Golden Retriever Dog Forums banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My Lieber, who is a Golden Retriever/Saluki mix and is simply the best dog I have ever befriended, is getting on in years. He just turned 12 and while he is healthy, and active I figgered it's probably time to begin the search for his understudy. We've really loved the combination of characteristics in him. He definitely got the Golden smarts, coat, enjoyment of hunting and loyalty. He got the Saluki body, size, speed, agility and drive to chase prey. Because he has been such a good dog we're searching for the same mix. I've actually never seen the mix before getting him at a shelter and he's rarely left my side since. I figgered the earlier the better to begin a search. If you know of someone who has this mix accidentally or on purpose please let me know. We'll travel anywhere in the United States and some of Canada to meet an available puppy! Perhaps you're a Golden owner, you know a Saluki owner and this post has piqued your interest in mixing the two breeds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,517 Posts
Do you have a picture of him? Shelters are notoriously bad at identifying breeds and mixes. I recently saw a posting of a dog advertised as a Great Pyr mix, and he was pretty obviously a pure bred, very light colored Golden.
 

·
reputation: spotted
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
no idea where to get such a mix, but it sounds like a good combination. Would LOve to see pics of Lieber. Can you load some pics up?

Cute name, too (German for "loved one")
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eowyn

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
Welcome to the forum--do you have any pics of Lieber? Since he is a shelter dog, it's highly unlikely he is a true saluki/golden mix. As for encouraging the intentional breeding of mixed breed dogs, the breed clubs are opposed to this for good reason. The breedings do not produce consistent offspring--you don't get all of the best from each breed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,164 Posts
You might be interested in a more "fieldy" golden retriever. They can have great agility, speed, and drive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leslie B and Eowyn

·
Kate
Joined
·
21,497 Posts
The thing I've always heard as a "good" thing about mixed breeds is that you do not get the same thing twice. Your dog is original and unique. Unlike the purebred dogs who have the benefit of being bred to standard - this accomplished over years of breeding for desired traits and weeding out unwanted traits.

And keep in mind the majority of mixed breeds are a lot more complicated than advertised by the shelter people. You may have multiple mixes on both sides. It's like throwing a handful of wildflower seeds into a patch and admiring the jumbled "survival of the fittest" result. :)

This unfortunately means that if you formed an attachment with a mixed breed - that your best bet at finding a dog that looks like that prior beloved dog is finding that purebred which resembles that dog the most.

If you like Salukis - they are a fairly rare breed in most places - partly because their running needs and flightiness makes them not a preferable family pet for most people. And they have very different health issues than most retrievers. Different temperaments factors as well, as they are sight hounds as opposed to retrievers. The salukis I've met in person do tend to be more aloof than retrievers which tend to be friendly and social towards people and dogs.

I would be absolutely insulted if somebody suggested breeding my dog to another breed to deliberately produce a mixed breed. Most people should be - particularly if they value the breed for what it is.
 

·
reputation: spotted
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
I wish there were more mixed breeding - as long as both parents have health and temperament checks just as with purebreds. Greater genetic diversity can only be a good thing.

I think it's mostly the kennel clubs fault that genetic diversity has decreased as much as 10 fold in many breeds over the last century. Their breeding standards are too narrow and too focused on only physical characteristics. If they continue along these lines, in another 100 years, there won't be a healthy sound dog left on the planet!

Speaking as a biologist from what I know about genetics.
 

·
Kate
Joined
·
21,497 Posts
Pudden - if it were only about physical characteristics that drives people to buy puppies, I assure you my family probably would have had a dog like a St. Bernard. The problems with St. Bernards is they are short lived and have temperament issues that I've witnessed in more than one dog. We chose golden retrievers because they are moderately long lived for a large breed, and their looks and temperament suited us. Our first dog was a mutt - and the mismatch was so terrible that my parents were very anti-dog (mind you they both grew up with big dogs) for years before they finally listened to us and got a puppy.

I assure you that I did not just focus on physical characteristics when I interviewed my Bertie's breeder. I discussed health, temperament, and trainability - as well as the dogs in his pedigree.

