# What is the deal with bernedoodles?



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

So, this picture popped up on pintrest today, titled as a "bernedoodle", which I'm assuming is a Bernese Mountain Dog/Poodle cross. Why do people keep breeding poodles with things and tacking "doodle" on as a name? I mean, sure, they're cute as heck when they're puppies but is there any other reason? Are people actually trying to create new breeds (aside from the labradoodle which was created for a specific purpose, even if its not really a breed yet).

Where does it end!?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Just looked at that group. This picture is by far my favorite....









The Bernedoodle thing is a little weird. Maybe they were creating smarter Bernese? The one we had was a sweet lug, but he was rather dim... Or more likely the name was cute and Bernese are popular now, so why not doodle it.


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

because people will pay big money for a 'doodle.

I have met a ton of them, they are pretty popular, as with all doodles around here. these dogs have a groomers nightmare of a coat. not to mention cost a ton to groom and take for ever to groom lol.


----------



## Wendy523 (Sep 16, 2012)

I don't know what the deal is, but my goodness are they cute puppies!


----------



## Abbylynn (Jul 7, 2011)

"Job Security" for the groomers? Just Kidding!!!! The ones I have are a nightmare to groom .... but I do enjoy it and do it myself. If it were my profession as a groomer I would be frustrated at times I imagine.

I have no idea what that is all about. I am on my third "Doodle" right now. All I can say is that with the Schnauzer/Poodles so far .... they have the smarts of both breeds and have a prey drive that I as an individual like. To me ... they are smart hunters plus.  They don't have to be little fluffy lap dogs .... but I use them for mousers/ratters to keep the varmints out of my house. The fluffy lap side of this dog is just a plus ... for me.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I don't have a problem with people breeding "doodles" or other mixes as long as they're being responsible about it -- they should be carefully choosing their breeds and specific breeding dogs to maximize the health and longevity of the resulting pups. Are "bernedoodles" likely to develop the cancer that is rampant in Bernese Mountain Dogs? If so, I don't see this as a good mix at all. If the cancer risk is lessened, then I have no more concerns with this mix than I do with goldendoodles or the like.

I Googled "bernedoodle health" and found this site, which recommends certain important health tests... they do mention cancer as a concern, but don't say whether or not the risk in the mix is comparable to the risk in pure BMDs.

(Another page asks, "Do you love the bernese breed but can't stand the shedding? Well this new mix will be perfect for you!" I hate that kind of dishonest marketing -- they can't possibly guarantee that all pups will be non-shedding.)


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

I am not a fan of Doodles, but just because I don't like the bearded curly coat. Most I've met have had great personalities. I breeder of Cockers I know (25 years) that I thought would ALWAYS breed just Cockers has just started breeding Schnauzer/Poodles to my surprise.

I have not ever met a Schnauzer to understand the merits of this cross. The coats of the mix would still have to be wire (bearded/bearded and short dominant to long on the alleles that predict this) like the Schnauzers, so the reason for the cross would have to be down to temperament.

The Schnauzer breed is on my radar mostly because it possibly has an a'p' allele - one not found on the agouti locus in most other breeds. I'm gonna be watching her litter photos closely.

Are Poodles more biddable than Schnauzers? Less feisty?

With regard to Bernedoodles I met one at the dog park two weeks ago. He was a fine dog, well trained and well loved and the owners said the breeder did hips (I get nosy like that). He was two years old. He came from a breeder I have spoken to about 60 miles from me, and she is a caring person who has clean facilities. She has large runs and socializes her pups and does some testing . . . however she breeds too many dogs *for my liking* and places her adults as she runs her breeding program as a business. She is better than MANY of the commercially oriented breeders I've met (pure and mixed). The owners of the Bernedoodle said his coat WAS a pain to keep up with but they wanted less shedding. I like the Bernese better myself . . . again down to coat. 

SOB


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Poodles are more biddable and less fiesty.

To be honest, I think most doodle lovers (not including Abbylynn or anyone specifically) actually like poodles. Poodles are fantastic dogs with many qualities to like, but they have that reputation. They're floofy nondogs fit only to be dressed up funny. So people think they don't like poodles. Doodles, on the other hand, are a hot commodity right now, so people get their poodle fix without the stigma attached to poodles.

It really pisses me off, actually. I feel like shouting "Hello! You like poodles, get over it!"


----------



## TorachiKatashi (Sep 29, 2010)

As long as there are stupid people, there will be scam artists ready and waiting to take their money.

The only "responsible" way to breed a mixed litter is to not do it at all. Referring to such people as breeders is an insult to real breeders.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I used to feel that way, but now I believe it's not so black and white. I know of a couple of show breeders from Maritime Canada who wanted to breed a mix of their two breeds for sports purposes. They lined up a bunch of buyers, and then they bred their titled, health-tested show dogs together to produce a litter. Is that irresponsible? They checked a lot of the boxes I look for... they showed the dogs, they knew the dogs were healthy and free of genetic disease, they bred for a purpose, and they had buyers lined up (I don't know for sure, but I would assume they made buyers sign the same type of return contract they'd sign for a purebred from either breeder).

I didn't object to the above. So then I had to think: What if someone is breeding mixes as pets, but they're running all proper health tests on the parents, lining up buyers in advance, providing a health guarantee and requiring the puppies back if the new owner can no longer keep them, etc... all of the things I look for in a breeder of purebreds. I can't really condemn them.

I do believe that responsible mixed-breed breeders are rare... but I think they can exist.


----------



## savvy (Nov 6, 2012)

Designer dogs were originally from Puppy mills, they keep all purebreds and when there was an accidental litter it was a litter of halfbreeds, so they started putting strange names on them so they were easier to sell and could make some profit. There are also 'clubs' that were created so people could have a piece of paper to wave around, which is pretty pathetic IMO.

IMO pets shouldn't be bred until we can get the dog over population under control, there are so many good pets in shelters!

But besides that you cannot breed a high quality Labradoodle, Chiweenie, havapoo or any of those because like any other mutt they can be prone to any health defect, so genetic screening is pointless. If someone wants to buy a dog with no health guarantees and is not a purebred they can simply adopt!

The ONLY way to breed a quality mutt is to breed for working dogs, there are many AMAZING working dog breeders that breed mutts solely for the purpose of their job, this doesn't change the fact that you cannot do genetic screening but when they do their job better than any other purebred can it is worth it!


----------



## savvy (Nov 6, 2012)

TorachiKatashi said:


> As long as there are stupid people, there will be scam artists ready and waiting to take their money.
> 
> The only "responsible" way to breed a mixed litter is to not do it at all. Referring to such people as breeders is an insult to real breeders.


Well said!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

savvy said:


> IMO pets shouldn't be bred until we can get the dog over population under control, there are so many good pets in shelters!


Read this; it's very interesting. It explains how dog overpopulation is actually a myth.



> But besides that you cannot breed a high quality Labradoodle, Chiweenie, havapoo or any of those because like any other mutt they can be prone to any health defect, so genetic screening is pointless.


Well... no. Mutts are not prone to any genetic defect that exists just because they're mutts. They can inherit issues that either of the parent breeds carries, so if you screen the parent breeds and make sure they're not passing anything bad along, then mixes would have just as high of a chance of being healthy as purebred pups from either parent.

(They could actually be healthier if you're talking about a disease where both parents would have to carry the gene for the pups to develop it. If the gene only existed in one of the two breeds, the pups wouldn't develop that particular issue.)


----------



## Max and Me (Aug 19, 2011)

If people will buy it then someone will breed it.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

savvy said:


> Designer dogs were originally from Puppy mills, they keep all purebreds and when there was an accidental litter it was a litter of halfbreeds, so they started putting strange names on them so they were easier to sell and could make some profit. . .


Nice fairytale story you have going there.

Cockapoos were an original designer breed that I've known for over 40 years. I've known many and I've known the occasional breeders. They were not puppymill breeders.

There ARE many substandard commercial breeders of designer dogs.

There ARE many substandard commercial breeders of purebred dogs. These dogs OFTEN have strange names so that they are easier to sell and their 'pedigree' attraction draws great prices and profits.

Claiming there is a difference in the manner these two groups are marketted and the aims of the majority who breed them is INANE.

The Bernedoodle breeder I was referring to is not a puppymill breeder anymore than the top affix breeders in Cavalier King Charles that I know of are. She breeds less dogs, with less risk. I still wouldn't support her because as a PERSONAL decision I choose to support breeders who have tiny programs and don't rehome their dogs. THAT is because I fostered a couple TOO MANY mill release mommas.

So your blanket generalizations here are a bunch of B.S. 



savvy said:


> IMO pets shouldn't be bred until we can get the dog over population under control, there are so many good pets in shelters!


There is no dog overpopulation problem.

We do have a SHELTER KILLING PROBLEM.

That is NOT down to overpopulation. There are many times more homes looking for a dog EVERY DAY than there are dogs in our shelters.

If I have 500 dogs and decide I want to kill them instead of offering them for adoption, or offering them to rescues to help out, or being even the tiniest bit inventive in advertising . . . that is not about overpopulation . . . and THAT is what plays out day in and day out in MANY of our shelters. 

If I am a shelter director and killing and killing and killing because people continue to have oops litters, but don't care to try to educate my community about responsible pet ownership as 'well they are all idiots', then that KILLING that I am directing is MOSTLY on ME as MY JOB is to HELP animals . . . not just let it continue and name call and point my finger outwards.

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/201...tes-local-rescuer-seizes-dogs-by-court-order/_ - MAS killed all 6 dogs on October 12, 2012. They were never offered for adoption to my knowledge and no pleas were issued to the public or to rescue groups or fosters. Is this what the judge had in mind when the order to surrender dogs was issued to the rescuer? Does this represent an improvement in the quality of life for these dogs? Is this the best the city of Memphis can manage when called upon to help 6 pets in their $7.2 million facility? . . . How many more, Memphis?_

Please stop distracting from the real problem by blaming a mythical 'overpopulation' that can NEVER be resolved - hence those that promote such nonsense can keep reeling in the donations.

I believe YOU are being destructive to the cause of helping dog by continuing to promote THIS MYTH. It stops people who really care from targetting the REAL PROBLEM and helping to SAVE DOGS.

_. . . See, here's the thing. I believe I can make the case with data alone that "pet over-population" doesn't exist, let alone serve as a justification for anything, but that's irrelevant in this particular discussion. The reason? Because there's an intrinsic logical problem with the "shelter killing proves pet over-population" argument. 

To demonstrate that flaw of reasoning, I'm going to walk you through an example.

Take a hypothetical town that has 10,000 pets entering its shelter system each year, where, except for the 100 who are reclaimed by their owners, they all die because the "shelter" does not do adoptions, resulting in a save rate of 1 percent and a kill rate of 99 percent. 

Are those pets all dying because of "pet over-population," or because the shelter has no adoption program?

Say the shelter decides to try one day a month where it does adoptions, on Tuesdays from 11 AM - 2 PM. They manage in the first year to adopt out 100 pets. Their save rate is now 2 percent, with a 98 percent kill rate. 

Did they kill 100 fewer pets because of a reduction in "pet over-population," or because they started doing some adoptions?

Now, imagine the shelter decides to try to improve its pathetic 1 percent return-to-owner rate, and manages to increase it to 500 pets being reclaimed by their owners each year. They also participate in a regional adoption event four times a year, and do 400 more adoptions than the year before. Now they're saving 10 percent of their pets, and killing 90 percent.

Did they save 900 more pets because of a reduction in "pet over-population," or because they improved their adoption effort and return-to-owner program?

A few years pass, and they get a little better. They do adoptions every weekday afternoon until 5 PM, and their return-to-owner rate is stable at 10 percent. Since they're not killing all the pets after the mandatory holding period anymore, they're starting to lose some to illness, but overall, they're now saving 35 percent of those 10,000 animals.

Reduction in "pet over-population"? Or improvement in shelter management practices?

One day, they hire a new shelter director, who is a committed animal lover as well as a veterinarian. She implements a small shelter medicine program, starts vaccinating on intake, and recruits a few friends to foster some of the orphaned kittens and puppies who come into the shelter. She gets their save rate to 65 percent in her first year.

Did she do that by reducing "pet over-population," or by implementing the bare-bones-basics of a shelter medicine program?

The next year, she decides to try to get more foster homes and volunteers, and also starts a fundraising campaign to build a new shelter where disease control won't be so difficult. 

Within two years, they have a new shelter, and have also improved their return-to-owner and adoption numbers, raising their save rate to 88 percent.

The vet is now hired to run a failing shelter in another community, and to the horror of all the shiny new shelter volunteers and foster homes, the new director isn't committed to maintaining the changes she made.

The next year, with their volunteer and foster programs in tatters, their save rate drops to 70 percent.

Did "pet over-population" get worse, or did their sheltering practices get worse?

The following year, a group of former shelter volunteers mounts an effective public advocacy campaign, and gets the director replaced by an ex-Marine who has run a no-kill animal control agency in a similarly-sized town. He restores the volunteer and foster programs, then expands them, and hires a marketing whiz to run the shelter's adoption, outreach, media, and fundraising departments.

That year, they save 94 percent of the pets who come into their shelter, officially joining the ranks of the nation's no-kill communities.

Did they reduce "pet over-population," or did they become a no-kill community by implementing modern, proven, progressive sheltering practices?

Maybe you deny that any community can do what this hypothetical one did. Maybe you've investigated every one of the communities that has documentation that they save more than 90 percent of their homeless pets, and determined it's all lies. 

That still wouldn't change the fact that on the basis of logic alone, your argument is a tautology, "a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct." 

That's because it's plainly absurd to suggest that this hypothetical community's starting point couldn't be improved on by implementing better sheltering practices. No one, no matter how opposed to no-kill, could deny that. . . .​_​
source - http://www.doggedblog.com/doggedblo...s-nothing-to-do-with-pet-over-population.html



savvy said:


> . . . The ONLY way to breed a quality mutt is to breed for working dogs, there are many AMAZING working dog breeders that breed mutts solely for the purpose of their job, this doesn't change the fact that you cannot do genetic screening but when they do their job better than any other purebred can it is worth it!


