24/08/2026
Crossbreed hate is so forced and short sighted.
I see it all the time: “there is no such thing as an ethically bred mutt,” “all sports bred mixes are from backyard breeders,” “there’s nothing a crossbreed can do that a purebred can’t.”
What people don’t realise is that these statements shoot themselves in the foot every time. What constitutes an ‘ethically bred dog?’ Usually, people will say relevant health testing, registration with the kennel club and a contract. Here in the UK, in my sport, those things are usually covered by sport mix breeders.
So then the argument changes… “yes, but an ethical breeder breeds for preservation” so the next question is preservation of what? English bulldogs aren’t fighting bulls. Bull terriers aren’t participating in blood sports. Let’s be honest, how many dogs in the show ring are actually performing their historic purpose? Even if they look somewhat like the dogs a hundred years ago, if they aren’t actively doing the job they were originally bred to do or some variant of it, I don’t know how ‘preservation’ can be claimed.
Next on the script is that purebred dogs have a purpose, and excellence in agility or flyball isn’t a valid enough reason to breed a dog. As I say, a historical purpose. Sports are a modern purpose, and it would be crazy not to purposely, carefully select for dogs that are best for that sport. Selecting and breeding from the ones that perform the best. Selective… breeding? Almost like how we arrived with the current breeds we have.
Granted, many purebred dogs still work, I’m well aware of this, but can you say in all honesty that they are in the majority? Plus, so many dogs bred for the show-ring, the ones marked as ‘ethical’ are significantly different to their working counterparts. They have a working and show variety if their original job still exists at all in the modern world.
On to my next point- “why get a crossbreed when a pedigree dog can do the job just as well?” Let’s take a look at the small championship finals this weekend at an agility show. There were purpose bred mixes in the class, yet ultimately, the Champ Ticket went to a cocker spaniel. The pedigree outperformed the crossbreed. Yet if you look at the winning pedigrees, the ones that give the mixes a run for their money, none of them are to the KC breed standard. None. They aren’t show cockers winning, they’re purpose-bred working cockers. Again, people can argue that their dog might be to breed standard and excels in the show-ring and the agility ring (I’m talking the top level), but that is rare. So incredibly rare. The border collies that win aren’t bred to a breed standard, they’re bred to do a job. Maybe a pedigree can do everything a purpose bred sports mix can do, but rarely the pedigrees that would be deemed ‘ethical’ by purists.
On the other side of the country, another Champ Ticket was won by a small collie mix.
“But sports mixes have no breed standard, and can have health problems!” Yes, they can. But can you honestly, hand on heart, say that an average borderpap is less healthy than an average pug? An average Pekingese? An average English bulldog? A breed that has ‘rolling gait’ as part of their breed standard. How can you claim that health is the most important thing, when some ‘well bred,’ ‘ethical’ dog breeds have an average lifespan of 4.5 years? When “they can walk for a mile” is seen as an impressive achievement? When “it’s normal for the breed” is seen as a valid excuse for a deformity, but if that exact same trait showed up in a mixed breed, it would be instant proof of backyard breeding?
This isn’t pedigree dog hate, I love pedigree dogs, it’s recognising the hypocrisy. If I said all pedigrees were unhealthy, all pedigrees are useless, people would get defensive. I don’t believe these statements are true. Yet generalisations about mixes are thrown around constantly.
And then, finally, we come to the historic argument. “These breeds are part of history.” However, many breeds aren’t quite as ancient as we like to think. Did you know that five Leonbergers survived WW1, and until relatively recently were mixed with other breeds such as the Newfoundland? Did you know the Alaskan Klee Kai only came about in the 70s? Silken Windhounds, one of the KC’s most newly accepted breeds, came about in 1985. Even the breeds considered ancient are often just replicas and diluted versions of the originals. Why was it okay to purposely breed a dog to a certain phenotype or for a specific purpose in the 80s but not nowadays? Why was it okay to create a breed just because the founder liked the look of them, but nowadays mixing dogs for a genuine purpose is frowned upon?
I have seen both worlds. I can appreciate a beautiful pedigree dog and a breathtaking sports mix. I love watching unique breeds compete, and it’s exciting watching breeds generally less successful in a sport compete in a final or outdo the ones that are made for it. But it’s exciting because it’s unusual.
Not all mix-breeding is ethical. Not all dog breeding in general is. In fact, I’d wager a hell of a lot isn’t. But having a closed gene pool shouldn’t be an indicator of that, it’s a case by case basis, and statements like “sports mixes can never be ethical/ are always from backyard breeders” just shows ignorance and a lack of insight.
One of my dogs got her studbook number through agility, which then qualified her for Crufts for life in breed showing. Through this, she’s become a multiple time Crufts winner in her breed classes. I also have mixed breeds. I can appreciate both ends of the equation, and I’ve learnt that it isn’t about pedigrees verses mixes. It’s about breeder motivations. Black and white blanket statements are naive at best, and at worst can justify terrible breeding practises while vilifying those who genuinely love their dogs and are producing incredible animals.
