THE THEORY BEHIND DESIGNER MIXED DOGS

WE BREED DESIGNER MIXES because we feel that the first generation designer mixes--called F1's--are basically healthier than most purebred dogs due to their having a larger gene pool behind them, as they come from two totally separate breeds. And the so-called "pure" breeds have to be somewhat genetically isolated sub-populations of dogs, or they would not be able to "breed true." But ALL of the modern pure breeds come from the mixing of older breeds at some point in their history, and very few of the modern pure breeds are more than a few hundred years old. And American Cockers for instance, were only officially recognized by the American Kennel Club in 1946.

However, if anyone had told us as late as only five years ago that we would no longer be breeding purebred dogs--but only designer mixes--we would have told them that they were crazy. But all things change in this world, and unfortunately there have been a lot of things in play in the world of dogs in recent years that finally turned us to the designer mixes.

In the not too distant past almost all dog breeding was determined by working performance, therefore ensuring that only the healthiest dogs that could move and see and perform their jobs the best were bred. And with "form following function," dogs that had the same job to do usually wound up looking quite a bit alike in form, after being bred to do the same job for generations--if not in their colors and markings--although night guard dogs did tend to be black in color. And brown dogs have been favored as gun dogs, perhaps because they blend more in with the natural brown colors in a landscape. And the old working dog groups were called "land race" breeds, but this did not mean they were not carefully bred by their caretakers. And in the past all dogs had to have a job to do in order to pay for their expensive keep, except for smaller companion dogs that were owned by royalty and the very wealthy.

But with the rise of the middle class in developed countries in the past several centuries, many families could afford to keep dogs for pets only. And purebred pet dogs became all of the rage in the Victorian age in England, as Queen Victoria herself was mad for all sorts of dogs and kept huge kennels. And during Victoria's reign the first "dog shows" were held, which lead to standardizing the looks of many types of dogs and the formation of breed clubs and kennel clubs, which began organizing dog shows on a regular basis. And a dog breed can be described as a group of dogs that closely resemble each other in looks, behavior, and working abilities--if applicable--and this group of dogs will "breed true" for these traits, meaning that the puppies will eventually both look and act like their parents and grandparents.

And over time many dog owners became interested in the dog show world--usually called the "dog fancy." And after World War II, and with the great growth of suburbia in the US where people finally had enough yard room to have dogs, there was a great shift in the breeding of show dogs.

Earlier show dogs were bred mostly in the kennels of the very wealthy--who like thoroughbred race horse owners of today with their huge stables, owned huge kennels--with much "help" hired to do all of the kennel work. But the huge old show kennels of the 1920's and 1930's that were so instrumental in developing the show lines of many breeds just became too expensive to keep up. So the dog fancy gradually shifted until by the 1960's and 1970's it was quite typical for a suburban home to contain several breeding dogs, usually kept as pets, and either bred for the pet market or for the dog fancy. But this shift meant that it was very easy to get into breeding and showing dogs--and just as easy to get out--so that for decades now the average dog fancy breeder who shows has only lasted for about five years before the combination of the great expense and the stress of never having a "day off" from dogs finally gets to them. For unlike children, dogs never "grow up," but need continual and unremitting care for all of their lives.

And this continual coming and going of many breeders has allowed a gradual shift in the "look" of many of the dog breeds. For if a dog no longer has a working purpose upon which to base the standard for the breed, then it's very easy for those with the time and money to bear the expense of showing to greatly influence what dogs actually win in the ring. And these historical dog pictures show just how different many dog breeds look now from the dogs that were used to originally establish many of the modern dog breeds.

So with each five year "generation" of small suburban dog breeders a lot of knowledge about breeding was lost--as fewer and fewer people in the dog fancy had been raised in rural areas with farm animals like earlier generations--and thus had little or no experience with the breedng and raising of animals before getting into dogs. And very few had been raised on large estates that kept huge kennels, either as gun dogs or even for riding with the hunt English style, although this tradition goes back to our first President, George Washington.

And although many rural people still kept packs of hounds--of the Southern hunting breeds especially--most of the Southern hunting breeds were not considered suitable for either dog fancy or pet breeding, and most of the Southern hunting breeds are still considered working dogs and kept in packs in outdoor kennels.

So these hunting types of dogs tend to either have their own private registries or to be registered with the United Kennel Club rather than the American Kennel Club, which is the registry that is most associated with "show dogs" in the US. And many a huge breed club fight has been started when a group of breeders decided to seek AKC registration for their working type breed, as many working breeders consider AKC registration to be the "kiss of death" of any working breed.

And thus began the gradual separation of the dog fancy from the more utilitarian working types of dogs that are still kept in rural areas today by people who still live, work and play on the land with all sorts of working dogs--for instance to either herd other animals or to hunt with. And today most dog fancy purebreds are no longer bred to perform their original jobs, but are bred according to extremely narrow physical "breed standards," based on the current preferences of breed club members for winning at dog shows. And breeding for dog shows often involves line breeding to ensure that puppies are produced with "show type"--with "typiness" connotating that a certain dog has the physical qualities for winning in the show ring. And some breeders still practice inbreeding which means breeding very close relatives, like sires to their daughters, in order to ensure that they get a certain "look" to their puppies.

