# Doodles and pure-bred question



## Fire Tiger (Feb 5, 2008)

I have been doing a lot of reading on the history of different dog breeds. I have yet to find one that wasn't thought to be a combination of two or more (usually several) different dog breeds. Some don't know precisely which were used for certain dog breeds (for example, Doberman Pinscher) and others we know a great deal (for example, due to Lord Tweedmouth's record-keeping, Golden Retriever). Every history I have read, the breeder that established (or had the most influence) on a "new" dog breed had a specific goal in mind they were trying to achieve. Make a better retriever, guard dog, lapdog, whatever. However...

When reading up on Doodle dogs (mixes of one dog breed with the Poodle), I have read a lot of protest from breeders of established dog breeds against Doodle dogs. At first, I found their protests rather stupid given the history of their own dog breeds. But when I read that some Doodle breeders only cross-breed and never try to establish a line, I see where there could be grounds against such breeders. These single-cross breeders could be viewed as merely rolling the dice and hoping something good comes of it. They are not working to perfect a stable line that consistently contains the characteristics they're hoping their roll of the dice will produce.

What I would like to know is: what if a breeder of an established dog breed tried breeding in just one characteristic from another breed into their line, would at some point the descendants of such a breeding program be accepted by that dog breed's club or would that line forever be excluded from it?

Let us say that I'm a breeder that wanted to create a no-shed Golden Retriever (GR) to make GRs more acceptable to those with allergies and/or those that loved GRs but don't want one that sheds all over their house. With this breeder goal in mind, I hunt for a good (possibly champion) Standard Poodle dog that has few or no genetic defects and is the closest temperament to the GR as I can find (or at least one that isn't a high-strung barker) and then breed it to my champion GR bitch. I am lucky and the entire litter produces pups that don't shed. I then select the bitch of that litter that is closest to the GR standard and breed it to another champion GR dog. Each breeding, I only breed the pup who is a no-shed and closest to the GR standard and breed it to another champion GR. Eventually, this breeding program produces pups that meet the GR standard, have the GR temperament, and possess non-curly classic-wavy-feathered GR hair that doesn't shed. I then do a bit of inline breeding to set the line and start using only my line (no more bringing in an outside GR) to produce a line of these dogs. I get them so they consistently produce the desired goal. Could pups of this line ever compete in the show ring against other GRs?


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

i have to pick up my son from the train station now.

but this is like lobbing a pitch to Barry Bonds.

i will try to control myself.


----------



## Aggie (Mar 13, 2008)

The way the AKC is set up, I don't think so... but I may very well be wrong.

You CAN do this with many cattle and horse registries, however. Breeding for a specific purpose/trait I have no problem with given that _ the breeder has a specific goal in mind, and knows what they are doing, [2]has a plan to carry it out, and [3] operates ethically and responsibly._ 

However, you are talking about trying to improve an aspect of an existing breed, from how I understood the post.

Therefore, I won't go into detail of creating a new cross with genetically diverse individuals- it takes, literally, several hundred good animals to cross down before even thinking of inbreeding so you don't pull up all your recessives. I can't think what that method is called, I may look it up later if you are interested. A breed should "breed true," with specific conformation, coloring, looks, temperament (should probably be the first thing listed!). You won't get that in crossing F1's, F2's, or for quite awhile. Most animals I see pet store/byb seem to be F1's or F1X's- there really isn't any telling what you'll get there.


I've had 4 years of genetics classes, and it would still take me a couple years to do the line research on any breeds I'd be interested in doing such with, plus I'd have to re-acquaint myself with dog genetics, esp those of the breeds interested in...hence why I do not support the purposeful crossbreeding of animals to sell at a pet-store.

A good breeder will find homes for his animals, even if they don't meet his standard. One HUGE point is that good breeders breeding for a purpose always follow up throughout the cull animal's lives. This is to make sure no genetic problems show up later in these animals lives that he needs to be aware of for his breeding stock.


----------



## Chicster (Jan 17, 2008)

I can see the point you're trying to make. To a point I agree that if there is a specific purpose and everything is done ethically it isn't necissarily a bad thing... thats very rarely done though. Even at that I think it would be more plausible to develop a breed/line that will be recognized by the ARBA, not the ACK. 

I don't really like your specific example though... because there is already a non-shedding dog in pretty much every size you can imagine (from standard poodle all the way down to toy poodle & chinese crested). Therefore, you don't really NEED to do anything to create a dog for allergy sufferers. Why wouldn't they just get that standard poodle with the great, golden-like personality? Which I think is the point the other DF members are always trying to make... there is pretty much a breed out there to suit every purpose/person's need, even if it isn't your personal favorite in looks or style.


----------



## Alygi (Mar 23, 2008)

Then you'd have a "Goldendoodle" that produced more Goldendoodles. None of them would be purebred anymore. As soon as you bring another breed into the mix, that's it - you have a crossbreed. 

That's how I'm understanding it, anyway. I could be wrong. Correct me if I am.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

You would have to breed many generations, hundreds of dogs to get a pure breeding pair, a male and female, that when mated always gave the same results. And in the course of doing that, requiring inbreeding, one would probably lose many dogs due to recessive characteristics being expressed. So that would further increase the time to create a new breeding pair.

And just as an example, pomeranians were bred down in size around 1900. Previously they were 30 pound dogs. Now they are around 6 pounds. However, even after the thousands of pomeranians bred in the world, purebred, AKC registered pom pairs still have an occasional "big one" in a litter.

So you can see why it takes so long for a new breed to be recognized. 

Also, poodles do shed, as all dogs do (except hairless/furless breeds). However there are a few breeds like poodles, that have a single coat, often referred to as "hair" vs. the double coat that most dogs have referred to as "fur." Even though, these dogs must be brushed daily and groomed at least monthly because as the hair/fur is shed it gets tangled up in the crimp of the curliness. If these curly hair/fur breeds are left without grooming/brushing/clipping short they form mats and the dog must be shaved to the skin. So they are not necessarily a low-maintenance coat dog.

And humans are not allergic to the hair/fur of dogs. They are allergic to a protein in the dander and/or saliva of dogs. And all dogs shed skin cells just as humans do. And all dogs have saliva.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

Alygi said:


> Then you'd have a "Goldendoodle" that produced more Goldendoodles. None of them would be purebred anymore. As soon as you bring another breed into the mix, that's it - you have a crossbreed.
> 
> That's how I'm understanding it, anyway. I could be wrong. Correct me if I am.


I think the OP was saying all of the breeds were crossbreeds at one point. I don't know that much about the subject but that was my understanding of the post.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

now that i read the post, it's a bit different than i originally thought.

however, don't be so impressed by the concept of the modern PUREbreed.

many of the breeds that were created since, let's say 1850, were the result of extensive inbreeding, a practice that is now known to be deleterious to healthy genetics.

without using initial extensive inbreeding, it's hard to fix a new breed to the extent needed to be considered "fixed" enough for AKC standards...and i don't see any reason to go for it.

this is a major reason many Jack Russell and Border Collie enthusiasts fought against AKC recognition.
the AKC is too concerned with a standard "look" rather than work qualities.
(they insist on this, because that's how they got used to judging one dog ahead of another)

people who care about a dog's work abilities care more about performance, personality etc.
you don't need inbreeding for that...just good breeding practices.

having said that, goldendoodle breeders seem to be trying to find ways to fix the non-shed trait.
many have turned to backcrossing a goldendoodle with a poodle, ending up with only 25% golden.

one might ask why not just go for 100% poodle.
goldendoodle admirers would respond that the 25% of golden does still help in adding another dimension to the poodle.

i myself am left cold by most standard poodles...however, i do like the 25% dogs i have met.
however, my preference is the 1/2 and 1/2 dogs...then i would just pick out one with a curly coat...very likely to be non-shedding.

there would be an ethical problem, if people didn't want the shedding ones, and they ended up in shelters.
i don't believe that has happened yet, although anti-doodle people act as if it has.

i know nothing about the attempts to just actually fix the breed.
i think the hesitancy to inbreed, among the responsible breeders, is what makes it difficult.
i am not a fan of that whole movement.

please, let's not have any freakouts.


----------



## Chris_Texas (Feb 21, 2008)

I am currently working on a crop of Shih Tzu / Pit Bull mixes but still need a good name. Any suggestions?


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

They tried to do something similar in dalmations to help get rid of a genetic disease by outcrossing it to another breed.

Here's an excerpt from a site that talks about it:


> Approved crosses to other breeds after AKC recognition are rare but possible. In 1988, at the request of the Dalmatian parent club, the AKC approved the introduction of a
> Pointer into the Dalmatian gene pool in an attempt to introduce the genes for normal uric acid metabolism. The plan was to breed the progeny back to Dalmatians for several generations until theoretically all that remained of the Pointer influence was the gene for normal metabolism. But by that time a new board was in control of the Dalmatian club and they objected to the registration of the crossbred progeny. AKC lifted the registration privileges for these dogs, so the pointer genes never made it into the Dalmatian gene pool.
> 
> The AKC now requires a full membership vote from the parent club before granting approval for such ventures. In the 1980s some Wirehaired Pointing Griffon breeders made crosses to Cesky Fouseks in an attempt to widen the Griffon gene pool. But without a priori parent club and AKC approval, they were not able to get AKC recognition of their stock.
> ...


Link to full site: http://www.salukiclub.org/SalukiHealth/salukhealth-akcgenepool.html


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

Chris_Texas said:


> I am currently working on a crop of Shih Tzu / Pit Bull mixes but still need a good name. Any suggestions?


har har


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

briteday said:


> .
> 
> Also, poodles do shed, as all dogs do (except hairless/furless breeds).
> 
> And humans are not allergic to the hair/fur of dogs. They are allergic to a protein in the dander and/or saliva of dogs. And all dogs shed skin cells just as humans do. And all dogs have saliva.


poodles have some form of shedding, but it can't be compared at all to other dogs.
oinest, half poodle, just doesn't seem to shed at all.
if he doesn't get brushed, he will mat.

there seems to be something about the poodle (and similar breeds) that makes many people not allergic.
i can have moderate allergies to lots of dogs...nothing at all with oinest.


----------



## Ella'sMom (Jul 23, 2007)

Chris_Texas said:


> I am currently working on a crop of Shih Tzu / Pit Bull mixes but still need a good name. Any suggestions?


How about a "shiht pit"??? 

I am still chuckling at the Barry Bonds statement above.

Ella doesn't shed at all either. I have yet to see a hair anywhere but on her.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

lovemygreys said:


> They tried to do something similar in dalmations to help get rid of a genetic disease by outcrossing it to another breed.
> 
> [/url]


i find this to be one of the most interesting stories in the dog world.

most observers think that the Dalmation club's resistance was due to the fact that the healthier dalmations now had smaller spots.
that would ruin the future of people who worked so hard to develop dogs with the right size spots.

personally, i believe this...but there is also some defense to them being against that particular experiment:
it is dangerous to have all the dogs stemming from that one new pointer.

they hadn't discovered any recessive problems in the progeny yet, but who knows.
-----------------------

deafness in dalmations is another issue.

at least 5% are culled at birth because of this.
that is the official policy of the Dalmation club for dogs deaf in both ears.

the gene for their white color coat is directly related to the deafness gene, it seems.

these dogs suffer quite a bit because of our need to see their cute spots.


----------



## briteday (Feb 10, 2007)

We see plenty of crossbreed "doodles" and others in shelters now. Buyers assume that you are getting the best of both breeds and are no longer interested when that is not the case. 

One dog, bought for $2000, was surrendered to us because she didn't live up to the claims. Sad. She had the exhuberance of a lab and shed like a lab, even though she had a curly coat.

We've also seen a fair share of golden/poodles because they shed like a golden. Most owners surrender them because as they shed, they mat into the curly coat. So owners who are not prepared to brush daily and groom monthly no longer want the dogs.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Obviously Bull Shi_ would be an appropriate name for such a mix. I guess I am one of those that feels that would be an appropriate name for most of the designer concocted breeds though. I guess I have seen to many in the shelters. I guess I am not surprised that those who support these breeds NEVER see or hear of any in the shelters. I guess anyone can close their eyes to anything. I have seen them, but then those of us that work in rescue do see them. Lots of them.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

To the OP it'd take a long time to fix a trait. Usually breeding with one trait in mind is a bad idea to begin with. You lose a lot of quality in other aspects. 

The doodle 'problem' is really a lack of standardization that comes with such low generation crosses. Eventually crossbreds could potentially become a breed with a standard and a purpose behind them. Until that happens and people continue just crossing the parent breeds then there's no way that it could become a breed.

If anyone's interested, look into the African Basenji project. That's an interesting read. 

ETA: Luckily papillons are frequently imported here so we have been getting a lot of new blood.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

every popular breed of dog has a significant number that can be found in the shelter.

a certain percentage is inevitable, particularly if originally purchased by ignorant people.

other questions to ask though:
are these dogs really goldendoodles or labradoodles?

if so, are they from what i and others would call a good breeder?
did a good breeder fool someone about non-shedding?

do these dogs get re-adopted quickly?

from the good breeders, is there a high percentage of success stories?

other questions as well.

trust me, poodle breeders respond with some of these same issues when confronted why there are so many purebred poodles in the shelters.
personally, i don't think many were from the responsible poodle breeders.



Laurelin said:


> Eventually crossbreds could potentially become a breed with a standard and a purpose behind them.


the purpose is already there for goldendoodles and labradoodles.
people who want a retreiver personality, but can't deal with shedding and/or allergies.

there are standardization problems, regarding size and shedding.
however, the typical doodle advocate is not obsessed with standardization of look.

regarding shedding, non-scientific surveys among doodle owners show that even the ones who do shed, generally shed much less than other dogs.

of course, there must be a large number of exceptions, considering the large number being bought now.


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

I guess I misunderstood the thread. I thought OP was asking about occasionally outcrossing with another breed in attempt to alter one (or some) of the characteristics of a pure breed, but keep all other traits in place. In their example, crossing a poodle with a retriever in an attempt to retain the "hypoallergenic/non-shedding" nature of the poodle, but then keep crossing those offspring back with only pure bred retrievers. Would this be OK and at what point are the offspring considered pure?

(JMO, but an attempt to modify something like "shedding" that can vary greatly within a pure breed to begin with (some greyhounds shed lots, others almost none) would be difficult if not impossible. However, outcrossing to try to bring IN a trait that might be dominant over a recessive genetic trait *might* be viable - as in the case of the dalmation)


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

Fire Tiger said:


> What I would like to know is: what if a breeder of an established dog breed tried breeding in just one characteristic from another breed into their line, would at some point the descendants of such a breeding program be accepted by that dog breed's club or would that line forever be excluded from it?


The answer you seek maybe in this quote from a breeder who certainly did with approval from a Breed Club and Registry, bred a line of Boxers who now have the "bob tail gene" obtained by crossing with Pembroke Welsh Corgi, he wrote this some years ago:-
"I have often thought with envy about dog breeding at the turn of the Century. This must have been a truly exciting period. It was a time of construction when older breeds and varieties were melded together to make new and exciting ones, each developed for specific purposes. Today, crossbreeding is no longer a recognised option but for the first 50 or so years of this century, crossbreeding to allow the introduction of new or otherwise desirable characters into established breeds was permitted by the Kennel Club, and this too must have been fascinating. I believe that only three backcrosses were needed before registration was again permissable. Nowadays, however, with K.C. registered dogs, pure breeding is the only option. Crossbreeding for any purpose is not considered, and I'm sure that even the idea may be thought of as heresy by most present-day breeders."

Interested in reading the process and what happened, well first read this as it gives a bit of an overview:-
http://www.boxerunderground.com/1998%20issues/oct_bu_98/bobtail.htm

Then read several pages on the breeders website starting with this page:-
http://www.steynmere.com/ARTICLES1.html
.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Quincy, very interesting...thanks.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> people who want a retreiver personality, but can't deal with shedding and/or allergies.


Medication can be tested and proven effective, or not, against allergies. The proteins in a breed of dog can not be tested through a breeding process against allergies. Unless you're saying breeders are using genetic engineering to modify the proteins, against those who are allergic to them, breeding dogs for allergy suffers is a fruitless task. For every anecdotal story about how a dog was bred allergy free for one person, there's another anecdotal story about how a dog did not breed allergy free for people. It would be prudent for those people to find better medication instead of rolling the dice. There are already too many losers in haphazard breeding practices.


----------



## Wimble Woof (Jan 16, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> There are already too many losers in haphazard breeding practices.


AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Two things struck me (ow!) as I was reading this thread.

One was the oft-quoted notion that ALL breeds started out as a combination of other breeds. The example I'm most familiar with is my breed-of-choice, the Plott hound. The Jonathon Plott family wanted a dog to hunt bear and boar in the North Carolina mountains. They crossed the bloodhound and cur and, wham-bam, 250 years later we have a newly recognized breed. For the first 20+ generations, nobody who wasn't named Plott could even own one.

Compare this with modern doodle-breeders who sell first-generation crosses to anyone with a few thousand dollars to spare. If they had been in charge of that bloodhound/cur mix, they would have been marketing first-generation "blurs" all over the Appalachians.

The other thing that saddens me in this thread is the implication that standard poodles are high-strung yappers that need golden or lab genes to somehow mellow 'em out. I am a big fan of both goldens and labs, but I'd have a standard poodle in a heartbeat. I'm sorry that more people who are looking for a large, smart, energetic, low-shedding dog won't give them a chance.


----------



## Dog5 (Jan 13, 2008)

Chris_Texas said:


> I am currently working on a crop of Shih Tzu / Pit Bull mixes but still need a good name. Any suggestions?


Lol, I have Chihuahuas and I'm looking for a Mastiff to mate them with...
Chitiffs? Mashuahuas?


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

RonE said:


> Two things struck me (ow!) as I was reading this thread.
> 
> One was the oft-quoted notion that ALL breeds started out as a combination of other breeds. The example I'm most familiar with is my breed-of-choice, the Plott hound.
> 
> ...


Ron, i am not familiar with the Plott hound.
but before the establishment of kennel clubs, the breeding of dogs was much looser than it is now.

once rifles became accurate in the early 1800's, bird-shooting became popular...and cross-breeding was rampant to find perfect combinations of pointing, retreiving etc.
(until then, retreivers were used for retreiving fishing nets.)

the breeders didn't wait until there was a fixed physical standard.

working ability was what was important...when that was "fixed" or improved, the dog became popular.

there are genetic reasons not to try to "fix" a new breed anymore, but to just stick with a cross of two separate breeds...or to do limited "fixing".

if you start with good stock, of breeds that make sense together (such as the poodle and golden), it seems you usually get very nice results.
-------------
as far as poodles go:
from good breeders, i think they are a marvelous dog.
it is no surprise to me they have a loyal following.

but, in general, they leave me cold...we all have different tastes.
i like golden retreivers.
but i have allergies.
so, oinest is the solution i have always wanted.

also, i think there are too many high-strung poodles out there...a bit of golden can go a long way to alleviating that.

just as i find that the overplayfulness of some goldens might be alleviated by adding some poodle.

also, i think it is the stupid haircuts at the shows which turn off a lot of guys to standard poodles.
if they saw them in athletic cuts, and found out how sporty they really are, things would change, IMHO.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

dog-man said:


> Ron, i am not familiar with the Plott hound.
> but before the establishment of kennel clubs, the breeding of dogs was much looser than it is now.
> 
> once rifles became accurate in the early 1800's, bird-shooting became popular...and cross-breeding was rampant to find perfect combinations of pointing, retreiving etc.
> ...


I have met at least 6 golden doodles and every last one of them was way more hyper and energetic than any golden I have ever seen. The owners of these dogs often seek me out with my dog so he can run them around and tire them out so they can survive living with their dog when they get home. Personally, my dog is just as active outside but he is very calm in the house. No one who sees him inside would ever accuse him of being hyper. I propose we have a new breed called the megamutt


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> working ability was what was important...when that was "fixed" or improved, the dog became popular.


Think of the Belyaev experiment. What happened when the foxes were bred for flight distance? You informed me that their coat color changed, and they had floppy ears. Belyaev wasn't breeding for coat color, but it changed. So, if early breeders were breeding for working ability (behavior), what do you think might happen to the dog's phenotype? Form follows function. What the dog was bred for (in behavior) predicts what the dog will look like.



> there are genetic reasons not to try to "fix" a new breed anymore, but to just stick with a cross of two separate breeds...or to do limited "fixing".


Now consider this statement... If breeders aren't "fixing" the breed, what can be predicted of the dog's behavior? I'm sorry, but I don't know how a golden/poodle cross is suppose to behave, and if the breeders don't either, why do we need these dogs? My local shelter is filled with animals who's behavior are not "fixed". Why do we want to sell dogs that may or may not be what we're looking for? 



> if you start with good stock, of breeds that make sense together (such as the poodle and golden), it seems you usually get very nice results.


Seems? As in there may be no proof? Not exactly a raving endorsement for experimentation and purpose.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

MegaMuttMom said:


> I have met at least 6 golden doodles and every last one of them was way more hyper and energetic than any golden I have ever seen. The owners of these dogs often seek me out with my dog so he can run them around and tire them out so they can survive living with their dog when they get home. Personally, my dog is just as active outside but he is very calm in the house. No one who sees him inside would ever accuse him of being hyper. I propose we have a new breed called the megamutt


i know quite a few goldendoodles, and they are ALL just that:
lively (not hyper) outside, and calm in the house.

not denying your observations...but it is not such a simple issue.

mutts can be great.
the way each of us goes about our dog search depends on the sorts of risks we are willing to take.
what matters to me might not matter to you.

also, you may be skilled at picking out a mutt...i felt i could better my chances of a good dog by going with a purebreed or a cross.

i felt, with my limited experience, i would manage a fresh-slate puppy better than an adult with a past.

oinest reminds all the time:
there is more than one way to skin a cat.



