Lab X Poodle. Anyone?

[poodlefan]

I don't think Corvus is suggesting that purebreds are such disasters. I think she is just trying to say that it's not all black and white, i.e. all purebreds are great and all crosses are necessarily bad and bred by money grabbing uncaring individuals.

Shit luck shouldn't see generations and hundreds of years of selective breeding ignored in favour of dogs that come with a bunch of claims that many simply can't live up to.

To me the real selective breeding towards the end of the 19th - early 20th century when breed clubs, Kennel clubs and dog shows were established. If we look for instance at the spaniels, up to the late 1800s there were roughly 3 main types: land spaniels, water spaniels and toy spaniels. Each of these types had been "selected" to perform different functions, but out crosses remained common. Different dogs from the same litter could be classifieds as different breeds depending on their size for instance (English cocker / Field spaniel)

With our desire to categorize and fix mostly physical appearance, we have restricted the gene pools by only breeding together dogs we deemed to be of the same breed. By doing that we have been able to produce dogs of predictable appearance / temperament, but it is very likely we have also unknowingly selected undesirable genes that we know have to test for and try to eliminate (PRA and so forth)

A closed gene pool and genetic disorders don't necessarily go hand in hand though. The oldest purebred dogs are the desert sighthounds.. bred pure for thousands of years and arguably some of the healthiest animals around. Their gene pools are quite limited.

Furthermore, outcrossing to prevent genetic disorders also has its limite. Many of the "outcrossed" designer breeds are bred from combinations of breeds that share the same genetic disorders. Lab/poodle crosses and Cocker/poodle crosses suffer from PRA - because all of those parent breeds share the same genetic complaint.

[corvus]

I don't think Corvus is suggesting that purebreds are such disasters. I think she is just trying to say that it's not all black and white, i.e. all purebreds are great and all crosses are necessarily bad and bred by money grabbing uncaring individuals.

Thank you, fbaudry. It ought to be bleeding obvious to PF why I own two purebred dogs from good registered breeders. If she managed to figure that one out, she might realise how insulting the rest of her reply was.

[poodlefan]

I don't think Corvus is suggesting that purebreds are such disasters. I think she is just trying to say that it's not all black and white, i.e. all purebreds are great and all crosses are necessarily bad and bred by money grabbing uncaring individuals.

Thank you, fbaudry. It ought to be bleeding obvious to PF why I own two purebred dogs from good registered breeders. If she managed to figure that one out, she might realise how insulting the rest of her reply was.

The insult I see here is your inference that purebreds are defective based on a singular experience of a poorly bred dog. I quote:

I am sitting here with a supposedly purebred dog from a registered breeder that looks vaguely like the breed he is meant to be, acts like it sometimes, and is riddled with health problems that can not be tested for. You can get burnt no matter where you get a dog from and even if it is purebred and even if you do some research.

If you are going to stick it to purebred dogs generally based on your experience with a poor specimen of a breed Corvus then IMO it is for you to qualify your statement by saying that it wasnt responsibly bred. That's one hell of a qualifier and one you have yet to make. Of course it isn't black and white.

Responsibly bred DDs are in the minority. No way around that one. You cannot justify the huge numbers of DDs being pumped out for profit based on denigration of the same damn dogs used to produce them - poorly bred purebred specimens.

Edited September 26, 2011 by poodlefan

[Tay.]

I'm quite shocked at the opinions of some people on a PURE BREED dog forum. Makes me worry what the general public are thinking.

[sandgrubber]

I don't think Corvus is suggesting that purebreds are such disasters. I think she is just trying to say that it's not all black and white, i.e. all purebreds are great and all crosses are necessarily bad and bred by money grabbing uncaring individuals.

...

To me the real selective breeding towards the end of the 19th - early 20th century when breed clubs, Kennel clubs and dog shows were established. If we look for instance at the spaniels, up to the late 1800s there were roughly 3 main types: land spaniels, water spaniels and toy spaniels. Each of these types had been "selected" to perform different functions, but out crosses remained common. Different dogs from the same litter could be classifieds as different breeds depending on their size for instance (English cocker / Field spaniel)

With our desire to categorize and fix mostly physical appearance, we have restricted the gene pools by only breeding together dogs we deemed to be of the same breed. By doing that we have been able to produce dogs of predictable appearance / temperament, but it is very likely we have also unknowingly selected undesirable genes that we know have to test for and try to eliminate (PRA and so forth)

MIght add that the 19th century gun dog breeding was affected in a major way by the importation of a few hundred, perhaps more, St John's water dogs from eastern Canada. These, in their various forms (longer/shorter coats, larger/smaller sizes) were x-bred into existing lines to varying extents, but without the genetic input, we wouldn't have the modern Labrador, Goldie, or Newfoundland. The rat terrier is still traceable to several breeds, including beagle, whippet, and various smaller terriers . . . and is (like the poodle and Xolo) recognised in three sizes.

