Huskamute? Why? Controversial

I'll try and answer your question Brainless. In one simple word - health! Crosses are on the whole healthier than pedigrees, which is why insurance is much, much less for mongrels than it is for pedigrees. There are exceptions of course to every rule, and certainly with pedigrees, you know exactly who - and what - has gone into the lines. But insurance is cheaper for crosses for extremely good reasons - they are healthier, statistically, and are therefore a better bet than pedigrees. You can have a pedigree as long as your arm, going back generations, that will not prevent genetic diseases, of which there are around 2,000 in pedigree dogs, which are endemic in virtually, if not every, breed. Give me a good cross or mongrel any day, but having said that, I adore all dogs, whatever their breed, I just personally will stick to my crosses and nice, cheap insurance!

Really.... Cheaper to insure you say?

Please take not that E&L will no longer insure NI's or Utonagans, I dont thinks its because their so cheap to insure now is it!

http://www.eandl.co.uk/pet/excluded-breeds

Oh Now that is interesting Thanks for posting LOL There goes the Hybrid Vigour, healthier than Pedigrees and cheaper to insure theory out the window Wonder when they will decide to stop insuring all the Doodle Assortments

I would be interested to see why - but I expect it is more to do with what goes into them and the fact that more are using the Swh and CsV rather than health.

I think its no laughing matter when you can't get your dog insured...I remember with Suki, (shar pei ) I couldn't get her insured and at the time the insurers reason was skin complaints who gives these people the information on dog breeds any way ?

.. but i think the only reasons csv's and swh are excluded is because they havnt changed their policies since defra changed their stance on them.

Very possibly....may take a long while

I'm not with E & L !

Insurance companies work purely and simply on risk - those breeds, and that is practically all of them, if not all - that have problems, will be loaded - the commoner the problem in each particular breed, the more the insurance will be loaded - hence the reason why crosses and mongrels are cheaper to insure - it is purely and simply because statistically they are healthier. If they were not, then they would not be cheaper to insure.

When they start to become a higher risk than pedigrees!

Nanuq is much cheaper to insure than a Sibe or Mal pedegree... and I mean MUCH cheaper.

Interesting thread. I like both breeds, but find mals a little large and huskies a little noisy! Maybe I should get a combo dog lol.

Anyway some observations.

Does anyone need a sled dog in the uk? I realise you may enjoy running them and competing them but you don't need them as in need them to get about, most sled dogs are first and foremost pets, if a huskamute makes a better pet than either a mal or huskie I don't see the problem.

Re health, I'm with gnasher, the statistical evidence does suggest they are healthier. So what if the breeders don't health test, most ped breeders don't either.

Re breeders, byb, once again most mals and huskies are produced by byb (depending on your definition) anyway. The top level breeders are in the minority in most breeds.

Re working them, I saw a documentary on the big alaskan race a while back, none of those dogs were purebred, msot looked like husky cross something else.

Adam

i totally disagree that 'huskamutes' make better pets you have no idea of the breed traits the pups will inherit...it can end up being a disastrous mix...hence why so many end up in rescue:-( with the pure sibe or mal you at least have an idea of what your getting and whether that breed is suitable for your lifestyle.

you can find excellent breeders of sibes and mals who's puppies are healthy because these breeders are passionate about their breed and are responsible and ethical doing all the relevant health tests and breeding only from quality dogs...on the other hand you could get a 'huskamute' from a byb/pf cashing in on the designer lable who will more than likely have done no health testing and their sole motive is to line their pockets!

the dogs in the documentary would have been Alaskan huskies a mixture of breeds bred for speed....they are bred for a purpose not for money.

"Does anyone need a sled dog in the uk? I realise you may enjoy running them and competing them but you don't need them as in need them to get about, most sled dogs are first and foremost pets, if a huskamute makes a better pet than either a mal or huskie I don't see the problem."

But how can a sib x mal be a better pet, the fact that they've been crossed, leaves the dorr open to someone getting a dog with the worst trates both with regards to health and temperament, associated with either breed. By crossing esp if it isn't done with any for-thought, you lessen the chance of getting a dog with the desired trates, its taking more of a gamble.

"Re health, I'm with gnasher, the statistical evidence does suggest they are healthier. So what if the breeders don't health test, most ped breeders don't either."

I'm always a bit sceptical of statistics, they can be made to display pretty much anything the person wants them to. Also, is the reason why cross breeds are thought to be more healthy by insurance companies, influenced by the fewer numbers actually insured, as apposed to pure breeds?

