"--doodle" question - just curious

I've never met any doodle breeders in person but the vast majority of the ones I've seen online - from puppy mills on up to pricey BYBs - are creating F1 crosses. You can probably google one of these "breeds" for yourself and look through the breeder websites - when they show the parents they're almost always purebreds on either side.

So basically the message is that it doesn't matter how the dog looks, as long as he can do his job and do it well--as long as he doesn't look TOO good, in which case he is penalized for it?

The ABCA has decided that our registry will no longer admit dogs that are selected for conformation competition.  It has nothing to do with a dog's actual appearance.  It's the selective pressure that conformation competition (AKC especially) puts on a breed, which we believe is incompatible with the performance standard that has shaped the breed and which continues to keep it useful, athletically capable, and sound in temperament and body.

If the AKC shows were just a beauty contest, there really wouldn't be a problem.  The problem is that the ring would put another selection standard on a breed that has a very rigorous performance standard, already.  Narrowing the gene pool further for the sake of uselessly standardizing appearance, would be unhealthy in the extreme. 

Added to that, there is strong pressure from the AKC to make structural/superficial conformation the primary selection standard, rather than having it the other way around.  Since the birth of the Border collie breed, the shapers of the breed have been aware that performance suffers when unnecessary emphasis is placed on conformation in any breeding program. The AKC's attitude toward the Border collie has been completely inimical to this concept.   The AKC breed club has struggled perennially with this opposition, as the original club (USBCC) did when the discussion first arose.

Here is a good article on the Border collie's genetic place in history - what went into making a breed with a performance rather than an appearance standard: [linkhttp://www.bordercollie.org/kpwhere.html]http://www.bordercollie.org/kpwhere.html[/link]

And another two articles on the complexity of breeding for behaviors (performance):\
[linkhttp://www.bordercollie.org/kpgene.html]http://www.bordercollie.org/kpgene.html[/link]
[linkhttp://www.bordercollie.org/kpbehav.html]http://www.bordercollie.org/kpbehav.html[/link]

And a more eggheaded discussion: [linkhttp://www.sheepdog.com/genetics/summary.html]http://www.sheepdog.com/genetics/summary.html[/link]

And finally a report on the battle to keep the Border collie out of conformation events in the AKC (ie, "acceptance"):

[linkhttp://www.bordercollie.org/akc.html]http://www.bordercollie.org/akc.html[/link]

ORIGINAL: meilani

Based on my experiences, the majority of Doodle breeders aren't interested in creating a new breed. They usually create F1 crosses. Very few move past that and even fewer are breeding responsibly(as in having a breed standard in mind, being selective about what gets bred, utilizing health testing and breeding towards creating a new breed) because if people are willing to pay upwards of $3000 for an F1 cross that came from pet quality parents who have mediocre pedigrees with no health testing done and you aren't given a worthy health guarantee why on earth would they strive to breed for better dogs or to even create a new breed? There's no incentive in it.

 
Well put!  Sad, but true.  The -oodles and -doodles are not breeds, they're crosses.  Some of them very pretty, but still crosses.  Until someone manages to breed like to like and result in similar progeny (doodle to doodle and get doodles), they won't even be close to becoming a recognized breed.  The original labradorXpoodle was about 30 years ago, and they still haven't progressed beyond that stage of having to use pure poodles and labradors. 
 
Hmm, I'm very tired and will stop now before I rant on.  (Not that this topic is a particular gripe of mine [])

The ONLY "doodle" breed that I know of that is working regularly with F2+ generations is what they call the "Australian Labradoodle".  This one place called Rutland Manor in Australia is supposedly the first place to start crossing Labs and Poodles for the purpose of creating a hypoallergenic breed to use for allergic disabled people.  They've been working on the breed for a while and have included other breeds in the mix as well besides just Labs and Poodles, such as Irish Water Spaniels.  Here's their page on how they developed the "breed".  [linkhttp://www.rutlandmanor.com/Site/BreedingPractices.aspx]http://www.rutlandmanor.com/Site/BreedingPractices.aspx[/link]  
 
