Cross breeding Controversial

What makes crossbreeding or more accurately crossbreeders unethical is a combination of motive and means.

The motive being their reasons, what they want to achieve from it, the means being how they get there. The means could be argued to be more important, as that will determine how unethical the person is.

The motives that are commonly deemed to be of an unethical nature include:

1. Money
2. Every bitch should have a litter, and every dog should sire one
3. Because the pups will be cute, etc.


The means

As stated earlier the means at least imo, is more important than the motive, it could be the difference between you not wanting to touch them with your own barge pole, or someone elses.

The following is a list of the things I'd consider to be ethical means. Emphasis on I'd consider. No doubt I'll forget something.

1. Has a good understanding of the breed/s that will be used in the mating. Or plans to undertake extensive research to fill the gaps in their knowledge before proceeding.

2. Has researched the lines of the specific dogs that will be used in the mating.

3. Knows the strengths/weaknesses of the dogs they will be using, and has therefore made the effort to find a dog/bitch that will compliment the other in the best way possible, both with regards to physical type and temperament.

4. Will do all required/reccamended health tests specific to the breed/s used.

5. Has homes already lined up for any puppies, and has a strict vetting process in place.

6. Will take back any pup at any time, or will assist in the rehoming of pups if their own surcumstances have changed where it means they can no longer take them back themselves.

7. waits until the bitch is of a suitable age, and is both physicly and mentally mature enough, before breeding from her.

8. Doesn't breed back to back.

9. Is honist with new owners or potential new owners about what they may be getting, both the good and more importantly the bad.

If a breeder does all of the above, it does not nigate the fact that their motive is unethical, it simply means that they're not the worst of the worst.

Continued.

My idea of an ethical breeder, uses the above means, but has one or more of the following motives.

1. Crossbreeds to improve a breed in some way, could be to improve health, genetic diversity, etc. Has a clear plan as to how this will be achieved.

2. Crossbreeds for working ability in a specific area. Again, with a clear plan as to how to achieve the desired result.

In both cases has homes lined up for those dogs that are deemed unsuitable to go forward in the program.

So basicly, an ethical breeder to me breeds using the means I've listed as a minimum, + the purpose isn't motivated by greed or ignorance.

As for breeding simply to produce pets

I've got mixed views on that.

On the one hand most dogs will be going to pet homes, and for most breeds that is their new purpose in life.

On the other hand, I see no reason to mix X and Y to create Z, as all purebreeds to the right owner, will be an excilent pet. So where's the need for the mix as surely, if you're prepared to deal with the best and worst breed X or Y can throw at you, and you like both breeds, then just pick one of them, and then you've at least got an excuse to get them a friend lol.

Saw sign in local shop yesterday - "Samylabs" - unusual designer breed - samyeod & labrador pups. Black & white. £150 each

Seems everyone now calling crossbreeds - designer breeds

Ok.....so where do people put non-KC reg pure breds?

A pedigree is a pedigree be it KC registered or not.

Two dogs of the same breed producing pups , will be pure bred.

The way they are produced however will make all the differnece

Tassle, you may have missed my question. Have you changed your views on crossbreeding since buying Zeff?

My views on intentional cross breeding are as such, in today's world there is already a breed for any job anyone wishes to do.

If, and its a big if, there is a good reason for a new breed, and it is policed correctly (but that will never happen) , then I would maybe rethink my views.

BUT , the majority of "purposely" bred crossbreeds happen for one reason only to dupe people into thinking they are buying the latest hybrid healthier dog, at extortionate costs ..with ridiculous claims of this that and the other.

The rescue centres are full of crossbreeds, already, many of them, the only difference is the rescue dotn hang up silly signs of "poos" and "doodles"

To me, it depends if you are doing it for the benefit of the dog, or to make money. The crossing back of Dallys to Pointers to eliminate health problems I think is ethical. The efforts of the old Terrier men to produce strains for specific tasks, great. Seeing a terrific dog and trying to breed a continuation possibly,(though that is debatable).
But not breeding an oodle because they go for £500 a pup.

