I noticed this article being shared about on FB today - it is an article in (yet again ) the Daily Mail, but it makes interesting reading. It is entitled "Hidden suffering of cross-breed dogs bred to be cute." It talks about a range of cross breeds, including Labradoodles. What do you think?
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? Is it a bit difficult to unpick the impact of poor breeding from cross breeding? I wonder if the same article could be written about pedigree dogs with no health checks, from puppy farms. Are there health checks for cross breeds? I mean, are the same health checks available - sorry, just don't know enough about the health check schemes, but if the same schemes can or should be applied, then is there anything inherently wrong in cross breeds or is it about the pedigree "system" tending to have more checks and balances in place? O! Interesting. Off to find out...
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? [quote author=JulieT link=topic=4583.msg56032#msg56032 date=1392999228] Is it a bit difficult to unpick the impact of poor breeding from cross breeding? I wonder if the same article could be written about pedigree dogs with no health checks, from puppy farms. [/quote] I'm sure you're right. It's what happens when profit is put before any concern for the health and well-being of the animal, whether they are cross-breeds or pedigree. Clare
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? I was wondering the same , are these dogs suffering problems purely because they are cross bred, or because of the lack of health checks prior to the breeding ? Speaking just from my own experience, having always owned a terrier type, usually a cross bred one , or a Jack Russell , they have tended to be real tough cookies with far less Vet trips needed than my other dogs, maybe we just got lucky . What I truly detest is the trend for designer dogs , which are in reality cross breeds , being sold as exclusive/rare and therefore commanding a much higher price than a standard bred pedigree dog
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? It's designer dogs that this is aimed at Kate.
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? I'm a traditionalist and too old to change! I dislike mix breed dogs but accept that there is a market for them because they are considered to be fashionable and others consider them cute; each to his own. I am even less attracted to cross breeds now that I know they carry numerous genetic defects having more than enough problems with the health of pedigree Labradors. I hope the Government imposes severe restrictions when the subject is debated but the problem (like smoking in cars with children,) how do you police the law? Roger
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? There are some inaccuracies in the article Roger. At the bottom of this blog post, you can find links to a number of studies that support the view that cross-bred dogs, designer or otherwise, are likely to be healthier than pedigree dogs.
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? Interesting read but, I feel, could equally have been applied to pedigree dogs (lol at someone else finding dog stuff in The Mail )
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? I think that it should be illegal to breed any dog without some form of registration and mandatory health checking of the parents. In my view it's the health screening and motivation of the breeder that matters (should be doing it for love, not money), not the breed. Wishful thinking, I know....
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? For all new members I own a LABRADOODLE, yes I do and I am proud of it and she is our first dog, so here we go again with this subject :. Firstly I really dislike the term 'designer dogs' to me a dog is a dog. I chose Hattie's breeder carefully and I checked her out as much as she did us, infact we spent the whole day with the lovely lady and she asked us so many questions you would have thought we were adopting a child and also she never lets her puppies leave their mum until 12 weeks. She was no way going to sell a puppy to us if she didn't like us and quite rightly so as she is RESPONSIBLE. I saw both of Hattie's parents and saw their hip scores. As for the price, we paid less for Hattie than some of you will have for your 'pedigree' dogs. We also have a rescue Charlie a Labrador x Pointer who is as fit as a butchers dog , but that's another story for another time This is to me an issue with unscrupulous breeders making money before the health of the dog and subsequent puppies either cross breed or pedigree. Puppy farms are just as likely to irresponsiblly breed pedigree dogs as cross breeds and I am getting a little tired of the finger always getting pointed at the cross breeds We know what an awful situation a lady on this forum found herself in with her 2 labrador puppies that have undergone hip, elbow surgery from an irresponsible breeder that didn't carry out any health checks at all. Hattie is 6 years old, healthy and puts all the young 'pedigree' Labradors in our village to shame with her stamina and level of fitness, she is also absolutely the sweetest dog and we wouldn't swap her for 10 'pedigree' dogs. Nobody makes anyone buy a puppy that hasn't been health checked and only very silly people would ever dream of buying a puppy from a puppy farm, surely it's about common sense. That's what I think.
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? I think the article is describing poor breeding, the output is neither here nor there and it's the dogs that suffer
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? i love the labradoodles,,,,,,my next dog, if ever i get one will definitely be a newfie i have fell in love with the girl i see often,....save on the heating bills she is so cuddly
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? I'm going to say the same thing I said when I saw that article on Facebook shared by someone else... It's funny how people will pay hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds for a 'designer' dog with a fancy name, yet most of them would turn their nose up at a 'lab x' or a 'terrier x' from a rescue centre. I'm not saying everyone does this but it annoys me when you get someone who says 'oh i have a cockerpoo' ...no you don't, you have a spaniel x. Labradoodle - lab x or poodle x. Yorkiepoo - terrier x. That is what they get called when they turn up in rescue and suddenly no one wants them. Guaranteed you give them a fancy name and they would get snapped up in their first week. At the end of the day these dogs are crossbreeds. No way am I saying that's a bad thing, don't get the wrong impression here. Oftentimes crossbreeds are much healthier than pedigrees and have all the desires qualities of the dogs that went in to make it. In fact I believe the first 'labradoodles' were actually bred as guide dogs who didn't moult because of blind people with allergies.
