Look at this nasty report about doodles

NurseLeslie · 10-04-2006, 08:24 PM

I found this on a Labrador Retriever website. I am ambarrased for them.

A Labradoodle is nothing more than an expensive mongrel. Because the genetic makeup is diverse from the Poodle genes and the Labrador genes, the resultant first generation (F1) offspring is a complete genetic gamble. The dog may be any size, color, coat texture and temperament. Indeed Labradoodles do shed. Their coat may be wiry or silky and may mat. Body shape varies with parentage but tends to be lanky and narrow. Behavior varies with the dog and within a litter with some puppies poodle-like in attitude and others somewhat like the Labrador Retriever.

The Labrador Retriever Club, Inc. is opposed to cross-breeding of dogs and is particularly opposed to the deliberate crossing of Labrador Retrievers with any other breed. These crossbreds are a deliberate attempt to mislead the public with the idea that there is an advantage to these designer dogs. The crossbred dogs are prone to all of the genetic disease of both breeds and offer none of the advantages that owning a purebred dog has to offer.

aaahhhhh!

Donna · 10-04-2006, 08:50 PM

You know what I noticed while watching the Eukanuba dog show the other day, first that breeders created some really funny looking breeds but if they serve a purpose- great. But secondly, my husband and I both think if they let a doodle enter it would blow the competition away. Of course we are a little biased! Why is it that only dog breeds that were created decades or generations ago get respect? Even some of those older breeds were bred for asthetic purposes not function. They are sad, sad, sad. If they spent any time with my Tucker they would have to eat their words

movistar · 10-04-2006, 08:51 PM

well I agree with some of what they say... the first generations are a bit unreliable on coats, but hello thats why we breed foundation dogs to a set standard for 6 generations before they are considered Labradoodles anyhow.

heres a little secret (NOT)

Labrador Retrievers were recognized in England as a Kennel Club breed in 1903 and first registered by the AKC in the United States of America in 1917. Labradors were originally called a St. John's Dog or lesser Newfoundland dog. The breed was in Newfoundland in the 1700's and imported to England beginning the early 1800's. The Labrador's exact origin unknown but some speculate the Greater Newfoundland dog or the French St. Hubert's dog is part of the cross that made the St. John's dog. taken from http://personal.pitnet.net/ldoll/labrad ... istory.htm

maybe the labrador club needs to remember their roots? lol

Jac · 10-05-2006, 12:17 PM

Hi guys...although this Labrador post is not accurate, when all things are considered, I must admit that the information MIGHT be true of SOME breeders and SOME situations.
I am really not offended by this particular post...the group are trying to convince their peers not to allow their Labs to cross breed. It is a futile effort, of course...but I don't really take offense to their attempt.
The problem is, from my perspective, the breeders who take ANY Lab and ANY Poodle and breed them, selling puppies (especially for breeding) are not one bit concerned with building credibility in the Labradoodle breed, nor of furthering the health and well-being of the offspring. These are the breeders that keep such anger boiling.
I wish that I could say that this post is absolutely wrong...but in all honesty, I can only pity their "head in the sand" philosophy.
The statement here, is actually true...at this point, the F1 pup qualities are all over the map. Still, a good breeder should be able to fairly accurately predict the characteristics of the resulting pups... but sometimes we get a genetic surprise.
I think that this is what the Labrador folks are trying to say...but they can't express it well when they are speaking from anger and blind prejudice...nor when they refuse to look at the good breeding practices out there...nor when they can't recognize that there are great pups being produced from reputable lines.
The fact remains that Labradoodles are a sought-after breed. It is only a matter of time before the "fancy" grudgingly admits this...actually, I prefer that the "fancy" NEVER accepts our sweet Doods...(in my opinion, its all about money and corruption...and those "pure" lines have some really ugly skeletons in their closets...but, regretfully, so do some of the Labradoodle lines.)

kim26 · 10-05-2006, 12:55 PM

"The crossbred dogs are prone to all of the genetic disease of both breeds and offer none of the advantages that owning a purebred dog has to offer."