These guys are the closest any of these crazy doodles can come to be considering a real breed.  From what I can tell these "Australian Labradoodles" differ in no way from one of the newer breeds developed for companionship only, such as the Alaskan Klee Kai.  However, I still cringe at the name "Labradoodle" and I can't get away from the negative image I have of the "breed".  The Labradoodles in the US are still mostly just F1 crosses and therefore are the equivalent of the Goldendoodles and Malti-poos and all the other Poo-Poo-Poos out there.  I'm reserving my judgement on this Rutland manor place for the moment.  I won't go off on them for trying to fake a breed as they seem to have developed as much an individual strain of dogs as the woman who created the Alaskan Klee Kai, but I don't like the way they treat their kennel as a puppy company...they seem to be more about business than anything else.  The "Order A Puppy" button on the left side of the page irks me.  A lot.  The Alaskan Klee Kai woman is a bit more responsible than that IMO.  If you've ever read their breeding policies you'd understand why.
 
I can't stand the poo-doodle craze.  Granted, the individual dogs themselves are often fine dogs, but I don't care what anyone says, they're MIXES.  Not breeds.  The Siberian Husky took hundreds of years to develop and is now a very distinct breed with certain characteristics and looks that they all share.  The Border Collie took hundreds of years to develop and while their looks don't always match up perfectly, they've all got the same ingredients inside that have been simmering for thousands of generations.  If some no-name can take this dog and that dog, mix em together and shake em up, and slap a fancy (or stupid sounding) name on it and sell it as a genuine breed, well then I take that as an insult to the purebred dog and an insult to all the dedicated breeders out there who are striving to preserve the ancient qualities of their individual breeds so that they aren't lost forever. 
 
Purebreds are not mixes and mixes are not purebreds.  Neither are any better or worse than the other.  I love mixies for their individual uniqueness and I respect purebreds for their antiquity and individual breed qualities.  I love them both.  But please, don't confuse the two.  Respect them for what they are and love them all, but don't treat them like the latest fashion trend.  These are lives, not toys.
 
[/rant]

ORIGINAL: Nikki_Burr

...This one place called Rutland Manor in Australia is supposedly the first place to start crossing Labs and Poodles for the purpose of creating a hypoallergenic breed to use for allergic disabled people. 

 
My opinion is that they are trying to justify Labradoodles with that statement.  A Standard Poodle is hypo allergenic, and has been used to assist the disabled.  Granted, they aren't as popular as Labs, GSD, etc in that role, but they have been used.
 

Purebreds are not mixes and mixes are not purebreds....

 
Aah, but according to Roger Carras, all dogs are purebred dogs, as there is no such thing as a dog breeding with a cat, etc.  LOL  But I know what you mean.  []
 
 

...Neither are any better or worse than the other.  I love mixies for their individual uniqueness and I respect purebreds for their antiquity and individual breed qualities.  I love them both.  But please, don't confuse the two.  Respect them for what they are and love them all, but don't treat them like the latest fashion trend.  These are lives, not toys.

 
Well said. 
 


 

That sounds like the color registries for horses. I've seen registerd Apps and Paints without "color". My understanding (I get a lot of my horse info from my sister and mother) is that those horses had "colored" parents that were registered.

 
You are correct.  In fact, I had a registered Appy, solid as a brick bay, who had a snowflake patterned dam and a loudly blanketed sire. 

When I was young we adopted a poodle/schnauzer mix from the Arizona Humane Society - it was our first shelter dog.  Buddy was adorable but had epilepsy.  We jokingly called him a schnoodle - and now twenty-five years later this is one of the new "designer breeds."  Maybe we should have bred him - we'd be millionaires by now, right?  []  Just kidding, LOL. Incidentally, he was on nizoral (sp?) for the epilepsy - isn't that a hair regrowth med for men?

ORIGINAL: my3sonsohio

Incidentally, he was on nizoral (sp?) for the epilepsy - isn't that a hair regrowth med for men?

 
Are you sure it was Nizoral? Nizoral is an anti-fungal medication. The generic name for it is Ketoconazole. While it's normally prescribed in cream or shampoo, it does come in a tablet. I've never heard of it being used to treat Epilepsy.

It is true that the first attempts at creating a "labradoodle" were with the aim of breeding hypoallergenic dogs for disabled ppl with allergies.  It wasn't successful, as so many of the dogs shed hair, and/or didn't have a suitable temperment.  IMO Rutland Manor is no better than the rest of them.  They use a lot gimmicky phrases and hyperbole to make themselves sound better than other breeders.  Personally, I think this is just because the doodle concept has become so popular and they want a big piece of the action.  It takes a few generations to produce wooly (non shedding) doodles, as they have to keep breeding back to a purebred poodle.
 