But linebreeding is really just inbreeding, but further back in the pedigree. And a favored breeding strategy for the show ring is to have the sire's sire be the great-grandsire on the dam's side of the pedigree--providing that said dog being linebred on has the desired qualities for winning in the show ring, which means coming very close to meeting the breed standard. And this type of linebreding is done to ensure that the desired qualities come down to puppies from both sides of the pedigree, and so that the puppies all look as alike as possible--as well as all looking as much as possible like the agreed upon breed standard.

But unfortunately this type of line breeding often results in some quite breed specific genetic health problems from such close breeding for generations on end, as previously buried genetically recessive health problems show up in what are called "affected" puppies. And even if specific recessive genetic health problems are purged from that dog line through repeated linebreedings--then the MHC--the major histocompatibility complex--is narrowed and reduced so much that even if puppies do not exhibit a particular genetic defect, puppies often do not thrive, and/or later exhibit auto-immune health problems.

And researchers have discovered that when left to their natural devices most species studied will search for unrelated mates. And recent research with mandrills, which are the largest species of monkeys, shows that they "choose mates with genes that are different from their own to guarantee healthy and strong offspring," and that "they (females) will sniff out the males whose body odour is different giving an indication that their genetic make up is likely to be unlike theirs." And this article also states that the "MHC is a cluster of genes which helps build proteins involved in the body's immune system and affects body odour by interacting with bacteria on the skin. According to the scientists, by choosing a partner who is MHC dissimilar, animals can increase their chances of their offspring being better able to resist disease."

And in our extensive research on purebred pedigrees we noticed that purebred pet breeding generally almost always goes back in the pedigree to dogs from the much smaller lines for show breeding--and not the other way around--thus refuting the dog fancy's claims that it is the "pet breeders" who have brought rampant health disorders into show dog lines. And this pedigree research reflects the fact that most pet breeders do use dogs from the dog fancy--or even purchase actual champion dogs, although not as much as in former years--as founder dogs for their kennels--rather than the dog fancy ever bringing in pet lines back into their show dog breeding. So there is always a "going back" into the show lines for almost all purebred pet breeding in the US every couple of generations, if nothing else but to keep some semblance of breed type in pet lines.

And we spent years researching health problems in various breeds before determining that we wanted to get back into breeding American Cockers, which like many Americans was the breed of our childhood. And our Mother was an American Cocker breeder for almost 20 years, finally stopping in 1958 when she declared that American Cockers were being turned into "hairy little bulldogs" by the dog fancy. And we were aware from breeding other purebreds in the past that all purebred dogs do carry some breed specific health problems. But after much research we finally decided that the American Cocker was still a relatively healthy purebred--and we still feel that way today--and we are currently writing an article about the health problems in the American Cocker that we hope to publish in our Articles section of this website soon.

And eventually we also researched each pure breed that we mix here now so that we wouldn't put two breeds together that carry the same health disorders, thus mostly eliminating the possibility that recessive breed specific health disorders will show up in our designer mixed puppies. And most persistent health disorders in dogs are genetically recessive--as dominant genetic health disorders are fairly easy to eliminate, unless they are very "late onset," meaning the dominant health disorder would then only show up when the dog is older and/or past breeding age. And dominant genetic health disorders only need one parent to produce affected offspring. So dominant health disorders are usually quickly discovered and can be pretty well eliminated, even when late onset--because if you have a health disorder show up in both a sire and his progeny when they are all about eight or nine years old, then it's not too difficult to figure out what is going on and just stop breeding that line. Of course this assumes that the dominant health disorder has 100% penetrance, but we will get to that shortly.

And studies have proven that most human disease is recessive in small and isolated populations too, as the Finns are considered inbred (for humans) and the population is very homogenous still. And out of the 30-something "breed specific" illnesses considered to be part of Finnish disease heritage, most have been found to be recessive, as out of 29 genes found, only two were dominant.

But it takes the same alleles--which are variations of genes that are passed along to progeny--from BOTH parents for a recessive health order to manifest in a puppy. But neither parent carrying a recessive allele for a health disorder will ever show any sign of having the health disorder themselves, which is why recessive health disorders can be carried along unseen for several generations before "popping up" again in a certain dog line. And many health disorders are not only recessive but breed specific, and thus most genetic tests are only valid for the specific breeds that they have been developed for.

But if two breeds are bred together for designer mixes that do not carry the same recessive health disorders, then it becomes highly unlikely that recessive health disorders will show up in the designer mixed puppies--and especially breed specific health disorders. And we definitely believe that a healthy, vigorous, mixed dog is much more desirable as a beloved pet than a “pure” dog with a higher probability of developing health problems.

And unfortunately although many purebred breeders do health screenings, there are very few actual breed specific genetic tests available to breeders for the most frequent health problems in many breeds. For example, there is no genetic test for juvenile cataracts in American Cockers, so American Cocker breeders have to rely on waiting until the dog is at least two years old to breed to make sure that the dog is not affected by a double dose of that recessive eye problem. And at two years old the breeder can have the adult dog examined by a canine eye specialist who will declare the dog clear of all visible eye problems such as juvenile cataracts, and then issue the dog a CERF certificate. And then the breeder can seek out a mate for their dog who also has a CERF certificate. And such physical exams given every year can certainly certify that a dog does not manifest eye problems that can be physically seen, like cataracts and some other eye abnormalities.