There are little things that I've seen in Bertie, which were evident in his grandfather or other relatives. Good pigment, for example.

And as you will be looking into bringing possibly a golden puppy home, you need to review what is important in the breedings that are available in your area.

If you rely on biology alone, I imagine that you will have a lot of black dogs with white paws and patches on their chests. It seems like a lot of mixed breeds revert back to those characteristics after being allowed to breed as they like. Or long tailed spitz bully type things.

Even in golden retrievers, when people put physical characteristics very low in the priority list after performance or availability, you will have golden retrievers of varying sizes with patches of white or odd coat variations (coloring and texture) and sometimes their expressions or other very "golden" characteristics are all wrong and far from the breed standard.

And again, mixed breeds - the problem with dog population as it is right now is you have a vast diversity of dogs out there of every kind. And they sit in shelters and rescues for a very long time waiting for the special people to come along and foster them. You aren't even discussing adopting these dogs. Just finding temporary homes for them is huge.

It is a horrible tragic thing when people deliberately breed mixed breeds because of their own fancy. It doesn't affect them, but it does affect the puppies who don't get the homes they deserve because of somebody walking past the black dogs, because they don't want a black dog, or walking past the houndy dogs because they have skin issues and just smell, or walking past the scraggly looking dog that's just ugly (a lot of your poodle mixes fall into that category, unfortunate).

I met somebody through training who had a retriever shepherd mix - and this dog was drop dead gorgeous. Imagine a larger golden brown retriever who moves with the eagerness and beauty of a golden retriever in full coat. <- And I guarantee you that this dog, who had been dumped several times in various shelters by prior owners, was unique and very special. I'm sure that the reasons why he landed in shelters so often had more to do with his owners than him, because this was a very sweet and gentle dog. And not likely something you will get the same way twice. Not without several generations of mistakes and "close but no cigar" rewards.

And I'm not a breeder and will not be one. I just think people need to be more assertive about what they see and understand with this issue. Especially in this time where you have people getting all wobbly and wimpy about owning a purebred, or owning a purebred from a good breeder who shows, or understanding and respecting what people are actually breeding towards.
 

·
reputation: spotted
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
still, the low genetic diversity will doom dog breeds. Any wild species with the low diversity of goldens would be in a fast handbasket to extinction.

The only way to increase genetic diversity again is for breeders to carefully cross-breed again with other breeds, to introduce new, healthy genes.

Dog breeds used to be bred according to type, so they could fulfill a certain role, such as watch dog or farm dog or sheep dog etc. There used to be several larger genetic pools, and the breeding clubs with their narrow focus have created many tiny genetic pools instead, one for each breed. It just isn't viable. Look at how they ruined breeds like boxers or bulldogs or basset hounds. These used to be much more robust and normal-shaped dogs.

In contrast, consider the Alaska husky. It's not a breed recognized by the AKC (thank god), but a type bred for a certain performance range. They come in many sizes, shapes or colors. Nobody cares if their ears stand up or hang down, for example, or their color. But despite being large dogs, they are more long-lived than many breeds their size. I've known many over 16, and even some over 20. They have higher genetic diversity than most breeds..

And the shelter/adoption argument is really a different story. There are plenty of purebreds in shelters as well..

now, I wouldn't advocate the random backyard breeding of anybody to anything - yikes, never! But if cross-breeding is done with the same care as good breeders of purebreds employ - health and temperament clearances, proper socialization of puppies, careful selection of owners - then I'm all for it. That would keep more dogs out of shelters too.

oh dear, poor OP - did we highjack his thread?
 
  • Like
Reactions: golfgal and Eowyn

·
Kate
Joined
·
21,497 Posts
@Pudden -

1. I do know of a few breeds where there had been cross breeding to adjust some issues with the breeds. Borzois and bearded collies (I believe?) had been introduced into the rough collie breed pool. And pointers had been introduced into dalmations breed pool to adjust a digestive issue that the breed had.

There are many breeds which because they are RARE have less diversity within the gene pool as a result. And they have more issues, definitely. Popular breeds like goldens have a broader gene pool available.