The same place I put kc reg purebreeds, whose breeders meet the above criteria or not as the case maybe.

so what is she wanting to achieve by mating the 2? what can the 'puggles' provide, that another actual breed cant?

I think there is a bit much of that going on and it does make you wonder, why they think its ok to breed a Sh Ch, a dog that has done well in Trials, Sch etc. Some of which dont have great 'pet' temprements. Where is the line?
Some of these dogs are worked until their handler recieves their glory in the form of a rossette or badge, then bred from, sold on, sold on again, exported..... and the next one worked, who is really benefitting there?

Same with shows (I'm not against shows or trials etc btw but for arguments sake.....would like opinions..) Do you think that dog wants to be spending its day on a bench and 'moved' around the ring a few times, or out at the beach, hillwalking etc with its owner? It would be the same dog, whatever its doing so why is it ok for someone to breed it since it works or shows and not just for the same breeding reasons without having titles?

Some people truley believe in the FCI standard for example, and do not agree with some of the Ch's here even being placed, why should they have to be forced into breeding dogs of the moment here by the much less detailed standard of the UK Kennel Club? To be considered to be breeding by 'the standard'? To be considered 'ethical'?

Just because the owner does not compete in a sport themselves does not mean that they dont have a clue about their breed, qualities needed for these sports, health, temprement etc...?

For me personally, I dont look for any major success i just like training and i want a dog that I can do that with. I believe everydog should have had some form of obedience training (jmo) so its something i look for in a breeder.

Why does that matter? There are many breed crossovers for purpose...why should that mean that this lady, with her dog cannot provide nice pets for the people that would like a pup from this bitch? Despite the fact she is not pure bred?

Thats what I can't get my head around at the moment, I am quite anti breeding if there is no demand.....whether that is a PF or BYB doing it to make money with homes in place, or wether it is the most diligent breeder IF they do not have homes in place. This (IMO) is what is causing the rescue issue.

Some breed rescues are overflowing....others have homes waiting, mainly in rescue centers you will find x's and byb pures.....but these were bred by people who did not have homes lined up before they decided to breed.

I am slowly coming to the conclusions that it is not a issue what is bred, as long as it is done in the full knowledge of what you are doing, with full back ground checks etc....and you have homes ready and waiting.

...i was wondering what zeff has to do with Tassles views as hes not the first cross she has bought :? :?

Well, obviously she is choosing to ignore me Layla, but this that she posted elsewhere:

Seems to be in direct contradiction to a lot of what she is posting now. I was wondering, as this was a while ago, that now she has purchased from a puppy farmer, who is a crossbreed and could also be called "designer" if she has since changed her views. Nothing more than that really.

I think it matters a lot. You asked if we thought she was ethical or not, and from your response then IMHO, she is unethical.

Think she said that she was against and is now questioning this since discussions with the 'puggle' owner.

My point is she openly supported it, when saying she was dead against it. I wanted to know if it were the fact she bought this dog changed her mind, and for what reasons if it did.

I know alot of show dogs, including mine who after shows go to the beach, walks or whatever there is around the venue to do. Last show was 5 mins from the beach and Blu ran straight into the sea. I know my dog enjoys showing, meeting his own breed, people he likes. Afterall a dog refuses to show if it doesn't like it.

What anoys me about some 'ethical' breeders who show is that I know alot who will only KC reg a pup if it is most likely going to be show quality. Otherwise want nothing to do with it

No problems here with pedigree dogs bred ethically, health tests, good quality animals (don't contradict by saying how can you tell if a dogs good quality unless they are shown, there's more too a good dog then being in the ring and we all know there more than enough of shady quality and tempered dogs in the ring, just with the right people), with appropriate homing ethics, and so forth, with or without kc registration. I know of quite a few breeders who have ceased registering litters for their own personal view on the approach the KC/breed clubs have taken too problems within the breed.
I feel it crossbreeding is done ethically, with a purpose then there is no real problem..as it would be hypocritical to be against it for the sake of overpopulation as you'd have to be against all breeding, but a valid purpose is really needed. All breeding has to be ethical to be valid and acceptable.