I know, I was very lucky that my grooming enquiry was an answerphone message so I could look the breed up and find out how it was groomed before phoning her back! I'd vaguely heard of them but had no idea what they looked like or how big they were. Sweet little dog though. :-)

>I had to search for a Lagotto as I have never heard of one before, apparently it is an ancient breed.

Sorry I have only just seen this.

I personally would recommend a Tibetan Terrier - they are clever little dogs, robust but compact, good sense of humour, agile, for a long heavy coated breed they are NOT that much trouble to look after (as long as you put in the effort, you don;t need a specialist level of skill).

I would describe a lot of poodles AND cocker spaniels as being 'sharper' than a Tibbie, certainly! If you are going on photos and what people have written about them I would highly recommend you meet some adults!

Otherwise, go and MEET (not just look at photos), Lagottos, Barbets, Spanish Water Dog, Portuguese water dog, perhaps Havanese and Bolognese was well.

I have found in cockerpoos there is a really WIDE variation between them in both looks and temperament and far more 'dodgy' breeders than good ones (actually I haven't yet seen one I would call good!).

As for Lurchers - the word apparently comes from the Romany word 'lur' adn the english word 'cur', which mean 'thief' and 'mongrel' respectively.

A lurcher is traditionally sighthound crossed with a pastoral, working or terrier breed. So a Greyhound x collie is a lurcher. A whippet x bedlington terrier is a lurcher (in some areas of the country the whippet x terrier type is called a whirrier).

Since we do now have a lot of these breeds that would not typically work or could not, you wouldnt really call something like an Afghan Hound x Old English Sheepdog a lurcher - because neither parent breed is really capable of the work, nor would the offspring be.

Similarly, an Irish Wolfhound x pretty much anything is NOT really a lurcher, because again, it is not capable of doing much in the way of work (too big, too heavy), so THESE days a lurcher is a mixture of sighthound and working/pastoral/terrier that CAN actually work and do a job, from working parents. The point of a lurcher is that it can work to catch its quarry and retrieve it!

A sighthound x sighthound is not a lurcher - it is a 'longdog' - my saluki x afghan is really a longdog, not a lurcher.

So... a greyhound x doberman, as long as both parents showed some working ability - is a lurcher.

A Rough collie x Afghan hound... not going to make a lurcher (though would be quite pretty!).

Lurcher x lurcher = lurcher. Lurcher x Tibetan Terrier = mongrel.

Er... simplez?

I don't have a dog at the moment, and I would much prefer a dog less likely to view him as an intruder, and more likely to greet him as a potential new best friend

Most dogs would react badly to someone climbing the fence into the garden.   I doubt a crossbreed would be any different  Even the most 'unguardy' dog can decide that his garden is out of bounds for someone coming over the fence!

My own dogs were useless when the neighbours were using our garden as a rat run, they just thought it was to visit them :(   Although our youngest now would probably make a lot of noise.

we get so many Cockerpoos in the salon these days from where the owner has no idea about Poodle coats and yet they have a pup with exactly that, only thicker. Huge matts everywhere!

We have a 'poo' in the street - a YorkieX I believe.   He ran down to me and I bent down to catch him for the owner.  whilst fussing him I could feel all the mats under the coat :(   I see too many like this, profuse coat that doesn't shed and owners not able/willing to do the necessary grooming - and of course if you offer to show them the reply is always "Oh but they don't need regular grooming as they don't moult"     

Both the Lurcher and Jack Russell are types bred for a purpose, had the breeders of such animals continued to breed to a plan rather than in a haphazard way they would by now be a recognised breed like the Parson Russell Terrier but they are still bred on the whim of the breeder to suit the breeders purpose so they are still a type.

In my mind the biggest problem with designer breeds is not just the fact that you have no idea what you are getting but that only poor quality animals will have been used in their production so the likelihood of there being a problem is far higher than in a quality well bred pedigree pup. Heaven help the poor creatures if someone starts to breed cockerpoo to cockerpoo or worse still some of the pug crosses.

Its funny how individuals are just drawn to certain types of dogs. I also adore the poodle crosses that i meet out and about on walks and at our training  groups. I am not even into hairy dogs but there is just something about them that gets me going ahhh! Contrary to some of the other experiences posters have mentioned i've found them to be lovely tempered and the same energy level and my good experience with these crosses is part of what makes me like them so much. I have always owned pedigree dogs but i have nothing against crosses and mongrels per se but i do have plenty against people churning out dogs for profit in an already saturated market. How i wish every dog could have a good home. I think you would find it really difficult to find your desired designer cross pup from a source that really has the interest of the dogs at heart. This is because they will have deliberately bred the litter for the consumer demand, as someone has already pointed out, they won't have used prime examples of either breed concerned, and they will be selling for profit as they aren't investing back into a breed through showing or rescue etc. If you really have your heart set on an adorable cockerpoo, then why not spend the next year or so trying to find yourself a rescue one? I bet there will be many post christmas unwanted and abandoned designer cross breeds?