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? I think the article was very confusing. I agree with Barbara the article is describing poor breeding, but it is also laying the blame squarely at the door of those who cross breed, rather than pure breed. And I am not sure why. Marc Abrahams claims that sick cross bred puppies are pouring into his surgery. I would really like to know more about those figures How many cross-breds is he having to put down due to bad breeding, how many pure-breds is he having to put down due to bad breeding? I have never heard a claim like this from a vet before - and I think it needs substantiating. To my knowledge, puppy farmers are usually focused on making money, and there are plenty of pedigree dogs that fetch high prices (french bulldogs for example) On the face of it, it would seem that the Kennel Club could prevent puppy farmers from churning out pedigree puppies by extending the standards of its accredited breeder scheme to all breeders. If they did this, you might expect puppy farmers to switch to cross-breds, but they haven't.
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? [quote author=editor link=topic=4583.msg56306#msg56306 date=1393067737] On the face of it, it would seem that the Kennel Club could prevent puppy farmers from churning out pedigree puppies by extending the standards of its accredited breeder scheme to all breeders. If they did this, you might expect puppy farmers to switch to cross-breds, but they haven't. [/quote] I was thinking about this - but in a slightly different way. Most industries strive to create quality marks - most people are familiar with the kitemark (usually for safety products) but there are a range of other ways suppliers try to differentiate themselves on quality. It strikes me that there isn't a commonly recognisable one in pet (rather than specialist) dog breeding. I'm not at all sure the average pet buyer is very aware of the kennel club (and anyway, this wouldn't cover cross breeds). Awards and accolades are another way (but let's not start on show breeders again : ;D). In the absence of a recognisable quality mark, good pet dog breeders will struggle to charge higher prices than bad dog breeders. I know a few people have said dog breeders should be in it for love not money but I disagree with this - if there was more money to be made by being a good breeder, rather than a bad breeder, we'd have more good breeders. This boils down, for me, to the conclusion that Rachael's comment - there should be legally imposed minimum standards - is probably the right answer. I can't see this being imposed any time soon though.
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? Totally agree on substantiating any claims made. As for why the blame is being placed at the cross breeders door I have a theory We often see pendulums of fashion, business strategy etc and when one has swung too far one way you come back so fast you miss the sensible middle ground. I think the pendulum swung towards purebred dogs with closed registries and the strive to produce the perfect specimen of a known quantity in looks and attributes. The race for the perfect purebred dog has produced quite a bit of damage to the dogs themselves and set the pendulum going towards crosse breeds as pedigree breeders are feeling somewhat under the microscope and cross breeding is being hailed as the saviour of dogs(rightly or wrongly is another discussion). This article reads like the first attempts to get the pendulum on the move again, whether it will swing less fiercely and we'll end up with a sensible, moderate approach putting the dogs first I don't know......but I really, really hope so! NB Not sure vociferous articles like this help that cause though :
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? I agree this sounds like a good idea, though it is a bit of a mine field. Should new animal breeding laws apply to all pets? From rabbits and hamsters, to cats, horses and so on? Or should dogs be an exception? One of the problems with legislating against 'casual' breeders is the theory that it may inadvertently make gene pools even smaller, as small breeders are probably less likely to line breed. Another problem is that legislation to maintain standards often imposes costs and regulations that the small breeder cannot support. Which might actually give an advantage to puppy farmers. For example, in the USA a regulation was imposed that people should not be able to buy a puppy 'unseen'. Which on the face of it seems like a great idea. But actually causes problems of its own. (Outspoken blogger Jess Ruffner explains why she thinks this is not a good idea at all here )
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? [quote author=editor link=topic=4583.msg56353#msg56353 date=1393078249] Another problem is that legislation to maintain standards often imposes costs and regulations that the small breeder cannot support. Which might actually give an advantage to puppy farmers. For example, in the USA a regulation was imposed that people should not be able to buy a puppy 'unseen'. Which on the face of it seems like a great idea. But actually causes problems of its own. (Outspoken blogger Jess Ruffner explains why she thinks this is not a good idea at all here ) [/quote] Very interesting article. We lived in Missouri for two years. Every Saturday and Sunday morning, the puppy breeders would set up on the patch of grass outside Cracker Barrel (breakfast destination of choice for many) on the road down to Walmart. They did a roaring trade, and whilst some were local families looking to 'shift' litters, there is no doubt that many came from puppy mills. As the purchasers of these puppies were not 'entering' any premises, and were not buying unseen, the legislation proposed here would not regulate this trade at all. My neighbours went out for breakfast one Saturday morning and came back with a choc Lab puppy with 'all her papers'. She had cost them $100 (this was 2009) and they proudly brought her round to show off their new 'pedigree' pup... I suggested they take her straight to the vets on account of the green nasal discharge. She did recover from a very nasty infection, although she was proper poorly for a few days. When she was about 8 months old, they gave her away to the UPS driver when he dropped off a package. My point here is that whatever legislation can be drafted in an attempt to curb the production of dogs purely for profit will only ever have a limited effect - unless the buyer is also required to consider the implications of dog ownership and can be cured of the desire to snap up a bargain... Clare
Re: Hidden suffering of cross bred dogs - what do we think? [quote author=editor link=topic=4583.msg56353#msg56353 date=1393078249] I agree this sounds like a good idea, though it is a bit of a mine field. [/quote] Oh yes, minimum standards regulation can be a nightmare, all sorts of practical unintended consequences - it often struggles to pass a CBA. Including some consequences, that are good in theory, but very much resisted in practice. For example, if it took the form of making the breeder responsible for putting right genetic faults (or adequately compensating for the significant distress caused) this would immediately increase the cost of puppies (as it has suddenly become much riskier for the breeder) - and this might represent the true cost of breeding to minimise the risk of genetic problems. It may also mean that the price of puppies is out of reach of loads of people.
