How is a breed created?

Question

Everyone's saying that breeding hybrids is bad, and normally they're reffering to breeding one breed to another to create a first generation. My question is that if you selectively breed many generations of specific hybrid to specific hybrid *in other words breeding mutipul generation pomapoos or whatever* whouldn't you be well on your way to creating a new breed whose lineage traces back to the two breeds to make the hybrid just like most breeds today can be traced back to a time when they were a deifferent breed before they were bred to carry the traits they carry now? Isn't it possible that, say, a Rot could be bred with a similar yet smaller breed selectively to create something that could become known as a miniature rotweiller?
A breed is only a line of dogs bred to carry selected traits, isn't it possible that what is a hybrid today could be bred into it's own breed a hundred years from now? makes sense to me. What do you think?

Girr... then again, some of you acknowledged certain facts. Yes, most designer dog breeders are idiots breeding for money, but because they are so numorous it doesn't seem to be that anyone thinks that you could breed certain traits of a cockerspaniel and poodle together VERY selectively to get a new breed, and it seems anyone who does any kind of cross-breeding isn't going to get the brunt of designerdog breeders, if that makes sense.
A lot of the terms I used in the innitial statement was to make the question more understandable to more people, thus acheiving a wider range of opinions.
But as for purpose... I've never heard a purpose behind the toy breeds other than they were small and beautiful. I understand they were mostly gifts to royalty and not much more.
And hundreds of years ago people knew more what they were doing than today? 200years ago there was no concept of genetics, so i dunno how they could have been more knowledgable than some today...
More?

It's been proven throughout history, inbreeding is not a good idea. Thing is, many traits of many breeds were acheived through inbreeding, thus causing potential genetic problems.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to occasionally mix in a sturdier dog to some of the gene pools, and then breed the decendants of that dog back to standard? I'm not saying it would be easy, but it could indeed better the breed if done by someone that knew what they were doing.
And if anyone willing to do their research and have their breeding dogs screned for potential health problems, it wouldn't be all that complicated to breed a new breed one trait at a time, and if when the person that meantioned culling meant it in the sense that you kill inferior stock, I'd just fix them.
I don't have interest in creating a new breed, but I am interested in learning everything there is to know. Knowledge is power, an I LOVE otherwise useless trivia ^_^

Answer 1

This is something I was trying to add to one of my other answers last night (bad internet! no hanging!).

1. It's important to remember that the term "hybrid" refers only to a cross between two species, not two breeds within a species -- therefore, using it to describe a mixed breed is a misnomer. It also means that the concept of "hybrid vigor" in a mixed breed dog is a fallacy, but I digress.

2. It is possible that, given time and selective breeding, you could create a new breed from the mixes being pimped to the fad-sheep today...as you imply, many breeds recognized today were created using a mix of other breeds (some of which are now extinct). However, here's my issue:

A. The difference between those people creating new breeds hundreds (for example) of years ago and the people making "designer mutts" today is purpose. New breeds used to be created to better serve their function -- i.e. creating a better cattle drover, a better hunting dog, a better hare-catcher, a better rat killer, even a better protection dog for the soldier or tax collector.

Technology has robbed dogs of their original function -- now they're primarily companions. Which is fine, but I don't consider "companionship" to be a legitimate purpose for creating "new breeds" -- not while millions of perfectly wonderful companion dogs die in shelters every year.

Any proponent of mixed breeds should agree with me, since 75% of those euthanized are mutts.

ADDED:
I realize, after reading some of the other answers, that I didn't address the Toy breeds in the statements above -- yes, they were developed a long time back, and, yes they were developed primarily for companionship. That is their "function", as well as personal watchdog and lapwarmer. :) However, the AKC (for example) recognizes 21 breeds of Toy dog, and all are excellent at their job. Do we really need to make more?

"But as for purpose... I've never heard a purpose behind the toy breeds other than they were small and beautiful. I understand they were mostly gifts to royalty and not much more."

ME: Well, many of them were prized companions (and objects of beauty), owned only by royal/nobility-types, which made them special royal gifts. ;) However, the Toy terriers were working ratters, at one point. There's also story about how royals used to send their children to bed with Italian Greyhounds because they kept the beds so warm at night.

"And hundreds of years ago people knew more what they were doing than today? 200years ago there was no concept of genetics, so i dunno how they could have been more knowledgable than some today..."

True, but dog ownership/breeding wasn't the "common right" that it is today. If a household had a dog, it was because that dog had a job (or they were in the Upper Class strata of society) -- there were no extra resources in the working classes to pay for a dog that didn't pull its weight. There was also no "demand" for that household pet, as there is today.

So breeding was done carefully, and -- in the case of working/herding/hunting dogs -- done using only those who excelled at their function. Form followed function, genetics notwithstanding.

In the case of the lapdog (IG, Pap, Chihuahua, Maltese, etc.), because these primarily belonged to the Upper class, they had the leisure time and money to devote to the dogs, and they bred them carefully -- not having to submit to any sort of demand.

Another big difference between then and now -- anyone can own a dog, and anyone can breed a dog. People wanting to supply that demand will do so regardless of quality. Even though we know more about genetics, the ignorant far outweigh the learned.
END ADD

I just don't see the point in making designer mutts for the masses and calling them a "new breed" -- or even wanting to pursue making them a "new breed" -- while we have such a huge number of homeless/abused/neglected dogs sitting in shelters and rescues across the country. I see it as selfish, greedy, and unethical.

B. Now, there are exceptions to the "rule" in terms of creating for purpose...Labra/Golden/"Doodle" people will scream that the person who started with this mix did so in an effort to make a hypoallergenic service dog for the handicapped. But it's important to remember that this person eventually stopped upon realizing that she couldn't get a hypoallergenic dog beyond the F1 generation. And if that wasn't possible, what was the point? This mix was not an improvement on the already existing Golden and Labrador Retriever, or the Standard Poodle.