> A sighthound x sighthound is not a lurcher - it is a 'longdog'

> Similarly, an Irish Wolfhound x pretty much anything is NOT really a lurcher, because again, it is not capable of doing much in the way of work (too big, too heavy), so THESE days a lurcher is a mixture of sighthound and working/pastoral/terrier that CAN actually work and do a job, from working parents. The point of a lurcher is that it can work to catch its quarry and retrieve it!
>
>

Very Interesting :) Thanks for clearing it all up for me :)
But wouldnt a sighthound x sighthound = a sighthound, what is meant by the word 'longdog' ??

There seems to be a bit of controversy over what the term "longdog" means, it's either a catch all term for all running dogs,including the pure breds, or, a cross between two sighthounds as was mentioned. Then there's Tumblers, although you don't really hear that term much now a days, that's a shorter version of a lurcher, said to be better at taking rabbits than a lurcher.

I think the reason that lurchers were never bred to a 'recipe' is that the desired dog varies so much according to the type of prey hunted and the terrain in the area. West Yorkshire has lots of small hilly fields and whippet x terriers are needed for their nimble footedness, they wouldn't be very much use in an area with large, flat open fields. A larger, stronger dog is needed there and the ability to dodge around in small areas is not as necessary.
Similarly a dog bringing down large prey such as deer (It still happens now!) needs a stronger jaw than one catching rabbits.
I suppose even the type of coat comes into the choices that were made. Whippets and Greyhounds are notorious for having their skin rip easily so  a longer wirey coat is far better for hunting in undergrowth as it gives them a degree of protection.

> But wouldnt a sighthound x sighthound = a sighthound, what is meant by the word 'longdog' ??

Sighthound refers to established breeds of dogs, breeds that hunt by sight like greyhounds, whippets, borzois etc

A sighthound x sighthound is a crossbreed, this cross is called a longdog.

As far as I know, or perhaps the story I grew up with, is that Lurchers were originally bred by Irish Gypsies and for hare & rabbit hunting and called Lurcher from what I understand is the Romany for thief 'Lur', and I think the main base breed was Greyhound. However like most animals bred for hunting prey or rodent control the breeds used depended on the purpose required by the breeder and would differ according to the terrain and prey species being hunted.

Apart from Lurchers other 'types' are Patterdale, Plummer, Jack Russel some are now only bred to others of the same strain others are still bred for purpose. Some will be crosses, other mongrels, meaning that they have far more than just two pure breeds in their background.

Longdogs are I believe first cross between two sighthounds.

I heard that only the gentry were allowed to own Greyhounds, so the Lurcher, as a cross, was the poor man's version of it.

In any event, Lurchers are lightyears apart from today's designer crosses who have been "created" (you can't even say that, can you) for no other reason than for money and "fun".

Just back onto the subject of 'designer' cross breeds for a mo.

I thought I'd have a bit of a troll around the internet based on Australian websites, because I'm all too aware of how much of a big business designer crossbreeds are here, as well as other parts of the world...

I'm disgusted at what I've found.  I shan't post links, but some of the designer names I've seen are just beyond me... just beyond words...

Beagleockers
Spanadors
Beagliers
Spanatrievers

I'm sickened.

I IMPLORE anyone who is contemplating buying a so-called 'designer' cross breed to have a long hard think about what they're contributing to -  PLEASE.
:(

How would Eurasiers fit into the "designer dog" / "type" scenario?  (I'd never heard of them until looking for information on chow chows.) 

Eurasiers seem to be a complex mix and a website I found which described the breeding principles and history behind them seemed to throw up many examples of the difficulties involved in "creating" and establishing a new breed.  And that is where there is a defined aim, and apparantly knowledgeable people involved over decades.

The "designer dogs" such as "Jackahuahuas" and the "planned mating" I heard of at the weekend, of a peke x pom with a chihuahua, seem like random messing around to see what results, carried out by people with no aim or direction, and next to no knowledge either.

