The "doodle" craze

sillysally

spiritdogs

grab01

if the breeder is testing, that's great. I couldn't find any of the dogs listed as being OFA certified on the OFA database, though.  I looked, as they listed one dog as "hips: good/excellent", which didn't make much sense.  Maybe they listed their dogs' names wrong, though.

 

I also didn't see any titles or even a CGC on any of the parent dogs.  Granted, they can't title in the breed ring, but what about agility, or rally? 

 

Honestly, titles don't tell a puppy buyer much other than what the breeder is into.  If you are looking for a dog for a specific sport, then yes, this is important.  However, I fail to see how they say anything about, say, temperament (which is far more concerning to me than agility titles).

I have heard of and observed dogs with iffy temperaments competing successfully in different venues.  Even CGC, while it is a nice title to have, is really more about training than temperament.  All you can really get about temperment from a CGC is that the dog is not so timid that it cannot be touched by strangers in a resonable amount of time, and that it is well trined and managed.  Dogs with aggressive temperments can be well trained and managed.

On the other hand, Jack is pretty much everything a lab should be as far as temperament goes, yet we are having a hard time training him to sit and not move while a stranger pets him (strangers are just sooooo exciting, don't ya know).  We will get it, it's just a rough spot for us.  However, this does not say anything about his temperment itself. 

 

 

Actually, to me, it tells puppy buyers that the breeder is interested in training and behavior, and that some attempt has been made to "prove" that the breeding stock they use is fit for the buyer's intended use, be it pet or competitor.  Also, breeders who are involved in the dog sports, therapy dog work, or obedience, tend to hang around others with the same interests.  And, thus, they either learn something, or the rest of the dog community pegs them as idiots - and if buyers do their homework, they might begin to see a pattern of either respect or disdain for a particular breeder.  Not saying it always works that way, but I would rather have the option to investigate, which is not there if the person has not participated in any of those activities.  If a breeder does not bother to train the adult dogs beyond "sit", then I would be suspect of the breeder having sufficient knowledge of puppy development, and of being able to give my puppy a good head start while still in his or her care.  And, as someone who actually owns a dog that has a sharp temperament, I agree that you can get a CGC on such a dog - in fact, she has one.  And, she is very obedient and well trained.  I should think that, had she been left intact, that would have spoken to her "biddability" and to her working capabilities, whether she was pet material or not.  Her progenitors had working titles, which also spoke to those abilities, and she was purchased to work.  If someone tells me that their dogs make great pets, I think it's nice if they have a CGC or CD on the parents.  If they tell me that their dogs could do agility, then why not have the parents doing it??? I'm not singling out Doodle breeders either.  I would not purchase a puppy from anyone who just wants to sell me a pet - if they can't offer me any more evidence of the dog's suitability than a local shelter can, I'd rather support the shelter and adopt a dog.

I know it must seem like I've got the 'us or them' attitude, but to be perfectly honest - I HAVE a 'designer dog". Taz's cross just didn't catch on like the "Poo" did. We bought TAz as a "Shih-Pom" or "Pom-Tzu". We did not pay an outragious ammount thou....actualy, we paid $100 and a western saddle that the women could use as she had horses too. I have nothing against the breeders or buyers.

I just wish breeders would do health testing, and temperment testing.

I started this whole thread because I think these crosses are just getting out of hand....I mean....a Berne-Poo?!?!?!

Honestly, titles don't tell a puppy buyer much other than what the breeder is into.  If you are looking for a dog for a specific sport, then yes, this is important.  However, I fail to see how they say anything about, say, temperament (which is far more concerning to me than agility titles).

I have heard of and observed dogs with iffy temperaments competing successfully in different venues.  Even CGC, while it is a nice title to have, is really more about training than temperament.  All you can really get about temperment from a CGC is that the dog is not so timid that it cannot be touched by strangers in a resonable amount of time, and that it is well trined and managed.  Dogs with aggressive temperments can be well trained and managed.

On the other hand, Jack is pretty much everything a lab should be as far as temperament goes, yet we are having a hard time training him to sit and not move while a stranger pets him (strangers are just sooooo exciting, don't ya know).  We will get it, it's just a rough spot for us.  However, this does not say anything about his temperment itself. 

