[craigsmansion]

Sorry, but no.

Breeders, even if ethical, are part of the problem. Just because they try and reduce the chance of genetic defects by avoiding direct inbreeding, it's still a minor statistical manipulation.

> (and therefore the parents, grandparents behavioral traits)?

Behavioural traits (with very few exceptions) vary more widely in between individuals within a breed than from breed to breed.

I know people can get very defensive about their best friends, but purebreds will have genetic deficiencies. That's no reason to love your current pooch any less, but do give cross-breeds some consideration for your next member of the pack.

As silly as "labradoodle" sounds, these people have the right idea.

[dymk]

What is this dismissive “sorry but no” nonsense I see when people just assume they’re right?

Do you have a source for there being more variation within individuals, such that breed is no longer a predictor of behavioral tendencies?

If you do, can you explain why certain breeds per-capita have such higher bite rates against humans and other dogs?

[ShlomoS]

>Behavioural traits (with very few exceptions) vary more widely in between individuals within a breed than from breed to breed.

No they absolutely do not. There is nothing to suggest this, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

>but purebreds will have genetic deficiencies.

No, some subset of purebreds will have genetic defects. Just as some subset of mutts will.

>As silly as "labradoodle" sounds, these people have the right idea.

Why? They are doing the same thing you are complaining about, just using a specific cross of two breeds rather than a specific single breed.

[craigsmansion]

> There is nothing to suggest this, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I'm willing to read a good citation here if you have one, but the "overwhelming evidence" lies on the other side where docile and submissive specimens of fighting breeds and aggressive and dominant specimens of family-friendly breeds can be easily observed. There is plenty to suggest this.

> No, some subset of purebreds will have genetic defects. Just as some subset of mutts will.

These subsets are not equal. I'll clarify in a bit.

> Why? They are doing the same thing you are complaining about, just using a specific cross of two breeds rather than a specific single breed.

That's not how genetics work. Inbreeding increases the number of recessive genes floating around in the gene pool, increasing the number of carriers.

Say, for simplicity's sake, hip dysplasia is bound to a single recessive gene. If you cross a breed that is prone to hip dysplasia with one that isn't, none of the offspring will suffer from hip dysplasia, and it will halve the number of carriers of the recessive gene in the genetic lineup.

Do that a couple of generations with different breeds, and it starts becoming very unlikely that two recessive genes for dysplasia will match up.

Now understand that a lot of genetic diseases are the result of the interactions of many genes of which the exact mechanism is unclear, and it should become clear there is no solid way to prevent a disease from expressing itself through careful monitoring.

For now, the best way to guarantee a healthy dog is to mix in new genes and keep the gene pool healthy, which is very much the opposite of breeding for conformity.