Cross breeding yes or no?

[Flobo]

Just as a side line to this debate, who would abolish Crufts?? I would love to see an end to it myself.. The last Crufts, apparently, caught a man in the carpark beating his dog for not performing as he desired, I haven't looked this up to verify as I don't wish to see it, if true, but in my humble opinion why do we feel the need to 'judge' our dogs, our companions? Yes, do it for fun, ie best sausage catcher, temptation alley etc.. but for me Crufts is a big no,no and encourages an awful lot of bad in people... and if just one dog(though I expect a lot more)is treated wrong and suffers as a consequence to this antiquated show should it continue??

 

[leashedForLife]

.

I don't "hate" breed-conformation shows per se, & Crufts has a lot more for non-purebreds than the vast majority of shows! - Lord knows, the AKC fought having unregistered dogs so much as set a paw on show-grounds for donkeys' years, & they're still not keen on them.
The AKC did have IR / 'indefinite registration' for purebred-lookalikes, who had to be S/N for fear they might, ya know, breed Shock!... horror!... but other than wannabe-purebreds with IRL, unregistered dogs were banned from AKC grounds for what? - a century? Longer?

then along came A.M.B.O.R. [Am. Mixed-Breed Obed. Registry] which welcomed dogs who were random-bred, crossbred, or un-registerable with AKC or other major registries [Canada, etc], & suddenly AKC's neglected redheaded orphan child, Comp-Obed, had competition from outside... & they were forced to loosen up. But they weren't happy about it.

I prefer to have a purebred dog that's been shown & has earned points, at least, if not a full Championship, as a breeding candidate -- lots of folks are kennel-blind, & they'd breed their own dogs despite significant faults, if someone didn't judge their dog from a less-invested perspective, & find them seriously wanting, as a breed representative.
That's not to say that all judges are impartial, or that all handlers are regarded as equal - the PROs are definitely powerfully advantaged, vs any owner/ handler who shows their own dog, & if the owner has sufficient wealth to throw at the problem, any dog without a disqualifying fault can eventually get a championship in the AKC... after they invest $Ks in specialty grooming, pro handlers, & flying the dog all over the country to 'special' them... or to compete in low-number classes, where they won't be glaringly poor quality in a larger group of "average to good" dogs.
It might take 3 or 4 years of expensive struggle, but they'll get that Ch, if they keep sinking money into showing.

The UKC is much-more democratic than the AKC; pro handlers are banned, everyone showing must be at least a part-owner in the dog they handle, & 75% or more are the sole owners of the dogs they show. // That gets rid of the judge thinking, "So-&-So wouldn't be handling that dog, if s/he wasn't a contender...", which leads to many sins in the AKC.
UKC handlers don't need designer clothing or a $400 pair of custom-made Italian shoes, they can show up in a bowling shirt & sweat-pants, or be 10-YO & handling in a class of adults, & win 1st-place - all eyes are on the dog, which is as it ought to be. :thumbs-up:

- terry

.

 

[PWDmum]

Just as a side line to this debate, who would abolish Crufts?? I would love to see an end to it myself.. The last Crufts, apparently, caught a man in the carpark beating his dog for not performing ??

The man in question is David Holzman, was was allegedly reported for beating his dog in the car park, it was reported to be unfounded, and it was 3 years ago not this year.

Which part of CRufts do you think is antiquated. Is it the showing, agility, obedience, friends for life, assistance dogs, police dog demonstration, , gun dog displays, and so so much more...Crufts is a huge conglomerate of all things dogs... from the show world to scruffs and everything in between.


By the way, I show my dog at crufts in conformation, my dogs are pets first and show dogs second. As with thousands of other people that take part.

There is so much worse things regarding cruelty towards dogs, than taking them to the biggest dog show in the world,

 

[PWDmum]

.


The UKC is much-more democratic than the AKC; pro handlers are banned, everyone showing must be at least a part-owner in the dog they handle, & 75% or more are the sole owners of the dogs they show. // That gets rid of the judge thinking, "So-&-So wouldn't be handling that dog, if s/he wasn't a contender...", which leads to many sins in the AKC.
UKC handlers don't need designer clothing or a $400 pair of custom-made Italian shoes, they can show up in a bowling shirt & sweat-pants, or be 10-YO & handling in a class of adults, & win 1st-place - all eyes are on the dog, which is as it ought to be. :thumbs-up:

- terry

.