 

 

 

Actually, to me, it tells puppy buyers that the breeder is interested in training and behavior, and that some attempt has been made to "prove" that the breeding stock they use is fit for the buyer's intended use, be it pet or competitor.  Also, breeders who are involved in the dog sports, therapy dog work, or obedience, tend to hang around others with the same interests.  And, thus, they either learn something, or the rest of the dog community pegs them as idiots - and if buyers do their homework, they might begin to see a pattern of either respect or disdain for a particular breeder.  Not saying it always works that way, but I would rather have the option to investigate, which is not there if the person has not participated in any of those activities.  If a breeder does not bother to train the adult dogs beyond "sit", then I would be suspect of the breeder having sufficient knowledge of puppy development, and of being able to give my puppy a good head start while still in his or her care.  And, as someone who actually owns a dog that has a sharp temperament, I agree that you can get a CGC on such a dog - in fact, she has one.  And, she is very obedient and well trained.  I should think that, had she been left intact, that would have spoken to her "biddability" and to her working capabilities, whether she was pet material or not.  Her progenitors had working titles, which also spoke to those abilities, and she was purchased to work.  If someone tells me that their dogs make great pets, I think it's nice if they have a CGC or CD on the parents.  If they tell me that their dogs could do agility, then why not have the parents doing it??? I'm not singling out Doodle breeders either.  I would not purchase a puppy from anyone who just wants to sell me a pet - if they can't offer me any more evidence of the dog's suitability than a local shelter can, I'd rather support the shelter and adopt a dog.

ditto. Also if the breeder isn't "doing stuff" with her/his dogs, you have to ask yourself why on earth are they breeding dogs? someone who is just breeding in order to sell puppies isn't someone you want to buy a puppy from. Most good breeders are trying to produce the perfect representative of their breed, and in order to test their efforts they need to be doing something. What titles are appropriate for a dog depend on the breed, and for some breeds, such as hunting dogs, I'd actually prefer to see a breeder who actually hunted the dogs rather than a string of non-hunting-related titles. 

So. Doodles. The intent is to produce a non-allergenic non-shedding representative of another breed, I think. So a labradoodle should come from a lab who has field titles and/or is actually hunted, has health tests, has passed a temperament test (ATTS), and bonuses would be conformation, obedience, dock diving, agility titles. The poodle parent also should have titles, passed an ATTS, health certificates. The pup should be tested in some way for being non-shedding and non-allergenic before being sold as an excellent example of the "breed". I suspect you could search the world over and not find such a paragon of a doodle breeder...

mudpuppy

So. Doodles. The intent is to produce a non-allergenic non-shedding representative of another breed, I think. So a labradoodle should come from a lab who has field titles and/or is actually hunted, has health tests, has passed a temperament test (ATTS), and bonuses would be conformation, obedience, dock diving, agility titles. The poodle parent also should have titles, passed an ATTS, health certificates. The pup should be tested in some way for being non-shedding and non-allergenic before being sold as an excellent example of the "breed". I suspect you could search the world over and not find such a paragon of a doodle breeder...

 

Yep, this is what I wanted in a labradoodle but it didn't take long to figure out that wasn't happening.  If there are any of these paragons reading please feel free to contact me.

mudpuppy

Honestly, titles don't tell a puppy buyer much other than what the breeder is into.  If you are looking for a dog for a specific sport, then yes, this is important.  However, I fail to see how they say anything about, say, temperament (which is far more concerning to me than agility titles).

I have heard of and observed dogs with iffy temperaments competing successfully in different venues.  Even CGC, while it is a nice title to have, is really more about training than temperament.  All you can really get about temperment from a CGC is that the dog is not so timid that it cannot be touched by strangers in a resonable amount of time, and that it is well trined and managed.  Dogs with aggressive temperments can be well trained and managed.

On the other hand, Jack is pretty much everything a lab should be as far as temperament goes, yet we are having a hard time training him to sit and not move while a stranger pets him (strangers are just sooooo exciting, don't ya know).  We will get it, it's just a rough spot for us.  However, this does not say anything about his temperment itself. 

