"--doodle" question - just curious

Kota is a pomeranian/sheltie, a Pomie?  He cost me $5 from the shelter and is a great dog!  Fun loving, loves agility, great dog!!  And he cost me $5.

If you want a MUTT why not get one that has been abandoned instead of from someone raising "pet quality" dogs?  Why would someone raise "pet quality" dogs?  Is this because they feel that there aren't enough in the shelters so they must help out somehow?  Well they could start by fostering all the dead dogs that had to be put to sleep because there wasn't enough space for them at the shelter.  They could help by trying to catch and rehabilitate all the dogs I saw fighting for scraps of the kibble this guy would put out for them so they wouldn't hunt local livestock.  They could foster the  over 20+ pups I brought in that were immediately euthanized because of obvious worm, mite and flea infestations.  Why don't they help in that way?  Why?  Because they can make $$$$$$ by breeding mutts and getting people to fall for it.

Grrr, my blood is boiling now.

ORIGINAL: inne

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?

This doesn't directly answer your question, but I would suspect that the bulk of the "purebred" dogs in shelters aren't from responsible breeders anyway.
 
Regardless of whether a doodle breeder could guarantee their dogs would never end up in a shelter, I would still think it a silly idea to intentionally make something that is already available, charge 20x as much for it, and reduce the chance of a shelter/rescue dog getting adopted.

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.

 
I'm not sure I've actually heard that argument before, usually I think what people are saying is that if you want a mixed breed dog there are plenty to choose from in shelters. Of course you are right about purebreds, there are plenty of those in shelters too. I don't agree that because mixed puppies are bred for pets they won't be bred - this is part of the problem with unethical breeders, that they send puppies home w/out s/n contracts... but once again the same thing happens with BYBs for purebreds. I don't think mixes are inherently any more likely to wind up in shelters... just that by the circumstances of their breeding (oops breedings and unethical breeding) they stand a better chance of not going to good homes (as do purebred BYB/mill pups) than do well-bred puppies.

ORIGINAL: tashakota

If you want a MUTT why not get one that has been abandoned instead of from someone raising "pet quality" dogs?  Why would someone raise "pet quality" dogs?  Is this because they feel that there aren't enough in the shelters so they must help out somehow? 

But reputable breeders ALSO raise pet quality dogs - that's my point.   The majority of dogs bred to improve the breed are in fact pet quality.   Is it okay to produce those dogs if they're not the primary goal of your breeding programme?   

If you want a purebred dog, why don't you get an abandoned one?   Is it because they don't feel there are enough in shelters?   

This logic just doesn't hold up for me because it's not at all specific to 'doodle' breeders.   That was the point of my post.

 
They could foster the  over 20+ pups I brought in that were immediately euthanized because of obvious worm, mite and flea infestations.  Why don't they help in that way?  Why?  Because they can make $$$$$$ by breeding mutts and getting people to fall for it.

But so could ALL breeders.    It seems to me that so many of the objections to breeders of mixes are actually complicated ethical questions that can be asked of ALL breeders. 

If the breeder is reputable, then they wouldn't be allowing pet quality dog to reproduce, no?  In addition, for a breeder to be what I consider reputable, they would sell their pet quality pups with spay/neuter contracts, and take them back if the owner could not keep them, thus minizing the odds the pup would end up in the shelter. 

I would argue that the majority of people breeding the thousands and thousands of purebred dogs born each year would not fall into the catagory of reputable.  NOBODY here is saying that purebred breeders are always reponsible breeders.  however, in the quest to bring pet populations under control, when there are already so many BYBs, puppymills, and idiots who let unfixed dogs roam, the addition of "designer mutts" only serves to further complicate the matter.

But responsible breeders aren't breeding FOR pet quality.  They breed to better the breed and they also don't have litter after litter.  They also follow up on their pups and pet quality dogs are sold on spay/neuter contracts so the dog has to get fixed.  Only show quality are allowed to go to homes that may show and/or breed if the dog proves itself.  Responsible purebred dog breeders breed to improve the breed and yes, they produce some 'only average' dogs and these get placed in pet homes, not show homes.  But they are not breeding to produce pets.  They want show dogs, you just get the extras to go along. 

Doodle breeders are breeding to create pets.  Period.  Why?  When there are so many unwanted "pets" in shelters now?

If only purebred dogs were bred, there would probably be fewer euthanisized animals, fewer genetic and health problems as these things would be tested for in the pedigree of the pups.  Fewer mental issues and better socialized dogs as puppies.  Not to mention JQP who wants to tie it on a chain out back wouldn't be able to get a dog!!