But CERF exams tell the breeder absolutely nothing about recessive alleles that a dog can carry and for which there is no specific genetic test. And juvenile cataracts are thought to be a recessive and somewhat breed specific health problem in American Cockers. Thus dogs can appear to have perfectly healthy eyes in their CERF eye exams, but still be a "carrier" of the recessive allele for juvenile cataracts. And two such carriers can appear to have healthy eyes up to the time that they are past breeding age--but half of their puppies--or more--could become either affected with juvenile cataracts or carriers themselves.

And this is how recessive breed specific health problems are perpetuated in the pure breeds, despite rampant "health testing." And if the health problem is thought to be polygenetic--for instance chronic hip dyslpasia, which may involve up to 15 different genes--then breeders face the situation where even two dogs that have both scored "excellent" on their OFA exams--from the Orthopedic Foundation of America--can still produce affected puppies.

And even when there is a specific genetic test for a health problem in a breed--whether dominant or recessive--if the bad allele(s) does not have total penetrance, then even testing positive for a disease causing allele on a genetic test will not tell the breeder which dogs will eventually be "affecteds." Say if penetrance is only 60% in a breed, then only 60% of the dogs with the bad allele(s) will show any sign of this health problem in their lifetime. And in this case it may be that the bad allele only gives a propensity for a health problem, and that it takes something else in the environment to make the health problem active in that particular dog--such as the dog being exposed to a certain virus or becoming extremely overweight. And this is thought to be the action in many autoimmune disorders.

And Von Willebrands is a recessive bleeding disorder, similar to hemophelia in humans, that has become prevalent in several purebreeds--but not any of the breeds that we are mixing--that also has less than 100% penetrance, as not all dogs that have two alleles for the disease--and are thus vWD affected--will have severe bleeding problems. But this is not the sort of thing that one wants to find out about their pet when they need to have surgery or if the dog ever has an accident.

And even where there is a quite specific genetic test for a particular health problem, then if during genetic health screenings a quite large percentage of the breed is found to be carrying the allele for a particular genetic health problem, then what is a breeder to do?

If the allele is dominant in that breed, you can't really breed affected dogs because too many puppies would turn out to be "affecteds" too, and this may just be the end line for that breed if the allele is completely widespread within the breed. But if the allele is recessive, and you eliminate every recessive carrier with the unhealthy allele, you may narrow the gene pool of the entire breed so much that some OTHER health problem is likely to be brought to the fore in the breed, instead of being buried in a wide gene pool and only showing up very occasionally.

So often "carriers" have to be included in a purebred breeding program--but only bred to the "clears" who do not carry the allele for the health problem, so that no "affected" puppies with two copies of the bad allele are produced. However, in such breedings other carriers are still produced who will then have to be tested themselves. But the tested carriers can then be bred to other clear dogs--hoping that at some point ALL of the carriers will be eliminated--before the breed itself is eliminated through concerns about massive health problems in the breed. And this type of breeding can be quite a successful strategy--if rather expensive due to all of the testing involved--which can greatly reduce the incidence of affected dogs in a breed.

But no one really believes that ALL carriers can be eliminated, and a famous example is that it would take over 900 generations to totally eliminate albinism in humans--which is a very rare affliction in the human genome. So the best that can be hoped for is to get the percentage of carriers down to a lower level, and then the number of affecteds down to an acceptable level.

But then the question becomes, what are acceptable percentages for genetic health disorders in dog breeds? For instance is it acceptable for one third of a breed to be born with either unilateral or bilateral deafness from too much of the white spotting gene? Or for a breed to have 50% mitral valve disease by the time that the dog is five years old, and almost 100% by the time that the dog is ten years old? But at these percentage levels it is virtually impossible to eliminate mitral value disease from this breed. So--is it then better to outbreed to another breed to try to bring in more genetic diversity, or to continue to accept this level of disease in the breed in order to keep it purebred? I know my answer, but apparently the breed clubs involved with these breeds disagree.

But this is really a trick question, because all of the major kennel clubs have closed stud books which do not allow cross breeding except under very dire circumstances. And so far in only a few breeds--such as the Besenji African Project--has an AKC stud book been opened to new dogs in order to bring in more genetic diversity. And those dogs were actually of the same breed so really not a crossbreed.

And once embarked on massive genetic testing, breeding then becomes more of a matter of breeding to specific genes rather than to certain superior individual dogs--and all the time worrying about other breeders branding those breeders who do breed their carriers as "bad breeders," when in reality the breeder is trying to maintain genetic diversity while still trying to eventually eliminate the bad alleles. So then breeding becomes a nightmare, trying to perserve the breed in the face of persistent genetic disease, as many breeders in self preservation of their breeding programs will hide the fact that they have dogs that are either carriers or affecteds--especially if they have champion dogs that are carriers or affecteds--or have such dogs that are the offspring of very famous champions in the past.