 

 

 

Actually, to me, it tells puppy buyers that the breeder is interested in training and behavior, and that some attempt has been made to "prove" that the breeding stock they use is fit for the buyer's intended use, be it pet or competitor.  Also, breeders who are involved in the dog sports, therapy dog work, or obedience, tend to hang around others with the same interests.  And, thus, they either learn something, or the rest of the dog community pegs them as idiots - and if buyers do their homework, they might begin to see a pattern of either respect or disdain for a particular breeder.  Not saying it always works that way, but I would rather have the option to investigate, which is not there if the person has not participated in any of those activities.  If a breeder does not bother to train the adult dogs beyond "sit", then I would be suspect of the breeder having sufficient knowledge of puppy development, and of being able to give my puppy a good head start while still in his or her care.  And, as someone who actually owns a dog that has a sharp temperament, I agree that you can get a CGC on such a dog - in fact, she has one.  And, she is very obedient and well trained.  I should think that, had she been left intact, that would have spoken to her "biddability" and to her working capabilities, whether she was pet material or not.  Her progenitors had working titles, which also spoke to those abilities, and she was purchased to work.  If someone tells me that their dogs make great pets, I think it's nice if they have a CGC or CD on the parents.  If they tell me that their dogs could do agility, then why not have the parents doing it??? I'm not singling out Doodle breeders either.  I would not purchase a puppy from anyone who just wants to sell me a pet - if they can't offer me any more evidence of the dog's suitability than a local shelter can, I'd rather support the shelter and adopt a dog.

ditto. Also if the breeder isn't "doing stuff" with her/his dogs, you have to ask yourself why on earth are they breeding dogs? someone who is just breeding in order to sell puppies isn't someone you want to buy a puppy from. Most good breeders are trying to produce the perfect representative of their breed, and in order to test their efforts they need to be doing something. What titles are appropriate for a dog depend on the breed, and for some breeds, such as hunting dogs, I'd actually prefer to see a breeder who actually hunted the dogs rather than a string of non-hunting-related titles. 

So. Doodles. The intent is to produce a non-allergenic non-shedding representative of another breed, I think. So a labradoodle should come from a lab who has field titles and/or is actually hunted, has health tests, has passed a temperament test (ATTS), and bonuses would be conformation, obedience, dock diving, agility titles. The poodle parent also should have titles, passed an ATTS, health certificates. The pup should be tested in some way for being non-shedding and non-allergenic before being sold as an excellent example of the "breed". I suspect you could search the world over and not find such a paragon of a doodle breeder...

 

 

Ditto above about why on earth are they breeding dogs, when they have no dog interests other than breeding. I'd say that titles say more than just what the owner is into. They say that the owner has some smarts, when it comes to dogs, and then, for instance, they are better qualified to judge a dog's tempermant than the person that has no more of an interest in dogs than to breed them. I'd say they are probably also better qualified to have answers in helping the new dog owner with any training problems they may have. After all, it is not all about breeding only, dogs do need to be taught manners to keep them out of trouble and in their forever home. I agree with you mudpuppy, what is the difference between someone being a good breeder and breeding mixes than a good breeder of purebreds. There are lots of bad breeders out there breeding purebreds, that is for sure, and very little what I'd call responsible breeders, though there are some. I only say that because I've personally met some... I am very involved in the dog world. At this point in time, I've yet to meet a responsible breeder of mixes. And I've done an awful lot of internet searching on the subject, as well. I like to keep myself updated on the subject, for one reason, to know what is being sold out there, as it helps when we rescue a dog, in trying to figure out what the breeds are. At least when you have an idea, of what is being bred, you have something to start with as a possibility of what the crosses might be. We can never be sure of the mixes, but it helps out and if we can have an idea of what they are, we have a better idea in matching them to their prospective adopter. These mixes always seem to go for some pretty unrealistic prices, when it appears that the breeder knows no more about dogs than how to put a male with a female. I'm sorry for any sarcasm that I may be coming across with, but it is very disturbing when you see the hundreds and hundreds of dogs that do not get a home and then you see people making bucks off of something, mainly only because they've put a name to it. But I do not only have bad feelings towards them, I also have bad feelings towards the thousands of back yard breeders of purebreds as well. But why waste time arguing to try and say it is the right of these people to breed their mixes, just as it is the right of some that breed purebreds. We have more than enough people breeding different breeds of dogs, as it is, and why add more "breeds" to the equation.

