http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/magazine/04dogs.t.html?th&emc=th

You may need to register to get this article, from the sunday feb. 4th online edition.

The article explores the tension between show breeders and producers of various hybrid crosses and the problems with each approach.

My conclusion is that a great deal of what is wrong here on both sides is viewing a dog as a "product", and not simply as dog qua dog, or an intimate partner in work or sport or even the family. The "consumer" bears quite a lot of the responsibility for this IMO.

The article shows that as the hybrids meet "consumer demand" so too do many of the AKC sanctioned breed-brands.

I note the author doesn't really explore those breeding traditions where selection is based on function for a type of work or sport in which the relationship between the dog and the handler is central.

I hope this is a topic close enough to the issue of "dog training" for the board. It certainly shows why a focus on the relationship between dog and handler (and work or sport) is so critical to dogs doing well in society.

rgds, andrew may

There are two sides to this issue:

People in favor of this merging of breeds will tell you that the dogs will gain what's called "hybrid vigor" which means that the dogs will be less prone to genetic illnesses. This is true to a certain extent because any time you expand the gene pool, you generally have animals with better health.

The loop-hole in this theory, though, is that the hybrid can actually get, or be susceptible to, the health problems found in both the mother AND father's breed.

But the really big issue with this type of breeding is that, again, breeding is being done with looks in mind instead of temperment or working ability. Or, they're trying to combine the general qualities in a specific breed as opposed to the qualities of the specific animals they're breeding.

And I couldn't agree with you more that the consumer is to blame in large part: If they don't buy them, they don't make them. Not to say that people are going against good judgement, often times it is a case of people just not being educated on the subject. Waaay too often people think a dog is just a dog and one breed is as good as the next with no difference except in looks.

I see this every day and it continues to astound me that so many people really don't get why the rottie they just got isn't behaving like the pug they used to have.

To me, the big problem with the article is that is only touched upon the serious problems that arise when dogs are bred in large kennels solely for profit. They contrasted the most exclusive show breeders with puppy mills. Pet owners rarely buy high end showlines. On eof the reasons the hybrids are attractive to them is that their prior experience is with poorly bred "purebred" dogs.

The breeder of hybrids showcased in the article was a commercial farmer with previous experience in cows, who had started to breed designer dogs, and now has a HUGE number of dogs in cages reproducing until they are worn out, at which point they are euthanized or sent to shelters. The reported described how the breeder houses one dog with 5 bitches. This is what we do with labratory mice when we are in a hurry to generate lots of pups. and even then we use only 3 females/male. It is one thing to chose to adopt a mixed breed from an accidental, or even intentional breeding by a hobby breeder or your neighbor. At least those dogs are likely to be raised indoors, and socialized, and kept with their dam until 8 weeks. The dams are also likely to recieve medical care, or at least not be bred twice a year for their entire lives.

The designer dogs are most frequently bought from pet shops, and many consumers have no idea what that means. I certainly agree that buyers should be more aware, but I would love to see dogs protected from this kind of exploitation, and at the least, there should be some requirement for full disclosure of breeding practices so the puppy mills have less of a market.

I used to think that pet shops were more appealing to consumers because they're cheaper - until I checked one out, and realized their prices are often double or triple what a reputable breeder is asking. I wish we had laws like in Norway, where the sales of animals in stores is prohibited. That wouldn't solve it all, but it's a step in the right direction.

As a little project, I started a service to help people interested in getting a dog who had no idea where to start. I thought that if my services made the whole process sound easy and quick, that I could grab those impulsive buyers and potentially educate a lot of people and steer them into the right direction in terms of breed type or what to look for in a rescue dog, where to look for a dog, etc. The project failed miserably, as people seem to be very uninterested in knowing the information behind their options, and much more interested in impulse buys of the latest fashion trend in dogs (read: tea cup chihuahuas. Basically, the people who care are already doing the research. I only had one client who I ended up helping...and it was a relative.

On another note, I'm constantly hearing that a mix is superior genetically, and I couldn't agree with you more, Amber...that genetic diversity is good, but it's not a guarentee. Reputable breeders are doing testing that the VAST VAST majority of puggle or shih-poo "breeders" aren't doing. I haven't heard of any that do it, but I'll leave room for exceptions.