Now some breed clubs do maintain vast health data bases and enforce testing and the publication of test results in an effort to purify their breeds from genetic health problems. But this happens mainly in Europe, and there is a huge Tibetan Terrer health database that is maintained in Europe. But as far as we know the vast majority of breed clubs in the United States do not require testing of breeding stock in order to breed. And again, testing can often only lead to smaller and smaller gene pools, as affected dogs and even carriers are eliminated from breeding, until there are very few lines of dogs left to carry on the breed without some type of inbreeding health problem starting to appear in a breed in larger and larger numbers. So it all becomes the old conumdrum for purebred breeders of being "damned if you do, or damned if you don't."

So the basic idea behind designer mixes is that a cross between two populations (breeds) that have each become relatively homozygous--meaning the same genetically--and thus likely to produce some amount of "affecteds" with recessive health disorders--will instead produce offspring that are heterozygous--meaning different genetically--at many if not most gene loci--and thus won't produce many--if any--affected puppies with recessive genetic health disorders. And much research has shown that first generation (F1) heterozygous crosses are often much heartier, healthier, and productive than either of the homozygous parental lines. And F1 crosses also tend to look alike in litters almost as much as their purebred relatives.

And G J. Patronek’s 1997 study of vet hospital mortality, based on over 23,000 dogs, showed that on average small mixed breed dogs lived longer than small purebred dogs, and that large mixed breed dogs lived longer than large purebred dogs--but that small mixed breed dogs lived longer than large mixed breed dogs. And Patronek's results showed that "The median age at death was 8,5 years for all mixed breed dogs and 6,7 years for all pure breed dogs . . . Mongrels lived 1 – 3 years longer."

But please note that the "median age" was not the age at which most of the dogs died, but is the statistical mid-point, where half of the dogs died at a younger age and half died at an older age. And many purebreds are noted for their longevity, including Mini-Poodles, Lhasa Apsos, Tibetan Spaniels, and Tibetan Terriers.

Now we still do strongly believe in purposefully bred dogs--whether purebred or designer mixed--which are dogs with a known pedigree and rather predicatable size and appearance--and with much breeder knowledge about the dogs behind the litter. And some of our Bologco litters are our fourth generation of dogs here at our kennel, such as the darling little cream colored Bologco girl named Daisy, shown above right, who lives with her family in Yankeetown, Florida.

And the black masked sable boy shown to the left below is named Theo, and Theo lives with his almost identical black masked sable sister named Thia with a family in Boca Raton, Florida. And Theo and Thia are also our fourth generation dogs here. And all of the designer mixes shown here on this "theory" page of this website have been bred here at our kennel. And if you will roll your curser over any pictures in the text of all of our web pages, an "alternate" text box will pop up that describes that particular dog.

And "hybrid vigor" has been scientifically proven, and is called heterosis, which is defined in genetics as the tendency of a crossbred organism to have qualities superior to those of either parent. And this is true especially in crossing purebred dogs, because the typical purebred dog has a coefficiency of inbreeding at about 6%, which is the equivalent of a first cousin breeding. But unfortunately there are breeds with much higher COI's, with some breeds regularly producing puppies with COI's in the 30% to 70% range, which means that these breeds are homozygous on the great majority of their gene pairs. And breeds with closed stud books have no choice but to have ever-increasing COI's. And we ourselves ran into the difficult problem of finding breeding dogs to buy who were not closely related in their five generation pedigrees when we were in search of dogs for our purebred Cocker breeding, as unfortunately it has been taught in many purebred breeding seminars that linebreeding or even inbreeding is a very desirable way to breed dogs in order to "fix desired type." But unfortunately this advice totally ignores the health problems caused by inbreeding depression, and even wild populations of animals have been proven to be negatively affected by inbreeding in the wild

And here's a link to a Labradoodle website in Australia--where the Labradoodle was developed--that delves into the concept of heterosis in much more detail for those who are interested in this subject. And this article is written by a "country vet" who is also a Labradoodle breeder. And we are really interested in the theory of "three breed rotation" mentioned in this article, which the author states "retain(s) the benefits of hybrid vigour, complementarity and reliable uniformity in the offspring."

And this genetic discussion, written by a biology college professor, highlights the health problems associated with a lot of intense inbreeding in mammals. And there are several very informative pages on this website about inbreeding effects on the immune system, and also concerning the inadvisability of using inbreeding to select against genetic disorders. And closing the links to any of these web pages will bring you back to this point on this page. Of course cross breeding cannot guarantee good health, but cross breeding can make it highly unlikely that breed specific, recessive genetic health disorders will show up in the crossbred, designer mixed puppies.

And a good website to read for further understanding about subjects such as: the basics of cross breeding purebred strains; Mendalian traits; the principles of independent assortment; and explanations of the concepts of dominant and recessive alleles; is Mendel's Genetics, which has excellent graphics and illustrations, as well as very clear discussions about these concepts. And this list of known Mendelian inheritance in animals shows that Canis familiaris--the dog--is unfortunately beset with many inherited health disorders. (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals, OMIA. Reprogen, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney and Australian National Genomic Information Service (ANGIS), University of Sydney. World Wide Web URL: http://omia.angis.org.au/)

Of course no being lives forever on this Earth, and all organisms have genetic weaknesses that ultimately lead to their deaths. But due to such limited gene pools the modern dog in general has more than its share of inherited genetic disease--especially the purebreds. And the short lifespans of dogs--which they inherited from their wolf ancestors who often only live to about four years old in the wild and average about eight years old in captivity--makes dog health problems all the more apparent to us. Of course some individual wild canids have lived into their teens, but the canids in general are rather short lived animals compared to humans, and especially compared to other pets, such as parrots.