How does GENETIC SCREENING even come into play here? Give me a hint? What are you including in your phrase 'GENETIC SCREENING'. Honesty, I can't figure out what you mean because it makes such a very little difference with regard to the risk of ill health in the pups produced!

Combined with HONEST ancestral health knowledge and HEALTH SCREENING, the GENETIC SCREENING for the TINY number of conditions (we are dealing with over 20,000 genes in each dog BTW) that can be done can make a tiny impact in diminishing specific risks in pups produced. 

Genetic screening does NOT rule out epilepsies or allergies or most heart problems or joint problems or intestinal problems or bloat or poor immune systems.

Very specific companionship traits ARE working traits that some of us VERY MUCH appreciate, and it really is a pet peeve of mine that so many want to pretend that they are not an important part of what people select for when deciding on what dog they want. It is REALLY a pet peeve of mine when someone involved in dogs of another line of work denigrates the LINE of WORK I appreciate the most in dogs by insinuating it has less importance.

When a purpose bred companion dogs does a better job than any other purebred can IT IS WORTH IT!

_. . . . Now I realize that I was totally wrong – because companion dogs don’t sit on laps – they *SIT ON LAPS*. It’s like *the difference between chasing sheep and herding them*, honestly – at church, for example, Sammy and Godric greeted many people, they sat on Honour’s lap without asking to get off, and they were handed around to the gentle old ladies and the not-so-gentle youth leaders and the kids getting lemonade afterward. In every set of arms they were still and accepting; to every face they were friendly; they never barked or fought to get down and they quietly stood between Honour’s feet when they weren’t greeting people.

If you want to appreciate how difficult that is for a dog, imagine carrying around and handing a one-year-old German Shorthaired Pointer to five eighty-year-old women in a row. A Papillon and a GSP are the same animal. Same brain, same basic instinctive reactions.* It’s just as much a specialized behavior for a dog to sit still on a stranger’s lap as she plays with your hair and sniffs your head *(everybody sniffs Sammy’s head; I know that it’s actually because she’s super, super clean and soft all the time and they’re surprised how nice she feels and smells, but I have to laugh because it’s like she’s made out of cheesecake) *as it is for a dog to point a bird.*

And you can tell afterward, too. When we got back in the car after two hours of being social, the two of them CRASHED. They were so exhausted they licked at food for a minute and then fell asleep with their faces in the bowl. These are dogs who run and play all day, but being still and perfect is concentrated, deliberate work.

It’s honestly amazing to watch; they change just as much as a corgi changes when they turn on to sheep. It’s not that they don’t need training, because of course they do, but the basic brain structures are already there. When we were at an outdoor restaurant on Saturday, we were eating fries with a three-month-old Papillon puppy lounging on the picnic table next to plates of food. He’s a complete wild man at home, but out and about he watched everybody walk by, wagged at them, didn’t move toward them unless told to, and took food only when it was handed to him. Trust me, it’s not because I am a great trainer. It’s because for three hundred years his breed has been refined until that kind of thing is hard-wired.

It’s given me a whole new facet of dog-ness to appreciate, honestly, and be fascinated by. And it doesn’t hurt that they are so cute it’s ridiculous.​_​ - http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...s+"they+sit+on+laps"&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

I have PURPOSE BRED COMPANION MUTTS from a FANTASTIC BREEDER. She is breeding a LINE forward. This is a traditional breeding method in MANY places where the registries have made little impact and where show/sport venues are few and far between if they even exist. I live in one of those places and less than 10% of our dogs are registered. We also do not euthanize dogs for space in our two large city shelter systems, and indeed import small dogs up from Southern USA kill shelters regularly to offset the demand for small dogs here that is driving UP the number of commercial operations. Placing medium/large rambunctious young adult mixes or breeds with little training will always be a helluva chore. That should go without saying.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity for the long post.

SOB


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

SOB, do you have any pictures of your dogs? I don't think I've ever seen them.

No, this is totally not relevant to the thread at all. 

I imagine bernerdoodles are popular because people want non shedding dogs. Not my type of coat (too much work) but they seem popular these days. There, I was relevent. lol


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Laurelin I did have photos of my dogs (and kids) on line at one point and received threats - to my kids and dogs - for my opinions. The threats were serious and showed someone was paying close enough attention to know the time my kids caught the school bus. I had to call in the RCMP.

My identity is now not open for those that want to threaten.

SOB


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Laurelin I did have photos of my dogs (and kids) on line at one point and received threats - to my kids and dogs - for my opinions. The threats were serious and showed someone was paying close enough attention to know the time my kids caught the school bus. I had to call in the RCMP.
> 
> My identity is now not open for those that want to threaten.
> 
> SOB


Over cross bred dogs?! WTH is wrong with people?

I actually happen to agree with you. There's nothing wrong with responsibly breeding mixed breeds in and of itself. It's when people "oopsy" breed litters with no planning and no ability to properly place the dogs, or engage in large scale commercial breeding, that it causes problems.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Oh god.... THE COAT!! The horror. I hadn't even thought about that before. Our Bernese left tumbleweeds of fur rolling around our house (and yes it was vacuumed every day). Must be a groomers worst nightmare to combine that with poodle fluff and "non-shedding". I've never met one but now I'm interested. Our Bernese was not very bright, not overly biddable and only lived to 10 (a decent age for a Berner but still way too young). I could see how the intelligence and biddability of the poodle combined with longer lifespan could be a plus. They have a very different bone structure though, I wonder how that would be combined.

It all depends on the individual dogs and breeders of course.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Laurelin I did have photos of my dogs (and kids) on line at one point and received threats - to my kids and dogs - for my opinions. The threats were serious and showed someone was paying close enough attention to know the time my kids caught the school bus. I had to call in the RCMP.


WHAT?!!

Man. There are some nut jobs out there.


----------



## savvy (Nov 6, 2012)

Oh, and it has actually been proven that mixing a Poodle with another dog does not guarantee it will not shed, because even Poodles shed to some degree, and when you breed a Poodle with a shedding dog the puppies will have just as much of a chance of inheriting shedding as they do non shedding.



Crantastic said:


> Read this; it's very interesting. It explains how dog overpopulation is actually a myth.


Well, as someone who actually works in a shelter and knows dogs are put down every second I can say that there IS an over population, and if shelters stopped euthanizing dogs we would go broke feeding them.



Crantastic said:


> Well... no. Mutts are not prone to any genetic defect that exists just because they're mutts. They can inherit issues that either of the parent breeds carries, so if you screen the parent breeds and make sure they're not passing anything bad along, then mixes would have just as high of a chance of being healthy as purebred pups from either parent.


They can be prone to anything, mixing genes is a tricky thing and you never know what will be the outcome with mutts, it is as simple as that.

You guys can hate on what I say all you want, I have seen over population and I have dealt with designer dog breeders that think they are really something special and I am not going to change my mind on this. People will always want their pretty pets and will look down on mutts, but with so many in shelters and being euthanized I think it is worth sacrificing health guarantees and beauty to save a life, make room for another and to support something good.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Amaryllis said:


> Over cross bred dogs?! WTH is wrong with people?
> 
> I actually happen to agree with you. There's nothing wrong with responsibly breeding mixed breeds in and of itself. It's when people "oopsy" breed litters with no planning and no ability to properly place the dogs, or engage in large scale commercial breeding, that it causes problems.


Most likely over my involvement with the Cavalier community and the knowledge of the problems and lines there, over the mutt bred dogs I had, over my relationship with some certain somebodies they call 'whistle blowers' in the Cavalier world, over PDE and the anger backlash when problems were revealed, and over the offer I made to help with an outcross.



savvy said:


> Oh, and it has actually been proven that mixing a Poodle with another dog does not guarantee it will not shed, because even Poodles shed to some degree, and when you breed a Poodle with a shedding dog the puppies will have just as much of a chance of inheriting shedding as they do non shedding..


All dogs shed. Some shed less. The difference between shedding and non shedding as is commonly referred to is linked primarily to the 'bearding' gene, and it is identifiable. Bearding is dominant to non. With a breed with the long coat trait fixed bearding will always produce a continuously growing coat (non-shedding). With a breed with the short coat trait fixed it will always produce a wire coat. Wire coats can have a LOT of variance.



savvy said:


> Well, as someone who actually works in a shelter and knows dogs are put down every second I can say that there IS an over population, and if shelters stopped euthanizing dogs we would go broke feeding them..


The fact that shelters are killing dogs does not prove overpopulation in any way. It is a logical fallacy to believe it does.




savvy said:


> They can be prone to anything, mixing genes is a tricky thing and you never know what will be the outcome with mutts, it is as simple as that.


When you breed two dogs of the same breed together you are mixing genes. It is as simple as that.



savvy said:


> You guys can hate on what I say all you want, I have seen over population and I have dealt with designer dog breeders that think they are really something special and I am not going to change my mind on this. People will always want their pretty pets and will look down on mutts, but with so many in shelters and being euthanized I think it is worth sacrificing health guarantees and beauty to save a life, make room for another and to support something good.


I believe in supporting something good too - rescuers who are struggling every day and need the system to help out so those struggles will be more fruitfull, and breeders who truly ARE the foundation of GOOD dogs that will remain in homes for life. 

SOB


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

That's too bad.

Savvy, I've worked in a kill shelter in the south for two years. It's not a pretty picture but it's a complicated picture that has nothing to do with the production of designer dogs. 

Savvy, was your dog purchased? Just curious.


----------



## LadyBugAnBuddy (Jul 13, 2012)

spanielorbust said:


> Laurelin I did have photos of my dogs (and kids) on line at one point and received threats - to my kids and dogs - for my opinions. The threats were serious and showed someone was paying close enough attention to know the time my kids caught the school bus. I had to call in the RCMP.
> 
> My identity is now not open for those that want to threaten.
> 
> SOB


That's why, I don't put our pictures on the internet. I don't even have pictures of us on MY OWN FB. I have pictures of the dogs, but there are so many dogs that look like my dogs, so it will be hard to find the right person. 

~Erica~


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> They can be prone to anything, mixing genes is a tricky thing and you never know what will be the outcome with mutts, it is as simple as that.


Actually there is lots of evidence supporting hybrid vigour. Genetic diversity is an asset not a liability (in VERY broad terms). There are many, many health problems specifically caused by breed standard and lack of genetic diversity. Predictability sometimes comes at a cost to health and wellness, people by and large aren't the best genetic engineers after all, we only JUST figured out how it all works (or rather, how some of it works). Nature is obviously the most successful but of course, her methods are extremely harsh...



> You guys can hate on what I say all you want


Its not hating. Its disagreeing and providing evidence.



> Well, as someone who actually works in a shelter and knows dogs are put down every second I can say that there IS an over population, and if shelters stopped euthanizing dogs we would go broke feeding them.


Its tragic that pets die in shelters, we can all agree on that. But unfortunately just because it happens does not mean it HAS to happen. When we look at the actual numbers pet overpopulation doesn't really exist. Supply and demand shows there are homes for almost all the dogs in shelters right now, the issue is finding those homes and managing shelters in a way that maximizes adoptability. I really encourage you to read Nathan Winograd's blog, its really interesting. I find it encouraging when people say overpopulation is a myth, it gives me hope for the dogs in shelters.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

savvy said:


> They can be prone to anything, mixing genes is a tricky thing and you never know what will be the outcome with mutts, it is as simple as that.
> 
> You guys can hate on what I say all you want, I have seen over population and I have dealt with designer dog breeders that think they are really something special and I am not going to change my mind on this.


I don't see how it's "hating on" what you say to point out that that's not how genetics works. There's no way that a mix of a golden and a poodle (for example) could develop _any genetic issue that exists in dogs_ just because it is a mix. Its parents would have to be carrying the genes for the specific disorders. One could easily have each parent screened for the testable disorders in their breeds to make sure they weren't passing them on to their pups. Mixing a golden and a poodle doesn't magically screw with the genes enough that the pups could develop some disorder only seen in beagles or cavaliers. And this isn't some difference of opinion thing that you can "change your mind" about. It's science.

I would love to see some proof that a mix of two purebreds can develop _any_ genetic disorder, though. I really would.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

savvy said:


> Well, as someone who actually works in a shelter and knows dogs are put down every second I can say that there IS an over population, and if shelters stopped euthanizing dogs we would go broke feeding them.


Did you even read the link? In my area it has become common practice to pull dogs from other areas of the country because many of our shelters are not at full capacity otherwise. The same is true in other parts of the country. Anecdotes do not equal data, and the one shelter you work at doesn't represent the dynamics of the dog population as a whole. 




> They can be prone to anything, mixing genes is a tricky thing and you never know what will be the outcome with mutts, it is as simple as that.


If you mix two pure bred dogs, why would the probability of "anything" in the puppies be different than if the puppies were pure bred? That makes no sense. That's not hate, that's just... genetics do not work that way.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Did you even read the link? In my area it has become common practice to pull dogs from other areas of the country because many of our shelters are not at full capacity otherwise. The same is true in other parts of the country. Anecdotes do not equal data, and the one shelter you work at doesn't represent the dynamics of the dog population as a whole.


This is true in my area too (Toronto, Canada), about half of the dogs on Petfinder come from the States, our Animal Control's adoption rate is about 88%. AC does provide very low-cost euthanasia and many, many pits and staffies are euth'd because of BSL so they swing the statistics. The fact remains though, management is possible and has been achieved in other parts of the country so the only question is what needs to be implemented in your specific area for things to change.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> I have not ever met a Schnauzer to understand the merits of this cross. The coats of the mix would still have to be wire (bearded/bearded and short dominant to long on the alleles that predict this) like the Schnauzers, so the reason for the cross would have to be down to temperament.
> 
> The Schnauzer breed is on my radar mostly because it possibly has an a'p' allele - one not found on the agouti locus in most other breeds. I'm gonna be watching her litter photos closely.
> 
> Are Poodles more biddable than Schnauzers? Less feisty?


