These are breeds specifically created as companion animals. Of course, many working breeds, originally created to carry out a specific task, have been adopted as popular pets in modern times, but those dogs are correctly classified under their primary functions. This is necessary because their canine duties influenced their appearance, their anatomy and their temperament. We can only understand them fully if we see them in their original colours, before they became much loved family pets or modern show-ring competitors. But, from the earliest days, certain — usually very small — breeds have been created and refined solely as companions.
In previous centuries these dogs were sometimes given the title of ‘comforters’. More recently they have been called ‘toys’ or ‘pets’, but these terms tend to denigrate breeds whose existence has provided so much more than mere amusement. For countless thousands of human beings, these little arum’ als have given endless hours of companionship and emotional support, and deserve better than to be given a title that labels them as being little more than animated soft toys or win’ d-up playthings. Unfortunately, the word ‘toy’ has been enshrined in many of their breed names and cannot be ignored, but it can, at least, be removed from their group title.
There is one special category of companion dog that requires a preliminary word. This is a very recent American innovation and has caused considerable controversy. Critics have referred to the members of this group as ‘Poo Dogs’ or ‘Designer Dogs’ and have made loud protests over their very existence. The trend began in. the 1960s with the creation of a breed called the Cockapoo. This was a deliberate cross between Cocker Spaniels and small Poodles. The idea was not to create a mongrel but to invent an entirely new breed that would combine the best qualities of its two parent breeds. There was nothing new about this. For centuries, similar experimental matings had been carried out and some of today’s most revered pedigree breeds started out their existence in this way, before breeding true and becoming fully established. The novelty lay more in the humorous, catchy name the new breed was given. The Cockapoo was so successful that it soon spawned imitations — the Lhasapoo, the Maltipoo, the Pompoo and so on.
Before long a whole trend was started and many American breeders began to invent their own, personal version of the double-pedigree dog. The two parent breeds were always dogs with impeccable ancestries, brought together with the specific intention of creating an exciting new, luxury pet. Some people love these new breeds, while others loathe them, and it is important to recognize both sides of the controversy that now surrounds them.
The following claims are made in their defence:
- Some of the long-established pedigree breeds have developed health problems. By deliberately crossing these ancient breeds with one another, it is possible to reduce these problems and to create more healthy stock that enjoys the ‘hybrid vigour’ seen in typical ‘accidental mongrels’.
- By carefully selecting the two parent breeds, it is possible to combine the best qualities of each of them. For example, it should be possible to take the attractive appearance of one parent breed and combine it with the non- shedding coat of the other, or perhaps to take the intelligence of one breed and combine it with the athletic qualities of another.
- By experimenting with different parent breeds, it should be possible to create exciting new canine forms of a type never seen before. So many companion dogs started out as working breeds and had to be adapted to the role of pets. By contrast, these new dogs are, from the start, ‘designed’ as ideal pets. (Hence the tag of ‘designer dogs’.)
Their critics respond with the following comments:
- There is no guarantee that the crosses will automatically be healthier. They could, in. deed, combine the worst health problems of both parents, making the new breeds doubly weakened.
- When two breeds are combined there is no guarantee that they will produce a single, new type. A wide variety of types may appear, with many different shapes, colours and temperaments. Rather than a specific new form, there could be unpredictable, anatomical chaos.
- Just by giving these new dogs a catchy name and advertising them as rare `exotics’, the breeders concerned are exploiting gullible buyers, who imagine they are part of a trendy new revolution in canine development, when in reality they are paying a fortune for mixed-breed mongrels of a kind that could be obtained for a fraction of the price at any dog pound, animal sanctuary or rescue centre.
There are some valid points in both views. Traditionalists involved with well-known breeds possessing long-established pedigrees have a stubborn resistance to any interference with their dogs, no matter what form it takes. They cannot envisage any possible gain in mixing their breed with any other, and dismiss the inventors of new ‘designer’ breeds as running ‘puppy mills’ or ‘puppy farms’.
The supporters of the ‘designer’ breeds reply that they are merely trying to create interestin g new forms and that, over a long period of time, they may yet be able to produce exciting companion breeds for the future. They accept that there will be a phase of variability, but insist that, by careful selective breeding, they will eventually be able to stabilize a new type of dog that will be pure-breeding, healthy and well suited in its role as family pet.
In a few instances this does, indeed, seem to be the case, and those new breeds are included here and given full entries in this section on companion dogs. In a number of other cases, however, it does seem possible that the criticisms of the traditionalists are entirely justified and that unscrupulous commercial breeders are entering this arena with spurious claims and exploiting dog-lovers. All they have to do is to put two well- known breeds together, invent a funny name and offer a ‘rare exotic’ for sale.
There are over 20 of these new ‘designer’ breeds at present and, with many of them, so little is known about their history that it is impossible to tell whether they are part of a serious, carefully planned breeding programme or not. These examples are not described here, but are listed in the ‘Obscure Breeds’ section towards the end of the dictionary. Their inclusion there is not an endorsement, merely a record of the fact that they exist, and in some cases may eventually develop into fully recognized breeds.
Leave a Reply