Whats with all the _______doodles?

[Gempress]

Budgetsdad, "hybrid vigor" is bunk with mutts. Why? Because mixing two breeds of dogs is NOT HYBRIDIZATION! That's like saying a person who is half asian and half black is a "hybrid"! It's all the same species! Even the term "wolf hybrid" is incorrect. Dogs are wolves. That's why dog/wolf mixes are now called "wolfdogs". Genetically, dogs and wolves are so alike that there's not even a DNA test available to determine whether or not a dog is part wolf.

A mutt is not automatically healthier. All you're doing is diluting the possibility of certain genetic diseases, because only one parent is the carrier of the gene. And even that isn't guaranteed. Say you breed a GSD with a golden retreiver. The puppies are just as likely to have hip dysplasia as their parents, since both parents tend to carry that genetic tendency. And if the parents are not hip certified, the puppies are very likely to have hip problems.

Or, say you have a breed that tends to have eye problems. You breed it with a dog from a breed that tends to have hip problems. The puppies have a lesser chance of getting either hip or eye problems, since only one parent was the carrier of the gene. But, although the probability is lower, the pups are now carrying TWO sets of potential problems. You've added more slots to the roulette wheel, but you're now playing two wheels simultaneously.

Ask your vet how many mutts come in with eye problems, hip problems, cancer, etc. I'm not saying that mutts are less healthy than purebreds. I'm just saying that being a mutt does not automatically make a dog healthier.

 

[BudgetsDad]

what percentage of mixed breeds do you think are regularly screened for cataracts?

This is routinely done as a matter of course in many if not most purebreds.

Just because you don't know it does not mean it's not there.

That was a scientific publication. Published in a scholarly journal. I assume they are probably using a sound method.

 

[BudgetsDad]

That's a load of BS - or are you calling us nazis?

No, I'm not calling you Nazi's. I just pointing out that there was a fixation on racial purity in Europe and America in the last 19th and early 20th century. It undoubedtly informed the debate on canines also.

 

[BudgetsDad]

Budgetsdad, "hybrid vigor" is bunk with mutts. Why? Because mixing two breeds of dogs is NOT HYBRIDIZATION! That's like saying a person who is half asian and half black is a "hybrid"! It's all the same species! Even the term "wolf hybrid" is incorrect. Dogs are wolves. That's why dog/wolf mixes are now called "wolfdogs". Genetically, dogs and wolves are so alike that there's not even a DNA test available to determine whether or not a dog is part wolf.

A mutt is not automatically healthier. All you're doing is diluting the possibility of certain genetic diseases, because only one parent is the carrier of the gene. And even that isn't guaranteed. Say you breed a GSD with a golden retreiver. The puppies are just as likely to have hip dysplasia as their parents, since both parents tend to carry that genetic tendency. And if the parents are not hip certified, the puppies are very likely to have hip problems.

Or, say you have a breed that tends to have eye problems. You breed it with a dog from a breed that tends to have hip problems. The puppies have a lesser chance of getting either hip or eye problems, since only one parent was the carrier of the gene. But, although the probability is lower, the pups are now carrying TWO sets of potential problems. You've added more slots to the roulette wheel, but you're now playing two wheels simultaneously.

Ask your vet how many mutts come in with eye problems, hip problems, cancer, etc. I'm not saying that mutts are less healthy than purebreds. I'm just saying that being a mutt does not automatically make a dog healthier.

As for the hybridation arguement, I respectfully disagree. We're getting caught in semantics Hybridizaiton as you define it is basically impossible. You rarely can mix species. And if it ever works, the results are often sterile. The argument is that mixed breeds of dogs produces healthier dogs. Maybe yes and maybe not. It may not be one simple answer, as you have alluded. I've posted links to scholarly articles. So you can see there is no way right now to draw and clear conclusions.

Like I said, the thing I find irritating is that we are supposed to accept on faith (or unconclusive evidence) that breeds absolutely cannot be mixed, and anyone who does it has made a deal with the devil himself.

 

[Serena]

As for the hybridation arguement, I respectfully disagree.

Why does it not surprise me that you disagree?

We're getting caught in semantics Hybridizaiton as you define it is basically impossible. You rarely can mix species. And if it ever works, the results are often sterile.

