Oodles

[sandgrubber]

IMO, unfriendly attitudes toward the creation of new breeds has created a lot of problems for the pedigree dog world.  People's circumstances have changed greatly over the last century.  Inflexible breed standards and hostility towards creation of new breeds have left the dog fancy unable to adapt.

[tdierikx]

I really have no issue with the creation of new breeds - as long as the motivation is not purely to meet a demand for financial gain. The Cobber Dog (I'm not fussed on the name) is an example of this... and it hasn't been easy. The purebreed "community" could do with an injection of new blood and new breeds, as right now, many traditional breeds may be restricted into extinction.

 

Personally, I have a preference for well-bred purebreed dogs, but am open to sharing my life with mixed breeds also, and I don't think I'm that different to most of the pet owning public - the right dog for me at any given time of my life may come from any number of sources, so why restrict myself to only one of those sources?

 

T.

[WoofnHoof]

I think the issue isn’t money, new breeds have been developed in the past to do a job and help the owner make a living whether that’s herding, hunting, guarding etc. Breeding for purpose doesn’t mean it wasn’t profitable at one point in the breed’s development.  

 

I think the issue is that there is a lack of clear direction and ethical behaviour when it comes to oodles. Putting two different breeds together does not a new breed make, there needs to be a clear development of desired traits to ensure consistency. The “job description” for these dogs is as a generic pet dog, there is no clear standard or goal. When research was done into “the perfect pet dog for Australia” people identified things like non-shedding, friendly, low drive etc. These are all traits that exist to a degree in existing pure-breeds but aren’t marketed as such to the public. Marketing is everything in this day and age, old fashioned perceptions about poodles mean they are not first choice despite having *most* of the traits people want. Here comes the controversial bit: Existing pure breeds could easily be modified to meet a pet market.  Before anyone says that would ruin the breed there are already many breeds which have distinct show and working lines. Show lines and working lines can look and behave very differently and it’s not the end of the world, and it’s not blasphemy to think that this could also be done for “pet” lines. If breeds never changed we wouldn’t have any differences between working and show because breeds were originally developed to work and do a specific job not trot round a show ring. 
 

I think there is also a perception in the pure breed world that pet dogs are inferior, not “up to scratch” and therefore they are cheaper than show dogs. Like it or not people associate price with quality, that’s why they happily fork over thousands for oodles. Price historically has at least implied quality, add some clever marketing that plays on existing perceptions and you can see how the market and therefore the public has responded. People still believe a cross gives you “the best of both worlds” despite logic suggesting that it might also give the worst of both. 
 

Look at the success of organisations such as Peta, we know their goal is to sever all human ties with animals yet the general public has no idea and just thinks they are a welfare group. It’s all because of very clever marketing. It’s completely unethical but it works because they target and enhance existing perceptions for their own gain, much like many oodle breeders. The problem with pure breeds is that it’s much more difficult to fight deeply ingrained prejudices. 
 

edited for typos 

Edited December 19, 2023 by WoofnHoof

[BDJ]

My main problem with 'oodles' is that there is very rarely any knowledge on what that means re the parentage and background of that INDIVIDUAL animal.  

 

I was at the vets the other day and a shaggy mostly black pup (around 6 mo, with the approx size of a standard poodle of that age (but more heavy set)) came in.   When asked what breed it was, it was described as a 'Bernia shoodle' and the owner went on to say the father was a 1/2 Bernese 1/2 Retriever  and the mother was a 1/2 Schnauzer and 1/2 Poodle.   Now call me cynical, but I reckon it was most likely cross bred back half a dozen generations and was a whole mix of 'who knows'.     But, he was cute, tail waggy and shaggy - and was getting lots of 'oohs and ahhs'.

 

I have just bought a Sheltie - he is as everything I wanted and I am stoked with him.    He was not as expensive as I see 'oodles' sold for, and I am very confident I know exactly what temperament and personality  he is going to have as an adult, what size and colour he will end up, what his coat and grooming needs will be, and what health conditions he is most prone to have.     I could not predict any of that with any level of confidence if I was the owner of the black pup I saw at the vets.

 

The opinion I have had for many years as that purebred people responsibly breeding for the pet market is not a bad thing - in fact it should be celebrated and encouraged.   A happy, confident, friendly, 'good citizen' purebred dog is the best advert there is, and it is more than money can buy.

 

One thing that does need to change (and don't know how to do it) is the perception of looking after coat and how hard it is to have a double coated dog, and therefore how 'easy' an oodle is.    It is wrong, but the general public don't get it.   I have a RC collie who gets a good groom once every 5-6 weeks (with an extra session twice yearly at coat change) and barely touched between those grooms (only removing burs etc from her feathering).   Zero knots/smells/tangles etc etc.  Perfect coat.  Yet virtually everyone who meets her says 'oh, she is so pretty and her hair is perfect - I bet you spend hours each day to make her look this good'.  Nope, good breeding and a great coat goes a long way.   