 I agree, about the titles sometimes not being as helpful as they may seem. Emma has a CGC and three rally titles. If I can get her meds straightened out, she'll get her RAE and CD (but no CDX or UD because of the out of sight stays....). She is not even close to being a temperament any decent breeder would pass on. Naturally, she's snarky, at best. With loads and loads of training, I trust her not to start stuff with dogs, but she'll certainly finish anything that's started. I trust her not to be aggressive with people, but she's still defensive as all heck. She's totally fantastic in everyday situations, but if she's pushed, she's trouble.

 

Of course, if the breeder's dogs can't get titles somewhere.... why ARE they breeding?

 I think that a poor temperament (or a good one) is more apparent in dogs that are "pushed" by being taken to sporting events - like agility etc - having to perform to a high level, and to have to do so around lots of other people and dogs and things going on... this is just more challenging than having to sleep in a basket in front of the fire.  I know that many of the buyers won't be demanding more of their dog than this, but I think breeders should be going the extra mile as far as temperament goes, not just "settling", if that makes sense.  I think drives and energy level are also more apparent.  Surely this is important to a breeder who is breeding for these things?  Or are they ignorant of all this.... or worse, just breeding for looks?  Bleurgh.

Physically, most title-rewarding events are a poor indication of soundness, and they are not the best test of temperamental soundness for most dogs, either. But for sure participation in sporting events is far and away better than the lack thereof. In addition to what it tells you about the dogs themselves, it tells you a lot about the breeder. I've talked to a lot of back yard breeders and the things that I hear make up a lot of big talk with no knowledge or certainly behind it. They talk about producing good dogs for families when their dogs have never been outside their own homes or even kennels. They talk about producing dogs that are appropriate for the various functions of those dogs, when they've never even participated in, or seen those functions performed, themselves. I had a friend who told me that she didn't think someone should even think about breeding, until they'd trained a dog from puppyhood to the highest level of what the dog was meant for, all themselves. I respected her saying that but never truly understood it until I started doing a lot of training myself. I still haven't trained a dog up to the highest level in herding but I'm now far enough along to have a feel for all that I don't know. And it's in the later stages of training that breeding truly shows.

brookcove

Physically, most title-rewarding events are a poor indication of soundness, and they are not the best test of temperamental soundness for most dogs, either. But for sure participation in sporting events is far and away better than the lack thereof. In addition to what it tells you about the dogs themselves, it tells you a lot about the breeder. I've talked to a lot of back yard breeders and the things that I hear make up a lot of big talk with no knowledge or certainly behind it. They talk about producing good dogs for families when their dogs have never been outside their own homes or even kennels. They talk about producing dogs that are appropriate for the various functions of those dogs, when they've never even participated in, or seen those functions performed, themselves. I had a friend who told me that she didn't think someone should even think about breeding, until they'd trained a dog from puppyhood to the highest level of what the dog was meant for, all themselves. I respected her saying that but never truly understood it until I started doing a lot of training myself. I still haven't trained a dog up to the highest level in herding but I'm now far enough along to have a feel for all that I don't know. And it's in the later stages of training that breeding truly shows.

 

But things like titles indicating temperament are only useful to the breeder.  Unless I go watch every single event the parent dogs participate in, I am just taking the breeders word for it.  There is a male lab with a very well known handler that has been witnessed trying to attack other dogs at confo shows.  This dog has been finished and therefore has a title.  He has also been bred.  How helpful is that title to puppy buyers?  All it says is the majority of the time, his handler kept him under wraps and he was not penalized for his behavior.  Mean while, title be darned, this dog was displaying a temperament flaw that is *very* serious in labs.

The titles may tell the breeder about the dog's temperment, but this is only useful for the buyer if the breeder cares enough about temperament to not breed a dog who has displayed improper temperment for the breed during his titling.

The titles may tell the breeder about the dog's temperment, but this is only useful for the buyer if the breeder cares enough about temperament to not breed a dog who has displayed improper temperment for the breed during his titling

which is why it's so important to choose your breeder very carefully. And really, to me, a conformation title only is a big turn-off to me, I think one finds the most unethical breeders and unhealthy dogs in the show rings, you're better off with BYB in many cases. Nor is a CGC proof of anything to me- I'm sure some people are proud of having a CGC but, um, it's kind of easy to get.

nymaureen

mudpuppy

Honestly, titles don't tell a puppy buyer much other than what the breeder is into.  If you are looking for a dog for a specific sport, then yes, this is important.  However, I fail to see how they say anything about, say, temperament (which is far more concerning to me than agility titles).

