Labradoodles and other dogs mixed with poodles.

[yuckaduck]

Well I have faith in responsible breeders to make the responsible choice. There are a zillion dogs out there so I do not feel it is necessary to not spay or neuter a defective dog. Sorry not an excuse to me, if the breeder refuses to neuter or spay under these circumstances then they are simply in it for the cash and have no regard for the actual breed! BYB

The gen pool is actually not that small! Like I said Zillion dogs out there so find another dog that is breed worthy and do not breed a defective dog. I have no fear with Yukon, he has a lifetime guarantee so if anything comes up, I am protected and he will be returned for a full refund! I cannot see breeders offering guarantees if they are not pretty darn sure of what they are breeding. Too what advantage is it to breed a dog with a genetic disorder? NONE! I feel to many breeders now breed strictly for cash and really could care less about the quality and that is why so many are coming up with hip problems, eye problems, heart problems, etc.....

 

[Dizzy]

"I am protected and he will be returned for a full refund!"

Easy come easy go?!!

 

[Meggie]

Meggie, you certainly do have reason to be concerned. There are many dogs that are OFA certified that still develop HD later in life.

I worry more about that Mitral Valve thing. I've had one dog (Border Collie) die of it in my life, don't really want it to happen again. Apparently though, according to the breeder, it's something Cavaliers are prone to. Testing for it at two years means nothing.

I have seen a lot of discussion here about BYB. If the certification means so little, how can somebody who doesn't get the certification be deemed a BYB? Yes, I know there's a lot more to it, but it's just one of the points that struck me.

 

[Athe]

yuckaduck
The gen pool is actually not that small! Like I said Zillion dogs out there so find another dog that is breed worthy and do not breed a defective dog. I have no fear with Yukon, he has a lifetime guarantee so if anything comes up, I am protected and he will be returned for a full refund! I cannot see breeders offering guarantees if they are not pretty darn sure of what they are breeding. Too what advantage is it to breed a dog with a genetic disorder? NONE! I feel to many breeders now breed strictly for cash and really could care less about the quality and that is why so many are coming up with hip problems, eye problems, heart problems, etc.....

I am just speaking about what I have seen and heard myself. Plus the gene pools of purebreds are very small, think about it this way...
http://www.netpets.com/dogs/reference/genetics/bragg4.html#An Example from One Breed

Thus the recognition of a breed creates a founder event when the registry is opened; a limited number of breed foundation animals are selected, often from a population which has already undergone considerable inbreeding and selection. Let us take for an example the Siberian Husky breed. Registered in 1939, the initial CKC population consisted of 47 animals, all belonging to or bred by one kennel! Of those 47, nine were foundation stock of the kennel whose dogs were registered. Two of those were males imported from Siberia - littermate brothers! The other seven were mostly related to one another. (Two were seven-eighths Siberian and one-eighth Malamute.) The other thirty-eight were all progeny and grand-progeny of the founders. Of the nine foundation animals, two were not bred from at all. Two were mated - once only - to each other: one only of their progeny contributed to further breeding. Of the two Siberia import males, one brother was always bred to the same bitch, producing a large number of progeny of identical pedigree; the other brother was usually bred to daughters of the first brother. Today Siberian Husky lines that trace directly back to the Canadian foundation stock owe 25% of their pedigree lines to the first brother, 15% to the second brother, and 27% to the first brother's invariable mate! Two-thirds of the genetic heritage of these modern Siberian Huskies derives from only three foundation animals! This is not an exceptional situation, it is a fair example of the early breeding history of CKC breeds. .

So there fore the breeds may "look" like they have huge gene pools, but, by inbreeding, linebreeding etc. they really don't have big gene pools. The more popular a breed becomes and the more dogs that are out there means the gene pool is getting smaller and smaller. When you take only a few foundation dogs like with the Siberian Husky, you can't help but create a small gene pool...the kennel clubs will not allow you to do any healthy breeding and in a way incourage inbreeding and other bad breeding practice.

Any how, I am by no means an expert on breeding, genetics etc. So, I shouldn't be getting into this discussions I have done just a tiny bit of research, it just bothers me to see so many dogs suffering from auto immune diseases, allergies, epilipsy, joint disease etc. and it seems in my line of work it is 98% Purebred dogs that are suffering. Look at bulldogs, they are walking vet bills, do you think that people who continue to breed this dogs are reputable? I don't. I think it's a crying shame. We have a customer who spent thousands of dollars on his bulldog, and bragged about it! now he just got a new puppy!
I'm sure some of the purebred breeders on this forum will tear me to shreds. But, I am just having a disscussion...no one has to agree with my thoughts.