What's the a'p' allele?

Good tempered Schnauzers are great pet dogs. Fun and smart not overly inclined to use their intelligence for evil. But Poodles are certainly more biddable. The Schnauzers I know, including mine, don't need your permission to do anything but they are mostly companionable dogs. Barky, though. I've seen all levels of feisty though, from not at all to very.


----------



## annadee (Aug 22, 2012)

I don't really like the doodle mixes, but I have to say I love poodles and I love Bernese mountain dogs. They are so beautiful, but their short life span makes me sad. I'll own one eventually though, they look like such sweet, good natured dogs.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> What's the a'p' allele?


It is the allele that WAS proposed for the heavy shading that is seen on the salt and pepper coloring in the Schnauzer breed. They show MUCH more black, on what seems to be a fixed basis, than wolf sables in other breeds. - http://www.katewerk.com/color/color2_pg1.html - http://www.katewerk.com/color/color2_pg2.html










This report tells us that sable Schnauzers are all a'w'/a'w' on agouti (no a'y', no a'p', no a't' either!). http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/102/Suppl_1/S11.full

_. . . .Somewhat surprisingly, the 3 phenotypes present in Miniature and Standard Schnauzers: salt and pepper, black and silver, and solid black were all found to be aw/aw at ASIP. Little (1957) predicted that the salt-and-pepper phenotype of Schnauzers may be caused by the aw allele, though this suggestion has been discounted by many Schnauzer breeders. The solid black Schnauzers also have a KB allele of CBD103 (unpublished data), which is epistatic to the ASIP alleles. Considering the relatively rare occurrence of the aw allele in dogs, this finding may play a role in understanding Schnauzer breed development and history. . .​_​ 
a'p' is then out as the correct label. It could be the breed color specialists just labelled a'w' as a'p' - but there seems to be a modifier yet to be named that causes this modification of the wolf sable coloring (a'w') all the way to the point that it is so shaded it looks black. Having a LOVE of heavy shading on sables from birth on forward I'm extremely interested. It could be just that the foundation a'w's originally selected in the breed were very dark and this is just a trait that can't be explained . . . or not. 

SOB


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

Amaryllis said:


> To be honest, I think most doodle lovers (not including Abbylynn or anyone specifically) actually like poodles. Poodles are fantastic dogs with many qualities to like, but they have that reputation. They're floofy nondogs fit only to be dressed up funny. So people think they don't like poodles. Doodles, on the other hand, are a hot commodity right now, so people get their poodle fix without the stigma attached to poodles.
> 
> It really pisses me off, actually. I feel like shouting "Hello! You like poodles, get over it!"


I hate the stigma poodles get. they are great dogs. I hear it every day.
owner brings in 'doodle. tells us to groom it, but dont let it look like a poodle... lol crazy. So should we change the breed of dog then. lol


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

savvy said:


> But besides that you cannot breed a high quality Labradoodle, Chiweenie, havapoo or any of those because like any other mutt they can be prone to any health defect, so genetic screening is pointless. If someone wants to buy a dog with no health guarantees and is not a purebred they can simply adopt!
> 
> The ONLY way to breed a quality mutt is to breed for working dogs, there are many AMAZING working dog breeders that breed mutts solely for the purpose of their job, this doesn't change the fact that you cannot do genetic screening but when they do their job better than any other purebred can it is worth it!


This makes exactly zero sense.

If a dog of breed A is screened and clear of any genetic diseases, and a dog of breed B is screened and clear of any genetic diseases, and A and B were bred together, how would their puppies have genetic diseases?

And why would it be otherwise for a working dog?


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

Tankstar said:


> I hate the stigma poodles get. they are great dogs. I hear it every day.
> owner brings in 'doodle. tells us to groom it, but dont let it look like a poodle... lol crazy. So should we change the breed of dog then. lol


Next time you should make it look like a camel.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

I'm going to be honest about poodles... I don't like the look. Generally I find the 'doodles' really cute but the poofy poodle look is just not my taste. I really like most of the doodle's I've met, one in particular was a nervous mess (no abuse just bad temperament) but thats true for many breeds. You definitely CAN breed mixes ethically although its true that many don't. I don't fault people for wanting a labradoodle and not a poodle, they are different dogs.



> If a dog of breed A is screened and clear of any genetic diseases, and a dog of breed B is screened and clear of any genetic diseases, and A and B were bred together, how would their puppies have genetic diseases?
> 
> And why would it be otherwise for a working dog?


Or a purebred dog?


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

aiw said:


> I'm going to be honest about poodles... I don't like the look. Generally I find the 'doodles' really cute but the poofy poodle look is just not my taste. I really like most of the doodle's I've met, one in particular was a nervous mess (no abuse just bad temperament) but thats true for many breeds. You definitely CAN breed mixes ethically although its true that many don't. I don't fault people for wanting a labradoodle and not a poodle, they are different dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> Or a purebred dog?


there is no need to have a poofy poodle. poodles have some of the most modable and different grooms you can do, the possibilities are endless. I find most doodles so high strng, mouthy, dinks lol. I work with ALOT of them. and most lack manners, any type of off switch ect. could be owners but I dunno...


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

Yes, or a purebred dog. Either one. I used a mix example because that's what we were discussing.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Tankstar said:


> there is no need to have a poofy poodle. poodles have some of the most modable and different grooms you can do, the possibilities are endless. I find most doodles so high strng, mouthy, dinks lol. I work with ALOT of them. and most lack manners, any type of off switch ect. could be owners but I dunno...


Tankstar I had a good friend that used to run his three SPs on my property. I LOVED their temperament (well, they were a bit busy for me but overall pretty good). I could NOT get past their looks.

It was NOT their groom (he kept his in a pet clip). It WAS the narrowness and shape of their head and length of muzzle. Appearance wise I really don't like it. It WAS the curliness of their coat. Appearance wise I really don't like it. I find beards unattractive and curly beards even more so!

Many doodles are the product of a blockier headed and shorter muzzled breed with a poodle. They also mix straight coat in for a wave coat - rather than the curly. If you google image search you can easily see most doodles have a blockier headed look. As a spaniel fan you can bet I like the blockiest ones.

I'd never buy one anyway, but I have to believe there are others with similar tastes that are making decisions to buy doodles.

As a Collie fan you MUST get people commenting on the narrowness of the Collie head. I know we did as kids with our 'anteaters'. Many did not like that dolichocephalic look. You have to say 'each to their own'. I'm sure some dogs I drool over would be unattractive to others.

SOB


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> It WAS the narrowness and shape of their head and length of muzzle. Appearance wise I really don't like it. It WAS the curliness of their coat. Appearance wise I really don't like it. I find beards unattractive and curly beards even more so! They also mix straight coat in for a wave coat - rather than the curly.


I also feel this way. I'm generally not a fan of the lighter-boned dogs (not much of one for sighthounds either) and the coat is poofy, no matter how you groom it (unless its bald). Personally, I think the labradoodle is a decent combo (depending of course on the individual dogs and breeding history). Aesthetically and even temperament wise it is just much more suited to me than a poodle. Of course its all an individual matter, not every dog is suited to every owner, tastes vary widely.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

SOB - you have basically said everything I would say! Completely off-topic, the whole genetics thing is why I think a lot of people aren't qualified to form opinions on GMOs. How can you understand GMOs if you have NO understanding of genetics...

Anyway, I really like the look of doodles, but I dislike poodles. To be fair, I've never met a standard poodle, only miniature/toys that were NOT properly trained, so its possible that if I met a standard poodle I'd like its temperament, but I still don't like the look of them; I think they're too leggy and just too narrow all over. They remind me of super models.

I do like the bearded coat on doodles, especially in apricot or red. I'm weirdly particular about coat colour, I guess.

Is there a giant schauzer/standard poodle cross anywhere? I would think there is but (like the bernedoodles) its something I've not yet heard of.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> How can you understand GMOs if you have NO understanding of genetics...


There are LOTS of other issues with GMO crops that are not based on the genetic science. Loss of genetic diversity, farmers losing rights to their own seeds, litigation over windblown seeds (tell me... who owns the wind?), plus I'm just not crazy about someone patenting a living thing (what if someone decided to patent their particular cross-bred dog?).... anyways...



> They remind me of super models


Thats so true!! I had never thought of that before...

Google results for Giant Schnoodle....
















They all seem to be black...


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

aiw said:


> Google results for Giant Schnoodle....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's probably, partly because unlike the other two size varieties, the most common color in Giants is black. The second picture to a certain degree looks like a Portuguese water dog or a Barbet.


----------



## savvy (Nov 6, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> That's too bad.
> 
> Savvy, I've worked in a kill shelter in the south for two years. It's not a pretty picture but it's a complicated picture that has nothing to do with the production of designer dogs.
> 
> Savvy, was your dog purchased? Just curious.


Not from a breeder, not from me, the family that originally bought him decided a week later he was too mouthy and hyper and brought him to the shelter I worked at, three days later I brought him home

designer dogs contribute to the lack of homes for shelter dogs, they are cheap and easy to find, who wants a young adult to senior dog when they can easily get a cute puppy? A reputable breeder doesn't take away homes from shelter dogs because people who buy from real breeders are looking for something specific in a dog and a dog that encompasses what their dog should be, they wouldn't adopt, but an unknowledgeable person who doesn't know any better than to pay a breeder or pet store for what is essentially a mutt. can you at least see where I am coming from?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

What exactly is the difference between a designer dog breeder and a real breeder?


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

savvy said:


> Not from a breeder, not from me, the family that originally bought him decided a week later he was too mouthy and hyper and brought him to the shelter I worked at, three days later I brought him home
> 
> designer dogs contribute to the lack of homes for shelter dogs, they are cheap and easy to find, who wants a young adult to senior dog when they can easily get a cute puppy? A reputable breeder doesn't take away homes from shelter dogs because people who buy from real breeders are looking for something specific in a dog and a dog that encompasses what their dog should be, they wouldn't adopt, but an unknowledgeable person who doesn't know any better than to pay a breeder or pet store for what is essentially a mutt. can you at least see where I am coming from?


The same person who doesn't want a young adult or a senior dog sure isn't going to adopt one from the shelter regardless. They don't WANT them. Even if they're uneducated about ethical breeding practices that doesn't mean if they were suddenly informed they would magically want a young adult/senior from the shelter. People wanting what they want in breed or age or whatever isn't the issue. 
There are "designer" breeders who are reputable, ethical, whatever. If we pretend for a minute not to know of his legacy, then I have an Alaskan from a working mother. He's a mutt and I didn't adopt him from the shelter. What does that make me?


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

aiw said:


> There are LOTS of other issues with GMO crops that are not based on the genetic science. Loss of genetic diversity, farmers losing rights to their own seeds, litigation over windblown seeds (tell me... who owns the wind?), plus I'm just not crazy about someone patenting a living thing (what if someone decided to patent their particular cross-bred dog?).... anyways...


Agreed on the ethical issues of GMOs. BUT, the people to which I was referring have never mentioned any of those issues, and instead insist that GMOs cause cancer, etc. And that the traditional method of plant breeding (blasting seeds with radiation to induce random mutations) is safer.

Giant Schnoodles DO look like portuguese water dogs! Crazy.

Just out of curiosity, I googled "doodle" and "Dog", because I was wondering how many types of "doodle" there are. Turns out there's quite a few. I think my fave is the Weimardoodle.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

savvy said:


> designer dogs contribute to the lack of homes for shelter dogs, they are cheap and easy to find, who wants a young adult to senior dog when they can easily get a cute puppy? A reputable breeder doesn't take away homes from shelter dogs because people who buy from real breeders are looking for something specific in a dog and a dog that encompasses what their dog should be, they wouldn't adopt, but an unknowledgeable person who doesn't know any better than to pay a breeder or pet store for what is essentially a mutt. can you at least see where I am coming from?


What makes you think that people buying designer dogs aren't looking for something specific in a dog?


----------



## jersey_gray (Dec 8, 2011)

TorachiKatashi said:


> As long as there are stupid people, there will be scam artists ready and waiting to take their money.
> 
> The only "responsible" way to breed a mixed litter is to not do it at all. Referring to such people as breeders is an insult to real breeders.


I very strongly disagree. RESPONSIBLE cross-breeding is what needs to be done to improve the health of purebreds. What makes a responsible breeder doesn't have anything to do with whether or not their dogs are purebred. The whole notion of breeding purely for looks to some written standard that CHANGES at the whim of current fashion with dogs who have not proved their worth in some way (conformation shows do not prove worth) is highly idiotic. My mutts are worth far more than inbred, unhealthy, and neurotic purebreds which is what 99% of purebred dogs I have ever known have been. I've yet to meet a mutt as unhealthy or as crazy as the purebred dogs I've known. *Genetic diversity is key to any species survival. Regardless of breed, they are ALL STILL DOGS. *


----------



## jersey_gray (Dec 8, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Laurelin I did have photos of my dogs (and kids) on line at one point and received threats - to my kids and dogs - for my opinions. The threats were serious and showed someone was paying close enough attention to know the time my kids caught the school bus. I had to call in the RCMP.
> 
> My identity is now not open for those that want to threaten.
> 
> SOB


Do you crossbreed? There's a great blog, desertwindhounds. Afghan/Saluki, now those are some beautiful dogs.


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

spanielorbust said:


> Nice fairytale story you have going there.
> 
> Cockapoos were an original designer breed that I've known for over 40 years. I've known many and I've known the occasional breeders. They were not puppymill breeders.
> 
> ...


I just wanted to say you're awesome and THANK YOU!!

