On two occasions, during the space of one week, I encountered two experiences which dictated that this topic must be addressed with readers of this column. Firstly, an article entitled “All Dogs are Inbred” appeared in a journal of some repute. Secondly, a client presented in the Clinic a patient with the grandiose sounding breed designation “Pit Monster,” which he had brought in (with all the necessary official paperwork) from Brazil.
Pit Monster? This sturdy, muscular dog looked as if it could ram a Hummer and emerge the winner. I had not heard of this breed before, so I resorted to Mr. Google. And there it was: a breed created in Brazil, but with most bloodlines of American origin; defined as a breed of 21st century, developed from the crossing between dogs of “monstrous” appearance, related or not to the pit bull , american bully and, indirectly, dogs molossers like the American Bulldog and the Old English Bulldog (Photo #1).
I will not dwell on this breed. Enough information exists that will satisfy normal curiosity. My reflections today have to do with the mixing of well-established purebred parents to produce what I can only call “Designer Breeds”. The classic “invention” that springs to mind is the “Labradoodle” which is a cross between a Labrador Retriever and a Poodle. I suppose that, in due course, I will be able to bend my mind around the answer to the question “why anyone would want to alter the most popular family favourite (not lastly in the USA) – Photo #2 – by breeding with a poodle (Photo # 3) produce the dog in Photo #4.
What line of thought would one want to proceed along to manufacture a Goldendoodle (Golden Retriever x Poodle)? – Photo #5.
If the argument is that the Golden Retriever may cause allergic reaction to family members, then it would seem to me that one can circumvent this potential problem by choosing a dog that does not produce much dander (small scales of dead skin shed from the dog’s body).
Where will this genetic engineering end? Over centuries, humankind, under the conviction of manufacturing a “cute” animal (a most subjective aspiration), humans have produced dogs with anatomical deficiencies, some of which cause canines to suffer great respiratory distress et al, because of their manufactured flat faces. It was harsh enough to create the French Bulldog (now among the most popular dogs in the USA), but to further tinker with the animal’s anatomy to compromise a part of the breathing apparatus on the altar of “cuteness” is inhumane and unacceptable. What will prevent us from mixing a bit- of-everything resulting in random crosses? And let it be made clear: Even when the parents in the trial-and-error experiment are known and recognized, “it is impossible to predict with any degree of certainty which side of the family the puppies will favour” (The Dog Encyclopedia (TDE) – London, 2013, emphasizes this point).
The TDE has further documented that Labradoodles, for example, show little consistency from litter to litter – some puppies inheriting the curly poodle coat, while others are more obviously influenced by the Labrador parent. Clearly such lack of standardization is common in “designer” crosses.
I have no doubts that this “Brave New World” exercise by “breeders’ (????) will continue. Allow me therefore to advise prospective owners of crossbred “designer dogs” that they should factor into their decisions the personalities and temperaments of both breeds participating in the breeding exercise. One just cannot predict, at this point in time, which characteristic will predominate. Moreover, they should seek out information of the health vulnerabilities associated with anatomical changes.
How often have we, as practising veterinarians, not heard the argument (or the belief) that crossbred dogs are more intelligent than pedigree dogs (registered in the official Breed Books of Kennel Clubs). Yet, there is no sound evidence for this assertion.
Nevertheless, I will in all fairness concede that if a prospective caregiver feels that by crossbreeding a dog whose breed is reliably known to have specific ailments (which, let’s face it, was originally bred for some specific reason but it turned out that the initial objective carried with it the cryptically the inherent ailment), then diluting and ultimately removing the negative condition may be justified.
Finally, can you imagine what dermatological (skin) and eye ailments these two breeds, the Hungarian Puli (Photo #6), and the Shar Pei (Photo#7) will suffer in their lifetimes?
If we are going to tinker with well-established breeds, please remember why these breeds were purposely manufactured. They were required as working dogs (e.g., to assist shepherds in herding sheep), scent dogs (e.g., Bloodhounds), Sight dogs (e.g., Greyhounds used in hunting), Companion dogs (e.g., Poodles), and so on.
Some breeds were originally bred to kill wild animals, for example Badgers, which invaded farmsteads and ate chickens and their egg but which in due course became cute house pets. The best example of this latter development is the Dachshund (literally meaning the “Badger Dog), which followed the badgers into their warrens and killed them. When the problems on the farm were solved, Dachshunds became “lap dogs” (lovingly sitting on the laps of the elderly and giving the owners much happiness). But remember, in their genes lurk viciousness.
More on dog breeds next week!
