Question regarding creating "new breeds"?

No....the modern version of this sort of thing I'm seeing a lot- "mini Labs", "mini Boxers" and "mini-everything-else-you-can-think of"....its kind of ridiculous. Especially since there is no valid attempt to create breed clubs, create a standard and to breed with emphasis on health & temperament. ANY attempt at breeding for "looks, color or money" with no regard to anything else, is wrong- whether it's purebreds or designer mini-mutts.

Then again, to play Devil's Advocate a little....what about Mini & Toy Poodles? Miniature Schnauzers? Minature Bull Terriers? Pomeranians, which were bred down from larger spitz-type breeds? The smaller Poodle and Pomeranian had little other function than to be a companion. Granted, each of these breeds is well-established, recognized by legit kennel clubs, been around a long time, and certainly "breeds true".

But during their development, did these breeds have their detractors? (Serious question- I don't know if they did or not?) According to the AKC, the Miniature Schnauzer came from a cross between Schnauzers and Affenpinschers and Poodles. The only difference I can see between this and any other "new breed" creations, was that this "breed" evidently had a group of more serious, dedicated fanciers who had a GOAL for a real "breed" and sought kennel club recognition. Its development began in the late 1800's and the Miniature Schnauzer gained AKC recognition in 1929....certainly with an organized, goal-oriented effort, a line that breeds true can be created in a reasonably short period of time?? Anybody know how long it took for Louis Dobermann's creation to breed true?

And even though the Mini Schnauzer was also used as a ratter & farm dog, one could argue that at the time, plenty other suitable farm/vermin control breeds existed so there was really no "need" to create a miniaturized Schnauzer. Just as there are plenty of companion dogs today and many folks are arguing there's no "need" for any more.

Taking into consideration a dog like the Alaskan Klee Kai....I don't know a lot about this breed, except they evidently do breed true and have gained United Kennel Club recognition, have a breed club, and do have breeders who show, health test and have every other indication of a responsible breeder. Yet there are still a lot of folks who bash this breed as a "designer dog". How is the Klee Kai any different from the Miniature Schnauzer in the early days of it's development? A lot of people like Huskies but cannot keep them due to their size & energy level. Many years ago, enough people evidently fancied spitz-type northern breeds and decided to create one small enough to put in your lap. Again, how is the Pomeranian any different?

The fact that there's so many perfectly good companion breeds, and so many "companion dogs" dying in shelters is the main thing that makes me AGREE with the folks who say "Enough is enough, there's no sense in miniaturizing EVERYTHING just to make new companion dogs." I am JUST playing devil's advocate for the sake of DISCUSSION :)....

If there were no such thing as pet overpopulation (don't we wish)....and the folks breeding "mini versions" of popular breeds were actually doing it in a responsible, organized fashion with a 30 year "goal" in mind....I don't think I'd necessarily see a huge problem with this CONCEPT. Obviously that's far from REALITY at this point.....but it's not so much the "idea" of creating new breeds, but the ignorant PROCESS so many people seem to be following these days, that irks me.

Two things.

First of all, I would assume that the size of the original breed is important to the function, otherwise it would not be that size in the first place. Therefore if it were smaller it would NOT be able to do the job as well as the original breed.

Secondly, if it were possible for a smaller dog to do the job as well, I find it hard to believe that out of an estimated 500 breeds already in existence there isn't ONE that fits the bill.

I don't see any reason to change any trait in a breed that doesn't make it better at its job.

I certainly don't see validity in changing a breed to make it a better companion.

I submit, in this case, that miniaturizing a breed may, in fact, make it *incapable* of doing its job...which is a damn shame.

I also submit that breeding for one physical trait above all others creates lapses in type, soundness, and health. Breeding is a juggling act -- if you reach for a single ball, the rest will drop.

ADD: Taking Forest Basenji's "Devil's Advocate" bait... ;)

In a day and age when 90% of purebred dogs exist simply to be companion animals, I think it is fair to say that we have *enough* companion breeds. I think it's okay to put an end to developing companion breeds. We've companionized enough existing purebreds already, including those not originally developed to be companions.