But the breeds that we have chosen to mix are known for living into their teens. And the picture of an apricot colored Bologco girl named Morgan, shown above at nine weeks old, from our first litter of Bologcos, and who now lives with her owner in California, is a good example of the consistancy in conformation that we do get in our F1 first generation designer mixes, as both our Bologcos and our Kobetans look so much like their littermates. Morgan has the longer snout, the longer ears, and the longer body type with shorter legs that we always get in our Bologcos--and of course she has a beard. But we get the most variation in our Bologcos in the curl of the coat, and we now think that there must be more than one gene involved in coat curl. But we get a very attractive wavy coat with several different shades of colors in most of our Bologcos. And our Kobetans have straight coats, as both parent breeds have rather straight coats.

And in some instances we have more conformation uniformity in our designer mixes than we ever got in our pet lines of purebred breeding, which is due to Mendel's first law, which is the "principle of uniformity." And this principle explains the way in which hybrid vigour (heterosis) works, and why the F1 progeny are so similar to each other. Of course the degree of similarity in the F1 generation will, as in purebred breeding, entirely depend on how homozygous the two parent breeds are.

EFFECTS OF THE VEGAN ANIMAL EXTREMIST CULT ON DOG BREEDING

BUT THE NUMEROUS HEALTH PROBLEMS IN PUREBRED DOGS ARE CERTAINLY NOT DELIBERATE, although many do come as the unintended result of certain breeding practices of the dog fancy that we have described above. But we feel that many purebred health problems are really the result of a great dwindling in the numbers of purebreds, as dog fancy breeders starting breeding much less in reaction to the growing public perception over the past few decades that there is a "dog overpopulation"--which is an idea vigorously promulgated by the vegan animal extremist cult, despite a TEN FOLD DECREASE in the number of dogs that wound up in shelters over the past three decades or so in the US, and despite the true number of purebreds that wind up in shelters being about 2% of shelter populations. And the definition of a purebred dog is a dog that has verifiable registration papers from a kennel club, and not just some breed designation that a shelter worker put onto a dog of unknown origin who just happens to look somewhat like a certain breed, just to make that shelter dog more "adoptable."

And the majority of shelter animals are feral cats in most metro areas of the US now, and there is actually a shortage of puppies and small dogs in the quite urban Northeastern US, resulting in literally hundreds of "rescue" organizations transferring thousands of puppies and small dogs from areas of the South--and even from "off shore" islands such as Puerto Rico--into shelters that now have a shortage of puppies and small dogs to place. And one shelter on Long Island, NY has now imported over 14,000 little "Satos"," as these Puerto Rican street dogs are called, as there is now such a demand for puppies and small dogs in the Northestern US, ever since local pet breeding has pretty much stopped in that quite urban area.

And Pot Cakes are street dogs being brought in from the Turks and Caicos Islands, as their website says that spay/neuter programs are not "keeping up" with the number of strays being produced there. But such import programs have the risk of bringing in new diseases into an area, such as Canada is now experiencing from the import of so many Hurricane Katrina rescued dogs from Louisiana and Mississippi that were infected with heart worm infestaion, which is now spreading into the native Canadian dog population through mosquitoes.

So "on-site" spay/neuter HAS to be the answer to any street dog overpopulation in any area. And while importation only benefits those few dogs that are transported, spay/neuter to eliminate the SOURCE of all of these street dogs would greatly benefit the islands themselves from which all of these dog imports are now pouring into the US.

But all such decrease in shelter dog numbers in the past few decades here in the US has been brought about by VOLUNTARY spay neuter by the pet loving public, and NOT by mandatory spay/neuter laws, which have proven to only exacerbate shelter number problems wherever MSN laws have been tried. And this is because in areas where the population does not have the money to spay/neuter in the first place, people are certainly NOT going to pay fines for confiscated intact dogs, and/or pay for enforced spay/neuter surgery on confiscated dogs, when they can just leave the dog at the shelter and get another dog from friends or off of the street for free. So we would like to see these rescue operations devote more of their resources to eliminating any pet overpopulation problem in the first place through low cost or even free spay/neuter programs, rather then chance transferring more disease along with the transferred dogs.

And these shelter import organizations have only been successful in areas of the US where there is now a dearth of home grown puppies and dogs available. And at one point there were over 200 "rescue" groups bringing in dogs into the State of Massachusetts to supply pets for that area. But a puppy was brought in by one of those groups who proved to have rabies, and six of the rescue workers that had been exposed to that puppy had to take the series of rabies shots. And fortunately this puppy was never adopted out to a family.

So then the State of Massachusetts did apply some brakes to this import of puppies and small dogs by these rescue groups, imposing a 48 hour waiting period before a dog could be "adopted," as before people were waiting for the trucks to arrive and the transported puppies and dogs were being "adopted"--for a fee--right off the back of the transport trucks.

Which all begs the question: At what point does a rescue/shelter begin operating like a pet store? And one such rescue has now collected over a million and a half dollars from their transport operations into the Boston area. And as the pet industry in the US is now approaching the 50 BILLION dollar range, there are literally thousands of "pet rescue" groups operating in the US, with very little oversight. And certainly not with the oversight that is being increasingly demanded of US pet breeders.