Thats not quite right, professional handlers are not banned on the UK show scene, it’s unusual as we prefer to show our own dogs, ( owner/ handler ) but there are a few handlers who do it professional, basically we are to tight to pay someone the extoranate
Fees the handlers charge in the US

There is no rule stating you have to be at least part owner to show a dog. And it’s more like 95% owners who show their own dogs, most people who get someone else to show will usually be down to not being fit enough to run the dog.

And yes you are right you see some sights in the ring regarding dress code, some folk turn up looking like they just mucked out the kennels, but most of us will dress smart casual, ladies skirts suits are creeping in a little US influence , but most find them unpractical.

 

[Mad Murphy]

I think crufts in its current form is outdated in much the same way as beauty pagents yet we still see those cropping up re-enforcing the same old stereotypes and the same is true of some people and crufts (and other big dog shows) ie they want the prestige winning brings and the money it can earn them if they play the game.
Yes they have made changes and some of the elements mentioned by PWDmum are good but.

Fit for purpose and health should be the number one priority and despite what the KC says this is not whats happening in the dog world now, dogs are being shown and then bred from after needing corrective sugery for palate malformations, eye problems and lord knows what else.. There needs to be a huge amount of education, weeding out of bad blood lines/ breeding practices ( unhealthy) and more emphasis put on responsible breeding and ownership.

For me part of this would be proper registration of dogs from birth to death in the same way we keep tabs on a car. A chip matching a passport to be changed and updated with each owner and failure to keep the registration up to date resulting in huge fines might mean people would be more careful about where their dogs went and what happened to them.

 

[leashedForLife]

That's not quite right, professional handlers are not banned on the UK show scene, ...

.

I wasn't speaking of the U.K., but the U.K.C. in the USA.

the United Kennel Club was founded over 100-yrs ago by angry pitbull-breeders who still firmly believed that "game dogs" & dog-fighting were OK; the AKC had got religion & banned dog-fighting, & thus "fighting dogs". However, they kept registering Engl Bull [AND] Terriers, Boston [Bull AND] Terriers, & all the other former pit-types; it was only the "scruffy" APBT / Am-Staff that they kicked out.

Terrierman's Daily Dose: A Brief History of the UKC

For a long time, the UKC was pitbulls & coonhounds - the common man's breeds, used for farm dogs & as hunting dogs. // Then they opened it up to gun dogs, & relatively-recently, became an "all-breed" registry with conformation shows that included classes for breeds in the guarding, companion, toy, etc, groups.

United Kennel Club - Wikipedia

The UKC has always focused on dogs who perform, as opposed to look pretty - that hasn't changed. Many UKC dogs hunt, run agility, work livestock, guard property, etc; they don't get blue ribbons on weekends & rest on their laurels, the other 5 days. But there are more lap-dogs in the UKC than ever before, & breeds whose sole "job" is companion have soared.

And yes - they do ban pro-handlers. Good on 'em, i say!

From
Conformation | United Kennel Club (UKC)

QUOTE, bold & color added for emphasis:
"Conformation is a competitive event open to purebred dogs, designed to evaluate a dog’s external appearance and structure as it compares to a breed standard. The breed standards describe the ideal qualities measurable through movement, appearance, and temperament of each breed. UKC offers not only regular Conformation but also offers classes which are open to 'altered' purebred dogs, allowing exhibitors and breeders to showcase their canine companions. [UKC] Conformation is unique from other registries, as we do not allow the use of professional handlers, creating a venue in which the owner-handler can excel.
Conformation is a great gateway to the other UKC events, and an important part of UKC’s Total Dog award. Total Dog is an award given to dogs that not only look good in the Conformation ring, but can also excel in UKC’s Performance Events (Agility, Obedience, Rally Obedience, Hunting Events, etc.). UKC strongly believes that the Total Dog philosophy is a great test of canine ability and strengthens the bonds between dogs and their owners."

hope that clarifies,
- terry

.

