New Breed of Retriever!

[JRsMav]

How these fools can morally and ethically get away with charging more than what you generally pay for the best bred purebred out there.

'Chatties'.....yep, you bet.

http://chathamhilldogs.com/Home_Page.php

[Dakota369]

I would suggest that you show your disgust by not buying one....... that will teach em........

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by Dakota369

I would suggest that you show your disgust by not buying one....... that will teach em........

tongue in cheek im assuming?


I thought it was ridiculous but that's just me. They wouldn't put the price tagf they do on their dogs if people weren't buying. I feel sorry for folks that shell out that kind of cash for a high priced cross.

[Taco]

Nothing new here, not a new breed, a hybrid, there is a difference. Total outcross, problems shouldn't crop up until they start line breeding to set type.

[wwbirds]

Creating a "hybrid" retriever in Canada would be treated differently as in you are destroying the gene pool of the already proven breed. You would be kicked out.

[Cowtown guy]

Missed the pricing.
I'm not interested in that cross either.

[Taco]

Destroying? Isn't crossbreeding the first step in creating new breeds of animals or even plants?

[CheeseBurger]

Originally Posted by Taco

Destroying? Isn't crossbreeding the first step in creating new breeds of animals or even plants?

You are in essence reducing the strength of the gene pool for the animals breeds that are being crossbred or at least that is the argument.

Note breeds and species are not the same thing.

[Taco]

Breeds are created by selective crossbreeding for the traits you want and then linebreeding those animals strong in favorable traits to set breed type.

[Taco]

Originally Posted by CheeseBurger

You are in essence reducing the strength of the gene pool for the animals breeds that are being crossbred or at least that is the argument.

That was the same argument the Hereford Association used for yrs and it has almost destroyed the breed, total numbers wise.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Creating a "hybrid" retriever in Canada would be treated differently as in you are destroying the gene pool of the already proven breed. You would be kicked out.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, under the Animal Pedigree Act, you could start your own, open ended, "evolving breed". Canadian registered Appaloosa horses being an example.

Grizz

[wwbirds]

Animal pedigree act is Federal statute on all purebred animals but CKC rules purebred dogs and the Registry for all intents and purposes I believe is closed. Significant numbers of a new breed as well as a Breed Club with a Standard for the new breed would have to campaign long and hard on the merits of a proposed new breed. Until that happens a registered pure bred retriever bred to anything other than the same registered purebred breed is a mutt not recognized by CKC. Same for unregistered pups, still considered a mutt if not papered.

IN the US the Boykin spaniel was a localized hunting dog in the Carolinas from about the 1930's. Its popularity spread across the country and I believe fairly recently (1978?)was recognized as an open registry breed (still accepting unregistered purebreds).

Due to the small gene pool the Boykin despite being an incredible hunting & family dog suffers from the highest known rate of EIC (Exercise induced collapse) at 56% carriers in North America working dogs.

Grizz- To answer your question if I crossed another breed with my purebred registered labs or goldens trying to create an "evolving" hybrid they would kick me out of the CKC. Counter productive to their mandate of keeping purebreds dogs "pure".

[Nova]

The market will exist for as long as people are willing to foolishly shell out big money for mutts.

[densa44]

What a great way to sell illegitimate pups. The pups aren't AKC, there was no pedigree, I didn't see that the parents had x-rays, not one bird or shotgun in all those pics.

There is always something for everyone. With all those full grown dogs in the pictures at the price I guess supply exceeds demand!

[Taco]

Purebred pedigrees have their benefits, pitfalls and trends, sometimes it's hard to tell if we've done a particular breed any real favors.

[catnthehat]

If I ever wanted a Labrawangdangdoodle I'd go to the pound and get one- I'll be dammed if i am going to actually PAY for a "designer mutt" other than shots, etc.....
Cat

[Grizzly Adams]

Supposedly, according to Desmond Morris, those little ankle biter dogs people love to have in their laps while driving, were bred intentionally to have Human infant, characteristics for people who desperately need a baby in their life. .

Grizz

[ex811]

Nice looking dogs...kinda look like most dogs in the pound or on various rescue sites...
Breeding for what nature does on it's own, novel concept.

[muzzy]

In old days these would have been called mongrels

[Big Daddy Badger]

Not sure why everyone is getting fired up.
Its good to introduce new blood and new breeds.

Its generally good from a genetics perspective to introduce a bit of new blood into existing breeds.

Take a look at what happens when you do not shake things up once in awhile.

You eventually end up with breeds with the intelligence of a box of crackers like Irish Setters or with other health issues common to all but a few of them.

They are nice looking dogs... and over time they might prove to be as good as any we have right now.

Besides... isn't this exactly how all the breeds we love right now were originally developed?

I see this as nothing more than another dog to choose from.

The only folks that should be expected to be upset are those that have either bought another breed whose standing might be threatened by a newer better animal or those who financially depend upon restricting choice among consumers because they are breeding puebreds themselves.

[JRsMav]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Not sure why everyone is getting fired up.
Its good to introduce new blood and new breeds.

Its generally good from a genetics perspective to introduce a bit of new blood into existing breeds.

Take a look at what happens when you do not shake things up once in awhile.

You eventually end up with breeds with the intelligence of a box of crackers like Irish Setters or with other health issues common to all but a few of them.

They are nice looking dogs... and over time they might prove to be as good as any we have right now.

Besides... isn't this exactly how all the breeds we love right now were originally developed?

I see this as nothing more than another dog to choose from.

The only folks that should be expected to be upset are those that have either bought another breed whose standing might be threatened by a newer better animal or those who financially depend upon restricting choice among consumers because they are breeding puebreds themselves.

I do see the point you are making, and a valid one it is. However in cases like the irish setter the breed has suffered due to a strict divide between show and field lines. You couple that with the fact that more modern breeds have proven to be 'better' hunters when it comes to day to day in the field, and the show lines when speaking in terms of irish setters is the line that was ultimately the new 'default' standard due to fewer irish setters being required for field work. Same with golden retrievers, flat coats etc. So really it comes down to show folk breeding the hunt out of these dogs. Now if you look at these chatham hill people, they are show only people. So how does one effectively design or breed to a new standard of retriever when their only basis for standard analysis is a 'show dog'? You cant unless you are solely breeding for looks which these people are. A properly planned out thought through breeding program with purebreds is just as ethical, effective, and 'clean' when speaking in terms of genetics as any hybrid breed you find.