I have heard of and observed dogs with iffy temperaments competing successfully in different venues.  Even CGC, while it is a nice title to have, is really more about training than temperament.  All you can really get about temperment from a CGC is that the dog is not so timid that it cannot be touched by strangers in a resonable amount of time, and that it is well trined and managed.  Dogs with aggressive temperments can be well trained and managed.

On the other hand, Jack is pretty much everything a lab should be as far as temperament goes, yet we are having a hard time training him to sit and not move while a stranger pets him (strangers are just sooooo exciting, don't ya know).  We will get it, it's just a rough spot for us.  However, this does not say anything about his temperment itself. 

 

 

 

Actually, to me, it tells puppy buyers that the breeder is interested in training and behavior, and that some attempt has been made to "prove" that the breeding stock they use is fit for the buyer's intended use, be it pet or competitor.  Also, breeders who are involved in the dog sports, therapy dog work, or obedience, tend to hang around others with the same interests.  And, thus, they either learn something, or the rest of the dog community pegs them as idiots - and if buyers do their homework, they might begin to see a pattern of either respect or disdain for a particular breeder.  Not saying it always works that way, but I would rather have the option to investigate, which is not there if the person has not participated in any of those activities.  If a breeder does not bother to train the adult dogs beyond "sit", then I would be suspect of the breeder having sufficient knowledge of puppy development, and of being able to give my puppy a good head start while still in his or her care.  And, as someone who actually owns a dog that has a sharp temperament, I agree that you can get a CGC on such a dog - in fact, she has one.  And, she is very obedient and well trained.  I should think that, had she been left intact, that would have spoken to her "biddability" and to her working capabilities, whether she was pet material or not.  Her progenitors had working titles, which also spoke to those abilities, and she was purchased to work.  If someone tells me that their dogs make great pets, I think it's nice if they have a CGC or CD on the parents.  If they tell me that their dogs could do agility, then why not have the parents doing it??? I'm not singling out Doodle breeders either.  I would not purchase a puppy from anyone who just wants to sell me a pet - if they can't offer me any more evidence of the dog's suitability than a local shelter can, I'd rather support the shelter and adopt a dog.

ditto. Also if the breeder isn't "doing stuff" with her/his dogs, you have to ask yourself why on earth are they breeding dogs? someone who is just breeding in order to sell puppies isn't someone you want to buy a puppy from. Most good breeders are trying to produce the perfect representative of their breed, and in order to test their efforts they need to be doing something. What titles are appropriate for a dog depend on the breed, and for some breeds, such as hunting dogs, I'd actually prefer to see a breeder who actually hunted the dogs rather than a string of non-hunting-related titles. 

So. Doodles. The intent is to produce a non-allergenic non-shedding representative of another breed, I think. So a labradoodle should come from a lab who has field titles and/or is actually hunted, has health tests, has passed a temperament test (ATTS), and bonuses would be conformation, obedience, dock diving, agility titles. The poodle parent also should have titles, passed an ATTS, health certificates. The pup should be tested in some way for being non-shedding and non-allergenic before being sold as an excellent example of the "breed". I suspect you could search the world over and not find such a paragon of a doodle breeder...

 

 

