What would it take for you to "recognize" a new breed?

In response to the question about fake dog breeds http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aokr8ARUW_bMHuvF8JLKz47sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070912131936AArYUmR&show=7#profile-info-15c1fabafaa154fa8353a827ff2e8253aa If someone developed a new breed, when would you recognize it as legitimate?There was some debate about the legitimacy of the Silken Windhound and the Miniature Australian Shepherd. The Alaskan Klee Kai was named as a fake breed but it's recognized by UKC. The Mi-Ki is a mix of several small breeds but is recognized by ARBA.The Cesky Terrier and Black Russian Terrier are both fairly new breeds, created from other breeds, but that are widely accepted.Would a dog need to have a working heritage with a real purpose for creating it for you to accept it?Would the breeders need to make a serious commitment to type and quality?Would it need to be recognized by AKC, KC, CKC (Canadian) or FCI? What about UKC, ARBA, or an FCI-member country?Bracco--You have Bracchi Italiani? (Did I pluralize that right?) I love that breed. I've never actually met one but I think they're a very beautiful and noble-looking breed.Thanks everyone. This has helped me, because I've often wondered why, even though I agree with it, a dog like the Black Russian Terrier is accepted while a dog like the Mi-Ki is scoffed.I would accept a new breed if:1. It breeds true to type. 2. It was created to fulfill a unique need or function. This has always been the reason for creating new breeds. But in today's world, we have more access to a wide range of dogs for a variety of needs. There are plenty of companion dogs to fill all needs. I don't think there's any unfilled need there, so I really wouldn't accept any new companion breeds, especially with so many dogs dying in shelters. There wasn't a dog to survive the extremes in temperature and be the guard that the Russians needed when the created the Black Russian Terrier.For me, it doesn't need to be recognized by any major kennel club or even have a huge or international following.

Thank you for posting the OTHER side of this arguement. Also mentioned were "teacup chihuahua's". I consider teacup chihuahua's a real breed. It's called SELECTIVE BREEDING to get smaller and smaller pups over each generation.

How many countless puppies die inbetween this recognition labeled as "mutts" and euthanized at shelters while the breeders try and perfect their living formula? I think it should be illegal and also mandatory for any would-be breeder to go volunteer at a shelter for 2 months before being allowed to breed. When you see all the beautiful animals put down because there are no homes for them, then maybe you get out of the franken-dog business.

The AKC requires a new breed to be standard and breed true for generations before it is recognized - it is done often enough, but it is NOT done when some back yard breeder decides to mix a poodle with a pug and call it a puggle.Big difference between quality standards and trying to make a quick buck.

Pretty easy.When I see a five generation pedigree without a cross and they look and act the same

it would take it being rec. by akc for me to rec. it. This is a very interesting question. I am glad my prev question provoked thought. The breeders would def have to make a serious commitment to quality. It would have to be a breed that wasn't just throw together because of a cutesy name. (oh looky we can make a puggle, that's a cute name let's try it!!) ~ I still think the akc should rec my golden eagles. I am still waiting to hear back from them , i will keep you updating though.lol~

Hmmm.....I don't know enough about UKC to really comment on them, they're *supposed* to be reputable but some of their policies I find dubious.I'd want a new breed to have passed the requirements of a reputable kennel club, like the AKC, Cdn KC, FCI etc.A working heritage is not necessary, many breeds have no "purpose" other than to be companions. But consistency in breeding is, you must be able to look at a well-bred one and say "that's a _______".

I guess I would recognize a new breed if it had a purpose like most of the other dog breeds out there. Plus I'd probably take the breed more seriously if I knew the people that were creating it weren't just breeding a mix to try to make more money. For example.. look at the labradoodle. Sure it is a mix....but it was originally bred for a seeing a dog for people with allergies.. of course the past several years it has gotten out of hand and people have bred for more and more $ but I think originally the idea was a good one.