I think this is a pretty ignorant statement. Prone? That's debatable.

Jac · 10-05-2006, 01:31 PM

Well, of course, I agree that the statement is really off base...but still I find it non-offensive.
The person writing it is obviously prejudiced against mixed breed dogs, and someone with such a prejudice can not be influenced by common sense or even by scientific proof...because if they REALLY wanted to know, there are good articles and scientific data to support cross breeding as a way to AVOID genetic predispositions...so, yes, this person is dead wrong on that issue...still, as Labradoodle supporters, we do a disservice if we claim that by cross breeding these dogs we ELIMINATE any genetic fault that may be lurking in the animal.
That is why it is so important that people learn about good breeding practices, such as testing breeding stock and not relying totally on "hybrid vigor" to eliminate genetic disease.
It is all a matter of education...and articles like this, although woefully misleading, can cause people to debate and to research so I don't see it as "all bad."
I do want to thank you for your firm support of Labradoodles and your sincere conviction that they are healthy and temperamentally sound animals. It is clear to me that you are a great advocate for Labradoodles and the "art" of breeding quality dogs. Thanks!

kim26 · 10-05-2006, 03:07 PM

I agree with you Jac, I wasn't arguing with you. I find it curious, though, that people like this have probably said that mutts are LESS prone to genetic defects and probably support adopting mixed breed dogs from shelters. I really think that people like this are threatened by the popularity of the "designer breeds" and don't like the idea that their puppies are losing popularity. It sure is true that some backyard breeders breed dogs with defects because they are just in it for the money or they don't know any better. I hope that all of you responsible LD breeders out there will some day get the respect you deserve! I find it appalling for people (including my vet) who say that these designer breeds may very well inherit the worst defects of both breeds. Where's the common sense?

Jac · 10-05-2006, 03:25 PM

Thanks...

...I knew you weren't arguing...just trying to figure out what is going on.

People, like your vet, who say such silly things are so caught up in the fury, they can't think straight.

Pure bred dogs have so many problems directly because the breeders promote and actively breed the "best of the best" to get the desired traits...AND the bad traits are also intensified...but they INbreed dogs to get the top of the line animal! (Which is why they are against mixing breeds...it goes against their practices...which include "eliminating" any "unworthy" or "affected" animal.

I think that this article is really good to explain what I am trying to say (scroll down and take a look at "The problem of limited gene pools."):
http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/Mcgreevy.pdf

There are many other articles out there...pretty much the same info. What it boils down to, for me, is that selective inbreeding (which is commonly done to produce pure dogs) is a dangerous and potentially harmful practice...which is CORRECTED by introducing another compatible breed. So long as the breeder is carefully selecting breeding stock, introducing a compatible breed is a good thing for the animal...in my opinion.

Jac · 10-05-2006, 03:33 PM

Oh, and one more very important factor for breeding (both pure bred dogs and mixed breed dogs) is to keep good pedigree records...backed up with DNA!

There is so much fraud going on in the dog breeding world...you would be amazed.

Many breeders actively file fraudulent pedigrees, these pedigrees are protected by the associations (AKC.) They will not "correct" a pedigree WITHOUT the approval of the breeder, yep, the breeder who found it necessary to doctor his/her records! Does that make any sense at all? No!

I have proven to the AKC that they have the wrong records on a particular dog...and I proved it with AKC DNA testing results! But when I asked that they correct the paperwork, they refused...they won't even consider it unless the breeder (who filed the fraudulent pedigree in the first place) agrees.

So, what good is a fancy-dancy pedigree? Or a "registered" dog? As far as I can tell, the registration of an animal only means that they are now protected by the veil of the organization, nothing more.

(Sorry, but I am really discouraged by all of this...)

