Breeding for sports
- Thread starter Laurelin
- Start date
If they selected for and worked towards those traits, they might achieve them. What they are doing is primarily F1 crosses.
And it would be fairly difficult to produce a low drive, low maintenance, healthy pet out the crosses they typically use. If that's the base they want to use, there needs to be some pretty strict selection criteria.
Otherwise, they clearly aren't working towards the goal I mentioned that I wouldn't mind, they are just producing more "cute" pet dogs of varying normal dog traits, of which there are a plentitude.
And it would be fairly difficult to produce a low drive, low maintenance, healthy pet out the crosses they typically use. If that's the base they want to use, there needs to be some pretty strict selection criteria.
Otherwise, they clearly aren't working towards the goal I mentioned that I wouldn't mind, they are just producing more "cute" pet dogs of varying normal dog traits, of which there are a plentitude.
There are a couple of cockapoo and doodle breeders our clients have gotten dogs from who are doing the same. And again, IME even the F1 crosses are surprisingly consistent in temperament. I used to be a skeptic making fun of the fancy mutts, too, until I saw dozens and dozens of them.
And so again... some breeders have good practices, some have bad, but it's not because they're breeding doodles necessarily nor do I think it's fair to brush them all as just producing faddish, "cute" dogs. No more than it's fair for me to say all show Border Collie breeders are just churning out "Barbie Collies."
I'm... not sure where that criteria came from?
That's certainly not what I mean when I say "great family pet" or "great companion," and it's not the criteria of me or the families I'm talking about.
Well I've had this debate enough times in various places with various people to know that either someone believes this or they don't, but my opinion is that there are NOT a plentitude of dogs with the specific traits desirable for the JOB of being a great family pet/companion. That is, that companionship can be a job that requires specific traits that can be selected for or against and not just "any old dog" will necessarily do.
And so again... some breeders have good practices, some have bad, but it's not because they're breeding doodles necessarily nor do I think it's fair to brush them all as just producing faddish, "cute" dogs. No more than it's fair for me to say all show Border Collie breeders are just churning out "Barbie Collies."
I'm... not sure where that criteria came from?
That's certainly not what I mean when I say "great family pet" or "great companion," and it's not the criteria of me or the families I'm talking about.Well I've had this debate enough times in various places with various people to know that either someone believes this or they don't, but my opinion is that there are NOT a plentitude of dogs with the specific traits desirable for the JOB of being a great family pet/companion. That is, that companionship can be a job that requires specific traits that can be selected for or against and not just "any old dog" will necessarily do.
I work, on a daily basis, with a ton of doodles. I can count and take photos over the next week if anyone is interested but the looks and behavioral differences between our "mini goldendoodles" are pretty interesting.
The consistencies I have found are they are approximately sized, hairy(curls, wire, and straight are all seen but curls or waves are most common), and they have temperamental consistencies. They tend to be drivey enough to train but not problematic. They have very little by way of common sense, they hate change and take longer than most dogs to adjust to coming in on a new day or having a new attendant/handler, and they are very dog savvy and fun and silly if started right but if not they are almost guaranteed reactivity and awkward play skills (some breeds IME bounce back easier from inappropriate starts than others).
So yeah, they can be relatively typey, IMO, but it's not as predictable as many purebreds nor am I comfortable saying goldendoodles (standard) are similar to goldendoodles (mini) nor comfort retrievers (mini goldendoodle multi generationally bred to look more like a golden).
And now I am forgetting what this topic was about. lol
The consistencies I have found are they are approximately sized, hairy(curls, wire, and straight are all seen but curls or waves are most common), and they have temperamental consistencies. They tend to be drivey enough to train but not problematic. They have very little by way of common sense, they hate change and take longer than most dogs to adjust to coming in on a new day or having a new attendant/handler, and they are very dog savvy and fun and silly if started right but if not they are almost guaranteed reactivity and awkward play skills (some breeds IME bounce back easier from inappropriate starts than others).
So yeah, they can be relatively typey, IMO, but it's not as predictable as many purebreds nor am I comfortable saying goldendoodles (standard) are similar to goldendoodles (mini) nor comfort retrievers (mini goldendoodle multi generationally bred to look more like a golden).
And now I am forgetting what this topic was about. lol
I'm... not sure where that criteria came from? That's certainly not what I mean when I say "great family pet" or "great companion," and it's not the criteria of me or the families I'm talking about.
That's certainly not what I mean when I say "great family pet" or "great companion," and it's not the criteria of me or the families I'm talking about.
Well I'd propose that there is a niche that the "designer" breeds are filling that isn't really filled by any existing breed, either. Otherwise, nobody would be buying or selling them. (Based on my experiences I don't think that most people who have most of these cross bred dogs now would have trundled down to the shelter if their mix didn't exist or wasn't available.)