"Although the Eurasier is a recently developed breed, a result of the work of Julius Wipfel in Germany, it is thought that the breed is the regeneration of the ancient Russian breed the Laika, which originated centuries ago among tribes living in Central Siberia. The immediate forbears of the Eurasier are the Chow Chow and the German Wolf Spitz, with one input of Samoyed blood."

Above the description taken from the KC so it appears that rather than a 'designer breed' it is a recreation of a once existing breed and not really much of a mix but a calculated attempted to reproduce a near extinct breed.

Think the crosses that worry me most is when no thought is given to the breeds being crossed except it would seem the cuteness of the name or the availability of the stud.

Who in their right mind would cross a poorly bred Pug (known, amongst others things, for breathing problems) with a high drive high activity breeds like the Beagle or Cocker - producing an active high drive dog with breathing problems - to my mind total madness.

Hi, was at checkout  in local pet shop today behind a lady with a very shaggy dog. Got talking to her and found out it was a cockerpoo. She told me that she had decided her next dog would be either a spaniel or a poodle and decided she had got the best of both worlds.

Now for the best bit. She told me the dog had just had its first trim at a year old. She claimed it had had approx 4" taken off. She was telling me about all the knots and tangles she has to deal with. But since she paid £850 for it it had to be well bred. Apparently the breeder is very careful and so much better than the ones who only charge £250 for a pup.

I have nothing against mongrels/crossbreeds/heinz mutts call them what you will as we have had and still have a dog of unknown ancestry as well as pure bred pedigree dogs.  But £850 for a crossbreed, with a dodgy coat and no health tests makes me think of the story about The Emperor's New Clothes.

It was a sweet dog and she seemed a nice lady so I wish her well. But £850..................

If you really do want a cockerpoo then why not put your name down on the rehoming list for a fallen angel from hearing dogs. They have their own breeding programme for cockerpoos and all their breeding stock are health tested and temperament tested. I used to be a full time puppy socialiser and had first hand experience of living with a cockerpoo.

Also I socialised one of the poodles who is now one of the charitys main stud dogs. Just bear in mind that any dog up for rehoming has not passed the grade for a reason and in the case of cockerpoos it is most likely down to over exhuberance and recall issues.

They are very sociable dogs but need clear and fair boundaries delivered in a sensitive and caring manner as without this they can be hooligans who run amock! Also they need daily grooming and a trip to the grooming parlour about every six to eight weeks so the cost of that must be taken into account.

It is a myth that these dogs are healthier than a pure bred cocker or poodle as both breeds are prone to several health issues and in effect with a cross of the two you are doubling up on the two so could end up with double the complications.
Also if you really couldn't see yourself with a poodle then a cockerpoo isn't for you as they can be sensitive like the poodle but equally they have a sharp brain like the poodle and will use it if not given an outlet to use it in a positive manner.

Also they  can not pass a puddle or any water without having to jump into it!  They will chase if allowed as that is the spaniel in them.

The puppy I socialised came to meat Eight weeks old and stayed with me until she was a year old  She was loving ,friendly.very intelligent but also at times a whirwind of energy.She is now a fulltime working hearing dog.

I also socialised her father the poodle and can honestly say he was much calmer dog to live with.

I am not trying to point the finger at anyone in particular but think too many people think  of poodle crosses  as meaning a dog that won't leave mess on their clothes etc and won't need  brushed where in reality they need groomed twice as much as the average dog!

Hope this helps

> it is thought that the breed is the regeneration of the ancient Russian breed the Laika, which originated centuries ago among tribes living in Central Siberia.

That doesn't sound right as there are at least three breeds of laika in Russia, all hunting Spitz breeds.  There is the West Siberian and East Siberian (which are the Elkhound huskyish ones), one that looks a lot like the karelian Bear dog and another that closely resembles the Finnish Spitz.

The Eurasier was developed purely as a companion breed.

This site may be off some interset as to Eurasiers and their breeding plan, gives an excellent insight as to the work that goes into creating a breed, certainly vastly different to the haphazard way fashionable crosses are bred.
http://www.eurasier-online.de/eurasier_geschichte_e.htm

That doesn't sound right as there are at least three breeds of laika in Russia,

Was quoting what the KC say - they have been known to be wrong ;-)

This site may be off some interset as to Eurasiers and their breeding plan

Yes, that was the site I found - an impressive amount of work put into Eurasiers.   I believe a similar amount of work went into developing Lucas and Plummer terriers, and there again with an aim and a plan.  Sadly, the folk who breed "designer" dogs seem to have no such thought through design, and no thought at all beyond the first generation of crossbreeds.

