Question by sciencechick: Will there ever be a reason to even attempt a new breed?
Are there any new breeds truly on their way to being recognized by the AKC (or UKC or whatever reputable club you look to)? Could there be any breeds being created now (not just being refined from years ago) that may eventually be recognized?
Should there be? Do you think that the breeds out there should fulfill every possible dog owners needs, or do you think that a new breed (done right) could be beneficial?
Designer dog supporters love to say that “all” purebreds were mutts at some point, and while those origins are not always true and completely unrelated to the random breeding of mutts, does any argument about creating a new breed even matter? Should people either find a breed/ individual dog in a shelter that fits their needs, or is there a niche that has yet to be filled?
I think it would be nice to have a truly hypoallergenic dog but that still doesn’t mean that you can have a one size fits all dog for anyone with allergies, and since they are skin shedding, salivating animal I think it really is pretty impossible.
I am inquisitive 
Good answers, but you are forgetting one huge thing Fur and FIction: breeding true! The standard does not mean they breed true- you can write a standard for anything you want it won’t make it reality. No matter how good of a purpose the dog was bred for, how is it a breed without predictable results?
I know that the AKC can’t recognize all breeds, but some of these “breeds” still do not produce predictable results. Mini Aussies are the equivalent of teacups, and even if they were recognized wouldn’t they just be a different size of the Aussie we have?
And Bengal cats are problably the worst breed I have ever heard of as far as “playing God”, its from a wild animal not just making a breed! We domesticated dogs, I have no issue with slectively breeding for a purpose. Bengal cats are a different issue…
Best answer:
Answer by Fur and Fiction
You really love to spark the great debate, don’t you? =]
I do believe there are many breeds in the making. A faily recent one, the Shiloh Shepherd, has gained quite a following.
Though there are many who will disagree with me, I consider the Mini Aussie, Shihloh Shepherd, and Silken Windhound (among others) to be breeds.
I think it all comes down to what our definition of breed is. Some refuse to recognize dogs not registered by the AKC. While I appreicate a good deal of work the AKC does, it cannot be denied that one of the biggest supporters of puppy mills is the AKC. In their own commericals they mention kennel inspections- no doubt inclduing inspections of puppy mills that pay hundreds in fees to register litters each month. And who is one of the largest producer of designer breeds? Puppy mills.
So if the AKC is supporting an industry that makes thousands off of designer breeds, how reputable is the AKC when it comes to definiing what is and is not a breed?
Dogs such as the Catahoula Leopard Dog have been in the United States for decades, yet is still not recognized by the AKC. Does that mean the Catahoula is not a breed?
The same is true for registries in other countries, and while I understand that it is truly impossible to recognize absolutely every breed, there are many people who shun breeds because they are not recognized.
To me, a breed is a dog that has been bred for a purpose (often work related), a dog that has a breed standard set by a parent club, has enthusiasts, and has gained some kind of recognition with reputable breed books.
To answer your question, I do believe there are breeds on their way to being recognized by the AKC. Two breeds were added last year (the Pyrenean Mastiff and Swedish Vallhund), so I am sure there will be more. I also believe breeds can, and will, be created now. However, this is not to say that the correct way to “create” a breed is through designer breeds. I do think a new breed, done correctly, could be beneficial. I would be more than interested in seeing what types of breeds are possible in the future, given the variety of breeds we have today. Dogs have gotten more and more diverse over the past several hundred years, and will continue to do so. I only hope the selective breeding is used for health just as much as it is used to give dogs a new look.
I agree that it would be nice to have a truly hypoallergenic dog, though I think the real cure to that problem would be eliminating “the allergy” rather than the allergen.
EDIT: So many good points. And so my inexperience shines through =]
I agree, breeding true is the most imperitive part of creating a breed. I do wonder how many breed standards have been adjusted because the original standard was either impossible or incorrect (for the work the dog is being bred for)? And so a breed must include predictable results, something I was trying to say yet apparently couldn’t find the right words for!
It isn’t my battle to fight, but I know quite a few people who would argue the skin off anyone for comparing Mini Aussies to teacup dogs. I have seen quite a few well bred Mini Aussies, which is why I have the opinion that I have. The breed has a breed standard, and predictable results when wellbred dogs are used. Unfortunitly, puppy stores have caught onto the Mini Aussie craze (the reason I was involved with Mini Aussie rescue over the summer).
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!