controversial Cross breeds!

This has come up a few times recently and it's mostly breeders that seem to have a problem with this. In fairness, I think I know why - most breeders are in love with their breed and believe they are doing the best to keep up the high standards as expected from breeds that have bred true for hundreds of years.

However my simple point and question is if you are breeding, say a golden retriever for example, a good breeder would be looking to breed from dogs with good temperment (I do hope in this order too...), sound healthwise (tested) and good looks. So we have two goldies that match these ideals and we breed and are pretty much assured similar offspring; what is so very wrong with doing the exact same, but with parents that are from different breeds??
Obviously there are going to be some people out there trying to breed together weird and wonderful combinations for fashion/money... but then aren't there just as many people breeding same breeds together having no clue about genetics??
In my opinion (having a gsd x husky, purpose bred both parents tested, and having her pedigree to several generations back) I wanted a german shepherd. But I was terrified of the problems they carry, and the way the back legs and back have been bent out of proportion (sorry but to me it's hideous) yet I wanted that clever, outgoing personality and wolfy looks. When I came across the advert for my pup I was over the moon, then had to think about it for a bit... (huskies might be beautiful but it's well known that they have strong prey drive and aren't all that into obeidience) I played with the pups alot until I made up my mind that I was going to take the 'risk' (as I saw it then, temperment-wise). I was lucky enough that my parents fell in love with her and wanted one, and that a second litter was not too far away... so i have had the lucky advantage of watching two litters of the same cross grow up (I have kept in touch with the other littermates). What I have seen has impressed me. I thought we might get one breeds' characteristics strong in some dogs, and less in others, but what we have is a mixture of both in all dogs. Obviously at 6 and 7 months it's too early to say there are absolutly no health problems, but as the parents were tested and healthy, and all dogs legs and backs looking fantastic now, I am not worried.
So my ultimate question, is there any real reason why not to cross*?

*again assuming that parents and tested and that the breeder has some knowledge of genetics. I might be jumping to conclusions that breeders aren't like me: worried about the HIGH number of genetic faults that are now common among almost every Kennel club registered breed out there, and willing to open up the gene pool a little...

for me far too many crossbreeds and purebreeds in rescue as it is so why create more ??? as a dog lover I hate to see this many in need of homes and the creation of more just more monetary value = cos that is in my opinion what it mostly is.

JMO

Yes quite agree Dani - why create new doggy lives when there are so many doggies that will never find a loving home of their own

Yes jess, you make some very good points for cross breeding.

Outbreeding, as in cross breeding, does decrease the incidence of hereditary defects because the genes for many diseases are recessive and breed specific so do not show up in the offspring.

Cross breeding is common practice in agriculture as it produces more robust, healthy offspring. Farmers though have more incentive to breed for these traits as their livilihood depends on it. Not the case in dogs unfortunately where 'puppy appeal' seems to be the selling point with many of the cross breds.

So very true Dani,but its a shame it dont educate people to keep away from things which they know very little about.

absolutly, but again in my opinion these dogs are 'created' by mindless people who 'forgot to get her/him neutered' had accidents, or thought that 'it is best for the bitch to have one litter before being spayed'. These dogs, like cheap farm collies at £20 a pup, are worthless and as easily discarded by their owners as the Sunday Times. I know from personal experience (rescue) when you charge someone a bit of money that object, be it inanimate or living thing then has value, and as far as i am concerned people think a little more about spending the money in the first place (as opposed to buying the cheap cute little puppy on instinct and then chucking it out later), and then if it comes to the worst it has more value than to dump it at the side of the road. Of course there are always execptions to the rules, but how many £1000 chihauhas have you seen in the pound recently?

But aside from dogs being in pounds (why not just ban all breeding then) I am really talking about the genetics of the thing is anyone else a little worried about the genetic problems our selective breeding has instilled in all our pedigree chums?

For me, if there is a particular purpose for the cross I can't see it being wrong.

For instance, the poodle crosses. Unfortunately there are so many people jumping on the bandwagon but I do think the original idea for labradoodles was a good one. A certain temperament, size and strength was required for Guide Dogs, dogs for the disabled etc, easily trainable a decent size so the owner feels safe etc. but so many can't have labradors due to their health problems and allergies - particularly with dogs for the disabled so a cross with a poodle meant that asthma or hair allergies didn't cause problems with these people. By almost creating a breed by breeding together labrador and poodle crosses rather than a first generation cross each time, temperament and size can be determined like pure breed dogs - this, I think is a good idea.

I can see your point, however, as far as I understand it, cross breeds between two breeds can have as many, or worse health problems than pure bred dogs whilst mongrels and Heinz 57s do suffer from less health problems.

The only concern I would have is why they are breeding these cross breeds on purpose, if the reason is not for money and they are willing to take back pups that people have bought from them, then no - I don't see a problem as such, the dogs in rescues are there because things were not thought through and the new owners had nowhere to take unwanted pets to.

So long as there is a very well thought through reason, parents have had health tests, they take back unwanted pups and are not breeding for profit, I don't see a problem - there are many pure bred dogs bred which end up in rescues because the breeders don't take back unwanted dogs or don't health test the parents etc just as there are cross breeds.

hope that wasn't aimed at me I can assure you I have a good background in genetics.

Thank you Pod. I thought breeders used the term outbreeding to mean that they did it once to introduce some good genes and then returned to normal.

I didn't know that farmers did that, but I am aware of it in horses, my own is a warmblood (throughbred x some kind of big cart lugging cuddy!) but it's not so shocking in the horse world, in fact, my horse is worth quite a bit! Perhaps the answer is to increase the prices on all doggers... so they become things of value, I mean not many people are going to dump a horse on the side of the road, again there is always exception to the rule... this week three horses' manes, down the road from us, were set on FIRE!!! There is a group of us armed to the teeth looking for the culprits...

I dont know how its all working in UK but in US, generally with cross breeding, 'designer' breeding the health testing and screening is not done...I cant say that there are no breeders that do it, I dont know every breeder but I can say that Ive done quite a lot of research on it to the point where Ive called and asked questions from ads in the papers, pups in pets stores etc (dont know any responsible breeders personally that would ever advertize in a local paper or hand their pups over to pet stores anyway) but whenever I ask about the testing and screening results there are none. Not once have I found a cross breeder that has done any testing. (average between myself and another person that was looking into this then there had to be a few hundred phone calls made over about a 2 year period).

So if everyone that was cross breeding was doing the testing it would definately take that arguement away....and then theres all those dogs in shelters.....the thing is that when you cross breed there really are no guarantees that you will end up with what you have in mind, from what Ive read it would take years to accomplish a guaranteed 'type' and even then you can still get throwbacks.

Personally, with all the rescues Ive worked with weve never had a problem matching a potential adoptee with exactly what theyre looking for. I would love to have a well bred GSD or Rott, maybe a Dobie but then I have to live with the fact that I had enough space to take in another dog and for what I paid for that well bred dog could probably save the lives of at least 4 or 5 homesless dogs including the one I just gave a home to.

Many diseases are genetic yes, and the advances in DNA reasearch will see a huge improvement in health in relation to these in the forthcoming decades. But a good proportion of defects/deformities seen in dogs are due to exaggerations bred in for the showring or just appeal.

These are of course genetic too but won't have identifiable genes as they are part and parcel of the construction of the dog as in the GSD's hindquaters as you mention. The exaggerations predispose to defects.

It's just part of human nature to want.... bigger, better, longer, stronger....whatever, just to get noticed. I don't know what the answer is.