Sadly there are a lot of misinformed people out there... and also there are some breed-snobs! My goodness! I am a dog trainer. I rehab naughty dogs and I train therapy dogs as well. I've done agility (love Aussies and Border Collies, hate the fur tumbleweeds) and now I breed Cockapoos. NOT because I make a profit (because I don't) but because I LOVE American Cockapoos. They are awesome little dogs and I couldn't possibly sing their praises enough. 
Sadly I've met with quite a LOT of hostility regarding my love of the American Cockapoo in many on-line communities for no good reason. 
There are bad breeders out there for ALL BREEDS. Finding a good breeder is tough! But to ignore the fact that ALL breeds were at one time being developed from a cross of many breeds and lines would be folly and to ignore the fact that Cockapoos have been around since the 1950s is also ludicrous.

Anyway, you said quite a lot in your post & I admired what you posted, so I thought I'd say thanks.

Thanks!


----------



## jersey_gray (Dec 8, 2011)

edenorchards said:


> Sadly there are a lot of misinformed people out there... and also there are some breed-snobs! My goodness! I am a dog trainer. I rehab naughty dogs and I train therapy dogs as well. I've done agility (love Aussies and Border Collies, hate the fur tumbleweeds) and now I breed Cockapoos. NOT because I make a profit (because I don't) but because I LOVE American Cockapoos. They are awesome little dogs and I couldn't possibly sing their praises enough.
> Sadly I've met with quite a LOT of hostility regarding my love of the American Cockapoo in many on-line communities for no good reason.
> There are bad breeders out there for ALL BREEDS. Finding a good breeder is tough! But to ignore the fact that ALL breeds were at one time being developed from a cross of many breeds and lines would be folly and to ignore the fact that Cockapoos have been around since the 1950s is also ludicrous.


My mom had a Cockapoo as a child in the fifties/sixties-they are definitely far from a new thing. Duchess, said she was the best dog she ever had.


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

Amaryllis said:


> Poodles are more biddable and less fiesty.
> 
> To be honest, I think most doodle lovers (not including Abbylynn or anyone specifically) actually like poodles. Poodles are fantastic dogs with many qualities to like, but they have that reputation. They're floofy nondogs fit only to be dressed up funny. So people think they don't like poodles. Doodles, on the other hand, are a hot commodity right now, so people get their poodle fix without the stigma attached to poodles.
> 
> It really pisses me off, actually. I feel like shouting "Hello! You like poodles, get over it!"


What you said is funny... I think its not true, but its funny regardless. I often have people ask me about "F1b" crosses of the American Cockapoo (which I breed) and I usually have the response of "Why ANY breeder would breed an F1b in a Cockapoo is beyond me and I have a hard time justifying it... furthermore I would take a HARD look at a breeder's stock if they are back-crossing like that. I've known Goldendoodle breeders who backcrossed because first and second generation Goldendoodles shed a lot still... but still... I have to wonder... why not just get a poodle from a reputable poodle breeder?
Beats me...

However I have to tell you that I really am NOT fond of miniature or toy poodles, which are the dogs used for most of these designer hybrids. I LOVE the hybrid of the American Cocker Spaniel with the Poodle, however, because when done correctly and carefully bred you get such an amazing blend of characteristics. I find Poodles to be a bit high-strung, particularly anything not standard sized. These dogs are also a wee bit on the frail-boned side, which means they can be accidentally injured by over-zealous or not-careful children. This can create a fearful dog that is prone to hiding or even nipping. Now why not just get an American Cocker Spaniel, then, you ask? I do love Cockers but lets face it, they aren't the brightest dog on the block. They also have a double coat and shed seasonally. They are also prone to a lot of genetic faults and that means finding a healthy dog is generally a very great expense. Of course, the same can be said for the miniature or toy poodle.
Anyway, to make a long story short, the ideal American Cockapoo combines the intelligent, inquisitive nature of the poodle (and ideally, their coat type) with the gentle nature and sturdier structure of the American Cocker Spaniel.
Also Cockers have such gorgeous ears and big doe-eyes and lashes. The poodle in the mix also softens the blocky head of the Cocker and gives the muzzle a finer shape.
The resulting IDEAL dog is really combining the best of both worlds and that hybrid-vigor (given appropriate parentage) really cannot be beat.

I LOVE MY COCKAPOOS

I've worked with a lot of different dog breeds and truly I could not be more fond of this hybrid. When bred for health, vitality, vigor, correct bone structure and size (there are standards for this hybrid, actually) the resulting offspring make excellent family pets and really wonderful therapy dogs. 

Our puppies score excellently on the Volhard Puppy Aptitude Test and Service Dog Tests and each litter we generally have one (sometimes two) that go to be service or therapy dogs! The fact that they are low-shedding, low-dander makes them perfect for therapy and the softness of their coat makes them great for children with tactile disorders in particular.

I hope I've given you something to think about. Don't disregard the entire hybrid just because there are very bad, greedy, unscrupulous breeders out there... they can be found for ALL dog varieties!! Some of us are really dedicated to our animals and believe in them for a reason!!

Ok... done. ;-)


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

jersey_gray said:


> My mutts are worth far more than inbred, unhealthy, and neurotic purebreds which is what 99% of purebred dogs I have ever known have been. I've yet to meet a mutt as unhealthy or as crazy as the purebred dogs I've known.


I guess you don't get out much.

I also don't understand why you felt the need to come in here and insult all purebreds (sorry, 99% of purebreds) -- are you trying to turn this into a stupid "mixes vs. purebreds" debate? Because very few members of this board are interested in picking a side in that one.


----------



## savvy (Nov 6, 2012)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> The same person who doesn't want a young adult or a senior dog sure isn't going to adopt one from the shelter regardless. They don't WANT them. Even if they're uneducated about ethical breeding practices that doesn't mean if they were suddenly informed they would magically want a young adult/senior from the shelter. People wanting what they want in breed or age or whatever isn't the issue.
> There are "designer" breeders who are reputable, ethical, whatever. If we pretend for a minute not to know of his legacy, then I have an Alaskan from a working mother. He's a mutt and I didn't adopt him from the shelter. What does that make me?


I think everyone is assuming I am blaming overpopulation solely on people who breed mutts, this is not true because there are MANY purebreds in shelters, I blame anyone who is not a reputable breeder, designer dogs are just the now, the new fad that everyone is talking about, just another reason to look down on mutts.
Anyone who buys a designer dog is not fully educated, therefor doesn't actually know what they should be looking for. Shelters should be the main 'source' of pets, especially for those who don't know enough about breeders to find a respectable ethical one.

If you mean your dog is a working dog then I did comment about that, I very much approve of working mutts, most do their job very well because they haven't been tampered with to make them beautiful, they are bred solely for the purpose of their job and that is something I very much appreciate!
But I don't know what that makes you, I am not here to title anyone, but I think it is good to put different views out there for people so see so they can decide for themselves, and with much research and a bit of experience I decided that I don't approve of designer dogs or irresponsible breeding.

There are of course crappy quality designer dogs and there are quality designer dogs, but they will still not be high quality to the standard of quality a purebred can be, most every breed has been around for a hundred or more years, and a hundred years ago the dog situation was not near as bad as it is today, we don't need to create more breeds, and designer dogs have REALLY helped puppy mills increase their income, it gave their accidental litters a purpose and more of a worth, so they didn't have to kill them or dump them in the woods and they ended up getting some money out of it.



sassafras said:


> What makes you think that people buying designer dogs aren't looking for something specific in a dog?


Designer dogs have no real purpose other than being a pet, and since their genetics, temperament and other traits are less than predictable you would basically be getting the same thing from the shelter AND you would be supporting something good. So, anyone who wants something specific in a dog would do the research and would likely know better than to buy a mix.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

IMO no dog is "worth" any more than any other dog, just like people. They are just suited to different things for different reasons. What defines a responsible breeder IMO isn't really about breeding to standard or purebred vs. mix. My rough list is as follows a responsible breeder...
- Places health and temperament above all other considerations
- Performs applicable health tests (maybe unnecessary in a working dog as they prove health and hardiness in other ways)
- Gives appropriate medical care and good quality of life for both pups and parents
- Cares about where their dogs end up and are committed to the animal for its lifetime

You could breed a purebred and ignore all those considerations and you could breed a mutt and fulfill them or vice versa. Its not about purebred or mutt its the care that goes into breeding and keeping them.



> Anyone who buys a designer dog is not fully educated, therefor doesn't actually know what they should be looking for.


Thats a huge blanket statement thats completely false. See above where I (and others) explain what we like about "designer dogs" that isn't offered in either of the parent breeds.



> Shelters should be the main 'source' of pets


Check out the link SOB posted earlier to see why that would be completely impossible. In short, if everyone adopted from a shelter we would run out of shelter dogs and there would be millions of homes looking for a dog that couldnt get one. Take a look, the numbers are surprising.



> There are of course crappy quality designer dogs and there are quality designer dogs, but they will still not be high quality to the standard of quality a purebred can be, most every breed has been around for a hundred or more years, and a hundred years ago the dog situation was not near as bad as it is today, we don't need to create more breeds, and designer dogs have REALLY helped puppy mills increase their income, it gave their accidental litters a purpose and more of a worth, so they didn't have to kill them or dump them in the woods and they ended up getting some money out of it.


But what exactly do you term 'designer dog' any mix? Any mix that is not for work? Many, many breeds have been developed in the last hundred years and continue to be developed. And actually dogs today are WAY better off then they used to be. Despite pet ownership expanding exponentially the number of animals being euth'd in shelters is actually diminishing, people are spending more on their animals than ever before and standard of care is increasing... what makes you think dogs are worse off today than yesterday? 

As to your quality argument, what exactly are your criteria for 'quality'? Health? Because there is plenty of evidence that mutts are AT LEAST as healthy as purbreds on average. Purpose? Many of the breeds we have today no longer fill the purpose they were created for, our needs from dogs have changed. Why would we not choose animals to suit those new needs? As for designer dogs being 'just pets', well pet is all I need my dog to be. Its all about 90% of dog owners need their animals to be. Their purpose and function isn't lesser than those working dogs, their job is to be valued members of a family and that requires specialized skills. Those skills and attributes need to be specifically bred for and you may find the right combination in a cross, what is wrong with that? How is it different from crossing for working purposes? The alternative is that no one breeds specifically for pet dogs and we all adopt working dogs.... it'll turn out great... :/


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

savvy said:


> Anyone who buys a designer dog is not fully educated, therefor doesn't actually know what they should be looking for.
> 
> Designer dogs have no real purpose other than being a pet, and since their genetics, temperament and other traits are less than predictable you would basically be getting the same thing from the shelter AND you would be supporting something good. So, anyone who wants something specific in a dog would do the research and would likely know better than to buy a mix.


You are so wrong... so so wrong. I am highly educated in genetics, dog behavior & medicine. I own four beautiful hybrid dogs. I would never call them "designer dogs", but to say that it is impossible to have them for any reason other than a pet is really an ignorant thing to say. Our puppies regularly become therapy dogs or service dogs along with being wonderful family companions. You most certainly can have predictable crosses, particularly if one breeds further generations. You most CERTAINLY can do accurate health and genetic screenings and anyone who has told you otherwise has lied to you. I'd be happy to refer you to many veterinary specialists and opthomologists who can second that! 
I have done training rehabilitation in kill (and non kill) shelters myself, so I do know the pain that is behind your words, however you are very seriously misinformed.
There are all kinds of puppy mills out there, exploiting people with deceptive marketing tricks like having dogs that are "AKC registered" (as if that ensures quality) as well as those jumping on the big-fat "non-shedding & hypoallergenic" bandwagon... and yes, I am annoyed that people LIE and claim that any mammal can be "non-shedding" or "hypoallergenic"... while those are accepted terms in the community they are quite misleading...
HOWEVER there are many responsible breeders out there who strive to inform people of the truth and who produce consistent quality animals with excellent health and temperament... and I am one of those people. I hope that you will reconsider your hard-line stance as it is very unfair and unjustified.


----------



## savvy (Nov 6, 2012)

jersey_gray said:


> I very strongly disagree. RESPONSIBLE cross-breeding is what needs to be done to improve the health of purebreds. What makes a responsible breeder doesn't have anything to do with whether or not their dogs are purebred. The whole notion of breeding purely for looks to some written standard that CHANGES at the whim of current fashion with dogs who have not proved their worth in some way (conformation shows do not prove worth) is highly idiotic. My mutts are worth far more than inbred, unhealthy, and neurotic purebreds which is what 99% of purebred dogs I have ever known have been. I've yet to meet a mutt as unhealthy or as crazy as the purebred dogs I've known. *Genetic diversity is key to any species survival. Regardless of breed, they are ALL STILL DOGS. *


Crossbreeding dogs would be like starting from scratch, there are purebreds who have been messed with and ruined for beauty, and I know, my breed is one of the main breeds affected by this, but there are still bloodlines in many breeds that have not been affected by beauty and still remain fantastic working dogs for the job they were originally created for. The issue with breeders today is people are forgetting about a purpose, everyone is trying to create the perfect pet when that is impossible because everyone has a different view on what the perfect pet is! 

Have you seen Pedigree Dogs Exposed? Most all of what they say is very true, but they are so focused on pet and show breeders they forget that most every breed has some kind of purpose, many small breeds were created for hunting, Spaniels were bird dogs, Shepherds are supposed to be herders, and many of these dogs are pedigree dogs and are well bred and healthy. Pet breeders and show breeders often sacrifice health and temperament for beauty and style, that doesn't mean ALL purebreds are affected by this.

I would like to own a working bred Czech German Shepherd and train and maybe even compete in Schutzhund, this is NOT something that I can get at a shelter, and even if I could it would be extremely hard to find and would take a lot of drive and instinct testing. However I can find my pets at shelters, because I don't require much from a pet but to have a good loving temperament, and people really shouldn't expect more!

But, I do see where you are coming from, but I put working dogs in a whole other category than any other type of dog, they will always be needed and a working dog HAS to be well bred, if it is not it will not be an effective working dog!