Not many, if any, reputable breeders of labs or poodles (or any of the other mixes) would let their dogs be used for this purpose.  So most of these "designer" breeders are starting off with poorly bred dogs in the first place.

Here is a site that you guys might find interesting.  It really lends a lot to the breeders justification for continually breeding these hybrids.  I think they're called 'fancy breeds' by the trendsters but I could be wrong.

This "registry" allows litter registration!  It's just keeping the uneducated public uneducated about breeding vs fixing.  I am a strict believer in breeding for the dog's sake, not for breeding's sake, and for furthering...well, I won't get into it too much here as it's already been discussed.  Who knows, you may find some more answers about breeding on the site, but I don't know as I've usually gotten too frustrated to peruse for very long.  What really got me is their list of "recognized" breeds.

But, whatever.

Just take a look. )

[linkhttp://www.achclub.com/index.php]http://www.achclub.com/index.php[/link]


*edited for grammar

They give out frelling PEDIGREES and official ACHC breeder #'s.

I'm getting more frustrated now.

I'm going to get off of this page.

ORIGINAL: meilani
...why on earth would they strive to breed for better dogs or to even create a new breed? There's no incentive in it.

How about my boot up their tushie? []

Mojo, our incredible Labradoodle, is an F1B.  As I understand it--though I don't really pay much attention to these things, a Labradoodle is a Labradoodle as we know it after:
 
A lab and a poodle get together for a little romance;
 
The offspring is then mated back to that original poodle;
 
THAT offspring is set up with another with a similar background;
 
This produces an F1B, and the next generation is F2B, and after that I believe they stop counting.
 
Far as the whys and howsof their breeding, as soon as dog lovers the world over can agree as to who should make those decisions, great!  I haven't seen any opinions on this on the web that are any more valid than anyone else's--like marketing of cars, offers of credit, etc.--there are lots of irresponsible marketeers out there, and an almost infinite number of willing buyers.
 
I think if we're to put irresponsible breeding/breeders to rest, we need to be vigilant as buyers.  I'm not holding my breath.
 
When my wife--who suffers dreadfully from allergies--suggested we get a Labradoodle as a companion for our Airedale--I replied, in expressions not printable here, but basically to the effect that I would never have a "designer" dog in my house.
 
Well, Labradoodles are wonderful dogs--super athletic, Mojo excels in swimming, frisbee, fetch and hunting.  He's a wonderful watchdog, is super-obedient, and chills out when we want him to.  He is extraordinarily communicative (I have owned 24 dogs in my life--mostly collies, many great pound puppies, a couple of terriers, just about all wonderful animals--none come close to this guy) and was easier to train not only than most dogs I've known but most kids as well.  If he has any faults at all, it is that Labradoodles (all owners I know say this) are VERY, VERY attached to their humans and really need attention, and that he tends to like to bring the birds he's killed to the deck after spreading their feathers all over the back yard--he especially seems to find humor in that on rainy nights the day before I have a 7 a.m. meeting.
 
Anyway, I believe in to each his own.  Irresponsible breeders are a fact of life, particularly when it comes to a dog that has at a given moment a suddenly large market.
 
 

By the way, a quick note to the person who criticized Rutland Manor.
 
I'm not a big fan, either.  I think, though, that what's happened is they've become a victim of their own success.  I know they love their dogs very, very much.  They're extremely knowledgeable and are very generous with their wisdom, even with people like me, who ddid not adopt from them or any of their affiliates.

ORIGINAL: Seth Ruffer
I haven't seen any opinions on this on the web that are any more valid than anyone else's--like marketing of cars, offers of credit, etc.--there are lots of irresponsible marketeers out there, and an almost infinite number of willing buyers.

 
Well, that's great, except that unlike cars and credit, dogs are living animals.

I think if we're to put irresponsible breeding/breeders to rest, we need to be vigilant as buyers.  I'm not holding my breath.

I'm confused... what do you mean by "vigilant" exactly, being a "doodle" buyer yourself? Those of us who are against the deliberate breeding of mixes try to put irresponsible breeders to rest by not buying their dogs.