2. Why would cross breeding to produce mutts keep more dogs out of shelters? I'm so confused!

The reason why there are so many dogs in shelters is because of dumb owners who should NOT own dogs ever. This is people quitting on the dogs when they are no longer cute and because of lack of training (owners fault) are difficult to live with.... And this is because of people letting their dogs breed or even breeding their dogs intentionally, never realizing that they are not always going to get an idea mixture of breeds. What they get is dogs who are more one thing than the other or have a lot of undesirable traits.

3. As far as boxers and bulldogs - I've been attending classes with people with these puppies and adults. The boxers especially are fantastic dogs - and my theory is because they do not have a lot of coat to hide physical flaws, they are structurally a lot nicer than a lot of coated breeds.

People who criticize varios breeds are doing so based on looking at pictures on a website. They are not always done while sitting there watching the dogs themselves with the people who love the breeds for what they are.
 

·
reputation: spotted
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
you're right probably that goldens are not (yet) as bad as other breeds. Boxers (love them) used to have longer snouts and look less squashed in front. But all breeds are going to run into trouble if they keep breeding the same lines over and over....the loss of genetic diversity is just very worrying.

as for shelters, I totally agree that it is irresponsible backyard breeding and dumb owners that fill shelters. However, this affects purebreds as much as mixes. When I volunteered at the shelter many - if not most - dogs were purebred.

What if every dog, whether a mutt, mixed bred or purebred, was produced by responsible, dedicated breeders who do their health clearances, check for temperaments, raise pups in a safe happy environment - that's what I would wish for.

So - to get back to the Op :) - if there was a responsible, careful breeder out there who breeds Salukis with Goldens, why the heck not? Sign me up for a pup:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eowyn

·
Kate
Joined
·
21,497 Posts
you're right probably that goldens are not (yet) as bad as other breeds. Boxers (love them) used to have longer snouts and look less squashed in front. But all breeds are going to run into trouble if they keep breeding the same lines over and over....the loss of genetic diversity is just very worrying.
Again, look into the lines available with golden retrievers. It's not breeding the same lines over and over. It's not like with (again) rarer breeds where you have fewer dogs to choose from for breedings. So you have higher COI's and so forth.

as for shelters, I totally agree that it is irresponsible backyard breeding and dumb owners that fill shelters. However, this affects purebreds as much as mixes. When I volunteered at the shelter many - if not most - dogs were purebred.
I live in an area where the majority of the purebreds that are available are beagles. All the other dogs are mixed breeds.

With purebreds - meaning dogs that appear to be a specific breed despite it all being God's witness as far as what is behind them, you have the breed rescues vying to get these dogs out of shelters. They do a better job in some areas than others.

What if every dog, whether a mutt, mixed bred or purebred, was produced by responsible, dedicated breeders who do their health clearances, check for temperaments, raise pups in a safe happy environment - that's what I would wish for.
The way you get there is not putting your money of pockets of people who breed for fads (as suggested in this thread and you supported multiple times in this thread). Only give your money to people who are responsible and only breeding to better their breeds in one way or other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,713 Posts
@ the Op and Pudden. I have many reasons I am against cross breeding the majority of the time, but Kate covered some of them and I am assuming others will do a better job explaining the rest since they are common thoughts. However what is less often mentioned, and probably should be more often mentioned is soundness. Anytime you cross two breeds with varying body types is you will get unsound dogs. Period! You may get lucky and have one or two puppies in the litter turn out to be sound, but the vast majority will not be sound. Genetics may say genetic diversity is "better" (which to a large degree I agree with), but physics still says unsound dogs are unsound dogs and will result in large vet bills and shortened life spans.
What is a “sound” dog? | Ruffly Speaking

ETA: @Pudden One of the bigger factors in my breeding program is genetic diversity (my next breeding has a 10 ten COI of 0.92%). And I am producing sound dogs with predictable temperaments and also happen to be the color I want (gold). By far not the biggest factors, but it is taken into account.
 