 

 

[tdierikx]

3 hours ago, WoofnHoof said:

I think the issue isn’t money, new breeds have been developed in the past to do a job and help the owner make a living whether that’s herding, hunting, guarding etc. Breeding for purpose doesn’t mean it wasn’t profitable at one point in the breed’s development.  

 

I think the issue is that there is a lack of clear direction and ethical behaviour when it comes to oodles. Putting two different breeds together does not a new breed make, there needs to be a clear development of desired traits to ensure consistency. The “job description” for these dogs is as a generic pet dog, there is no clear standard or goal. When research was done into “the perfect pet dog for Australia” people identified things like non-shedding, friendly, low drive etc. These are all traits that exist to a degree in existing pure-breeds but aren’t marketed as such to the public. Marketing is everything in this day and age, old fashioned perceptions about poodles mean they are not first choice despite having *most* of the traits people want. Here comes the controversial bit: Existing pure breeds could easily be modified to meet a pet market.  Before anyone says that would ruin the breed there are already many breeds which have distinct show and working lines. Show lines and working lines can look and behave very differently and it’s not the end of the world, and it’s not blasphemy to think that this could also be done for “pet” lines. If breeds never changed we wouldn’t have any differences between working and show because breeds were originally developed to work and do a specific job not trot round a show ring. 
 

I think there is also a perception in the pure breed world that pet dogs are inferior, not “up to scratch” and therefore they are cheaper than show dogs. Like it or not people associate price with quality, that’s why they happily fork over thousands for oodles. Price historically has at least implied quality, add some clever marketing that plays on existing perceptions and you can see how the market and therefore the public has responded. People still believe a cross gives you “the best of both worlds” despite logic suggesting that it might also give the worst of both. 
 

Look at the success of organisations such as Peta, we know their goal is to sever all human ties with animals yet the general public has no idea and just thinks they are a welfare group. It’s all because of very clever marketing. It’s completely unethical but it works because they target and enhance existing perceptions for their own gain, much like many oodle breeders. The problem with pure breeds is that it’s much more difficult to fight deeply ingrained prejudices. 
 

edited for typos 

 

Very well said... thank you!

 

T.

[sandgrubber]

I don't think the history of breed development, especially when it comes to toy and lap dog breeds, shows much concern for dog health or ethics.  Pugs and toy Spaniels are cases in point.  I don't know anything about the breeders who supplied the demands of the growing urban middle class during the Industrial Revolution, but I'd be surprised if they didn't breed for pecuniary gain. The extreme inbreeding of show line standard poodles probably was motivated more by desire for ribbons than by financial gain, but has also led to well documented health outcomes. 

 

IMO blanket condemnation of oodles rests on a romanticised notion of virtuous dog breeding.  Dog health has rarely outranked fashion in the breeding of pet dogs, and $ has long been important.

[sandgrubber]

Deleted...

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by sandgrubber
Garbage posed by accident

[Adrienne]

From a pet Industry point of view any breed of dog which requires services to be maintained is highly desirable. Breeds that need clipping are a huge client base. I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year in Australia on clipping dogs.  The explosive popularity of Ooodles has been driven by something and it's not “stupid people”, I think it is Pet Industry. Just as the clothes Fashion Industry dictates to us what we will like and buy, the Pet Industry does the same. Designer dogs? You betcha, designed to need services in order to be maintained!

 

I think there are many lovely examples of the Oodles. From a breeding perspective it would be helpful to investigate high levels of body sensitivity though - I was surprised to learn that this is an inheritable trait identified and removed from at least one seeing eye dog breeding program.

 

I thought it was simply a conditioning thing. With my poodle cross litter I was diligent in combing each pup on a table every day and for the two that had the poodle coat I also buzzed them all over with the blunt end of my clippers. They have zero trouble at the groomers.

 

I have a friend with a dear little dog who is very reactive to being clipped and it is such a genuine downside for her. She is happy to pay the financial cost, but the emotional toll every few months is really sad. I don’t think he was ever comfortable with it and he doesn’t even like being held closely which is a shame, because my friend would love that. He seems happy in all other respects.

[Rascalmyshadow]

Can I just say I’ve been on these forums for approx. 20 years and it’s so nice to see this type of discussion not turn nasty and to hear other peoples thoughts without fear of being judged.

 

The dog world and market has changed dramatically and I think people need to start moving with the times, dogs are dogs pure or cross, yes certain breeds have specific requirements but they all deserve the same love and care and I’m seeing a big shift in what that means, people are concerned about proper diet, maintenance and their dogs mental health, most dogs I groom these days aren’t matted messes or covered in fleas, they are well maintained, socialised and part of the family and the dogs they’ve chosen are perfectly suited to their owners needs.