 

[Whippylove]

Ive had pure bred and a cross breed so dont have an issue with any. Myself when buying a puppy i like to know the background mum and dad and how the pups are being raised. Such a lot off puppy farms about which is so sad .
I like crufts ive always wanted to show my dogs and might with my new pup. But im the same their my babies first and if they weren't enjoying it i wouldn't carry on.

 

[Teddy560]

Can I just say how nice it is to see things being debated in a respectful and adult way

Tbh, I don't know very much about the dog world, until recently my background was more horse orientated. I have had both crossbreeds and kc registered so am not opposed to either. I'll be honest, I don't like breeds that are bred with obvious problems that impair the dog's quality of life (brachycephalic breeds for example) just so they look cute or a certain way.

I am more opposed to the intention of the breeder, which more often than not is money. I think there's also such an over-supply of puppies/dogs that I wish less people bred for the sake of it. But how to police it? I think some people are after a quick buck and they have a bitch and their friend down the road has a dog so they decide to breed them. For example, my husband's colleague brought his puppy to work, it is a Boston Terrier x Westie. It is the strangest looking dog I have ever seen. It was purposely bred. For what purpose, I have no idea.

I like some parts of crufts. I love watching the flyball and agility and different breeds of dogs. I like the friends for life stories and the celebration of all things dog. I dislike some of the over exaggerated features being displayed in certain breeds that are then winning classes. How is a german sheperd that is almost collapsing on it's back legs a good example of anything?

@leashedForLife I echo a lot of your sentiments in this thread. One question, when you said earlier that a puppy sold to a home with young children will end up in a shelter, where you refering to the fact of the puppy being a sporting breed? Because I have a 1 and 3 year olds and 4 month old puppy and he definitely isn't going anywhere

 

[PWDmum]

@leashedForLife said ...
I wasn't speaking of the U.K., but the U.K.C. in the USA.

My mistake, thanks for clarifying

 

[JoanneF]

I think it's a little unfair to blame Crufts for extreme breeding. Undoubtedly the event provides the platform for breeders to showcase their dogs (and not all are extreme) but it is the breed societies who set the standards. So if they suggest that the dog that most looks like it has run headlong into a brick wall is most 'desirable', that's what extreme breeders will aim for. I get it that Crufts is the event where everyone competes, but I don't think the event is as culpable as the breed societies. If the breed societies made their standards less for looks and more for health (e.g. a longer snout on the brachy breeds), those would be the criteria on which the dogs were judged. And of course there are loads of other things at Crufts that other posters have mentioned.

 

[Violet Turner]

I'm for cross breeding, because some crossbreeds can be healthier than pedigree dogs. great topic though @Josie

 

[Flobo]

Yep all good points, but for me it is the showing. I'm not blaming crufts wholeheartedly but it doesn't help, in my opinion. Yes show casing the working dogs, great, my father in law used to foster dogs for canine partners, their work is amazing. Here is the quote from the kennel club re breed standards (if I'm not allowed to quote please remove):
Breed Standard
Last updated August 2015
A Breed Standard is the guideline which describes the ideal characteristics, temperament and appearance including the correct colour of a breed and ensures that the breed is fit for function. Absolute soundness is essential. Breeders and judges should at all times be careful to avoid obvious conditions or exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way to the health, welfare or soundness of this breed. From time to time certain conditions or exaggerations may be considered to have the potential to affect dogs in some breeds adversely, and judges and breeders are requested to refer to the Breed Watch section of the Kennel Club website here The Kennel Club for details of any such current issues. If a feature or quality is desirable it should only be present in the right measure. However if a dog possesses a feature, characteristic or colour described as undesirable or highly undesirable it is strongly recommended that it should not be rewarded in the show ring.
This sounds good but... unfortunately we still have dogs with problems that are kc registered and still shown at Crufts, do we not??. When a certain breed wins best in show do we not see a spike in the popularity of that breed and we're back to puppy farming, yes this is the other end of the scale but it exists none the less.. Like I said I am not 'blaming' Crufts or the Kennel club for all the problems in the dog world, but maybe they could do a whole lot more to help through their influence and by example?

