General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat is the difference between a selected mix such as a labradoodle
and a standard mutt?
hlthe2b
(102,272 posts)s-cubed
(1,385 posts)There are no mandatory health records going back at least two generations. Too many breeders breed only for looks or breed only to sell to the unwary. The AKC could shut down puppy mills if it choose, but it's too lucrative. There are responsible breeders, but it can be an effort to find them, and many people don't know what is important.
If you read about any purebred in Ameica you'll find a catalog of hereditary problems, from cancer in boxers to hip problems in most large breeds. Some people think that they achieve some hybrid vigor by designer dogs, but that's false. If both parents have a tendency to hip dysplasia, so will the offspring. Breeding is key, and reliable breeders are important. There's a reason why Guiding Eyes for the Blind breeds its own dogs.
It's true that some satisfy a need for less allergenic dogs, but I really think the two drivers are fashion and reaction to the failure of AKC to police the breeders. You do get some idea of what you will get in terms of size and temperament vs a pound puppy.
When I got a puppy 6 years ago, after 4 rescue dogs, I needed to know the size of the adult. I didn't want another 120 pound dog. I finally got a UKC breed, a true working breed, bred for people who won't tolerate poor health or poor temperament. I've been very happy with her.
When people ask my advice, I recommend finding an organization that fosters rescued dogs. The people who foster a dog can tell you exactly what the dog is like. A dog in a pound is in a very stressful environment, and you can't really evaluate it reliably. One of my rescued dogs took months to really recover.
hlthe2b
(102,272 posts)Mutts imply heritage unknown or unknowable and probably a lineage of many different breed mixtures.
Labradoodles are not a recognized "breed" but a hybrid that suggests the parentage is known to consist (solely) of Labrador and Poodle.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)vs a pure breed when there are reasonable expectations (and even guarantees) of size, temperament, health, etc.
I won't weigh in on my opinions of it all, but that is one of the main arguments against it.
It can be sort of misleading to the unknowing purchaser of the animal, because there is no standard. Yeah, it is most likely a combo of the 2 breeds or whatever, but how that works out in each offspring is unpredictable. But the buyer will have certain expectations based on the marketing etc. that just aren't very accurate much of the time.
To develop a new breed, you would use these offspring and select the traits you are aiming for and begin breeding those dogs together, or something. I'm no biologist.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)I'd be more concerned about temperament and general health status than anything else.
Betsy Ross
(3,147 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and are far less likely to have the inbreeding so common among many breeds of dogs.
Though I'm with you. Give me a mutt from a rescue group any day. That's what my girl is, and you couldn't find a better dog for any amount of money.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)It is a selected mix for certain traits.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)a guide dog for the blind which doesn't moult.
maryland native
(48 posts)How many generations must a dog breed "true" to be considered a new breed?
Each generation must carry the same traits as having been "fixed" with regard to type.
Then we can add a lot of cost to the pups.
I like rescue dogs.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)As long as it takes to get "true" offspring consistently
but even then
any pups showing undesireable traits do crop up but are not supposed to be bred.
Eventually you get offspring which show all of the qualties you wanted, be it temperment or coat color and type or height or weight or .....
and if the line of the dog has not been too inbred, you can avoid the most common undesireable traits, like deafness
( found in Dalmations esp.) or bad hips ( found in larger breeds) or blindness or.....
The breeding record of Golden Retrievers is esp. well known, because it is a "recent" breed, 1880's and the breeder left very careful records of what breeds he used to create Goldens.
The breed was recognized in England Kennel Club in 1903, that gives some idea of how long it took to be a "true bred".
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)Any species that has undergone natural selection will have a certain blend of genes that are advantageous.
Any specific breeding is done for a completely different purpose, usually for utility or aesthetics of some sort. Mixing two breeds is barely any different, gentically speaking, than a pure bred animal. It just mixes two sets of pure bred genes.
Nothing competes (effectively) with nature. Nothing.
Uncle Joe
(58,361 posts)a pit bull with Lassie?.....
a dog that will rip your arm off and then go for help.
That's about the only joke I can remember.
Thanks for the thread, hedgehog.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)a sheep and a kangeroo to get a wooly jumper.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)That's about it. Best dogs I've ever known were nondescript mutts. Worst dogs I've ever known had long pedigrees.
Could just be the sample, though. My current dog is a beagle/basset/whoknowswhat shelter mutt. Good dog, Dude!