Curbside Prophet said:


> Think of the Belyaev experiment. What happened when the foxes were bred for flight distance? .


please show me where they were bred for flight distance.
i have seen TV shows, read all sorts of articles, and they all only mentioned the breeding for tameness.



Curbside Prophet said:


> So, if early breeders were breeding for working ability (behavior), what do you think might happen to the dog's phenotype? Form follows function. What the dog was bred for (in behavior) predicts what the dog will look like.
> 
> .


yes, form does follow function.

but the westminster dog show (and the like) takes it to a ridiculous extreme. Form becomes an independent issue.

working-dog breeders laugh at them.



Curbside Prophet said:


> If breeders aren't "fixing" the breed, what can be predicted of the dog's behavior?
> 
> Seems? As in there may be no proof? Not exactly a raving endorsement for experimentation and purpose.


if i hadn't said the word "seems", you probably would have said that i SHOULD use the word "seems", since i didn't provide scientific proof.

i don't think "fixing" the phenotype of any dog should be done, except to a limited degree.

the experience in the goldendoodle world is that the personality traits are remarkably consistent.

your personality demands more proof, so don't get one.


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

I am not a breeder, nor am I a geneticist. I can however speak from the point of view of someone who has, 1/2 a brain. (I used to have a whole brain but I went to college and did a lot of drugs in the 90's.)

It would seem that the entire purpose of the Labradoodle is to create a breed of working dogs that are hypo-allergenic, extremely smart, with a wavy or curly coat.

"Labradoodles are sociable, friendly, non aggressive, and extremely intuitive. Their intelligence and high trainability make them well suited for guide dogs, therapy dogs, and other assistance dogs. Their non allergic coats make them popular among people who have not been able to enjoy pets because of their allergies. This new breed is bound to become even more popular as more people learn about the lovable Labradoodles."

So basically, the breeders of the Labradoodle are trying to create a breed that already exists, it's called a PORTUGUESE WATER DOG...

Medium sized, working breed, with wavy or curly hair. Great guide dogs, assistance dogs and highly intelligent.

PORTUGUESE WATER DOG









PORTUGUESE WATER DOG









LABRADOODLE









LABRADOODLE









For those of you that like cars, the Labradoodle is the equivalent of a Lamboerrari. Some guy in his garage takes the body of a Lamborghini and the powertrain of a Ferrari and mixes it with the transmission of a Vette.

Personally, I would rather take home a breed that has the exact same specifications, size, personality, intelligence, coat, etc. and that has been dialed in by responsible breeders for decade's with a history that is proven.

It's like walking into an exotic car dealership and ignoring the Porsche and buying the FRANKENCAR...

Why create a breed for a slot that already exists???? Is there something missing from the Portuguese Water Dog that is gapped by the Labradoodle?

It makes NO sense.

B


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

Great post. PWDs are GREAT dogs and often overlooked by people that I think would be a good match for them. My only "issue" with PWDs are that they are SO freaking smart. I worry about a dog that smart with a little time on their paws and the mischief they can get into! LOL The Portuguese sure know how to create a great dog breed (I'm kinda partial to the podengos myself  )


----------



## Love's_Sophie (Sep 23, 2007)

dog-man said:


> poodles have some form of shedding, but it can't be compared at all to other dogs.
> oinest, half poodle, just doesn't seem to shed at all.
> if he doesn't get brushed, he will mat.
> 
> ...


That matting IS the shedding...it's just that with the density and 'wireyness' of the coat, that fur doesn't come out...it tangles up in the rest of the coat...

Gimme a 'widely shedding dog' anyday, over a matting one...Lol!! Just kidding, there are several drop coated breeds I like too, aside from my herding dog fettish. 

I have dog allergies, as well...but for me no dog seems to make much of a difference...so maybe a 'true allergy'? Not sure... My body's just messed up...


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Medication can be tested and proven effective, or not, against allergies. The proteins in a breed of dog can not be tested through a breeding process against allergies. Unless you're saying breeders are using genetic engineering to modify the proteins, against those who are allergic to them, breeding dogs for allergy suffers is a fruitless task. For every anecdotal story about how a dog was bred allergy free for one person, there's another anecdotal story about how a dog did not breed allergy free for people. It would be prudent for those people to find better medication instead of rolling the dice. There are already too many losers in haphazard breeding practices.


There can be problems with taking medications, particularly when taken daily for many years.

For many years allergy specialists have tested people to see what they are allergic too, and which can include testing peoples reaction to dogs proteins found in saliva samples and dander in coat samples. Some people are allergic to some dogs but not to others, and by using those dogs that are not a breeder could in generation may produce a line that is more likely to not affect those who are allergic to dogs. Notice I said more likely, this in a similar sense as breeding champion dog to champion dog for a number of generations, but even when doing so not all offspring in every litter for generations will be champion dogs but more likely so they may rather than may not.

Guide Dogs Victoria Australia about 20 years ago certainly did send saliva samples and dander in coat samples, this from a number of dogs and which were tested on the person allergic to dogs and only one sample proved to be non-allergenic to that person, and they would do the same today where required. Can anyone see any doodle breeders out there tested dogs to people who are allergic to dogs and who use tested stock for generations within a breeding program. Well I'll go along with Curbside Prophet in "there are already too many losers in haphazard breeding practices", and where I think they are more interested in making money.
.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

B-Line. I agree and that is the large part of my concern with the "NEED TO BREED" more breeds. There are so many already in existence. Are there truly NO breeds that can fit all of those wanted traits? Also, as RonE said in an earlier post. Standard Poodles are pretty wonderful dogs on their own and seems they would be perfect for some of those folks with allergies that want a sweet, lively, outgoing friendly allergy friendly companion. You can even chose which color you want and the hair do your dog will sport.


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

lovemygreys said:


> Great post. PWDs are GREAT dogs and often overlooked by people that I think would be a good match for them. My only "issue" with PWDs are that they are SO freaking smart. I worry about a dog that smart with a little time on their paws and the mischief they can get into!


Lovemygreys, I can't lie. Both of those Portie's in the picture above are mine. The puppy is 5 months and the other is 12 years.

Both dogs are so smart it's scary. I only wish I was a better trainer so I could fully utilize the smarts they have. 

The pup is very mischievous but I say this over and over, She's a PUPPY. I've yet to meet a Golden or Standard puppy that is not mischievous also. That is what you get with smart, working breeds.

But last night when I trained my 5 month old puppy and she was speaking on command, heeling on command, rolling over, giving paw, high five, going to her spot, up the stairs, down the stairs, etc. I am constantly reminded of how young and smart she is, and how eager she is to learn.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And the Labradoodle, is a shame as people have no idea what they are getting, who the breeders are and what they are mixing. The PWD has everything the Labradoodle is being engineered for and it already does it better. 

The word Labradoodle is a marketing gimmick for people trying to make a quick buck.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

B-Line said:


> So basically, the breeders of the Labradoodle are trying to create a breed that already exists, it's called a PORTUGUESE WATER DOG...
> 
> Why create a breed for a slot that already exists???? Is there something missing from the Portuguese Water Dog that is gapped by the Labradoodle?


B-line, my experience with Portuguese water dogs is limited...i have met two, and they both seemed like fine chaps.

i remember, when researching, that they seemed like an interesting choice, but were never considered by me for too long.

the following two issues seemed to come up:
A little too energetic, and less pliable than a golden.

also a little too watchdoggy for my taste.
it may be wrong, but those were the impressions i got from the things i read.

here's from a website:

Mind of their own. Portuguese Water Dogs are not Golden Retrievers. The best PWDs are very smart and capable of learning a great deal, but they have an independent mind of their own. They can be manipulative and willful. You must show them, through absolute consistency, that you mean what you say.

Providing enough exercise and mental stimulation. Portuguese Water Dogs MUST have regular opportunities to vent their energy and do interesting things. Otherwise they will become rambunctious and bored -- which they usually express by barking and destructive chewing. Bored Portuguese Water Dogs can make a shambles of your house and yard.



B-Line said:


> The word Labradoodle is a marketing gimmick for people trying to make a quick buck.


what many people don't get is that the labradoodle and goldendoodle can be incredible dogs...perhaps beyond anything you have ever experienced.

you don't have to believe it, but don't be so sure of yourselves either.

what name would you have given it?


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

Dog-Man,

Maybe you have a different experience with Golden's than I do, but you leave a Golden without mental stimulation, exercise, etc. It's going to eat your house apart just like a Portie (Portuguese Water Dog)..

I go to the park with my dogs and I've yet to see any dog in the 10 years that I have frequented dog parks, that are as responsive and attentive to their owners. Are as smart, or as easily trainable.

Portuguese Water Dogs are not the rebels of the dog community. They are more like the clowns. Yes, they know right from wrong, but they get a kick out of testing those boundaries. And all dogs need discipline and consistency. -- Right now my puppy jumps on the couch, and I have to tell her, off the couch.. She knows, but she's testing.. I wouldn't exactly call it a big deal though. She crates herself when told, etc. 

In terms of the guard dog question, I don't know what you mean. My dog barks when someone is at the door. But I wouldn't exactly call her a junk yard watchdog. So I'm not sure what you mean by watchdoggy?



dog-man said:


> what many people don't get is that the labradoodle and goldendoodle can be incredible dogs...perhaps beyond anything you have ever experienced.
> 
> you don't have to believe it, but don't be so sure of yourselves either.


No doubt there are WONDERFUL Labradoodles out there. Beautiful, smart dogs, etc. But that does not mean they have been breed to any standard and with any traits enhanced or removed by seasoned professionals.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> please show me where they were bred for flight distance.
> i have seen TV shows, read all sorts of articles, and they all only mentioned the breeding for tameness.


I use to have a great link to Belyaev's experiment and his selection procedures, but the link is no longer working. The best I can give you is Coppinger's summary in _Dogs: A Startling New Understanding pf Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution
_


Coppinger said:


> The difference Belyaev sought between the captive foxes was flight distance. Flight is a hazard-avoidance behavior, an essential component of a wild animal's survival. There are two measurable components to flight distance: 1) how close you can get to the animal before it attempts to flee, and 2) how far away it runs.


 This is how Belyaev defined tameness...he defined it with behavior. 



> but the westminster dog show (and the like) takes it to a ridiculous extreme. Form becomes an independent issue.
> 
> working-dog breeders laugh at them.


They laugh because phenotype is not a good indicator of behavior. They laugh because proving one's breeding program is largely political. 



> if i hadn't said the word "seems", you probably would have said that i SHOULD use the word "seems", since i didn't provide scientific proof.


Absolutely. Between science and inference, science *is* the most reliable approximation we have.



> i don't think "fixing" the phenotype of any dog should be done, except to a limited degree.


I actually agree with you here.



> the experience in the goldendoodle world is that the personality traits are remarkably consistent.


And what is that "personality"? "Affectionate", and "nice"? That "seems" rather lofty, no wonder these breeders find their traits consistent...they can move the target where ever it fits. 



> your personality demands more proof, so don't get one.


Well now you're just being rude, which "seems" to exemplify not only your behavior but your character. I'm sure your mama is proud.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

B, your particular pooch sounds like he might be perfect for doodle people like myself.

the question is if they are consistently like that.

one of the PWD's i met, the owner mentioned some of the problems i referred to above...i also recently spoke to an old high school friend with a PWD, and she said the same thing.

if you read the history of bird dogs, new breeds were created for reasons which would seem minor to many of us:
a little bit better in heavy brush, a little less susceptible to the cold, a little more stable...

these small percentage variations mean alot to people who it means alot to.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

dog-man said:


> the question is if they are consistently like that.


Maybe this is off track - but I find that statement a bit amusing considering you've been campaigning for 'doodles' which pretty much offer little to no consistency. The only thing you're guaranteed is a mix of those two dogs (breeds) - beyond that it's a crap shoot.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Quincy said:


> Notice I said more likely, this in a similar sense as breeding champion dog to champion dog for a number of generations, but even when doing so not all offspring in every litter for generations will be champion dogs but more likely so they may rather than may not.
> 
> Can anyone see any doodle breeders out there tested dogs to people who are allergic to dogs and who use tested stock for generations within a breeding program.


If it were important to have such a dog, a dog who had a modified protein, a genetic engineer would design that protein, not a breeder. Not to argue the ethics of genetic engineering, this can only be done in a lab, not in an open market. This is a specific target, unlike what a champion dog is. A dog may not be crowned champion simply because the criteria for the championship changed, by whom ever governs the criteria. The criteria for an allergen free dog can't change to be successful. Either he causes allergies or he doesn't. Breeders, unless tapped into a geneticist should not be dabbling in uncontrolled science. That's my opinion anyway, and the only way I can see making this argument being unemotional...at least until the ethics of genetic engineering is resolved. Ya, good luck, I know.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I use to have a great link to Belyaev's experiment and his selection procedures, but the link is no longer working. The best I can give you is Coppinger's summary in _Dogs: A Startling New Understanding pf Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution
> _ This is how Belyaev defined tameness...he defined it with behavior.
> 
> .


 i will have to look this up.
my immediate impression is that flight distance might have been the original purpose of why Belyaev started the experiment...

i remember the purpose he was hired for, was not just to do an experiment...fox breeders needed some help.

but the simple technique he used was to breed for tameness.

i'll let you know.



Curbside Prophet said:


> .
> 
> Well now you're just being rude, which "seems" to exemplify not only your behavior but your character. I'm sure your mama is proud.


oh, that's also rude.

by the way, after i clicked "SAVE", i realized the wording could come off as rude.
my intention, however, was not....honestly.

you have a strong inclination to demand proof.
i trust my intuition.

so go with your nature.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> but the simple technique he used was to breed for tameness.


I think you're getting too hung up on the word "tameness". You can only conduct an experiment like this by observing behavior. Tameness is not a behavior, it's a collective group of behaviors that defines the experimenter's selection criteria. So, tameness to Belyaev = how close you could get to the fox, and how far he ran away. Of course his selection criteria did change as he progressed, like selecting animals for reverse flight distance (animals that approached the human).


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Dakota Spirit said:


> - but I find that statement a bit amusing considering you've been campaigning for 'doodles' which pretty much offer little to no consistency. The only thing you're guaranteed is a mix of those two dogs (breeds) - beyond that it's a crap shoot.


two things: i am not campaigning for doodles.

i am defending the honor of those who love them.
also, i am trying to clarify what i see as incorrect information being disseminated about them.

i would not campaign for goldendoodles until they were fixed for non-shedding.

as well, i don't consider it a crap shoot when breeding them...for size and shedding, yes...for personality, the results are remarkably consistent.

different dogs, different personalities...but consistently sweet and smart...
as consistent as well-bred purebred dogs, i would bet.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i would not campaign for goldendoodles until they were fixed for non-shedding.


I guess you won't be campaigning for them then. As unless they intent to breed a skinless dog (would it be a dog?), the animal will shed dead skin.



dog-man said:


> by the way, after i clicked "SAVE", i realized the wording could come off as rude.
> my intention, however, was not....honestly.


You're human and forgivable. I can only interpret what I read.



> you have a strong inclination to demand proof.


Our dogs demand this...we are their voice.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

B-Line said:


> Dog-Man,
> 
> No doubt there are WONDERFUL Labradoodles out there. Beautiful, smart dogs, etc. But that does not mean they have been breed to any standard and with any traits enhanced or removed by seasoned professionals.
> 
> .


well, us goldendoodle people believe there is great enhancement.

the best traits of the poodle and the golden.

detractors say, What if you get the worst of both?

but they're not talking from any experience, just wishful thinking.



Curbside Prophet said:


> I guess you won't be campaigning for them then. As unless they intent to breed a skinless dog (would it be a dog?), the animal will shed dead skin.
> 
> .


i think you know that i mean non-shedding, similar to the level of the poodle.

however, i am not hoping to campaign one day...because i don't see how it will be fixed, without using breeding techniques i am against.

however, my knowledge on this is very limited, so maybe i will be surprised.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

dog-man said:


> well, us goldendoodle people believe there is great enhancement.
> 
> the best traits of the poodle and the golden.
> 
> ...


Similarly us 'purebred' people, heck not even that - just those that care about responsible breeding, wonder why there is a need to combine those traits. Both breeds are wonderful on their own.

Wishful thinking? Hm, no. I do not wish deformities on any animal or person. Being realistic however, is an important trait to have.

ETA: I don't need a response regarding how many breeds were developed through crosses, either. This I understand. Crossing two breeds to create a personality already present in millions of dogs though, does not make any sense in my mind.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> well, us goldendoodle people believe there is great enhancement.
> 
> the best traits of the poodle and the golden.
> 
> ...


I've been reading this whole thread without commenting, but now I had to. To say that you will always get the best of both breeds from a first generation cross is the height of wishful thinking. I used to work supervising a doggy daycare, and believe me, I saw plenty of examples of Labradoodles and Goldendoodles that inherited the worst of both breeds. There is simply no such thing as a first generation cross generating consistent results every single time. There's a reason it took decades to create the consistent breeds that we now have. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a Goldendoodle or Labradoodle breeder that is actually interested in creating a new breed. They're only interested in making a fast buck on the latest designer dog fad.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i think you know that i mean non-shedding, similar to the level of the poodle.


Do I know how you are using this term erroneously, yes. Does it mean this propaganda should be propagated, no. I'd rather it be said a dog with the same "shed rate" as a poodle.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Dakota Spirit said:


> Similarly us 'purebred' people, heck not even that - just those that care about responsible breeding, wonder why there is a need to combine those traits. Both breeds are wonderful on their own.
> 
> Wishful thinking? Hm, no. I do not wish deformities on any animal or person. Being realistic however, is an important trait to have.


a large chapter in the history of dog breeding is the history of trying to combine the positive traits of different dogs.

for some silly reasons (which i would be glad to discuss), the AKC groups think that this process should now be stopped.

and any breeder who crosses breeds is automatically considered a bad breeder.

this is without going into the whole discussion of the genetic nightmare created by ignorant breeding practices of breeders early in the century...and the refusal of AKC groups to significantly expand the gene pool of their breeds, despite overwhelming evidence from the scientific community that this is essential to the health of the purebred dog world.



Curbside Prophet said:


> Do I know how you are using this term erroneously, yes. Does it mean this propaganda should be propagated, no. I'd rather it be said a dog with the same "shed rate" as a poodle.


i almost never see even a hair from oinest anywhere in the house.
that is pretty good for me.
i don't care about the scientific definition.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

dog-man said:


> a large chapter in the history of dog breeding is the history of trying to combine the positive traits of different dogs.
> 
> for some silly reasons (which i would be glad to discuss), the AKC groups think that this process should now be stopped.
> 
> ...


Notice the edit in my post. I am WELL aware of the history that brought about many of the breeds we have today.

However, the greater majority of those breeds were created with some sort of purpose in mind. They were not simply thrown together for the heck of it, which dare I say is much the reason many designer dogs are created today.

I do not think the process should necessarily end - but there is much more to it then simply crossing dogs. And yes, if you are a lone breeder out there mixing breeds without a legit purpose in mind - you are a bad breeder, at least in my opinion alone.

The whole "Sweet, non shedding dogs" excuse just doesn't fly with me. Poodles are plenty sweet - they don't need the addition of Goldens to get that. Nor do Golden's need the addition of Poodles to slow their shedding. You don't want a long haired dog - don't get a golden. There are piles of sweet tempered low shedding breeds out there.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Kuma'sMom said:


> To say that you will always get the best of both breeds from a first generation cross is the height of wishful thinking.


the golden and the poodle are both marvelous dogs...there is just so far bad you can go.

and the reality for goldendoodle people who talk to each other, on websites and in person, is that the obtaining of the the best traits of both seems to be the rule.
(the ones who go on these sites usually first cared about their breeder before buying)

honestly, i think most of the detractors exaggerate their experiences with goldendoodles.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> this is without going into the whole discussion of the genetic nightmare created by ignorant breeding practices of breeders early in the century...and the refusal of AKC groups to significantly expand the gene pool of their breeds, despite overwhelming evidence from the scientific community that this is essential to the health of the purebred dog world.


The only breeding practice that is healthy for dogs, in a limited gene pool, is through natural selection, in an isolated niche. Breeding of doodles and labs, and mini schnauzers is artificial selection. The nightmare you're mentioning was created by humans, not the AKC, nor any other registry. 



> i almost never see even a hair from oinest anywhere in the house.
> that is pretty good for me.
> i don't care about the scientific definition.


I know you don't care about the terms you use, even if it connotes harmful ideas. I also know that if you are looking for hair and not dead skin, of course the proof is in the pooding (intended).