"Would a dog need to have a working heritage with a real purpose for creating it for you to accept it?Would the breeders need to make a serious commitment to type and quality?"Yes, and yes. I can accept the Black Russian Terrier, despite its fairly recent Cold War origins, because it was developed with a very specific purpose, and its phenotype was made consistent to fit that purpose.Your questions are the two main ingredients missing among the "designer" breeders today. They have no vision beyond money or some misplaced mothering instinct, and they create dogs with no purpose.I do not accept the creation of "new" companion dogs, when hundreds of good companion dogs already exist and sit in the shelter down the street.As far as registries, I would accept FCI/FCI-member country registration. I don't hold a lot of stock in ARBA or UKC. And I watch the AKC with suspicion. The day they let a Labradoodle into their Foundation Stock Service program is the day that I stop sending them money. I would also be equally unimpressed if the CanKC started allowing registration of "new" pet breeds.I'd look at the history of the breed and it's intended function long before I'd take stock in who registered it. Some of the coolest breeds in the world aren't AKC recognized.

First off, the question is whether the breed is recognized as one that breeds true. Many "boutique" breeds don't. They are created only by mixing the two breeds that they are made from. For example, you cannot breed a "labradoodle" to a "labradoodle" and get more little "labradoodles". There must be a breed standard that is created every time to mate one dog of that breed to another dog of that SAME breed. Most "fake breeds" and "boutique breeds" are labeled as such because they do NOT breed true and are therefore NOT a stable breed. It takes many generations to achieve this stability.

For me, it would need a working heritage or purpose, have existed for 30+ years, have dedicated fanciers in more than 1 country, and not be some shoot off of another breed (ie: mini aussie or snickerdoodle). For example, mini aussies are just that -- miniature australian shepherds... if they want to be that then they need to take it up with the Aussie people. It was the Aussie breeders' job to make sure they didn't have off-shoots (or "minis") if they didn't want them -- now they have to deal with it. The hybrid "breeds" simply disgust me. They are all crosses of overbred breeds which already have ENOUGH problems. A lot of the hybrids have temperament/health problems. I think it's ludicrous to call them "breeds." Take the Goldendoodle -- goldens already have heart, hip, etc-you-name-it problems and then they are crossed with another overbred breed. People see these dogs as a fashion statement, not as actually animals. All they want is to be able to say "yeah, i have a ---doodle and it cost ----" I feel pity for the dogs themselves, they were bred without purpose or respect to health or temperament. not a breed, and without serious reform, never will be.

it would have to be phenotypically consistent. if the whole point of the breed is that it's solid black, than a random white toe or a few pink noses would mean that the breed hadn't been made solid yet. i'd prefer all offspring fit the criteria the breeder was looking for, for at least 4 generations back. that means the breeder was trying to get a look, and that hopefully the dogs were bred responsibly.a labradoodle is not a breed, it's a mix. not every labradoodle looks like another labradoodle even a little bit, so i would not call that a breed.i don't think it would have to be recognized by a big foundation or whatever. each foundation has it's own criteria, just as i have mine.

Before we find new breeds, could we find homes for the animals we have now? I am sure if you go to the local shelters you will find the mix breed of your choice for a lot less money.

Well.. I think it should have some sort of purpose.. I mean to accept a breed that is being bred just as a pet, or cute factor hardly seems worth it.. Should fit in with the current Groups.. It seems silly to have a dog bred just as a companion, as most dogs do very well as a working breed and a companion.. I think they should have their own breed club, and write a standard and they should have fairly specific desires.. Nothing like males 10-28 " tall or Could have long coat or short coat or curly coat or straight coat.. Or any colour under the sun.. They should have produced dogs for as many generations as it takes in order to get consistency.. And choose what colours are acceptable and which aren't.. NO vague anything will do type standard.. And then like any other breed that comes along.. Voted on and accepted or not.. Should at least be accepted by both the AKC and the CKC..