Only the rarer breeds have a tiny gene pool & because breeders are crossing breeds with common genetic conditions they are not breeding healthier diogs(for example Standard poodles & Labradors have the some of the highest % of epilepsy for which there is no test)so how can crossing the two breeds be considered to be improving the health of the off spring ?????

& also in antiquity breeds were crossed to produce a tuype to do a job of work-never for health & certainly not for the look of the breed. most breeds were in fact developed by breeding dogs who could do a job of work together to produce better workers & dogs more suited to the job.

Modern day "designer"dog breeders haven't a clue how to develop a real breed, they do not cull their litters as happened in the past(foxhounds are an example of a breed in which culling continues-any hound that doesn't work isn't rehomed-it's shot)

my point is quite simply that having diversity is a good though and a good mutt will always be as good if not better than a pedigree, my insurance charges me more for my 2 pedigree dogs but less for my crossbreed when i asked why they said themselves due to the higher rate of illness in pedigrees, not really an argument as such but a lot of recognised breeds serve no real purpose at all and have been hideously bred to the freaks we see today so it would appear these breeders over the years have not had a clue how to develop a real breed.
Strange how threads develop and lose the initial thrust, for me cross breeds are as important as pedigree dogs which in reality are designer dogs.

Here we go again.

Keeping it all OT it is not right to deliberately cross two breeds, especially with such differences in size/shape etc for the purpose of making a designer breed and profit. Fact.

I wonder why you have a pedigree then if they are that bad, I've only ever had 2 cross breeds all my others have been pure bred and there is no difference in health. As to insurance charging more have you ever thought that people who have cross breeds may be less likely t have insurance and therefore the overall risk is lower. Most pedigree pups when purchased come with some sort of insurance which probably puts it at the forefront of the purchasers minds.
As to pedigrees not serving any purpose, firstly many of the jobs that dogs used to do are no longer legal and secondly, why do they need a 'purpose' surely just being a fantastic companion is all that is needed for a dog these days.
I don't think any dogs are 'hideous freaks' and quite frankly I find that sort of language quite offensive and said with some venom and showing your clear hatred for pure bred dogs. I love all dogs, I don't agree with how or why some of them have been bred but it isn't the dogs fault.
Becky

No dogs a freak. These breeders have no clue, ahh well cross breeders fit into that to then, of course other wise they would not breed cross breeds, which in actual fact can be quite dangerous. No need for it most of the time and anyone that supports cross breeding for no reason is just as bad as the person doing it.

That was my point exactly Em. Thank you for putting it so succinctly!

I'm not sure why there is a need here to stick up for crossbreeds. My first dog was a Lurcher, one of the oldest types of crossbreed and I do not have a problem with the crossbreed.

This dog I met belonged to a first time dog owner, he will never be worked and was certainly not bred for his working abilities. It was a stupid decision taken by stupid people to make a type of dog for the latest bunch of people that fancy owning a so-called 'designer' dog.

I personally feel that alot of people who have never owned a dog before, are fooled, sucked in and tricked by the dozens of BYB's that are churning out oodles, something-a-poos and other ridiculously named crosses.

Double post

The reason why Insurance is relatively cheap for mongrels is that no one health tests them so their underlying health issues are not known & also the vast majority of dogs that are insuranced are pedigree dogs & not mongrels

My neighbour has two dogs one mongrel(a lurcher of unknown background)& a pedigree whippet. his lurcher has a serious heart condition & his whippet ihas no health isuues, but the lurcher was bred to hunt(as he has done in the past & was chasing a rabbit when he colapsed & his heart condition was discovered when he was 3 years old !!)

I had a mongrel who I rescued-she had severe HD for which she was on medication all the time I had her, an eye condition, was totally unsound & was deaf-Never had that with any of my pedigree dogs-even the two that had/have HD-they were/are never unsound nor in pain at any time in their lives(only knew they had HD because I have all my dogs HD scored)

& all my Border Collies, GSDs & Bearded Collies could/can do the job the breed was developed to do. Even my cavaliers go hunting(for which they were bred orginally )!

Curious, what was the reason for the flattening of the muzzle in the King Charles Spaniels, by crossbreeding to shorter faced Eastern breeds, (as was done in the late 1800s)? Looks and fashion are all I can come up with.

What was the reason, besides for hobby and fashion, for the development of the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel breed (a monetary prize offered for a dog that most looked like painted images of the longer muzzled King Charles of the past)?

. . . the Pekingese, the Japanese Chin (Spaniel), the Pug, the Brussels Griffon (Griffon Bruxellois)? . . .

All of these breeds have common (shared) ancestry in the late 1800s and early 1900s due to crossbreeding. Was that crossbreeding for a working purpose then, and not about developing or changing their look?

. . . as well as sucked in and tricked by the dozens of BYB's that are churning out purebred dogs.

Where I live, where 90% are unregistered and we do not have the same purebred traditions as Europe does, it is the influx of BYBs and commercial breeders selling higher priced papered purebreds to the delight of the registries that is the bigger problem. The cast-offs from this system of breeding (ex-breeding dogs) also puts a higher strain on rescues.

Foolish dog buyers have been around forever. Unscrupulous breeders will use whatever they can, and registry papers and "purebred value" are as well a marketing ploy, especially when buyers believe they can then make money off of their new purebred's pups come a few years.



---------------- Buy A Dog Ma'am - Richard Ansdell @1860 --------------------

So, what to do about it? Certainly blanket assertions chastising one group as unscrupulous when unscrupulous in the other are easily found isn't going to help. People hear this and know how foolish it is. All it serves is devisiveness and nothing is accomplished.

There has to be dog buying educational topics that leave out classifying by 'what' is bred - such as about finding breeders that health screen, that back up their pups for life, that research health in their lines - that would serve better.

I saw my first English Bulldog in person just two weeks ago. I'm sure I was just as aghast as the OP was at seeing a "Cockerdor", but I would have thought it nervy of me to come on a forum and post my dismay that someone actually supported that dogs breeding. I would expect a similar reaction as this thread got if I did so.

Ruby