Is it common knowledge that the KC is going to allow breeders of Designer Cross Breeds to join the Accredited Breeders Scheme  but will expect them to do all existing health tests for the dogs involved in their breeding.

What do you think about this?

I think it's good to encourage all breeders to improve their standards.

I agree that it is a good thing that they are encouraging health tests etc all to do with the accredited breeder scheme.

But, it will depend on how far they are interpreting designer breeds, are they talking about just the ones who are affiliated with their own breed club, with now generations of carefully selected stock to give an interpretation of the designer breed with parents and grandparents of that designer breed? Or do they mean just anyone putting two different breeds together from scratch (i.e backyard breeders, puppy farmers) who also have both breeds hip, eye, etc tested to get on the scheme, as that won't mean squat as putting two different breeds together even if both have great health test results will still counteract all scores, eyes, inherited problems and can even encourage them to happen.

So depending on who exactly they will be offering the scheme to will make a great difference to establishing good stock or reeling out a load of dodgy pups. :-(

That's the way that I want it to go as long as they do all the health tests for the breeds involved.  THink it's the way to go myself.  Will hopefully also show that these crosses have exactly the same "health problems" as pedigrees do.  Just looking at some of these crosses hipscores shows that they are definitely not healthier!

I'm sorry but I thought the breeding interests of the kennel club lay with pedigree dogs, not the deliberate production of crossbreeds.

I think the interests of crossbreds that already are born is adequately catered for by the KC's inclusion of them in working activities (except for Field Trials).

I certainly don't think deliberate crossbreeding except for specific purposes like guide dogs improving a breeds gene pool etc under specific agred circumstances (bobtail boxer, Dalmatian)should be encouraged.

>I'm sorry but I thought the breeding interests of the kennel club lay with pedigree dogs, not the deliberate production of crossbreeds.

Nowadays the KC has to be seen to be concerned with the health of all dogs; if dog breeding is going to be more regulated (judgingby the plans in the pipeline) by law, it'll most likely be the KC that is given the remit for overseeing it, especially if they have the system already in place. Otherwise it'll go to an outside body specially set up, and we all know what a pig's ear that could be.

Otherwise it'll go to an outside body specially set up, and we all know what a pig's ear that could be.

Totally agree, better the devil we know who I think will care more for those of us who breed and show our dogs than the devil who are already calling us and our hobby.

Sometimes this PC culture really irks. 

I can see pedigree dogs being phased out by their own organisation at this rate, with registrations in some breeds dangerously low.

I have no problem with x breeds as long as its done ethically and the puppy's future is assured.

Adam

In principal that is so Adam but how often is this the case. It is in all but accidental mating a case of a money making business.

I can't quite believe what I am hearing. So all the 'Doodle' owners who keep insisting to me that they will be recognised by the KC sooner rather than later could well be correct.
Money, money, money!

No, the type will not be recognised as a breed - that's an entirely different scenario.

What this is about is to encourage all breeders (ie, people whose bitch has a litter of puppies) to use the health-testing schemes available; hipscoring, eye-testing, BAER etc - whatever is most appropriate for the breed of dog (or combination thereof!).

The idea is laudable but will only give the unscrupulous another selling point, we all know of these people who use poor examples of our beloved breeds to produce a money making product - giving them recognition as respectable breeders will only increase their selling power and increase the cost of what are crossbreed or mongrels.

Do the KC insist that the result of the health tests are acceptable, I don't think so, to test will suffice after all there is no registration certificate for the puppies to declare the result loud and clear so the breeding of unsuitable stock will still happen and the buying gullible public will accept the "Approved Breeder" as meaning the pup they buy is a first class product. IMO this will further lower the standing of the KC as complaints and court cases will mount and we the careful guardians of the recognised breeds will be compromised yet again.

Sadly you can't eradicate the unethical, immoral and unscrupulous from the population, however desirable that would be!

Banning the use of the cutesy portmantau names, and only being allowed to advertise puppies as being of a recognised breed (stating the official registry) or as crossbreeds or mongrels, this rarity hype might disappear.

Wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments Nova.