Dog roles have changed. No 19th century breeder was breeding for flyball, agility, or dock diving. Many were bred for some combination of cart pulling, guarding, vermin control, hunting, and herding. Hunting upland game is a very restricted niche in Australia, dog carts are rare, few herding breeds get a chance to herd, and earth dogs get in trouble when they spoil the lawn. Breeds should not be fossilized into the form they took when the stud books closed. Especially where the existing forms have narrow genetic basises and widespread health problems. The 'pure bred' label does not need to mean 'unchanged since 1900' nor should it deny the emergence of new breeds.

Is this to say that DD's are good? Not at all. There are no data to work from (that I know of), but I'd guess that a large fraction of DD's come from indiscriminate breeding, without health testing, etc. and with no tracing of pedigree. Such dogs are going nowhere in 'breed' terms.

In response to the question, 'what will the public think'? The public don't think that highly of the pedigree dog world now. If they see us with our bums held high and our heads in the sand, it won't improve our public image.

[toy*dog]

There are some DD breeders who are driving towards predictable results and health testing.

in other words what they are essentially doing is working towards a selectively bred predictable "purebred" dog. but we know that that will never be achieved because the way genetics works it is not easy (had 26 years experience with them) and there are too many variables to work with. i just can't see that labradoodles will become a breed when some look like an unclipped poodle anyway.

Most of the poodle crosses in my neighbourhood / local park were purchased after much thought and research, and from "small" breeders who only had a few dogs raised in a family environment. All these dogs have beautiful natures, are well trained and have great social skills with both people and other dogs.

the point we make comparing a purebred to a DD is that a purebred is predicable in everyway and people can make informed choices according to their lifestyles to fit the dog in. a DD you cannot and it is just PURELUCK if the dogs end up friendly well socialised and no health problems. just as it is pureluck that a pedigree can have the same criteria.

I felt a bit smug and superior getting my pup from a registered breeder, recommended by the breed society, home to many champions, doing health testing etc etc...

just because a breeder health tests and has champions in the bloodline has no bearing on whether the pups produced are going to be healthy - i mean dont' get me wrong a purebred breeder has more of a chance if they do test and research (has to go hand in hand really). I think people are putting too much faith into testing when testing is just a tool that breeders use coupled with researching the health of many generations before, and i tell you that some breeders never do this only look at the CHAMPIONS in the bloodline. sometimes, there are petrol champions i.e. a person will show their dog everywhere and pick up so many points the dog becomes a champion sometimes it does have no bearing on whether that dog is healthy or not. sometimes the judges look at the other end rather than the actual dog. because a line has champion does not indicate the health of those dogs in the bloodline im sorry to say. im not bedazzled by the word CHAMPION learnt the hard way.

tests are carried out on the parents but some genetic problems are very recessive and they can be hidden in a generation long gone only to come out in one pup in a litter. we test for patella lux all our stock and bloodline, look for it in the generations before but you cannot control someone else owning a dog that may have put that dog in the bloodline unknowingly when it could be suffering from that genetic condition.

so in short, testing is not a magical potion that every puppy produced will be healthy and free from whatever you are testing for. i say this when i advertise my own dogs.

I ended up with a highly strung pup, completely unsocialised and suffering from a very serious Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. 3 years down the track, after 2.5 years of consultations with a veterinary behaviourist, various medications, neurologist appointments, a brain scan, cognitive behaviour modification therapy and a very hefty bill, we all agreed that the kindest thing to do was to give the poor young dog his wings as he had no quality of life.

and what did the breeder do, that begs the question there, did they back you up? did they offer another puppy? and did they explain all that to you.

The whole experience left me very bitter and disillusioned, and I can understand why some people who are looking for a family pet might turn to DDs. Don't get me wrong, I am still hoping that one day I'll be able to get the perfect representative of my breed of choice, but I think many breeders turn people off by their arrogance and focus on purely aesthetics features.

i don't think its fair to say that ALL breeder just concentrate on the looks, being in this world for a long time since i was a child there are all sorts out there and we all have different goals for instance my goal is to produce a healthy happy dog that is a pleasure to own. becuase i show my dogs doesn't mean i am JUST concerned with looks. a dog that is nasty and bites is eliminated out of the ring, a dog that is lame is more times than not, ordered out of the ring, i know of alot of breeders who not only concentrate on type (looks) but also soundness too after discussing it and learning about it.

Edited September 27, 2011 by toy*dog

[Steve]

The Labradoodle people who are working toward breed recognition are more than half way there if they are going after what is required by the ANKC to become a recognised breed.

They are breeding consistent predictible dogs with up to 10 generations in.They are health testing and registering their puppies. The problem as always is that when you say labradoodle its also known as a first cross poodle x lab.