And in many areas of Southern California where pet breeding is now outright banned by law, there has been a huge increase in the "black market" import of smaller purebreds from the large commercial kennels in Northern Mexico that have sprung up to meet the demand for small pets in Southern California. And the availability of desirable puppies and small dogs has become so scarce in some areas of Southern California that some of the few breeders that are left there have actually been held up at gun point and had their puppies for sale and even some breeding dogs stolen from them.

And no family that wants a small purebred puppy for their children is going to go to a shelter and bring home a 70 pound mixed breed of unknown origin--especially if the dog is an adult. This simply is not going to happen, and is NOT happening now, especially as many shelters do not market their older available dogs like pet breeders do, but instead often seem to prefer to keep their "kill numbers" high in order to justify shelter operating budgets and/or to beat up on purebred or designer breeders for supposedly contributing to "pet overpopulation." Of course this all sounds too unreasonably callus to be really true. But then why else has the shelter industry so vigorously resisted the whole "no-kill" rescue movement that has been so beautifully promulgated by Nathan Winograd?

And shelter workers should know full well that most dogs in shelters are either adult dogs that have lost their homes for some reason--perhaps financial on the part of their past owners--or for behavorial or medical issues of the dog itself--or that many shelter dogs are our own home-grown version of "street dogs" that are produced in large numbers in some of our urban areas where illegal immigrants bring their third world ways of keeping dogs with them. And there are also areas of rural America where there just isn't the means for a good portion of the population to afford to spay/neuter pets.

But every purebred dog bought does NOT equal to a shelter dog killed, as that family would have never considered a shelter dog in the first place. And even the President's family had to have the CHOICE of getting a hypoallergenic dog for one of their daughters. But parts of the rescue/shelter community got really upset for the CHOICE of Bo--a purebred Portuguese Water Dog--as a pet for the President's daughters.

And if anyone thinks that purebred dogs from US "puppy mills" have too many health problems, then if ever most commercial dog breeding is essentially shut down in the US, due to perceptions of pet "overpopulation" and some purebred health issues--then we will all see what will be produced for the purebred puppy and small dog US "black market" that will inevitably spring up to replace the driven out US breeders--but with the puppies being supplied from "puppy mills" down in Mexico, and even from South America, but with absolutely no USDA oversight at all. For just as people will not give up their drugs of choice, no matter the "War on Drugs," people will also not give up having their choice of pets, no matter the "War on Pets" being carried on by the vegan, animal extremist cult.

So with the perception of pet overpopulation still existing in the US despite an over ten fold drop in shelter populations over the past three decades, and all from voluntary spay/neuter by US pet owners--and we will get into this matter of pet "overpopulation" further in another discussion--and with demand for pets in some areas now being met by rescue/shelter operations--which has really become an industry in and of itself--dog fancy breeders have greatly reduced their production of purebred litters over the past several decades, wanting to appear to be "responsible breeders" who were not contributing to any pet overpopulation. So subsequently AKC registrations started falling, and have now drastically fallen over 50% in less than a decade--and no doubt AKC registrations will fall much further, as the lengthy recession drives both hobbyists and commercial breeders out of dogs.

And with the average age of AKC breed club members now approaching 65 years old, showing dogs has obviously not caught on with younger generations--no doubt mostly due to the great expense involved. And we haven't even gotten into the virtual explosion of dog registries here in the US--now well over 30 different registries at this point--as the schism between dog fancy breeders and commercial breeders for the pet market become more and more strained, to the point that commercial breeders started their OWN registries, as they felt that they were being unfairly treated by the dog fancy. But once a dog is taken from one registry to another, then it usually is not allowed to breed with dogs that are still in its former registry, thus creating a further fracturing of pure breed gene pools.

So all of these pressures against purebred show breeding have resulted in a "perfect storm" in many breeds, resulting in ever narrowing purebred gene pools. And narrow gene pools, combined with narrow breed standards and the use of only a few frequently used sires--the "stars" of the breeds--has led to a rising tide of genetic health disorders in almost all of the breeds.

However, it IS possible to produce healthy purebreds, but it requires producing--and using--a wider number of dogs for breeding than is currently used--and some knowledge of population genetics by the breeders involved. And a widening of the current breed standards, with much less emphasis on inbreeding for extreme show "typiness" would also certainly help.

But we think that the one year old solid sable-merle Bologco girl named Dixie--shown to the left--and the 12 week old silver Kobetan male puppy shown to the right below--are just as attractive dogs as a companion pet as any purebred puppy--and these dogs are most likely healthier, and will be longer lived, than an example of any of the pure breeds that they come from.

And it may now be to the point with many breeds that only outcrossing to another breed--and then breeding back to regain breed type--may help improve that breed's health. And the Dalmatian backcross project is an example of just such an effort, which project was started " . . . to address the fixed genetic defect in Dalmatians that affects uric acid metabolism and that may lead to increased urinary uric acid, urate crystals, urinary bladder aggregate formation, stones, urinary tract obstruction and even death."

