Sayreovi Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I don't know...example: One particular breeder has no breeding animals on site- they're all in "guardian homes" and are called in when the breeder wants to breed, or when the bitch is due to whelp (she goes back to her "guardian family" after the puppies are weaned at 8 weeks). I've never heard of this for dog breeding? I've noticed on quite a few American and Canadian breeders websites that they "foster" out some of their dogs and take them back for litters or matings. The breeders however still have a few of their own dogs. I guess it's so they can have more access to different dogs and lines this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WExtremeG Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I don't know...example: One particular breeder has no breeding animals on site- they're all in "guardian homes" and are called in when the breeder wants to breed, or when the bitch is due to whelp (she goes back to her "guardian family" after the puppies are weaned at 8 weeks). I've never heard of this for dog breeding? I've noticed on quite a few American and Canadian breeders websites that they "foster" out some of their dogs and take them back for litters or matings. The breeders however still have a few of their own dogs. I guess it's so they can have more access to different dogs and lines this way. Yeah, fair enough. Still seems a little bit dodgy to me (but what do I know?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirawee Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Happens a lot in Australia... it is just called "breeders terms"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WExtremeG Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Happens a lot in Australia... it is just called "breeders terms"! Nope- not breeders terms. One particular case is here in AU, the "guardian families" do however get to keep 'their' dog after it turns four, and is retired from breeding. (I guess that's something) Want to say that not all in this developing *ahem* breed are like this. Most actually do keep their dogs as family pets and have few litters every now and then. I'm pretty tired of this thread- so this is the last I'll say. Edited March 22, 2012 by F11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zug Zug Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 clapping - well said Jed....... Makes me wonder why the mdba apparently has an oodle breeder as a member as I recently read on another list? shaking head.....belies all sense...... If that breeder keeps their dogs in good condition, does health testing, and carefully selects dogs for breeding - on what grounds should they not be accepted? If the arguments are about animal welfare and integrity of breeders, then surely that's what the MDBA should be reflecting? I own a purebred poodle and adore him, but I have no objection to the existence of poodle/labrador x-breeds if they are well bred, well cared for, and fully health tested. If not, then they don't belong in the MDBA or anywhere else. But I think we should concede that all of these breeders are not equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I think that part of the reason people find they have dogs which they cant live with as well as they might is because part of it all is choosing a dog which is most suited to your life style. SOME families can live with any breed others - mine included cant - so therefore if someone has a dog which needs management issues which the family isn't able to live with the risk factor that the dog will be unhappy [and the family] or the dog will be dumped rises. Obviously if its a cross breed it is not able to be predictible in management and grooming,fencing requirement ,temperament etc - this is why I choose to own and breed purebred dogs . It is also why only those who are breeding purebred dogs or working toward building a breed which will be predictable are able to be MDBA members - in order to be accepted they need to articulate what they are doing and how - first cross breeders or those who cross any old dog with the hope of getting a nice puppy are not accepted for this reason no matter how well they do it all. This is why the name was changed in order to enable people to know the difference btweeen a first cross and a new breed development Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Happens a lot in Australia... it is just called "breeders terms"! Nope- not breeders terms. One particular case is here in AU, the "guardian families" do however get to keep 'their' dog after it turns four, and is retired from breeding. (I guess that's something) Want to say that not all in this developing *ahem* breed are like this. Most actually do keep their dogs as family pets and have few litters every now and then. I'm pretty tired of this thread- so this is the last I'll say. Because I don't know much about it nor have I heard of it before I am reluctant to pass judgement on it. Sorry. Do you perhaps have any links abou tit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fit for a King Posted March 22, 2012 Author Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) This will be my last comment on the subject - it seems the MDBA has, IMO, moved far away from its original objectives to promote PUREBRED dogs.....the inclusion of oodle breeders makes no sense to me and they can try and justify it all they like but it just doesn't fly for one very good reason - why create oodles if not to crank them out for money? With all the breeds currently available and those that actually ARE hypoallergenic and therefore fit for purpose why create oodles? As for the Cobber dog - what a load of crap - money, money, money...... Edited March 22, 2012 by Fit for a King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 This will be my last comment on the subject - it seems the MDBA has, IMO, moved far away from its original objectives to promote PUREBRED dogs.....the inclusion of oodle breeders makes no sense to me and they can try and justify it all they like but it just doesn't fly for one very good reason - why create oodles if not to crank them out for money? With all the breeds currently available and those that actually ARE hypoallergenic and therefore fit for purpose why create oodles? As for the Cobber dog - what a load of crap - money, money, money...... Bye. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 This will be my last comment on the subject - it seems the MDBA has, IMO, moved far away from its original objectives to promote PUREBRED dogs.....the inclusion of oodle breeders makes no sense to me and they can try and justify it all they like but it just doesn't fly for one very good reason - why create oodles if not to crank them out for money? With all the breeds currently available and those that actually ARE hypoallergenic and therefore fit for purpose why create oodles? As for the Cobber dog - what a load of crap - money, money, money...... Well for the record the objectives haven't changed nor have the codes or the requirements for membership. From day one its been about what is best for the dogs and those who have been working on new breed development have always been able to be members. They believe they are producing non shedding dogs which are well suited for assistance work. We believe they are doing an excellent job and hope they are sucessful in what they are aiming for . Im not that sure why people want to get upset about us getting involved sooner than the ANKC does as they do in most other countries but we think that's what is best for the dogs so knock it all you like but its getting boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaar Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) I don't think they should be recognised by anyone until they actually have some consistency within the new "breed". The local puppy farm here which states they breed to the "Labradoodle Standard" still advertise a variety of coat types. Claims of non shedding and allergy friendly are misleading and borderlining fraud. It's not about people getting upset about the MDBA getting "involved sooner than the ANKC", it's a matter of these dogs being accepted as a new breed when they clearly have a LONG way to go before they can claim that title. Putting them on a registry now when they are (to many people) still mutts, along with purebred dogs is what many people find offensive. I know my opinion means squat here, but I would not join a registry that allows new "breeds" like this that have not been fully developed. Edited March 23, 2012 by Shaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I don't think they should be recognised by anyone until they actually have some consistency within the new "breed". The local puppy farm here which states they breed to the "Labradoodle Standard" still advertise a variety of coat types. Last time I bothered to read that standard it ALLOWED a variety of coat types. If people want to develop a new non-shedding breed and get it recognised, well more power to them. Cutsey names don't do them any favours though. But honestly, I just don't get the "why". What was "wrong" with the foundation breeds in the first place? Oh well, at least they'll have to stop rattling on about hybrid vigour once their stud book closes. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaar Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Ahh okay, didn't know it allowed different varieties of coat, I wonder if they would be exhibited together in the same breed or are they aiming for multiple coat types to be recognised as different breeds (ie: long and short coat chihuahua's) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 If they stopped developing née breeds tears ago, many of us wouldn't have the breeds we love :). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I don't think they should be recognised by anyone until they actually have some consistency within the new "breed". The local puppy farm here which states they breed to the "Labradoodle Standard" still advertise a variety of coat types. Claims of non shedding and allergy friendly are misleading and borderlining fraud. It's not about people getting upset about the MDBA getting "involved sooner than the ANKC", it's a matter of these dogs being accepted as a new breed when they clearly have a LONG way to go before they can claim that title. Putting them on a registry now when they are (to many people) still mutts, along with purebred dogs is what many people find offensive. I know my opinion means squat here, but I would not join a registry that allows new "breeds" like this that have not been fully developed. As far as I know no one has accepted them as a new breed - the MDBA certainly haven't and if ever they do its not going to happen until they reach the necessary criteria . Allowing them to use the foundation registry simply means we recognise they have that goal in mind and we allow them to use our tools because we believe that its better for the dogs . The foundation registry isn't anywhere near like the main stud registry and they aren't there along with recognised purebred dogs so why would anyone find it offensive? The breeders who are breeding them according to our codes of conduct however are recognised by us and considered to be doing the right thing by their dogs and that has been the case for the last 8 years since the very first minute the MDBA began.The first board of directors had a mini foxie breeder in there and some of our foundation members were breeding dogs which are not now nor which ever will be recognised by the ANKC. A white shepherd breeder and an american bulldog breeder were both nominated in the first awards - there is nothing new here so why there is even an issue is beyond me. There is also nothing new in the concept of allowing those working on new breeds to use a foundation registry - this is common in most other countries most notably the US in the AKC registry and its usual for cat registries to do the same. At the end of the day we believe allowing them to use an arm's length pedigree registration system to enable them to keep better records which also tracks qualifications and health and temperament issues is what is better for the dogs .It ensures accurate records, it ensures they work under a code of conduct and they are health testing and they are not primarily breeding for profit. If others feel its not what is best for the dogs thats their choice but why its such an issue and people want to yell about it is difficult to see if we are all really on the same page regarding what is best for the dogs. http://www.akc.org/breeds/fss_breeds.cfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I don't think they should be recognised by anyone until they actually have some consistency within the new "breed". The local puppy farm here which states they breed to the "Labradoodle Standard" still advertise a variety of coat types. Last time I bothered to read that standard it ALLOWED a variety of coat types. If people want to develop a new non-shedding breed and get it recognised, well more power to them. Cutsey names don't do them any favours though. But honestly, I just don't get the "why". What was "wrong" with the foundation breeds in the first place? Oh well, at least they'll have to stop rattling on about hybrid vigour once their stud book closes. :) These breeders aren't on about hybrid vigour - they in bred to set type - another reason why the name needed to change and a major difference in a first cross and someone who is down several generations of breeding like to like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pippa Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 But honestly, I just don't get the "why". What was "wrong" with the foundation breeds in the first place? I don't get how a disabled person is supposed to manage those awful looking coats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr_inoz Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 just a bit OT - but I thought White Sheps were now a recognised breed - saw one being exhibited in Adelaide earlier this year - White Swiss Shepherd..... or are they a different breed to the white shepherds you are talking about? Also - long coated german shepherds are also now a recognised variety. We had both being exhibited at Adelaide Hills show this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now