[sandgrubber]

On 20/12/2023 at 11:52 AM, WoofnHoof said:

new breeds have been developed in the past to do a job and help the owner make a living whether that’s herding, hunting, guarding etc. Breeding for purpose doesn’t mean it wasn’t profitable at one point in the breed’s development.  

Brachy skulls serve no purpose.  The shortened legs and elongated spine of modern daschunds serve no purpose. Excess coat serves no purpose.  Deep skin folds serve no purpose.  It's trend/fashion.

Small fluffy oodles seems to work for many modern families.  They may require a lot of grooming, but so do Pekes, poodles, Saints, Newfies, Afghans, and show line Spaniels. The pedigree world supported and furthered the cross breeding that created the modern pekinese, cavvy, silky, and other small pet/lapdog breeds.  More recently it has dropped the ball when it comes to breeding dogs suited to apartment life, 300 sq m sections, grey nomadism, etc. 

I approve of keeping pedigrees, but when the function is pet/companion, I wish the pedigree conveyed more information about the things that matter in a pet: health and temperament. 

 

There's high demand for friendly, cheerful, loyal, non yappy, dogs without huge need for exercise.  Sadly, the pedigree world isn't meeting this demand and the supply is coming from elsewhere. 

[tdierikx]

14 hours ago, Rascalmyshadow said:

Can I just say I’ve been on these forums for approx. 20 years and it’s so nice to see this type of discussion not turn nasty and to hear other peoples thoughts without fear of being judged.

 

I'm sure that there will be die hard proponents from all sides of any debate, but I think this forum has evolved beautifully over the years to be a resource for all to share their experiences in many areas of pet ownership. Those looking to stir up heated debate seem to have dropped away over time, and left us with a core membership of passionate but well tempered pet enthusiasts willing to share those experiences for the better "education" for all.

 

I love this forum as a sane place to come when the rigours of social media become a bit much... I love the informed "debates" over various topics that are generally contentious when had elsewhere.

 

T.

[WoofnHoof]

1 hour ago, sandgrubber said:

Brachy skulls serve no purpose.  The shortened legs and elongated spine of modern daschunds serve no purpose. Excess coat serves no purpose.  Deep skin folds serve no purpose.  It's trend/fashion.

Small fluffy oodles seems to work for many modern families.  They may require a lot of grooming, but so do Pekes, poodles, Saints, Newfies, Afghans, and show line Spaniels. The pedigree world supported and furthered the cross breeding that created the modern pekinese, cavvy, silky, and other small pet/lapdog breeds.  More recently it has dropped the ball when it comes to breeding dogs suited to apartment life, 300 sq m sections, grey nomadism, etc. 

I approve of keeping pedigrees, but when the function is pet/companion, I wish the pedigree conveyed more information about the things that matter in a pet: health and temperament. 

 

There's high demand for friendly, cheerful, loyal, non yappy, dogs without huge need for exercise.  Sadly, the pedigree world isn't meeting this demand and the supply is coming from elsewhere. 

Yes I think the show influence is a whole other can of worms, but it only accounts for the last 30-40 years of breeding. In post war times there is no way people would breed dogs that need C-sections every time or must be kept in air conditioning. I think removing the “working” aspect of breeds enables fashion to shape breeds, most of the stud books have been closed for over 100 years so it’s not cross breeding that is responsible for the enhancement of extreme traits, even in breeds that diverged into pets a long time ago. 
Once you take away the functional aspect and purely have looks as the focus the rest goes out the window. There are “halter bred” quarter horses that are unrideable because they’ve been bred to stand and shuffle around a show ring, it’s extremely sad. Having said that looks are also a big part of the oodle branding, the fluffy teddy bear look is part of their appeal and that is also part of the reason that they too can have health issues. When their function is heavily based around looks then there is potential for other traits to be left behind, just as with other breeds and lines. 

[sandgrubber]

21 hours ago, WoofnHoof said:

Yes I think the show influence is a whole other can of worms, but it only accounts for the last 30-40 years of breeding. In post war times there is no way people would breed dogs that need C-sections every time or must be kept in air conditioning.

I just wish the effort that went into pushing extreme comformation had gone to breeding overall health (including the things causing most vet visits like allergies, obstructed breathing, ear infections) and traits suitable for the majority of modern families (friendly, playful, trainable, not overly barky or energetic, relatively small, good with children).  Oodles move in this direction, but not very well.  Systematic, pedigree based cross breeding could have done a much better job, but has been utterly rejected.