·
reputation: spotted
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
I've known many many mixed breeds and mutts who were perfectly sound. On the other hands, some purebreds such as Bassets or pugs or bulldogs are deliberately bred to be congenital cripples. Every time. I find what's being done to those poor dogs just...despicable.

I'm glad golden breeders seem to, for the most part, have their act together and breed for diversity and soundness. That's the kind of pup I would want. Or a healthy mixed-breed from 2 compatible breeds like my Pudden was, a lab-golden, or crewman Hiccup, a who-knows-what-but sound as a bell :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: golfgal and Eowyn

·
reputation: spotted
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
check out this article. I illustrates what I mean by "congenital cripples". Our goldens have fared much better, and aside from cancer rates are still in good shape, and hopefully with the help of wise breeders will be spared from a fate like this:

100 Years of Breed “Improvement” | Science of Dogs

and here is an interesting study showing that diseases such as cancer occur equally in mutts and purebreds, while some inherited diseases are more common in purebreds and some structural (eg ligament) troubles more common in mutts (the headline is misleading, since only some genetic disorders were more common in purebreds):

http://www.veterinarypracticenews.c.../study-shows-mutts-genetically-healthier.aspx

and another article on the same study:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/30/science/la-sci-sn-genetic-disorders-dogs-20130530
 
  • Like
Reactions: meadows and Eowyn

·
Pearl, Lila, Betty's mom
Joined
·
3,147 Posts
Or a healthy mixed-breed from 2 compatible breeds like my Pudden was, a lab-golden, or crewman Hiccup, a who-knows-what-but sound as a bell :)
Who knows what? Wait, I thought he was fruit bat and fluffer-nutter? ;)

To the topic of.genetics, the more I learn the more I appreciate efforts to limit disease in the breed while maintaining the gene pool. However as long as those recessive traits continue, irresponsible breeders and/or general public will propagate them. I hope it is not a losing battle. I have been discussing with a friend will will never get a golden again, pros and coins of other breeds and their health. Are the less popular dogs healthier? If so is that because those breeding them tend to be fanciers and not those in it for the money, thus keeping health as a higher priority? If there are fewer of those dogs, is their gene pool smaller and similarly possibly doomed or not? It is a weird game we play in a way.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App
 

·
reputation: spotted
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
what I get from the study above: the bottom line is, mutt or purebred, no big difference in health. But if one gets a puppy, one should make sure the breeder has checked for testable diseases in both parents. Mixed breeds should have parents that are reasonably well matched in size and body shape.

but...all of this is what I already knew before...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eowyn

·
reputation: spotted
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
I have been discussing with a friend will will never get a golden again, pros and coins of other breeds and their health. Are the less popular dogs healthier? If so is that because those breeding them tend to be fanciers and not those in it for the money, thus keeping health as a higher priority? If there are fewer of those dogs, is their gene pool smaller and similarly possibly doomed or not? It is a weird game we play in a way.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App
I've been wondering this too, now that I'll be looking for a puppy. But all in all, goldens, despite their high cancer rates, have average lifespans in par or even better than those of other dogs their size.

An exception are Alaskan huskies, of course the most common dog around here. They really do live longer...

of course, mam's heart wants a golden or golden mix, like my Pudden was....:no:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eowyn

·
Pearl, Lila, Betty's mom
Joined
·
3,147 Posts
I know of people that have moved away from Goldens only to have their next dog die young. Personally I was spoiled by two labs that lived to 15. Ultimately it is important to keep in mind the 3x3 rule with big dogs. 3 years a young dog, 3 years a prime dog, 3 years an old dog, and beyond that it is all a bonus.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App
 

·
the party's crashing us
Joined
·
4,260 Posts
Highly highly doubt any shelter dog is a saluki crossed with anything. They are exceedingly rare outside dog show circles. The humorous thing is if you do a DNA test to find out "what breeds" make up your mixed breed dog, typically the saluki is in there. This is because they are one of the oldest breeds in existance and a "charter breed" for the DNA test. If your dog is a true heinz 57 that hasn't seen a purebred in its pedigree for a long time, the DNA test will say saluki because that's how far back they have to go to find some common DNA with a recognized breed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eowyn
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top