Designer Dogs?

Question

I know most people, myself included, have strong opinions about designer dogs - most of those saying that it's just slapping a fancy label on a mutt to make more money.

While this indeed may be true, isn't the theory of what these "breeders" (I use the term loosely) are doing basically the same thing that breeders long ago did to make the purebred breeds we know today? They take two different types of dogs and breed them in the hopes that the pups inherit the desired traits from the parents.

The only difference between breeders back then and people today that I can see is that people today are trying to make money rather than create an entirely new breed.

Thoughts?

Yorkies are not designer dogs, they are AKC accepted purebreds.

abby_k9: You certainly make a good point about AKC/UKC breeds being bred for a purpose, but what about dogs that were bred just to be lapdogs, weren't they essentially bred to be cute and perform no real function?

Umm, yeah, all purebred dogs dogs today were originally created by crossing different breeds of dogs way back when they were first starting out. Where do you think they came from, did they just magically appear one day?

Answer 1

Breeders of designer dogs aren't really worse than breeders of purebreds, in my opinion. There are good, responsible, caring breeders of both types, but there are far more greedy, unethical ones. But then, that's probably been the case ever since the public created a rich market for non-working dogs as beloved pets or status symbols as the case may be.

As far as I understand it, the true purpose for the ethical breeder should be to improve the breed through health testing, careful research, and selection of stock for genetic superiority. And the dogs that they are producing are intended to be showdogs. Now, it's accepted that many aren't going to be and those will end up as pets, but the ideal litter would be 100% championable show quality dogs that end up on the show circuit, right?

Alternatively, the purpose of the designer dog breeder has been to create dogs to fit the needs of certain percentages of the public. The most popular designer dogs are 'improved' housepets and companions, like the puggle and the peek-a-poo. But the labradoodle was originally bred by trainers to be a better service dog for disabled people with allergies. And hunters in the south have been crossbreeding hunting dogs to hunt specific game for a long time.

So, essentially, each type of breeder has her own niche to fill. And who's to say that the designer dog breeder won't create the new breeds of tomorrow, or that those breeds aren't as deserving of existence as the ancient Pharaoh Hound, the modern Doberman, or even Canaan dogs and dingoes?

The only caveat I'd put on any of that is that even the most committed designer dog breeders don't seem to me to make enough of a point to their customers that their dogs are technically still mutts, which means that their traits aren't predictable. A labradoodle buyer that wants a non-shedding, hypoallergenic dog could be rudely surprised by their expensive puppy growing up to shed and flake like a lab. Only true breeds can promise certain traits, though even that is more of a promise with a better breeder.

In the end, a dog lover does her research and is prepared to love her dog, regardless of what she gets. There are those who argue that real responsibility means rescuing a shelter dog in a world where so many are put to sleep because there aren't enough humans to love them all. But regardless of where we get our dogs, as long as we love them and act with love and consideration, we're doing our best by them.

We shouldn't judge each other for the dogs we own or breed, but work together to stop the people who let their dogs suffer, who abandon them, who let them breed indiscriminately and take no responsibility for their futures or their babies' futures.

Answer 2

Actually, the biggest difference is that 99% of the designer dog breeders are not using breeding quality dogs to create the 'designer dog'. They are taking low quality pet dogs, with all their congenital and genetic ailments, and breeding them to make money. Breeding to create a new breed is for a love of dogs, breeding pet quality 'designer' dogs is for money.

When developing a breed, the strongest and the best are typically used, within the guidelines of what they are trying to accomplish. This does not create more poor quality dogs. This creates a high quality mutt, a mutt that can be used to be a foundation to a new breed.

I have less problem with a 'designer dog' breeder who follows all the ethical guidelines out there. Meaning they test the parent dogs for all the hip, knee, bone, eye, heart, etc problems that run in the breed. Meaning they also screen potential buyers and require spay/neuter contracts on ALL pups going to non-breeding homes.

But again, right now, the majority of these designer dogs will be plagued with problems because of the poor quality breeding stock. THAT is the main difference for me.

Answer 3

The biggest difference I see is that the people breeding designer dogs are not trying to create a breed for a purpose. The established dog breeds we have were all originally bred for a purpose.

The German Shepherd Dog, for example, was bred from sheep herding dogs in Germany to create a standard herding dog. If you look at Von Stephanitz' book about the German Shepherd Dog, he goes in depth about the different type of dogs he's seen and observed herding all over Europe, and that's where the idea behind the breed came from.

I don't see any rhyme or reason to the breeding of these designer dogs. They don't serve any purpose other than looking "cute". And most of the people who breed them have no clue about dog genetics. They might go on about "inheriting the best traits" of both breeds, but many times, these dogs don't inherit those...

Answer 4

All recognised breeds of dog originally had a purpose whether it be hunting large game-pig and deer, or small game- rodents and other vermin, flushing, holding and catching. Or herding, protecting, fighting(disgusting i know) or finding(scenthounds). Then being able to own as many of these dogs without working them was a sign of wealth and a status symbol, thus creating a pet. Most of the 'designer' dogs being created now is a case of- i want one, its cuter than the original breed, for the small ones. And for the large its a case of-i have a litter of mutts to get rid of, lets give it a cute name to sell them easier. A rottle is a recognised hybrid, sounds ridiculous doesnt it, but it sounds better than rottweiler X poodle. And Puggle sounds so cutesy poo for a pug X beagle. Just go to the D.B.I site and check out hybrids under P. It all sounds like baby talk to me.

Answer 5

I think what your saying is part truth, part speculation.
Long ago the best of dog breeders bred their dogs for a purpose, mostly hunting. Every dog had a job to do. Some were for the only pet purpose but they too had a job to alert their owner of intruders.
Now today it is for pure profit with designer dogs. They lay claims which are yet to be proven, temperament is unproven and the one that get me the most is hypoallergenic.
they are mixing breeds that should in my opinion should never be bred. But that's my opinion.
I see no betterment in what they are doing with these dogs other than profit, and giving good hardworking breeders of fine quality dogs a pain in the butt.

Answer 6

It should cost a lot of money, because of the amount of time creating a breeding plan and the cost of correctly caring for the pups and mother, this includes prenium food and vet bills. Its also good that they are expensive because it makes people think long and hard before buying a puppy.

Answer 7

Purebred dogs were ***NOT*** developed by making MUTT/MONGRELS!!

That's a LIE,spread by the ignorant *&* by CROOKS who have a shi*-pile of MUTTS to peddle to the gullible MORONS!

Answer 8

Normally,they do breed them...i normally buy yorkies they r kinda like a designer dog

Answer 9

your correct ........

Answer 10

WAT!!!!