But, well, you slap a "cutsie" name on a mix and charge a lot of money, and the fad-following herds of sheep think they've got something special. Meanwhile, Lab, Golden, and Poodle mixes die in shelters every day. What does that say about our society?

So that's my take. Not as tight and polished as I had it last night, but there you go.

Answer 2

Here's more thought than the typical designer breeder puts into his breeding program (I'll use the Cockapoo as an example):
A Cockapoo is a cross between a Cocker Spaniel and a Poodle.
There are 3 varieties of Cocker Spaniel: Black, ASCOB and Parti-Colored. There are also three different kinds of poodle: Standard, Miniature and Toy (each is recognized as a distinct breed). If you cross a Standard Poodle with a Black Cocker, will you get the same type of dog as a Miniature Poodle crossed with a Parti-Colored Cocker? Now assume that some of the puppies in the litter resemble the sire better, and some resemble the dam better. Which pup is the prototypical Cockapoo? Suppose the breeder down the street crosses a different variety Cocker with a different type of Poodle. Will his puppies resemble the first cross mentioned? Suppose you cross a Cockapoo with a Poodle. Do you still get a Cockapoo? Suppose the first breeder in this example crosses his Cockapoo with the breeder down the street's Cockapoo. How much will the pups change? I could go on with this, but I think you get the point. We can also do this with Labradoodles, Puggles, Yorkiepoos etc etc.
The problem is that as long as these unscrupulous breeders breed for profit, they won't breed under controlled conditions where desired and undesired traits are bred in and out of the breeding program.

Answer 3

<>

I didn't realize that the hypoallergenic properties of a Labradoodle stopped at F1. Very interesting, and I totally agree with you - if the stated purpose of the breed is unachievable, why keep breeding them?

The biggest issue with breeding a new breed is, as has been stated, purpose. Even if the purpose is to get "a better lap dog" (which is how many of the toy breeds were developed), there is a *purpose* to breeding, and those who are doing it *correctly* are constantly evaluating their animals and making difficult decisions about why they're choosing a given stud or a given b*tch. They're also interested in the *long term* improvement of the breed (i.e. getting the new breed to breed true in future generations), not just churning out F1 puppies.

If you're looking to create a breed, you need to be willing to cull animals from the breeding pool if they're not suitable or if they don't contribute to the end goal. Not every dog is worthy of passing its genes on to the next generation.

The overwhelming majority of these "designer breed" breeders don't give a damn about quality, or "breeding true", or developing a new breed long term. They just want two breeds who have the right "dangly bits" so they can fleece the ignorant public into thinking that THEIR F1 mutt is somehow "better" than the millions of mixed breed dogs that are killed every year in shelters.

Answer 4

I think it makes no sense whatsoever!! The breeds that were created many years ago were created by people who actually knew what they were doing. These dogs all had a purpose. A rottweiler had a purpose, in other words, they were dogs who had jobs to do and were bred the way they were so they could do them. What exactly would be the purpose of a miniature rottweiler? Or heaven forbid, some kind of pomapoo??? There are already more than enough hyper, snippy lap dogs in this world.

Answer 5

Yes and no.

In theory, they could breed generation upon generation of cockapoos or whatever to form a breed. However, the way they're starting the breed foundation will make that nearly impossible. A cocker spaniel and a poodle, bred together, will produce a myriad of puppies all with different traits and features from both parents. Breeding one of those hybrids to another hybrid will give another unstable mixing of traits from both breeds. Just breeding a hybrid to a hybrid will not fix these traits.

In theory, were any of these "hybrid" breeders (and I say "hybrid", because they're not really, you can't have a hybrid of two of the same species) to sit down and come up with a standard to breed towards, then they may eventually develop a breed. However, just "cockapoo to cockapoo" will not result in dogs that all match a standard. However, as of now, that effort is NOT being undertaken at all with these designer mutts. They're simply mixing two purebred dogs, selling the ones that come up the way they "should" and dumping the undesirable mixes.

Answer 6

It takes about two human generations for a new breed to be developed. The AKC recently recognized the black russian terrier as a purebred breed; it wasn't "started" until the late 1950s. Based on this time line, your great grandkids can be showing puggles and labradoodles in the show ring. Probably not any time sooner than that, though.

Also, did you know that there are about 400 breeds of purebred dogs that AKC does not recognize? Many of the parent organizations of these breeds outright refuse to be part of the AKC. The Cavalier King Charles was one such breed, until a handful of doggie owners created their own parent organization, wrote their own standard, and joined the AKC.

So please don't think that AKC registration is the end-all be-all of the dog world.

Answer 7

the people who are breeding crosses are NOT picking good quality parents... they are just picking 2 dogs of what ever breed and breeding them together...

technically they are not hybirds... a hybrid is a cross between 2 different species - like a horse and a donkey or a domestic dog and a wolf

these are CROSS BREDS NOT HYBRIDS

but mostly again the problems is they are NOT doing it to make better dogs - they are doing it to make a profit and dont care about genetics invovled... you wont find many,if any, of the parents with show records to prove they are TOP QUALITY dogs...

Answer 8

I really agree with the statements made here about the fact that the people doing "designer breeds" really aren't doing anything to better any qualities, but focused on the mightly dollar they can bring in by calling them 'rare' breeds and what not.

These people doing this breeding aren't reputable by any means.

Answer 9

Yes you are right, but in some cases if you breed two very different dogs you could end up with a real funky gene pool. It could even kill one of the parents. So if your looking into it ask a vet if it would be safe.

Answer 10

WOW!!!

Who could have stated this better than Loki_Wolfchild?
Awesome answer!!