 

[JoanneF]

It's quite disappointing and frustrating to see this sort of statement from the Kennel Club - (I know you are just quoting @Flobo so this isn't disagreeing with you)

Breeders and judges should at all times be careful to avoid obvious conditions or exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way to the health, welfare or soundness of this breed.

Then the bad breeders fly in the face of it with poor breeding practice that completely flaunts this, and still get registration.

 

[JudyN]

Surely Crufts could be much more effective in promoting good health by ensuring that their judges don't select unsound dogs as winners? Why can't they throw the breed standards out the window if the breed standards allow dogs that can't breathe and/or move properly?

I'm also concerned about the manhandling of dogs in the ring by judges and owners - you can see many dogs are not happy to have judges looking at their teeth, feeling them all over, but they are subject to this repeatedly. It would be nice to make 'dog enjoys the showing process' more of a priority, but I'm not sure how you achieve that. You can't really judge a dog who doesn't want you to look at his teeth that day.

And as for the lead walking skills when they are walked round! I'd like to see a higher priority given to dogs walking on a loose lead, happy and relaxed, with a natural gait, because that would be a better indication of their suitability as pets than physical conformation alone.

 

[leashedForLife]

...
@leashedForLife I echo a lot of your sentiments in this thread.
One question, when you said earlier that a puppy sold to a home with young children will end up in a shelter, where you refering to the fact of the puppy being a sporting breed?
Because I have a 1 and 3 year olds and 4 month old puppy and he definitely isn't going anywhere

.

close, but no cigar.
I was referring particularly to sport-dogs - crossbreeds, who are intended for a very specific purpose.

Border-Jacks, the crossbreed i used as my example, are BC x JRT, & are the "height dog" of choice for flyball competitors. // The hurdles toward the flyball box are set by the height of the SHORTEST dog on the team, so most teams have one dog who's secondary function is to keep the bars low - their primary function, of course, is to run the hurdles & fetch back the ball quickly.

Border-Jacks are manic, vocal, highly reactive, snappy lifelong, incredibly mouthy as puppies, & have all the driven intensity of their BC parent. // Anyone who breeds an entire litter of them to get ONE pup for themselves is an egocentric git with no concern for the leftover pups, as they are not "ideal pets" for the APO.
Average Pet-Owners will rip their hair out after a few months of rearing the adorable 8-WO Border-Jack they "got for a song" off CraigsList. Hence my comment - they make the mouthiness of the average Lab or Golden pup look like nothing, by comparison, & small children being prone to shriek, run, fall, thrown stuff, chase the pup or be chased, etc, kids under 10-YO & Border-Jack pups aren't a perfect pairing.

As we all know, forum-members as a whole are already a cut above APOs - they're often deeply into training, prevention, & fixing existing issues, while APOs are always on the back foot, reacting to problems they could have avoided by training proactively or by addressing them as soon as they began, instead of letting them slide as they worsened. Folks here are less likely to get into such difficulties.

- terry

.

 

[Mad Murphy]

I cannot even begin to imagine a border jack OMG Ive never met one but the border collies I see here now are flimsy yappy highly strung snappy dogs totally unsuited to the work they were intended for ..Adding a JRT must be like chucking petrol on a BBQ!

 

[PWDmum]

Breed Standard
Last updated August 2015
A Breed Standard is the guideline which describes the ideal characteristics, temperament and appearance including the correct colour of a breed and ensures that the breed is fit for f
This sounds good but... unfortunately we still have dogs with problems that are kc registered and still shown at Crufts, do we not??. When a certain breed wins best in show do we not see a spike in the popularity of that breed and we're back to puppy farming, yes this is the other end of the scale but it exists none the less.. Like I said I am not 'blaming' Crufts or the Kennel club for all the problems in the dog world, but maybe they could do a whole lot more to help through their influence and by example?

Do we , I think we might have years ago, but today it’s to no benefit to a breeder/ exhibiter to put a unhealthy dog in the ring, the KC introduced. “ a watch list “ of certain breeds that the best of breed had to go for a vet check before they are allowed to go in for best in show, I think it started with about 15 breeds on the list and over the past 4 / 5 years that is being reduced all the time, many of the braco breeds such as bull dogs / pekes, and dogs with excess skin were on the list, this is being reduced dramatically over the last few years.