I do hope it doesn't open more doors for people here in Australia :( 
(Although our local council are now trying to make sure that breeders of ANY type are registered, etc).
As JG has just said though, you can't eradicate the unethical, immoral and unscrupulous population.

We do seem to have a particular 'problem' (? right word) with breeders of cross breeds, simply because pups are still sold in pet shops and are extremely popular.  I'd hazard a guess and say even more so than in the UK.
Supply and demand :(

found this;
[url=[url=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hybriddogs.htm]

As I said, just a money making project. There must be a breed available to suit everyone's need so why all the "new" ones, to make their breeders money, mate any two breeds that come to hand no one can say they are not to type or complain about the temperament because if you do that sort of breeding you can't be expected to know what you are producing.

I think that's why a proposal (though it's probably just so much p*ss in the wind) that just might encourage people to breed from only health-tested animals must be a baby-step in the right direction.

One wonders how they are going to police it, they have no teeth and they can't manage the true breed breeders so how they expect to deal with people who not only breed but import pups I have no idea and I do not think they have either. To start such a project without being able to make it work will bring discredit to all breeders those who breed to improve a breed and those who breed to improve their bank balance. Those who genuinely care about there breed can do without this sort of "help" from the society that is supposed to be protecting them and those true breeds they care about. To me it smacks of spin and designed to improve the KC's standing with the media and has nothing to do with the well being of our dog breeds many of whom are in danger of disappearing.

would the possible new dogifesto compulsory puppy contract help?

I'm with Nova on this one. I believe it just gives the Doodle and other cross breeds credence and will give them a better selling power. They will say KC approved and we all know that Joe Public will see this as KC registered. Think this is opening a can of worms.

Nothing that can't be policed will work - people will not stand for non police persons interfering in their personal life so I do not see anything helping more that education of the buying public.

We are already seeing the unscrupulous using the KC ABS as a selling tool, with folk laying claims to membership when in reality its nothing to do with the KC ABS at all.  You then have the situation whereby these people have to be reported for false advertising, KC has to make it public that said individual, commercial breeder etc is NOT a KC ABS member all draining funds from both KC and trading standards, local councils etc.

I appreciate the KC wanting to be at the forefront of change and educating all breeders/owners etc but if they do add designer breeders to the ABS list there's many pedigree show breeders walking away from it.  As has been previously stated they have no powers against unscrupulous pedigree registrations let alone cross breeds!

> What this is about is to encourage all breeders (ie, people whose bitch has a litter of puppies) to use the health-testing schemes available; hipscoring, eye-testing, BAER etc - whatever is most appropriate for the breed of dog (or combination thereof!).

They can still do that, but to have them be 'accredited' that is supposed to be about Superior standards and surely that includes the standard of stock bred not just the health testing.

Hi
Does anyone have a link to this embracement by the KC?

> there's many pedigree show breeders walking away from it. 

I shall not have anything to do with it if it happens

I'm not entirely sure its all about the money for all breeders. I know a couple of terrierpoos who were ethically bred.

Also I'm not sure that doing it for the money is so bad if you do it ethically. Maybe its a contradiction in terms but I'd sooner have a breeder who's in it for money but does it right than a breeder who's is it for another reason but does it wrong.

Adam

Ethically bred - that is interesting - what was the reason for the cross breeding?

> Also I'm not sure that doing it for the money is so bad if you do it ethically. Maybe its a contradiction in terms but I'd sooner have a breeder who's in it for money but does it right than a breeder who's is it for another reason but does it wrong.
>
>

Hmm, crossing two breeds together - there is only 1 reason that I would consider that it could be called ethical and that would be to increase genetic diversity if there happened to be a problem with one of the breeds that was insurmountable by using the available breeding stock in that breed, and the breeder was hoping to bring in new genes.  Even then it would have to be done with the full support of the breed club and KC.

Someone else posted that there are enough breeds without having to cross two together, 300 plus - surely there is a breed for everyone.   I always thought that a crossbreed was worth less in money than a purebreed, and the reasons for that are many, i.e. you do not know what the cross is going to produce with regard to temperament, type, size, coat, workability or trainability;  these days it seems to be the other way round.   Let us hope that they do their homework thorougly and do not introduce even more genetic problems which may well surface when these crossbreeds are bred back to one of the original breeds.