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Dakota Spirit said:


> The whole "Sweet, non shedding dogs" excuse just doesn't fly with me. Poodles are plenty sweet - they don't need the addition of Golden's to get that. Nor do Golden's need the addition of Poodles to slow their shedding. You don't want a long haired dog - don't get a golden. There are piles of sweet tempered low shedding breeds out there.


this is the silliest post i have seen.

poodles are great for those who like their personality.
to me, they are night and day with goldendoodles.

and yes, goldens shed profusely...oinest does not.

and yes, i want a golden type dog.

and no, there are not tons of sweet, low shedding dogs in the size i want.

there are poodles, that i don't want.
there are portuguese water dogs, which are an alternative perhaps.

and if you know the history of cross-breeding, the purpose of the cross didn;t have to make sense to the rest of the dog world to do it.
it just had to make sense to those it made sense to.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> the golden and the poodle are both marvelous dogs...there is just so far bad you can go.
> 
> and the reality for goldendoodle people who talk to each other, on websites and in person, is that the obtaining of the the best traits of both seems to be the rule.
> (the ones who go on these sites usually first cared about their breeder before buying)
> ...


That's assuming that the breeders are using quality breeding stock. But the reality is, reputable breeders will not sell their puppies knowing they will be used to create crossbreeds. This means that the vast majority of Goldendoodle and Labradoodle breeders are using stock from puppy mills and back yard breeders. The odds of a Goldendoodle inheriting negative traits is just as high as it inheriting positive. You don't have to believe me, but I have worked with a number of Goldendoodles and Labradoodles, and my experience has been very negative. They were the dogs we dreaded seeing in the appointment book at the daycare. I've honestly yet to meet a Goldendoodle with the calm, sweet nature you keep describing.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

dog-man said:


> this is the silliest post i have seen.


I guess we're one for one then, considering my feelings on basically your entire scope of post time here.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> selection. The nightmare you're mentioning was created by humans, not the AKC, nor any other registry.
> 
> ).


the AKC is very responsible, but i am going to sleep now.

they demand rigid rules of appearance standards, which only further lessen the gene pool, and cause all sorts of health problems in many breeds.

they do not allow the opening of stud books, to allow fresh genetic material in...those are their rules.



Dakota Spirit said:


> I guess we're one for one then, considering my feelings on basically your entire scope of post time here.


the differerece is that i explain why i say so...and when i explain, it also addresses the points that you have made


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> they demand rigid rules of appearance standards, which only further lessen the gene pool, and cause all sorts of health problems in many breeds.


Well I'm not a proponent of the AKC, but the appearance standards are only an ideal, a target. No one can breed the standard, they can only breed a best approximation of the standard. Breeder's tastes are not all the same, nor are all the conformation judges. So your rigid rules, really, are not rigid at all. 



> they do not allow the opening of stud books, to allow fresh genetic material in...those are their rules.


That's one way to add new genes, but that's not to say those genes will be good. that's why genetic testing is paramount, and if you're breeder isn't doing genetic tests, well, you have a breeder who doesn't care about their product. 

Have a good night, and give Oinest a big hug for us all!


----------



## Fire Tiger (Feb 5, 2008)

First, I would like to thank Quincy for the links to the two webarticles. That is part of the information I wanted to know. Can it be done. I very much enjoyed reading both of those articles.

Second, I knew I would get some posters fixated on the Golden Doodle example I gave. In a way, that's too bad since that wasn't the purpose of my post. It was just an example of such single-trait cross-breeding to backcross the desired trait back into the breed and it being accepted back in.

Third, while there seems to be an example of such cross-breeding and its backcrossing being accepted back into a "pure" breed (bob-tail Boxers), it seems as if most are saying that wouldn't be the case. And even with the exception, it was to possibly resolve an important issue (docking) which laws were threatening to interfere with. In other words, a non-crucial cross-breed backcross breeding would not be accepted back into the dog breed's club.



Curbside Prophet said:


> If it were important to have such a dog, a dog who had a modified protein, a genetic engineer would design that protein, not a breeder.


This is an interesting point. I will start up another thread about it as it isn't what my original post was about. 

Thanks to everyone that contributed to this thread. I got the answer I was seeking.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> If it were important to have such a dog, a dog who had a modified protein, a genetic engineer would design that protein, not a breeder. Not to argue the ethics of genetic engineering, this can only be done in a lab, not in an open market. This is a specific target, unlike what a champion dog is. A dog may not be crowned champion simply because the criteria for the championship changed, by whom ever governs the criteria. The criteria for an allergen free dog can't change to be successful. Either he causes allergies or he doesn't. Breeders, unless tapped into a geneticist should not be dabbling in uncontrolled science. That's my opinion anyway, and the only way I can see making this argument being unemotional...at least until the ethics of genetic engineering is resolved. Ya, good luck, I know.


What started the craze was an person in Hawaii who was allergic to dogs, and their wife needed a guide dog. That person was tested to a number of dogs, including saliva and dander samples from 33 different Poodles, and that person still allergy reacted to those. It was 2 years later that Guide Dogs thought about crossing a Labrador with a Poodle and a litter of 3 pups were born, their saliva and dander samples were sent for testing to that person in Hawaii, samples omly from ONE of the pups did NOT allergy affect that person in Hawaii. That pups name was Sultan and who was trained to be a guide dog, the other 2 pups of that litter certainly did cause the person to allery react and they were still trained for people who did not have allergy reactions to dogs. Soon as word of what happened hit the media the guide dog centre was flooded with people who were allergic to dogs and wanted a dog such as Sultan, irrigardles each person still needed to be tested such as what occurred with that person in Hawaii. Then in comes all the backyard breeders and puppy mills who wanted to make money from people who simply wanted a dog that they were not allergic too.

Now was Sultan genetic engineered, and what if dogs such as Sultan were bred to each for generations within a breeding program. Here is my Quincy who has, and he is 9 generations since first generation cross, and my wife is certainly allergic to dogs but not to Quincy, and he also is an Assistance Service Dog for my wife who has dissabilities, and no argument from me just mentioning about our particular dog which I think you may not know much about.








.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Quincy said:


> Now was Sultan genetic engineered, and what if dogs such as Sultan were bred to each for generations within a breeding program.


IMO Sultan was genetically engineered, with the best practices at that time. I can appreciate a breeding program with a goal and standard. I don't think, however, it's good practice, today, to breed then test results...not from breeders at least, and not with the surplus of animals we already have, who can be trained and tested too. It's probably too late for this now (greed has found its way), but I'd rather see today's technology used (although expensive) in refining what is being bred for. Unfortunately, this is dependent on a market, and I don't believe assistance dogs for allergy sufferers is a large enough market to bear the burden in expense.


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

dog-man said:


> well, us goldendoodle people believe there is great enhancement.
> the best traits of the poodle and the golden.
> detractors say, What if you get the worst of both?
> but they're not talking from any experience, just wishful thinking.


Dog Man,

I do appreciate your commitment to the breed of Goldendoodle's and your willingness to stand behind them. I am also happy to see that you are extremely happy with your pet.

But getting past the idea that you have been blessed with an exceptional animal, can't you understand what we are trying to say here? 

In case you don't understand, I am going to supply a picture:


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

B-Line said:


>



Baha! God, that was such a cheesy movie


----------



## B-Line (Feb 1, 2008)

dog-man said:


> B, your particular pooch sounds like he might be perfect for doodle people like myself.
> 
> the question is if they are consistently like that.
> 
> one of the PWD's i met, the owner mentioned some of the problems i referred to above...i also recently spoke to an old high school friend with a PWD, and she said the same thing.


Dog Man, 

I have two Portuguese Water Dogs (the ones in the pictures are both mine.)
My older girl is 12 and she is as kind and as sweet and as smart as any dog you can imagine.

My puppy is the same. But puppy needs a lot of attention. She has a lot of energy (but don't all puppies?) that needs to be directed. If you channel that energy into training, your results are a really smart animal that knows how to please you, understands what you expect from it and how to deliver it.

However, should the energy of the Portie go unfocused with no training, no exercise and no mental stimulation, you are right, you will probably end up with a dog that will be hard to control.

It's like having a really smart child, you need to give him books or he's going to get bored and start playing with things he shouldn't be playing with.

So, if the people you know have complained about difficulties with the breed, I am 99% certain it is because they have not understood the needs of ANY working dog, regardless of breed.

Porties are very easy to manage as soon as you realize their energy needs to be directed. But as soon as you have the direction, they will stop at nothing to please you.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

I haven't had time to read through the posts, but I'll mention this for some thought, and I really must run away to do some other things.

Within a litter, be it from pure bred parents or from crossbred parents, there maybe a pup that has differences in their proteins in their saliva dander and urine, that is different from other pups in the litter, be it the weight of the protein or whatever, but is seen by the immune system of those who are allergic to dogs as different where it does NOT cause an allergic response.

Now image a breed at random, say in a litter where a Great Dane pup was born who had a difference in their proteins that did NOT allergy effect a person who was allergic to dogs, and later that pup was bred to other Great Danes who similarly had that difference in their proteins, and where over generations a line of Great Danes maybe bred that maybe suited to more people who are allergic to dogs.

I do not know of any Great Dane or any other breed where their breeders allergy tests their dogs with those who are allergic to dogs, and uses that information in their breeding program.

BUT keep in mind I feel we must not assume some sort of "breed thing" even with such specially bred lines even after many generations, and where each person who is allergic to dogs would really need to be allergy tested to the particular dog that they are interested in, yes even from any Great Dane or any other breed lines that have been special bred which might suite those allergic to dogs.

Keep in mind that those who are seriously allergic to dogs, the testing must be done with an allergy specialist and with medical emergency things quite handy.
.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

> Let us say that I'm a breeder that wanted to create a no-shed Golden Retriever (GR) to make GRs more acceptable to those with allergies and/or those that loved GRs but don't want one that sheds all over their house. With this breeder goal in mind, I hunt for a good (possibly champion) Standard Poodle dog that has few or no genetic defects and is the closest temperament to the GR as I can find (or at least one that isn't a high-strung barker) and then breed it to my champion GR bitch. I am lucky and the entire litter produces pups that don't shed. I then select the bitch of that litter that is closest to the GR standard and breed it to another champion GR dog. Each breeding, I only breed the pup who is a no-shed and closest to the GR standard and breed it to another champion GR. Eventually, this breeding program produces pups that meet the GR standard, have the GR temperament, and possess non-curly classic-wavy-feathered GR hair that doesn't shed. I then do a bit of inline breeding to set the line and start using only my line (no more bringing in an outside GR) to produce a line of these dogs. I get them so they consistently produce the desired goal. Could pups of this line ever compete in the show ring against other GRs?


This was tried in Australia with Labradoodles, and failed. Despite all of their efforts to come up with a breed standard, it didn't happen.



> as far as poodles go:
> from good breeders, i think they are a marvelous dog.
> it is no surprise to me they have a loyal following.
> 
> but, in general, they leave me cold...we all have different tastes.


i 

What do mean when you say Poodles leave you cold?




> also, i think there are too many high-strung poodles out there...a bit of golden can go a long way to alleviating that.


I've literally met hundreds of Standard Poodles, none of whom I'd call high strung. I have met many Golden Retrievers who were dizzy idiots (long after puppyhood is over), and quite high-strung. Labs, too. Poor breeding could easily be a factor, but, none-the-less, there you have it. 

I have two Standard Poodles, and neither of them are high-strung. Animated? Yes. Athletic? Yes. Show me a high-strung Standard Poodle and I'll show you an owner who has issues. And/Or, whose dog is underexercised and bored - you can't be a slug and expect your Poodle to thrive or even do well. My Poodles frequently accompany me to work, where I deal with people in crisis, law enforcement, and EMTs. There are times when I'm unable to interact with them (Poodles) for hours at a time. They remain on their mat or bed, and stay out of the way - or, help in some way as directed. I have sent Maddy out on the grounds to look for a kid (attempting to run away), whom she found before he was able to scale the back fence. At the sight of Maddy, he went straight to his room, and stayed there all night without incident. This troubled kid had taken off several times, and police brought him back. I took care of my mother (terminal cancer) for many months by myself. I could not have done it w/out Maddy's help - she did so much - took soiled laundry to the laundry room, and pulled clean laundry from the dryer into a basket, and brought me the basket. She brought the medication bag from one room to another, fetched the walker and brought it, brought me mom's socks, slippers, and robe. She came and got me when mom needed me, even waking me if I was asleep. (Beau was back home in FL, as I could only bring one dog on the plane. Maddy is allowed on board as she is a trained service dog.

My Poodles find and bring me the phone, remote, my purse, keys, their leashes, whatever I point to, and numerous items I ask for by name. They bring in the cat when he escapes outside, and I ask them to find him. They help bring in groceries and put (some of) them away, and will bring anyone a beer from the fridge, if you ask them. Uh, that's only if it's bottled beer; neither of them will touch canned drinks! They're skilled in tracking, agility, and Maddy in canine freestyle dance, the latter of which we perform for kids in shelter and at the adult daycare center a couple of miles from home. I depend on them both to help socialize and work with rescues I foster, be they dogs or cats. Maddy's very people savvy, can really work a crowd, and changed many a hunter's mind about Poodles when she accompanied a friend out in the field with his Lab he'd been training for several months. In one day she was doing the job better than his lab (according to my friend), and was as good as many of the other (fully trained) dogs out there that day. A lot of what turns people off about Poodles is their hair. Clip them down into a field clip, and people can see an agile, muscular, athletic dog.


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

dog-man said:


> what many people don't get is that the labradoodle and goldendoodle can be incredible dogs...perhaps beyond anything you have ever experienced.


I think that many people DO get that a cross breed is a crapshoot. You can get any and all combinations of the physcial and behaviorial traits of either or both breeds. Without any sort of predictability, you can't make an educated decision about whether or not a doodle is the right dog for you. You just simply can not predict what you will end up with.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

Kuma'sMom said:


> I've been reading this whole thread without commenting, but now I had to. To say that you will always get the best of both breeds from a first generation cross is the height of wishful thinking. I used to work supervising a doggy daycare, and believe me, I saw plenty of examples of Labradoodles and Goldendoodles that inherited the worst of both breeds. There is simply no such thing as a first generation cross generating consistent results every single time. There's a reason it took decades to create the consistent breeds that we now have. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a Goldendoodle or Labradoodle breeder that is actually interested in creating a new breed. They're only interested in making a fast buck on the latest designer dog fad.


I am soooo agreeing with this. Of the doodles I have met, some shed as bad as the lab or golden and many are far more active, hyper, and barky than any other dog I meet. And believe me, where I run my dog off-leash, you are meeting the most active of active dogs. 

I'm glad the OP loves his doodle but saying that doodles ARE this or that is just plain ridiculous, like saying shelter dogs are inherently a crap shoot. You can nurture and train a shelter dog, or any dog, to be the best it can be but, you can't train a shedding doodle not to shed


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

> I'm glad the OP loves his doodle but saying that doodles ARE this or that is just plain ridiculous, like saying shelter dogs are inherently a crap shoot. You can nurture and train a shelter dog, or any dog, to be the best it can be but, you can't train a shedding doodle not to shed


That's the truth! A co-worker has a goldendoodle, who is just as sweet and goofy as can be. Sheds tons of hair everywhere, and she can't find anyone who will groom him for under $100, and that's a shave down. (His coat is horrible - a combo of both breeds, but sheds AND mats! She paid a LOT of money for this dog, and he is a sweetheart, but he's NOT hypoallergenic (as he was reputed to be), he DOES shed (she was told he would not), and he's HUGE! He needs surgery for HD, and has OCD in his right shoulder, requiring surgery. He's on thyroid meds, and doing very well, and since I gave her the Gentian Violet formula, his ear infections have cleared up.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

i will make a few points i consider important, and then try to wean myself from this thread...i have been somewhat compulsive this past week with these dog debates.

many people would like to paint goldendoodle/labradoodle enthusiasts with a broad paint-brush.

we're a bunch of goobers, who have been fooled by the hype and distortions of unethical breeders.

yes, there are goobers...and there are unethical breeders (just as there are for purebred dogs).

however, there is a large group of knowledgeable dog people, who have discovered these marvelous dogs...and they do go to good breeders, who do have good stock (even if your best friend ,the champion poodle breeder, would never sell her dogs to such breeders.)

many of us are also concerned with the stubborness of purebred breeders in not addressing genetic problems inherent with the closed stud books of purebreds...and instead they put all their reliance on various tests (good idea these tests, but only a part of the solution.)

these dogs are not for everyone...but they do have their niche...and no, the current purebred dogs probably don't fill the need.

if you want and can handle a golden (the first year in particular can be difficult), and you are intrigued by the possibility of a low-shedding dog, then a goldendoodle can be an interesting alternative.

there is nothing inherently wrong with breeders who make money on selling dogs.
many love dogs, and high quality is one way of making you stand out in the crowd.

Show breeders are not all just altruistic dog-lovers...many want ribbons instead of money...and when some talk about "improving the breed", it often means little more than trying to attain an arbitrary and possibly deleterious physical standard (take a look at bulldogs, dachsunds with too long a back, deaf dalmations etc).

and there is no real good reason to say that the history of crossing breeds should be stopped, simply because showdog people don't get it.
we're not looking for another showdog.
every generation has new needs, and people will cross dogs to get closer to their ideal dog.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

I am only going to respond to this thread once (its my april resolution to not get baited into these threads and only respond once, get it out of my system and move on) 

I have met alot of poodle mixes (will not use that ridiculous doodle word, and they are mixes) and I have met some that are very nice and some that were total lunatics.... while totally not scientific I think I have met more lunatics than nice lower key dogs.... but again it could be that they are sticking in my brain more.

What bothers me about these mixes are several things 

1. the breeders - as a golden breeder we are unfortunately dragged into the breeding of these mixes..... and no reputable golden breeder will sell a dog to someone that is going to mix breeds..... which means that every poodle mix breeder is starting out with goldens that come from less than reputable breeders .... I don't know for a fact but I would imagine the poodle folks are the same way. There are constant discussions at the club level about who is inquiring about golden puppies and do we as breeders have any reason to believe that they will breed mixes. If they do, they don't get a puppy from any of us. This is the same discussion we have on the golden retriever lists and other sources..... 

2. Dishonesty amongst breeders - they are not truthful about the whole non-shedding, hypo-allergenic, hybrid vigor stuff..... that bugs me.... there is no way to predict first generation mixes..... or second or third really..... yet they continue to tell unsuspecting puppy people that these dogs get the best of both breeds, are hypoallergenic, easy to train..... these dogs are mixed breeds.... mutts..... and until the "breed" and I use that term loosely is stabilized then there is really no telling what you will get...... The other problem here is that I wonder what they really know about their pedigrees. I am fully entrenched in pedigree research right now.... we are importing a puppy and I have questions about this pedigree of the pup and whether that pup will line up with emmetts if we ever decide to do that (and the best dog is not always the one ya got) and pedigree research is hard. Its hard for people with connections in the breed to get down to the nitty gritty..... and if they are not getting their dogs from reputable breeders who have worked to understand the pedigree and what exists, then these breeders have no idea what they are putting together other than a poodle and whatever..... even if they do clearances..... 

3. Where is the breed standard....???? if you say they don't care about looks, then they don't have a breed.... a breed is not just two dogs thrown together who have various traits.... a breed is the whole idea of predictable traits.... and that is from appearance to temperament to instinct..... yet cocker poodle mixes have been around for a half century at least 1950's and there is no move toward breed recognition and stability..... 

Personally I don't have a problem with the development of new breeds..... and there was a big discussion here about the Shiloh Shepherd not long ago..... a developing breed.... however.... charging ridiculous amounts of money for mixed breed puppies, lining breeders pockets off the backs of their dogs, many are not doing clearances at all, being dishonest to puppy buyers.... about the things mentioned above...the predictability of traits... drives me nuts..... and look at the posts here..... look at your own posts.... not that you would ever admit to being incorrect or having more to learn..... 

makes me crazy..... 

over and out..... 
I will not be back to this thread.
s


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Shalva said:


> yet cocker poodle mixes have been around for a half century at least 1950's and there is no move toward breed recognition and stability.....


you think if there is no serious movement to get these cockerpoos recognized by the AKC, then there is no work in developing quality, consistent dogs.

the AKC has certain goals, which are fairly ridiculous in many people's opinion.
we don't need their recognition or approval.
we have different priorites.

all the goldendoodle breeders i have spoke to are very up front with the shedding crapshoot.
although, if you go with the curly hair dogs, you do improve your chances significantly (also, if you go with 75% poodle)

many goldendoodle owners are people who CAN deal with the shedding, just like other dog owners.

however, if it's a choice between a golden who will definitely shed, and a goldendoodle who might shed less (or not at all, like Oinest), it's an intelligent choice to go for that possibility.



poodleholic said:


> What do mean when you say Poodles leave you cold?
> 
> .


as i mentioned, i understand why you and many others love poodles...they are a special breed.

however, they are different in many ways from goldens.

and my taste is goldens.

when i mix a golden with a poodle, i increase the possibilty that i will get the golden qualities i want, plus the non-shedding of the poodle.

we all do what we can to increase the chances of getting what we want...not asking for guarantees.
it is only stupid or unethical if we give up the dogs, if we don't get exactly what we wanted.

what is so difficult to understand about that?



Shalva said:


> .... look at your own posts.... not that you would ever admit to being incorrect or having more to learn.....
> 
> I will not be back to this thread.


the difference between you and me is that i try to directly address the points that you and others have made.

all you have done is go on a rant of your opinions, and have not at all addressed the many attempted answers i have already provided to your objections.

i believe that is the real reason you will not be back (although i'm sure you will at least be back to see the responses.)


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

poodleholic said:


> This was tried in Australia with Labradoodles, and failed. Despite all of their efforts to come up with a breed standard, it didn't happen.


Then what's this, and even now appearing in America:-
http://www.australianlabradoodleclub.us/BreedStandard.html
.