10-04-2006, 08:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
NurseLeslie Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Oregon Posts: 434	Look at this nasty report about doodles I found this on a Labrador Retriever website. I am ambarrased for them. A Labradoodle is nothing more than an expensive mongrel. Because the genetic makeup is diverse from the Poodle genes and the Labrador genes, the resultant first generation (F1) offspring is a complete genetic gamble. The dog may be any size, color, coat texture and temperament. Indeed Labradoodles do shed. Their coat may be wiry or silky and may mat. Body shape varies with parentage but tends to be lanky and narrow. Behavior varies with the dog and within a litter with some puppies poodle-like in attitude and others somewhat like the Labrador Retriever. The Labrador Retriever Club, Inc. is opposed to cross-breeding of dogs and is particularly opposed to the deliberate crossing of Labrador Retrievers with any other breed. These crossbreds are a deliberate attempt to mislead the public with the idea that there is an advantage to these designer dogs. The crossbred dogs are prone to all of the genetic disease of both breeds and offer none of the advantages that owning a purebred dog has to offer. aaahhhhh!

10-04-2006, 08:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
Donna Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Wichita Ks Posts: 59	You know what I noticed while watching the Eukanuba dog show the other day, first that breeders created some really funny looking breeds but if they serve a purpose- great. But secondly, my husband and I both think if they let a doodle enter it would blow the competition away. Of course we are a little biased! Why is it that only dog breeds that were created decades or generations ago get respect? Even some of those older breeds were bred for asthetic purposes not function. They are sad, sad, sad. If they spent any time with my Tucker they would have to eat their words

10-04-2006, 08:51 PM	#3 (permalink)
movistar Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: California Posts: 1,240	well I agree with some of what they say... the first generations are a bit unreliable on coats, but hello thats why we breed foundation dogs to a set standard for 6 generations before they are considered Labradoodles anyhow. heres a little secret (NOT) Labrador Retrievers were recognized in England as a Kennel Club breed in 1903 and first registered by the AKC in the United States of America in 1917. Labradors were originally called a St. John's Dog or lesser Newfoundland dog. The breed was in Newfoundland in the 1700's and imported to England beginning the early 1800's. The Labrador's exact origin unknown but some speculate the Greater Newfoundland dog or the French St. Hubert's dog is part of the cross that made the St. John's dog. taken from http://personal.pitnet.net/ldoll/labrad ... istory.htm maybe the labrador club needs to remember their roots? lol

10-05-2006, 12:17 PM	#4 (permalink)
Jac Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: northern California Posts: 9,243	Hi guys...although this Labrador post is not accurate, when all things are considered, I must admit that the information MIGHT be true of SOME breeders and SOME situations. I am really not offended by this particular post...the group are trying to convince their peers not to allow their Labs to cross breed. It is a futile effort, of course...but I don't really take offense to their attempt. The problem is, from my perspective, the breeders who take ANY Lab and ANY Poodle and breed them, selling puppies (especially for breeding) are not one bit concerned with building credibility in the Labradoodle breed, nor of furthering the health and well-being of the offspring. These are the breeders that keep such anger boiling. I wish that I could say that this post is absolutely wrong...but in all honesty, I can only pity their "head in the sand" philosophy. The statement here, is actually true...at this point, the F1 pup qualities are all over the map. Still, a good breeder should be able to fairly accurately predict the characteristics of the resulting pups... but sometimes we get a genetic surprise. I think that this is what the Labrador folks are trying to say...but they can't express it well when they are speaking from anger and blind prejudice...nor when they refuse to look at the good breeding practices out there...nor when they can't recognize that there are great pups being produced from reputable lines. The fact remains that Labradoodles are a sought-after breed. It is only a matter of time before the "fancy" grudgingly admits this...actually, I prefer that the "fancy" NEVER accepts our sweet Doods...(in my opinion, its all about money and corruption...and those "pure" lines have some really ugly skeletons in their closets...but, regretfully, so do some of the Labradoodle lines.)

10-05-2006, 12:55 PM	#5 (permalink)
kim26 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: california Posts: 853	"The crossbred dogs are prone to all of the genetic disease of both breeds and offer none of the advantages that owning a purebred dog has to offer." I think this is a pretty ignorant statement. Prone? That's debatable.