 

[Meggie]

Well I have faith in responsible breeders to make the responsible choice. There are a zillion dogs out there so I do not feel it is necessary to not spay or neuter a defective dog. Sorry not an excuse to me, if the breeder refuses to neuter or spay under these circumstances then they are simply in it for the cash and have no regard for the actual breed! BYB

The gen pool is actually not that small! Like I said Zillion dogs out there so find another dog that is breed worthy and do not breed a defective dog. I have no fear with Yukon, he has a lifetime guarantee so if anything comes up, I am protected and he will be returned for a full refund! I cannot see breeders offering guarantees if they are not pretty darn sure of what they are breeding. Too what advantage is it to breed a dog with a genetic disorder? NONE! I feel to many breeders now breed strictly for cash and really could care less about the quality and that is why so many are coming up with hip problems, eye problems, heart problems, etc.....

You have the guarantee, but would you exercise that option? I mean, I could see that if Yukon was for breeding, that would be a breach of contract if his breeder was aware that that was his "destiny". Just seems sort of brutal, even given the thought of future vet bills.

 

[Dizzy]

That's why we should all get "mutts"

 

[yuckaduck]

"I am protected and he will be returned for a full refund!"

Easy come easy go?!!

For the amount paid for him, he needs to be healthy and I do not have the finances to care for him if something happens to him. Besides he is not mine he is my husbands and it is his decision. He has made it very clear that if anything genetic turns up he will be returned for a full refund. There is nothing I can do because Yukon is not my dog, unfortunately!

 

[Dizzy]

And if something turns up, he is returned, then what happens to him?

 

[yuckaduck]

You have the guarantee, but would you exercise that option? I mean, I could see that if Yukon was for breeding, that would be a breach of contract if his breeder was aware that that was his "destiny". Just seems sort of brutal, even given the thought of future vet bills.

If I was Yukon's owner and made the decision I would never return him. He has become very much a part of our family but he belongs to my husband and it is his choice. He has made it very clear to me that although he likes Yukon he has formed no attachment and if there is any gentic issue he will return him for a full refund. Will he if the time even came up? Don't know but he says he will! I would not. Dallas will be my dog if she ever arrives and she will stay with me forever no matter what. That is the committment I give to my dogs. Marc is alittle different, he is the same with me, has no real attachment and I am his wife of 4 years now. If I said I was leaving he would simply say good bye and that would be it. He is not an affectionate person, now he is not a bad person either. He is loving and supposrtive as far as that goes and he sure looks after us. None of us do without not Yukon, not the kids not me, but he just lacks that attachment. When his old family dog died it bothered me more than him and I did not even know the dog. Not that he did not like the dog he did just kind of hides his feelings, I guess.

 

[yuckaduck]

And if something turns up, he is returned, then what happens to him?

I guess that would be the breeders choice then. You seem to be blaming me but Yukon is not mine he is my husbands and since my husband is not into the computer at all, he will never post why he makes these sort of decisions. Guess we are stuck with whatever he decides. We have had Yukon tested and so far no problems, so I guess we can only hope. Also the breeder has never had an issue before not with any of his dogs so that looks promising to me.

 

[Meggie]

If I was Yukon's owner and made the decision I would never return him. He has become very much a part of our family but he belongs to my husband and it is his choice. He has made it very clear to me that although he likes Yukon he has formed no attachment and if there is any gentic issue he will return him for a full refund. Will he if the time even came up? Don't know but he says he will! I would not. Dallas will be my dog if she ever arrives and she will stay with me forever no matter what. That is the committment I give to my dogs. Marc is alittle different, he is the same with me, has no real attachment and I am his wife of 4 years now. If I said I was leaving he would simply say good bye and that would be it. He is not an affectionate person, now he is not a bad person either. He is loving and supposrtive as far as that goes and he sure looks after us. None of us do without not Yukon, not the kids not me, but he just lacks that attachment. When his old family dog died it bothered me more than him and I did not even know the dog. Not that he did not like the dog he did just kind of hides his feelings, I guess.

I can't really comment on your husband, or his views on dog ownership/marriage, because he's not here to defend himself. He'd better not hold his breath waiting for that cheque if he returns Yukon, I read about your problems with the breeder. I do have a few questions for you though. A lifetime guarantee, is that common for breeders to give on non-breeding dogs?

I didn't pay a lot of attention, because Quincy's part of our family for better or worse. He did come with a shorter termed guarantee, but certainly not lifetime, as I recall. His breeder did mention that, if there were future problems, I should return Quincy to him for rehoming. No mention of a refund with that though.

