|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
07-04-2010, 08:12 AM
Originally Posted by Velvetboxers 
Im afraid I dont agree with you Jackie. I never said that two first crosses were a pedigree, I agreed with the poster who said that they were a "first cross" and unless things have dramatically changed since I was showing dogs I would still go along with that statement.
Why would showing have any influence on what you call a xbreed?
Using the term first cross or F1 indicates that its the beginning of a new breed.. and as you will know a F1 will then be bred back to siblings and relatives to produce consistency and type (like the bobtail) ,
I have no objection to people buying a crossbred puppy. If that is what they want and are prepared to spend their money on, so be it.
However I do object to people advertising pedigree puppies, people paying huge monies for it and then some months down the line finding out they have been sold a crossbred - it happened to a neighbour of my parents, he bought a Boxer puppy and by the time it was 12 months old it resembled a Labrador more than a Boxer with the light yellow coat and texture. He had papers for his "Boxer" puppy. Then there was the case of the lady who went to buy a Pug and spent a lot of money as Pugs dont come cheap. Again she got papers for her Pug pup - she thought the fluffy coat was just a "puppy" coat. Except the fluffy coat got fluffier and longer. These unscrupulous breeders are true villans!
Unscrupulous breeders come in all shapes and forms, they are not exclusive to pedigree dogs... don't forget the designer breeder who charges huge amounts for a cross breed, hoodwinking their buyers into thinking they have thee new breed,,
There are those who say that the "true" designer dog is the mongrel - you dont often get two identical even in litters or if they do look alike as pups by the time they are adults they wont. As no one is sure what parentage the parents where, they cant re-create the mating and have pups/dogs the same. There is a certain logic in that.
Exactly, thats what F1`s are a gamble of mismatch litters from two different breeds... and as most first crosses never get further than that, that is why they are as unlikey as any mongrel to ever get breed reconision.
After all Jackie it isnt so long ago that someone in our own breed decided to cross a Corgi with a Boxer to create a natural tailess Boxer. Now I personally would not knowingly go out to buy a pup of this parentage/background but there are numerous who do and actively seek out pups that carry this gene and the pups cost a lot of money. However its "each to their own"
That's true, but it was an extremely successful venture, using the true meaning of a first cross, because that cross got no further, it was them bred back to the Boxer and with careful breeding plans in place, created the now bobtail.... which incidentally does have a tail, albeit a short one.
Changing the subject slightly
there is still snobbery and discrimination attached to the White Boxer. I have heard people through rescue saying they dont want or wouldnt consider a White Boxer as they "aren't a true Boxer".
That's not snobbery, that ignorance!!
I have also come across people who have a pedigree dog yet have no papers for the dog, does that make their dog any less a pedigree because it does not come with papers....
A thread like this can open up a whole lot of possibilities
If it has two Boxer (for instance ) parents , and so on, and it looks like a Boxer then it is a Boxer, with or without papers.
By using the term first cross for the thousands of crossbreeds out there gives the breeder more credibility than they deserve, it insinuates there is a breeding programme in action, when in fact the truth is someone has stuck (with out any research) two breeds together to create a poo/doodle or what ever) and fool people into thinking its a breed.
As someone said, the poo has been around for over 50 yrs..... why is it not yet a recognized breed...other breeds have achieved it ??
Its simple, because there is not structure /records and breeding programmes to set it off the ground.. all these first crosses get no further down the line than first crosses..and no two will be the same... hence the true term.......crossbreed.!!!!!
So yet again, I have to disagree, a cross breed is two different breed , bred together, without any fancy meaning.
You cant have a first cross , if its not followed through with a 2.3.4.5...generation of closed gene pool.
Which opens a whole new debate, with the new rulings of non close breeding (sister/brother/father/daughter) ans so on.. it will be almost impossible to now create a new breed , as the diversity of genetic will be so wide.
|
Location: U K
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,588
|
07-04-2010, 12:26 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
No it does not, not sure why you would suggest that.
If it has two Boxer (for instance ) parents , and so on, and it looks like a Boxer then it is a Boxer, with or without papers.
By using the term first cross for the thousands of crossbreeds out there gives the breeder more credibility than they deserve, it insinuates there is a breeding programme in action, when in fact the truth is someone has stuck (with out any research) two breeds together to create a poo/doodle or what ever) and fool people into thinking its a breed.
As someone said, the poo has been around for over 50 yrs..... why is it not yet a recognized breed...other breeds have achieved it ??
Its simple, because there is not structure /records and breeding programmes to set it off the ground.. all these first crosses get no further down the line than first crosses..and no two will be the same... hence the true term.......crossbreed.!!!!!