With a purebred dog, from a responsible breeder, you are most likely going to get what that breed is known for.  From a doodle breeder, it's a crap shoot.  You might get a great dog, but you might not.  You might get what you want, low/no shedding, but you might not.  You get a purebred poodle and you're pretty much guaranteed to get a no/low shedding dog.  That's the difference.  That's MY point. 

People buying "doodles" are spending hundreds of dollars on a MUTT because it's a fad.  You can get a mutt for a lot cheaper from a shelter and help save an innocent dog, instead of encouraging people to breed even MORE dogs that won't have homes.

Purebred breeders are creating a specific type of dog that has been proven to produce that same kind of dog in it's offspring.  Doodle breeders can't say that.  If you want a low/no shedding dog, get a poodle.  If you want a fun loving, goofy dog that has lots of energy but could also hunt and play fetch, get a golden retriever.  If you want a big easy going dog, get a Great Dane.  If you want a crap shoot, go to your local shelter.

I guess the difference is that you (and many others, of course) think that the goal of improving the breed makes the pet quality dogs produced by such breeders a non-issue.   I don't necessarily agree - it's something that I'm still thinking about.  

While there are many terrible breeders of all kinds of dogs, I do think it's a mistake to assume that all breeders of mixes are terrible people breeding for the money and not care about the dogs and that people who purchase who purchase them are doing it for a 'fad'.   I certainly didn't even know it was a fad and I didn't 'fall for' anything, nor did any of the wonderful cockapoo owners I know, many of whom grew up with cockapoos and have had them their whole lives.   While I understand that this is a volatile issue, I don't think that these insulting statements are useful in any way.   I didn't come to this thread to defend my choice, but to ask some of the ethical questions I have been asking myself and talk about one aspect of the discussion that has not made any sense to me.   Certainly reasonable people can disagree.   

I guess the difference is that you (and many others, of course) think that the goal of improving the breed makes the pet quality dogs produced by such breeders a non-issue.

 
Inne, you're missing the point.  The point is that people breeding to improve the breed, either through performance or show are not breeding specifically FOR pets.  Pets occur but they are not being purposely produced.
 
Breeders of the mutts may not be producing "just for money" but they are producing "Just pets" which I think is wrong when you can go to a shelter and get the same mutt mix for $65.  People aren't breeding Labradoodles for Hunting, or Herding, or Protection.  They're breeding them for "low/non shedding ability".  Quite frankly, it's crap.  Get a Bichon, or Poodle!  It's not SHEDDING that people are allergic too, it's the dander.
 
The Australians, who orginally "created" this breed decided their experiement was a flop, because it depended too much on the individual dog and person!  One person could be horribly allergic to the dog, and the next wouldn't be affected by the same dog.  It was too subjective.  They didn't get what they were looking for.
 
So, your argument of "pets that are being produced by people trying to better their breeds" doesn't hold much water, because these people aren't breeding specifically for pet quality animals.  They just happen.  Not every pup in a litter is going to be a conformation/performance star

ORIGINAL: Xeph

Inne, you're missing the point.  The point is that people breeding to improve the breed, either through performance or show are not breeding specifically FOR pets.  Pets occur but they are not being purposely produced.

I'm not missing that point.   I understand it perfectly well, but I'm saying that I'm not sure I think there's a huge ethical difference between creating pets on purpose or creating them as the inevitable result of a larger goal.    Of course they are being purposely produced - you know that not every dog you breed is going to be show quality, so by breeding you pretty much agree to ALSO produce pets.  The dog in the shelter doesn't care if it's there because their breeder made some great contributions to the breed.

ORIGINAL: inne
I'm not missing that point.   I understand it perfectly well, but I'm saying that I'm not sure I think there's a huge ethical difference between creating pets on purpose or creating them as the inevitable result of a larger goal.    Of course they are being purposely produced - you know that not every dog you breed is going to be show quality, so by breeding you pretty much agree to ALSO produce pets.

 
Whoa here.....for one thing no responsible breeder only aims to produce the next show/breeding stock.  A truly responsible breeder that is well educated and long standing in their breed is breeding the next generation that is better than the previous.  No matter if the dogs go to working homes, pet homes, show homes or remain with the breeder.  So stating that pet dogs are a by-product of responsible breeding is incorrect to start with.
 
Secondly the biggest demand upon any responsible breeder, whether the breed is a working breed or not, is pet homes.  People want healthy, stable temperament pets.  Some want working dogs, some want working dogs that will also be family pets and some want show dogs....but the largest majority of people that call responsible breeders are looking for simply pets of that breed.
 