 

[Gempress]

And as for the health side of things.... Well.. If we can talk science and genes here, "Mutts", being what they are - a MIX of dogs, breeds whatever, have a WIDER gene pool to choose from. Little fluffys ancestors are from far off and different places, so, the chances of 'that genetic disease' becomes watered down and so, LESS likely.

That is one of the common misconceptions out there. Here's how it was explained to me by my cousin, a geneticist who specializes in animals:

Crossbred dogs are not stronger than their parents. They have the same genes, both good and faulty, as their parents. A rottweiler/border collie mix, depending on which genes inherited, could get hip dysplasia just as easily as its parents. In the case of a rottwelier/mastiff mix, it's very likely to get dysplasia (if the parents were badly bred, that is). When more breeds are mixed in, you end up with a lower chance of getting any one disease in particular, but there is a higher number of possible disorders to inherit. Wide gene pools do not guarantee health, especially if not all ancestors in that gene pool were healthy. Health comes from the individual ancestors. If you get a purebred dog from a line certified ancestors, you have a very low chance of getting genetic diseases or disorders. Even so, that's not a guarantee. That's why puppies cannot have their hips OFA certified, even if all their ancestors' were. The likelyhood of dysplasia is greatly reduced, but that doesn't mean it was eliminated.

I personally have nothing against mutts at all. They are just as wonderful dogs as purebreds. My last dog was a mutt. But the health argument is bunk.

 

[Gempress]

Sorry, just read Meggie's post. Yes, many good breeders offer lifetime guarantees.

 

[MyBestFriendIsADog]

That is one of the common misconceptions out there. Here's how it was explained to me by my cousin, a geneticist who specializes in animals:

Crossbred dogs are not stronger than their parents. They have the same genes, both good and faulty, as their parents. A rottweiler/border collie mix, depending on which genes inherited, could get hip dysplasia just as easily as its parents. In the case of a rottwelier/mastiff mix, it's very likely to get dysplasia (if the parents were badly bred, that is). When more breeds are mixed in, you end up with a lower chance of getting any one disease in particular, but there is a higher number of possible disorders to inherit. Wide gene pools do not guarantee health, especially if not all ancestors in that gene pool were healthy. Health comes from the individual ancestors. If you get a purebred dog from a line certified ancestors, you have a very low chance of getting genetic diseases or disorders. Even so, that's not a guarantee. That's why puppies cannot have their hips OFA certified, even if all their ancestors' were. The likelyhood of dysplasia is greatly reduced, but that doesn't mean it was eliminated.

I personally have nothing against mutts at all. They are just as wonderful dogs as purebreds. My last dog was a mutt. But the health argument is bunk.

That's an excellent explanation! When I managed vet clinics it was amazing how many people could not believe their "mutt" was dysplastic, or had a heart condition. The chances of having a breed-specific genetic abnormality are lowered with a cross-breed, but they don't disappear altogether. Lots of GSD crosses have bad hips, ya know?

 

[yuckaduck]

I can't really comment on your husband, or his views on dog ownership/marriage, because he's not here to defend himself. He'd better not hold his breath waiting for that cheque if he returns Yukon, I read about your problems with the breeder. I do have a few questions for you though. A lifetime guarantee, is that common for breeders to give on non-breeding dogs?

I didn't pay a lot of attention, because Quincy's part of our family for better or worse. He did come with a shorter termed guarantee, but certainly not lifetime, as I recall. His breeder did mention that, if there were future problems, I should return Quincy to him for rehoming. No mention of a refund with that though.

He was bought for breeding purposes that is why we paid a darn fortune for him. It was his aggressive nature and dominance that I felt should not be passed on so I took him in and had him neutered. That has been world war III with my husband because I dashed his dreams. Oh well if he wants to breed he needs to find a quality dog with a sound temperment to breed with.

Most that I see are 2-5 year guarantee but I would never buy them, I would only buy lifetime guarantee. Just because I feel if the breeder is that confident to offer a lifetime guarantee, then they must have confidence in their dog quality.