----------



## FriendsOfZoe (Aug 7, 2007)

Like Shalva, I am trying not to get wrapped up in these things, as I have better things to do with my life. I just have a few things I would like to weigh in on...not to convince anyone already on here of anything, for I think it's about 65 posts too late to change anyone's mind. I'm simply posting for the purposes of others who might be reading this or may read in the future while thinking about buying a doo or poo.

1) As a golden retriever owner, I am hard-pressed to find what so many people insist about coat wise. Many goldens shed LESS than a lot of short-haired dogs. My Zoe has a very moderate coat (not very fluffy, and although she's still filling out, she will definitely never be a heavily coated golden like you see in many show dogs today), and she hardly sheds at all except for the obligatory twice a year shed, when a trip to the groomer could easily minimize the amount of fur one finds around the house. 

2) As a lifelong allergy sufferer, I have to weigh in on the "non-allergenic dog" too. First of all, shedding fur is not what causes allergies!! So the non-shedding thing has nothing to do with allergies anyway...so let's put that to rest. If you can't handle a little dog hair around the house, what are you going to do when they get sick and throw up or worse, diarrhea in your house? Or when they come in from the rain with muddy paws? Or when they slobber on a toy and drop it on your sofa? If you can't handle a little bit of mess, you shouldn't have a dog. Period.

Now for the people with allergies...because everyone has different allergens that affect them in different ways, you can NEVER breed a consistently hypoallergenic dog. There will ALWAYS be people who are allergic to that dog. I realize that some of these stories are touching, where people need a service dog and there happens to be one doodle bred who they are not allergic to. Lovely story, but the question is bigger than that: is it ethical to breed perhaps 20 puppies in order to find ONE that will work for a person? What about the other 19? With the vast overpopulation of dogs we have, I'm sure they could look long and hard and eventually find one that can be service trained and does not bother their allergies. Will it take more work? Yes. But it's the whole American ideal of instant gratification that has caused both the doo issue and the overpopulation of dogs in the first place.

Also, there is NO reason that someone with severe allergies needs to have a dog! This is what I don't understand. There are other ways to deal with disabilities. My mom is highly allergic to dogs; my brother and I always wanted dogs but we never got one. Did it kill us? No. When I moved out on my own, I got tested, was found to be clear of dog allergies, and went in search of my puppy. I see people who are blind, wheelchair bound, etc. every day who do just fine without service dogs. While dogs are great for service work, someone with dog allergies has other options. They do not NEED a dog.

Another thought too, while we're discussing genetic modification of dogs, is that there are ALLERGY shots that while far from perfect, can greatly help many people manage their allergies. My aunt is also severely allergic to dogs, but when her kids wanted a dog, she caved. They bought a bichon, which is one of those already existing "hypoallergenic" dogs, and when he still made her sick, she went on allergy shots and will stay on them as long as they have a dog. Rather than breeding multitudes of dogs, why don't people with allergies try looking for already existing dogs that, combined with medication and shots, might not bother them?


The point is that the doo/poo "hypoallergenic" thing is not real or even justified, if it were real. That is just an excuse to justify breeding mutts that people think are cute. There are already enough types of shaggy dogs, both ones that shed and don't shed. If you don't want to go to your local shelter, check out rescue groups, where the dogs in need are fostered and the foster parents have enough knowledge to set you up with the right dog for you.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> there is nothing inherently wrong with breeders who make money on selling dogs.


There isn't? Then why is my shelter full of animals? Why do I have a tax bill paying for the spoils of the breeder's craft? Or do you too see life as yet another commodity?


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

FriendsOfZoe said:


> I'm simply posting for the purposes of others who might be reading this or may read in the future while thinking about buying a doo or poo.
> 
> 1) Many goldens shed LESS than a lot of short-haired dogs.
> 
> ...


i agree with you..you are like Shalva...you merely rant without addressing any points i have so far made.

yes, i also understand that the purpose of your post is not to convince me, but to protect the innocent lurkers on this site, who (Heaven forfend) might be convinced to consider a poo.

i'm sure there is a wide range of shedding among goldens.
however, i know too many that shed profusively.

and yes, it might be that shedding fur is not the main cause of allergies...but i'm sure you don't get upset when poodle people say they are not allergic to their poodles.

the reality is that i and many others are very allergic to goldens, but not at all to poodles or goldendoodles...a fact, even if we don't understand the mechanism.
so, let's not put that to rest.

if you had some statistical evidence that 19 out of 20 well-bred goldendoodles end up in shelters because of shedding (or even 2 out of 20), i 
would agree with you...however, you have no information on this issue.

and you're right, i think it silly for someone with SERIOUS allergies to get a dog.
however, many people with moderate or mild allergies find happiness with their doggies, by doing a little homework first, on the breeds that are known to be better in this regard.

and yes, i do deal quite a bit with Oinest's mess...i even get a kick out of it.
but if i can increase the chances of avoiding shedding, isn't it intelligent to do so?



Curbside Prophet said:


> There isn't? Then why is my shelter full of animals? Why do I have a tax bill paying for the spoils of the breeder's craft? Or do you too see life as yet another commodity?


if you are against the breeding of all dogs, both purebred and crossbred (except for those that are actually needed for a job), then i understand your position fully.

if you agree with the breeding of purebred dogs, simply because people prefer them over shelter dogs, then i suspect that the logic you use is quite faulty.

as well, i think you can tell from all my posts, that i do not view dogs as mere commodities...far from it.
in fact, you yourself have previously accused me of anthropomorphic tendencies.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> the reality is that i and many others are very allergic to goldens, but not at all to poodles or goldendoodles...a fact, even if we don't understand the mechanism.
> so, let's not put that to rest.


So for you it's ok to produce 7, 10, 12 puppies in hopes of finding your 1 match?



> if you had some statistical evidence that 19 out of 20 well-bred goldendoodles end up in shelters because of shedding (or even 2 out of 20), i
> would agree with you...however, you have no information on this issue.


And there are statistics to the contrary? There are no goldendoodles at my shelter, this is true. But I have on a regular basis seen gloden mixes that looked pooish, and Poodles that look to have golden. Are those the kind of statistics you want? The number of mixes in shelter? I'm sure you can find those. But since goldendoodle is not a breed, or course there are no statistics.



> but if i can increase the chances of avoiding shedding, isn't it intelligent to do so?


I find it intelligent to know what a dog is, a skinned, furred animal that sheds.


----------



## FriendsOfZoe (Aug 7, 2007)

dog-man said:


> the reality is that i and many others are very allergic to goldens, but not at all to poodles or goldendoodles...a fact, even if we don't understand the mechanism.


You just proved my point...so get a poodle...there already exists the ideal non-shedding, less ALLERgenic dog that comes in a variety of sizes and colors...the poodle.
Any reason to create a new dog that is not (oh the horror!) a poodle (!!) is purely petty.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

FriendsOfZoe said:


> You just proved my point...so get a poodle...there already exists the ideal non-shedding, less energetic dog that comes in a variety of sizes and colors...the poodle.
> Any reason to create a new dog that is not (oh the horror!) a poodle (!!) is purely petty.


please read some of my previous posts on this very same page, explaining why i personally prefer goldendoodles over poodles (oh, the horror).



Curbside Prophet said:


> I find it intelligent to know what a dog is, a skinned, furred animal that sheds.


except i have a pooch sitting next to me that doesn't shed (that i can see or care about).
why you don't see the relevance of that to our discussion is beyond me.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I just don't know where these good breeders of goldendoodles are coming from...??? I've seen some labradoodle breeders that I will say have what seems to be a really good breeding program, but I've yet to see any goldendoodle breeder doing the same things...

Okay, since I'm in this thread now, Dog-man my opinion of labradoodles (never met a goldendoodle) is that they can be good dogs. Most I meet are guide dog puppies coming through the guide dog program here at school. Anyways, I have also met spastic dogs, dogs that shed, dogs that don't...

You say goldendoodle people have a different goal than purebred people. What is this? Are they planning on continuing breeding 50/50 golden/poodles or 25/75 golden/poodles? 

I've had crossbreds before from two different known purebred parents and there was no way to know exactly what combination of traits you'd end up with. I find it seriously hard to believe that goldens crossed with poodles always give the most desirable traits. (What are those traits anyways?)


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> as well, i think you can tell from all my posts, that i do not view dogs as mere commodities...far from it.
> in fact, you yourself have previously accused me of anthropomorphic tendencies.


Actually, I don't know how you view your dog, but being anthropomorphic doesn't exclude you from this understanding. Slaves were bartered and sold too. And anyone who believes a dog can be "more reliable" in x, y, or z for them, just tell me what size batteries I need for my dog. See, you're didn't choose your dog for who he is. You chose your dog for what he "might" be. At some point you'll be left to answer the question, did I want this? And, IF (big if) you had chosen your dog for what he is, and not what he might be, the tendency (since you prefer tendencies) is, he's likely to stay in your home. You want a tailor made dog, talk to Sony, I'm sure they could even make one interactive just the way you like.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> But since goldendoodle is not a breed, or course there are no statistics.


many shelters are very aware of the goldendoodles and labradoodles that come in.
it is a good selling point to help find them a home.

the lack of statistics is due to understandable lack of coordination between shelters across the country...and the difficulty in accurately defining the parentage or breeding origin of the many dogs.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> except i have a pooch sitting next to me that doesn't shed (that i can see or care about).
> why you don't see the relevance of that to our discussion is beyond me.


Why you don't see the relevance that shedding is shedding of dander, not just hair, is beyond me. So your statement is again false, unless you go on to tell me about your skinless dog.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Why you don't see the relevance that shedding is shedding of dander, not just hair, is beyond me. So your statement is again false, unless you go on to tell me about your skinless dog.


if i am not allergic to him, or annoyed by shedding hair, why should i care about your definitions.

it really has me baffled.

you often say intelligent and insightful statements...and then sometimes you seem to be thick as a brick.



Curbside Prophet said:


> And anyone who believes a dog can be "more reliable" in x, y, or z for them, just tell me what size batteries I need for my dog.
> And, IF (big if) you had chosen your dog for what he is, and not what he might be, the tendency (since you prefer tendencies) is, he's likely to stay in your home. You want a tailor made dog, talk to Sony, I'm sure they could even make one interactive just the way you like.


i don't get your position, considering that you appear to be a dedicated shlter person.

the books i read advocate trying to find the right dog for you, by first studying the traits of the breeds, or learning how to evaluate an adult dog.

they say if more people did this, there would be far less dogs in the shelters.

you do your best to first narrow down your seach (tailoring), and then you love your dog, like any one else, for who he is.

many people (including my wife) ask me how i tolerate all the work needed to take care of a dog.

i don't find it to be work.

our needs gel together.

he forces me to go on exercise walks that i need.
he keeps me company while i work, and makes me laugh.

and he waits quietly and patiently until our next adventure.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Quincy you've brought up some really interesting arguments (that actually pertain to the OP) so my questions...

If you're breeding in your hypothetical great dane example for that difference in proteins and you get say one per litter as you suggested, then wouldn't it really start effecting quality in other areas quickly? If there's only a pup or two born of the correct protein type and the breeding criteria is to create dogs that do not cause allergy problems, then I can only see one of two way working. Either you take the allergy friendly pups and breed those together to establish a line regardless of flaws in other aspects or you have to breed a lot more puppies to fulfill all needs. When you start looking at just one trait you can lose a lot in other areas.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

FriendsOfZoe said:


> You just proved my point...so get a poodle...there already exists the ideal non-shedding, less ALLERgenic dog that comes in a variety of sizes and colors...the poodle.
> Any reason to create a new dog that is not (oh the horror!) a poodle (!!) is purely petty.


Sorry but some people are allergic to Poodles. I suggest that when thinking of allergies, think of the allergenic proteins in the dogs saliva, urine and dander, and Poodles do shed plenty of these allergenic proteins.

However some Poodles may have proteins that are slightly different where these may not cause an allergic response, and if such Poodles were found and bred to other such Poodles for generations, then you may have a line of Poodles who maybe suited to more people who are allergic to Poodles.
.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Quincy you've brought up some really interesting arguments (that actually pertain to the OP) so my questions...


how dare you consider any one else worthy of discussion other than myself?!!!

harumphhh !!!!

------------

actually, Quincy seems pretty bright and knowledgeble, so i'll forgive you this time.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

Dogman, you have spoken many times about quality goldondoodle breeders. I was wondering what your specific requirments are as far as a quality breeder?

I also wonder about the conformation of these mixes. You are very quick to say the conformation shows are just about how the dog looks. While for many judges that is true. But the shows are meant to dertermine whether are not these dogs are physically sound. 

If the dogs are mixes with no guarentee on body type, then shouldn't we be worried about their physical soundness? Form follows fuction. If the dogs do not have the right form, then they will not be able to successfully accomplish the goals of either breed. So what is the point of breeding the dog, if it doesn't have a job. 

In my mind the oly real reason to start a new breed, is if their is a job that the current recognized breeds cannot accomplish. But the only purpose for the doodles so far, is to have a hyper poodle. In my opinion that is no a purpose worth pursuing.


----------



## georgygirl (Nov 28, 2006)

Oh gee, for just a moment the thread didn't revolve around you dogman! 


Personally, I have nothing against doodles and mixes, but I expect their breeders to have the same standards I expect of a good purebred breeder. I think proper health testing and screening should be done on all dogs involved in breeding. Temperment and health are very important in my opinion. Breeders should only breed a couple litters per year at most. Mass production of puppies isn't good for the socialization of puppies or their health really. Breeders should be open and honest with potential owners. Don't sugar coat things. Good breeders tell people the great aspects of the "breed", but also the not so great aspects.

Now, really, I think very very few doodle and mix breeders actually do what I think they should do to be a good breeder. I'm sure there are a few out there, but honestly, I think most of them are in it for the hype and the money. JMHO, though.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> if i am not allergic to him, or annoyed by shedding hair, why should i care about your definitions.
> 
> it really has me baffled.
> 
> you often say intelligent and insightful statements...and then sometimes you seem to be thick as a brick.


I LOVE your brick analogy, so I'll offer you one back that speaks directly to your misuse of terms... If you're going to create your own Tower of Babel, someone who cares about all dogs (not just their own) is likely to discover your intent. 

BTW, these aren't my definitions. Look up shedding in any dictionary. 



> i don't get your position, considering that you appear to be a dedicated shlter person.


It's often said the main problem in dogdom is lack of education in dog owners. My position is to be a bridge, starting with using terms in their correct form. If you don't see that calling a dog non-shedding (including poodles) is propaganda, and not truth...I'm not sure you will ever understand my position.


----------



## georgygirl (Nov 28, 2006)

See, I don't really agree with the argument that new breeds should have a purpose not fulfilled by established breeds. MOST dogs aren't doing the "job" they were originally intended for. Most are pets now. There's nothing wrong with that. Boston terriers were originally intended as pit dogs. Obviously that didn't work out so well, so then they became a companion breed. Not that there weren't plenty of other companion breeds back then. People liked the looks of the boston terrier, so they became a breed. I certainly thank god for that, otherwise I wouldn't have my best friend. How many people with labs actually hunt, how many people with shepherds actually herd, and so on and so on. A lot of breeds even have a distinct division between working and show dogs. Several breeds who are shown can no longer really _do_ what they were intended to do. There is nothing wrong with having a dog solely as a companion, and I don't think there is anything wrong with creating a breed that is intended only as a companion. Again, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> Quincy you've brought up some really interesting arguments (that actually pertain to the OP) so my questions...
> 
> If you're breeding in your hypothetical great dane example for that difference in proteins and you get say one per litter as you suggested, then wouldn't it really start effecting quality in other areas quickly? If there's only a pup or two born of the correct protein type and the breeding criteria is to create dogs that do not cause allergy problems, then I can only see one of two way working. Either you take the allergy friendly pups and breed those together to establish a line regardless of flaws in other aspects or you have to breed a lot more puppies to fulfill all needs. When you start looking at just one trait you can lose a lot in other areas.


Well maybe look for your answers in other areas where breeders already have bred for certain criteria, say like maybe go back in the thread to where I posted links to the "Bobtail Boxer" and read throught where a breeder included that in their breeding criteria, then have a think where Boxer breeders now breed their dogs with lovely looking health functional tails that they now include in their breeding criteria.
.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> You say goldendoodle people have a different goal than purebred people. What is this? Are they planning on continuing breeding 50/50 golden/poodles or 25/75 golden/poodles?
> 
> I find it seriously hard to believe that goldens crossed with poodles always give the most desirable traits. (What are those traits anyways?)


before kennel clubs, the goal of dog breeders was mainly to breed dogs good for a particular job: hunters, shepherds, ratters, etc.

many of these jobs have now become obsolete for the average person.
we basically want a healthy, family friendly dog...different strokes for different folks.

i would think that most of the good AKC breeders are breeding as a hobby, breeding for conformation, and are interested in showing their best dogs.

they love all their dogs, so the ones not up to the grade, the "pet quality" dogs, are sent to loving homes.

since the good breeders were looking for good temperament as well, and they tested their breeding dogs for various ailments, they're probably a decent family dog to get.

there are times that breeding for conformance can be in contradiction to good breeding practices.
some examples:
1) there is an emphasis on attaining a very specific breed standard.
early breeding of most modern breeds required significant inbreeding and often a small foundation stock to accomplish this...not good for genetics.

2) similarly, the overuse of champion sires has also led to lessening of the gene pool.

3) what do you do when you get a dog with fantastic physical conformance, but not good temperament...are breeders really not going to show and breed him, if they can get away with it.

4) there are cute physical traits, required to win, that are actually deleterious to the dog's health: spots on dalmations related to deafness, too long a back on dachsunds, sloping backs of german shepherds, too many wrinkles on sharpeis, and i can't even begin to discuss the problems with bulldogs.

people who breed dogs for a job don't want AKC dogs.
they have their own line.
however, many of these dogs, although healthier genetically, are often too much dog for the average Joe...too much drive.

goldendoodle advocates want to breed healthy, well-tempered dogs for ordinary families...period.
we don't give a hoot about conformance...except we would like to stabilize the non-shedding trait, and predict the size somewhat better. 

i don't know which direction the breeding will take...whether 50-50, 75-25, or trying to stabilize somewhat of a breed.
i have no strong opinion.

as for the general traits, from my experience:
goldens are very sweet, friendly dogs...they want to be everyone's pal...
good with kids (you have to supervise though, because of their exuberance), good with the family cat...athletic, ready for adventure...obedient, responsive and smart.

poodles are even smarter, very elegant, athletic, responsive dogs.
not as interested in strangers as goldens...sometimes aggressive to other dogs.
some poodles seem exactly like goldens.
best feature is the non-shedding, hypo-allergenic coat

i don't see how you can go too wrong with a combination of well-bred examples of each breed.
and that seems to be the experience of so many people.

(btw, hypoallergenic does not mean non-allergenic)


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> 1) there is an emphasis on attaining a very specific breed standard.
> early breeding of most modern breeds required significant inbreeding and often a small foundation stock to accomplish this...not good for genetics.


 I think you want to infer that new genes from another small pool of genes are better than established genes from a small pool, in a selective breeding process. This isn’t necessarily true especially if you’re considering the effects of outbreeding depression. But I don’t believe you’re flexible enough to consider it since your belief is that the tendency is for the better. It is for the better in a natural selection process, but I’m sure that too is ignorable since you’re talking about artificial selection. 



> 3) what do you do when you get a dog with fantastic physical conformance, but not good temperament...are breeders really not going to show and breed him, if they can get away with it.


 The good breeders will because the good judges do test temperament in the ring. Perhaps you should go to a dog show and watch how judges handle the dogs, how they make dogs face each other, and test how they behave with food lures and toys. It’s not just about how the dog looks. 



> people who breed dogs for a job don't want AKC dogs.
> they have their own line.
> however, many of these dogs, although healthier genetically, are often too much dog for the average Joe...too much drive.


 This again is not true either. It is simply opinion, opinion which can be disproved anecdotally with each of your own anecdotes. 



> goldendoodle advocates want to breed healthy, well-tempered dogs for ordinary families...period.
> we don't give a hoot about conformance...except we would like to stabilize the non-shedding trait, and predict the size somewhat better.


 This isn’t true either. Golden/Poodle mix breeders are largely in it for the fad and money. What ends your argument is that I say the same about all other dog breeders. The motives of mixed breeders are largely the same as any other breeder. There are no regulations on breeding programs for dogs. Not for mixed dogs, and not for any breeder...period. So again, this is just your opinion which can be disproved anecdotally with each of your own anecdotes. 



> i don't know which direction the breeding will take...whether 50-50, 75-25, or trying to stabilize somewhat of a breed.
> i have no strong opinion.


 You have an opinion which is dangerous for dogs. Without a proving ground for artificially selected animals, you have no justification for a breeding program. Why should someone buy a dog if they don’t know what that dog is? 



> i don't see how you can go too wrong with a combination of well-bred examples of each breed.


 Thank goodness you are not a breeder. We all know what happens when the blind lead the blind. What you don't like is not the genetic philosophies between breeders. What you don't like is the system or their criteria. Well, this is the best system we have. Perhaps there is reason to change the criteria, and it often does. Standards are living, they are not as rigid as you imply. It would better serve you to argue changes in the system and regulation of breeders. Because as long as breeders are self regulated, you will spew propaganda from which ever breeder you align with. This is hypocritical to you cause.


