, cross or mongrel though, it's about whether it was well bred. There are so many badly bred pedigree dogs around. when I took my litter for their vet check a couple of weeks ago my vet said it was refreshing to see a whole litter with correct bites and good construction. Sadly most pups he sees are the offspring of poor quality animals and so it goes around. My first dog was a pedigree, but he wasn't well bred and he died at 3 years. My current dogs are pedigrees from top breeders with thought and effort put into the breeding - they are in a different league IMO. I mostly groom pedigree dogs, mainly Shih Tzus, Lhasa Apsos, Westies, Cockers and quiet a few Labs and GSDs. On the rare occasion I get a well bred dog in (usually from show stock) they stand out a mile from the usual dogs I see. Sadly most pedigree dogs seem to be poorly bred animals, which is why pedigrees have the bad reputation for health that they do. People don't differentiate between well bred and just bred!

Apparently the KC has amended the breed standard to help breeding to reduce skull width in bulldogs