Was that article about the guy who created the Labradoodle linked on here last week or so? He said he regrets it now because he feels like it has done a lot of damage to purebred dogs. And that even though he created the breed with a function in mind, nobody wanted one because it was a "mutt." The name "Labradoodle" and was a marketing ploy.
http://www.globalanimal.org/2010/12/02/man-who-created-labradoodles-regrets-the-cross-breed/25768/
Just something interesting. I do agree that labradoodle (and cockapoo) are the two you will find a lot of people trying to create something more stable and without just a lot of F1 crosses. I had a student in my class tell me what her dog was and I couldn't even break down the mix name. I had to ask her "a what?" OTOH she adopted the dog from the shelter. Either she wanted a cutesy name, or the shelter gave it a cutesy name to get it adopted. I know shelters will use "puggle" around here... friends of mine adopted a puggle from the shelter.
Labradoodles seem to look very similar around here. Puggles OTOH vary more widely around here, but by that I mean they either look really puggy or really beagley. Not like something in between.
http://www.globalanimal.org/2010/12/02/man-who-created-labradoodles-regrets-the-cross-breed/25768/
Just something interesting. I do agree that labradoodle (and cockapoo) are the two you will find a lot of people trying to create something more stable and without just a lot of F1 crosses. I had a student in my class tell me what her dog was and I couldn't even break down the mix name. I had to ask her "a what?" OTOH she adopted the dog from the shelter. Either she wanted a cutesy name, or the shelter gave it a cutesy name to get it adopted. I know shelters will use "puggle" around here... friends of mine adopted a puggle from the shelter.
Labradoodles seem to look very similar around here. Puggles OTOH vary more widely around here, but by that I mean they either look really puggy or really beagley. Not like something in between.
I don't think that necessarily follows. I think people tend to get those dogs because they are trendy and hip. Because they are told purebreds are bad, and unhealthy, and that the designer breeds have "hybrid vigor". Certainly, the guy who invented the "Labradoodle" considers it a gimmick.
http://www.globalanimal.org/2010/12/02/man-who-created-labradoodles-regrets-the-cross-breed/25768/
And most of the people choosing these should go to the shelter for their dog, the traits they want exist there.
At any rate, we are unlikely to agree on this, and I wasn't really that interested in getting into further debate on the value of designer dogs, I thought I'd said my piece on that earlier. Today's post was because there was skepticism expressed on the thought that people would want "big, stupid, lazy& dim-witted pets", and I thought it worth mentioning that in fact, that is what most people really do want. They wouldn't put it in those words, and I sure wouldn't use those words if trying to market the amazing new pet breed. But the reality is that while most of us dog-oriented people want dogs that actually have dog behaviors, there is an enormous and growing section of the pet-owning population that really don't. They want a sweet, easy-going pet that they can take to the dog park when it's convenient, learns a few basic behaviors without drama; if they get busy at work and don't have time for the dog park or a walk, the dog can just chill at home without stress. Gets along with people, other dogs, and small animals. Low shedding, minimal grooming. And definitely, low vet bills!
It's something I've thought about before, as an occasional breeder, and discussed with friends. What we want in dogs, and what the general public want in dogs, are very different. I have a friend who is very pessimistic about it, and thinks that the general public need for really low-drive dogs, and the fact that most dogs act more like dogs, is going to eventually lead to a complete ban on dogs. I can't breed mellow dogs just because I know it's where the biggest market is, that's just not in me. I would rather have no Staffords at all than Staffords that didn't act like the breed.
But while in general I don't agree that it makes sense to create designer crossbreeds to fill a niche, believing that most niches have plenty of dogs to fill them already, I did feel that I had to admit that there is one niche that really isn't being filled, and that I'd have to change my stance if anyone really tried to fill it.
http://www.globalanimal.org/2010/12/02/man-who-created-labradoodles-regrets-the-cross-breed/25768/
And most of the people choosing these should go to the shelter for their dog, the traits they want exist there.
At any rate, we are unlikely to agree on this, and I wasn't really that interested in getting into further debate on the value of designer dogs, I thought I'd said my piece on that earlier. Today's post was because there was skepticism expressed on the thought that people would want "big, stupid, lazy& dim-witted pets", and I thought it worth mentioning that in fact, that is what most people really do want. They wouldn't put it in those words, and I sure wouldn't use those words if trying to market the amazing new pet breed. But the reality is that while most of us dog-oriented people want dogs that actually have dog behaviors, there is an enormous and growing section of the pet-owning population that really don't. They want a sweet, easy-going pet that they can take to the dog park when it's convenient, learns a few basic behaviors without drama; if they get busy at work and don't have time for the dog park or a walk, the dog can just chill at home without stress. Gets along with people, other dogs, and small animals. Low shedding, minimal grooming. And definitely, low vet bills!
