I agree completely. I am crossing Papillon and Australian Shepherds of all three sizes (for diverse blood pool and better odds of finding exactly the right dog to include in my line). I am breeding for specific appearances and a temperament not often found in small breeds (extremely smart and loves learning and guidance too). All pups not used in the line will have a spay/neuter contract and go to heavily screened homes. I am doing everything that everyone agrees makes a responsible and ethical breeder, except the crossing of breeds aspect. As soon as I mention that I breed a cross, they freak out. “excuse me but I could have swore all other breeds were a cross’… lol To say that I have no right to create a breed that suits me and others like me is stupid when hundreds have done the same and only had support from the masses.

I think that breeders need to get away from the absurd appearance-based standards of the KCs. Use DNA mapping to identify the few breeds that originated without man’s misguided interference, cultivate healthier “root stocks”, and if there’s still a functional need for a breed, redevelop it. There’s work that has been done in Russia that produced a strain of foxes which were completely dog-like in their reaction to people, and could breed with dogs, in only 50 years. Imagine what could be done if DNA screening were dded to their protocol.

but creating more breeds? It is very unnecessary.

I suppose that would depend on what we mean by “necessary”. Some may say that dogs in general are not really “necessary” but they sure do enrich the life of many people – not everyone – but many people.

As I understand it Labradoodles were bred to create a guide dog for people with allergies. Nothing wrong with that.

Some people also really like the look of Puggles. Nothing wrong with that either.

If I am a responsible breeder and I want to breed a new dog called Snarfle-Fuffle, I should be able to as long as my breeding pair is healthy, has good genetic diversity, and I can place all of the puppies into good homes. If lots of people like the look of the Snarfle-Fuffle, then I can breed more of them as long as I can place them into good homes. If nobody likes them, then I won’t be able to place them, and won’t be able to continue breeding.

I agree that there are already many dogs out there, more dogs than there are homes. But does this mean that everyone has to get a shelter dog? Shelter dogs may not be appropriate for all homes and some people want a dog with a particular look or temperament. Nothing wrong with that.

No amount of saying “I want a purebred Bernese Mountain Dog, because I like the way they look/act” will ever make that specific dog a right match.

That is true. But being able to get exactly the breed that I want will certainly increase the chances that it will be the right match. For example, if I need a guide dog and I have allergies, the Labradoodle will be a strong candidate. This does not mean that a Labradoodle will 100% be the right match, and it does not even mean that all Labradoodles that are bred will have the properties that I need, but it sure increases the chances of finding the right match.

Again, as long as the Labradoodle breeder is responsible, has a healthy breeding pair with good genetic diversity, and can place all of her puppies into good homes, there are no problems.

The over-population of dogs is a result of irresponsible breeding. Can designer dog breeders be irresponsible? Sure. Can purebred dog breeders be irresponsible? Sure. Even if we stopped all cross-breeding (i.e., stopped the process of creating new breeds) it would have little impact on irresponsible breeding because the irresponsible breeders will simply switch to breeding purebred dogs.

If the argument is that we already have an over-population of dogs, so we should stop *all* dog breeding until homes are found for all existing dogs – then that is a different but also interesting discussion.

We have laws that regulate food, automobiles, appliances, even kids toys, why not the furry animal with all the teeth everyone seems to own?

That is a very interesting point. Government regulation however, always comes at a price and it is can be difficult to come up with a good compromise between regulation and freedom/choice. It is also difficult to control side-effects.

Some people propose that all dog owners must take some government dog training test, much like a car driving test, but I shudder to think what our government will come up with in terms of what is the “right” type of training.

Should all poorly bred dogs be destroyed because they are a threat to public safety?
Should they take a temperament test first? Who comes up with the temperament test?
Increasing taxes on unneutered or unspayed dogs will hurt all breeders, not just the irresponsible ones. This may force some responsible breeders to close-up shop. It may cause irresponsible breeders to cut corners some other way so that they can still make profits – which may result in worse conditions for their dogs.

I am not saying that all regulation is bad, but only that it is difficult to come up with the “right” regulation that will achieve its intended purpose, while not having too many bad side effects. As the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

The breeder regulation should be a matter of public safety. There are tons of “breeders” out there who poorly breed and raise their puppies, inbreed, and god knows what else, and as a result some of those dogs become threats to public safety. We have laws that regulate food, automobiles, appliances, even kids toys, why not the furry animal with all the teeth everyone seems to own?

Hi Alex,

I agree with you that there should be better controls at the breeder level, but it should apply to all breeders and not just breeders of new cross-breeds. The issue is with the breeding and sale of dogs in general, rather than with specific breeds, or cross-breeds.

Designer dogs have recently become a convenient target, and I often see people getting insulted or shouted at for merely asking a question about a designer dog. I think this is unfortunate. It only drives new dog owners away from getting more information, and possibly straight into the arms of the many puppy mill online stores.

Dogs require a lot of time, money, and effort, so I don’t think there is anything wrong with looking for exactly the type of dog that we want; whether it be a purebred dog, a shelter dog, or a designer dog. Getting a dog that is the wrong fit will end badly for everyone, especially for the dog.

Irresponsible breeding, selling, and buying of dogs is not a breed specific issue, nor is it a designer dog issue. Most people who are looking to buy dogs, tend to love dogs, and will not buy puppy mill dogs once they get all the information about puppy mill practices and irresponsible breeding.

There should be some kind of license to be able to own intact breeders, so that only approved breeders are left.

Yeah this is a very interesting idea. It is difficult to pass such laws though because they tend to be unpopular with the public. San Francisco and many of the areas around here have tried to enact various breeder specific or sale specific controls, and it is interesting to see the discussion on both sides.

If you are interested, I write more about it here –
http://shibashake.com/dog/how-we-can-all-help-to-stop-puppy-mills