Things you think are 'wrong' with wolfy type crosses/new 'breeds'? Discussions

Yes I agree, one breed, one controling organisation. So this is similar to what's going on with the wolfy breeds, although they are a lot more diseminated. And this breed is how old?

Aye very true. Personally I think this is the single most biggest problem within the breeds. We really need a single controlling organisation.

Mmmm, aren't Lurchers anything crossed with a greyhound? Great dogs by the way, love the looks of some of them, real character.

There's a point in here, but after 3 pints of Guinness at lunch I'm struggling to find it

OK a couple of issues here. Can you catagorically state that there is definately poor breeding practices? Do you have any facts to back that up? Or, are you somply repeating what you've read on this site?

And what constitutes "very close line breeding"?

Please can you qualify your statements?

Very good point Sally, but probably a can of worms to open.

I'd rather stick with trying to find the facts that backup the statements made on this board that all wolfy breeds have massive hereditary problems etc. And, that they should immediately stop breeding because of these problems.

What I do find very irritating are the accusations of

A) too much in-breeding
B) crossing the dogs with other breeds

Again both contradictory, yet the same people will use both statements to back up their 'facts'.

No need to apologise,you were given incorrect information, you were`nt to know, glad it`s been cleared up now

The first cases I became aware of were in 2005, I have`nt kept count I`m afraid but pedigree`s of dogs passing it on have been posted elsewhere and their breeding has been somewhat prolific :?

Because health testing was`nt done on the dogs used from any of the breeds or crosses, [ except one individual dog being hip scored as far as has been ascertained ], that and the other confirmed ailments could have come from any of them and/or from the horrendous inbreeding of one persons lines

It was aimed at the numpty giving false and potentially dangerous information, not at you, my apologies for it appearing aimed at you in any way, that was not my intent and I should have worded better, I`m sorry

Very interesting statement there Lionhound. You don't know the dogs, yet you can make sweeping statements about too much in-breeding. This is exactly the type of posts that continue on here. People repeating what they've read, therefore it must be true.

Boll***s, give me some cold hard facts to back up these statements.

I don't think I've actually disagreed with you. I simply questioned why, if you didn't see the point in these wolfy dogs, why you were reading and commenting on the threads?

Actually re-reading your post, I do disagree, I bought my fella due to not only his looks, but also his temperament.

Totally agree with you. The beginnings imo seem, [ without prejudice ], to have come from a need to evade DEFRA for a start, and because the originators saw a fad to be developed and exploited then literally blindly ran with it, sucking an awful lot of people in along the way.
Had things been done properly, health testing done, proper verifiable records kept, no `rescue`d` unknown crossbreeds used, and things done above board from the beginning with no secrets and smokescreens, then the whole business would be seen in a very different light I`m sure, though would still not change the lack of `need` for a breed and offshoots to have been started off purely for `look` in this day and age.

I'll always apologise, and admit I'm wrong when given facts, but thanks for the info.

Surely you must have at least a gut feel for the numbers? And then there the problem of the doctored pedigrees, so were they really the parents or not!?!?!

Or, they might have come out of neither of them, but been introduced by another breeder? Don't know this, just asking the question?

Aye, in my experience most doctors are numptys, think they're god's gift

Wayhay, and I agree with you, well parts of it

Do you know for a fact the the originators saw a fad?
Both of the major organisations say they have no secrets, but the do contradict each other.

I do disagree with the comment about offshoots purely for look. I think all agree the offshoots started for some sort of disagreement on the breeding practices. Are those right? I don't know, do you? I don't think anyone thinks the offshoots were for look only, of course I stand to be corrected if anyone would care to.

This is the main problem, there is no one organisation controlling the breed.

My take on it fwiw is :

The original JRT`s were working dogs through and through. The originator,[ and his founder bitch is known despite lack of record keeping in those days ], did`nt want anything to do with the KC so his lines were not `recognised`.
In what seemed to be a way to needle him, [ just how it looks to me ], the KC recognised the taller variety and gave them a name based on the originators name, [ Parsons ], which was done after his death, perhaps a way to slap him in the face posthumously.
The taller `show` variety he did not like because the build made them less effective for the type of work his lines were developed for.
So it`s two `main` types of JRT not three, though there are coat variances within both which may give the impression of more types than there are.

