Labradoodle Creator Regrets First Dog

[poodlefan]

People like the breed, so what!

And not just because they are cute but are great family pets. Tho any dog can become a good family pet if it is raised right and has responsible owners...

What do they like? The F1 crossbreds or the dogs some breeders are trying to get to breed true?

Do they like the fact they are non-shedding when over 70% of the F1's shed?

Do they like the coat type when any coat type from wool to wire is possible?

Do they like the size when these dogs range from small to huge?

Do they like the activity level which varies widely?

Frankly I think most people think they're buying a small non-shedding Labrador type with "all the good qualities of both breeds". The reality is somewhat different for many buyers.

[Souff]

Oh forget the labrawhatevers, Get a LAGOTTO !

[mita]

Well banging on about errors isn't really productive.

Overall this was well researched and well executed article for a very conservative newspaper/magazine that is read by thousands. Well done for the Australian in bringing this issue to light to the average Australian who has never once looked into the myths of the designer dog. They dedicated a great chunk of the magazine (4 pages from memory) to this story and was hardly a little mention in the back of style section - like Labradoodles often are.

Finally something that may make people sit up and take notice.

And if you don't think he was regretful then why not re-read it - I thought it clearly put his concerns about the creation of this blend of dogs wasn't ultimately successful and that it was more a PR/media practice in turning people into converts with the spin on the 'benefits' of these mixes.

If you want to be constructive then voice your views via feedback but at least say thanks to them for actually doing this article - who else in mainstream media has done this in the past few years?

Your 'banging on' is my 'discussing'.

Go back & read in this thread & you'll see my remark there wasn't anything about 'Why'... was based on the introductory section at the front of the newspaper.

Only when shown the full article, was I able to comment more fully. Allowing that Mr C's reasons WHY were included.

I don't agree with you that it was well researched. There was not one reference to substantial research in the entire piece. Yet, there is some sound Australian research which compared the registered breeder of purebreds with other breeders.

The article was not balanced. The only comments with any depth about purebred dogs, were in the summary given by Dr Peter Higgins.

The remainder allowed much stream of consciousness by breeders of designer dogs, with none of their not-a-matter-of-fact comments subjected to scrutiny. All more likely to cement their various 'beliefs' in the public mind.

On one point I'll agree with you....& that is the need to get constructive material 'out there' to the public re purebred dogs. And that doesn't come from that article. I'd wish for a great deal more PR work by bodies representing purebred dogs.

And on another one, too....The Australian sure is a very conservative newspaper. Any extreme position...to right or left....doesn't allow for

intellectual balance.

[PuddleDuck]

Oh forget the labrawhatevers, Get a LAGOTTO !

OK, if you insist :cool:

***trots off to tell husband to make room on the bed for another puppy***

[shel]

The problem with “designer dogs” is not that they’re not “purebred,” it’s that they’re mostly being mass-produced :Dfor profit by people who have no freaking clue how to evaluate canine health or temperament.

Labradoodles and other oodles: The problem isn’t ‘impurity’ - Pet Connection blog

[~Anne~]

The Freemans sound like hair brained morons without 2 brain cells between them. Good grief.

[persephone]

The Freemans sound like hair brained morons without 2 brain cells between them. Good grief.

Their operation certainly was not portrayed in a very good light .

Edited May 4, 2010 by persephone