----------



## Fire Tiger (Feb 5, 2008)

poodleholic said:


> A lot of what turns people off about Poodles is their hair. Clip them down into a field clip, and people can see an agile, muscular, athletic dog.


Could you or someone post photographs of poodles in field clip? I would like to see them. Thanks. 



MegaMuttMom said:


> I'm glad the OP loves his doodle but...


I am the OP ("original poster", a.k.a. thread starter) and I do not a doodle or, for that matter, any dog at the moment. Just wanted to point that out so people don't confuse me with someone I'm not.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I think you want to infer that new genes from another small pool of genes are better than established genes from a small pool, in a selective breeding process. This isn’t necessarily true especially if you’re considering the effects of outbreeding depression.
> .


take a look at this website...some fascinating articles.
i get a lot of my ideas from SOME of the authors.

www.canine-genetics.com

The Canine Diversity Project


----------



## Fire Tiger (Feb 5, 2008)

Shalva said:


> if you say they don't care about looks, then they don't have a breed


Wrong. In reading about dog breeds, I have read a number of times where breed clubs say appearance is not important but ability is. These clubs fight not to have their breed be a AKC breed so, in their minds, breeders of their breed don't become fixated on the superficial (appearance) and not ability. While I do not have all the specific breeds that are or have fought AKC recognition, I do recall that Border Collie breeders fought for years not to have AKC register their breed.


----------



## Canadian Dog (Nov 3, 2007)

Dog-man: I don't know if you read any doodle forums, but at this time a member is taking a poll from owners of these mixes on the Doodle Zoo - it's titled "Can I take a poll? Please tell me some stuff re: doodles". 

Owners are starting to notice problems - I feel like I have been very lucky with Molly (so far).


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Fire Tiger said:


> Wrong. In reading about dog breeds, I have read a number of times where breed clubs say appearance is not important but ability is. These clubs fight not to have their breed be a AKC breed so, in their minds, breeders of their breed don't become fixated on the superficial (appearance) and not ability. While I do not have all the specific breeds that are or have fought AKC recognition, I do recall that Border Collie breeders fought for years not to have AKC register their breed.


Firetiger, you are now my best friend, next to Oinest.

btw, besides Border Collies, Jack Russell people also fought against AKC recognition.



Canadian Dog said:


> Dog-man: I don't know if you read any doodle forums, but at this time a member is taking a poll from owners of these mixes on the Doodle Zoo - it's titled "Can I take a poll? Please tell me some stuff re: doodles".
> 
> Owners are starting to notice problems - I feel like I have been very lucky with Molly (so far).


i will definitely take a look...i am interested in this type of info, for better or worse.

interestingly, if people here go to it...if the news is good for goldendoodles, they will say "it is not scientific"...if the news is bad, they will say "You see !!".


----------



## Canadian Dog (Nov 3, 2007)

interestingly, if people here go to it...if the news is good for goldendoodles, they will say "it is not scientific"...if the news is bad, they will say "You see !!".

I don't care what people will say - it's actual owners sharing their information so people can make an educated decision.


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

Fire Tiger said:


> Wrong. In reading about dog breeds, I have read a number of times where breed clubs say appearance is not important but ability is. These clubs fight not to have their breed be a AKC breed so, in their minds, breeders of their breed don't become fixated on the superficial (appearance) and not ability. While I do not have all the specific breeds that are or have fought AKC recognition, I do recall that Border Collie breeders fought for years not to have AKC register their breed.


Actually is you who is wrong. If you have a group of dogs in which no one cares about physical type and they do not breed true to any type or standard then you don't have a breed. Period. I good example of this is southern farm and hog catching dogs. They all work (they have to), the tend to look similar (bully breedish) but they are mixes (when its not a pure bred Am Bull or Pit). No one calls them "American Farm Dog" , no one registers them or keeps track, because they do a job and no one cares about type. Without physical type you don't have a breed.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

rvamutt said:


> Actually is you who is wrong. If you have a group of dogs in which no one cares about physical type and they do not breed true to any type or standard then you don't have a breed. Period. I good example of this is southern farm and hog catching dogs. They all work (they have to), the tend to look similar (bully breedish) but they are mixes (when its not a pure bred Am Bull or Pit). No one calls them "American Farm Dog" , no one registers them or keeps track, because they do a job and no one cares about type. Without physical type you don't have a breed.


he's not wrong, because you misunderstand him.

Border collies are very much a breed.

but if you look at the working lines, there is a wide range of acceptable physical traits...working ability is paramount.

it is the AKC insistence on standardizing the look to an extreme, to the detriment of working ability and genetic health, which is objectionable to many.

their insistence on extreme standardization is for one reason only:
so it can be deemed fair how to judge one dog against the next, if it is not based on ability.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> take a look at this website...some fascinating articles.
> i get a lot of my ideas from SOME of the authors.


Just a helpful hint. Make sure you're not taking ideas out of context. That's a common ploy breeders use, and not one you need to use to support your argument.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Quincy said:


> Well maybe look for your answers in other areas where breeders already have bred for certain criteria, say like maybe go back in the thread to where I posted links to the "Bobtail Boxer" and read throught where a breeder included that in their breeding criteria, then have a think where Boxer breeders now breed their dogs with lovely looking health functional tails that they now include in their breeding criteria.
> .


I have already read the bobtail boxer account but it has been a while- probably over a year ago. I'll have to go refresh on that.

Another thought about that... is it the same genes causing the bobtail in that line as in other breeds? Is that not a semi-lethal condition. I know in Aussies you never breed a natural bob to a natural bob (or in manx cats). There are a lot of spinal problems in the homozygous form.

Okay I'll go reread, lol.



dog-man said:


> he's not wrong, because you misunderstand him.
> 
> Border collies are very much a breed.
> 
> ...


No, you have it wrong. The AKC does not INSIST anything at all. Conformation is ONE aspect of evaluating your breeding stock and imo it's not even that important of one comparatively. In many many breeds there are a lot of versatile animals out there that are AKC. Breeds like JRTs and Border Collies are the extreme examples. 

Border collies are a breed I am thoroughly interested in. there's a ton of politics there that are very complex. Yes they fought recognition and with good reason. But it's a bit more complex than the way that it's being presented here. 

The showring is not capable of ruining breeds yet you see show versions of breeds be ruined repeatedly. how is that? It's simply because the majority of the breeders allowed it. Breeders who begin putting ribbons in front of actual quality of their animals cause these problems. A dog should not be judged as breed worthy because of it's show wins but rather as a whole. What can this animal do for the breed. Unfortunately I'm idealistic and this isn't the way it works. People get greedy whether it be about winning a BIS and profiting in whatever way or about cashing in on the fad.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> No, you have it wrong. The AKC does not INSIST anything at all. Conformation is ONE aspect of evaluating your breeding stock and imo it's not even that important of one comparatively. In many many breeds there are a lot of versatile animals out there that are AKC. Breeds like JRTs and Border Collies are the extreme examples.
> 
> Border collies are a breed I am thoroughly interested in. there's a ton of politics there that are very complex. Yes they fought recognition and with good reason. But it's a bit more complex than the way that it's being presented here.
> 
> .


you say i'm wrong, but don't say why...just that its too complex to really discuss it here.

yes, there are other factors, but conformation is pretty major.

when i say the AKC, i mean both the general organization, and the breed groups themselves...they both contribute in their own way to the mess.

and yes, the AKC has certain demands before you can be recognized...and one of them is to demonstrate a fairly strict standard.

they also demand a pretty closed foundation stock.

i don't know if they bent the rules at all for breeds like the jack russell and border collie... but it is the AKC who set the tone for all the madness.

if i am wrong, and you want to say i am wrong, give a little more explanation.


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

You say "they" fought AKC acceptance like it was a forcible annex. There was a strong push by many BC people for AKC recognition, it was the people who worked their dogs that feared it.

The border collie is a breed. Even before it was accepted by the AKC it was chosen for specific physical characteristics, perhaps not arbitrarily (form follows function) but these were still chosen. BC's breed true to type. You will not breed two BC's and get a litter that varies in size, structure and temperament to any great degree (even temperament falls in a pretty predictable range). You can't expect this from mixes, mutts, mongrels or the latest designer fad. 

I was gonna type that I'm no big AKC fan either but I corrected myself. I'm not a fan of breeders that mess up a breed by selecting for looks instead of working ability. But this isn't an AKC issue, it is a breeder issue. I feel its an issue that is caused by people with your philosophy. That you can take two pretty dogs, breed them, and end up with a good litter with no. That we should be breeding dogs for pet homes. You want a pet dog? Go to the pound. You want a living example of a dog designed (form and temperament) to do a specific job? Go to a breeder. I'm so tired of seeing Golden Retrievers with no stamina, no drive, and could grab a bird out of 75 degree water, much less 40 degrees...or Dobies that are everyone's best friend, that wag that little stub of a tail when someone knocks at the door. Breeders who don't care about original purpose are turning all dogs into the same animal with different visual types.

For everyone who is going to say "I like Goldens and all I want is a pet to love", well thats great. Go to the pound, go to a breed specific rescue or contact a breeder thats producing sport dogs and tell them you want a the next puppy that doesn't have what it takes to go to a working home. Take it home, nueter it and love it. Don't ruin these great breeds by breeding "pet dogs".


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

rvamutt said:


> I was gonna type that I'm no big AKC fan either but I corrected myself. I'm not a fan of breeders that mess up a breed by selecting for looks instead of working ability. But this isn't an AKC issue, it is a breeder issue. I feel its an issue that is caused by people with your philosophy. That you can take two pretty dogs, breed them, and end up with a good litter with no. That we should be breeding dogs for pet homes. You want a pet dog? Go to the pound. You want a living example of a dog designed (form and temperament) to do a specific job? Go to a breeder. I'm so tired of seeing Golden Retrievers with no stamina, no drive, and could grab a bird out of 75 degree water, much less 40 degrees...or Dobies that are everyone's best friend, that wag that little stub of a tail when someone knocks at the door. Breeders who don't care about original purpose are turning all dogs into the same animal with different visual types.
> 
> Don't ruin these great breeds by breeding "pet dogs".


i am very happy to see a working dog enthusiast here.

those breeders aren't ruining dogs, from what i can tell.

our disagreement lies in what is an acceptable reason and manner to breed a dog.

i dislike the show breeders, even though they have some wonderful qualites, because i believe they are hurting the health of dogs in the long run.

but i have no (or less) problem with people who breed for the home.
if you think you will get the dog you want by getting a non-working golden, then go for it.
the breeding lines can be separate.
if they're not doing a good job, in terms of the dogs health, then there is a problem.


----------



## petstar (Dec 7, 2007)

Dog Man - I've yet to note any observance on your part of "Doodle" faults. Surely, you are capable of recognizing that all dogs and breeds of dogs have positive and negative attributes. While searching for information on Poodle Hybrids I found that many have a multitude of heath and behavioral issues, ranging from recurrent ear infections and hip problems to generalized fear, social anxiety and obsessive tendencies. 

I soppose, you condone the mixing of any breed if it suits the wants of humans? For example, the maltipoo, yorkiepoo, cockerpoo, labrabull, shifonn...all of these breeds serve a purpose in your opinion and that purpose is to fill one person's pocket book and another's arm chair? Unfortunately there are a great number of these mixes that end up in shelters, used as breeders and mistreated when they don't live up to the hype and expectation. 

I completely agree with you that researching a breed of dog is imperative to finding the right match for your home and family. There are a multitude of breeds to choose from and I have a hard time believing your arguement justifies the need for more breeding. 

In my understanding, you like poodles...but they leave you "cold" (as in frigid or chilly?) so you prefer a dog with a different look...but your extrememly limited experience with an established breed like the PWD that looks incredibley simialar to a poodle hybrid led you to abolish them from your options...So you decided on a mutt that has a fancy name because it has an appearence you desire??? 

Realistically, what has been said here is true. Your dog is a mixed breed...wether or not your dog acquired the personality traits of the golden or the coat of the poodle was a genetic crap shoot. You may have lucked out. Congratulations. I hope the other members of the litter who didn't meet the same expectations were forgiven.

This issue appears to be a moot point. Clearly you are one of a few fighting the good fight for a "type" of dog that you care for...However there are many more people here who disagree with your POV and you are not going to change that...nor does it seem that you are willing to accept that you may be wrong...


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

petstar said:


> Dog Man - I've yet to note any observance on your part of "Doodle" faults. Surely, you are capable of recognizing that all dogs and breeds of dogs have positive and negative attributes. While searching for information on Poodle Hybrids I found that many have a multitude of heath and behavioral issues, ranging from recurrent ear infections and hip problems to generalized fear, social anxiety and obsessive tendencies.


honestly, i find no faults with Oinest.

if there are faults in goldendoodles in general, i just don't have the info to comment.
i went on a doodle website today on the recommendation from someone here, and i saw some of the problems you mentioned.
Oinest and the goldendoodles i know exhibit none of those strange behavioral tendencies.

i didn't study that post yet, to see if the problems were from what i would call good breeders....that is quite relevant.
you wouldn't challenge a poodle enthusiast, based on problems with puppy mill and backyard breeder dogs.

if you get good info on that, i would be glad to hear it, and reconsider the issue.



petstar said:


> I soppose, you condone the mixing of any breed if it suits the wants of humans? For example, the maltipoo, yorkiepoo, cockerpoo, labrabull, shifonn...all of these breeds serve a purpose in your opinion and that purpose is to fill one person's pocket book and another's arm chair? Unfortunately there are a great number of these mixes that end up in shelters, used as breeders and mistreated when they don't live up to the hype and expectation.


my opinions on the subject are much more complex than you are indicating.

i would give up on buying from any breeder, if purebred people will do the same...there are ethical reasons for all of us to do so.

concerning the various mixes, not all doodles are created equal, and i think the market will bear that out.
i do feel bad for any dog who suffers in the mean time.

dogs ending up in shelters because of ignorant buyers and unethical breeders is not unique to doodles...it is rampant among the bad breeders of purebred dogs as well.
to me, the issue is good breeding, not doodles.
but to many here, any doodle breeder is by definition a bad breeder.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I love how you paint all show people with the same brush. There are a lot of different people that show with varying amounts of emphasis on showing. Many people do show and do a lot with their dogs as well. 

How about a breeder that most importantly health tests and takes proper temperament into consideration. That does things like herding trials, agility, obedience, and conformation? Focusing on a well rounded performance dog in general. That's the kind of breeder I personally got my male sheltie from. 

Very few breeds are used commonly as real workers nowadays. Many are used in sports but it's not the same. 

You try to paint things as black and white and it really does not work that way.

With BCs obviously some people wanted them to be AKC or they wouldn't have been trying to get accepted. There was a rift before AKC acceptance, the acceptance only made it wider. The reason it happened was because first of all border collies are one of the few working breeds left. Many borders still actively herding for a living- not common with other herding dogs anymore. BCs are also specialists that are very good at what they do. Whereas other herders are all around farm help, borders are not. To breed a BC to be good all around just doesn't work. They lose in the way of herding which is what is most important. 

The politics within each breed are very different. BCs are worlds apart, other breeds are not so and you can find a good breeder that does it all. In many breeds a decision must be made on what an individual breeder believes would be the best direction to take their program and what to focus on. I've had a true field bred lab and yet now I have an AKC Ch Papillon.

And I still don't see how doodles other than guide dog programs really compare.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

petstar said:


> So you decided on a mutt that has a fancy name because it has an appearence you desire???


i find it remarkable that you don't take into consideration that my extensive research led me to a pooch who is exactly what i wanted, and much more.

AND I NEVER CARED ABOUT APPEARANCE AT ALL.

AT THE TIME, I THOUGHT GOLDENDOODLES LOOKED STUPID....AND I THOUGHT THE NAME WAS STUPID, AND STILL DO.

now i love their look.

ALL I CARED ABOUT THEN WAS TEMPERAMENT.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT?

ARE ALL DOODLE OWNERS JUST STEREOTYPES, THAT YOU CAN JUST THROW YOUR GENERALIZATIONS EQUALLY AT ALL OF US?

the only appearance feature i wanted was that he shouldn't be scary looking to children, so i opted for white instead of dark.



petstar said:


> nor does it seem that you are willing to accept that you may be wrong...


i have no idea what that means.

i MAY be wrong...but i thought about and researched the issues quite a bit.

am i supposed to assume i'm wrong because the majority here says i am?

I MAKE A CHALLENGE.

FIND ME ONE STATEMENT IN ALL THESE POSTS, WHERE I WAS SHOWN TO BE WRONG, AND COULDN'T ADMIT IT.
THAT IF I WAS INTELLECTUALLY HONEST, I SHOULD HAVE BACKED OFF AND SOFTENED MY POSITION, AND DIDN'T.


----------



## doggone6 (Sep 7, 2007)

"they do not allow the opening of stud books, to allow fresh genetic material in...those are their rules."

Wrong. Within Shih Tzu, a cross was made to a Pekinese back in the 1960s because the gene pool was so small the breed was at risk. Since it is generally acknowledged that the Peke was important in the DEVELOPMENT of the Shih Tzu, the cross was made. As a result the KC required 4 generations and the AKC 6 generations of breeding back to registered Tzu before the progeny could again be registered and accepted into their stud books. It likely saved the breed. 

In the 1980s the AKC opened the stud book to unregistered Basenji's brought from Africa by members of the parent club for the same reason (too small a gene pool). Again, it probably saved the breed. The AKC may be a big, money-hungry monopoly, but they aren't stupid and in their own way they are VERY concerned with all dogs...not just the purebreds that are their bread-and-butter (financially speaking).

I am NOT getting into an argument about whether the AKC has "ruined" breeds or not because I think the whole thing is silly. If anyone wants to reply to my post with a nasty and/or baiting one, don't bother because I won't reply.

Bottom line: all these "-doodles" and -"poos" (and others) are mixed-breed dogs (aka "mutts"). There is nothing wrong with mixed-breed dogs. The WRONG in this case is that people are charging and people are paying terribly inflated prices for a mix that has no guarantee of size, temperament, appearance and health problems. 

Now, I'm off to start a thread where I will ask why no one wants a Poodle.


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

dog-man said:


> the only appearance feature i wanted was that he shouldn't be scary looking to children, so i opted for white instead of dark.


As the owner of both dark and light colored dogs who often find themselves in the company of children, is it safe for me to say: WTF?!


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> I love how you paint all show people with the same brush. There are a lot of different people that show with varying amounts of emphasis on showing. Many people do show and do a lot with their dogs as well.


you make that statement (that i paint with a thick brush), but give no specific examples, so i can know what you are talking about.
i do make some generalizations, and if you want to show me how an issue can be more subtle than i indicate, i just might agree with you.

i am not going to write a treatise each time i post, to be sure i got every point in, and leave no room for misunderstanding.
that is what the give and take of the discussion is about...many people here, though, don't seem to know the art.
many just rant and run away.


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

dog-man said:


> ALL I CARED ABOUT THEN WAS TEMPERAMENT.


So you got a dog with no genetic "type" that could have a lab temperament, a poodle temperament, or anything in between? I find that slightly ridiculous. I train dogs for a living and I've seen x-doodles that run the gamut.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Doggone, I mentioned the African basenji project earlier but it was ignored. anyone interested should really look it up, it's a very fascinating read. 

I did not know that about tzus, that's interesting as well.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

pamperedpups said:


> As the owner of both dark and light colored dogs who often find themselves in the company of children, is it safe for me to say: WTF?!


i knew i would get that.

it is not an indication of the temperament of dark dogs.

it is a fact, however, that dark large dogs have a problem getting adopted, as opposed to a light-colored large dog.

people and children have impressions, wrong or right, and it makes it an issue.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

pamperedpups said:


> As the owner of both dark and light colored dogs who often find themselves in the company of children, is it safe for me to say: WTF?!


I was thinking exactly the same thing?

Why the hell would a child be afraid of a dark coloured dog,now you got me corncerned bro.

Judging from your "omega" mexican house cleaning lady and now this,you got issues.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

rvamutt said:


> So you got a dog with no genetic "type" that could have a lab temperament, a poodle temperament, or anything in between? I find that slightly ridiculous. I train dogs for a living and I've seen x-doodles that run the gamut.


i'll repeat myself, even though i prefer not to.

isn't it possible, that if i got exactly the dog i wanted, that maybe...just maybe...my judgement is better than you think?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dog-man said:


> you make that statement (that i paint with a thick brush), but give no specific examples, so i can know what you are talking about.
> i do make some generalizations, and if you want to show me how an issue can be more subtle than i indicate, i just might agree with you.
> 
> i am not going to write a treatise each time i post, to be sure i got every point in, and leave no room for misunderstanding.
> ...


Do you read my posts? Every time I respond you just shrug it off and say I'm not being specific. I think you're just avoiding, there were plenty of responses to your also non-specific points. 

I'm talking about 'showing and the AKC' ruins all breeds. I pointed out that that's not true for all breeds and that all breeds are not in the same situation as the border collie and jrt. I also mentioned things reputable breeders do- specifically what my sheltie's breeder did as well as conformation. 

It's this notion that all show breeders are out to only make 'pretty specimens' that is annoying. Most of what goes on with a breed is not the AKC's fault at all. Blame the breed clubs (made up of breeders) if no one else.

And another thing, how do you propose you prove dogs breedworthy if they are of a companion breed? Is conformation acceptable then?


