"--doodle" question - just curious

ORIGINAL: jones

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.

Yes, you are right. Those of "you". Which makes up a very, very, very small percentage of the dog adopting public. I commend you for living up to your convictions, and respect your opinion, which I do not share.

There are good breeders of Labradoodles, which, whether you care to acknowledge it or not, are in many respects excellent pets, and there are others who are not.

There are good breeders and not-so-good breeders throughout the dog universe.

What I do find frustrating, though, is the venom with which this incredible animal--purebred, mixed breed, whatever--is criticized. Every breed was at one time a "designer breed" resulting from a market-driven force.

Labradoodles are great dogs. Whether as service/therapy dogs or fun weekend sports companions, they perform at the high end of the scale, and they are wonderful family members. That's not an opinion. I think we'd be pretty hard pressed to name a type dog that excels in so many different areas (not saying there are none--I'm saying there aren't many), and frankly I think a lot of the criticisms I read here and elsewhere are nothing more than closed-minded snobbishness.

With regard to your predictable observation about dogs being living things--thanks for the revelation. When using the example of cars or credit offerings, I think it should be fairly obvious the point was that the market forces involved in their sales are the same that drive sales/adoptions of living animals.

My former breed Akitas have VASTLY differing types from the slender Japanese preferred type that NEVER has a black face...to the American type that is bear like and massive...I never think twice about what they are...they are Akitas. BUT I have heard them being called Huskies or Malemutes because they might lack a mask..

Reminds me of the time when a guy asked me if my Akita was "that new breed of dog a cross between a german shepherd and a husky."  And I'm amazed at how the Japanese lines differ in type than the American ones.

Every breed was at one time a "designer breed" resulting from a market-driven force.

Absolutely untrue.  Look at Malamutes, Salukis, Basenjis, and a host of others.  They weren't the result of deliberate market driven breeding.  Unless you consider "Nature" a market driven force.

And I may not be 100% on this but what I think Jones was saying is this:  Breeders that breed designer dogs purely for profit are irresponsible.  I do not believe that she was condemning your dog or your choice of dog.   Anyone can buy a poodle and a golden or a lab, breed them and sell the puppies for a large profit simply because these dogs are "designer dogs."  It doesn't matter if the parents are of good lineage because hey, the bottom line is the almighty dollar. 

I, myself, am not a fan of mixed breeds.  That said, there are alot of mixed breed dogs that I absolutely love and am in love with.  I'm just not a fan of people that allow their "Coon Hound/Lab/Chow" or other mixed breed to go unaltered and populate the world with another un-needed litter soon to be dropped off at the ASPCA. 

"I think we'd be pretty hard pressed to name a type dog that excels in so many different areas"
 
The German Shepherd Dog, which I believe is still considered to be the world's most versatile dog

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;

 
If only this were true.  Think about it.  If that were true, then there would no longer be any need to have pure labs or poodles for the breeding program, as all the labradoodles would be bred to each other.  If these dogs were all bred from healthy stock, with proper health tests done, and the dogs were good examples of the breed, then that would be fab.  This isn't what happens.
 
Most of the original breeding stock is poor, as there aren't many (any?) reputable breeders who would let their dogs be used for this purpose.  Most, not all, but most, ppl who get a labradoodle seem to want a hypoallergenic "wooly" dog, which is only produced after several backcrosses.  So in order to produce these wooly dogs (which sell for the most money), a lot of non-wooly scruffy dogs are produced along the way.  All of which needs homes.  A lot of which end up in shelters. 
 
Mojo sounds like a fabulous dog.  And you and your family seem to be great owners.  Unfortunately, a lot of puppies had to be born simply to get to the stage of producing a Mojo. 
 
Yes, there are unscrupulous breeders in every breed.  There are now a LOT of unscrupulous breeders of the many variations of so called "designer dogs", simply because the public buys them.

...Most, not all, but most, ppl who get a labradoodle seem to want a hypoallergenic "wooly" dog,...

 
I've always wondered why these people don't get a Standard Poodle then.  They're big, hypoallergenic and can be "wooly" looking if you let them. 

If it's ok I'm going to respond to the last few posts here, instead of individually.

First, to the person who suggested GSDs are the world's most versatile--they probably are, and they are unquestionably magnificent animals. I love GSDs (although I don't like this all-too-common trend the last few years of growing them to twice the size they're supposed to be).

However, what I said in my post was that I was not saying that there were none as versatile as the Labradoodle--I said there aren't many. And I am kind of disappointed that you decided to edit that part out to take my quote out of context to fit your own purposes.