> ....no thought at all beyond the first generation of crossbreeds.

This has had me wondering a bit, of late. I wonder if people will still be churning out money-mutts in 10-12 years' time, when all the pups being sold today will have passed on?

What will the owners of the designer dogs do then, if another ---Poo "just like Cookie" isn't to be found? There is also the fact that being crosses, no guarantee of temperament can be given. I think most of us who love dogs, admit that we fall for a certain breed and then want another one of the same, but that's just not possible with the crosses, even if they can get one.

Will they then turn towards the parent breeds and go for a pure-bred one of those? Will they decide to 'make their own' - in which case, will they sell, if the current fashion for crosses has moved on?

I can't see most of these crosses being developed beyond the first generation (or two, if that) as re-assortment of genes will lead to wildly differing types, temperaments, coats and colours.... and/or people just not sticking to it or making it a lifetime commitment.

Just musing, but it's food for thought.

Labradoodles are being bred F1,F2,F3 generations, only they're called 'Australian Labradoodles'. Maaaadness.

so are they crossing a labradoodle with another labradoodle or are they crossing back to one of the parent breeds?
If they cross back to one of the parent breeds then surely they are going to end up with 'almost a labrador'. If they cross 2 doodles they will end up with a mish-mash and chaos !!!

Will they then turn towards the parent breeds and go for a pure-bred one of those?

We can but hope. Did you know why the first Malinois were imported into the UK? The original breeder, who then bred Greyhounds, had a much loved Greyhound cross. During a visit to Crufts she spotted a poster of "Dogs of the world" and there was a photo of a Malinois -looking just like her crossbreed at home! That's what started it all.

I have to admit that I myself have often thought that I'd fancy a shortcoated Dutch Shepherd -because that's the closets in looks (bar ears) I could ever get to my Brindle accidental "Maligolds". So maybe there is some hope people will end up with the "real" version instead. But I'm not holding my breath.

> Did you know why the first Malinois were imported into the UK?

No, I didn't know that, but it makes perfect sense to me! :) The first dog I ever really loved had a collie/lab mother, and an unknown father. She was pale yellow, and had brindle, and black, littermates... the dam had escaped when in season and as their nearest neighbours were well over a mile away, the only logical dad would have been some kind of gamekeeper's lurcher as they were surrounded by pheasant shoots. She looked like a slender, lithe, athletic yellow lab puppy all her life, and her lovely shape, long legs and neck, tuck-up, and smooth features have given me a lifelong admiration of all sighthounds. So when I met my first Belgians, I really did fall for them instantly as they had the elegance and athleticism I wanted, without being a sighthound.

I watched the Eurodogshow live streaming a few weeks ago and there was a fascinating display of all Holland's native breeds including Dutch Shepherds in all 3 coat types.

Anyway going back to the original subject, it seems us humans do have some kind of innate response to canine looks, that match those of dogs we've already loved. I really can't see how the mix'n'match of all these crosses is going to carry them forward into the future.

Edited to add: I am sure there must be a time coming when people do realise these crosses are not as healthy as claimed, as very few are coming from tested parents (never mind bred by folk who think that cross breeding eliminates ALL recessives!).

never mind bred by folk who think that cross breeding eliminates ALL recessives

This is what really annoys me about people thinking that crossing dogs produces 'hybrid vigour' - and that includes VETS!

All it really does , is ensure that recessive genes become spread more widely through the population increasing the likelyhood of them being thrown up later.  It also ignores the possibility of producing new and as yet unheard of diseases through new combinations :(

A great example of short term thinking :(

Saw an ad recently for Poofoundlands    The "_(**&^(*&^" breeders are claiming that they are the best of both breeds, lovely Newfy coat and NO SHEDDING!     Can imagine the coats at 3 years old - a haystack would be easier to keep looking good - especially given the Newfy's love for water :(   Price?   The usual doodle (diddling) price :(

It's a great racket if you have no scruples - just get a pedigree bitch and dog and produce attractively named pups and sell for as much or more than either pedigree would fetch.   No outlay apart from feeding, no rescue commitment, no responsibility, no support for the new owners. 

Can we have a 'vomit' smiley?

The vast majority of these crosses were not 'designed' .....they were convenience matings.

When asked, almost everyone of the 'breeders' will tell you the stud was close at hand, a friends or neighbours dog. 
No planning, no foresight - just availabilty .......with the double thrill of being able to call them a silly name and take the money.