But although this backcross project originated in 1973, there are still many Dalmatian breeders who continue to object to the inclusion of the normal uric acid Dalmatians into the AKC Dalmatian stud books--even though after 14 generations since 1973 the NUA Dalmations are now 99.8% genetically identical to current AKC Dalmatians. So MUCH education is still needed in dog fancy circles about the need to emphasize health over breed pureness and "perfect type."

And we have read quite a few times over the years from lots of sources that many "secret back crosses" were done in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe after World War II, when many breeds were in such dire straits, that some breeds were on the verge of extinction--as people could hardly feed themselves, much less feed whole breeding kennels during that terrible devestation. So many of the pure breds may not be nearly as "pure" as many in the dog fancy now believe.

However, there are some breed clubs that "get it" about the need for genetic diversity in pure bred dogs, and the Chinook club has a very active crossbreeding program. Of course the Chinook is a working breed, and it's perfectly obvious to their owners that unhealthy dogs cannot perform their jobs.

But our own interest now in breeding is limited to only producing smaller companion dogs, such as the cute 12 week old Kobetan puppies playing out in one of our dog yards--shown to the left above. And we do love the curled over tails on both our Kobetans and on our Bologcos--such as Goobie, a cream colored Bologco boy shown at seven months old in the picture directly below, lounging on his family's couch in Ocala, Florida.

So we have no interest in backcrossing our "F1 generation" puppies to one of the breeds that they come from at this point. And this is because we believe that the F1 first cross is absolutely the healthiest generation, as F1's have the most heterosis of all of the generations involved in cross breeding, which means that the F1's have the most genetic diversity at the most gene loci.

And we hope to expermiment in the future with other F1 first generation crosses, and perhaps experiment even with three-way-breed-crosses--perhaps in the manner mentiond earlier as a "three breed rotation"--hoping for even more genetic diversity for health in our puppies, while still keeping some semblance of predictable appearance.

But someone has to be invovled with pure bred breeding, or we will lose all of the breeds, a few of which--such as the Salukis--go back for thousands of years as a desert bred land race breed. And we would hate to see that happen, as we personally love the look and disposition of many breeds such as the sighthounds that we have owned in the past.

And we have certainly loved the look and playful disposition of most of the American Cockers that we have owned in the past too, such as Emelia, a gorgeous solid buff American Cocker girl shown to the right. And we certainly recognize that without purebred breeding there can be no cross breeding for pets, as none of our little designer mixes will ever "breed true" when bred together, although certain F1 mixes can be used in three way breed mixes. But the breeder has to understand the dominant/recessive alleles involved in order to have any predictability in such a three breed mix.

And we certainly applaud those breed clubs who recognize that they have genetic health problems in their breeds due to either too few founder dogs, and/or too much inbreeding for type in past decades, and/or a very narrow gene pool at this point due to just too few dogs being bred, and are actively working to resolve those problems. But as we are retired, we are not in a position to take on such long-term purebred breeding projects ourselves, which will take many decades. Plus we cannot imagine dealing with dog fancy breed club politics at this point in our lives, especially as we have zero interest in showing dogs.

But no amount of genetic testing and careful breeding will ever be able to totally eliminate genetic health issues in any mammal--if only because mutations consistently show up. Plus the rising tide of drug resistant bacteria and viruses are challenging canine immune systems just as much as human immune systems, as our new pandemic of H1N1 flu virus so aptly demonstrates in humans, and the H3N8 canine influenza virus demonstrates in dogs.

So there has to eventually be some type of agreement as to acceptable levels of genetic health problems in the purebreds. But unfortunately the vegan animal extremist cult will never accept anything but "perfection"--which is impossible--as their goal is the total elmination of any use of any animals, whether for pets, food, clothing, or recreation. So this anti-pet segment of our society--that clothes itself in "animal welfare" verbage--will always use breed specific genetic health issues as an argument against purebred breeding.

But frankly we are not sure that it is not already too late to save many of the purebred dog breeds, considering the pressures on the dog fancy, especially from the very vocal, vegan animal extremist cult that keeps pushing for mandatory spay/neuter and other very unreasonable and restrictive breeding laws that try to make traditional ways of raising pets "criminal acts"--thus turning many law-abiding people who like to breed pets into "criminals" themselves. But very few breeders, no matter how much they love dogs, will go to jail over breeding pets, and they just abandon breeding instead--which is just what the animal extremist cult wants.

As after all, we did find during World War II that it only took about five years to almost totally decimate a dog breed to the point that there just weren't enough dogs left in the breed to continue without some type of outcrossing. But perhaps that is what the vegan based animal extremist cult is counting on, and we have even seen these groups push for "five year breeding moratoriums," while no doubt knowing full well that this would absolutely destroy most dog breeds.

And the animal extremist cult also wants to do away with all farm animals, and not just pets. But they are using highly emotional concerns over pet breeding--by portraying all breeders as "puppy mills"--as their first steps toward totally eliminating ALL animal breeding. So once the animal extremist cult manages to legislate almost all pet breeding out of existence, then they can move on to trying to eliminate all domestic farm animal breeding, in their goal of creating a world wide vegan society.

And this is the type of thinking behind all of the rhetoric about "factory farming" being both environmentally destructive, as well as being "inhumane," while ignoring the fact that very productive modern argicultural methods do much to keep food prices from soaring to a huge porportion of people's incomes, at a time while a billion people on this planet are already starving. But here in the US one farmer is so productive that 123 people can live a life off of the land, whereas before modern farm production methods probably the reverse was true in midieval times.