To the person who obviously has done lots more studying than I about how Labradoodles are created--OK. Good points and I want to be clear: I neither support nor condone irresponsible breeding. Believe me, no one in this forum was more opposed to the "idea" of this "doodle" thiing than I. Then I met a few and was absolutely floored.

I don't know if this is true, and I'm not going to do the research, so bear with me, it's just an opinion, but I believe that a majority, or at least a hefty minority of the dogs that are purchased in this country are bought at pet shops where there is very little concern placed on how a puppy was bred. And I am sure that the overwhelming majotiy of those dogs spend their llives happy and healthy as family members in loving homes.

Our NYC-suburb town (of about 30,000 people) has a fairly active, and, I suppose, fairly typical shelter, at which at any given moment there are perhaps 20 dogs (yes, I've been there several times.) Those 20 cases are tragic, and I dearly wish I could take every single one of those dogs home. But, in this same town, there are several hundred--if not more--dogs, some of whom are problem dogs, some of whom are in homes that had to "adjust" to accommodate a co-existence with their four-legged kin.

So yes, irresponsible breeders and questionable breeding practices are troublesome to me, and I wish there were an answer. But if it weren't for the "profiteers" there'd be many, many, many houses across America that would be great for dogs that would be dog-less. As far as I am concerned, EVERY HOME should have a dog-it would make us better people. So I don't think this issue has an easy answer, and, regardless, it's not going away.

I do, however, truly believe that the whole equation has a lot more to do with the jerks that decide to get a St. Bernard puppy to "help them look after" their new born twins but by the time the dog was six months old was so big, and had an accident in the house or knocked down a lamp and started to prove to actually require the time and attention of the owners whose lives were already stretched thin by the requirements of parenting and working and guess who winds up being kicked out of that happy little home? And guess what? "Irresponsible breeders" have absolutely nothing to do with it. I'm not defending them, I'm just saying if we're gonna get all riled up about dogs winding up in shelters we have a LOT MORE TO LOOK AT than just irresponsible breeders breeding for profit only.

To the person who asked why not just get a poodle? You know, it's funny--but I always "hated" poodles--'cause I always thought of them with the hiarcuts, and the ribbons and the owners who wore their mink coats in August, blah, blah, blah. And I'm not putting that down, per se, but it just isn't what I'm about.

Now, however, I LOVE POODLES!!! They are amazing, athletic, extremely intelligent, fantasitc companions and frankly I love them whether they're all ribboned-up or shaggy and doggy and messy. I was SO WRONG about poodles that I'm almost embarrassed, and when it comes time to get our third dog there's a distinct possibility he will be a standard poodle (although we're so in love with labradoodles right now that..well, you know.) I don't think, however, the excellence of one breed or mix necessarily discounts the validity of others.

For what it's worth, I wrote about "designer breeds" on my website. Clicky [linkhttp://www.SekcsZoo.com/MixedBreed.html]here[/link] to check it out.

Meilani--

thanks for the link. I think ulitmately the point to be emphasized is summed up in your last section--DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. I'd also add to that BE REALISTIC IN YOUR EXPECTATIONS AND YOUR SELF_ASSESSMENT AS A PROSPECTIVE PET OWNER.

Sadly, irresposnible breeding is never going away. We can all, however, make sure we don't encourage it.

ORIGINAL: Xeph

"I think we'd be pretty hard pressed to name a type dog that excels in so many different areas"

The German Shepherd Dog, which I believe is still considered to be the world's most versatile dog

Or the Beauceron.

We have a wonderful 14-week-old Golden Doodle, who is a first generation (mom was a pure Golden Retriever, dad was a pure Standard Poodle).  He is virtually non-shedding, and has an absolutely wonderful temperment like a Golden and is super-smart like a Poodle.  I believe a Doodle bred back to a Poodle (I think they refer to that as F1b?) is supposed to generally be even more non-shedding and hypoallergenic.  Whatever the case, I don't care if he can't be "recognized" as a breed, I just love the little guy!!

Loribel--

Your guy is beautiful!  What's his name?

I love Goldendoodles, they are excellent dogs--we have three friends who have them, including one who looks much like yours.

Like you, I couldn't less whether other people recognize Mojo as purebred, mixed, or a friggin' toaster, for that matter.

All I know is that he's a great dog, and frankly, so is every other Labradoodle and Goldendoodle I've ever met.

In terms of ease of training, athletic ability, versatility they are great!

