Aussiedoodles (here is one for you, Jewlieee!)

NOooooooo!  Make it stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AgileGSD

I used to get really annoyed about the purpose mixing of breeds but any more it doesn't bother me much.

I agree. It's when I was trying to defend my statement that it's "wrong" to breed mixes that I realized it's only an opinion. I have to admit that those mixes fill a certain "niche". There really is no other dog that looks like a "Puggle"/Pug Beagle mix. If people want a dog like that then it's their right. It's also completely different to get a mixed breed puppy from a breeder rather than a shelter. You can meet both parents, they'll probably be socialized, etc. Saying that it's okay to purposely breed purebreds, but not mixes is saying that purebreds are inherently better. Completely untrue.

Luvntzus

I agree. It's when I was trying to defend my statement that it's "wrong" to breed mixes that I realized it's only an opinion. I have to admit that those mixes fill a certain "niche". There really is no other dog that looks like a "Puggle"/Pug Beagle mix. If people want a dog like that then it's their right. It's also completely different to get a mixed breed puppy from a breeder rather than a shelter. You can meet both parents, they'll probably be socialized, etc. Saying that it's okay to purposely breed purebreds, but not mixes is saying that purebreds are inherently better. Completely untrue.

  There are some mixes that are filling working or performance niches as well - Alaskan Huskies, Hanging Tree Cowdogs, Mal/GSD mixes, Boderjacks and Lurchers.  If the issue is the that dogs shouldn't be bred "just for pets" - there are purebreds that are historically bred just for pets (like most of the toys). It is people's right to want that sort of dog they want and for now, it is a person's right to decide to breed and sell mixes. Some people do actually create new breeds as well, which usually involves mixing. Not saying Doodle breeders are doing that, just saying that it is still done.

I certainly understand that argument, but for me personally, I still feel it's wrong to intentionally breed mutts. I don't think mutt is a derogatory term or that pure bred dogs are better.

The vast majority of people breeding designer dogs are not responsible. As far as I am aware there is no registry trying to establish a new breed, and holding people to a code of ethics, or health screening standard, or even tracking common health problems in the "new breed". Trying to establish a new breed would be a different story, and even then, I am not sure how I feel about it.

Frankly some of these designer dogs are a nightmare. The puggle for example -- a lap dog hunting dog combo? It may be cute, but if it wants to run itself to death and can't properly cool it's body temperature because it has a smushed pug face -- well you're just asking for the dog to overheat and die.

The decisions behind breeding these designer dogs are purely commercial -- there is a demand, so people are producing them. That doesn't make it ethically sound.

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

Frankly some of these designer dogs are a nightmare. The puggle for example -- a lap dog hunting dog combo? It may be cute, but if it wants to run itself to death and can't properly cool it's body temperature because it has a smushed pug face -- well you're just asking for the dog to overheat and die.

The decisions behind breeding these designer dogs are purely commercial -- there is a demand, so people are producing them. That doesn't make it ethically sound.

I've seen a lot of puggles and I've never seen one with a smushed face as severe as a pug.  In that sense, they are probably better off healthwise than a purebred pug.  While I don't support breeing mixes for the purpose of some kind of designer craze, we can't forget that a lot of purebred dogs have health issues due to their confirmation and/or small gene pool.  Brachiocephalic breeds have breathing problems, dachshunds have back problems, gsd's have hip problems, giant breeds have short life spands and the list goes on.  In my opinion, the health argument just doesn't fly.  And there are some designer breeders out there that are responsible and are working towards developing a breed that breeds true- labradoodles and cockapoos are two of those I believe.  Remember, the vast majority of purebred dogs out there are bred irresponsibly and for commercial demand, so its' not fair to just single out the designer dog breeders.  Also, every purebred started out as a designer dog at some point, and most dogs, even those bred by ethical breeders, are not bred to perform any sort of function.  Showing in conformation is not a 'purpose'.  I have heard of labroodles being used as guide dogs and therapy dogs. 

And, I've seen many puggles with the smushed face -- the point is there are some out there.

I get your health argument because I agree that is a major issue affecting the purebred dog world. However, what I am saying is why take breeds with major known health risks (take merles and Brachiocephalic heads) and pass those on at all? What is the justification for putting the puppies at risk for inheriting those traits?