Hybridization as the poster described is what hybridization is. Through out the majority of this thread you have asked for proof...scientific proof to validate this point and that point...when you get that proof your requested you dismiss it as semantics.

The argument is that mixed breeds of dogs produces healthier dogs.

And who says that mixed breeds produce healthier dogs? Those who believe in the myth of "hybrid vigor". The misconception of "hybrid vigor" in cross breed dogs first needs to be cleared up.

Maybe yes and maybe not. It may not be one simple answer, as you have alluded.

I've posted links to scholarly articles. So you can see there is no way right now to draw and clear conclusions.

The links you posted were not scholarly articles..if they were than the authors would not be using incorrect terms like "hybrid". Are the authors even experts on canine genetics? Are they even respected in the field of canine genetics?

Dr. George A. Padgett (a leading authority on canine genetics) has published articles on why mixed breeds are not healthier than purebreds and why they are more likely to suffer from genetic defects..

Read some of his studies if you want to get the opinion of mixed breeding from someone who is world renowed for being an expert in his field.

Like I said, the thing I find irritating is that we are supposed to accept on faith (or unconclusive evidence) that breeds absolutely cannot be mixed, and anyone who does it has made a deal with the devil himself.

And again it's about ethics...in the canine world..as it stands today mixed breeding is considered unethical. Find it irratating all you want...there are a lot of things in the world that are considered moral and ethical that I am sure many of find irritating but we follow them because it is the right thing to do. In the canine world mixed breeding is considered irresponsible.

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

That was a scientific publication. Published in a scholarly journal. I assume they are probably using a sound method.

I seriously doubt that any real section of the general population in mixed breed dogs are EVER screened for any health defect, much less registering such info with the recording bodies such as CERF.

But if you can provide the study info, I'd sure love to see it.

 

[BudgetsDad]

I seriously doubt that any real section of the general population in mixed breed dogs are EVER screened for any health defect, much less registering such info with the recording bodies such as CERF.

But if you can provide the study info, I'd sure love to see it.

No I can't prove it. Can you prove your doubt?

 

[BudgetsDad]

Why does it not surprise me that you disagree?



Hybridization as the poster described is what hybridization is. Through out the majority of this thread you have asked for proof...scientific proof to validate this point and that point...when you get that proof your requested you dismiss it as semantics.



And who says that mixed breeds produce healthier dogs? Those who believe in the myth of "hybrid vigor". The misconception of "hybrid vigor" in cross breed dogs first needs to be cleared up.







The links you posted were not scholarly articles..if they were than the authors would not be using incorrect terms like "hybrid". Are the authors even experts on canine genetics? Are they even respected in the field of canine genetics?

Dr. George A. Padgett (a leading authority on canine genetics) has published articles on why mixed breeds are not healthier than purebreds and why they are more likely to suffer from genetic defects..

Read some of his studies if you want to get the opinion of mixed breeding from someone who is world renowed for being an expert in his field.



And again it's about ethics...in the canine world..as it stands today mixed breeding is considered unethical. Find it irratating all you want...there are a lot of things in the world that are considered moral and ethical that I am sure many of find irritating but we follow them because it is the right thing to do. In the canine world mixed breeding is considered irresponsible.

One of those links is from Purdue University.

The other from the American College of Veternary Opthamology.

But if you say they are not scholarly, then I guess you must be right.

I'm aware of Padgett's research. I'm willing to consider it. You on the other hand will consider only his and no one else.

As for ethics... using "ethics" or "morality" to quash scientific inquistiveness is nothing new. I beleive in ethics and morality. And I believe in scientific inquiry. Ethics must be based in objectivity and rational thought.

 

[Fran27]

That's funny, because I would think it would be rational to think that when 17 million dogs are killed every year from suporpulation, people should stop breeding unless they have a very good reason to (ie, keeping a line of healthy dogs that are bred for a purpose other than money)?

Guess it's just me though.

 

[Serena]

One of those links is from Purdue University.

The other from the American College of Veternary Opthamology.

But if you say they are not scholarly, then I guess you must be right.

I don't care who wrote the articles the second they use incorrect terminology (hybrid when referencing mixed breed dogs) they immediately lost all credibility.

I'm aware of Padgett's research. I'm willing to consider it. You on the other hand will consider only his and no one else.

When you show me research produced by someone in Padgett's league then I will consider it, but do not expect me to even get the research of someone who is not even aware of proper terminology a second glance.