How you can consider that a breeder is doing it right by crossing I find rather hard to understand, even if they do health test, I suppose then the cost of a puppy will be even higher.   In my opinion by crossing to another breed is by definition 'doing it wrong' (other than for genetic diversity as above) whatever health tests the parents have undergone

Also I'm not sure that doing it for the money is so bad if you do it ethically. Maybe its a contradiction in terms but I'd sooner have a breeder who's in it for money but does it right than a breeder who's is it for another reason but does it wrong.

To make money from a litter is ethical, acceptable and lucky - however no ethical breeder would ever plan a litter for this reason not with the number of strays there are about.

Terriers particularly in the past have been crossed to produce a working tool that suits the terrain and prey species within a particular area - that can be an ethical reason for crossing and the same sometimes happens with gundogs and in the past hounds, so if the crossing is to produce a better dog for the job in hand then I would say that is a good reason to cross but I can't think of any other and in these days of checks being placed on all sporting dogs and their use this particular reason is beginning to become rare.

I don't have any link but was actually told about this by Bill Lambert. I think that the KC thinks this will be a way of proving that cross breeds suffer from as many, if not more, health issues as pedigree dogs.

Also at ringcraft this week was told by a very well known exhibitor that this had been discussed at her breeds health sub commitee meeting last week.

In which case Bifsmum I was correct in thinking this is just ill thought out spin for the media and will do nothing to help the true breeds at all. Seeking to prove that A is as bad a B is nonsense you just have to lead by example it you want to take your public with you.

Hmm, crossing two breeds together - there is only 1 reason that I would consider that it could be called ethical and that would be to increase genetic diversity if there happened to be a problem with one of the breeds that was insurmountable by using the available breeding stock in that breed, and the breeder was hoping to bring in new genes. 

As a general rule, I am against deliberate crossbreeding, but the one time I can accept it (apart from outcrossing for health reasons, that I would also agree with) is when it is done for genuine working reasons (and with great care, of course), such as when trying to produce the best possible police dogs, guide dogs etc.  There are times when the ONLY thing that matters is that the resulting pups will make good working dogs. To me that is fine. We all know it is common for guide dogs to for instance be crosses between Labrador and Golden, and police dogs Malinois x GSD. In Sweden guide dogs are very commonly GSD x Labrador. It's the crosses they have found works well for them. The designer crossbreeds is a different matter because they are NOT bred for any other purpose than as pets, and there are plenty of purebred dogs that will make great pets already, plus mongrels in rescue.

[i]We all know it is common for guide dogs to for instance be crosses between Labrador and Golden, and police dogs Malinois x GSD. In Sweden guide dogs are very commonly GSD x Labrador. It's the crosses they have found works well for them.

I agree with the above

The designer crossbreeds is a different matter because they are NOT bred for any other purpose than as pets, and there are plenty of purebred dogs that will make great pets already, plus mongrels in rescue.

Certainly are too many crossbreeds in rescues. And if they are crossing for good reasons, why are the price labels attached designer prices? Speaks for itself.

Surely if the crossbreeding was that beneficial i.e. superior to either breeds, Labradors and Golden Retrievers for the Guide Dogs and German Shepherd and Malinois for the police these crosses would be done all the time, but they are not, they are done only occasionally  - which to me seems somewhat strange.   I think that Labradors and Goldens still outnumber the Labrador x Golden (for guide dogs) and that the GSD still outnumbers the Malinois x GSD (for general police work).  I do know that both the Guide Dogs for the Blind and the Police also use other breeds for specific places and for specific work.

Possibly the cross in Sweden is done to introduce hybrid vigour, which would be a health reason for doing the cross. 

> why are the price labels attached designer prices?

Maybe on the fuzzy logic that your getting two puppies rolled into one.

A lot of these crosses are twice the price of an average nothing special back yard purebred with no health testing, actually some of the prices I have seen are what two well bred pups from health tested and top class show winners would cost in my breed.

Actually some of the now in fashion purebreeds are that price, and that for unregistered stock.