"Re breeders, byb, once again most mals and huskies are produced by byb (depending on your definition) anyway. The top level breeders are in the minority in most breeds."

1 doesn't justify the other. Also, whilst they maybe in the minority, at least there are top mal and sib breeders with the breeds interest at heart, I've yet to come across the same with sib x mal breeders.

"Re working them, I saw a documentary on the big alaskan race a while back, none of those dogs were purebred, msot looked like husky cross something else."

Those would be alaskan huskies, bred to race quickly, and thats it. Whilst they might be good for a race, it doesn't mean that they're suitable for the work at least one half of their breeding was created for. Of course some will be, as some will inherrit more of the sib trates, both physicly and temperamentally, but that wouldn't make them the first choice for racing, as they want a dog faster than a sib, so a dog that inherrits mostly sib trates, isn't going to be popular I don't think.

So not really bred for work, more for sport imo.



Taz

But the breeds are very similar so your not likely to get massively different traits.

Also is their any evidence to suggets that the worst personality traits come out in the crosses. After all genetics are a gamble and you can find loads of examples of dogs that don't comnform to the standard temperment of the breed.

Adam

Really?? I would and do have Mals but I wouldn't have a sibe

Can I ask how much time you have spent with Either of these breeds Adam??

Also pedigree breeders dont health test?? really?? LOL..
Errr yes most do thankfully,,and buyers SHOULD make sure they get copies of the test certs..and if they don't..then walk away

lol louise... i have sibes wouldnt have a mal ;-)

... as usual ap talking balderdash about something he knows nothing about!

...oh yes crossing two working breeds makes a better pet.NOT!!

1. The mals I've met granted that isn't many, have been quite different to the sibs I've met. The mals tend to be a bit more chilled, but that could be down to environmental factors just as much as it could be down to genetic factors.

2. Saying that is like saying is there any evidence that the best trates come out in the mix. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't, most dogs will get a mix of the different trates from either breed, and won't be an extreme at either end of the scale.

3. Yes genetic inherritability is a gamble, its even more of a gamble when you start adding more varients, increasing the number of possible outcomes. Which brings me back to point 2, whilst as I said, most dogs will get a mix of both breeds trates, there is a possibility that they could inherrit both the best and worse trates of those breeds as well. Its simple logic. I don't believe there's been any studdies done on this specific area though. Saying that, guide dogs uses crosses all the time, they may have done some work on inherritability, or may have noticed a pattern in the dogs they breed. I'm seeing someone from there tomorrow, I'll ask about it.

4. Again whilst you will get dogs that won't conform to breed standard temperament, I've got a couple of those myself, by mixing with no plan, and therefore no research, you again increase the chances that you may produce something that wasn't expected or wanted.

At the end of the day, when the breeder, and the new owner don't do their research, it will be the dog that pays the price, and that goes for any breed or crossbreed.

I agree mals are more chilled in general than huskies, but not hugely so. Ime (of working with the breeds) I find they are alot more similarieties than differences.

Interesting what criteria do you have for producing none working cross breeds? Good pets presumably.
Aside from the byb who is just in it for profit (across all breeds ect) a person crossing these breeds has no interest except in producing nice pets.

Certainly they are both less than ideal as pets, but I don't see how crossing makes that any more tricky.

Ultimatly I think people will buy whatever dog they wish and breed whatever dog they wish. If we critise the owners of these breeds they are unlikely to respect our opinion and will simply ignore us, this may be detrimental to the dogs welfare.

Adam

I think my pure bread Siberian is a wonderful pet She's full of life and vary loving!!

On the flip side of things i think mutts make excellent pets for first time dog owner, but my definition of a mutt is the dog where you can't tell what the heck it is. I always suggest people go to the pound or rescues for their pet dog if they don't plan on doing anything with it (stuff to earn titles and what not) They need love too, and usually the ones in rescues you'll know a bit more about the temperament and what not.

But I also think that if you're not planning to show your dog, or breed from him/her (either under guidance of an already established responsible breeder or if you're already an established responsible breeder) that the dog should get fixed. only responsible breeders should have dog's that aren't fixed, or those people who are planning on working said dog where the dog needs to be intact. Mixes shouldn't be produced intentionally. There is no use for them. The only time a breed should be messed with is to create a dog to do a specific job.