I love the NY Times magazine
I found this great article on designer dogs in the New York Times magazine:
"The Modern Kennel Conundrum" by Jon Mooallem
Katherine C. Grier, a cultural historian and author of Pets in America, told me: "The dogness of dogs has become problematic. We want an animal that is, in some respects, not really an animal. You'd never have to take it out. It doesn't shed. It doesn't bark. It doesn't do stuff." I found even the maker of Amazing Live Sea-Monkeys, which launched its tiny crustaceans in 1960 with the slogan "Instant Life," now forcefully rebranding itself, targeting parents who refuse "to get stuck with caring for another living thing."
There was also something along these lines on the last page regarding separation anxiety. People want dogs to be their loyal companions and follow them around ceaselessly, but then get angry when the dog acts out when the owner is away. I've seen many people encourage their dogs to be completely dependent on them for everything, including emotional stability. And when those same people leave their dogs alone for eight hours a day, obviously problems are going to occur. (This is not to say anything against crate training or similar methods. I'm talking about people who just expect their dogs to be magically ok when left alone all day.)
What everyone seemed to dread is that a newfangled dog that looks cute as a puppy can ambush owners with unanticipated health or behavioral issues. The presumed predictability of a breed allows breeders to educate prospective buyers about its idiosyncratic snares - and to judge who should be trusted with them.
I don't understand how a breeder can pick out which characteristics of each breed they want and successfully combine those into a puppy. How can you have the much control over genetics? Is it mainly trial and error? And what of the "failures," the ones who don't look or act right? There was another part of the article that said hybrids don't "breed true" - you can't breed hybrids from hybrids, you have to always start with the original pure breeds. Thinking about it that way, hybrids really just seem like overpriced mixed breeds.
I don't know if I buy the whole "hybrids are just healthier" argument (it's presented by one of the pro-hybrid people, the creator of the puggle, Wallace Havens). How can we know? Are they weeding out genetic defects? Has there even been enough time to do so with the newer mixes?
And speaking of Havens, the descriptions of his kennel made me depressed. What dog would want to live in those conditions? No wonder the AKC suspended him. And what kind of breeder dumps his older dogs on a human society? And it's worth noting that many of said dogs had behavior problems.
I definitely know a great deal more about cats than dogs, and I have virtually zero knowledge about the specifics of breeding (obviously!), but the whole designer breed phenomenon fascinates me. I'll be curious to see where this goes in a few years - are schnoodle rescues going to pop up across the country? Will the fad just move on?
And don't get me wrong, I would like to have a dog some day. We'll probably go to a shelter, or even a breed-specific rescue if we get our hearts set on one breed. Really, who knows, no one can predict these things. But I don't think I'll be buying a $3,000 labradoodle.