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

savvy said:


> I think everyone is assuming I am blaming overpopulation solely on people who breed mutts, this is not true because there are MANY purebreds in shelters, I blame anyone who is not a reputable breeder, designer dogs are just the now, the new fad that everyone is talking about, just another reason to look down on mutts.
> Anyone who buys a designer dog is not fully educated, therefor doesn't actually know what they should be looking for. Shelters should be the main 'source' of pets, especially for those who don't know enough about breeders to find a respectable ethical one.
> 
> If you mean your dog is a working dog then I did comment about that, I very much approve of working mutts, most do their job very well because they haven't been tampered with to make them beautiful, they are bred solely for the purpose of their job and that is something I very much appreciate!
> ...


I didn't say any thing about over population. I don't even believe there is an over population problem, so not something I'd bring up. You keep saying any one who buys a mixed breed is not educated, and I was refuting that. Why aren't they educated? There are plenty of people who buy from shoddy breeders, purebred or not, but the ones that buy from ethical mixed breeders are not uneducated. 

And Shambles isn't a working dog, least he does no work. He is a mutt and not from a shelter. Essentially, I fall into your broad stroke uneducated masses comment there and what I'm telling you, in my case specially and others, things are not that black and white. I work for a shelter and my other four dogs plus my foster are shelter dogs and I'm still saying shelters don't HAVE to be the main source for dogs. 

MOST people are looking for pets, by the way. And ethical "designer" dog breeders breed just as much for temperament and traits.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

aiw said:


> IMO no dog is "worth" any more than any other dog, just like people. They are just suited to different things for different reasons. What defines a responsible breeder IMO isn't really about breeding to standard or purebred vs. mix. My rough list is as follows a responsible breeder...
> - Places health and temperament above all other considerations
> - Performs applicable health tests (maybe unnecessary in a working dog as they prove health and hardiness in other ways)
> - Gives appropriate medical care and good quality of life for both pups and parents
> ...



I agree with that, aiw. That's very similar to my list. I would also add that I like to see dogs bred for a purpose (and being a great companion IS a valid purpose) and to satisfy demand -- breeders shouldn't be producing more pups than they can easily find homes for. For purebred dogs that don't prove themselves through work, I also like to see conformation titles, but that's not a necessity. I like it, though, because it shows (at the very least) that the breeders don't want to end up kennel blind and that they value the opinion of impartial judges.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

I will never like designer dogs for one single reason: stupid names. 

Bad breeders are all over the place and certainly not limited to designer dogs.


----------



## savvy (Nov 6, 2012)

edenorchards said:


> You are so wrong... so so wrong. I am highly educated, both in genetics, dog behavior & medicine. I own four beautiful hybrid dogs. I would never call them a "designer dog", but to say that it is impossible to have them for any reason other than a pet is really an ignorant thing to say. Our dogs regularly become therapy dogs or service dogs along with being wonderful family companions. You most certainly can have predictable crosses, particularly if one breeds down a generation or two. You most CERTAINLY can do accurate health and genetic screenings and anyone who has told you otherwise has lied to you. I'd be happy to refer you to many veterinary specialists and opthomologists who can second that!
> I have done training rehabilitation in kill (and non kill) shelters myself, so I do know the pain that is behind your words, however you are very seriously misinformed.
> There are all kinds of puppy mills out there, exploiting people with deceptive marketing tricks like having dogs that are "AKC registered" (as if that ensures quality) as well as those jumping on the big-fat "non-shedding & hypoallergenic" bandwagon... and yes, I am annoyed that people LIE and claim that any mammal can be "non-shedding" or "hypoallergenic"... while those are accepted terms in the community they are quite misleading...
> HOWEVER there are many responsible breeders out there who strive to inform people of the truth and who produce consistent quality animals with excellent health and temperament... and I am one of those people. I hope that you will reconsider your hard-line stance as it is very unfair and unjustified.


I think you missed the part where I don't believe in pet breeding, so whether it be a mix or a purebred I don't think it should be bred until shelters no longer need to euthanize dogs to keep them from running wild on the streets. I can understand what you mean, but not even thinking pets should be bred I am not going to change my mind.

But you must admit, 'hybrids' or designer dogs don't have much of a history if any, and most higher quality pet breeders invest their time because they are interested in the history of the breed, so designer dog breeders are simply producing cute dogs, there isn't much purpose in the breeding or in the dog! It is the pointless breeding of a living thing that is killed every second because there are so many of them.


----------



## savvy (Nov 6, 2012)

My opinion on this is not going to change, so hating on my and what I am saying may help satisfy the immature anger, but it is meaningless and really needs to be left alone, I shouldn't have to explain myself if you guys really don't care about what I say you simply want to argue. So please, let it go!


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

zhaor said:


> I will never like designer dogs for one single reason: stupid names.
> 
> Bad breeders are all over the place and certainly not limited to designer dogs.


Haha! I couldn't agree with you more! I adore my Cockapoos... but honestly... worst dog name EVER! Really, its embarrasing! I petition to change the name. I say "Spanish Poodle" or "American Cockadoodle" ... at least that second one is funny. But no one listens to me! ;-)


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Lol insulting people isn't the most effective way to stop an argument. Just sayin


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> I think you missed the part where I don't believe in pet breeding, so whether it be a mix or a purebred I don't think it should be bred until shelters no longer need to euthanize dogs to keep them from running wild on the streets.


Look at the link. Seriously.

Being a pet IS a purpose and numbers aside there are reasons why adopting a pet from a shelter might not be a good option. People may want a puppy (not many available nowadays), they may want one with known heritage, or know the whole history of the dog, often dogs in shelters are working breed mixes which are completely DISASTROUS in most homes (and may be the reason they lost theirs). In my area there is (weirdly enough) a dog _shortage_. We bring dogs up from the states all the time so its not as though shelters everywhere are bursting at the seams.



> My opinion on this is not going to change, so hating on my and what I am saying may help satisfy the immature anger


I'm not angry (although it sounds like you might be) and I don't hate you or what you're saying, I just disagree and am providing the reasons why. Personally I'm enjoying the debate but if you're not you're free to simply not continue it...



> I will never like designer dogs for one single reason: stupid names.


There is something a little undignified about them....


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

savvy said:


> My opinion on this is not going to change, so hating on my and what I am saying may help satisfy the immature anger, but it is meaningless and really needs to be left alone, I shouldn't have to explain myself if you guys really don't care about what I say you simply want to argue. So please, let it go!


You keep saying that people are "hating on" you and your posts, but I don't see where you're getting that idea -- nor do I see where you're getting that idea that anyone on this thread is immature or angry. You can believe whatever you want about genetics and dog overpopulation... but when you're presenting opinions as fact, with the only "proof" you provide being your own experiences at one shelter, of course people are going to disagree and provide (actual) proof to the contrary. It's not about changing _your_ mind, necessarily; it's about making sure that people who read this thread get to see both sides, think critically, and decide for themselves.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

savvy said:


> I think you missed the part where *I don't believe in pet breeding*, so whether it be a mix or a purebred I don't think it should be bred until shelters no longer need to euthanize dogs to keep them from running wild on the streets. I can understand what you mean, but not even thinking pets should be bred I am not going to change my mind.
> 
> But you must admit, 'hybrids' or designer dogs don't have much of a history if any, and most higher quality pet breeders invest their time because they are interested in the history of the breed, so designer dog breeders are simply producing cute dogs, there isn't much purpose in the breeding or in the dog! It is the pointless breeding of a living thing that is killed every second because there are so many of them.


So what happens to all the puppies in the litters that don't cut it as working? As long as they have the INTENT to produce working dogs..?

A couple cross breeds bred with a purpose, which can be working or pet. Both are purposes:

http://www.australianlabradoodleclub.us/

http://www.silkenwindhounds.org/

http://www.tamaskan-dog.us/


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

savvy said:


> I think you missed the part where I don't believe in pet breeding, so whether it be a mix or a purebred I don't think it should be bred until shelters no longer need to euthanize dogs to keep them from running wild on the streets. I can understand what you mean, but not even thinking pets should be bred I am not going to change my mind.
> 
> But you must admit, 'hybrids' or designer dogs don't have much of a history if any, and most higher quality pet breeders invest their time because they are interested in the history of the breed, so designer dog breeders are simply producing cute dogs, there isn't much purpose in the breeding or in the dog! It is the pointless breeding of a living thing that is killed every second because there are so many of them.


I see what you're saying about pet breeding, but I have to say that while I breed for service and therapy only one or two of those dogs are qualified from each litter, so the rest become companion animals. The same is true for working and sporting and show dogs and dogs bred for actual purposes.
Also the American Cockapoo has been a very popular hybrid since the 1950s in the US... so I can't say that 62 years isn't much of a history...

The other problem is that puppy mills are going to keep pumping out unhealthy animals with poor temperaments. These dogs are purchased by people that are impulse buyers and many of them from pet stores. These puppies are the ones that end up in the shelters because many times their owners don't understand what it takes to train a dog or they purchase a breed they know nothing about and then get upset when that dog behaves the way centuries of breeding have inspired it to (Gee... my terrier keeps digging or my Beagle howls and/or runs away or my shepherd seems to need SO much exercise)... THESE are the puppies in these shelters being euthanized. 
RESPONSIBLE breeders don't ALLOW their puppies to wind up in shelters. For example, I interview all my families very thoroughly, I stay in contact with many of my families and I adore updates! I have a clause in my legally binding contract that requires a dog to be given back to me in the event that the family can no longer keep their dog for any reason (or we discuss suitable rehoming options) and I would participate in the rehoming of any animals. They'd come back to me temporarily under all circumstances for a training session and evaluation before being rehomed.
You see... the dogs in the shelters are a result of the BAD breeders out there. The only way to reduce the number of dogs in shelters is to reduce the number of people buying dogs from commercial breeders "puppy mills" and pet stores/brokers (who get their dogs from puppy mills).
Educating people is key... but sadly as long as greedy people exist and lazy people exist and people that do ill-advisable things on impulse exist... then shelters will exist. And shelter pets just aren't for everyone... after all, not everyone wants a poorly trained, rejected puppy-mill dog. Some people want a quality, healthy animal from its baby-stage so that they can ensure they don't wind up with heartbreaking medical problems or temperament issues.

Its just a sad situation all around. But encouraging SMALL time responsible breeding and strongly discouraging people from purchasing from mills and petstores is the only way to reduce the shelter population.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> The other problem is that puppy mills are going to keep pumping out unhealthy animals with poor temperaments.


Puppy mills are a problem that transcend the purebred/mix issue. There are plenty of people who think AKC registered means something about quality and buy a purebred from a mill as well...

I think shelters will probably always exist. I don't expect to find a magical time when _no one_ is irresponsible or lazy or just overwhelmed. Shelters will never be empty. The hope though is to keep making that number smaller and smaller and expanding the adoptable category as far as humanly possible

Of course if everyone stopped breeding dogs pretty soon... there would be no dogs! And if everyone but working breeders stopped breeding, well then we'd really be in trouble because working bred dogs are not made for the average pet home. Shelter numbers would explode! The working dog world is not a fairy tale land, someone here was telling me that 50% of herding dogs were dead in the first 3 years? I'm going to go look for that stat, I remember it surprised me.


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

aiw said:


> Puppy mills are a problem that transcend the purebred/mix issue. There are plenty of people who think AKC registered means something about quality and buy a purebred from a mill as well...
> 
> I think shelters will probably always exist. I don't expect to find a magical time when _no one_ is irresponsible or lazy or just overwhelmed. Shelters will never be empty. The hope though is to keep making that number smaller and smaller and expanding the adoptable category as far as humanly possible


Essentially what you are saying is my point exactly. I definitely don't see this as a mix breed problem considering I'm a breeder of a hybrid breed. And sadly, legislation against commercial kennels and pet brokers/dealers and pet stores won't work either. Its one of those horrible realities of supply and demand. 
I am a fan of targeting the demand. All we can do is educate people about dog breeds (so people know more about the purpose of a particular dog and less about what celebrity has been seen with one) and educate people about finding a responsible breeder.

I try to do my part. I run a blog where I give out free info and training advice and I sell high-quality pups at lower prices so that average families can actually afford them. All I make goes into my small-time breeding program. I don't make a profit. But I do provide wonderful families with awesome companions!! Thats my profit 

Also, having volunteered vast amounts of time at shelters in my lifetime I can tell you that sadly lots of those euthanized dogs really need to be euthanized. As sad as that is. Aggressive dogs cannot be rehomed. Its just a liability no shelter can afford. :-(


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Its always sad to see a dog put down. The first line of attack though is of course helping shelters stop euthanizing for space. Its been shown to be possible in a lot of communities, just a matter of finding the right mix of tactics.


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

There is always a lack of funding... what tactics have you seen that are effective? I've done a lot of "fostering" and that seems to help out with the space issue a little bit, but then money and liability comes into play there too and some places get all hung up with red tape


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

I won't claim much personal experience with turning a shelter around but looking at communities that have moved to no kill there are definitely some good ideas.... No Kill Equation
Personally, I think the most important thing a shelter can do is utilize the community around them. Actively recruiting foster homes and making it easy for private rescues to pull animals as well as recruiting volunteers. Creating a good system to return lost dogs could help a lot too (something more than 'show up at the shelters in your area every day'). For the areas that are really overrun finding a method of transport could be good too (many rescues in my area come from the south).


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

Thanks for the link and very interesting information. I hadn't thought of a lot of that before, to be honest, but I do know what you mean about bureaucracy making life hard, and also about people clinging to incorrect ideas to help them justify their means as well as people working for certain causes potentially bristling at new ideas, suggestions, and even new people and help! I like the link and will be reading more! Thanks!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Ah... there is the problem.



