Labradoodles

because the dogs in shelters deserve homes...and those same people who put them there...will put their new dog there too the moment there is a problem??? As long as people show their tendency to be flightly and irresponsible the plain don't DESERVE to have anyone give them more options and opportunities to own animals they will later discard.

umm of course dogs in shelters deserve homes. BUT I am not going to go to my shelter and adopt a hound or a lab if that all they have in there. I don't want a hound or a lab.

I don't get the whole mentality that joe public should not be able to have a nice dog of his choosing because some idiot miller or byb produced too many unwanted dogs.

I would adopt a more appropriate dog for my lifestyle. But if there isn't one I want at a shelter or rescue I don't see why I shouldn't go elsewhere. (and yes we did just adopt a BC from a rescue)

I know people who have and LOVE their doodles. Just as much as I love my JRTs. Why am I more worthy of having the dog of my dreams and they are not?

you miss the point...

there is no perfect dog for everyone...which is actually what MOST of the DD people will claim they are doing. That is a fact...there is no perfect dog for everyone.

There are however plenty of perfect dogs for people in various situations already HERE. There is no new niche...that I have ever been able to find that needs filling.

If you know of one...do tell. Small and quiet? Plenty....non shedding? plenty...calm and family friendly? plenty.

So again..why give the public MORE choices to then throw out when it is not convenient for them?

You know people who love their doodles...great...but how does that impact or in any way make better...the fact...yes fact that they are turning up over and over in shelters along side the "imperfect" black lab x's and nondescript gsd x's? hmm?

I don't see why doodles or any other type of dog turning up in shelters has to do with responsible breeders. I think we can all find iffy things about the breeder posted, but they say they want their dogs back at any time. If they screen like their application says, and if the buyers adhere to the contract as far as giving the dog back, then they shouldn't end up in shelters. So on this grain of thought, since labs show up in shelters all the time, we need no more good breeders of them? Yeah, we get labradoodles in the shelter sometimes, but not much more than any other mid-popularity large breed dog.

I personally see no wrong in creating a breed that is *slightly* different than what we have so long as it is done responsibly. Of course with most mixes nowadays they are the product of a greedy breeder/miller and you cannot find any decent breeders out there. I can't count how many ridiculous first generation crossbreds that are bred with just money in mind. But those are not what Dekka is talking about. Labradoodles in particular are a different situation than your jugs and pekepoos and schnoodles, etc...

How different must a breed be before it is deemed acceptable to create? Yeah, small, cute and fluffy with a friendly disposition exists, but there are slight differences. There are plenty of breeds out there that are just narrowly different from another especially in function. Why must there be a totally novel niche? The niche could just be a slightly different temperament in a different coat type. If you look at companion breeds, they're all bred for the same reasons- to be a companion. They all do this slightly different and they all look different (some marginally so anyways). You could say, small, lively, companion oriented bred and find several to fit the bill. Which one 'deserves' to be there? I guess the first one? Nevermind the fact that a chin and a papillon could both be that but they're not the same.

And of course, I think companionship is a great reason to create a breed. Most people want a dog for companion reasons. They don't want a working dog, and in many cases it'd be better to get a dog that wasn't bred with that in mind, especially for JQP. I don't think companionship is ever going to stop being a valid reason for creating breeds, especially as we go through time and dogs do less and less work for the average person.

Even saying that, I know a lot of guide dog doodles that do their jobs very well.

If I'd lived hundreds of years ago, I would have been against shrinking down the poodle just like I'm against "miniature dalmatians" and "pocket German shepherds." But since I live here and now, where mini and toy poodles already exist as established breeds, I have no problem with breeders continuing and preserving the breeds. They are cute and make great companions. That still makes "miniature Great Pyrenees" a terrible idea.

We all know "because it's cute" is why many BYBers breed. IMO, adding "and we want to have a standard" does not make it any more acceptable. My lab/border collie mix was a great dog and I'm sure if I picked up enough lab/border collies and bred enough generations I could establish a breed with a great temperament, less energetic than a lab and more active than a border collie, with typical body coloration (black) and features. Or I could just go pick up a labrador mix with an energy level that fits my lifestyle.

If "the puppies will be adorable" is reason enough to breed--with no conformation or performance to back it up--it seems to me that every BYB who does health clearances (and there are some) has as much justification to breed as this labradoodle breeder.

I think the question didn't have a whole lot to do with if Labradoodles should be bred or not- this seemed more of a review of the breeder herself.

So to the original question/statment. She seems like a BYB to me.
She breeds for no overall purpose, other than cute puppies. She's done nothing with her little Doodle mixes. She is not even aiming for a breed type to better her mixed breed. If she is wanting this to become a REAL breed, why isn't she going for some sort of standard?