 

[Athe]

That is one of the common misconceptions out there. Here's how it was explained to me by my cousin, a geneticist who specializes in animals:

Crossbred dogs are not stronger than their parents. They have the same genes, both good and faulty, as their parents. A rottweiler/border collie mix, depending on which genes inherited, could get hip dysplasia just as easily as its parents. In the case of a rottwelier/mastiff mix, it's very likely to get dysplasia (if the parents were badly bred, that is). When more breeds are mixed in, you end up with a lower chance of getting any one disease in particular, but there is a higher number of possible disorders to inherit. Wide gene pools do not guarantee health, especially if not all ancestors in that gene pool were healthy. Health comes from the individual ancestors. If you get a purebred dog from a line certified ancestors, you have a very low chance of getting genetic diseases or disorders. Even so, that's not a guarantee. That's why puppies cannot have their hips OFA certified, even if all their ancestors' were. The likelyhood of dysplasia is greatly reduced, but that doesn't mean it was eliminated

That is really interesting that your cousin a geneticis. I find it amazing that dogs were created by natural selection not by humans...and without humans interfering they are healthy with rarely any genetic health problems, their immune systems are very strong which makes them immune to fleas and parasites. Also that Mongrels which have a huge gene pool do not have purebred dogs in their back ground so they are not crossbreeds. I read (off/on) a book by a genetic's specialist Raymond Coppinger and his intense study on dogs. It really opened my eyes on purebred breeding and how poorly understood dogs really are. There is a huge difference between crossbred dogs, mixed breeds and Mongrels. And actually all a purebred dog is,is a mixed breed or crossbreed that is inbred to create a specific look. At least that's the way I understand it.

 

[MyBestFriendIsADog]

That is really interesting that your cousin a geneticis. I find it amazing that dogs were created by natural selection not by humans...and without humans interfering they are healthy with rarely any genetic health problems, their immune systems are very strong which makes them immune to fleas and parasites. Also that Mongrels which have a huge gene pool do not have purebred dogs in their back ground so they are not crossbreeds. I read (off/on) a book by a genetic's specialist Raymond Coppinger and his intense study on dogs. It really opened my eyes on purebred breeding and how poorly understood dogs really are. There is a huge difference between crossbred dogs, mixed breeds and Mongrels. And actually all a purebred dog is,is a mixed breed or crossbreed that is inbred to create a specific look. At least that's the way I understand it.

I think most really "wild" animals have fairly good health or their particular species would not survive very long. However, some animals do develop genetic abnormalities (I think cheetahs are an example) that can seriously impair the health of the animal, so it is not completely unheard of in the natural world. The thing about "wild" animals is that there is usually a larger gene pool so it minimizes the effect of genetic disease, while with pure breed dog breeding the gene pool is smaller and therefore amplifies the effect of a genetic abnormality. Even in the example of wild animals the animals that seem to run into trouble with genetic disease do so because their gene pool numbers have been reduced (usually by man).

 

[Zoom]

Cheetahs are falling victim to what essentially is a closed stud book though. A few years back they did some testing and found out that every cheetah in the world has 98% of the same DNA. There is such a small population left that even the careful breeding undertaken by conservationists/zoos won't make much difference in the long run. The genetics are so similar now that epilepsy is a huge concern in the bloodlines, which only serves to further reduce the breeding pool, because any cheetah found to be epileptic is neutered/spayed.

With dogs, does it help at all if 'new' blood from different countries is introduced? Say with rottweilers, there are American lines and German lines...the Am's seem to have an increasing problem with HD, would introducing some fresh German blood help alleviate that, or is the breed too intertwined to make much difference?

 

[MyBestFriendIsADog]

Exactly - cheetahs have had their numbers seriously diminished and thus any genetic abnormalities are amplified in the species.

I wonder too about that question with purebred dogs, although the European lines could just as easily have the same genetic issues with certain abnormalities, so it may not eliminate the problem. I think generally speaking though the greater the gene pool the better it is in terms of risk of certain conditions like HD - although again they cannot be eliminated entirely.

 

[AndrewF]

Talk about an interesting discussion!!!

Just my 0.02, One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet - but is an important distinction between wild animals and domestic dogs is that people created the breeds of dogs we have now (not including wolves etc...). And, as good as breeders intentions can be with a specific breed now, they're working with limited clay so-to-speak. In otherwords, just because Breeder x is responsible about they're selection of breeding stock doesn't mean that breeders 100 years ago showed the same concern. No new blood is being injected into pure-breeds and as much as it's talked about that breeding should be done to further the breed, what new blood-lines are being introduced to truely further the breed?

With wolves, unhampered by people breeding them, are shaped by nature and the best suited to the environment survivies. Domestic pure-breeds are shaped by people and traditionally they were bred for certain characteristics - herding ability or a certain looks as examples - not nessessarily because they were great with children or would be friendly and not because they were the fittest, best suited animals to a specific environment. As a result, furthering the breed means trying to make the most of the genetic limitations within the breed.