Did you see the piece a few months back on the big agility tournament in Australia that for years was dominated by...uh...you know, the usual suspects.  And three years ago someone entered their Labradoodle who was permitted to compete, but was prevented from being called a "labradoodle"--they forced the owner to list him as a "lab mix."  So, the owner complied, but changed the dog's official name to "Imalabradoodle".

And guess which dog has won the competition for each of the last three years? 

While not all are so notable, similar stories abound.

But of course, there's the "irresponsible breeding" thing.  Did you ever get the feeling that if "doodles" were not so talented, successful or so relatively expensive (though there are many breeds comparably priced),  but if they went for $250.00 a pop and basically just sat there and barked at the mailman, that none of these loud voices would be enriching us with their judgements?

Enjoy your Goldendoodle, he's beautiful!

ORIGINAL: Seth Ruffer

But of course, there's the "irresponsible breeding" thing.  Did you ever get the feeling that if "doodles" were not so talented, successful or so relatively expensive (though there are many breeds comparably priced),  but if they went for $250.00 a pop and basically just sat there and barked at the mailman, that none of these loud voices would be enriching us with their judgements?

 
You're right, all those people who have an issue with the way doodles are bred are just jealous [8|]  What an incredibley insightful and productive argument.  I would actually have more of an issue with a dog that sat there and barked at the mailman because well, that would just be annoying.  There is no question that mixes make wonderful dogs.  I have a dog that is likely a mix, and she is my girl--I wouldn't trade her for any dog in the world, regardless of the pedigree.
 
However, there are already WAY too many mixed breed dogs out there, and the "designer dog" craze (and yes, that its what it is) is only compounding the problem. 
 
Sorry, a labradoodle is a lab mix.  It seems however, that you are insulted by that title?  Why wouldn't you be proud of the mix that your dog is, rather than having to use a made up name for what he is?  Is it an ego thing?  My dog is a mix, and a wonderful one at that--I don't need to make up a fancy name for her.
 
In addition, you seem to dislike critisism of doodles, but you insist on making snide comments about other breeds "big agility tournament in Australia that for years was dominated by...uh...you know, the usual suspects."
 
What you so not understand is that people are not attacking your dogs, but they do have an issue with the people that breed them. 

Well said Christinia.
 
I personally have a problem with ANY breeder who does not health test for genetic conditions common to the breed, who does not PROVE their breeding stock in the show ring and who uses the fertility of his/her dogs as a ticket to tax free income.  I can walk into our shelter and find a couple dozen mixes on any given day so I have a problem with more mixes being deliberately created and produced to fill some sort of sad craze.  And there is NO such thing as a hypoallergenic dog....it's the danger and saliva that are the most common allergens...or have they found a way to get rid of those as well?

I have a cockapoo and I bought her from a breeder.   I didn't realize this controversy about designer dogs existed  a few months ago when I got her, but I did know what was important for me to see in a breeder of pet quality dogs and I did see those things in mine, who came highly recommended by my friends with the most wonderful, intelligent, healthy dog.

Now that I do know about the controversy, I'm not sure I'd make the same choice again.   Of course, Louise is the best thing that ever happened to me and I wouldn't give her up for anything, but I certainly do question these breeding practices sometimes.   At the same time, one aspect of the anti-'doodle' argument falls flat to me:

Whenever these discussions come up, people talk about not needing more mixes in shelters.   But 25-40% of dogs in shelters are purebred, probably about proportional to their population (from what I have read - please correct me if I'm wrong).    Since most dogs produced by responsible breeders of purebred dogs are pet quality, not show quality, and won't be bred, why is that breeding practice any better in terms of whether or not pets end up in shelters?   There are already way too many purebred dogs out there too.  Perhaps a buyer who seeks out a purebred dog from a responsible breeder may be less likely to abandon it to a shelter because it is a self-selected population, but there's no real evidence of that.  Or perhaps those with purebred dogs have the option of returning the dog to the breeder rather than giving it to a shelter, but so do owners of many 'doodles'.   One plausible explanation may be that purebred dogs are more predictable in terms of temperament, so people who desire and expect certain traits are more likely to actually get a dog with those traits.

Purebred breeders obviously also contribute to the population of dogs that end up at shelters, whether that's a byproduct of aiming to improve the breed or not, both by producing dogs that may potentially end up at shelters and by creating a supply that people can choose over adoption. 

Is there any real evidence that purebred dogs from responsible breeders (responsible meaning those who truly handraise and socialize at home, don't over-breed, screen, have spay/neuter contracts and offer support and return) are less likely to end up in shelters than 'doodles' from responsible breeders?

I am wondering what the response is to that.