There's nothing designer about it. The breeding process for designer breeders is usually grab the first male dog of whatever breed and stick them together. Think up a wacky name.
Basset cross sharpei is just one example I can think of that doesnt involve poodles.
Its a shame because there is no care or interest in the health of sire or dam just what they can bring in money wise.

Who in their right mind would cross a poorly bred Pug (known, amongst others things, for breathing problems) with a high drive high activity breeds like the Beagle or Cocker - producing an active high drive dog with breathing problems - to my mind total madness.

The two or three pug x beagles that I have met didn't have a hint of the breathing problems that the pugs have because their snouts are distinctly longer (they look much like the original pug would have looked like).

The two or three pug x beagles that I have met didn't have a hint of the breathing problems that the pugs have because their snouts are distinctly longer (they look much like the original pug would have looked like).

(not sure how they can look like the original pug if they have distinctly longer foreface)

Do wonder if the 2 or 3 such crosses you have seen with a pug head were fortunate to have been bred from a pug with no problems but  there are many who are not and I can't believe that because you have seen a couple who appear fit you are dismissing my comment out of hand.

Think this sort of disbelief causes much of the 'designer dog' problem, people will only believe what they see in person (or think they see) they do not have the desire to accept the facts that are there for all to understand with little effort. Perhaps those promoting the breeding and owning of such potential problems should be made to spend a week visiting rescue kennels to see the state of those discarded when the truth of such unsuitable breeding becomes obvious.

Think this sort of disbelief causes much of the 'designer dog' problem, people will only believe what they see in person (or think they see)

I would say that I see more in person than most as I work with dogs, have so far had around a thousand dogs of all breeds and many crosses going through my dog training school, and I know very well what I am looking at regards breeds, their temperaments, their conformation and their health issues.

Perhaps those promoting the breeding and owning of such potential problems should be made to spend a week visiting rescue kennels to see the state of those discarded when the truth of such unsuitable breeding becomes obvious.

I am not promoting or breeding any breeds/dogs, and I didn't dismiss your comments at all, I just pointed out that my experience with this particular cross wasn't what you described.

I know very well what is going on in rescue kennels, I am involved with dog rescue, own almost exclusively rescue dogs and help training many rescue dogs. I dare say that health problems and designer breeds as such are not really the source of the rescue dog problem, unresponsible breeding of any breed and irresponsible selling and acquiring of any dog on the other hand is!

Here's some pictures of historical pugs whose muzzles were considerably longer than today's pugs:

http://chestofbooks.com/animals/dogs/Dog-Breeding/images/PAIR-OF-PUG-DOGS.jpg

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyH642xmyQkWDaR3BGBt8Al0VTJ6Qfqk5gmd5u-JbIhp0KjvZS

Here's some pictures of historical pugs whose muzzles were considerably longer than today's pugs:

Seems we are on different wavelengths Lurchergirl, what does the look of a pug from history have to do with today's designer crosses? Nothing as far as I can see and certainly not the crossing of a dog with a brachycephalic skull to one who has high drive.

Seems we are on different wavelengths Lurchergirl, what does the look of a pug from history have to do with today's designer crosses? Nothing as far as I can see and certainly not the crossing of a dog with a brachycephalic skull to one who has high drive.

I simply mentioned that a pug x beagle looks more like the original pug, therefore the historical pug... hence why I put the pictures. And I mentioned that the couple of pug x beagle crosses that I have come across did have no problems with breathing - unlike most of the pugs (though not all) that I have met. Neither of these statements imply that I condone designer breeds, or perhaps more accurately that I condone breeding for money!

I simply mentioned that a pug x beagle looks more like the original pug, therefore the historical pug

Still do not see your point, it may bear some resemblance to a historic pug but it is not one and never will be - IMO to suggest such is foolhardy the next thing you know we will have Old Time Pugs on sale only problem being that from any given litter you will have no idea just what the offspring will look like.

Still maintain to combine a breed with breathing problems with a breed who's job is to run all day is foolhardy if not cruel, imagine if your instincts told you to hunt and your breathing restricted you to a sedate walk, the whole idea is lunacy for every dog that appears healthy there will be the rest who are not.

> Still maintain to combine a breed with breathing problems with a breed who's job is to run all day is foolhardy if not cruel, imagine if your instincts told you to hunt and your breathing restricted you to a sedate walk, the whole idea is lunacy for every dog that appears healthy there will be the rest who are not.

But whether you like the idea of a designer cross or not crossing a pug with a longer nosed breed will  result in pups with longer muzzles and therefore much less likely hood of breathing problems.