N

 

[PWDmum]

Look at the neo mastiff for instance you are now seeing less skin folds on the dog, the bulldog, is less exaggerated , and so on, changing standards takes time, it can’t happen over night, You can argue thatnbreeders of some breeds have been forced into making minor changes, because there is no point wanting to be at the top of the game when you can’t get the dog past the vet check, if you are familiar with showing you will see these subtle changes taking place over time.

A point o note out of the thousands of pedigree dogs bred a year, the percentage of those bred by the show world is around 2% , the rest will be from byb puppy farms, and those who really should not be breeding,.

Also let’s not bash breed clubs / breeders for all that is wrong with pedigree dogs, don’t forget who puts the time money and commitment into colecting data and genetic testing for any health issues that arise in ou dogs...it’s breeders first and foremost who are dedicated to breeding out any genetic health problems in our dogs

It’s always an easy option to blame dog shows and breeders for every problem , But those of us who buy pure bred dogs we buy them because they look a certain way, have a particular characteristic , that fits our life, if we “ banned “ dog showing we would all end up with a generic dog, dog showing was there for. Propose, for folk to look and see other blood lines, and breed for the best they can, it has evolved to a hobby for some but still holds the origanal purpose , looking and breeding the best dogs to fit the standard for said breed.

Some people may not like this and use the argument of eugenics, but my view is live and let live, if you like crossbreed/ mongrols / pure breeds, It’s your choice, but what gets me on my soap box is being told my hobby is cruel and obsolete , believe me there are far worse things that can happen to dogs than being pampered and paraded round show ring.

There is cruelty across the board, in all walks of canine ownership, pet homes, working homes show world and everything in between.

 

[Mad Murphy]

@PWDmum please dont take this thread as an attack on you or your hobby its not.

But please dont take the responsibilty for the whole of the show world.

Look at it this way, when a dog wins a show and is declared 'Best of breed' or 'Best in show' joe soap in the street sees this as being the perfect example of how such a dog should look.
Compare this to humans, when young girls see models or miss world and think the only way to be perfect is to look like that. We know how wrong that is.
So that when a show or breeder holds up thier dog as the ultimate example of how a dog should look they must own the responsibilty for where that leads people who do not have their inside knowledge.
The changes in standards recently bought about by the KC were not inspired by pureness of heart they came only after a huge outcry and backlash about unhealthy dogs in shows. And this happened because breeders and owners were desperate to conform to the breed standard the KC had set and to win the ultimate approval ie; winning a show. So the breeders bred the problems into the dogs in order to conform with the old regs and are now being forced to breed them back out to conform with the new regs thats not really something to be proud of. Pekes are still gasping for breath, Bull terriers still have misshapen skulls , English bulldogs still have underbites , many breeds still have cherry eye Syringomyelia in CKCS is a horrible problem that should have been bred out but in fact has increased since 2000 and researchers think that it may be an inherent part of the CKCS's breed standard.

The shows are a public display they are not closed events only for breeders to exchange genetics info and compare standards they are a way of publising the owners dog/breed and gaining status for future pups.. I got hammered on a breed forum recently because I suggested giving a dog a chance at life, the owner had won a puppy show and was considering mates for his 9 month old bitch for once she would be old enough to breed. (this was a 'well respected owner')

Laws really need to change to stop the puppy farms churning out litter after litter and some KC breeders are gulity of this as well as the BYB.
So not an attack on you just an attack on an outdated system that has and is still failing the animals we all love so much..

 

[Biker John]

I like dog shows, and yes their are SOME bad examples winning in SOME breeds, but in general the dogs are happy, healthy and well looked after. One change I would make would be to extend the Gundog Champion method. In Gundogs a dog can become a show champion the same as other groups ie winning three CC's under three judges. But to become a full Champion they also need to hold a working title. If this system was used in all groups it could go some way towards improving health and temperment. For example sight hounds to be a full Champion would also need to hold either a racing or Lure coursing title. For toys, whose only function is to be a pet, then some gernuine temperment test should be gained, for example the testing required to be a PAT dog. Obviously what the other title is will differ for the different groups.