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

So let's not try to help the issue by spreading awareness of how wonderful black dogs can be... http://www.blackpearldogs.com/


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

dog-man said:


> you make that statement (that i paint with a thick brush), but give no specific examples, so i can know what you are talking about.
> i do make some generalizations, and if you want to show me how an issue can be more subtle than i indicate, i just might agree with you.
> 
> i am not going to write a treatise each time i post, to be sure i got every point in, and leave no room for misunderstanding.
> ...


You don't rant and run away you just rant and rant and rant some more. I have a question, did your breeder require you to sign an agreement if that for whatever reason you can't keep Oinest, you HAVE TO return him to the breeder? 

That would be my criteria in determining if your breeder is responsible. There should be no dog bred that should end up in a shelter. It should end up back with the breeder. 

My rescue organization made me sign an agreement that if, for any reason, I cannot keep Cherokee he MUST be returned to them. He is not allowed to ever return to a shelter.

Plus, I am sick of your categorizing shelter dogs as problematic. My shelter dog has a much better temperament than the goldendoodles and labradoodles I know. Get off that point, it is tremendously insulting to anyone who loves their shelter dog.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i'll repeat myself, even though i prefer not to.
> 
> isn't it possible, that if i got exactly the dog i wanted, that maybe...just maybe...my judgement is better than you think?


Or maybe you just lucked out in a crapshoot. That's entirely possible too. 

I have an amazing dog that I couldn't think could be any better. Doesn't mean that she was bred well or my method of purchasing her was the best. It just means I lucked out and got a great dog despite all the strikes against us.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

pamperedpups said:


> As the owner of both dark and light colored dogs who often find themselves in the company of children, is it safe for me to say: WTF?!


Boy if we had any kids, we wouldn't be bringing them to your house. I'm so scared of dark dogs now.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

MegaMuttMom said:


> You don't rant and run away you just rant and rant and rant some more. I have a question, did your breeder require you to sign an agreement if that for whatever reason you can't keep Oinest, you HAVE TO return him to the breeder?


what i do, is answer people's points directly...that is much different than ranting.
and i try not be repetitive, as much as possible.
i try to use a new post to express a new view on the subject.

yes, Oinest's breeder required me to sign that agreement.
it is one of the many signs of a good breeder.

funny, though...i inquired regarding this on another site.
it seems, that if you have an unhealthy dog...and the breeder insists you return it to her/him instead of to a shelter or put to "sleep"...

and guess what many of those wonderful breeders do?
let the dogs live happily at their home?

nope, many just put them to sleep themselves.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

dog-man said:


> what i do, is answer people's points directly...that is much different than ranting.
> and i try not be repetitive, as much as possible.
> i try to use a new post to express a new view on the subject.
> 
> ...


And you know this how?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

MegaMuttMom said:


> And you know this how?


My guess is speculation because that's entirely not true of any good breeders I know. (Not even evil show breeders  )


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

Now don't scoff, wvasko. 

I am so glad I've found your posts, dog-man. (What a mighty handle!) Now I know. To think I have been tormenting the local children all along with my dark colored dogs... and stressing out my light colored dogs when they come in contact with those lowly servants... I don't know what to do now though, since I only have one perfect -poo mix puppy and the rest of our pack consists of a Champion-bred pedigreed dog, a puppy mill dog, and several screwed up rescues. Please advise!


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

pamperedpups said:


> Now don't scoff, wvasko.
> 
> I am so glad I've found your posts, dog-man. (What a mighty handle!) Now I know. To think I have been tormenting the local children all along with my dark colored dogs... and stressing out my light colored dogs when they come in contact with those lowly servants... I don't know what to do now though since I only have one perfect -poo mix puppy and the rest of our pack consists of a Champion-bred pedigreed dog, a puppy mill dog, and several screwed up rescues. Please advise!


HA HA,brilliant.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Or maybe you just lucked out in a crapshoot. That's entirely possible too.


it's possible, but i know the research i put into it...and i know the accuracy of my judgement in other situations...so i don't think it was just luck.

i do think that there was luck also...we all need luck, no matter how careful we plan.

what i find amusing, is the many people here, who will not consider the possibility that it was more than luck, even though they know little of my personal background and research.
they have a generalization in their heads and that's the end of story.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

dog-man said:


> i knew i would get that.
> 
> it is not an indication of the temperament of dark dogs.
> 
> ...


Right about the dark dogs having harder time getting adopted. It is a fact. The fact that children are afraid of dark colored dogs is not true though. I take my dogs to Children's Center's, Hospital's, exhibitions all the time. Kid's are NOT generally afraid. They do not have the preconceived notions that adults do. Good and evil, light and dark representations etc... It is a stereo type just like all the others. I have watched children pass by Golden Retriever's to come pet my dogs. It is not the color that freaks the average child out, it is the movement. My dogs will generally sit or down for petting. Not saying Golden's won't just have noticed it is NOT a color or breed thing when it comes to children. Size is an issue with some kids too.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

MegaMuttMom said:


> And you know this how?


i asked breeders and people who returned the dogs to good breeders....they were very honest.

if it is a minor issue, but returned, of course, they will try to find a new home.

but if it is major, they want the honor of putting it down...not sure the exact logic.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

I really like the way you avoid certain questions towards what you have unthoughtfully put forward.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dog-man said:


> it's possible, but i know the research i put into it...and i know the accuracy of my judgement in other situations...so i don't think it was just luck.
> 
> i do think that there was luck also...we all need luck, no matter how careful we plan.
> 
> ...


Kind of like how you have a generalization of other things like....

Show dog breeders for one?

Rescue dogs for another?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> but if it is major, they want the honor of putting it down...not sure the exact logic.


Culling of genes has always, should always, be the breeder's responsibility.


----------



## borzoimom (May 21, 2007)

I am only going to post my opinion once. None of the "doodles" have been able to reproduce themselves after second generation. The coat changes etc. Nope- not a breed as they can not produce themselves.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i asked breeders and people who returned the dogs to good breeders....they were very honest.
> 
> if it is a minor issue, but returned, of course, they will try to find a new home.
> 
> but if it is major, they want the honor of putting it down...not sure the exact logic.


Uh huh...

Well that's a new one even for me and I've been around the boards quite some time!


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Mr Pooch said:


> I really like the way you avoid certain questions towards what you have unthoughtfully put forward.


i don't know which question you mean...i thought you were a bit humourous, and end of story.



Laurelin said:


> Kind of like how you have a generalization of other things like....
> 
> Show dog breeders for one?
> 
> Rescue dogs for another?


you never say your specific point, so there is no way (and no reason, really) for me to respond.



Laurelin said:


> Uh huh...
> 
> Well that's a new one even for me and I've been around the boards quite some time!


ask breeders that you respect...and see what they say.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY DO WITH DOGS THAT HAVE MAJOR HEALTH OR TEMPERAMENT ISSUES?



borzoimom said:


> I am only going to post my opinion once. None of the "doodles" have been able to reproduce themselves after second generation. The coat changes etc. Nope- not a breed as they can not produce themselves.


not sure what relevance that statement has, to anything that has been said up til now...but OK, bye...


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

dog-man said:


> it's possible, but i know the research i put into it...and i know the accuracy of my judgement in other situations...so i don't think it was just luck.
> 
> i do think that there was luck also...we all need luck, no matter how careful we plan.
> 
> ...


dog-man

*what i find amusing, is the many people here, who will not consider the possibility that it was more than luck, even though they know little of my personal background and research.
they have a generalization in their heads and that's the end of story.*

Why should you find that amusing, I know in my life stumbling through each day the best way I can I have met many people who were legends in their own minds. I myself don't know you personally. You could be all that you could be or just another legend bouncing around a forum. Your not hurting anybody though so it's not a big deal.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Dog-man, I've dealt with a dog from a breeder just last year that had a severe health problem- he _died_ from it. I know how a reputable breeder responds to this. Not once was I told to bring him back to her so she could put him down. I find that appalling. I'd get into the specifics but let me just say that she was more than kind and compassionate and responsible about the situation than I'd expect even from the best of breeders. So I can go by what you've read or I can go by what I've experienced personally.

You want a picture? Here he was:










Less than a week before he died. You also want to know someone that helped just by telling me about a dog she had that had a similar problem- Shalva. Also another breeder.



And fine, ignore my other points, they were there and you refuse to answer.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

the vegetarian thing is not working out too good tonight.

i had mashed potatoes for supper, and potato chips for dessert.

(my wife had made chicken for everyone else)



Laurelin said:


> Dog-man, I've dealt with a dog from a breeder just last year that had a severe health problem- he _died_ from it.
> I know how a reputable breeder responds to this.
> Not once was I told to bring him back to her so she could put him down.
> I find that appalling.
> I'd get into the specifics but let me just say that she was more than kind and compassionate and responsible about the situation than I'd expect even from the best of breeders.


how is this story relevant...who said good breeders don't care about the sick dogs?

my point was that many nice breeders, who insist people bring back sick dogs, merely cull them themselves.

check it out.

if you had wanted to return your dog to her, what do you think she would do?

i brought it up, because i find it ironic that people use this as a sign of a good breeder...that they insist you bring the dog back if you are not going to keep him...and few are aware of the reality of what happens.

what, they picture the breeder selflessly caring for these sick dogs for years?



Laurelin said:


> And fine, ignore my other points, they were there and you refuse to answer.


GIVE ME ONE SPECIFIC POINT, AND I PROMISE YOU, I WILL RESPOND !!!!!

ARRRGGGGHHHHHH !!!!!!!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Umm... but breeders who care about their dogs do and that's what I'm saying. If I had returned him, which I did not, she would have done whatever she could to save him. she's just like that, I'm sorry you don't believe so but I know her and you don't. He would have died anyways because there was nothing to do for him. 

Two of my dogs now are dogs that had been returned back to their breeders for various reasons. huh... they seemed to have made it out okay. One of my dogs was a female that was from a breeder that couldn't carry pups. she was also placed... I don't see why this is hard to understand. 

Yes, they'd cull a severe temperament problem- something that's dangerous. there's no way around that. I've never seen it happen, though. the people I know will keep their 'broken' returned dogs or find them a home. Of course the evil show breeders I know also do selfless things like help in rescue, they foster hard dogs that aren't even their own. 

So since breeders seem to all be evil, then the fact that Trey's breeder spent her time and money rehabing shelties she pulled from the pound means nothing to you? These dogs were most often unadoptable- old, health problems, but most often severely shy animals. Or the fact the pap's breeders helped with a crippled rescue dog? Heck, that same breeder does so much for sick people with her dogs as well! One elderly lady with a few of her dogs and a rescue I know was injured severely and is hospitalized. Her breeder took back her dogs and held them for almost a year before she was able o keep them again! Why can't a breeder do something like that? Who made this rule that such returned dogs are euthanized? I'd deem those breeders not to be good ones if that is the case. A good breeder is responsible for what they bred for life regardless of the outcome. 

What dogs have you known returned to their breeder, then euthanised? I know none but I know many that were returned then placed in more suiting homes.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

laurelin, ask around knowledgable circles and get back to me.

its' not a reflection of them being evil.

i just don't understand the insistence to have them culled by the breeder instead of the owner...especially if they are not open about it. 

and yes, a dog who only has a minor issue will be rehomed by a good breeder...they do love their dogs.

i'm not sure where we disagree, except that you have a hard time believing a sad but unavoidable truth.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Like I said I have never seen or heard of this and I am guessing you've never experienced it first hand either. I'd say its you guessing about things yet again. 

If it were to happen it'd have to be a major temperament flaw that would prevent the dog from being adoptable at all. the amount this would happen would be very small. Most good breeders seem to feel responsible for their pups for the entirity of their lives.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

borzoimom said:


> I am only going to post my opinion once. None of the "doodles" have been able to reproduce themselves after second generation. The coat changes etc. Nope- not a breed as they can not produce themselves.


Woof woof!!! My particular line goes back 9 generations, what is your opinion on my ability to reproduce?









.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> I'd say its you guessing about things yet again.


not sure where any one has shown that i've been guessing, rather than relating what i have learned from books, articles or discussions with knowledgeable people...

but i'll leave you alone...the info seems to have upset you....


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

Quincy said:


> Woof woof!!! My particular line goes back 9 generations, what is your opinion on my ability to reproduce?.


All his brother's an sisters look like he does? Have the same temperament and size?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dog-man said:


> not sure where any one has shown that i've been guessing, rather than relating what i have learned from books, articles or discussions with knowledgeable people...
> 
> but i'll leave you alone...the info seems to have upset you....


Books, articles, and knowledgeable people that have no names or ways to be cited apparently. 

I stand by what I say that a _reputable_ breeder would not euthanize a dog of their own unless it was a severe case of temperament problems like the dog was human aggressive. 

If this happens often like you said, show me because I don't think it does.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

dog-man said:


> laurelin, ask around knowledgable circles and get back to me.


For some reason you seem to believe that it is other people's responsibility to validate claims that you pull out of nowhere.

Yet you wonder why people don't immediately buy into your baseless claims.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

rvamutt said:


> All his brother's an sisters look like he does? Have the same temperament and size?


Regarding size, they are being developed in 3 different sizes, somewhat similarly like Poodles have different sizes.

By the way, Quincy appear visually as a cream (white) dog. However genetically he is an Apricot cream, carrying the red and chocolate recessive genes. He has black nose and eye pigment, but hiding underneath is a recessive chocolate allie. He passed all his hereditary disease health testing and his COI is ZERO.
.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

what exactly is Quincy?

Oinest likes his look.



Laurelin said:


> Books, articles, and knowledgeable people that have no names or ways to be cited apparently.
> 
> I stand by what I say that a _reputable_ breeder would not euthanize a dog of their own unless it was a severe case of temperament problems like the dog was human aggressive.
> 
> If this happens often like you said, show me because I don't think it does.


today, i just provided a website on this thread, regarding genetic problems with purebreds...with loads of articles...how is that made up sources?

as far as the euthenasia issue:
i was on a different website: the anti-doodle people hated me more than here, if you can believe that (i did have a large, loyal fan-club as well).

however, one day, even my enemies were honest.

i asked regarding this issue...and several breeders and others with experience in these matters spoke openly.

they were pro-AKC breeders and advocates...no agendas against AKC...quite the opposite.

THIS IS NOT PROOF.

yet i think strong enough to bring it up...and it makes sense.

i think Laurelin knows enough breeders, that she can make an inquiry.

to just respond that i am making it up is intellectual dishonesty (or denial), i believe.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

dog-man said:


> what exactly is Quincy?


He is an "Australian Labradoodle", say like these at this Club in America:-
http://www.australianlabradoodleclub.us/
.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

what is so frustrating, is that when i brought up the subject on this thread, i had acknowledged that my info was from a site like this:

here it is:

funny, though...i inquired regarding this on another site.
it seems, that if you have an unhealthy dog...and the breeder insists you return it to her/him instead of to a shelter or put to "sleep"...

i am so freakin' intellectually honest, but it just gets ignored...



Quincy said:


> He is an "Australian Labradoodle", say like these at this Club in America:-
> http://www.australianlabradoodleclub.us/
> .


very cool...is Quincy haughty about his prestigious heritage?


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

You know, 'some people' and 'some breeders' are not sources. You need _specifics_ or your claims will remain baseless. You cannot expect people to automatically believe the people you have spoken to are viable resources unless they have seen for themselves, that that person has to say.

Also, has it ever occurred to you that many here HAVE been involved in breeder circles and thus know what goes on in them? Why do you keep insisting that they 'ask around' when they may well already know (and in fact, have stated several times) that no reputable breed collects their dogs back to them simply so they can put all the animals to sleep?

Your 'sad inevitable truth' would hold a lot more weight if it actually carried more then your insistence behind it.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

dog-man said:


> very cool...is Quincy haughty about his prestigious heritage?


I don't think Quincy is haughty about his prestigious heritage, and where I think he might feel like an individual within a pack this similarly like so many other dogs might feel.
.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Dakota Spirit said:


> You cannot expect people to automatically believe the people you have spoken to are viable resources


I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO AUTOMATICALLY BELIEVE THE PEOPLE I HAVE SPOKEN TO.

IF I SAY THAT MY KNOWLEDGE IS BASED ON THAT, THEN TAKE IT FOR WHATEVER YOU THINK IT IS WORTH.

IF I MAKE BELIEVE IT IS A MORE RELIABLE SOURCE THAN THAT, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE WHAT TO SAY TO ME....

DON'T YOU GET THAT?

IF NOT, WHY NOT?



Dakota Spirit said:


> Also, has it ever occurred to you that many here HAVE been involved in breeder circles and thus know what goes on in them?


if that is the case, i would love to hear from their experiences.

however, no one has come forward.


----------



## Dakota Spirit (Jul 31, 2007)

dog-man said:


> IF I MAKE BELIEVE IT IS A MORE RELIABLE SOURCE THAN THAT, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE WHAT TO SAY TO ME....


Actually, no I do not get what that is supposed to mean at all. Why? Because it doesn't make any sense. If you make believe it's a more reliable source? Heh, I'd say you were being delusional.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man, I think it's past your bed time. Not to pick on you, but the quality (and I don't mean to imply value here) is diminishing. Call it a day and refresh your mind a bit.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> dog-man, I think it's past your bed time. Not to pick on you, but the quality (and I don't mean to imply value here) is diminishing. Call it a day and refresh your mind a bit.


I think maybe so and not to pick, and somehow I starting to think I'm being baited with words like "haughty about his prestigious heritage", well maybe it's past my bed time 
.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

dog-man said:


> i'll repeat myself, even though i prefer not to.
> 
> isn't it possible, that if i got exactly the dog i wanted, that maybe...just maybe...my judgement is better than you think?


Not necessarily. Call it dumb luck.



> Originally Posted by dog-man
> i asked breeders and people who returned the dogs to good breeders....they were very honest.
> 
> if it is a minor issue, but returned, of course, they will try to find a new home.
> ...


I know, and am friends with many breeders of Standard Poodles. NOT ONE would consider putting one of their puppies down an *honor*. They would be devastated and heartbroken for the puppy and owner alike, and driven to eliminate the problem in their line, would contact other puppy owners ASAP, spay or neuter to prevent any future puppies with the problem, and put the information in the health registry.


----------



## Canadian Dog (Nov 3, 2007)

Dog-man:
My daughter-in-law and son were considering purchasing a poodle/retriever mix as they were very impressed with Molly. I advised them against it because I had been reading 3 doodle forums and 2 doodle breeders forums. It's the unpredictability of the coat that concerned me as many owners describe a horrific coat change that usually results in the dogs being shaved. I've met owners who said their dog shed from the day they brought it home. Molly's mother and another doodle were shaved when younger and the owners have been unable to get the coats to grow back the same and are forced to keep the dogs short.

Molly is and F1b - her mother is the result of a Golden and Standard Poodle breeding and then her mother was bred with a Standard Poodle... and no this does not make her 75% poodle 25% retriever. I feel the same way about Molly as you do about your dog - she is the perfect dog for me and I couldn't ask for a better companion. That's not because we have this particular mix - it's because we love them just like everyone else loves their dogs. You haven't found the perfect dog for everyone just because it's perfect for you. 

The problems with these mixes will take time to surface and I think you should spend some time on the doodle forums to hear what other owners have to say. 

I think it's very very lucky we own these mixes and have not experienced any problems yet.

Also, why are you yelling in some of your posts?


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

> That's not because we have this particular mix - it's because we love them just like everyone else loves their dogs. You haven't found the perfect dog for everyone just because it's perfect for you.


VERY well said. And VERY true. I used to wonder why everyone didn't have or want a greyhound...They're the perfect dog! Then I started doing greyhound adoption and burden of actually placing a dog in a home made much more careful about recommending them. They really aren't the dog for everyone....but they are perfect for ME. <g> 




> I think it's very very lucky we own these mixes and have not experienced any problems yet.


Just like I would never judge or evaluate an entire pure breed based on one or two individuals of that breed, I would certainly never dream of claiming to be able to predict what a *mix* of breeds would be like (as dog-man seems to base his opinion of all golden/poodle mixes on his own dog). It's nice to hear an unbiased, open, honest and *educated* opinion from a doodle owner.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

A picture framer friend is fond of saying (and it's her signature on a site I participate in):

"Take what you can use and leave the rest."

For those who think dog-man is talking unsubstantiated gibberish, why are you devoting so much time and passion to arguing with him? My impression is that dog-man, like me, is a stubborn old goat who isn't going to change his mind about anything because of 160 contrary posts. 

How long do you think these intellectual discussions would go on if nobody responded? If you find them interesting, great. Have at it. But if they are upsetting, maddening, frustrating . . . May I suggest the forum IGNORE function or the personal ignore function?


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

> What do mean when you say Poodles leave you cold?
> 
> .
> 
> ...



Ok, I get it that Standard Poodles, for whatever reason, leave you cold (but you didn't answer my question of what, exactly, it is about Standard Poodles that leave you cold)! You're saying that it's only the *increased chance *you'll get a non-shedding dog that you choose a GR SP mix. 

Well, Standard Poodles DO shed, despite what you may believe. It just isn't all over your furniture, clothing, and floors. Their hair and skin differ from other breeds, are less apt to trigger allergies, but, they are not non-shedding. And, you aren't going to get a dog from this mix that, genetically speaking, is all Golden Retriever in every way except for the possible chance of getting a dog who sheds less than a purebred GR. What you're going to get from a breeding of this sort is a real crap shoot. You might get lucky and end up with a dog as intelligent as a SP, or not. In addition, you could get any or all of the genetic diseases that run in both breeds, many of which will not show up until the age of 4, or so. 