Sorry but crossing a Pug with a Beagle with produce nothing except a crossbreed with high likelihood of poor health , how can it be otherwise even a designer dog does not consist of a nose alone. When you consider the very poor quality of the pugs used in these crosses how can you possible encourage such a process.

And that's my point... the problem is not with the cross then (as yes, the muzzle will be longer in pug x beagles and therefore less breathing problems will result), but with the "breeder" of such dogs. Most designer dogs are of course bred for money, though there are some genuine breeders of such out there too. And as we all know, a large percentage of pedigree "breeders" are unfortunately just as careless with regards to health and conformation of their breeding dogs and just as greedy as many designer dog/crossbreed dog breeders. The issue isn't the cross breeds (I personally have no problem with them), but the reason why many of them are bred. 

(I personally have no problem with them)

Well I have a problem with those who have poor health and with a cross like that it is likely to be the bigger proportion of those born, I see no reason to deliberately breed crossbreeds with no health checks and no idea how they will turn out health, conformation or temperament wise. I have no truck with those who breed pure breeds with not consideration to health, conformation or temperament either. To breed a cross for some purpose other than money has some merit but lets not fool ourselves this sort of cross is just to make money and if the odd result proves successful that is not from design it is by accident.

I'm going to preface the following by saying I don't have a problem with crosses and mongrels, mutts whatever. If someone is deliberatly crossing breeds together with a definite purpose in mind (see the examples given above), they have a considered long term strategy, a sufficient amount of experience and knowledge and are honest and supportive with their buyers then good luck to them! I do also know some lovely crosses and mixes. However...

I wonder, have any of you read the offering by JH in the October Dogs Today? "Why so Cross about Crosses", in which she basically appears to be saying crossbreeds are fine because if you cross two breeds together, you will get a nice mix of both parents.

"Every purebred dog breeder understands the principal of, say breeding a dog with too short a leg to a dog that is a bit too tall in order to produce pups of the right proportions"

I suppose if you mix together red and white in your paintbox you will get beautiful pink, but if you mix orange and green then all that will happen is some nasty mud colour. Equally, chocolate and orange are a plesant combination but chocolate and cabbage - !!

The same is true when breeding dogs, which Jemima and the overwhelming majority of those who breed and buy designer crosses fail to realise. If you hit on the right combination you can possibly produce something worth having. The majority of the time though, and especially if you lack knowledge about what you are doing - you end up with mud! Those who breed new varieties of plants usually spend years and years crossing different strains to produce hopefully at the end something spectacular. In the process, hundereds of thousands of seedlings are created - and distroyed - because they don't meet the criteria and are unsuitable. You cannot do this with dogs! Every life created deserves to be happy, healthy and fulfilled - sadly many of the crosses being produced are simply unable to do this through either physical, behavioural or medical issues as a result of the compound of the parent breeds.

Another thing which is conveniently ignored by the designer crossbreed brigade is that purebred dogs (etc) have by their very nature been developed and selectively bred over a prolonged period of time to display certain specific characteristics. The herding instinct of collies, terriers going 'to earth', guard dogs barking and standing their ground, hounds chasing, water dogs having a waterproof coat etc. Because these traits have been so strongly 'fixed' in the breed, they will not normally 'dilute' into a tidy 50:50 mix in the first generation. Sometimes the behaviours and physical characteristics can work in harmony, which is how new breeds are developed - often though they don't and there is a 'conflict'. I know several cockerpoos and almost all have the cocker instinct to enter bush and scrub, coupled with a thick wooly poodle coat - there must be an hour of grooming after every walk. The coat of a working cocker is sleek and mostly quite tight fitting, even then they get thorns stuck but it is far less of an issue. The features of a breed fit its purpose (unless they are exaggerated). Gamekeepers, for instance do not want to be spending valuable working time combing out their dogs!!

You will probably have heard the argument "but all pedigree dogs were crossbreeds once" and of course it's true - but yet another fact misrepresented is that breeds developed through careful, planned matings and a purposeful breeding programme in order to produce an animal which met a particular requirement. It was not carried out haphazardly using any old dog down the road and mixing breeds just to produce puppies with a cute name. Incidentally the labradoodle and cockerpoo WERE oiginally produced in a similar way for similar reasons, to meet a specific need. The problem arose not through the cross but through the 'brand name' and marketing.