But we will delve more into this vegan based plot to eliminate all animals from most people's lives in an article that we are currently writing about this subject. And we certainly never dreamed that we would become involved in fighting against vegan, world wide plots to eliminate animals from our lives when we got back into dog breeding once we were retired and had the time to devote to it. Don't believe us? Then here's a quote from ISAR's website--the International Society for Animal Rights:

"ISAR's approach to the dog breeding problem is revolutionary because our goal is to end virtually all breeding of dogs in the United States and to prohibit the importation of canines bred elsewhere. End the breeding, not perpetuate it."

And not only does ISAR want to legislate the very animals it is purporting to "save" right out of existance, but this is classic "conflict fund raising" technique: (1) Define something as a "problem." (2) Then offer a "solution" to said "problem." (3) Then solicit funds and "volunteers" to help "solve" said "problem" with the offered "solution"--but which "solution" really only perpetuates the "problem"-- because if the "problem" were actually solved, then there would be no need for this particular organization to exist--meanwhile soliciting funds and volunteers to support a paid staff.

And these types of animal extremist cult organizations know full well that if legal dog breeding is driven out of existence by excessive legislation, then a huge black market will only spring up to replace it--thus giving these types of organizations a perpetual reason to exist. And you won't find it on ISAR's website, but we found the following information in a book called "Animal Rights: History and Scope of a Radical Social Movement," by Harold D. Guither: "In January 1996 the ISAR Board removed Helen Jones from office, thirty-seven years after she founded the organization. ISAR filed a lawsuit against Jones for alleged conversion of over $1 million of assets for her personal use and other alleged mis-conduct." (pages 44 - 45) So in the rescue and "animal rights" industry one thing is true as in all else in life--follow the money.

But what's really offensive about such organizations like ISAR--and there are literally thousands of them now, with the most well known ones being PeTA and the Humane Society of the United States--better known as H$U$--is that they seem to care not about the plight of PEOPLE in this world, but see all people as "evil exploiters" of animals, thus betraying their abysmal knowledge about hominid evolution and human development, and about the many thousands of years of association of people and dogs. And vegans have a profound lack of knowledge about proper and healthful human nutrition too.

And unfortunately these animal extremist organizations prey on the young for volunteers, who have been raised on Disney Bambi videos, and have no conception of where their food actually comes from, or about our own human evolution as omnivores and the human body's need for quality protein that can only come from meat, eggs and dairy products. And the large human brain can use up to a third of the body's daily nutrition needs, and our "brain power" especially needs quality protein. But remember that the first thing that any cult tries to control is the food supply of their new members--plus isolation from other family members. And nothing much is more isolating than to be a vegan at a traditional holiday family dinner.

But if you feel driven to contribute time or money to an animal organization, then please make it a local organization--such as your local humane society or shelter--where you can keep a watchful eye on where your money is being spent, as many shelters are funded by tax money. And the very best place that either rescue and/or animal control organizations can spend money is on providing low cost or even free spay/neutering of strays, as usually nothing is known about the background of strays, and most of them could not produce a desirable puppy--or even a healthy one if say a mixed breed stray comes from several breeds that carry the same health problems. And while too early spay/neuter can be injurious to a dog's health, it is certainly better than being dead.

And our first mixed pet dog from an "oops" litter of one of our neighbors, who was on her way to the local shelter at 11 weeks old--and who was part German Shepherd, part Chow, and part Lab--had horrible hip and joint problems which resulted in her near paralysis at almost nine years old, whereas our oldest Cocker male at the same age is still running around like a puppy. So even designer mixes require careful breeding plans, and there is a difference between a designer mixed dog and a stray dog taken from the streets--or even from a neighbor. And while we applaud those people who will willing give a "street dog" a home, we do not want every single person in the US to be forced to only take in street dogs as pets, instead of having the CHOICE of a carefully bred purebred or designer mixed dog as a house companion for a decade or more.

And who knew that we could manage to criticize so many people's "sacred cows" in just this one short discussion!

But these are all matters that ultimately our society will decide, and in the meantime our breeding is focused on using the knowledge that we have about the particular dogs that we own--who mostly come from dogs that we have owned in the past--plus extensive pedigree and health research on our part--to produce various designer mixes as strictly house pets and companion dogs--such as Molly, an apricot Bologco girl shown above on the beach in Jacksonville, Florida. And we try to breed sturdy little dogs like Molly that will be fun both to live and to play with.

And our F1 first generation litters from two purebreds are registered with the American Canine Hybrid Club, and we do provide registration papers and pedigrees with all of our designer mixed puppies. And as required by Florida law, all of our puppies that we sell come with a recent health certificate from our vet.

CONTACT INFORMATION

WE ARE LOCATED IN THE NORTHCENTRAL FLORIDA AREA just a few miles from the Gulf of Mexico. We can be contacted by E-mail at:

jolie.chiens@gmail.com

" “We are alone, absolutely alone on this chance planet; and amid all the forms of life that surround us, not one, excepting the dog has made an alliance with us.”

Max Depree

Copyright 2002-2010 - Jolie Chien Sales - All Rights Reserved