They are cute? Accepted breeds have been doing it for years? Purebred dogs have health issues too?

All of those things are irrelevant to the central decision of "do I intentionally bred puppies that could have severe health issues"? If someone can say yes to this question, then they are totally irresponsible in my book, regardless of the purebred or designer dog they create.

Yes, there are some designer dog people out there doing the testing and all that jazz. However,I find it strange that as active as I am in the dog world, I have yet to meet a person who breeds these designer dogs. I would think that they would appear at some point if they are responsible and actively involved with dogs? Does anyone know one of these responsible designer dog breeders first hand? (I am asking sincerely.)

jenns

Also, every purebred started out as a designer dog at some point. 

This is just untrue. Most of the breeds out there were bred for a working purpose that helped humans -- hunting, guarding, tending livestock, moving livestock, etc. Dogs were bred for their abilities not their appearance. Breeding for appearance is a fairly recent idea, and we've seen the devastating effect its had. I will not go further down that road since it's OT, but I think my point is clear.

My main objection to these designer dogs is why introduce major health risks intentionally?

ETA: typo fixed 

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

I certainly understand that argument, but for me personally, I still feel it's wrong to intentionally breed mutts. I don't think mutt is a derogatory term or that pure bred dogs are better.

The vast majority of people breeding designer dogs are not responsible. As far as I am aware there is no registry trying to establish a new breed, and holding people to a code of ethics, or health screening standard, or even tracking common health problems in the "new breed". Trying to establish a new breed would be a different story, and even then, I am not sure how I feel about it.

Frankly some of these designer dogs are a nightmare. The puggle for example -- a lap dog hunting dog combo? It may be cute, but if it wants to run itself to death and can't properly cool it's body temperature because it has a smushed pug face -- well you're just asking for the dog to overheat and die.

The decisions behind breeding these designer dogs are purely commercial -- there is a demand, so people are producing them. That doesn't make it ethically sound.

Great post, and so true.  The purpose of these designer dogs is to fill a niche all right -the "niche" in the breeders' bank accounts! 

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

jenns

Also, every purebred started out as a designer dog at some point. 

This is just untrue. Most of the breeds out there were bred for a working purpose that helped humans -- hunting, guarding, tending livestock, moving livestock, etc. Dogs were bred for their abilities not their appearance. Breeding for appearance is a fairly recent idea, and we've seen the devastating effect its had. I will not go further down that road since it's OT, but I think my point is clear.

My main objection to these designer dogs is why introduce major health risks intentionally?

I wouldn't say that all breeds were "designer dogs" (a term I really can hardly stand LOL). Many breeds did start off as mixes and some were landraces. There are a lot of breeds which were developed just for their appearance. Most of the Toys were bred to be cute lap dogs and some of them are quite old breeds. Many breeds today, even former working breeds are bred just for appearance and just to be companions.

  I'm not sure that Doodles are any more prone to health problems than purebred Labs or Poodles (which are prone to many of the same issues). FWIW I haven't seen mixes which inherited extreme structural traits. For example, Puggles have short muzzles but not flat muzzles. Shih Tzu mixes (unless mixed with a similar breed) have more length of muzzle and smaller eyes. This is actually true in many cases with BYB purebreds as well, unless the trait is very widely spread throughout the breed. My neighbor has a BYB Peke that has a short muzzle instead of a flat face (more like a Cavalier muzzle, much more attractive IMO). The look of show GSDs starts to disappear within one generation if breeders don't select for it. Nature tends to push towards moderation, so extreme features are lost if not actively bred for.

spiritdogs

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

I certainly understand that argument, but for me personally, I still feel it's wrong to intentionally breed mutts. I don't think mutt is a derogatory term or that pure bred dogs are better.

The vast majority of people breeding designer dogs are not responsible. As far as I am aware there is no registry trying to establish a new breed, and holding people to a code of ethics, or health screening standard, or even tracking common health problems in the "new breed". Trying to establish a new breed would be a different story, and even then, I am not sure how I feel about it.

Frankly some of these designer dogs are a nightmare. The puggle for example -- a lap dog hunting dog combo? It may be cute, but if it wants to run itself to death and can't properly cool it's body temperature because it has a smushed pug face -- well you're just asking for the dog to overheat and die.