Thats not the case anymore with those who are breeding to a breed standard and sooner or later the purebred dog world is going to have to accept that this really is a breed in development and when they achieve what is required for breed recognition they will apply just as all other breeds have done throughout history. If they werent by now breeding predictible , dogs which do look like a breed then they wouldnt be able to produce toys as each would have to be different.

On a personal note I have an issue with the name and feel that because its is so confused with first cross dogs they should have introduced another - however when I challenged them on this they told me they had considered it and attempted to do so but were bombarded with those who were against that. The majority of owners and breeders felt it should stay as it is. The Mini Foxie people also have issues with their name which is why they cant be called the Mini Fox Terrier but they dont seem to have the entire purebred dog world against them as the labradoodle does. In fact the labradoodle is probably closer to qualifying for breed recognition than the Mini Foxie is.

A breed is a group of dogs with an easily identifiable set of characteristics such as size, coat , type and disposition and thats what they are working toward via the criteria as required by the ANKC.

[poodlefan]

On a personal note I have an issue with the name and feel that because its is so confused with first cross dogs they should have introduced another - however when I challenged them on this they told me they had considered it and attempted to do so but were bombarded with those who were against that. The majority of owners and breeders felt it should stay as it is. The Mini Foxie people also have issues with their name which is why they cant be called the Mini Fox Terrier but they dont seem to have the entire purebred dog world against them as the labradoodle does. In fact the labradoodle is probably closer to qualifying for breed recognition than the Mini Foxie is.

A breed is a group of dogs with an easily identifiable set of characteristics such as size, coat , type and disposition and thats what they are working toward via the criteria as required by the ANKC.

I sincerely hope that the ANKC does not accept the breed for recognition with that name.

Fanciers of this breed in development might care to reflect on how other breed fanciers feel about that name before tying themselves to the mast over it. It is a huge barrier to acceptance of the dog IMO.

[toy*dog]

i think someone on here said that they were thinking of calling them australian service dog. or something to that effect. but yes i hope that that name doesn't go through because it is known as from australia so that in my eyes would be terribly embarrassing.

i got sent an email about a new website called edoglovers. and was looking thru it to see if they supported DD's didn't find any, but i did find one breed called the brewer developed in 2003 in USA from yorkies and it looks like lhasas etc. from a breeder that showed and bred yorkies. so now it has been accepted by AKC.

anyone heard of the brewer?

[toy*dog]

In fact the labradoodle is probably closer to qualifying for breed recognition than the Mini Foxie is.

A breed is a group of dogs with an easily identifiable set of characteristics such as size, coat , type and disposition and thats what they are working toward via the criteria as required by the ANKC.

i thought the tenterfield terrier was from mini foxie stock? although i saw that info on the gardeners show and he made it look like he found the name for the tenterfield.

[espinay2]

I sincerely hope that the ANKC does not accept the breed for recognition with that name.

They won't as the ANKC regulations now specifically don't allow it:

10.2.1 Any new breed or breed of dog "under development" must have a unique

breed name, and is not a combination of recognised breed names or part of a

recognised breed name and it must be pertinent to the purpose of the breed.

(02/08) (Amended 10/09, 6.3.5)

Edited September 27, 2011 by espinay2

[toy*dog]

I sincerely hope that the ANKC does not accept the breed for recognition with that name.

They won't as the ANKC regulations don't allow it:

10.2.1 Any new breed or breed of dog “under development” must have a unique

breed name, and is not a combination of recognised breed names or part of a

recognised breed name and it must be pertinent to the purpose of the breed.

(02/08) (Amended 10/09, 6.3.5)

thank dog for that.

[Miranda]

i got sent an email about a new website called edoglovers. and was looking thru it to see if they supported DD's didn't find any, but i did find one breed called the brewer developed in 2003 in USA from yorkies and it looks like lhasas etc. from a breeder that showed and bred yorkies. so now it has been accepted by AKC.

anyone heard of the brewer?

Rubbish

[toy*dog]

History

With the introduction of the Biewer to America in 2003, there has been much speculation about its heritage. Mr. and Mrs. Biewer had been raising and showing Yorkies for 20 years, when on January 20th, 1984 the first blue, white and gold Biewer named Schneeflocken von Friedheck was born. This was the start of what is known as the Biewer Breed. Mr. Biewer spent 5 years selectively breeding his dogs until he was able to establish and breed true to a standard uniquely the Biewer Breed. The dogs were then registered as Biewer Yorkshire Terrier a la Pom Pon. In 1989 when Mr. Biewer signed the standard for this wonderful new breed, it was that of the Yorkshire Terrier with the coloring being White-Blue-Gold. Mr. Biewer was not a man of many words, so the standard was short and brief.