That said, I have nothing against mixed breeds per se. It's the irresponsible people who are breeding them, especially those designer dog breeders whose only agenda is making money. It's nothing new, and will continue. All I can say is, a fool and his money is soon parted. It's just a shame that innocent dogs are the ones who suffer, all because of the stupidity and greed of some human beings.

Oh, and BTW, it sure doesn't bother me that some people don't like Standard Poodles. I'm glad! Those of us who know and appreciate them don't want to see the Standard fall into the hands of the ignorant JQP!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

RonE said:


> A picture framer friend is fond of saying (and it's her signature on a site I participate in):
> 
> "Take what you can use and leave the rest."
> 
> ...


I do not understand that either. If I don't like something on TV I can turn it off or switch channels. Yelling at TV never works for me.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I was considering a response to all this.. then I looked at the number of posts and then this bit of wisdom:



RonE said:


> A picture framer friend is fond of saying (and it's her signature on a site I participate in):
> 
> "Take what you can use and leave the rest."
> 
> ...


Very good.... 



RonE said:


> How long do you think these intellectual discussions would go on if nobody responded?


I think I said this on another thread of Dog-Man's... but I was not so kind as to include the word "intellectual..."


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

POODLEHOLIC: Not necessarily. Call it dumb luck.
I know, and am friends with many breeders of Standard Poodles. NOT ONE would consider putting one of their puppies down an honor.

MY RESPONSE:
i asked if it was POSSIBLE that i knew what i was doing...your answer of "NOT NECESSARILY" evades the question, because you are not able to let the words out of your mouth that it is POSSIBLE.

you are correct...i should not have used the word "HONOR".

i believe these breeders to be loving and compassionate to their dogs.

i was sarcastic, because i think there is some deception in not telling people what happens to the dogs in these situations.

btw, you seem to be know a bit about breeding.

what do you know about the aforementioned policy?



Quincy said:


> I think maybe so and not to pick, and somehow I starting to think I'm being baited with words like "haughty about his prestigious heritage", well maybe it's past my bed time
> .


Quincy, you misread my intention.

i did not say it to bait you.

it was with a friendly tone, as a fellow conspirator and admirer of goldendoodles.

i am actually quite impressed that he is from one of the original Australian stock.
-----------------------------

CANADIAN DOG:
Molly is an F1b - her mother is the result of a Golden and Standard Poodle breeding and then her mother was bred with a Standard Poodle... and no this does not make her 75% poodle 25% retriever. 

MY RESPONsE: what would you call it?
---------------------------



Canadian Dog said:


> You haven't found the perfect dog for everyone just because it's perfect for you.
> 
> RESPONSE:
> i have stated many times that they are not good for many people.
> ...


----------



## talltail (Jan 25, 2008)

If you are breeding a mutt you are NOT a responsible breeder. Most people who breed popular mutts end up selling them for hundreds of dollars! That makes no sense to me. They can't show their dogs, they're just pets. Responsible breeders use most, if not all, of the the money they get from the pups go to pay off expenses. People who breed mutts don't need to pay off expenses, so they keep the money. They're breeding popular mutts. So, they might only need about $200 but since the puppies are so popular, they go for $1,000.

Chances are you'll get genetic problems if you _inbreed_. So there could be major genetic problems if you breed a sister to a brother. Every breed has their health problems. But there has been no proof that mutts are healthier then purebreds. No serious testing has been done on it. In my own experience, I've seen some mutts die at age six because of health problems and I've seen purebreds live to age fourteen.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dog-man said:


> if that is the case, i would love to hear from their experiences.
> 
> however, no one has come forward.


What, you mean like me ? Or do I not count? What do you think I've been saying? I _am_ involved in a fairly large 'breeder circle'.

anyways, yes, the 'doodle people' were never able to express their opinions without you there to guide them.  I bet they're all ecstatic someone is here to speak for them now.

Of course no one can defeat someone's response of 'I am right because I say so'.


----------



## borzoimom (May 21, 2007)

Okay- several posts back the mention was a 9 generation of the coat staying with this one dog. The bottom line is this- the only way to make a standand is that it is produced uniform in the litter. Its documented fact that like 25 percent are a curly coat, 25 percent are a straight coat and ONLY 50 percent the " desired coat". When only half the pups produce come out with the wrong coat type-That is NOT a defined standard .- A " standard" means that is what the dog is .. For example - a silken windhound, bred to a silken windhound- will produce ALL THE PUPPIES- the silken windhound appearance. Hardly the same as any of the " doodles" where you will still GENETICALLY SPEAKING produce some of the pups will not have the coat that was desired in doing the breeding.. 
I am sorry all but we are beating a dead horse here. This is my last response to this thread. Its " getting old.."..


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> What, you mean like me ? Or do I not count? What do you think I've been saying? I _am_ involved in a fairly large 'breeder circle'.


from your description, your situation was not relevant to the topic.

we were discussing the breeder contracts, in which the better breeders demand that the dog owner return the dog to the breeder if they don't want it anymore.

your situation was not one in which your breeder needed to ask you to return the dog.

if you had, and the dog was very sick, what do you think she would have done with it?

do you have any experience with that?
if so, please share.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

So far I haven't seen any intelligent points you have made about doodles. I have friends with doodles, I have a relative with a poo. I don't say anything to them about wether I think their dog deserved to be bred or not. They have never thought to try to convince me that their dog should have been bred. The only reason I keep coming back is because you are like a rabid dog. You think if you keep repeating yourself over and over you will somehow be able to convince those that disagree with you that you are right.

Would you just get over yourself and go commiserate on the doodle boards with people who agree with you that doodles are somehow the next best thing to sliced bread?

Sorry, Ella's mom, if I upset you in any way with this post. I have nothing against doodles who are already born, it's just the insistence that they are somehow worth thousands of dollars and are so unique that they should continue to be bred. I just don't get it 

Now if there were a breeding program to insure I could have another Cherokee, that might have some substance to it. He is a magnificent megamutt and lots of people ooh and ahh and want one just like him  Oops, maybe I should go straight to cloning since that is really the only way to get another one just like him. Genetics are a crap shoot after all.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Of course no one can defeat someone's response of 'I am right because I say so'.


please give me one quote of mine which even remotely resembles that sentiment.

i don't think there would be so many responses and viewers if that was my style.



Laurelin said:


> anyways, yes, the 'doodle people' were never able to express their opinions without you there to guide them.  I bet they're all ecstatic someone is here to speak for them now.


why shouldn't they be?

they probably have been bullied until now.



borzoimom said:


> Okay- several posts back the mention was a 9 generation of the coat staying with this one dog. The bottom line is this- the only way to make a standand is that it is produced uniform in the litter. Its documented fact that like 25 percent are a curly coat, 25 percent are a straight coat and ONLY 50 percent the " desired coat". When only half the pups produce come out with the wrong coat type


have i ever called the goldendoodle a breed?

if it is true that 50% do get the desired trait (and maybe 25% get a lower shedding coat), that is a high percentage of people getting better shed results than if they had gotten a golden instead.

if they will return the dog because of shedding, then they had no right to get a goldendoodle in the first place.

btw, i believe there ARE breeders who have developed the non-shed trait to even better percentages...i THINK it is true of some of the Australian breeders.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> most genetic diseases that plague dogs are the result of both parents having the same unhealthy recessive gene.
> 
> when you mix breeds, you do NOT increase the chances of getting the genetic problems of either breed.
> 
> ...


This is where a layperson should not try to recite science that he is not schooled in. You are incorrect in each and every statement made here. Again, it appears dog-man is feeding into the propaganda, and I beg those who may reason with dog-man to do their own research. And no dog-man, I won't make an effort to prove where you are incorrect, you haven't shown the capacity to reason logic.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

this morning, my daughter was wearing a Beatles tee shirt.

i commented that the Beatles took their name as homage to Buddy Holly and the Crickets.

of course, they were using the musical pun of "beat", but the basic idea was due to their appreciation of the Cricket's music (the day the music died).

she didn't say to me "i am not interested in such a statement because you didn't back it up with sources as true".

i never claimed it as scientific fact... just a bit of trivia i remember reading many moons ago.

if i then looked it up in Wikipedia and had found it, she would not have said that Wikipedia is worthless.

if i found an even better source, she would not have said she will only believe it if she heard it directly from John, Paul or George.

she doesn't have to believe it...but it does make sense...so she would just take it with a grain of salt, and finished.


----------



## borzoimom (May 21, 2007)

Dog man- the fact of the matter is that poodles have some of the highest number of genetic disorders. Then- they breed to other breeds with a high incident of problems. And again- back to the facts- the coat does not reproduce after second generation with 100 percent consistancy. 
BTW- we have golden/doodles in our shelter. Care to adopt one? People think they are getting a "hypoallergenic" dog, such not the case- abandoned in the shelters. 
A Leo is not accepted in the AKC yet. But its a defined breed. Just because its not breed accepted yet, it does produce what it is. The recognition into the AKC is one thing- the Leo is a breed- the doodles-what-ever is not. It can not produce itsself with 100 percent consistancy and changes with generations needing the introduction to keep the pups uniform. That is not a breed.- its a manufacture and manipulation of two breeds to make something else..- ie - a mutt...( and didn't I say I was not coming back to this thread- slaps fingers.. lol )


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> This is where a layperson should not try to recite science that he is not schooled in. You are incorrect in each and every statement made here. Again, it appears dog-man is feeding into the propaganda, and I beg those who may reason with dog-man to do their own research.
> 
> And no dog-man, I won't make an effort to prove where you are incorrect, you haven't shown the capacity to reason logic.


well, why don't you clarify why i am incorrect...not for me, but for the reasonable and logical folk out there who might now be fooled into thinking i am correct?

i really am curious myself, though.
---------------------------

Borzoi,

you post to me that Goldendoodles are not a breed.

i respond that i agree.

you respond back that, no, they are not a breed.

am i missing something here?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

> why shouldn't they be?
> 
> they probably have been bullied until now.


Yes, because Quincy and Canadian Dog don't seem to know anything on the subject or present their information as validly as you do on this subject. *sarcasm*



dog-man said:


> from your description, your situation was not relevant to the topic.
> 
> we were discussing the breeder contracts, in which the better breeders demand that the dog owner return the dog to the breeder if they don't want it anymore.
> 
> ...


Apparently you didn't read any more of my posts. Oh well... I'm out.



> And no dog-man, I won't make an effort to prove where you are incorrect, you haven't shown the capacity to reason logic.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Yes, because Quincy and Canadian Dog don't seem to know anything on the subject or present their information as validly as you do on this subject. *sarcasm*


those two are much too polite to handle this type of barrage.



Laurelin said:


> Apparently you didn't read any more of my posts. Oh well... I'm out.


ARE YOU PLAYING A JOKE ON ME?

YOU ALWAYS DO THAT.

YOU SAY I IGNORED YOUR CHALLENGE...I ASK FOR A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE...YOU WON'T RESPOND...AND THEN RUN OUT.

AAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH !!!!!!!!


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> This is where a layperson should not try to recite science that he is not schooled in. You are incorrect in each and every statement made here. Again, it appears dog-man is feeding into the propaganda, and I beg those who may reason with dog-man to do their own research. And no dog-man, I won't make an effort to prove where you are incorrect, you haven't shown the capacity to reason logic.


Thank you CP. 

BTW did you know that webbing between the fingers of human beings is a Dominant Gene and non-webbed fingers in humans is recessive? Just tossing that out there. The point being that a recessive gene or a dominant gene is not always good or bad and that its physical appearance predominating a species or a breed does not automatically show that it is recessive or dominant. 

As to the old Hybrid vigor statement, there is some validity to it, but not always. The Army used to breed their own horses for the Cavalry. Since mares do not produce litters it worked well for them to breed Thoroughbred stallions to good mares of other lineages that were of solid type. First generation horses were excellent and secind generation horses (breeidng the F1 to each other) produced unreliable results, with some horses having all the traits of either parent or of neither parent. The point is, the second generation crosses were unreliable. 

And, they were not creating a new breed of horse. They could get more consistant Physical type on the F1 using a Thoroughbred, but even then not all F1 types from the same sire and dam were truly similar. This is called prepotencey. Morgans all trace their lineage back to Justin Morgan who WAS prepotent.. stamping his type on his off spring regardless of the mare. This prepotency is not present in most dog designer breeds. 

Remember the peas? Where the F1 hybrids all carried the gene for a different color but only one color showed? But when they F1's were bred to each other you had colors not apparent in the F1 parents? Well, similar happens with animals, but it is much more complex because they differ by so many more traist than color alone. 

If you breed any animal for a single trait ignoring other traits, you will get animals exhibiting that trait. An Example is Miniature horses. However, the issue has been that by breeding for one trait, the miniature horse has a plethora of other health problems that have come about by single trait breeding. They are small. Period. 

If you are breeding a cross and a litter results that is not uniform you have NOTHING (as previously stated) because the traits you are breeding for may be present (but not visible) in both parents and you have NO idea what those traits are. This is why FOR breeding same to same, genetic testing, and proofing in the show ring or the work arena. 

If your litter is a X between a Golden Retriever and a Poodle and the resulting offspring have coats and physical attributes not uniform, you have a litter of mutts that people have been sold a bill of goods on.. Kinda like a P.T. Barnum thing.. sucker born every minute.. and you may get a wonderful dog or a bad dog. 

Beyond this, it is unlikely that Doodle breeders have top stock from which they breed from. If you have a Golden Retriever male and you have titled him and/or proven him at field trials you are probably not going to waste him breeding to something other than another titled and proven golden Retriever. Same with the Standard Poodle Bitch.. you have titled this animal and now you are going to waste breeding her to some other breed? Unlikely.. 

Both these scenarios are unlikley as the cost of proving dog or bitch is too expensive to be fiddling the genetics away on a P.T. Barnum cross. If you care enough to title and test a dog or a bitch, you are interested in promoting and improving that breed and so you will breed pure to that end. 

Doodle, Noodle, Poo etc. do not produce consistant F1 hybrids now. The breeders usually cannot avail themselves of the best genetics as those genetics are kept going in breed to breed matings for the purposes and reasons stated above. 

While you may have a nice dog that is a "designer" breed, that is all you have and if you paid more than the cost of a rescue for that dog, you have proven P.T. Barnum is correct.

Considering that I have some clothes for you to buy. I know YOU can't see them, but they really do exist because I said so. Why just last week I sold a WHOLE cartload to this Emperor... He liked them so much he wore them in a parade.. haven't been back to see how that worked out for him... 

OK.. Rage on. I have other things I need to do.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Elana,

there are things in your post i agree with, some i disagree, some i have no opinion, and some i don't understand.

i don't want to be too vain, assuming that you were definitely directing yourself to me, and not just educating the rest of the audience.

but, assuming for a second that you were directing yourself to me with a challenge:
can you explain how any of your points on genetics were a direct challenge to my own position?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I have responded to the OP for the most part in discussion of the following partial quote from the OP. Emphasis Added. Others have responded to getting a breed recognized or accepted. 



Fire Tiger said:


> When reading up on Doodle dogs (mixes of one dog breed with the Poodle), I have read a lot of protest from breeders of established dog breeds against Doodle dogs. At first, I found their protests rather stupid given the history of their own dog breeds. But when I read that some *Doodle breeders only cross-breed and never try to establish a line,* I see where there could be grounds against such breeders. *These single-cross breeders could be viewed as merely rolling the dice and hoping something good comes of it. They are not working to perfect a stable line that consistently contains the characteristics they're hoping their roll of the dice will produce.*
> What I would like to know is: what if a breeder of an established dog breed tried breeding in just one characteristic from another breed into their line, would at some point the descendants of such a breeding program be accepted by that dog breed's club or would that line forever be excluded from it?
> 
> *Let us say that I'm a breeder that wanted to create a no-shed Golden Retriever (GR)* to make GRs more acceptable to those with allergies and/or those that loved GRs but don't want one that sheds all over their house. With this breeder goal in mind, I hunt for a good (possibly champion) Standard Poodle dog that has few or no genetic defects and is the closest temperament to the GR as I can find (or at least one that isn't a high-strung barker) and then breed it to my champion GR bitch. *I am lucky and the entire litter produces pups that don't shed. I then select the bitch of that litter that is closest to the GR standard and breed it to another champion GR dog. * Each breeding, I only breed the pup who is a no-shed and closest to the GR standard and breed it to another champion GR. Eventually, this breeding program produces pups that meet the GR standard, have the GR temperament, and possess non-curly classic-wavy-feathered GR hair that doesn't shed. I then do a bit of inline breeding to set the line and start using only my line (no more bringing in an outside GR) to produce a line of these dogs. I get them so they consistently produce the desired goal. Could pups of this line ever compete in the show ring against other GRs?


You have completely hi-jacked the entire thread D-M and that, I believe, is against the Forum rules.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

it seems the opposition has completely fallen apart.

post after post has merely been saying that i am stubborn, illogical etc, but not willing to make any interesting or relevant challenges.

do you not have a brave David to challenge the evil Goliath?



Elana55 said:


> I have responded to the OP for the most part in discussion of the following partial quote from the OP.


ok.

well, i am vain...i really did think the song was about me.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

dog-man said:


> well, i am vain...i really did think the song was about me.


Actually I had another descriptive word in mind.. "vain" was not it.


----------



## lurcherloopy (Feb 11, 2007)

WOW what a thread! all very interesting stuff. 

I understand that people have these crosses and are very happy with them. The only observation through this thread though is that they either want them for non shedding or temperament - something no guaranteable. Ive not seen much on health and the testing of the sire and dam and how far back the health testing goes on the foundation parents.

Perhaps someone who has one of these crosses could respond with what health tests they expect to have on the parents and how far back they would want to check the health and pedigree and if they are both completely free of health problems.

Many thanks


----------



## petstar (Dec 7, 2007)

What it boils down to, dog-man, the ever evasive point that I think people are arguing is the ethics involved with producing a dog in the already vastly, overpopulated world of homeless animals so that you _may_ end up with a dog that looks a certain way and *may* end up with a dog who doesn't have obvious signs of shedding. 

Can you not agree that there are countless animals in shelters, rescues or homeless that could fit this requirement without breeding more animals? I feel certain that a short search on Petfinder would find a dog with these qualifications (or at least the possibility of meeting your prerequisites). 

You mentioned before that not all poodle mixes are created equal...Why? because you only care for your particular mesh of genetics? 

A member of the Golden community posted to this thread stating that she knows that an ethical breeder of goldens would not contribute to mixed breeding program but you ignored that comment. It doesn't seem to bother you that these breedless dogs are being produced without merit when other, proven breeds exist. 

You made this statement a number of times...


> i asked if it was POSSIBLE that i knew what i was doing...


...NO, I don't think it's possible that you knew what you were doing. Have you been to a shelter lately? Visited a puppy mill? Pet store puppies? Read any recent statistics on animal abuse, neglect? Do you know how many animals are euthanized each year? Has it crossed your mind, even for a second that perhaps our world is facing a problem with the number of dogs we already have in existence?...Why create more under the pretense that they *MAY* have certain physical and mental attributes that _may_ find a following? (Let's not ignore the fact that members of these litters will NOT succeed at exhibiting these traits, therefore making them more difficult to place.)

I haven't yet decided if you derive your pleasure from being obstinate or if you are genuinely incapable of understanding why YOU are part of a serious problem that exists with the "pet" market.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

petstar said:


> What it boils down to, dog-man, the ever evasive point that I think people are arguing is the ethics involved with producing a dog in the already vastly, overpopulated world of homeless animals so that you _may_ end up with a dog that looks a certain way and *may* end up with a dog who doesn't have obvious signs of shedding.
> 
> .


i think you have missed many of my posts.

your position is now my current position, to a large extent.

people say i don't learn anything....but i did learn this from anti-doodle people.

the funny thing, is that the purebred people don't apply the same reasoning to themselves.
OF COURSE, THEY HAVE GOOD REASONS NOT TO GO TO THE SHELTERS.

i defend goldendoodles, because, if people do want to go to a breeder, i think they are a good alternative for some.



petstar said:


> Can you not agree that there are countless animals in shelters, rescues or homeless that could fit this requirement without breeding more animals? I feel certain that a short search on Petfinder would find a dog with these qualifications (or at least the possibility of meeting your prerequisites).


no, i don't think i could have found the right dog for me in the shelters.
i just would have not gotten a dog.

as a novice, i felt i would do best with a puppy.
i also wanted a dog who did not shed, and had checked-out parents.

now that i am a more experienced dog person, i think i do have the ability to choose a good adult dog from a shelter.
still not sure if i could find the right dog, though, because of allergy issues.

last time, i didn't just want a good dog...or even a very good dog.

I WANTED THE ULTIMATE SWEETIE-PIE.

and he is laying down next to me right now.



petstar said:


> You mentioned before that not all poodle mixes are created equal...Why? because you only care for your particular mesh of genetics?
> 
> A member of the Golden community posted to this thread stating that she knows that an ethical breeder of goldens would not contribute to mixed breeding program but you ignored that comment. It doesn't seem to bother you that these breedless dogs are being produced without merit when other, proven breeds exist.
> 
> .


not all mixes of breeds make good sense.

i think a poodle and a golden is a good idea, particularly since i have seen many results.

i didn't give examples of bad ideas that are popular, because my knowledge is limited.
obviously, some cross ideas are not good ideas.
-------

just because many breeders would not supply their dogs to doodle breeders does not mean that they are not managing to get good dogs.

some breeders were actually poodle or golden breeders before.
although, i'm sure many here can't believe they were good.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dog-man said:


> i defend goldendoodles, because, if people do want to go to a breeder, i think they are a good alternative for some.