The decisions behind breeding these designer dogs are purely commercial -- there is a demand, so people are producing them. That doesn't make it ethically sound.

 

Great post, and so true.  The purpose of these designer dogs is to fill a niche all right -the "niche" in the breeders' bank accounts! 

Me too.....say great post and also agree that the "niche" they are trying to fill is the breeders bank account. If they truly had an ethical reason for breeding, we probably wouldn't be hearing much about them, as they wouldn't be plastered all over the internet for sale, they wouldn't be ending up in shelters, as these ethical breeders would have homes for them before they were even born and all would be spayed or neutered, as breeding back to any of these would not even produce the same dog as you bred first generation one breed to another.

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

This is just untrue. Most of the breeds out there were bred for a working purpose that helped humans -- hunting, guarding, tending livestock, moving livestock, etc. Dogs were bred for their abilities not their appearance. Breeding for appearance is a fairly recent idea, and we've seen the devastating effect its had. I will not go further down that road since it's OT, but I think my point is clear.

My main objection to these designer dogs is why introduce major health risks intentionally?

I guess my point is that most of the arguments against designer dogs can also be made against purebreds.  All dog breeds were created for the benefit of humans, as you just stated.  I dont' see the difference in a dog bred to guard livestock or bred to make money for someone.  Neither purpose is of benefit to the dog, but is beneficial to the human.  Breeding a dog that is great at guarding sheep does not make the dog healthier or live longer.  In my opinion, the less extreme a dogs traits are, and the more natural looking, the healthier the dog is.  The shape that made dachshunds adept at going after badgers in their tunnels gave the dogs back problems.  The large size of giant breeds, which made them imposing as guard dogs, gives them a short lifespan.  So what I'm saying, is that you don't have to just breed for appearance to end up with issues.  Any pairing of dogs can result in health problems - in both purebreds and mixed breeds.   In fact, small gene pools are more likely to results in health problems than large gene pools.  I think with purebreds you have to be even more careful with what you are breeding because of that.  A purebred dachshund is much more likely to have back issues (1 out of every 4) than a dachshund mix.

It is true that almost all designer dog breeders are in it for nothing other than the money, but the same can be said about purebreds.

jenns

I guess my point is that most of the arguments against designer dogs can also be made against purebreds.  All dog breeds were created for the benefit of humans, as you just stated.  I dont' see the difference in a dog bred to guard livestock or bred to make money for someone.  Neither purpose is of benefit to the dog, but is beneficial to the human.  Breeding a dog that is great at guarding sheep does not make the dog healthier or live longer.  In my opinion, the less extreme a dogs traits are, and the more natural looking, the healthier the dog is.  The shape that made dachshunds adept at going after badgers in their tunnels gave the dogs back problems.  The large size of giant breeds, which made them imposing as guard dogs, gives them a short lifespan.  So what I'm saying, is that you don't have to just breed for appearance to end up with issues.  Any pairing of dogs can result in health problems - in both purebreds and mixed breeds.   In fact, small gene pools are more likely to results in health problems than large gene pools.  I think with purebreds you have to be even more careful with what you are breeding because of that.  A purebred dachshund is much more likely to have back issues (1 out of every 4) than a dachshund mix.

It is true that almost all designer dog breeders are in it for nothing other than the money, but the same can be said about purebreds.

No doubt, all these dogs carried the same blood line originating form Mastiff type:  All bred at some point to meet the need of the people of the Roman times and forward.

Greater Swiss Mountain Dogs, St. Bernard's, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Newfoundlands, Rottweiler, Samoyed and Great Prymese..  All have the same blood lines...   See what our designer dogs of ancient history brought forth.  They molded and breed to serve the necessary purpose of that time.  Now they breed to meet high demand on looks... and cuteness..

I am in not in any way saying that breeding designer dogs is a good thing, just pointing out that all our "pure" breed dogs were mutts aka: "designer" dogs at one time.

jenns

I have heard of labroodles being used as guide dogs and therapy dogs. 

I'm not trying to get in an argument or be a smart aleck, but why can't a regular lab or a regular poodle do that? Or a mix from the shelter? IMO, there is no reason to "create" a new breed for a job that another breed of dog can do just fine.