No mention of reg AKC, but i assume its with AKC or perhaps its with the continental kennel club i know they registered crosses and DD's over there along with purebreeds.

im not for or against just giving info here. and i spelt it wrong its Biewer and this is in with all other recognised breeds but there are a few from other countries in their list. interestingly it says country origin is germany.

[Steve]

On a personal note I have an issue with the name and feel that because its is so confused with first cross dogs they should have introduced another - however when I challenged them on this they told me they had considered it and attempted to do so but were bombarded with those who were against that. The majority of owners and breeders felt it should stay as it is. The Mini Foxie people also have issues with their name which is why they cant be called the Mini Fox Terrier but they dont seem to have the entire purebred dog world against them as the labradoodle does. In fact the labradoodle is probably closer to qualifying for breed recognition than the Mini Foxie is.

A breed is a group of dogs with an easily identifiable set of characteristics such as size, coat , type and disposition and thats what they are working toward via the criteria as required by the ANKC.

I sincerely hope that the ANKC does not accept the breed for recognition with that name.

Fanciers of this breed in development might care to reflect on how other breed fanciers feel about that name before tying themselves to the mast over it. It is a huge barrier to acceptance of the dog IMO.

Me too. In fact just now I had a call from a guy who purchased a labradoodle 6 months ago which he has to surrender and it took me half of the conversation to work out whether it was a first cross or a dog from a registered labradoodle breeder . Made me realise what a hard time the buyers are having sorting it out.

They go and learn about labradoodles on one website which talks about predictible characteristics of the "breed" then go looking for a puppy and buy a first cross because they are called the same name and the puppy buyer has no clue of the difference.

It turned out it was a multi generation one part of the breed in devolpment program - 12th generation and there is a behavioural problem where the dog is nipping the kids .The breeder has agreed to take the dog back and full refund or replace but rescue have told hm to give it to them and not send it back to the breeder because as its a desexed female it will be killed. One has to ask if thats what they will do with it why they are prepared to refund - they arent obliged to.

[toy*dog]

how do the rescue know that the dog will be killed? they could very well get the dog back and just rehome it like some other breeders do. maybe that particular rescue has some sort of mentality about all breeders killing dogs that go back to them not good for all breeders to be made out they are all ogres.

[Miranda]

History

With the introduction of the Biewer to America in 2003, there has been much speculation about its heritage. Mr. and Mrs. Biewer had been raising and showing Yorkies for 20 years, when on January 20th, 1984 the first blue, white and gold Biewer named Schneeflocken von Friedheck was born. This was the start of what is known as the Biewer Breed. Mr. Biewer spent 5 years selectively breeding his dogs until he was able to establish and breed true to a standard uniquely the Biewer Breed. The dogs were then registered as Biewer Yorkshire Terrier a la Pom Pon. In 1989 when Mr. Biewer signed the standard for this wonderful new breed, it was that of the Yorkshire Terrier with the coloring being White-Blue-Gold. Mr. Biewer was not a man of many words, so the standard was short and brief.

No mention of reg AKC, but i assume its with AKC or perhaps its with the continental kennel club i know they registered crosses and DD's over there along with purebreeds.

im not for or against just giving info here. and i spelt it wrong its Biewer and this is in with all other recognised breeds but there are a few from other countries in their list. interestingly it says country origin is germany.

In your original post you clearly stated that this so called 'breed' had been accepted by the AKC, this is incorrect. The biewer, brewer or whatever you choose to call it is not recognised by any of the major kennel clubs including the FCI.

I do wish that people would check their facts before posting.

[toy*dog]

okay my bad, slip of the tongue, i did go on to post im really not sure afterwards. it was unclear the way it was written. TBH, i saw that and got off the net, didn't want to go on an check status thats why i came on here and asked if anyone has heard of it, lazy i know but just making conversation.

but my point is, they are advertising this dog in amongst pure breeds of dogs and what is the public supposed to think they are advertising for this site here in Australia, no wonder everyone is getting confused. a lot of people wouldn't know how to check for status in other countries as well as FCI they'd just take it on face value like i did. and some ANKC reg breeders are on there as well in the mix.

some reg breeders have even gone as far as to advertise their addresses where they live as well i notice. which is a bit risky on the net .

Edited September 27, 2011 by toy*dog

[scrappynsuzie]

I appreciate you love your Purebred dogs, I like them as well. But do you really need to put down the cross breds?

This forum is Dogzonline Australia's PUREBRED dog community. for purebred dogs I thought

[poodlemum]

I appreciate you love your Purebred dogs, I like them as well. But do you really need to put down the cross breds?

This forum is Dogzonline Australia's PUREBRED dog community. for purebred dogs I thought

I consider this whole thread to be a contravention of forum rules - I can't understand why it's still going.

To those of you who are so hysterically vocal in supporting these cross-breeds - you are on the wrong forum