Surely if the crossbreeding was that beneficial i.e. superior to either breeds, Labradors and Golden Retrievers for the Guide Dogs and German Shepherd and Malinois for the police these crosses would be done all the time, but they are not, they are done only occasionally  - which to me seems somewhat strange.

But they ARE done all the time. There are a LOT of guide dogs around that are Lab x Golden, the majority in fact (ask the next blind person you see with a Labrador if it is a pure Labrador. Often they look like they are, even when they are not) and I know I have read that the GDBA found this particular cross worked better than either pure version -why, they weren't able to say, but obviously they are going to breed the dogs that provide the best results. Here is a direct quite from the GDBA website:

The most widely used breed for guiding is a labrador/retriever cross, but we also use other breeds, including German shepherds. http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/aboutus/facts/#c305

As for the police dogs, again it is done a fair bit -only yesterday I met a policeman with a GSD x Malinois brood bitch who was used for breeding police dogs. I would imagine the Malinois provides a big helping of improved health to the GSD, and I'd also imagine there are many police forces that have had breeding programmes going for many years that may not want to discard every GSD they have, with all the hard work behind it, just because many now find the Malis are often superior. It will also produce a dog that is less clumsy than the big heavy GSD but less over the top than the pure working Malinois.

Possibly the cross in Sweden is done to introduce hybrid vigour, which would be a health reason for doing the cross. 

Not at all, it is done (and has been done for several decades now) because it produced the best guide dogs. Sweden found that pure GSDs and pure Labradors weren't always the best guide dogs so decided to cross the two and were so pleased with the result it has continued for so many years.

Now when we do health tests we can check the results are true on the KC data base by typing in the pedigree name, I wonder how do they propose letting the public check pet mean scores when you would have pet names such as 'Coco' which could be in the thousands. Then I wonder is the next step going to be granting kennel names to the cross breeders.

I'm all for health testing all stock however a bit put off if they can become ABS, they are running before they can walk as a mean score for the cross breed needs to be found first otherwise how can Jo public know if the score is good or bad?

Surely if the crossbreeding was that beneficial i.e. superior to either breeds, Labradors and Golden Retrievers for the Guide Dogs and German Shepherd and Malinois for the police these crosses would be done all the time, but they are not, they are done only occasionally  - which to me seems somewhat strange.

But they ARE done all the time.

Yes, they are and Marrianne is correct. You'd be surprised what has breeds have been crossed into the working breeds, especially the protection breeds, because in some European countries, they really do value what works over what's written on paper.
You may feel that GSD's, Mali's, Goldens and Labs outnumber the crosses, but these crosses go back into the genepool and within a very few generations, you wouldn't even know it was in there to look at the dog.

>a mean score for the cross breed needs to be found first otherwise how can Jo public know if the score is good or bad?

A start would be to publicise the fact that (according to the KC/BVA figures) the mean score for dogs as a whole (the mean of all scores) is 17.

> The most widely used breed for guiding is a labrador/retriever cross, but we also use other breeds, including German shepherds. http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/aboutus/facts/#c305
>

Not at the site I looked at!!!

http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/adviceandservices/youandguidedogs/faqs/application-questions/#c731

They say "  We mainly use Labradors, golden retrievers and crosses of these two breeds..................................................."   Cannot see anywhere where they give a reason.

You say:-

"As for the police dogs, again it is done a fair bit -only yesterday I met a policeman with a GSD x Malinois brood bitch who was used for breeding police dogs"

Where did you get your statistics for that? 

Think that I said that GSD was used for general police work - I also know that they only use males because they are heavier and stronger in the main than bitches.  Did not know that GSD's were considered to be too heavy and clumsy to be a working police dog, well not the ones that I know  - all down to the breeding then.

> Not at all, it is done (and has been done for several decades now) because it produced the best guide dogs. Sweden found that pure GSDs and pure Labradors weren't always the best guide dogs so decided to cross the two and were so pleased with the result it has continued for so many years.

In what way has it produced the best guide dogs in Sweden?   Just interested.

Seems to me we are way off topic here.