> I would like to own a working bred Czech German Shepherd and train and maybe even compete in Schutzhund, this is NOT something that I can get at a shelter, and even if I could it would be extremely hard to find and would take a lot of drive and instinct testing. However I can find my pets at shelters,* because I don't require much from a pet but to have a good loving temperament, and people really shouldn't expect more!*


Because *I* don't need specifics in a pet dog =/= no one needs specifics in a pet dog.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

savvy said:


> Designer dogs have no real purpose other than being a pet, and since their genetics, temperament and other traits are less than predictable you would basically be getting the same thing from the shelter AND you would be supporting something good. So, anyone who wants something specific in a dog would do the research and would likely know better than to buy a mix.


Well, never shall our opinions meet, then. Because I don't see anything wrong with breeding for "no real purpose other than being a pet" and I also have seen several mixes that are actually fairly consistent in their characteristics. (cockapoos, puggles, and labradoodles in particular IMO, as well as several of the toy poodles mixes). 

My dog Squash is a littermate to TWAB's Shambles. So like her, I have a mutt who is not from a shelter -- and I paid money for him! Does that make me stupid enough to buy a designer mutt? I am not actually taking offense, just saying... there are more shades of gray here than meet the eye.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> Because *I* don't need specifics in a pet dog =/= no one needs specifics in a pet dog.


This attitude is never going to stop irritating the snot out of me.

I don't do a whole heck of a lot with my dogs compared to a lot of people on this forum - I don't compete (or train) in dog sports, I don't do therapy, I don't do upper level obedience training, whatever. Mostly, my dogs really are 'just' pets. 

I still have requirements that go beyond having a loving temperament. A lot of them, actually. 

I'm going to be living with the dog for the next 15 years. Why am I supposed to settle for 'good enough' (maybe), or what I can find (likely) instead of what I actually want?


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Ah... there is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Because *I* don't need specifics in a pet dog =/= no one needs specifics in a pet dog.





> This attitude is never going to stop irritating the snot out of me.


Yup. Me too.

SOB


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I've refuted that "any dog will work as 'just' a pet" thing several times on this forum before, as well. When I had to "downsize" to a small dog instead of my normal beloved medium-to-large ones, these were my requirements:

1. Under 15 lbs. so it could easily travel with me, but not tiny (chihuahuas and yorkies are a bit too small for me)
2. Easy to groom -- no coats that require regular clipping, no special hair or skin care (so no wire-haired terriers/chinese crested/poodles/bichon breeds/wrinkly dogs)
3. Generally healthy, no major widespread genetic issues in the breed (cavaliers were out, sadly)
4. Not brachycephalic (so no pugs, bostons, frenchies, pekes, etc.)
5. Intelligent and biddable (another strike against terriers... love 'em, but they didn't have the personality type I wanted most. No dachshunds either)
6. Energetic and active
7. Generally good with cats and kids 

That did not leave me with a very long list. And my local shelter VERY rarely got in small dogs, and when it did, they usually seemed to be terrier or poodle mixes. I did a bunch of research and decided on the papillon, and you know what? My papillon is perfect for me. Do I compete with her? No. Does she work? No. But she makes me extremely happy by being an energetic, bouncy, eager-to-please, bombproof with kids, healthy little dog that I only have to brush once a week and bathe once a month.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

spanielorbust said:


> Yup. Me too.
> 
> SOB


Every time someone says that, all I can think is: "But I don't WANT hound, lab or pit mix." I mean they're nice dogs and all, and the shelters around me are full of them and they are certainly loving, but I'd go out of my ever-loving MIND. They don't FIT me, at all. Like Cran, I have some fairly specific requirements. Some of them are about appearance, most of them aren't. Most of them have some flexibility, but none of them are flexible enough to take me to lab, hound, or pit.


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

I am right on board with Laurelin, CptJack, and SOB on the companion dog argument. 



savvy said:


> I think you missed the part where I don't believe in pet breeding, so whether it be a mix or a purebred I don't think it should be bred until shelters no longer need to euthanize dogs to keep them from running wild on the streets. I can understand what you mean, but not even thinking pets should be bred I am not going to change my mind.


I'm not trying to change your mind, but I do have a question.
I need a pet, but I have specific requirements for a companion dog. I happened to have found a breed whose physical and temperamental characteristics fit my needs _exactly._ It's a breed that is almost never seen in shelters. What am I supposed to do?

Edit: Okay, Cran and CptJack posted while I was typing this, so I guess this point is kind of superfluous. :b



edenorchards said:


> The other problem is that puppy mills are going to keep pumping out unhealthy animals with poor temperaments. These dogs are purchased by people that are impulse buyers and many of them from pet stores. These puppies are the ones that end up in the shelters because many times their owners don't understand what it takes to train a dog or they purchase a breed they know nothing about and then get upset when that dog behaves the way centuries of breeding have inspired it to (Gee... my terrier keeps digging or my Beagle howls and/or runs away or my shepherd seems to need SO much exercise)... THESE are the puppies in these shelters being euthanized.
> RESPONSIBLE breeders don't ALLOW their puppies to wind up in shelters. For example, I interview all my families very thoroughly, I stay in contact with many of my families and I adore updates! I have a clause in my legally binding contract that requires a dog to be given back to me in the event that the family can no longer keep their dog for any reason (or we discuss suitable rehoming options) and I would participate in the rehoming of any animals. They'd come back to me temporarily under all circumstances for a training session and evaluation before being rehomed.
> You see... the dogs in the shelters are a result of the BAD breeders out there. The only way to reduce the number of dogs in shelters is to reduce the number of people buying dogs from commercial breeders "puppy mills" and pet stores/brokers (who get their dogs from puppy mills).
> Educating people is key... but sadly as long as greedy people exist and lazy people exist and people that do ill-advisable things on impulse exist... then shelters will exist. And shelter pets just aren't for everyone... after all, not everyone wants a poorly trained, rejected puppy-mill dog. Some people want a quality, healthy animal from its baby-stage so that they can ensure they don't wind up with heartbreaking medical problems or temperament issues.
> ...


Could not agree with this more. This, in conjunction with other tactics, of course. And this whole post illustrates the important difference between responsible and irresponsible breeders.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

savvy said:


> I think you missed the part where I don't believe in pet breeding, so whether it be a mix or a purebred I don't think it should be bred until shelters no longer need to euthanize dogs to keep them from running wild on the streets.


So, the toy group should not longer be bred at all? Or all those other dogs who aren't working breeds?

There are dogs out there who's purpose IS being a companion. Not even 'does not currently get used for the reason it was developed', but 'was developed as a companion'. 

(And I swear, I'm letting this go now).


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

edenorchards said:


> There is always a lack of funding... what tactics have you seen that are effective? I've done a lot of "fostering" and that seems to help out with the space issue a little bit, but then money and liability comes into play there too and some places get all hung up with red tape


I think a large part about turning a shelter around is having (or getting) large and active volunteer and sponsor/donor bases, and having the right people in the right administrative positions. Its a simple solution, but a hugely difficult one. I think its really possible for a shelter to be successful without community support and involvement, and maybe some shelters are a little less aggressive than they could be about seeking that support. Our shelter has a HUGE volunteer base (500+) and staff who are always thinking outside the box for new ways to fund-raise, looking for grants, food-sponsorship programs, etc.

As an example, the Canadian Government is phasing out the penny at the beginning of next year, so our shelter has set up a "penny drive" to help people get rid of their "useless" pennies. It doesn't seem like much really, but think about how many people have change jars at home and how much of the change in those jars is pennies. Usually quite a bit! (Or at least that's how it seems when you grab a handful of change, lol).

Its about having the right people in the right positions and those people being able to motivate people enough to take action. Unfortunately, the right kind of people are rare.


----------



## savvy (Nov 6, 2012)

CptJack said:


> So, the toy group should not longer be bred at all? Or all those other dogs who aren't working breeds?
> 
> There are dogs out there who's purpose IS being a companion. Not even 'does not currently get used for the reason it was developed', but 'was developed as a companion'.
> 
> (And I swear, I'm letting this go now).


most small dogs do have a working purpose, but most of those that don't have been so over bred and messed with that they are so unhealthy and many have terrible temperaments even if from good bloodlines. they exist because people want their pretty pets, this isn't a good enough reason to keep producing more pets instead of adopting.

I believe in adopting, people can pretend they need some kind of special pet to justify buying from a breeder but are forgetting that a pet serves only one purpose, so to whine about the poor quality of shelter dogs is a bit ignorant. if people can get over their desire to get a beautiful pet so they can think it is something really special so they can feel important, that is when they will realize a pet is a pet and rescues are nothing to look down on because they do as good of a job being affectionate as any other dog. and people also pull intelligence and activity level into it, this is absolutely stupid because there are dogs of all sizes, smarts and energy levels in shelters. and people alos think shelter dogs are unpredictable, well if you actually ask the person who cares for it about their temperament or even foster it for awhile you will know what you are going to get!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

savvy said:


> most small dogs do have a working purpose, but most of those that don't have been so over bred and messed with that they are so unhealthy and many have terrible temperaments even if from good bloodlines. they exist because people want their pretty pets, this isn't a good enough reason to keep producing more pets instead of adopting.
> 
> I believe in adopting, people can pretend they need some kind of special pet to justify buying from a breeder but are forgetting that a pet serves only one purpose, so to whine about the poor quality of shelter dogs is a bit ignorant. if people can get over their desire to get a beautiful pet so they can think it is something really special so they can feel important, that is when they will realize a pet is a pet and rescues are nothing to look down on because they do as good of a job being affectionate as any other dog. and people also pull intelligence and activity level into it, this is absolutely stupid because there are dogs of all sizes, smarts and energy levels in shelters. and people alos think shelter dogs are unpredictable, well if you actually ask the person who cares for it about their temperament or even foster it for awhile you will know what you are going to get!


Wow. You are incredibly misinformed, on multiple levels, beginning with the purpose small dogs were developed for, the number developed purely as companions, and the modern practices and uses of dogs today - including those who filled working roles in the past. 

Sure, tell a 60 year old woman with osteoporosis (as an example) they'll do just fine with a young bloodhound. Or someone who works long hours and lives in a 3 room apartment with a toddler to take that 9 month old lab mix. I'm sure as long as it's loving it'll be a match made in heaven. After all, the only reason to want a small dog or a dog of a specific breed is looks.

I worked rescue for years- RAN a non-profit saving dogs, and the belief that the only thing that matters is a loving temperament is BALONEY, right along with the idea that the reason most dogs are sitting in shelters is because of overpopulation, rather than too many dogs of the sort people DON'T want, and too few of the sort people DO - and after years working in rescue, I will say straight up: none of my dogs will ever come from a rescue or shelter again. I firmly believe that they do the best they can and there are awesome dogs there, but I prefer the known factor of a dog coming out of a home, without the stop in the shelter or foster home first, or from a responsible breeder. I will also take in strays, because well - that still cuts out the middle man, at least, which is, in my area, a disease ridden cesspool, and and environment that makes it difficult to assess the dog - but I may very well not keep them. 

I WILL however, continue to give them my money so they can keep doing what they do. I just prefer my pets come from somewhere else. And as I'm going to be living with them for 15 years or so, I figure I'm allowed to get exactly what I want, from where I want, and in the way that lets me feel I've done the best I can to make sure both dog and I are going to be happy. I am OVER taking 'what's available' because it's 'the right thing to do'. I have to live with the results of that, for years if not decades. Right isn't going to carry me through not liking my dog, and it's not going to be very good for the dog, either.


----------



## savvy (Nov 6, 2012)

The pointless questions to appear to care about what I say only to tell me you don't agree screams hater, so please, if you enjoy arguing please leave me alone, I put my views out there not to make everyone cry about it but for people to decide for themselves. You guys can keep the rotten attitude of me for as long as you want, but it is only making you guys uncomfortable. you can either let it go or keep ranting, either way I have said all I need to, all of the 'what if's aren't going to change my mind or yours. And please no more denial responses, I really don't care if you think you are being mature and aren't hating or ranting or whining, you are whining about me saying you are whining! I am not directing this at anyone specific, just the flood of hate mail.


----------



## savvy (Nov 6, 2012)

CptJack said:


> Wow. You are incredibly misinformed, on multiple levels, beginning with the purpose small dogs were developed for, the number developed purely as companions, and the modern practices and uses of dogs today - including those who filled working roles in the past.
> 
> Sure, tell a 60 year old woman with osteoporosis (as an example) they'll do just fine with a young bloodhound. Or someone who works long hours and lives in a 3 room apartment with a toddler to take that 9 month old lab mix. I'm sure as long as it's loving it'll be a match made in heaven. After all, the only reason to want a small dog or a dog of a specific breed is looks.
> 
> ...


let..... it.... go!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

savvy said:


> let..... it.... go!


...it's a public forum. I'm allowed to post my views as much as you are allowed to post yours. No one here has gotten personal, or attacked, except you. Take a step back, a deep breath, realize people disagree and that some people having a discussion based on something you said isn't something you can control, maybe. It'll make your visit here a lot more pleasant.

(Seriously meant to be helpful - if you go to thread tools at the top you can hit unsubscribe - it'll make the responses stop showing up in your inbox. That might make it easier for you to talk away from, if you feel you can't remain objective or are feeling like you're being personally attacked.)


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

savvy said:


> most small dogs do have a working purpose, but most of those that don't have been so over bred and messed with that they are so unhealthy and many have terrible temperaments even if from good bloodlines. they exist because people want their pretty pets, this isn't a good enough reason to keep producing more pets instead of adopting.


Many small dog breeds have been developed as companions. Companion type dogs have been bred for very long times. Toy spaniel type, for example is a very old group of dogs. Thousands of years and much older than many modern working breeds.

I don't even know how to begin with the thought that most small dogs are unhealthy and have terrible temperaments. Having been involved in showing a toy breed, I know hundreds of very well tempered toy dogs.


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

savvy said:


> most small dogs do have a working purpose, but most of those that don't have been so over bred and messed with that they are so unhealthy and many have terrible temperaments even if from good bloodlines. they exist because people want their pretty pets, this isn't a good enough reason to keep producing more pets instead of adopting.