As for ethics... using "ethics" or "morality" to quash scientific inquistiveness is nothing new. I beleive in ethics and morality. And I believe in scientific inquiry. Ethics must be based in objectivity and rational thought.

You want rational thought? It is a fact that numerous dogs are put down every day...it is a fact that we are living in a crowded canine world and there are not enough homes...it is a fact that there is no need for careless breeding programs to continue..it is a fact that all breeders of mixes have careless breeding programs...

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

No I can't prove it. Can you prove your doubt?

Um, news flash, there, BudgetsDad.

If there is no documented study, there is no information about testing for inherited eye or other diseases in mixed breed dogs.

There is plenty of breed specific data available, however, at CERF, OFA, etc on purebred dogs. These organizations will also screen mixed breed dogs, but I hve no idea how they organize that data.

 

[BudgetsDad]

Um, news flash, there, BudgetsDad.

If there is no documented study, there is no information about testing for inherited eye or other diseases in mixed breed dogs.

There is plenty of breed specific data available, however, at CERF, OFA, etc on purebred dogs. These organizations will also screen mixed breed dogs, but I hve no idea how they organize that data.

Yet, I provided a link to a documented study.

 

[BudgetsDad]

I don't care who wrote the articles the second they use incorrect terminology (hybrid when referencing mixed breed dogs) they immediately lost all credibility.



When you show me research produced by someone in Padgett's league then I will consider it, but do not expect me to even get the research of someone who is not even aware of proper terminology a second glance.



You want rational thought? It is a fact that numerous dogs are put down every day...it is a fact that we are living in a crowded canine world and there are not enough homes...it is a fact that there is no need for careless breeding programs to continue..it is a fact that all breeders of mixes have careless breeding programs...

What you mean is show you some research that matches with your preconcieved notions, then you will consider it.

I on the other hand, will consider any credible research.

 

[Rubylove]

I'm getting into this thread late, and I haven't read all the posts, so forgive me if I repeat something already written.

Labradoodles were originally bred in Australia by Wally Conran for the purpose of creating hypoallergenic guide dogs. Because of the poodle's coat, and inherent intelligence, it was felt that a new breed of a cross between a Labrador and a Poodle would create something better and stronger for the Seeing-Eye dog world. He came up with the idea at a request from somebody from the guide dog association. Only one of his original litters passed the hypoallergenic test, and was trained up to be a guide dog, and helped a blind lady immeasurably because her husband was allergic to all the Lab guide dogs she had been tested with.

It was immediately realised that work would have to be done on this breed to perfect it. There is an Australian Labradoodle Standard. They are trying very hard to create a good thing here. And, actually, to Joce and those who say the original idea was abandoned - it was not at all!! Here is a quote from the International Labradoodle Assocation website:

In an effort to establish and verify pedigrees for Labradoodles blood lines, provide ancestry of registered lines completely transparent to the public (no hidden in breeding or additional infused breeds), re focus the efforts of breeders on health testing previously untested lines, promoting Labradoodle to Labradoodle breeding with consistent results, and bring in new Labrador to Poodle only lines to widen the gene pool of top quality Labradoodles, organizations were established to monitor the formation of these incredible dogs. The Labradoodle Association of Australia (LAA) was set up in the nineties, but it collapsed due to lack of support. It was revived again in 2002 and still exists today. The International Labradoodle Association (ILA) was incorporated in Hawaii in January 2004. The ILA and the LAA have the protection of the Labradoodle's past and future as a common goal.

The breeding programme is still going strong, it just has been taken over by other breeders. It certainly was not abandoned, ever.

I am the proud owner of two Australian Standard Labradoodles.

Unfortunately, it has given birth to a whole new world of `doodle' mixes, which are not bred with anything like the original good intention in mind. This is a shame, and has regrettably given the true Labradoodle (not just an F1 Lab/Poodle cross) a very bad name.

I saw a `Boxerdoodle' the other day on a website, and lamented how far it has gone.

But please don't villify the genuine Australian Labradoodle - they are a wonderful, beautiful dog, who deserve to be loved, praised and admired. They are divine.

