Cross breeding Controversial

How is that not breedist?

well no cross breeding shouldnt be allowed imo thats just me though, and I doubt people care what I think! ;-)

Fair do's - I find it a very sad attitude towards dogs in general, that they have to stay 'pure'.

I started this thread because I was looking to re-evaluate my own feelings about crossbreeding and it it could ever be ethical or right - and looking at the posts that people have written, the only thing that is coming through is that it is not right as breeds need to be kept pure.
Which to me, is not a valid reason for people not to produce crossbreeds.

I will qualify that by saying that the breeder would still have to look and health, temperament, have homes lined up etc etc.... but I think you have managed to change my mind.

hypothetical question on the back of this (she's been spayed) one of my springers is not KC registered, however she is a proven worker, having done the last 3 seasons and very good at it, if i were to health test her and find another suitable working springer that is also health tested is this unethical, after all she won't be a FTCH and she certainly wouldn't win any show classes, oh and i would keep a pup myself.

I don't find that unethical at all-----in fact it makes more sense to me than breeding for looks.

KC registration is not that important IMO. You would provide back up, keep in touch, make sure people understood what they were taking on (as far as you can), and take the dog back in case of any problem.

Oh----and I wouldn't have a problem with you making some money from the litter either!

rune

but for me this is no different from someone breeding crosses if they are offering the same sort of thing, and the dogs they were breeding from were great pets, with great temperaments and no health problems, the only breeding i find unethical is someone crossing and making a fortune off it, from unhealth tested parents with dodgy temperaments, after all there are no gurantees that any pups are going to turn out exactly like mum and dad even those from champion lines be it show or worker.

After all doesn't the show breeder, breed on the off chance that they will get one thats going to make the grade, same as the field trialer, they don't run all of the litter on.

ETA i have been to assess springers with awful temperaments, that have come from breeders that have health tested and that have pedigrees that are all red, i also know someone with a working cocker again from fully health tested ftch lines that has been diagnosed with an eye condition, just proves that it doesn't always turn out right

I dont think anyone would find that unethical. Just like others have stated breeding cross breeds for work wouldnt be unethical. What people dont agree with is people breeding for no reason.

Tassle I have never stated the reason I dont agree with cross breeding was because I believe the dogs should be kept pure. My problem is with people breeding for no purpose other than to supply a demand. Let the be cross breeders, or KC breeders that are breeding for no other reason than to supply a pet market.

I havent seen a vaild reason for people breeding cross breeds either - all I have seen is that they are bred as companions and nothing more, Yes its fine to breed nice companions, but for me its not fine to soley breed for it.

But why, when the majority of the dog owning public just want a nice companion that they can have fun with, its estimated there are 8 million dogs owned in the UK, the showing and working fraternity are a small part of this, its ok to say there are lots of dogs in rescue, yes there are at this moment in time, but everyone stopped breeding except to create a great show dog or a great working dog, what would happen to the general dog owner (PS playing devils advocate here)

Why is the pet market not a valid reason to breed?

rune

this is what i can't get my head around, why is one persons requirements and less than somebody elses, personally i'm not interested in showing, and if i'm honest didn't get in to working till after i got my 3rd springer, i just wanted a nice dog that could walk all day in the hills, but was small enough to lift over a stile if needed, is this such a bad thing??

and at that time there was no way i was ready for a full on working springer from FTCH lines and i didn't like the look of show springers

When breeding you should be aiming for something imo..You dont have to agree with me, dogs of the best working ability should be used for working breeders - and the best examples of the breed should be used for show breeders.

Pet people dont often consider the standard of the dog before deciding to breed from it, they think that because it has a nice tempermant it will have nice pups, well that maybe so. But again not a good enough reason to breed for me.
(You should see the quality of some of the dogs that we have been emailed about the owners wanting to use our lads at stud to..and ours boys are even advertised for stud)! Its safe to say alot of dogs are in pet homes for a reason.

It all boils down to breeding to better something for me. Pet breeders dont better anything.

I have to also question where these dogs came from. Other pet breeders? sold from a show breeder with endorsments? rescued? brought off free ad sites? kept and bred from them? who knows but I wonder if they know much about the dogs history, the dogs parents history, the grandparents, the great grand parents and so on?

Totally agree with you on all points.

Before we get on the usual circle of "oh but you let your daughter buy a dog from an unethical puppy farmer and you said you would have had it if she didn't" I am also of the opinion that every dog that has been brought into the world should have a chance of a home. If that involves me in paying for said dog then that is what I would do.

I would have liked to not pay for Etta to make the previous owners think a little about what they had done----but that wasn't going to work so I paid what they had for her.

rune

.....and I do not see why not - as the majority of dogs are just that. I would much prefer to see people breeding nice companions that trying to keep breeding to fit a standard for a dog who is no longer required to do that job.

You're entitled to your opinion, but for me your world would be a very sad one, when the general public can't experience the joys of owning a mutt, as i said before in my experience even when you do have knowledge of the lines and that the pup has come from health tested FTCH lines etc there are no gurantees, you still take a risk

-that was my original dilemma.

Where did we get talking about pet breeders...we are talking about cross breeding :?

I will take it that you are talking about cross breeders.....in which case why (again) are you making assumptions that these dogs have come from 'bad' places, or that the history is not known?

I brought up pet breeders, because its pet breeders that would be breeding crosses ... not show people, and I stated I didnt have a problem with a working breeder breeding a cross breed to fit a purpose.

I didnt assume a thing.. I said.. (I would have to question what they knew ect...I did not say they didnt know such things, and that they all came from bad places). But read what you will.

.... how was your collies breeder 'bettering the breed' :? :?

She wasnt - doesnt mean I agree with such things though..so your point is what exactly?

Ahh...them and Us

What about Agility/Obedience/Flyball/hearing dogs...and *sshhh* Guide dogs ....are these Pet people?

....Or are all these things are allowed....depite the fact that (in some cases) it may make dog not such good companions....yet breeding to make good companion dogs is not valid?

and I am sorry - I would assume - in the same way you would research a pedigree - you would research a cross, My mistake question away.....