I disagree. I can give you a specific example with my breed.

Papillons were bred from spaniels, but they were always meant to be companions. They weren't ratters or guard/alert dogs or even hot water bottles, they were companions. Papillons are considered a pretty healthy breed, and it's not uncommon for them to live well into their teens. In fact, I believe that 15-16 is the average. They also have wonderful temperaments; descriptions specifically mentions that they are not typically timid or aggressive. 
I am insulted that you would assume that I only chose them because I wanted a "pretty pet." While I do love the way they look, it was my least consideration. Actually, my criteria for a companion dog was pretty much the same as Crantastic's, so I'll quote her post.



> 1. Under 15 lbs. so it could easily travel with me, but not tiny (chihuahuas and yorkies are a bit too small for me)
> 2. Easy to groom -- no coats that require regular clipping, no special hair or skin care (so no wire-haired terriers/chinese crested/poodles/bichon breeds/wrinkly dogs)
> 3. Generally healthy, no major widespread genetic issues in the breed (cavaliers were out, sadly)
> 4. Not brachycephalic (so no pugs, bostons, frenchies, pekes, etc.)
> ...


I needed a small dog because I was renting. I didn't want to spend a ton of time grooming/clipping. I wanted a healthy, intelligent, biddable, friendly dog that didn't need a metric ton of exercise. It was kind of a tall order and after a lot of searching I was beginning to think I wouldn't be able to find something that would fit all of those. Eventually I found the Papillon and they are everything I need.



savvy said:


> I believe in adopting, people can pretend they need some kind of special pet to justify buying from a breeder but are forgetting that a pet serves only one purpose, so to whine about the poor quality of shelter dogs is a bit ignorant. if people can get over their desire to get a beautiful pet so they can think it is something really special so they can feel important, that is when they will realize a pet is a pet and rescues are nothing to look down on because they do as good of a job being affectionate as any other dog. and people also pull intelligence and activity level into it, this is absolutely stupid because there are dogs of all sizes, smarts and energy levels in shelters. and people alos think shelter dogs are unpredictable, well if you actually ask the person who cares for it about their temperament or even foster it for awhile you will know what you are going to get!


First of all, I don't think anyone here has put down shelter dogs. _You_, on the other hand, have repeatedly insulted people who get their dogs from breeders. I think that EVERYONE here supports adopting (myself included, I do not rule out adoption for future dogs). In fact, anytime a newcomer shows up with a "What dog should I get?" thread you can bet that in the first five posts someone will suggest adopting, often an older dog because puppies are insane.

I didn't get a purebred dog from a responsible breeder because I wanted a beautiful pet (I think that mix breeds/shelter dogs are beautiful), and I don't think he's special because he's purebred (I think he's special because he is), and I don't use him to feel important (even though he tells me that I'm important). You, the person claiming that others' responses are immature, are displaying your immaturity by assuming that I did. And you do assume that, because you painted every companion dog owner who didn't adopt from a shelter with the same ugly brush.

I don't think that shelter dogs are unpredictable. In fact, I often advocate just the opposite. When I was getting my dog, though, a shelter dog was not an option, here is the biggest reason why:

*Shelters in my area did not have what I was looking for.* 
We're mostly Catahoula Leopard Dogs (state dog, very popular), Labs, pibbles, and Australian Shepherds. Maybe with a couple Yorkies or Chihuahuas now and then. You might notice that none of those dog types fit my criteria.

Additionally, I wanted a dog with a known genetic background, so I could be aware of medical conditions I should look out for. My dog's parents were tested for common Papillon issues, and if he is having some sort of problem I can ask his breeder if anyone in his family has had the same.

When it comes time to get my next dog, I am not ruling out adoption. It depends on my situation when that happens, and what I'm looking for. When I got Mumble I went to a breeder because that was the right choice for me, and that shouldn't be looked down on any more than someone who rescued their dog from a ditch.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

savvy said:


> most small dogs do have a working purpose, but most of those that don't have been so over bred and messed with that they are so unhealthy and many have terrible temperaments even if from good bloodlines. they exist because people want their pretty pets, this isn't a good enough reason to keep producing more pets instead of adopting.
> 
> I believe in adopting, people can pretend they need some kind of special pet to justify buying from a breeder but are forgetting that a pet serves only one purpose, so to whine about the poor quality of shelter dogs is a bit ignorant. if people can get over their desire to get a beautiful pet so they can think it is something really special so they can feel important, that is when they will realize a pet is a pet and rescues are nothing to look down on because they do as good of a job being affectionate as any other dog. and people also pull intelligence and activity level into it, this is absolutely stupid because there are dogs of all sizes, smarts and energy levels in shelters. and people alos think shelter dogs are unpredictable, well if you actually ask the person who cares for it about their temperament or even foster it for awhile you will know what you are going to get!


1. I'm curious to what you think of people with a purebred dog that was adopted from a shelter.... I can also tell you right now that the types of dogs that are in shelters vary drastically from region to region. My local shelter actually flies small-breed dogs in from California shelters a couple times a year because there are so many small "purse dogs" in CA shelters and our shelter can't adopt small dogs out fast enough because there just aren't that many here. I have yet to see a dog under 30lbs (and without severe and documented issues) be on the adoption floor for more than 1 or 2 days where I live, and there are only 1-2 a week that go up for adoption - if any.

2. I think if you'll actually read people's replies, *no one is saying that shelter dogs are bad dogs and should never find homes *(rather, the opposite). More people *should* adopt, but that doesn't mean that all people who want a dog will have their needs met by the average shelter dog. While there are exceptions (e.g. California), the majority of dogs in most shelters across NA are medium-to-large dogs with higher energy levels, which means they will take up (potentially) more time and energy than the adopter has to give. But I guess you'd rather people who want a dog get a dog that's a bad match, or no dog at all, rather than buy one.

3. Most small dogs that were bred with a working purpose are very rarely used for that purpose anymore. Actually, I'd be curious to know how many people on this board actually know someone with a pug who uses the pug for hunting vermin, or uses their Yorkie for rat baiting.... or their Jack Russel or daschund for hunting badgers ...


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> No one is saying that shelter dogs are bad dogs and should never find homes


Not even close. I think most of the dogs in shelters are there through no fault of their own, and are wonderful animals and it's sad as blazes that they're there. I just think that the idea that any home is better than no home doesn't fly, you know? You kind of nailed it from the other direction with _'I guess you would rather see people that's not a good fit'_. That just doesn't work. It doesn't work for owners, it doesn't work for the dogs. I pulled my youngest dog out of a trash dumpster, for goodness sake. I don't have the dogs I have to be status symbols, or because they're cute, or - anything of the sort. I have them because they are the dogs that I can enjoy, and that I can give a life that THEY enjoy. 

I would be miserable with 99% of labs or hounds, yeah, but the reverse of that? The dog would be miserable with ME.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

CptJack said:


> along with the idea that the reason most dogs are sitting in shelters is because of overpopulation, rather than *too many dogs of the sort people DON'T want*, and too few of the sort people DO -


Isn't that overpopulation?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> Isn't that overpopulation?


I believe there is overpopulation of certain types of dogs in certain areas. That's different than general dog overpopulation.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Savvy, there is a way you can unsubscribe to this thread if its bothering you. As for the rest of us, we will probably continue to post in it because thats what you do in a public forum, post opinions. For the record, I definitely don't dislike you personally just disagree with you on these topics. So for anyone else who may be interested this is my take on 'always adopt'.

Rescuing and adopting from a shelter is pretty much the best way to acquire a dog IMO. Just in that its the way to spread the most good with your choice. That said, there are a lot of reasons why it might not work for any one person's situation. Shelters often don't have the small breeds people like Cran are looking for. It is even rarer to find one of those breeds (or even just a small dog) that doesn't have issues that need retraining. Doesn't mean they're all bad dogs or messed up but dogs from a bad situation or directly from a shelter are more likely to need extra tlc. Puppies are rarely available in my shelter and when they are invariably medium to large working breed mixes. You will never know the heritage and unlikely the full history of a shelter dog. 

I adopted a rescue dog specifically because I feel strongly about it but that choice has not been without its consequences. Almost 6 months into training and I _still_ feel guilty every time I leave my house because his SA isn't gone. I love him, but often he's been in the way of _my_ recovery... not a dog I would have chosen if I had known all the facts. Pete is here to stay but a mismatched dog might not last in its new home. In fact according to the ASPCA "More than 20 percent of people who leave dogs in shelters adopted them from a shelter". (Source: NCPPSP)


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Isn't that overpopulation?


Yes, and no. Most of the time people talking over population are talking over all (nation wide) numbers of dogs - as if dogs being bred by responsible breeders are competing with the dogs in shelters for homes. Or that someone who wants a toy or small breed, or a puppy, is going to go adopt an adult, medium-to-large, high energy dog out of the shelter. It really doesn't work that way. All the pit/hound/lab/whatever mixes can be sitting in the shelter, or not, but if people don't want what's there, they aren't going to adopt them - even if that tiny fluffy puppy isn't there for them to have. It isn't an either/or scenario. 

I mean I love dogs, but if my option is no dog at all or one that doesn't fit - I'm not going to have one. The lack of what I do want isn't going to make me settle for something else. That's why there is such a thing for importing small dogs and puppies into areas, even when the medium to large adults are overflowing, is such a thing. Dogs do not need to be breeding willy nilly, but the dogs are not really in competition with each other the way some hard core anti-breeding proponents seem to think. Getting a responsibly bred puppy isn't really taking a home away from a shelter dog. 

(As an aside, and to clarify an earlier point without spamming the thread - when I say my shelters are cess pools, I do not mean to criticize shelters in general as some kind of bad thing, especially not nation wide, but we have near constant parvo and distemper outbreaks in the most local shelters and even rescue foster homes, because of dogs coming straight in from the shelter. That's a problem for me, really. I wish it wasn't, but it is and that's just not a risk I'm prepared to take.)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> I believe there is overpopulation of certain types of dogs in certain areas. That's different than general dog overpopulation.


Different from THERE IS NO DOG OVERPOPULATION!!!

I agree there's no overpopulation of adorable little fluffy-poos. But there is certainly overpopulation.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> I agree there's no overpopulation of adorable little fluffy-poos. But there is certainly overpopulation.


Please. This goes deeper than people wanting fluffy-poos. That's just - insulting, simplistic, and kind of an ignorant stance. People who want a pitbull aren't going to take a toy poodle, anymore than the reverse, and a lot of people who like or want small dogs don't want poodles, lapdogs, or fluffy-kin puppies. I don't like puppies. I don't want a 5 lb dog. I don't like fluff. I don't want a dog to laze around the house. For me, still, that comes out with something that I can't find in my local shelter, even if I was prepared to deal with the disease risk.

And, furthermore, the problem is not 'there are more dogs than homes' - which is what animal rights folks like to claim when they're talking overpopulation. The problem is that there are too many of some types of dogs, and not enough of others. It's certainly an overpopulation of lab mixes (or whatever), but that does not equate to overall pet overpopulation. The reverse is that there aren't enough people breeding what is desirable. So, if you want to call 'too many dogs of the sort people don't want' overpopulation, flip it around and say there's also a SHORTAGE of dogs. Both are equally true.

There's even an argument that could be made that said MORE breeding of what is desirable, fewer people settling for dogs that don't fit their lives, would get more dogs into homes and keep them there, instead of in shelters. I'm not sure even I believe it, but I could certainly make the argument.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

I'm going to go even further and say there is no overpopulation period. Every dog in shelter right now could find a home. The issue is that there is such regional disparity, shelters are chronically underfunded, _occasionally _mismanaged and in many, many places completely overwhelmed. All those things don't mean that there isn't a home available, just that there are real problems getting in the way of the dog finding that home.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> Different from THERE IS NO DOG OVERPOPULATION!!!
> 
> I agree there's no overpopulation of adorable little fluffy-poos. But there is certainly overpopulation.


Eh...

'Dog overpopulation' argument to me is based on the fact that here is a dog and here is a home wanting a dog. It's not that simple.

I don't know how many dogs are in shelters total and then how many homes are wanting a dog. 

I'd argue it's more of a displacement- the dogs available do not equal the dogs desired by JQP. You are not going to convince the person wanting a toy poodle puppy to adopt a 1 year old pit bull. It depends on the area of course, too. I worked in a TX shelter and it was very true that most the dogs were hounds, labs, and pits. The biggest demand was for smaller sized dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

aiw said:


> e. In fact according to the ASPCA "More than 20 percent of people who leave dogs in shelters adopted them from a shelter". (Source: NCPPSP)


So that means 80% of the dogs in shelters are from. . .?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> So that means 80% of the dogs in shelters are from. . .?


Strays, rescues, private adoptions, and, yeah, back yard breeding. Pretty much every way possible to get a dog, really, that isn't a shelter. There are more of those than there are 'shelter', so it would make sense that there are higher surrender rates for them. Math.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

This thread is really flowing op2:


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

aiw said:


> I'm going to go even further and say there is no overpopulation period. Every dog in shelter right now could find a home. The issue is that there is such regional disparity, shelters are chronically underfunded, _occasionally _mismanaged and in many, many places completely overwhelmed. All those things don't mean that there isn't a home available, just that there are real problems getting in the way of the dog finding that home.


I honestly don't think so. The VAST number of pit bulls, Labs, and hound dawgs, and people keep breeding more and more and MORE of them. . .no, I really don't believe that.

But if you know anywhere we could ship them, that would be super!


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Up to Canada!! Actually, its where a lot of our rescue dog population comes from...

Laurelin, here are the stats on shelter population and homes looking for dogs

Again, the problems are real but the homes are there... its good news!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

aiw said:


> Up to Canada!! Actually, its where a lot of our rescue dog population comes from...


