Teacup Australian shepherd--12lbs!!!

[MonicanHonda]

The way I see it... any purebred dog was once a mutt. They bred dogs to suit their owners back in the day and we'll continue to do that no matter who likes it. Why sit here and whine about it? We aren't going to stop it. Change is inevitable and one day labradoodles and puggles will be registered in the AKC. Heh....

[lute]

Change is inevitable and one day labradoodles and puggles will be registered in the AKC. Heh....

You honestly think that? If I'm not mistaken all AKC registered dogs have had a job or a purpose. Not just to be cute. Yes, all AKC registered dogs were mixed breeds at one point, but there was a reason they were bred. The breeders were selectively crossing dogs to perform a job or have a purpose.

[Giselle]

Lute, I wouldn't say that all AKC dogs were created for actual purposes, as is demonstrated by virtually the entire Toy group.

Albino, you're right; absolutely not all (or even most) dogs today are bred for any purpose other than companionship. However, we are not talking about the propagation of a breed already in existence. We're talking solely about the creation and establishment of a new breed in itself. And I wouldn't say the issue of overpopulation is irrelevant at all. Rather, because we have horrendous overpopulation, it is imperative that a "new" breed be legitimate. Example: Labradoodles. Labradoodles, as was demonstrated by the failure of the Seeing Eye program, have no other actual purpose for creation than companionship. In an underpopulated world, that's fine and dandy. But because our society is so darn overpopulated (really, bursting at the seams!), it's just downright unethical to create a new breed, the Labradoodle, when there are so many companion-quality dogs already in existence and languishing in shelters and when there is a breed that already fulfills that niche of a curly-coated retriever. Again, I'm not talking about the continuation of breeds already in existence because that will just take you on a never-ending tangent. I'm only talking about the validity of creating a new breed in our day and age, which is the sole issue of all these "designer dog" and "new breed" discussions.

Like I said, I have nothing against a new breed if it actually does fulfill an unfilled niche, like the Silken. In fact, that's the general sentiment of most people. However, when the dog is merely adding to an already fulfilled niche, well, there's going to be pretty severe backlash.

[MonicanHonda]

Not all dogs had a purpose, for example, Italian Greyhounds were bred purely for companionship as a lapdog that resembled their greyhound cousins.

[Twisterdog]

Not all dogs had a purpose, for example, Italian Greyhounds were bred purely for companionship as a lapdog that resembled their greyhound cousins.

And that IS their purpose. They fill it well. We don't need something called a "toy greyhound" or a "miniature whippet" to fill that niche, we already have a recognised breed, the IG. We don't need BYB's and puppy mills breeding greyhounds and whippets with chihuahuas or min pins to make a "toy" version. If you want a little greyhound, buy an IG.

And, I'm sorry, if you want a twelve pound fuzzy lap dog, get a pom. Don't buy a Aussie/pom mixed breed from a BYB who called it a "toy Australian shepherd.". Don't put money into the pockets of monsters.

[shepgirl]

ALBINO____What makes you think that just because you don't like the dog that obviously the breeder doesn't care about the health? Its one thing to be skeptical and want to look more into seeing if they're being honest, its another to flat out say that they more than likely are lying. A breeder of any other breed has just as much of a chance of lying about testing or not lying. Just because they breed a breed you dislike does not mean they don't care about their dogs. Also, what is a designer dog? A dog without a purpose for being bred? Because most dogs now days aren't used for their original purposes. If someone has a labrador who does shows, breeding, and a family pet, but no hunting and retrieving, does that make it a 'designer dog' just because its not living up to the breed's purpose? No. A dog is a dog. There's such thing as a deigner hand bag or designer clothes, but there is no such thing as a designer dog, dogs are not objects. Regardless of if you like the breed or not, they are not objects.



What makes me think that? The fact that I've just witnessed someone lie through their teeth for the sake of breeding what they said was a super dog...it turned into a disaster is why. Oh yes, they claimed to have done all the testing necessary, NOT. And the pups were lucky people did them a favour and took them in. Is that a good enough reason? Some people might consider themselves breeders but not too manytrue dog people are fooled.
Our pounds are full of so called purebreds, rare colours, designer breeds, etc. Maybe it's time we stopped and reflected who put those dogs behind bars.

[MonicanHonda]

Okay then, we need to stop breeding dogs at all because dog shows are not the original purpose of any dog breed. So since we don't need purebred dogs for their purpose, we should just stop breeding dogs at all...