To add to it, she has purebred dogs that she claims have Champions in there lines, however she has done nothing with her purebred Poodles. Why not? Lets say they were not up to bar to be shown, why would she breed them? What kind of "goal" is she going for if she is breeding a Poodle that isn't up to bar, if this is the case? It's also sad that she has these Champion lined Poodles, but she doesn't have the pedigree to show it. And honestly, do you REALLY believe that a good Poodle shower breeder would hand over a puppy to a woman who is going to breed it with a labrador? Sorry, don't think so :/

One of the reasons I was told that a Newf breeder I was looking at was bad was because of her frequent breeding. This is the case here too, isn't it?

And my opinion on the breeding of Doodles:
+Dogs that do not shed is an extremely lousy excuse for breeding becuase there are MANY dogs who are suitable for people with allergies out there.
+Therapy dogs might be a really good thing, however, there is NO shortage of good Goldens or Labs for this. It would be the people who are willing to train and give up the dog, rather than the dog itself. And as of yet, I've never seen a doodle breeder who breeds for therapy dogs. And even if they did, why would they be selling puppies to public? Wouldn't there goal be to breed and train their own, or even better, sell to trainers themselves? And by the time a puppy would fail the test to see if they are fit as a therapy dog- they would be more than 9-12 weeks So there shouldn't BE any young puppies to be sold to the public.
+Yes, every breed came from a mix. Let's act surprised! However, I firmly stand by every breed being bred for a purpose. Yes, Toy breeds were bred way back when for companionship. So now that we have all of these breeds for Companionship PLUS now we use working dogs, herding dogs, sporting dogs, terrier dogs as companions- why do we need more? And way back when, all of the working, herding, sporting, terrier, etc breeds were actually needed and used therefore people wanted a companion type dog. So yeah, back then, it did make sense

Just my opinion, as always

Oh no, that wasn't my point. I could be wrong, but as far as I am aware Labradoodles are supposed to be a medium to large size breed of dog, with large preferred. Since they were originally developed as service dogs, I thought small sizes are not desirable. If I'm wrong about that, and all sizes are acceptable, I retract the statement that dogs of vastly different sizes isn't a Labradoodle trait.

I am not sure...

How many breeders of companion dogs do things (other than conformation which is not an option with doodles) with their dogs. Granted some do, and most should. BUT in breeds designed to be companions IMO it is great if they have titles, but not necessary.

And just a thought. Who would sell a top show prospect (the poodle ring is VERY competative) to someone who will cross breed? AND who is to say that a top conformation dog is the best dog to cross to? Maybe they went with the most health tested and mentally stable lines over the top show lines? (maybe they didn't)

I just hate how people hear 'doodle' and seem to be ready to go to bat. I don't buy the 'we have enough dogs in shelters now'. That is number of dogs, not number of breeds. It is a bad breeder issue, not a bad breed issue.

I personally don't want a doodle, I think they look kinda funny but I think people who want a nice doodle should be able to go to a good breeder and, if they qualify, get one.

Why are 'minature' breeds wrong? I am sure that many toy owners are very glad there are toys out there. (the man making the mini dals is soo corrupt.. but once again, bad breeder issue, not bad breed issue) I love mini aussies, sorry north american shepards. I think they are great dogs that fill a niche.

I'm NOT saying they're wrong! I was just saying that to my knowledge they do not fit the breed's original purpose, Dekka, and if that is the case, yes I have a problem with them breeding the smallest ones.

Okay, first of all, we're talking guide/service dogs, not therapy dogs. In any guide dog program there are tons of washouts no matter the breed. Some don't make it to the puppy raisers at all, many wash out after that at the first training. Before doodles came along, guide dog breeding programs were already crossing breeds. Many times they'd cross goldens and labs just depending on what cross they'd deem most successful. There is a niche for a less shedding guide dog. I realize many doodles shed but many do not shednearly as bad as a lab. (Have you ever had a lab? They're terrible shedders.) If you talk to guide dog people poodles just don't work. I'm not too informed on why but the lab personality seems to fit the bill for the job much better.

Yes, I know of a doodle breeder that breeds for guide dogs primarily. Her dogs are seen all around here as she donates them to a guide dog organization who has puppy raisers on campus. I actually ran into one of her dogs today, a charming big white doodle who is nearly done with his handler and going off to advance training. I've known quite a few of these dogs and they're all fabulous, stable animals. I hear horror stories of doodles, but I never see that with these dogs.

Also, I think for people who have never owned a companion breed that it is important to realize that companion bred dogs (ie breeds designed with companionship, not work as the primary goal) will be a different kind of companion than a working breed. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they relate to their people differently than other breeds. I could see a big niche particularly for larger companion type breeds.

To me it's not a breed issue at all. I really don't care what you breed or why so long as the breeder is A) honest about their practices, B) is striving to breed sound dogs in both health and temperament, C) has some sort of a breeding goal, D) is restrictive about what to use in their programs (not just throwing poodle with whatever), and D) will take back their pups, screen adopters well, and have a spay/neuter contract.

Based on my knowledge the miniatures came later as more of a companion animal after doodles became more popular as pets. People wanted smaller ones so they started using miniature poodles for some crosses.