Responsible breeders will only breed when that demand is at or past what they can fulfill and out of that production a majority will go to et homes.  That has nothing to do with what is actually produced.  Any resonsible breeder can produce consistant generations of dogs that can prove themselves in the show ring as well as the working field (whatever that may be for the breed).  So just because 7 out of 9 pups may be dubbed as pets and go to pet homes, does not mean for one minute that all 9 could not finish their conformation championship or do the job intended.  It is the goal of any good breeder to consistantly produce that way.  That is exactly how small hobby breeders that barely even breed every year end up with the elusive top winning 'one in a million'.  Because their knowledge of the breed backs their breeding program accross the board.  They don't need to produce thousands of dogs to get that top winner.  Their breeding program is consistant and loaded with quality no matter what kind of life those dogs live.
 
And no, truly responsible breeders are not contributing to the pet population in shelters.  If pups are not co-owned they are sold on s/n contracts that are followed up on and more and more breeders are doing pediatric s/n on pups going to pet homes.  And any breeder worth their salt knows where their pups go, permanently ID's them and takes them back in the event the new owner cannot keep the dog. 
 
No doubt there are borderline or straight up irresponsible breeders out there that would fall in line with the typical 'responsible' breeder lingo.....however REAL responsible breeders are not the culprit. 
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: gr8pyr
And no, truly responsible breeders are not contributing to the pet population in shelters.  If pups are not co-owned they are sold on s/n contracts that are followed up on and more and more breeders are doing pediatric s/n on pups going to pet homes.  And any breeder worth their salt knows where their pups go, permanently ID's them and takes them back in the event the new owner cannot keep the dog. 

Thanks for your very informative reply.  I would just like to mention that all of the above measures you mention that responsible breeders do were also done by the terrible, evil, devil of a woman who bred my cockapoo (aside from the co-ownership)

Inne, what we're trying to say is that, although the woman you bought your dog from made you spay/neuter that dog, she contributed to the pet overpopulation and euthanasia problem by producing a pet only dog that deprived one more dog in a shelter from getting a home.  If there were zero dogs in shelters and we didn't need shelters anymore, then most people probably wouldn't have a problem with people breeding mutts that were responsible about their breeding, ie-spay/neuter all non-purebred dogs.  But in America and several other countries, pet overpopulation is a huge problem.  Puppy mills are a huge problem in America as well and certainly don't help by providing cheap, undersocialized, poorly bred dogs to pet stores.

If you want a fun loving, goofy dog that has lots of energy but could also hunt and play fetch, get a golden retriever.

 
Actually, that pretty much sums up my purebred poodle...and he's non-shedding []
 
I can understand a lot of the points that Innes is making.  I can also understand the opinions of those who are arguing against this.  I suppose I'm sitting on the fence at this point, in some ways.  I mean how many ppl who want a purebred dog even bother to check breed-specific rescues, local shelters etc to see if there is a dog there suitable for them?  Some ppl do, but most ppl go straight to the breeder.  So how do we decide who has the responsibility?  Should everyone check shelters and rescue groups first?  Should breeders expect ppl to do this?  What I mean is, by being inactive, many ppl could be said to contribute to the number of dogs in shelters, just by going to a breeder.  It's a complex and emotional issue, and probably one that will continue to divide ppl's opinions.

[]Hey loribel, your pup is adorable.. I to have a Golden Doodle, we get the best of both breeds don't we [] . Sam is such a loyal, intelligent, affectionate young man. He looks like an older version of your baby, and when I saw pics it bought back memories.. [] Sam is 5 now his mum was truly a magnificent Golden Retriever and his Dad a Poodle who was a little scawny.We had him before all the "Hype" and we didn't pay silly money for him, but now all the celebs want them, hmmm. It doesn't suprise me if they are looking for a grand dog with a great temperment because they certainly have that. Anyways I love my baby so much, his a great pal, and I wouldn't change anything about him  I added a pic for you.. his coat is a bit long at the moment, he has a cut every 8 weeks, and he looks soo funny when all his hair has gone, i will add pics after his next haircut []

Rozie

ORIGINAL: tashakota

Inne, what we're trying to say is that, although the woman you bought your dog from made you spay/neuter that dog, she contributed to the pet overpopulation and euthanasia problem by producing a pet only dog that deprived one more dog in a shelter from getting a home. If there were zero dogs in shelters and we didn't need shelters anymore, then most people probably wouldn't have a problem with people breeding mutts that were responsible about their breeding, ie-spay/neuter all non-purebred dogs. But in America and several other countries, pet overpopulation is a huge problem. Puppy mills are a huge problem in America as well and certainly don't help by providing cheap, undersocialized, poorly bred dogs to pet stores.

How did she do that any more than a purebred breeder exactly? My choice was not between this dog and a dog from a shelter or rescue, it was between this dog, a dog from a purebred breeder and a rescue dog. If I had not gotten a cockapoo, I would have bought a miniature poodle from a breeder and no one here would have accused that breeder of contributing to overpopulation and depriving dogs in shelters of homes.