[ edited to add, sorry, forgot there are also Pocket JRTs which were derived a hundred or so years ago from poachers needing working dogs small enough to hide in pockets hence correct name being Poachers Pocket JRT ].

As for why so many Terrier breeds, [ again just my take ] :

Most from around the world are geographically identifiable in their origins, so were developed to do the same jobs but with different visions of type and conformation, though temperament for working tends to have much similarity. In the days most of the Terrier breeds were developed, travelling any distances purely for breeding / line development was not viable so rather than one main breed for a job being widespread there became geographical pockets of different breeds and crossing tended to be simply where `boundary` edge`s might have merged if you see what I mean or from matings done, [ deliberately or otherwise ], from dogs belonging to traders/owners of working dogs who might travel further distances.
Only when better wider spreading transport networks started happening would people from one place probably have set eyes for the first time on another breed/type doing the same job in another area / region / country.

That is just speculation on my part as to how/why so many breeds may have been developed for doing the same jobs because the need was there for specifically working breeds and the dogs used will likely have been simply what was available in any region at the time to develop those working Terriers from.
With the advent of Showing, came splits in some breeds, [ not just Terriers ], to working or show lines though some still are duel and some have`nt changed much if at all from their origins at least those which were properly developed and stuck with as being suitable in their traits for all aspects required of them.

They can be rectified by everyone involved from the start being truthful and from DNA and Pedigree comparisons being pooled and independently pored through.
But don`t anyone be holding your breath, blue is`nt a good skin colour for humans

Agree with you as you know from when we talked about it at the weekend. It seems to me, in part, whether its subliminal or not, [ very likely though I think ? ], that humans as a species have a desire to `master all` and want to own something that looks, [ in a few cases ], like a species which humans can otherwise not dominate or live with on a companion basis, wolves being shy of people and the mystique of them making a dog looking like a wolf an appealing prospect perhaps ?
[ Doesn`t mean everyone who owns one things or feels that, it`s just an observation which comes to mind rightly or wrongly ].

Thanks that was very informative, and interesting.

But it doesn't really help this thread in so far as providing evidence that there is something wrong with the wolfy breeds. I only used that as an example to show that the argument "I don't see the point" isn't really a valid argument as to the wrongness of the wolfy breed.

Unfortunately you're probably right, I can't see a quick solution here. Although I like blue (I'm an Evertonian for my sins) it's not a colour I'll be turning soon.

No because those bred to work need to be physically and mentally able to do the job, not `look` a certain way for human aesthetics preferences

Oh come on now. Are you really suggesting that there are no pedigrees apart from those that are bred for a job? Why the difference in the BC between the black and white and the tri-colour? How does that help them do their job? Surely that purely for looks alone?

Very true. With BCs, whether tall or short, compact or rangy, long coated, short coated, anything in between coated, various colourings, pricked ears, tipped ears, floppy ears, combination of any sort of ears, broad head, narrow head, heavy built, slight built, anything inbetween built, they are still almost always instantly recognisable to most people generally as BCs

Lurchers are any sighthound cross of any percentage to any non-sighhound, not just Greys, [ mine is Saluki x BC ].
Sighthound to sighthound is a Longdog, then there are Whirriers, [ Whippet x Terrier ], but they are also commonly under the Lurcher umbrella for ease of `type`.

So because I haven't been there at conception it is B******s. There have been pedigrees posted on this site from their own owners. I don't want to cut and paste them without permission. To me that is enough evidence.
If you choose to believe the the breeding practices are of no concern, that is fine. Can you prove it?

Welcome

My gut feeling is that there are more than have been admitted to :? I can`t give a guess because I research so many breeds it would be unfair to just guess and we all know how anything but cold facts can be skewed and used

Well, according to the cases where papers are consistently showing the same dogs and breeders have stated them to be true that`s all we can go by unless DNA is done on all of them :?

Logically is has to have come from one or more of the dogs / lines / breeds used but who knows what else has been thrown into the mix but not admitted to :?

We can agree on that