And what we've been trying to tell you is that the way you defend golden/poodles crosses does not lead one to believe they are a good alternative. If you need an example, look at how you respond to statements and look at how Quincy responds to statements. The difference is why your points are ignorable.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

petstar said:


> ).
> 
> ...NO, I don't think it's possible that you knew what you were doing. Have you been to a shelter lately?


i was asking if it is possible that i knew what i was doing in terms of choosing a quality dog.

in reference to the ethical issues of shelter vs bred dogs, i did not know then what i know now, but i was not totally ignorant.

i had actually tried that route, by trying a foster situation...i had a nightmare with a misleading rescue person, and ridiculous policies at the municipal shelter...they wouldn't even let me take the dog for a trial walk outside...i had to base my judgement by just taking him out of his cage.

at the time, i thought i was very responsible by not going to a pet store, but to a breeder who appeared reliable (and who i still think is and was a good breeder.)



Curbside Prophet said:


> And what we've been trying to tell you is that the way you defend golden/poodles crosses does not lead one to believe they are a good alternative.
> 
> If you need an example, look at how you respond to statements and look at how Quincy responds to statements. The difference is why your points are ignorable.


i can't respond without specific examples.

this is really getting silly.


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

Dog-man,

You have stated that you think it an acceptable breeder philosophy to breed animals for the purpose of being pets? Hoe is this ethical? There are currently 2,801 Golden Retrievers on Petfinder.com, there 1,812 Poodles on the site. Thats 4,613 dogs in foster or shelter care because breeders chose to breed for pets and someone didn't like the product.

You want a Golden Retriever? Go to a shelter. You want a puppy? Contact someone breeding working Goldens and put down a deposit on the puppy thats not right for a working home. Don't contribute to the problem by buying from someone that is only taking homes from rescue dogs.


----------



## Canadian Dog (Nov 3, 2007)

Molly is an F1b - her mother is the result of a Golden and Standard Poodle breeding and then her mother was bred with a Standard Poodle... and no this does not make her 75% poodle 25% retriever.

MY RESPONsE: what would you call it?

Dog-man: The following is a quote from one of the doodle breeders forum:

_But in genetics things don't line up according to the ratio of the dogs mixed. An F1 has exactly 50% of its genes from the poodle and 50% of its genes from the lab--there's no other way around it. However, that doesn't mean that it LOOKS 50% because depending on which gene was passed on from the poodle or lab and which one was dominant or recessive. So when when discussing the percentages...there is more than one way to look at it. The percentage a dog LOOKS like one parent or another. Then there's the percentage of GENES that CAME from one or the other._

_So an F1 is a 50/50 mix of lab poodle GENES (forget what the dog looks like).

An F1 which is 50/50 lab/poodle is then mixed with a poodle. Well the offspring has more of a chance of having more poodle genes... but it doesn't guarantee 75%. Because we KNOW half of the F1b genes will come from a poodle but the other half can come from either lab or poodle (since F1 is half lab and half poodle).

Let's say that there were to boxes and one box had all BLUE marbles. We'll say that was the Poodle parent gene's. The other box had Red and Yellow marbles. These represent the F1's genes that are half lab and half poodle (we'll say the yellow genes came from the lab and the red from the poodle).

If you were to make an F1b you'd have to stick your hand in the poodle box and randomly pick a marble (representing a poodle parent gene). Then you'd have to pick a marble from the F1 parent (the mix of yellow and red marbles). If you chose randomly sometimes you'd get a red sometimes you'd pick a yellow. That's why it's not always 75% because the picking of the genes from each parent is random and sometimes some F1b's end up more 50/50 lab/poodle and other times it can be far more poodle. Sometimes even 75% poodle but it's never ALWAYS 75% poodle--only the average over many many litters.
_

*"i "yell" when someone is being ridiculously frustrating."*
Well if you can't keep it together don't post until you have it under control. 

*those two are much too polite to handle this type of barrage.*
I must show this comment to those who know me - that is hilarious. You mistake politeness for common sense - I came here to learn - not to shoot my mouth off. 

*i have spent time on the DOODLE ZOO*
Well I'm not sure how much time you've spent considering you seemed to be unaware of that forum until yesterday when I directed you to a specific post. There are a total of 5 doodle forums (2 being breeders) that I read and have found to be very informative since these are people who actually own these mixes. I hope to see you posting on these soon.

*what many people don't get is that the labradoodle and goldendoodle can be incredible dogs...perhaps beyond anything you have ever experienced.*
Again, you can't flip back and forth trying to be logical and then throw in ridiculous statements like this. Don't you get it - you just really love your dog - just like everyone else does. That is the wonderful part - you love your dog so much. You said yourself you have limited experience. You may pride yourself on being a great debater - good for you. But you do not have the experience and knowledge members of this forum possess. 

*i am defending the honor of those who love them.
also, i am trying to clarify what i see as incorrect information being disseminated about them.*
Please don't feel obliged to come on the forum and champion the cause of doodles or defend us owners. You don't know if it is actually incorrect information do you?


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

rvamutt said:


> Dog-man,
> 
> You have stated that you think it an acceptable breeder philosophy to breed animals for the purpose of being pets? Hoe is this ethical? There are currently 2,801 Golden Retrievers on Petfinder.com, there 1,812 Poodles on the site. Thats 4,613 dogs in foster or shelter care because breeders chose to breed for pets and someone didn't like the product.
> 
> You want a Golden Retriever? Go to a shelter. You want a puppy? Contact someone breeding working Goldens and put down a deposit on the puppy thats not right for a working home. Don't contribute to the problem by buying from someone that is only taking homes from rescue dogs.


did you read my last two posts?

your questions don't seem to reflect that.

please take one of my statements...quote it...and then ask your question.

keep in mind i can't get a golden because of allergy and related shed issues.


----------



## petstar (Dec 7, 2007)

Again...you are missing the point. 



> i was asking if it is possible that i knew what i was doing in terms of choosing a quality dog.
> 
> in reference to the ethical issues of shelter vs bred dogs, i did not know then what i know now, but i was not totally ignorant.


I'm sorry that you didn't like my response and felt you needed to restate your question but...NO. I do not think it's possible. You've made it abundantly clear to me that you are not capable of distinguishing "quality". I'm glad that you love your dog and I'm even more glad that your dog has a home where it is cared for and loved, but that doesn't mean that I think you posses a "quality" dog or are capable of finding one.

I wasn't suggesting that you find a dog from a shelter, only emphasizing the fact that you are ignorant to the fact that there is an overabundance of homeless animals and breeding even more animals that may or may not have the desirable traits you are looking for only ADDS to the serious problem. Furthermore, by purchasing such a dog you are contributing this problem and driving the market of not only only you're preferred brand of mutt but several other designer breeds fetching a ridiculous price. 

Frankly you're rationale is lacking. Poodles leave you "cold"??? How is anyone supposed to interpret that? You're a self admitted novice with little experience. You are on a forum where most people have a great deal of knowledge and enthusiasm. You are clearly unmatched. 

I guess you decided to ignore this part of my last post.


> Why create more under the pretense that they MAY have certain physical and mental attributes that may find a following? (Let's not ignore the fact that members of these litters will NOT succeed at exhibiting these traits, therefore making them more difficult to place.)


You have led me to believe that you didn't do adequate research and still have not done enough research. I listed some common problems associated with "doodles" to which you gave little attention. These are *common* problems documented by veterinarians, owners and breeders. They are problems facing a breedless "brand" of dog that doesn't produce consistent phenotype and they are already surfacing in decent quantity relative to the amount of dogs being bred. None of this bodes well for an argument in favor of continuing to produce these animals because some *MIGHT* not shed and act or look a certain way.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

Canadian Dog said:


> An F1 which is 50/50 lab/poodle is then mixed with a poodle. Well the offspring has more of a chance of having more poodle genes... but it doesn't guarantee 75%. Because we KNOW half of the F1b genes will come from a poodle but the other half can come from either lab or poodle (since F1 is half lab and half poodle).


interesting...thanks

it did say that the average is 75%, though, no?



Canadian Dog said:


> *"i "yell" when someone is being ridiculously frustrating."*
> Well if you can't keep it together don't post until you have it under control.


i never lost it at all...i was trying to be sure that my frustration was properly expressed.



Canadian Dog said:


> *those two are much too polite to handle this type of barrage.*
> I must show this comment to those who know me - that is hilarious. You mistake politeness for common sense - I came here to learn - not to shoot my mouth off.


ah, and here i thought we friends.

actually, i didn't think that you were capable of handling the issue as well as i, but i didn't want to be rude.

i come to learn AND to express my opinions, whatever others may believe.



Canadian Dog said:


> *i have spent time on the DOODLE ZOO*
> 
> Well I'm not sure how much time you've spent considering you seemed to be unaware of that forum until yesterday when I directed you to a specific post.


i was not unaware of the forum...i have looked around and posted there occassionally ...i was appreciative that you directed me to an interesting post, not that you made me aware of the forum.



Canadian Dog said:


> *what many people don't get is that the labradoodle and goldendoodle can be incredible dogs...perhaps beyond anything you have ever experienced.*
> 
> Don't you get it - you just really love your dog - just like everyone else does. That is the wonderful part - you love your dog so much. You said yourself you have limited experience. You may pride yourself on being a great debater - good for you. But you do not have the experience and knowledge members of this forum possess.


i know Oinest and you don't, so i'll stick to my OPINION that he is the greatest dog since the beginning of creation 

Ulysses' dog was pretty good, too...and Ol' Yeller, he was the best doggone dog (only) in the west.

i was on a British forum a few months ago...there were some there who were more knowledgable than myself on almost every issue.

on this forum, there are lots of people who are more knowledgeable and experienced in other areas...but in the areas that i have been discussing, i really don't think so.



Canadian Dog said:


> *i am defending the honor of those who love them.
> also, i am trying to clarify what i see as incorrect information being disseminated about them.*
> Please don't feel obliged to come on the forum and champion the cause of doodles or defend us owners. You don't know if it is actually incorrect information do you?


don't take everything so literally.

i don't believe that all the doodle owners are out there waiting for me to champion their cause.

what i mean, is that there are many on forums like this, that say ridiculous things about doodle owners and breeders, and yes, i would like to set the record straight.

i don't know what you mean by the last question.
i try to be accurate.
i try to limit myself to things i have researched.
i know there is much more to learn.

this is a casual discussion forum, no?
i am not pretending to be a scholar at a scientific forum, giving false credentials.



petstar said:


> NO. I do not think it's possible. You've made it abundantly clear to me that you are not capable of distinguishing "quality".


hmmm...it's not even POSSIBLE.

and i have made it abundantly clear?...can you offer the reading audience a specific example or two, of how i have made it so clear?



petstar said:


> , only emphasizing the fact that you are ignorant to the fact that there is an overabundance of homeless animals and breeding even more animals that may or may not have the desirable traits you are looking for only ADDS to the serious problem.


incredible...did you read my response AT ALL?

i explicitly stated that my current philosophy is that i would prefer that everyone would give up buying from breeders, to solve this problem.

and i might limit myself to shelter dogs in the future, even if others don't.

how am i ignorant of the problem?

i don't know if you yourself accept the breeding of purebred dogs not needed for a job...but if you do, i would consider you a huge hypocrite.



petstar said:


> You are on a forum where most people have a great deal of knowledge and enthusiasm. You are clearly unmatched.


i think you meant to say that i am OUTMATCHED.

but i think you actually got it right...so far, i am unmatched.


----------



## petstar (Dec 7, 2007)

> hmmm...it's not even POSSIBLE.
> 
> and i have made it abundantly clear...can you offer the reading audience a specific example or two, of how i have made it so clear?


I don't think it's necessary for me to give examples, you've done a fine job yourself! LOL 

You asked a question, to which I gave an answer...you didn't like my answer so you restated your question to which I gave you the same answer and now you need further clarification? You seem to filter what you don't like or choose not to accept.


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

petstar said:


> I guess you decided to ignore this part of my last post.
> 
> You have led me to believe that you didn't do adequate research and still have not done enough research. I listed some common problems associated with "doodles" to which you gave little attention. These are *common* problems documented by veterinarians, owners and breeders.


so, if i answer 10 of your points, and decide to skip others, i am somehow evaded you?

actually, the first time you posted, i thought your comments worth answering.

but after you come back and tell me again that i am not sensitive to the issue of dogs in shelters, after my response to you that i agree with you on the shelter issue, what really is the point in responding?

i didn't respond about the problems in these dogs because i have seen NO documentation....and i would have no problem believing an reliable study...i might be surprised, however, if it was true even from the better breeders.

can you provide with some of this documentation of the common problems you refer to?

i would think that there are some ear infections, hip dysplasia, separation anxiety, among other issues...some ailments common to poodles and some to goldens. 

i am not aware if the occurence is more or less than the well-bred goldens and poodles, do you?


----------



## doxies13isenough (Nov 12, 2007)

I really enjoyed the thread till it got to all the BS anyway. MY FEELINGS on the subject if there is a true "job" that any of the current breeds can not do and if there is a true scientific research and developement plan then go ahead. But if it is only because I think this breed dog and this Breed dog would make a even better breed dog then no. Just think there are people making money on Dachshund/basset mixes or Doxie/chi mixes, doxie/beagle and the list goes on please tell me why. What will a doxie/basset bring to the table that is so great? or a doxie/beagle are they going for a super nose or what? What I am going a mile to say is it comes down to is a a true need or to truely better a breed or is it just to play GOD? 
Feel free to tear this posting to threads for there is nothing you can say to change the way I view this subject.


----------



## petstar (Dec 7, 2007)

> incredible...did you read my response AT ALL?
> 
> i explicitly stated that my current philosophy is that i would prefer that everyone would give up buying from breeders, to solve this problem.
> 
> ...


I have painfully, ignorantly, devoted way too much of my time to reading your responses. 

You would prefer people give up buying from breeders but you would suggest a poodle hybrid to someone interested in purchasing a dog from a breeder (that is something that you have stated in this thread)...and why would you prefer people give up buying from breeders? There are several reputable breeders that adhere to ethical standards and care very much for the betterment of their breeds. People who breed mutts as companion dogs do not fit in this description of an ethical breeder. 

How are you ignorant of the problem? Because you're still here (and apparently on numerous other dog forums) arguing with people who have more knowledge, experience and wisdom than you. *You* and people like you are the reason there are people breeding these animals and continuing to add to the overpopulation problem. You have stated that you would recommend the breed to anyone interested in what may or may not be low shedding, sweet and aesthetically pleasing dog. (despite the fact that there are breeds that already fit this description!) You seem to think that sticking two dogs together to achieve a look, disposition or quality that someone may be interested in, is justification for unethical breeding practices.

You are right about one thing...You know nothing about me, my beliefs, my dogs and whether or not I advocate for breeding non working dogs. To make an assumption, or throw out such a comment demonstrates how poor you fare at debating.

Unmatched...Ironically, this sentiment holds true. I don't see a match for you here in this debate. You're of a lesser caliber than most of this forums patrons. However, the original comment was intended with sarcasm. Apparently it was lost in translation, but I'm alright with one misperceived comment. 

I'm doing pretty well for typing one handed, nursing a toddler and petting my two dogs


----------



## Canadian Dog (Nov 3, 2007)

Dog-man: You are a waste of time. You are not clever. You are not entertaining or amusing. You are plain and simple a sh*t disturber and no longer worth responding to as you have proven to be just a common big mouth pain in the ass with an inflated ego.


----------



## borzoimom (May 21, 2007)

uh have ya'all noticed fire tiger has not been here on this thread.. Uh feed uh what..????


----------



## petstar (Dec 7, 2007)

Canadian Dog said:


> Dog-man: You are a waste of time. You are not clever. You are not entertaining or amusing. You are plain and simple a sh*t disturber and no longer worth responding to as you have proven to be just a common big mouth pain in the ass with an inflated ego.


It seems this is a common theme for him. He's admitted that there are other places where he's ruffled feathers. But the poor thing can't seem to figure out that there may be a reason he doesn't have a loyal following. 

..and since my toddler has decided to play for a while, I'm done responding to this thread. You can't reason with an unreasonable person!


----------



## dog-man (Mar 26, 2008)

petstar said:


> I don't think it's necessary for me to give examples, you've done a fine job yourself! LOL


what a joke!

you're like so many others that won't provide an example, but then say i am the one being evasive.

i challenge you to provide a specific example of me evading you, or a statement of mine that showed you that i am not possibly capable of judging quality dogs.

unless you do that, your future posts are worthless to me...so feel victorious when i don't respond.
-------------------------

i'm done with this thread.

those who can't successfully debate and discuss civilly, eventually resort to nastiness...and we seem to have reached that point.

the points i wanted to make have been made, and i trust that there are viewers who saw the process as i do.

now have fun tearing me apart with silliness.


----------



## Ella'sMom (Jul 23, 2007)

I for one have enjoyed dog-man's posts. It's been a refreshing change of pace from the usual "my dog ate his poop" posts. While I haven't agreed with all his opionions, I have enjoyed reading all the debates and opinions and have learned a great deal. I thought that was what a forum was all about. Not everyone is going to agree with everyone. If we did how boring would that be???


----------



## afcgirl (Mar 25, 2008)

I agree Ellasmom, I also appreciate Dog-Man's posts.

I have to say that I am new to this board after only recently having gotten my first dog ever and I have been very surprised at some of the rude comments and fighting on here. I guess I thought dog lovers would be a more compassionate, understanding group of people. Of couse there are also very nice posts and that is why I keep coming back. But I am surprised at how judgmental some people are if others don't agree with them on certain issues.


----------



## Mr Pooch (Jan 28, 2008)

dog-man said:


> i don't know which question you mean...i thought you were a bit humourous, and end of story.


I am,take it you hav'nt looked at my avavtar


----------



## lurcherloopy (Feb 11, 2007)

lurcherloopy said:


> WOW what a thread! all very interesting stuff.
> 
> I understand that people have these crosses and are very happy with them. The only observation through this thread though is that they either want them for non shedding or temperament - something no guaranteable. Ive not seen much on health and the testing of the sire and dam and how far back the health testing goes on the foundation parents.
> 
> ...


Hate to quote myself but maybe someone or even dog-man could respond to my query?

What health checks had your pups parents had and how far back could you trace the parents?


----------



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

Dog-man,

What I did is go through the first four pages (just the first four) and pull out every statement that was subjective but being presented as proof, that was presented as fact but untrue, and every fact that you pulled out of the air. I even highlighted the best parts...





dog-man said:


> many of the breeds that were created since, l*et's say 1850*, were the result of extensive inbreeding, a practice that is now known to be deleterious to healthy genetics.
> 
> people who care about a dog's work abilities care more about performance, personality etc.
> *you don't need inbreeding for that...just good breeding practices.*
> ...





dog-man said:


> poodles have some form of shedding, but it can't be compared at all to other dogs.
> oinest, half poodle, just doesn't seem to shed at all.
> if he doesn't get brushed, he will mat.
> 
> ...





dog-man said:


> i find this to be one of the most interesting stories in the dog world.
> 
> *most observers think* that the Dalmation club's resistance was due to the fact that the healthier dalmations now had smaller spots.
> that would ruin the future of people who worked so hard to develop dogs with the right size spots.
> ...





dog-man said:


> the purpose is already there for goldendoodles and labradoodles.
> people who want a retreiver personality, but can't deal with shedding and/or allergies.
> 
> there are standardization problems, regarding size and shedding.
> ...





dog-man said:


> there are genetic reasons not to try to "fix" a new breed anymore, but to just stick with a cross of two separate breeds...or to do limited "fixing".
> 
> if you start with good stock, of breeds that make sense together (such as the poodle and golden), it *seems* you usually get very nice results.
> 
> ...





dog-man said:


> i know quite a few goldendoodles, and they are ALL just that:
> lively (not hyper) outside, and calm in the house.
> 
> also, you may be skilled at picking out a mutt...*i felt i could better my chances of a good dog by going with a purebreed or a cross.
> ...





dog-man said:


> B-line, my experience with Portuguese water dogs is limited...i have met two, and they both seemed like fine chaps.
> 
> i remember, when researching, that they seemed like an interesting choice, but were never considered by me for too long.
> 
> ...





dog-man said:


> you have a strong inclination to demand proof.
> i trust my intuition.





dog-man said:


> i am defending the honor of those who love them.
> also, i am trying to clarify what i see as incorrect information being disseminated about them.
> 
> as well, *i don't consider it* a crap shoot when breeding them...for size and shedding, yes...for personality, the results are remarkably consistent.
> ...





dog-man said:


> well, *us goldendoodle people believe* there is great enhancement.
> 
> the best traits of the poodle and the golden.
> 
> however, *my knowledge on this is very limited*, so maybe i will be surprised.





dog-man said:


> a large chapter in the history of dog breeding is the history of trying to combine the positive traits of different dogs.
> 
> for some silly reasons (which i would be glad to discuss), the AKC groups think that this process should now be stopped.
> 
> ...





dog-man said:


> the golden and the poodle are both marvelous dogs...*there is just so far bad you can go.*





dog-man said:


> they do not allow the opening of stud books, to allow fresh genetic material in...those are their rules.
> 
> the differerece is that i explain why i say so...and when i explain, it also addresses the points that you have made


----------