[coneye]

On 24/12/2023 at 5:48 AM, sandgrubber said:

I just wish the effort that went into pushing extreme comformation had gone to breeding overall health (including the things causing most vet visits like allergies, obstructed breathing, ear infections) and traits suitable for the majority of modern families (friendly, playful, trainable, not overly barky or energetic, relatively small, good with children).  Oodles move in this direction, but not very well.  Systematic, pedigree based cross breeding could have done a much better job, but has been utterly rejected.

Nail ,,, Head  , you nailed it here , scuse the pun ,  but you just described my dog  not barky or energetic, small , good with kids , very gentle nature ,  does'nt malt much ,, BUT also  constant ear infections , constant  licking paws  , constant visits to the vet  ,  constant  money money money spent ,  never any results ,  put to sleep  ears cleaned ,  ching ching . $700 thank you ,,,   , its allergys he needs this that and the other   , visit %70 ,  allergy test $80- , steroind tablets $80  ,  this tablet $60 that tablet $60    3  , 4   hundred dollars later still  all back 2 weeks later .

Will say i've never had these problems before , but he's the first non pedigree small dog i've had  designer dog  just bred to make money , never again IF we ever have another dog its  pick a breed and   pay for  the right one , and its cheaper than oodles anyway

[Rascalmyshadow]

2 hours ago, coneye said:

Nail ,,, Head  , you nailed it here , scuse the pun ,  but you just described my dog  not barky or energetic, small , good with kids , very gentle nature ,  does'nt malt much ,, BUT also  constant ear infections , constant  licking paws  , constant visits to the vet  ,  constant  money money money spent ,  never any results ,  put to sleep  ears cleaned ,  ching ching . $700 thank you ,,,   , its allergys he needs this that and the other   , visit %70 ,  allergy test $80- , steroind tablets $80  ,  this tablet $60 that tablet $60    3  , 4   hundred dollars later still  all back 2 weeks later .

Will say i've never had these problems before , but he's the first non pedigree small dog i've had  designer dog  just bred to make money , never again IF we ever have another dog its  pick a breed and   pay for  the right one , and its cheaper than oodles anyway

I’ve experienced this with purebred pedigree dogs unfortunately a pedigree does not guarantee good health, I’m seeing plenty of pure pedigree dogs with very serious health issues, having a cross breed or pure breed doesn’t make an ounce of difference when puppies are only being produced for money.

[WoofnHoof]

On 24/12/2023 at 6:18 AM, sandgrubber said:

I just wish the effort that went into pushing extreme comformation had gone to breeding overall health (including the things causing most vet visits like allergies, obstructed breathing, ear infections) and traits suitable for the majority of modern families (friendly, playful, trainable, not overly barky or energetic, relatively small, good with children).  Oodles move in this direction, but not very well.  Systematic, pedigree based cross breeding could have done a much better job, but has been utterly rejected.

I agree but I don’t even think it needs to involve cross breeding, many of the desired traits already exist within currently available breeds, they just haven’t been strongly selected for. The fact that conformation has changed so drastically within existing breeds in such a short period of time suggests that better outcomes could easily be achieved in a similarly short space of time without having to outcross at all.
 

Of course you can’t put a non/low-shedding coat into a breed that doesn’t have it without crossing but you can certainly select calmer, more trainable temperaments within the existing non-shedding breeds. You can select for sIze quite easily, that has already been done in existing poodle breeds. Ditto for health issues especially with genetic testing easy and affordable. Behaviour is not so simple but not impossible, low drive dogs pop up in working lines all the time, there just needs to be the will to select strongly and consistently for those traits with a view to move the breed towards suitability as a pet rather than work or show. 

[sandgrubber]

6 hours ago, WoofnHoof said:

I agree but I don’t even think it needs to involve cross breeding, many of the desired traits already exist within currently available breeds, they just haven’t been strongly selected for. The fact that conformation has changed so drastically within existing breeds in such a short period of time suggests that better outcomes could easily be achieved in a similarly short space of time without having to outcross at all.

Biologically possible, but institutionally, not so much.

 

For example, in years past I bred Labradors.  The breed's popularity is unquestionable.  It's also clear that many people who love Lab temperament would prefer a smaller dog with less shedding.  Breeding in this direction would be easy, and would probably also yield dogs better suited to hot climates.  BUT you'd be excommunicated for announcing the intention of doing so.

[WoofnHoof]

3 hours ago, sandgrubber said:

Biologically possible, but institutionally, not so much.

 

For example, in years past I bred Labradors.  The breed's popularity is unquestionable.  It's also clear that many people who love Lab temperament would prefer a smaller dog with less shedding.  Breeding in this direction would be easy, and would probably also yield dogs better suited to hot climates.  BUT you'd be excommunicated for announcing the intention of doing so.

Sad but true