RidgebackGermansShep

jenns

I have heard of labroodles being used as guide dogs and therapy dogs. 

I'm not trying to get in an argument or be a smart aleck, but why can't a regular lab or a regular poodle do that? Or a mix from the shelter? IMO, there is no reason to "create" a new breed for a job that another breed of dog can do just fine.

That being said, I do not agree with the breeding of -any- dog if they aren't genetically health tested, temperment tested, conformationally sound and have at least one kind of title (and that goes for Toy breeds). I was hard headed, and lost 2 dogs due to the ignorance of others, so my opinion is probably going to be a tad bit different than others.

But with this breeder, it sounds as if she did this on purpose as to irratate others. And by e-mailing her nasty e-mails or trying to "educate", I feel that fuel is being added to the fire. -shrugs- But those breeders do irratate me to no end, and as long as dumb Mary is willing to spend $1K+ for a mutt, then we will never see the end of that. I mean, seriously though, there are over 400 different dog breeds in the world, I don't understand the point in breeding mutts.

AgileGSD

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

jenns

Also, every purebred started out as a designer dog at some point. 

This is just untrue. Most of the breeds out there were bred for a working purpose that helped humans -- hunting, guarding, tending livestock, moving livestock, etc. Dogs were bred for their abilities not their appearance. Breeding for appearance is a fairly recent idea, and we've seen the devastating effect its had. I will not go further down that road since it's OT, but I think my point is clear.

My main objection to these designer dogs is why introduce major health risks intentionally?

I wouldn't say that all breeds were "designer dogs" (a term I really can hardly stand LOL). Many breeds did start off as mixes and some were landraces. There are a lot of breeds which were developed just for their appearance. Most of the Toys were bred to be cute lap dogs and some of them are quite old breeds. Many breeds today, even former working breeds are bred just for appearance and just to be companions.

  I'm not sure that Doodles are any more prone to health problems than purebred Labs or Poodles (which are prone to many of the same issues). FWIW I haven't seen mixes which inherited extreme structural traits. For example, Puggles have short muzzles but not flat muzzles. Shih Tzu mixes (unless mixed with a similar breed) have more length of muzzle and smaller eyes. This is actually true in many cases with BYB purebreds as well, unless the trait is very widely spread throughout the breed. My neighbor has a BYB Peke that has a short muzzle instead of a flat face (more like a Cavalier muzzle, much more attractive IMO). The look of show GSDs starts to disappear within one generation if breeders don't select for it. Nature tends to push towards moderation, so extreme features are lost if not actively bred for.

 

If you aren't sure that Doodles are any more prone than their purebred counterparts, then why would you condone breeding two disease prone breeds with untested parents??? At least testing gives some indication as to a dog's propensity for genetic mishaps.  Not testing seems very irresponsible, despite its inadequacies to predict all problems.

IMO, the show look of GSD's should disappear.  It simply isn't functional.  The European dogs are so much more sound, it's a wonder the slope has hope of remaining at all...I guess some people are just more interested in what the dogs can do for them, than the responsibility they have to try to insure the dogs' optimal health.   JMHO

spiritdogs

If you aren't sure that Doodles are any more prone than their purebred counterparts, then why would you condone breeding two disease prone breeds with untested parents??? At least testing gives some indication as to a dog's propensity for genetic mishaps.  Not testing seems very irresponsible, despite its inadequacies to predict all problems.

 Where do I condone that?

spiritdogs

IMO, the show look of GSD's should disappear.  It simply isn't functional.  The European dogs are so much more sound, it's a wonder the slope has hope of remaining at all...I guess some people are just more interested in what the dogs can do for them, than the responsibility they have to try to insure the dogs' optimal health.   JMHO

 There are many other extremes with show bred dogs of different breeds. The excessive rear angulation is getting to be more and more common in many breeds. Show dogs are often bigger, smaller, hairier, shorter muzzles, longer muzzled depending on the breed. I think breeding for the show ring actually encourages selecting for such extremes, although I'm not against it (and actually show my dogs).

 As for Doodles as service dogs, CCI breeds Lab/Golden crosses for service dogs and has for years. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_/ai_n14588327

This site has info on Doodles being used as service dogs by many different organizations:

http://www.goldendoodles.com/workingdoods.htm