It's something I've thought about before, as an occasional breeder, and discussed with friends. What we want in dogs, and what the general public want in dogs, are very different. I have a friend who is very pessimistic about it, and thinks that the general public need for really low-drive dogs, and the fact that most dogs act more like dogs, is going to eventually lead to a complete ban on dogs. I can't breed mellow dogs just because I know it's where the biggest market is, that's just not in me. I would rather have no Staffords at all than Staffords that didn't act like the breed.
But while in general I don't agree that it makes sense to create designer crossbreeds to fill a niche, believing that most niches have plenty of dogs to fill them already, I did feel that I had to admit that there is one niche that really isn't being filled, and that I'd have to change my stance if anyone really tried to fill it.
I disagree. I think most people get these breeds because they see one or know someone who has one, and likes them.
Fortunately, he's not the boss of me, nor am I sure why his opinion should sway mine in any particular direction.
Again, I disagree that that's necessarily true. It's no more true than saying "people who want agility dogs (or tracking dogs, or sled dogs, or flyball dogs, etc etc) should go to the shelter for their dog, because the traits they want exist there." It could be true, but it's not necessarily true for companion dogs any more than any other dog IMO. Why is the onus on someone who wants a companion with particular personality traits, but not on someone who does agility?
But as I said earlier, seeing "companionship" as a legitimate function requiring specific traits seems to be something any given person either believes or not, and never the twain shall meet. I'm not really trying to change your mind, just make my position clear. And geek out talking about dog stuff.
Again, I disagree. I deal with mostly pet owners all day every day, and I just don't see it. I would say that in general, most families want dogs who get along with most other dogs and people, are good with and tolerant of kids, are biddable, can tolerate a variety of activity levels and adapt to seasonal changes in the schedule of the household, and have an off switch. I don't think most people even care that much about grooming as long as it's not a big daily chore.
Anyway, if that's what people wanted, that's what all of the opportunists would be producing... but if you follow the money, it's not going towards big, stupid, lazy and dim-witted. *shrug*
Fortunately, he's not the boss of me, nor am I sure why his opinion should sway mine in any particular direction.
Again, I disagree that that's necessarily true. It's no more true than saying "people who want agility dogs (or tracking dogs, or sled dogs, or flyball dogs, etc etc) should go to the shelter for their dog, because the traits they want exist there." It could be true, but it's not necessarily true for companion dogs any more than any other dog IMO. Why is the onus on someone who wants a companion with particular personality traits, but not on someone who does agility?
But as I said earlier, seeing "companionship" as a legitimate function requiring specific traits seems to be something any given person either believes or not, and never the twain shall meet. I'm not really trying to change your mind, just make my position clear. And geek out talking about dog stuff.
Again, I disagree. I deal with mostly pet owners all day every day, and I just don't see it. I would say that in general, most families want dogs who get along with most other dogs and people, are good with and tolerant of kids, are biddable, can tolerate a variety of activity levels and adapt to seasonal changes in the schedule of the household, and have an off switch. I don't think most people even care that much about grooming as long as it's not a big daily chore.
Anyway, if that's what people wanted, that's what all of the opportunists would be producing... but if you follow the money, it's not going towards big, stupid, lazy and dim-witted. *shrug*
I hate quoting on my phone but I agree, working day to day with pet people, about Sass's description as "ideal pet".
I don't think most people want doodles because of some health issue or uniqueness, I think they think they're cute and easy. Most of our clients don't groom them at all, at least that's what the groomer groan about almost daily.
I don't think most people want doodles because of some health issue or uniqueness, I think they think they're cute and easy. Most of our clients don't groom them at all, at least that's what the groomer groan about almost daily.
Ok lesson learned. No breeding threads.
On the note of doodles, I really can't tell if I don't like the dogs, or the owners. I live in a very richyrich town where everyone has one. Pretty much all of the ones I have met have been horrible with other dogs (bullies & very up in their business), not at all trained, and not pleasant to be around.
The last guy w/them I ran into had 2 that he was going to breed, the boy was 2, the girl 10 months old, both slightly overweight, but actually ok acting. He went on a long rant about how he would never fix his dogs, especially his female, because 'I would never fix my mother, why would I fix my dog?' as if those things are anywhere close to the same thing. Like, sure, don't fix her, but wth. I've also conveniently come up with the subject for the next inflammatory thread ('If you wouldn't fix your mom, why would you fix a dog?').
So clearly I need to see one of these dogs with an owner who actually trains their dogs up to other standards so I can compare, lol.