I think the breed is to 'young' to have an original purpose. There are breeds out there now that started as one thing but evolved into another. Not saying they should be making small doodles, but not sure why they should either.

(ie I have NO idea why schnauzers some in tiny, small and HUGE. But they do and that is ok with everyone)

Still playing devil's advocate...

Corgilove you are getting a pup that would not be able to be shown in the breeds country of origin. Brown newfs are a huge no no here. But why is that ok but other people changing (and liking the changes too) is not? The mom of your pup (according to her pedigree if I remember when I looked at it) has no titles either. These labradoodles CAN'T show conformation (brown newfs can in the states).

Hmm you know back in the day newfs and labs did pretty much the same job. Guess they should have just picked one and not kept 2 strains. (heck Newfoundland and Labrador are ONE province, one strain got one part of the name, the other one the other)

It's my understanding that breeds as we know them today...with breed standards, etc., only date back 100-150 years. It was more that there were types of dogs, retrievers, terriers, herders...seperated by function, and then the different types of retrievers, for example, were seperated by geography.

So a doodle (absurd name) is a combination of two retrievers...seperated by an ocean. Which begs the question of why, if not to retieve. I have a pb dog, but the reason has less to do with looks, and more to do with temperament. I knew generally what I was getting myself into. I would think the time and scope and scale to create a new breed (of unused retriever) is so epic that to develop any kind of standard of temperament, nevermind looks, is folly without really really truely knowing what one's doing.

Unless one sticks to F1s, which are more predictable, but this breeder isn't. Do they really know where this is going?

Since I am actually John Q Public in the fact that my pets are just that.......I don't show (and never will) I don't do sports or agility (don't know if I ever will) I don't even do OB to earn titles (don't know if I ever will) so I am basically John Q.

This is my opinion on the whole "dogs shouldn't be bred without titles" issue.

I personally would by from a breeder (if I were looking to buy from a breeder) who breeds loving companion animals with good temperament, health testing, and nothing more.

It really doesn't matter to me if the parents have been CH titled or tested in their "job abilities" because I can't see myself ever looking for a dog who has to work (as with the vast majority of people)

I know this might be a quite unpopular opinion, but that is how I feel on the issue. There was a time when I felt differently (as in the dog SHOULD be titled) but not really anymore for reasons of my own.

Now, after all that, I will say that even if I were looking for a doodle I would not want to buy from that breeder. The fact that they are breeding their dogs at such an early age bothers me.

It's not simply the fact of how it effects the parents (mother) to be bred at a young age, it's MORE the fact of not knowing health AND temperament issues that may not show up until after the dog is fully mature.

And THAT totally defeats the purpose of seeking out a healthy/happy pup to fit into your life as far as I am concerned.

Lauralin, I WAS talking about seeing/guide dogs.

Err, Canada is the only place who refuses to update their standard If any standard were to make small changes, like accepting a new eye or coat color is, uh, pretty darn different than adding an entire new breed!

Your right, Kyrie's mother was not shown! However, my point was was that this BYB doesn't do ANYTHING with her dogs. Kyrie's breeder shows nearly all of her dogs So my point wasn't that everyone must show, it was that she doesn't do much with her own dogs.


Lol, not quite the same

My point was that people changed the breed standard not for any functional reason. Just cause 'awwww' brown newfs are cute.... and people want to buy them. If the country of origin wants to keep the breed true to its roots..I am all for that. (but you can't complain that other people change breeds and types of dogs for looks if you get a pup that has been so changed.)

Does she just show conformation? Or does she show performance events. If she just shows conformation then yes IMO they are the same. Doodle breeders don't have that option. And while I wish everyone would, not all people have the time to train their dogs to competative levels of obed or agility. At least the doodle breeder is putting CGN on them.

I guess I was saying is that I see a lot of (not just you but from ppl in general) its ok for me, or my breed-but those doodle people do it wrong no matter what they do.

and that bothers me if we're talking about breeders. if you are invested enough in your dogs to be breeding them, shouldn't you be invested enough in them to actually *do* something with them? i have a problem with casual breeding. i don't have much stomach for we don't have the money to show or the time to show (and i don't care if that's conformation or agility or rally or herding or whatever). how are they going to find the money to health test and the time to properly handle and socialize pups?

They do health test (if you checked out the page). And they do train enough to get CGNs. And (still playing devils advocate) if they are spending lots of time handling dogs and socializing pups maybe they don't have the hours and hours to train for competition. And depending on your area in the states there are few venues for all breed trials. There are very few AMBOR trials and none in many areas. In some areas there is only AKC agility (I hear about this on agility lists all the time).

Its ok for people to buy pups from non titled (not even in conformation) yet health tested purebred, but not from new breeds?

I know of breeders (who are considered good breeders) who send their dogs off with a handler for MONTHS at a time. Something I never understood and couldn't do myself. This, I would assume, is because they don't have the time to travel/be with the dog during all the shows, but they get that all important title before breeding the dog. Does that make them a better candidate to breed and socialize puppies? I have to wonder...........