This leads me to yet another point Jemima fails to recognise and that is the way these crosses are being marketed. Jemima has in the past critisised breeders for 'misselling' their breeds at Discover Dogs and failing (according to her) to point out the negative aspects and health issues. Any breed will have a downside, whether it is barking, grooming or stealing from the bin! Very, very, very few breeders of designer crosses, even labradoodles and cockerpoos, ever point out the drawbacks of these dogs - the grooming, behavioural and sometimes medical issues which ought to be taken into account. Virtually all prospective buyers ever hear is they are cute and non moulting. The first is subjective, the second often false. You even hear the claim 'hypoallergenic' which has been proven to be untrue. The more bizarre crosses are not usually offered with any information at all. The majority of people breeding these dogs have no interest in the behaviour, coat type, excersize requirements or anything else. They are only seeing the opputunity of making money. Jemima says there are good and bad breeders of all types of dogs, which is true, but no matter how well puppies are fed, reared in the family home and 'mum and dad can be seen', it will do little to help the puppy which is a cross between two incmpatible breeds that is sold to an owner who is completely unsuited to deal with it, for example the elderly lady with a stick who buys a husky x GSD!! It isn't simply a question of good breeders vs puppy farmers here. It is a case of will you be buying a pup from someone who has owned five or six generations of its family and will be there to offer advice and support throughout its life, or will you buy from someone who owns a pet labrador and has decided because she is 'such a sweet girl and crosses are healthier' to take her to the guy in the pub's poodle stud and let her have a litter so they can buy a new carpet?!

In addition, the whole point of having a purebred anything (plant, dog, horse) is that it gives a very high level of predictability. Most people including myself, have opted for a certain breed because the specific features (physical and behavioural) meet their requirements and personal preferences. And it's all very well people sneering that appearence isn't important, human nature dictates otherwise. Even within a breed, different lines will produce subtle differences in temprement and type. The more you know what to expect from a dog, the less likely you are to have unplesant surprises which you can't deal with. If the breed is prone to particular health issues, then you can be prepared and know what to look out for and how to avoid it. If someone choses to buy a crossbreed, then really it's a shot in the dark. There is a fair idea maybe of what it'll turn out like, but the variations can be huge and buyers must allow for an amount of uncertainty.

Jemima levels (yet another) serious allegation at purebreed (show) breeders - racism, towards crossbreeds and those that breed them - simply because they are not purebred, are selling for a lot of money and don't have a history. Once again she has misread the situation. Those who breed purebred dogs are not against crosses for the reasons she thinks. It is because huge numbers of these puppies are being churned out by people without knowledge, thought or purpose other than to cash in on the lastest craze and earn a fast buck and are being bought by people who are led to believe they are getting something exceptional, healthier and better in every respect than any purebred, when very often the exact opposite is true. When they realise this, the puppy usually faces an uncertain future, certainly its breeder is unlikely to want to help.

>I wonder, have any of you read the offering by JH in the October Dogs Today? "Why so Cross about Crosses", in which she basically appears to be >saying crossbreeds are fine because if you cross two breeds together, you will get a nice mix of both parents.

"Every purebred dog breeder understands the principal of, say breeding a dog with too short a leg to a dog that is a bit too tall in order to produce pups of the right proportions"

And this CLEARLY demonstrates the ignorance of breeding from people like JH.   If you followed this idea then you'd get pups who were too tall/too short and be very lucky to get any pups that were just right.   But hey ho it must be true because she's written it!

tricolourlover,

Love this post, perhaps you should send it in as an antidote?

>"Every purebred dog breeder understands the principal of, say breeding a dog with too short a leg to a dog that is a bit too tall in order to produce pups of the right proportions"

I thought anyone with the remotest knowledge of genetics knows that's not true! You'd get some puppies that will be short-legged like one parent and some which will be long-legged like the other. That's why some labradoodles have a shorter wiry coat (they take after the labrador parent) and others have a longer woolly coat (they take after the poodle parent). You won't get a nice even homogeonous 'blend'. If that's JH's premise about crossbreeds then she needs to educate herself a bit.

I thought JH tried to market herself as being an authority (ahem) on genetics!?

You're average high school biology student could explain the flaws with her argument here re long/short legs. 

Soooo frustrating

Wouldn't it make breeding a lot simpler if you knew in advance that crossing long legs with short legs would always give you legs that were an average of the parents. or coat colour a dark shade crossed with a pale shade would give you the required medium shade lol

Wouldn't it make breeding a lot simpler if you knew in advance that crossing long legs with short legs would always give you legs that were an average of the parents.

Indeed!!!! And it would also be so simple to get rid of health problems because then nothing could be carried presumably, so two healthy parents would ALWAYS have healthy pups. For instance you could guarantee low hip scores. In cloud cuckooland, that is.