 

[Molly_Moppet]

I see nothing wrong with mixes, i have one. The best dogs i've ever owned have been mixes. HOWEVER i have never gone out of my way to find someone who DELIBERATELY creates mixes in order to find a dog. My reasons for this have been stated previously in this thread, by other people.
1) There is nothing wrong with a mix, if it is accidental or abandoned. (as in a shelter or an RSPCA dog. Therefore no one is making money from the error, and the new owner is doing a good thing.
2) Theoretically there is nothing wrong with someone breeding a mix. IF ALL health tests are rigorously performed, potential owners are screened, carefully, AND potential owners are not misled as to the dogs potential. ie, hypoallergenic. Also, the breeder has to agree to take back any pups if the owners aren't happy FOR ANY REASON. The breeder then has to take full responsibility for the returned pups, NOT dump them at a shelter. Into this category comes all the things that GOOD breeders do automatically. Not breeding animals too young, not breeding them every heat, socializing them properly, giving them ALL the necessary health care, including first injections.
There's other things as well, but listing all of them would be too long.
So, you see Budget'sDad, THIS is why mixed breeding is wrong. Because NO mixed breeders (with the exception of a few labradoodle breeders) do any of this. It isn't the dogs, or the fact that they have more than one breed in them that we object to. It's the people that do this for a quick buck, with no thought or care for the animals well being. People are promised a dog that will do or be certain things. When the dog doesn't match the expectations and the breeder won't take it back, the poor animal is abandoned or left at a shelter.

 

[Serena]

What you mean is show you some research that matches with your preconcieved notions, then you will consider it.

I on the other hand, will consider any credible research.

No I am always happy to view credible research.

The links you provided were not credible...they were not written by respected genetic experts in the field. They were written by individuals who were ignorant enough to call mixed breed dogs "hybrids".

It was laughable.

You cannot expect someone to be taken seriously if they are unable to use even proper terminology.

 

[BlackDog]

Well, as bad as it is, people who don't do their research and buy without thinking deserve what they get. As much as I hate to see mutts intentionally being bred, it might be helpful to get the irresponsible breeders and buyers away from the purebred dogs for awaile so the good breeders and buyers of purebreds can do some serious damage control with purebred illnesses and diseases. With mixes in the spot light, that just maybe the think purebreds need, a break from the media and hype to build better purebreds.

 

[BudgetsDad]

I see nothing wrong with mixes, i have one. The best dogs i've ever owned have been mixes. HOWEVER i have never gone out of my way to find someone who DELIBERATELY creates mixes in order to find a dog. My reasons for this have been stated previously in this thread, by other people.
1) There is nothing wrong with a mix, if it is accidental or abandoned. (as in a shelter or an RSPCA dog. Therefore no one is making money from the error, and the new owner is doing a good thing.
2) Theoretically there is nothing wrong with someone breeding a mix. IF ALL health tests are rigorously performed, potential owners are screened, carefully, AND potential owners are not misled as to the dogs potential. ie, hypoallergenic. Also, the breeder has to agree to take back any pups if the owners aren't happy FOR ANY REASON. The breeder then has to take full responsibility for the returned pups, NOT dump them at a shelter. Into this category comes all the things that GOOD breeders do automatically. Not breeding animals too young, not breeding them every heat, socializing them properly, giving them ALL the necessary health care, including first injections.
There's other things as well, but listing all of them would be too long.
So, you see Budget'sDad, THIS is why mixed breeding is wrong. Because NO mixed breeders (with the exception of a few labradoodle breeders) do any of this. It isn't the dogs, or the fact that they have more than one breed in them that we object to. It's the people that do this for a quick buck, with no thought or care for the animals well being. People are promised a dog that will do or be certain things. When the dog doesn't match the expectations and the breeder won't take it back, the poor animal is abandoned or left at a shelter.

Thanks for the post. I definately can appreciate your point of view.

 

[Honey2006]

I have a cockapoo and she is far from a mutt...

Breeders and Owners of Cockapoos are working hard to have them recognized as a breed of their own-

mine is a 2nd generation (meaning a cockapoo bred with a cockapoo) so therefore she is a "pure bred" every sense of the word....

 

[AusCatDogs_4Ever]

I have a cockapoo and she is far from a mutt...

Breeders and Owners of Cockapoos are working hard to have them recognized as a breed of their own-

mine is a 2nd generation (meaning a cockapoo bred with a cockapoo) so therefore she is a "pure bred" every sense of the word....

Sorry, but that's not what "purebred" means...