Ditto above about why on earth are they breeding dogs, when they have no dog interests other than breeding. I'd say that titles say more than just what the owner is into. They say that the owner has some smarts, when it comes to dogs, and then, for instance, they are better qualified to judge a dog's tempermant than the person that has no more of an interest in dogs than to breed them. I'd say they are probably also better qualified to have answers in helping the new dog owner with any training problems they may have. After all, it is not all about breeding only, dogs do need to be taught manners to keep them out of trouble and in their forever home. I agree with you mudpuppy, what is the difference between someone being a good breeder and breeding mixes than a good breeder of purebreds. There are lots of bad breeders out there breeding purebreds, that is for sure, and very little what I'd call responsible breeders, though there are some. I only say that because I've personally met some... I am very involved in the dog world. At this point in time, I've yet to meet a responsible breeder of mixes. And I've done an awful lot of internet searching on the subject, as well. I like to keep myself updated on the subject, for one reason, to know what is being sold out there, as it helps when we rescue a dog, in trying to figure out what the breeds are. At least when you have an idea, of what is being bred, you have something to start with as a possibility of what the crosses might be. We can never be sure of the mixes, but it helps out and if we can have an idea of what they are, we have a better idea in matching them to their prospective adopter. These mixes always seem to go for some pretty unrealistic prices, when it appears that the breeder knows no more about dogs than how to put a male with a female. I'm sorry for any sarcasm that I may be coming across with, but it is very disturbing when you see the hundreds and hundreds of dogs that do not get a home and then you see people making bucks off of something, mainly only because they've put a name to it. But I do not only have bad feelings towards them, I also have bad feelings towards the thousands of back yard breeders of purebreds as well. But why waste time arguing to try and say it is the right of these people to breed their mixes, just as it is the right of some that breed purebreds. We have more than enough people breeding different breeds of dogs, as it is, and why add more "breeds" to the equation.

 

I'm not saying that titling is not a good thing.  It is likely that the next pup we get will be from parents that have been titled in some way just because of what type of lab I'm interested in having.  However, if both parents are not titled, it is not going to be a deal breaker for me, and does not make my personal "Top 3" for what I want in a breeder (temperament. health, care of breeders dogs/conditions in which they are kept).

My issue with singling out "hybrids" is that it helps no one.  I'm sure that there are people who have lurked on here with mixed dogs that they paid lots of money for who have decided not to join because of the self righteous attitude displayed by some of the members on here specifically towards these mixes.  Too many people in the dog world as a whole have a "shun the non-believer" attitude towards doodles and their owners and breeders, which appears to have been utterly fruitless up to this point considering the number of "hybrids" being bred out there.  You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

"But why waste time arguing to try and say it is the right of these people to breed their mixes, just as it is the right of some that breed purebreds. We have more than enough people breeding different breeds of dogs, as it is, and why add more "breeds" to the equation."

I don't know, because maybe poor breeding practices are something that needs to be addressed with ALL dogs being bred today?  There are show breeders who breed dogs that they *know* have health problems just because they have titles.  Is that *really* any better than someone breeding doodles who does not health test?  There are people who title their dogs who *know* said dogs have temperament issues and still breed those dogs.  Is that worse than a doodle breeder that doesn't understand that the lab she has mothering her litter is more shy than is proper for a lab?  I cannot sit here and good conscious and scream about how "hybrids" have poor health when I can go on my lab board and watch a parade of dogs with health issues--everything from ortho to allergies, or for that matter can go back into my room and be greeted by a very sweet lab who very sadly has elbow dysplaia (who I did not get from a BYB mind you).  Irresponsible breeding needs to be addressed as a whole.  The laundry list of health issues seen in purebred dogs are not less of an abomination than those of "hybrid" dogs. 

And I'm sorry, but who died and gave anyone in the dog world the right to decide that we now, in 2008, have enough dog breeds and no more should be developed?  The "hybrid" thing does not appear to be going away anytime soon, so why not educate those who really, really want a hybrid on what what to look for in a good breeder.  Why not encourage those who do breed doodles (who are likely going to do it anyway) and the like to do the proper health tests and get into some sort of titling with their dogs?  Why not reward steps being taken by some doodle breeders and owners to do it right rather than treating the entire lot like outcasts?  Wouldn't that be better for the dogs that they are bringing into the world? 

 

 

 

sillysally

And I'm sorry, but who died and gave anyone in the dog world the right to decide that we now, in 2008, have enough dog breeds and no more should be developed? 

 

I'd say the shelter dogs...?

They might be reason this is being said now, in 2000whatever (because this has been going on far longer than 2008)...that enough is enough, and that what breeds we have now...have issues...and we should perhaps work on those issues, instead of spreading them around into different "new" breeds, along with exacerbating the issue of unwanted pets?