I honestly can't believe all of this -I didn't think she lacked such basic knowledge. It's like some fairytale where the black doggy and the white doggy have puppies and either they are all grey, or all are black AND white.

and the white is in all the correct places with no mis-marking haha

Love this post, perhaps you should send it in as an antidote?

Ditto.

Only just picked up on this topic though it's been running for some time; probably didn't click because designer dogs don't do it for me. Like Devonlass have been "out of dogs" (but never without a dog) for years and I agree with her asssessment of what constitutes a cross etc. Pippa has not yet come into season and we've made certain that her area is practically mouse-proof; having said that, Charlie next door has a definite "thing" for her so if love should find a way ... Cavalollies anyone?

I thought JH tried to market herself as being an authority (ahem) on genetics!?

Do you know I do wonder about JH, we all know people who's minds are totally close and who consider the only way is their way but this lady seems to have taken things way beyond normal human behaviour to what would normally be though of as obsessive behaviour.

I will be sending Dogs Today a letter along the lines of what I've written. I persoanally felt the article was too full of blatant errors (as well as misconceptions) to let it stand uncorrected. I believe Jemima is on a genetics forum and as several posters have pointed out, her argument for crossbreeds is to an extent, based on a flawed understanding of the BASIC principals of inheritance! I would urge anyone who has read the entire article and who also feels it should not be allowed to pass unchallenged, to contact Dogs Today with their views. Perhaps if enough of us respond, a more balanced piece will be published...

As I said at the beginning of my previous post, I don't have a problem with people deliberatly breeding crossbreeds if they are doing it responsibly and for a specific (not financial) reason. Had Jemima written an article about crosses being bred to produce, for example, better working dogs for a particular situation, I would probably have agreed there was merit in this. Unfortunatly though, it reads as a more or less wholesale endoresement of all kinds of designer crossbreeds and from more or less, any source. Her only caveat appears to be that the relevant health tests are done - but as we know, this isn't the be all and end all of producing happy, healthy dogs that will make suitable pets. She makes no reference to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people breeding designer crosses have no experience of owning the resulting cross and will therefore be in no position to provide the new owner with the sort of after-sales support one expects from a responsible purebred breeder in terms of maintainance and behaviour. Nor will they be interested in taking back a dog if the owner cannot keep it at some later date. There were no words of caution to anyone considering a crossbreed to weigh up very seriously, the attributes of both parent breeds which of course is going to have a huge impact on the offspring, or to question the breeder as to WHY they were crossing these breeds in the first place and what advantage that particular cross would have over the purebred parents. She didn't even touch upon the fact that so very many of these crosses are a product of substandard purebred parents, not only in terms of type but also more worryingly, behaviour and health, because decent breeders are going to try and ensure their puppies are not going to be used for indiscriminate, money making crosses so often the only option is using dogs which themselves are poorly bred.

This could have been a brilliant opputunity to educate people about the whole 'designer crossbreed phenomenom'. Instead and predictably, Jemima has once again resorted to purebred breeder bashing:

"there are now (me: a very few! ) breeders producing them (crossbreeds) responsibly, why so much loathing?
In my view, it comes from a belief that purebred dogs are in some way 'better' - that all that selective breeding and being able to track their ancestory back generations must make them suprerior to their muttish brothers."

"The kind of vitriol expressed about crossbreeds and mongrels has always struck me as racist - the same kind of unthinking, recoiling shock that people used to express about mixed-race marriages."

"I have to confess that it still makes my skin crawl."

In answer to this allegation, I would say that yes, purebreeds are indeed suprerior in terms of predictability for temprement, health, physical traits etc. They have been bred for many generations specifically for this predictability so if you buy a purebreed, you pretty much know exactly what to expect and prepare for. With a crossbreed, you might have an idea based on the characteristics of the parents but there is no real certainty what you will be getting.

The 'vitriol' expressed about crossbreeds, for a start isn't directed at the dogs themselves and also isn't 'unthinking racism'. It is an appropriate and concerned response from people who have owned, bred and loved a breed for many years and don't want to see it being used in a unrestrained and cavalier fashion to produce puppies that are often going to face an uncertain future, bred by people whose only motivation for bringing new life into the world is to make money. The use of the word 'racist' is nothing more than a cheap, emotive, tabloid ploy to create further ill feeling towards those who defend purebred dogs.

The fact that Jemima still hasn't learned to consider both sides of a situation and ensure she has all the facts and a correct grasp of the science involved, frankly makes my skin crawl!