10-05-2006, 01:31 PM	#6 (permalink)
Jac Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: northern California Posts: 9,243	Well, of course, I agree that the statement is really off base...but still I find it non-offensive. The person writing it is obviously prejudiced against mixed breed dogs, and someone with such a prejudice can not be influenced by common sense or even by scientific proof...because if they REALLY wanted to know, there are good articles and scientific data to support cross breeding as a way to AVOID genetic predispositions...so, yes, this person is dead wrong on that issue...still, as Labradoodle supporters, we do a disservice if we claim that by cross breeding these dogs we ELIMINATE any genetic fault that may be lurking in the animal. That is why it is so important that people learn about good breeding practices, such as testing breeding stock and not relying totally on "hybrid vigor" to eliminate genetic disease. It is all a matter of education...and articles like this, although woefully misleading, can cause people to debate and to research so I don't see it as "all bad." I do want to thank you for your firm support of Labradoodles and your sincere conviction that they are healthy and temperamentally sound animals. It is clear to me that you are a great advocate for Labradoodles and the "art" of breeding quality dogs. Thanks!

10-05-2006, 03:07 PM	#7 (permalink)
kim26 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: california Posts: 853	I agree with you Jac, I wasn't arguing with you. I find it curious, though, that people like this have probably said that mutts are LESS prone to genetic defects and probably support adopting mixed breed dogs from shelters. I really think that people like this are threatened by the popularity of the "designer breeds" and don't like the idea that their puppies are losing popularity. It sure is true that some backyard breeders breed dogs with defects because they are just in it for the money or they don't know any better. I hope that all of you responsible LD breeders out there will some day get the respect you deserve! I find it appalling for people (including my vet) who say that these designer breeds may very well inherit the worst defects of both breeds. Where's the common sense?

10-05-2006, 03:25 PM	#8 (permalink)
Jac Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: northern California Posts: 9,243	Thanks... ...I knew you weren't arguing...just trying to figure out what is going on. People, like your vet, who say such silly things are so caught up in the fury, they can't think straight. Pure bred dogs have so many problems directly because the breeders promote and actively breed the "best of the best" to get the desired traits...AND the bad traits are also intensified...but they INbreed dogs to get the top of the line animal! (Which is why they are against mixing breeds...it goes against their practices...which include "eliminating" any "unworthy" or "affected" animal. I think that this article is really good to explain what I am trying to say (scroll down and take a look at "The problem of limited gene pools."): http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/Mcgreevy.pdf There are many other articles out there...pretty much the same info. What it boils down to, for me, is that selective inbreeding (which is commonly done to produce pure dogs) is a dangerous and potentially harmful practice...which is CORRECTED by introducing another compatible breed. So long as the breeder is carefully selecting breeding stock, introducing a compatible breed is a good thing for the animal...in my opinion.

10-05-2006, 03:33 PM	#9 (permalink)
Jac Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: northern California Posts: 9,243	Oh, and one more very important factor for breeding (both pure bred dogs and mixed breed dogs) is to keep good pedigree records...backed up with DNA! There is so much fraud going on in the dog breeding world...you would be amazed. Many breeders actively file fraudulent pedigrees, these pedigrees are protected by the associations (AKC.) They will not "correct" a pedigree WITHOUT the approval of the breeder, yep, the breeder who found it necessary to doctor his/her records! Does that make any sense at all? No! I have proven to the AKC that they have the wrong records on a particular dog...and I proved it with AKC DNA testing results! But when I asked that they correct the paperwork, they refused...they won't even consider it unless the breeder (who filed the fraudulent pedigree in the first place) agrees. So, what good is a fancy-dancy pedigree? Or a "registered" dog? As far as I can tell, the registration of an animal only means that they are now protected by the veil of the organization, nothing more. (Sorry, but I am really discouraged by all of this...)

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
Labradoodle Forums Advertisement