I seriously doubt you're taking pitties and black Labs and hound dawgs. Seriously.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

BSL here in Ontario doesn't allow for pits  But black labs and hound dogs come on up! My dog is actually a terrier mix from Ohio. Seriously.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> BSL here in Ontario doesn't allow for pits  But black labs and hound dogs come on up! Seriously.


Yep. I've sent some up there via rescue transport train and the bigger hounds and black labs did juuuust fine. (And of course the smaller hounds, like beagles, did very well. There's even a post by a member here who had a beagle/lab brought up from the south to the north east, admittedly as a puppy, to adopt. That kind of thing is not uncommon.)


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

We tried to adopt a hound mix from Kentucky but another family beat us to it. The rescue 'market' is actually pretty competitive here.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I doubt you could place as many as end up in shelters, if we sent them all up there. Or even half. But it's nice some find homes. Hopefully permanent homes, as their first homes failed miserably on that count.

I do think that needing to ship dogs out of the country kind of proves overpopulation, though :/.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Here in Toronto, labs are the most-owned breed. There are a ton of beagles around, as well (11th most popular breed in town). Lab mixes are 23rd most common. Shepherd mixes and beagle mixes also put in a strong showing -- full list is right here.

I'd argue against that whole "people can pretend they need some kind of special pet to justify buying from a breeder but are forgetting that a pet serves only one purpose" thing from the last page, but a bunch of other intelligent, well-spoken people handled that already, so I'll just roll my eyes quietly over here.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

savvy said:


> I believe in adopting, people can pretend they need some kind of special pet to justify buying from a breeder but are forgetting that a pet serves only one purpose, so to whine about the poor quality of shelter dogs is a bit ignorant.


Oh for crying out loud, it's not a dirty sin or "pretending you need some kind of special pet" to have a list of criteria for what you want in a pet dog. If more people did, maybe more dogs would STAY in homes and wouldn't end up in shelters. Calling other people ignorant while you spout off your generalizations about everyone who doesn't adopt is a bit of pot, kettle IMO.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> I do think that needing to ship dogs out of the country kind of proves overpopulation, though :/.


I think it proves that overpopulation is a regional problem at best. One that can be solved with creative solutions. I don't like hearing about overpopulation because the numbers don't support it and because I think the idea itself stands in the way of solving the problem. If dogs are overpopulated then we _must _euthanize, there is no choice. If we accept that almost all dogs in shelters _could_ find homes the issue is suddenly, why isn't it happening now and how can we make it reality? I find it a much more productive stance.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Crantastic said:


> Here in Toronto, labs are the most-owned breed. There are a ton of beagles around, as well (11th most popular breed in town). Lab mixes are 23rd most common. Shepherd mixes and beagle mixes also put in a strong showing -- full list is right here.


Well, yeah, Labs are #1 here, too. That's why there are so many in need of homes--the more people with Labs, the more who believe their Lab should have a litter "because she's purebred" or whose Lab accidentally gets pregnant. If anything, their popularity makes it harder to place them, not easier.


----------



## hamandeggs (Aug 11, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Yep. I've sent some up there via rescue transport train and the bigger hounds and black labs did juuuust fine. (And of course the smaller hounds, like beagles, did very well. There's even a post by a member here who had a beagle/lab brought up from the south to the north east, admittedly as a puppy, to adopt. That kind of thing is not uncommon.)


The rescue group I volunteer with here in DC, and where we adopted Biscuit from, adopts out about 20-40 dogs a week. They transport dogs up that are pulled from high-kill shelters in the Carolinas - about 50-75 dogs every few weeks. It's massive. There's no rescue-owned boarding facility - all the dogs are either in foster homes or some stay at a boarding/daycare facility that donates space. They also have a relationship with the local Collie rescue.

They bring up a huge variety of dogs - the entire gamut from chihuahuas to big dogs, and, yes, "designer dogs." I know a lady who adopted a Cockapoo through them, and the guy who did my home visit had adopted a purebred yellow lab. The puppies and "doodles" go faster, often being adopted off tranport without going through a foster (this was the case for us with Biscuit, who was about 7 months at the time), but it's not like the black mutts and pit bulls/mixes are languishing forever. The dogs that take longest to get adopted are generally the larger dogs that also have behavioral issues, e.g. fearfulness. But they all go eventually. There is a HUGE demand, and I know it's similar in New England. The first dog we applied for, an adorable fluffy merle puppy, had 400 applications and ultimately went to a family that had been waiting for 6 months for an Aussie-type dog!

I think a big part of it is the large amount of screening the rescue does. It takes out so much of the uncertainty people are worried about with just adopting a dog from the pound.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> I think a big part of it is the large amount of screening the rescue does. It takes out so much of the uncertainty people are worried about with just adopting a dog from the pound.


I think so too. When we adopted Pete I actually found it frustrating because we applied for 6 or 7 other dogs before him. The ones without known behavioural problems especially in the size we wanted went so quickly. This isn't the case everywhere in Canada, we have a big problem with 'reservation dogs' especially up north (where transport is harder) but in Toronto things are pretty good for homeless animals. 

I don't want to make light of the issues shelters in other areas are facing. The problems are real. But there _are_ solutions, its just a matter of finding the right combination of tactics for each area.

What I have trouble understanding is why people who work in shelters sometimes so vehemently defend overpopulation when the numbers don't support it.... its good news! Hope!


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Quite frankly, the overall "need" for a Schutzhund or herding dog is even _lower _than the "need" for a companion/pet dog. If wanting specific traits in a dog that you will live with for the next 10 - 15 years is a matter of vanity and stubbornness, than so is wanting a performance sport dog, at an even higher level. 

I will always have a German Shepherd Dog as a pet, and I will always, without fail, purchase one from the breeder. It is a matter of comfort, meeting my ideals, and stacking the odds in my favor. I do not want a "special" dog, I want a very normal, balanced, typical, well bred German Shepherd Dog, and that is nothing if not uninteresting. Furthermore and even more specifically, I only see myself with a dog from a working/sport lineage as they are what I favor - and yes, this dog's only purpose will to be a pet! We will dabble in Schutzhund, but that is no more a purpose than hiking to me. 

A pet is not a pet is not a pet. I have friends with pets that I cannot live 3 days with, and I saw that with absolute certainty, fondness, and a deep love for all dogs. I do not look for a dog that is affectionate or cuddly, because my dog isn't that. I want my pet confidant, intelligent, healthy, driven, intuitive, appropriately aggressive, never fearful, temperamentally balanced, well structured, and that is only to list a few desirable traits from a long list of mine. That is a HUGE difference from the list Crantastic provided, isn't it? Think we'll do well if we exchanged dogs right here, right now? They're both pets! But no, not at all. And it is not because I am too vain to own a Klee Klai and she too vain to own a German Shepherd. Besides, it is far more understandable than the desire to purchase a Malinois or a German Shepherd to take to high levels of SchH competition, or a Border Collie to compete in herding trials across the country (and that is a desire I actually understand completely, having friends in the bitesport world). It makes no sense to find one intention a matter of stubbornness and then declare your admiration for the other.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

aiw said:


> . . . In fact according to the ASPCA "More than 20 percent of people who leave dogs in shelters adopted them from a shelter". (Source: NCPPSP)


For those that like dog stats, KC Dog Blog has been going through some - 

_. . . Where to people get their pets?
•78% of dog owners own their own home. 18% rent. If we deny renters from adopting dogs we are essentially losing one-fifth of the total dog-owning market. For cats, 71% own and 26% rent. 
•*30% of dog owners and 34% of cat owners got their pet from a shelter or rescue. *
•28% of dog owners, and 33% of cat owners got them from a friend or relative
•15% of dog owners and 3% of cat owners go theier pet from a recognized breder
* •9% of dog owners and 4% of cat owners got them from a pet store *
•Pet stores continue to make up a very small percentage of pet acquisition and shelters and rescues are the leading source of pet acquisition. 

•34% of people with incomes less than $25k acquired their pet from someone else. This number is closer to 20% for all other income groups up to $100K+, where it drops to 16%. 
•I think this is extremely interesting. From talking with people who do urban core outreach in Kansas City, they say that most of the people they run across aquired their pet when a friend or relative could no longer take care of it, or they found it running loose in their neighborhood. These people tend to want to do best for the animal, and yet often, themselves, lack the resources to best care for them. It's just interesting that many people view poor people as poor pet owners, when many are simply trying to keep them from going to the shelter. 


Breeds?
•Most cat owners don't really choose a cat by breed. But this is very different for dogs. 32% of dog owners said they knew in advance what breed of dog they wanted. 21% said they didn't choose because the dogwas given to them or chosen by somene else in the houeshold. 12% just browsed the selection and chose one they liked. 11% didn't know specifically what breed they wanted, but had an idea in mind and 10% didn't care about the breed, but knew the size of dog they wanted. 
•I think this is very interesting as 43% of people have a specific breed or an idea of a breed in mind before choosing a pet. 10% more are choosing based on size and 21% are not choosing at all because they just ended up with the dog. This can often be a challenge for small rescue groups to maintain the selection of breeds for different potential adopters.

•Men, and people aged 25-34, are most likely to have a specific breed of dog in mind.

Size?
•52% of dog owners own a dog less than 25 lbs. This number is highest for people 55+ who own small dogs 58% of the time.
•29% own dogs 26-50 lbs and 24% own dogs 51-75 lbs and 11% own dogs 75 lbs or more. Older people and low income people are much less likely to own large dogs because of their size and the cost to feed these dogs. Larger dogs are more likely to be owned by 25-54s, as this age group is generally active enough to provide for the exercise needs of a larger dog. 

As members of the family?
•76% of Americans consider their pet to be part of the family
•54% consider themselves "pet parents' instead of "pet owners"
•65% of dogs have free run of the house
•53% of dogs sleep in their owners bedroom
•21% are crated at night or when owners are away
•Only 8% of dogs are kept outside only. However, this number is 16% in housholds that make less than $25k per year. 
•For all of the talk that about low-income pet owners being bad pet owners, this isn't supported by these numbers -- with 84% of even the lowest-income pet owners keeping pets inside the home (55% of this group have dogs with free-run over the home). While it's true that they are more likely to have outside-only dogs, they do still overwhelmingly keep them inside the home. . . .​_There is more here - http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogb...n.html?cid=6a00d83451f90869e2017c336ca85c970b

SOB


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

CptJack said:


> Every time someone says that, all I can think is: "But I don't WANT hound, lab or pit mix." I mean they're nice dogs and all, and the shelters around me are full of them and they are certainly loving, but I'd go out of my ever-loving MIND. They don't FIT me, at all. Like Cran, I have some fairly specific requirements. Some of them are about appearance, most of them aren't. Most of them have some flexibility, but none of them are flexible enough to take me to lab, hound, or pit.


Its so funny, when you think about it, really... why ARE there so many breeds of domesticated dog in existence? Why are new potential breeds popping out all the time? Why? They weren't accidental, created by God or evolution (or aliens)... no... they were created because there are as many diverse PEOPLE out there as there are dog breeds!! There are those that wouldn't have anything BUT a pit or lab breed and there are those that adore terriers. There are those that need a highly intelligent breed like a Border Collie and then there are those that would go crazy trying to keep that active guy busy and challenged... we should embrace and celebrate the unique differences in dog breeds as much as we all insist we should embrace and celebrate the unique differences in human beings... because that is EXACTLY what all these unique dog breeds reflect!!

I love my Cockapoos. I don't pretend they are for everyone and I don't think my dog is better than yours simply because I didn't choose to go with terriers!!


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

savvy said:


> let..... it.... go!


Are you a MOd? I think not. I however AM!


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

our Shelter's and Rescues pull the pitties from BSL places and have no issues adopting them out. our Shelter is usually full of BCs and BC mixes, GSD X's, Rottie X's, Labs a decent number of ACD mixes and Pitties brought in from Ontario, with the odd little dog once in a blue moon. for "me" thats perfect, because BC, ACD and GSD types is what I WANT. one of our local rescues however is chalk full of purebred Basset hounds and Papillons. where you live makes a big differnce in what is available, everything me or my mom could want we could find in a Shelter or Rescue, but thats HERE, its not like that everywhere!


----------



## MountainDogs (Sep 25, 2012)

For me a reputable breeder is someone who health and temperament tests, screens potential buyers and rescues the dogs they breed. Regardless whether they breed purebred or mixed bred dogs.
I feel like responsible breeders and owners are certainly not the reason why there are so many dogs and cats in shelters.
I blame the puppy millers, backyard breeders and impulsive, irresponsible dog/cat buyers. They create a vicious cycle and until that cycle stops, countless dogs and cats will end up in animal shelters, year in..year out.


----------



## dalans (Nov 2, 2018)

About me, I have had different large dogs, mainly shepherd crosses, most recently an amazing shepherd/husky cross - or maybe malamute, who knows - and who cares.

I now have a bernese/poodle cross, and she is a wondeful animal. 50 lbs and only 5 months old, but already fairly calm and able to come to work with me and be my buddy sprawled under my desk. 

Basically she is an easy going yet intelligent enormous black and white poodle with the influence of the bernese features of a full head and medium build - not a slim head and slight build of a poodle, but basically a compromise between the two breeds.

I would say that in some ways she does offer many good traits of both breeds. Of course, there is a tremendous amount of variability across these dogs - my cousin has one as well, but hers leans more towards the bernese dopey character than ours does, and is a bit lazier, whereas ours seems to have gained the activity and intelligence of the poodle. 

But both are really nice dogs. Mine in particular 

Personally I think that the biggest drawbacks to this mix are the cost, as breeders are really capitalizing on this trend; and the variability common in any mixed breed. 

And as for the coat, I clip mine with 1-inch clippers and finish with scissors, and it seems to be going well. No big deal and no piles of fur everywhere like with our past sled dogs. I do not see the coat as a drawback at all.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

This thread is 6 years old, you'd be far better off starting a new discussion about your dog, rather than resurrecting a dead thread.


----------