The Poms and smaller Poodle varieties have the luxury of having been developed when companion dogs were a novelty reserved for the wealthy. We no longer live in that time, and -- while I think it's fine to perpetuate these breeds -- I don't think it makes any sense to create new ones. As I said, between the already existing breeds and the various cross-breeds that occur due to negligence every day, we have plenty of companion dogs.

I'm touchy about the Klee Kai, because about 10 years ago I seriously looked into the breed, and spent a lot of time corresponding with one of the original "lower 48" kennels. I was intrigued by them, and thought it might be fun to be involved in the development of an emerging breed. However, the fact that these dogs were the whim of a woman who apparently didn't think that Poms and American Eskimos were enough simply because they didn't have the markings and the blue eyes of a "husky" -- well, that eventually got to me, and I decided against going any further.

Linda Spurlin's only saving grace is that she was willing to cull -- and by cull I do mean kill -- litters, thereby sparing the animal shelters around her the undesirable fruits of her experiment.

"Many years ago, enough people evidently fancied spitz-type northern breeds and decided to create one small enough to put in your lap. Again, how is the Pomeranian any different?"

See, now here's the irony -- the Pom existed LONG before the Klee Kai, and ably fulfilled the purpose of a lap-sized Spitz breed. As did the Shiba Inu. And the American Eskimo. And the German Kleinspitz. So it proves my point -- WHY make another kind of spitz lap dog, when you have so many others to choose from?

In the case of the Klee Kai -- and in the case of most of these "new" companion breeds -- it's looks. Cuteness. Size. Markings. I don't consider looks a valid reason for breeding any dog, existing breed or not.

No. I don't. The only purpose of the breeds we have now that started out as 'mixes' was to create something that people DIDN'T HAVE.

Now-a-days there isn't a single personality trait, work trait, temperament trait, etc that a breed of dog doesn't have. There isn't a single mix of them that isn't already out there, people are just too lazy to look and research before creating an abomination like a Rat Terrier x Golden Retriever x Cocker Spaniel cross!

No, I don't think it is ethical. There is a breed out there already being bred by reputable breeders to suit purpose and desires of just about everyone. We don't have a need to create a new breed.

Tell me what someone is looking for and I can assure you there is a registerable breed that has it covered.

If there was no practical purpose and it was simply being done to fulfil consumer demand for smaller versions of a particular breed, then no.

There are many small/medium breeds of dog to choose from, so I cannot see a justifiable reason for breeding the smallest examples of a particular breed, to create a miniature of toy version.

Put simply if the size of a particular breed does not fit in with your lifestyle, find a breed that does. It does a disservice to a breed, which was bred with a function in mind, to create a "fun size version".

Personally, I'm not in favor of the miniaturization of breeds strictly for convenience sake. If it were to benefit the breed in another way, such as improvement of health or purpose, than I think that should be carefully considered by those professionals in the know.
I cringe at the thought of mini-labs, goldens or any other kind of "small or handy" real dog. Heaven forbid, please!

I honestly feel that there are enough breeds in this world! I don't think people should take it upon themselves to create a breed just to suit their lifestyle. A person should purchase a dog of a breed which already exists which will fit their lifestyle.

No, I don't think it is ethical at all. There are thousands of dogs dying in shelters all over the world. What happens with the dogs you create in between the "standard" sized dogs and the "smaller" size dogs? Where do they fit into the scheme of things while you, in your selfishness, try to create a new breed that will probably not be accepted by legitimate breed registries anyhow? Where do these dogs end up? What happens when you accidentally breed in knee problems, heart problems, or skin problems? Do you destroy those dogs? Spay or neuter them before you sell them? Or do you allow the problems to perpetuate themselves by selling these dogs to other people that can then breed them? It is never ethical to breed dogs for any other purpose but to protect the breed and make it better.

yes and no because breeding them smaller and smaller (or bigger and bigger) creates unwanted health issues, unless it is done over the course of decades. there are lots of breeds out there where this has been done, including poodles, schnauzers, manchester terriers, and recently even german shepherds. It takes alot of time and patience and has to be done understanding all the health issues and having the willingness to track generations of dogs as they progress. It probably is not something that one person could do in their lifetime.