> But they ARE done all the time.
>
> Yes, they are and Marrianne is correct. You'd be surprised what has breeds have been crossed into the working breeds, especially the protection breeds, because in some European countries, they really do value what works over what's written on paper.
> You may feel that GSD's, Mali's, Goldens and Labs outnumber the crosses, but these crosses go back into the genepool and within a very few generations, you wouldn't even know it was in there to look at the dog.

Not trying to be argumentative but would like to know where your statistics come from - I find it very interesting, and want to learn more, in particular in the UK

Ref UK Guidedogs.

As I understood it pure labs of the Guide dog breeding are too small for many taller men, but the Goldens were not as steady, so they crossed them to get the larger pups.

They experiment all the time with various breeds and crosses to see it they can get anything else as good or to fit a purpose.

They don't seem to sue GSD's much in UK though they do in other countries, is it because of the inate guarding tendencies?

>Not at the site I looked at!!!

It's the same site ... ;-)

The GDBA breeds dogs for a purpose - that of guiding - and that is paramount. They continually experiment with first crosses (when I was there last they had a lovely curly-coat retriever stud dog they were using on various breeds) to try to get the most suitable working animal. Last I heard the lab/golden cross was still the most successful.

Not at the site I looked at!!!

ROFL its the SAME site!! :)

"As for the police dogs, again it is done a fair bit -only yesterday I met a policeman with a GSD x Malinois brood bitch who was used for breeding police dogs"

Where did you get your statistics for that? 

I never mentioned any statistics at all here, did I? But as somebody with an interest in Malinois and police dogs and often having contact with policemen and various police forces, I have noticed it is often done.

Think that I said that GSD was used for general police work - I also know that they only use males because they are heavier and stronger in the main than bitches.  Did not know that GSD's were considered to be too heavy and clumsy to be a working police dog, well not the ones that I know  - all down to the breeding then.

There are most definitely GSD police dog bitches -although the only reason I know that is from seeing them on TV. In Malinois however one of my own bitches has an almost full sister (same dad, mothers were littermates) who is a serving police dog despite being a bitch of around 25 kgs, and she isn't the only one. The littersister of one of my other bitches had a litter of 6 pups where all six qualified as police dogs, both sexes.  Those are just some of the ones I have personal knowledge of due to them being close relatives of my own dogs.

Ask any police dog handler and they will tell you the way GSDs and Malinois work are different. When going to take a person down, a GSD will run up, stop briefly to and jump up. A Malinois will virtually fly all the way without the brief stop and jump -they are more agile due to being lighter.

In what way has it produced the best guide dogs in Sweden?   Just interested.

The highest success rate for dogs qualifying. That's what counts after all, nobody wants to breed litters for such important work where only some of the pups are successful, they want all or almost all to be able to do the work they were bred for. :) :)

> I never mentioned any statistics at all here, did I? But as somebody with an interest in Malinois and police dogs and often having contact with policemen and various police forces, I have noticed it is often done. >
>

No, you didn't, that is why I asked on what you were basing your facts :)

I took my information from here:

http://www.met.police.uk/history/policedogs.htm

                       and where it says:

"Police dogs play a vital role in the work of the Metropolitan Police, assisting police officers in both routine and specialist work.The first choice of a breed of dog for police work is the German Shepherd. Its characteristic expression gives the impression of sharp vigilance, fidelity, liveliness and watchfulness. The police-bred and trained German Shepherd stays alert to every sight and sound, with nothing escaping its attention it is fearless, with a decided suspicion of strangers, unlike some breeds which are immediately friendly The German Shepherd's highly developed senses are complemented by its high standard of intelligence."

No doubt each police force has its own preferences.

Yes jeangenie no doubt you are right, each most probably have their own preferences.

I've pretty much heard the same as Marianne explained on here, the police etc seem to moving away from the GSD and have been for some time, some sections quicker than others.  Some still have GSD, some mix with Mal and some have moved towards the Mal.  For example, the German police severed their contract with the SV in the 90's and moved towards the mal.  

Incidentally, OH was chatting to the MOD police last week, who still use the Shepherd but Czech lines.  The last batch was from the Czech Republic and cost them a fortune, so they changed their supplier and the next batch is coming in from Holland.  After that, they too are moving towards the Mal. They are simply finding suitable GSD's hard to get, and when they do, they are costly.