So yet again, I have to disagree, a cross breed is two different breed , bred together, without any fancy meaning.
You cant have a first cross , if its not followed through with a 2.3.4.5...generation of closed gene pool.
Which opens a whole new debate, with the new rulings of non close breeding (sister/brother/father/daughter) ans so on.. it will be almost impossible to now create a new breed , as the diversity of genetic will be so wide.
I dont think its a bad thing to rule out close back to back breeding. In some breeds in the UK the gene pool is so small some of the health of these pups that were produced have been heart breaking
As I said before if someone wants to go out and pay big money for a pup irrespective of his parentage it is their business. Personally speaking I would prefer to go to a rescue centre where there are any number of crosses needing and crying out for homes. Guide Dogs have had success with breeding poodle crosses for Guide Dog work - perhaps their breeding programmes could be looked at
No doubt there may be someone who thinks they are buying a new breed but I personally have never come across anyone who thought that. 
|
Location: London, UK
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 342
|
08-04-2010, 03:13 PM
The poodle cross pup was cute though!
|
|
Location: London, UK
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 833
|
08-04-2010, 04:15 PM
|
|
Location: U K
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,588
|
08-04-2010, 04:57 PM
|
Location: South Oxfordshire, England
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,386
|
08-04-2010, 05:26 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
No it does not, not sure why you would suggest that.
If it has two Boxer (for instance ) parents , and so on, and it looks like a Boxer then it is a Boxer, with or without papers.
By using the term first cross for the thousands of crossbreeds out there gives the breeder more credibility than they deserve, it insinuates there is a breeding programme in action, when in fact the truth is someone has stuck (with out any research) two breeds together to create a poo/doodle or what ever) and fool people into thinking its a breed.
As someone said, the poo has been around for over 50 yrs..... why is it not yet a recognized breed...other breeds have achieved it ??
Its simple, because there is not structure /records and breeding programmes to set it off the ground.. all these first crosses get no further down the line than first crosses..and no two will be the same... hence the true term.......crossbreed.!!!!!
So yet again, I have to disagree, a cross breed is two different breed , bred together, without any fancy meaning.
You cant have a first cross , if its not followed through with a 2.3.4.5...generation of closed gene pool.
Which opens a whole new debate, with the new rulings of non close breeding (sister/brother/father/daughter) ans so on.. it will be almost impossible to now create a new breed , as the diversity of genetic will be so wide.
|
|
Location: U K
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,588
|
08-04-2010, 09:05 PM
The way I see is - an accidental mating by a pet dog which produces pups - I cant see this dogs owner being called a breeder.
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
09-04-2010, 08:08 AM
Originally Posted by Velvetboxers
But, they didnt did they. One way to look at it is that they were responsible enough to give the pups to rescue who could do a better job than they could at placing the pups in loving caring homes
The way I see is - an accidental mating by a pet dog which produces pups - I cant see this dogs owner being called a breeder.
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
09-04-2010, 08:17 AM
Originally Posted by chaz
I disagree, saying first cross is a way of describing a dog, Honey is a first cross of a Saluki and Greyhound, there is no breeding plan, but one parent was a Greyhound, one was a Saluki, I say first cross as even if two dogs of the same mix were crossed they may not look like her, and tbh first cross is just a easy way to describe her if people ask, although if people ask about Diesel I just say 3/4 Grey, 1/4 GSD, as I can't be bothered to go into any more further then that (but there was a breeding plan in Diesel, may not of been for the best, but thats another story).
Putting fancy names to crossbreeds be it first cross/poo/doodle only does one thing, glorify it as something it is not... you have crossbreeds, why not simply be proud of that , than try to make them into something else.
On the F1`S and such... there is a huge difference between the average crossbred dog that gets no further down the line in crossing , and a breeding programmer that is set up with documentation to record the generations of crosses..hence the 1.2.3.4 and so on.
|
|
Location: U K
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,588
|
09-04-2010, 12:53 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
Why not, if an human accidentally has a baby, they are a parent, the same does for someone who produces pups, be it intentional or accident.... they have bred a litter, hence becoming a breeder.
My own view ofa dog breeder is someone who has a Purebred bitch, is breeding for show or working, has all necessary health checks, does their homework before hand & looks to improve their breed
Just because i dont object to people buying crossbreeds, if that is their choice, means i approve of the "breeders" doing the crosses. However pups no matter their parentage are born & need homes
An interesting theory may be to think that it wpuld be more reAsonable to charge "half" the price of a purebred pup.?
How could it be stopped? Every day dogs are dumped. Pups are being churned out faster than fast food. At present anyone can obtain a bitch & breed.