My issue with singling out "hybrids" is that it helps no one.  I'm sure that there are people who have lurked on here with mixed dogs that they paid lots of money for who have decided not to join because of the self righteous attitude displayed by some of the members on here specifically towards these mixes.  Too many people in the dog world as a whole have a "shun the non-believer" attitude towards doodles and their owners and breeders, which appears to have been utterly fruitless up to this point considering the number of "hybrids" being bred out there.  You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

I agree with this. I also agree that purebreds have lots of health and temperamnet issues. I can no longer be convinced that mutts are the best way to go; but I also can't rationalize and approve of my getting a purebred when we have so many being put down because of the hybrid and purebred craze. My two disabled dogs need me and they are my best friends. That said, I am honestly frightened to death to ever bring home another dog after these two go. I mean it. If I get a purebred and he/she has issues, buyer be darned ("You didn't get him/her from a good breeder so you're the SOL";) and if I get a mutt it's the same thing. However, the doodles do seem to have more issues because breeding a poodle with the various other dogs out there (hello--a toy poodle with a large golden? Is that even natural?) just doesn't seem like a  good idea . . .

 

That said, here's the thing, the number one running thing, that I've noticed out there: It's always the buyer's/owner's fault, mainly for "not doing your homework." Too bad for you, owner. Now you're stuck with a "lemon" dog. I've had this from more vets and dog friends than I care to mention. And I got mine from the SHELTER. What else should I have done here? Hmm.

Now that makes me tired.

rwbeagles

sillysally

And I'm sorry, but who died and gave anyone in the dog world the right to decide that we now, in 2008, have enough dog breeds and no more should be developed? 

 

I'd say the shelter dogs...?

They might be reason this is being said now, in 2000whatever (because this has been going on far longer than 2008)...that enough is enough, and that what breeds we have now...have issues...and we should perhaps work on those issues, instead of spreading them around into different "new" breeds, along with exacerbating the issue of unwanted pets?

 

But wait, I thought that the overpopulation of dogs had nothing to do with breeding but rather irresponsible pet owners dumping their dogs?  isn't that the argument of choice against mandatory altering?       

Sorry, but I look at my shelters and I don't see hybrids.  I see pit bulls, labs, GSDs, beagles, herding dogs, hounds, boxers, chows, huskies, rots, JRTs, and mixes thereof--not doodles. 

I find it hypocritical for "dog people" to just decide that these dogs are not legitimate because most breeders are not being responsible when breeding them when the fact of the matter is that most breeders PERIOD are not responsible.  People in glass houses should not throw stones.

And tell me, has this attitude of "shunning" hybrid breeders and owners helped the situation?  This is a list os "hybrid" dogs from Dog Breed Info: http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hybriddogs.htm

I think it is fair to say that what the dog world is currently doing in regards to "hybrids" is falling slightly short of the mark, no?

 I'm not one who says the overpopulation of dogs is due only to irresponsible pet owners dumping their dogs. And that is not the only reason most, who I've met in the rescue world, feel either. The problem is due to irresponsible people, period. Where did people get these dogs in the first place....from irresponsible people who bred, or allowed their dog to breed, and the only concern they have when they sell their dogs, is that they make money. In the case of those that give their unwanted litter of pups away, pretty much any home means a good home. My personal feelings anyway, are that a good breeder pretty much isn't really too worried about a lot of these laws, as they really don't breed that often and spay/neuter laws, will therefore not effect them financially or otherwise. It is those who breed one litter after another, commercial or puppy mill people, that fight the fight and post all over the internet convincing people to fight the fight with them.

As far as people breeding mix breeds, how can someone be telling people what the pup is going to grow up to be, when you've bred one breed to another. One can not have a lot of knowledge about which parent..in other words, which breed, is passing on what to the puppies. Yes, one will say that the same is true with purebreds. However, common sense would say that is still not going to be the drastic difference you could get, when you are breeding completely different breeds to one another. I feel that people who buy these mix breeds are horribly being taken advantage of. As far as not many out there in rescue, well I guess I see differently. Check on petfinder.com and do a breed search and put poodle in as your breed. I see lots of poodle mixes. And, as Dog Breed info shows, the list of "hybrid" mixes is way more than just poodles. The list of hybrid dogs on Dog Breed info is saddening to me. That is why we keep up trying to educate people not to support these breeders. People are breeding just about anything and putting a name to it and then asking mega dollars.

And a word of advice for someone shopping to buy a puppy. Whether it be a breeder of purebreds or mixes, as one of my vets has suggested we tell people when they are acquiring a dog...ask the breeder for a vet reference.