[Laurelin]

I love that the AKC is now promoting one version of the term 'mutt'. I was really unaware they had such influence on the English language.

And this idea that mutts are inferior... this is coming from where? Many of us have had mutts and purebreds alike. My dog was a crossbred half and half... he was a mutt. I called him that. But he was a great dog as well...

Heck, I even call my purebred CHAMPION dog a mutt. I don't see the problem with the word at all.

You blame way too much on the AKC to try to explain away some dubious breeders imo. There are many more kennel clubs than the AKC and dog showing was around long before.

I won't deny that some labradoodle breeders are reputable, but crossing everything is not magically okay because some purebred breeders have problems.

[dog-man]

Originally Posted by ACampbell

LMFAO...priceless.
I don't see a problem with what you write, I understand it perfectly (then again being an English major doesn't hurt either) maybe you need a crash course in writing Army Training manuals...to help with some people that don't quite get all of it. They are written to a 5th grade reading level, but still don't explain a darn thing when you read them...similar to electronics manuals

ok, genius.

here is his quote:
He wants to make the argument that "doodle" breeders are some how defying the laws of common genetics more so than purebred breeders. I think Hitler tried to make the same argument...thank goodness the allied forces proved Hitler wrong.

first, translate it so it makes sense.

even if you accomplish that, the point will probably be false.

the purebreed philosophy of dogs was inspired by the 19th century philosophy of eugenics...breeding the best to the best, among people and animals.

eugenics was Hitler's philosophy.

eugenics was proven to be a faulty philosophy, once genetic scientists showed the health flaws of small breed pools....too many of the same recessive genes among the small population.

livestock breeders got the point pretty quick, once the purebred livestock were not doing so well.

the AKC still continued the eugenics tradition, because the dogs didn't have to perform...just look good.
the utilization of health tests only manages to put off the more serious problems temporarily.

so, how anyone can try to equate the advocating of crossbreeding to the philosophy of the nazis has facts completely screwed up.

---------------------

btw, if you want to read a good article on the history of eugenics and purebred dog breeding, here is a very good one:

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com...-thinking.html

[ACampbell]

Originally Posted by dog-man

ok, genius.

here is his quote:
He wants to make the argument that "doodle" breeders are some how defying the laws of common genetics more so than purebred breeders. I think Hitler tried to make the same argument...thank goodness the allied forces proved Hitler wrong.

first, translate it so it makes sense.

even if you accomplish that, the point will probably be false.

the purebreed philosophy of dogs was inspired by the 19th century philosophy of eugenics...breeding the best to the best, among people and animals.

eugenics was Hitler's philosophy.

eugenics was proven to be a faulty philosophy, once genetic scientists showed the health flaws of small breed pools....too many of the same recessive genes among the small population.

livestock breeders got the point pretty quick, once the purebred livestock were not doing so well.

the AKC still continued the eugenics tradition, because the dogs didn't have to perform...just look good.
the utilization of health tests only manages to put off the more serious problems temporarily.

so, how anyone can try to equate the advocating of crossbreeding to the philosophy of the nazis has facts completely screwed up.

---------------------

btw, if you want to read a good article on the history of eugenics and purebred dog breeding, here is a very good one:

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com...-thinking.html

I think that was rude and out of line to be honest...I never made any direct nasty comments toward you, so why don't you just go find something to do other than complain.

I got CP's point exactly...it was in reference to what you were stating that basically breeding Dog X and Dog Y will help to cut out bad genetic factors - Hitlers "idea" was that if you cross Human X (blond hair blue eyes theorectically) and Human Y (same blond hair and blue eye combo) you would get a "super race" of "genetically pure" humans... it would appear that your theories are the same with your crossbred dogs...thinking that if I cross X and Y it will be a superior dog...I'm pretty sure that was CP's point...I'm sorry you were unable to read that much into it.

[dog-man]

Originally Posted by ACampbell

I think that was rude and out of line to be honest...I never made any direct nasty comments toward you, so why don't you just go find something to do other than complain.

i apologize for being ride.

i thought in your previous post that you were implying i didn't understand CP, because of some intelligence flaw.
i reread your post, and i see that this was not so.

btw, it is raining this afternoon where i am, and i took Oinest to the dog park in the morning.

[ACampbell]

Yeah it started raining here around 3 PM...but this morning was bright and sunny!

Also, if I wanted to be rude and make a crack on your intelligence, it wouldn't have been nice LOL, CP's posts can take some reading to them, and re-reading...but generally I find once I've read it over and think about it that it makes sense
Trust me, CP and I haven't always gotten along, so it's not a "clique" thing against you for me to say that, hehe.

[dog-man]

Originally Posted by ACampbell

I got CP's point exactly...it was in reference to what you were stating that basically breeding Dog X and Dog Y will help to cut out bad genetic factors - Hitlers "idea" was that if you cross Human X (blond hair blue eyes theorectically) and Human Y (same blond hair and blue eye combo) you would get a "super race" of "genetically pure" humans... it would appear that your theories are the same with your crossbred dogs...thinking that if I cross X and Y it will be a superior dog...I'm pretty sure that was CP's point...I'm sorry you were unable to read that much into it.

as to the point, i already stated where it is completely flawed.

the history of dog breeding is SELECTIVE breeding.
it was not only a matter of choosing the best, but trying to obtain a cross of differing traits...to get the best of each "breed".
however, the definition of superior was not limited by definition to a limited group, and groups did not have to be kept separated from each other.

on the other hand:
eugenics, which was the inspiration of Hitler and the show dog, was one of only breeding from a very small, "superior" pool, and keeping each group pure from the other.

please read the terrierman article on the previous post for more detail.

this is as close to historical fact as you can get.
to turn the argument around is ludicrous.

[ACampbell]

That's what I read CP's post to be about...maybe not read the same as intended but that's determined by the comprehension from person to person.

Some of your statements lean that way...personally, and to be honest, I really don't give a rats butt about Doodles or the big complaint against them. I agree that BYB's shouldn't be making money on ANY breed just to pump them out for the public...which, seeing the variation of coats in the doodle thus so far, seems to be whats happening. If a standard was created for them, I'd like to see it. I don't care if it's AKC standard (which of course it won't be because since they are not recognized - nor do I hold a lot of stock in AKC) but I believe if they intend on creating a "new breed" such as a Golden Doodle a common goal amongst breeders should be prevalent...this isn't something I"ve seen yet. I've seen a massive variation of coats and looks - but nothing being done about it.
They even had one on "Groomer Has It" yesterday or the day before. One of the main points of it was the variation on how to groom said dog because of the variation...the one mentioned did not look anything like a PWD, but had long, straight hair that was matted...to me, that might as well be a Golden Retriever...

What is the overall "goal" of a Golden Doodle breeder? As of yet I've seen anyone to sit down and define it without getting irritable (it is a simple question) or complaining or acting the fool...it's just like the pitbull people that go totally ape sh!t when someone makes a nasty comment...instead of informing, they push more people away because the owners are more "vicious" than their dogs.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by dog-man

eugenics was proven to be a faulty philosophy, once genetic scientists showed the health flaws of small breed pools....too many of the same recessive genes among the small population.

This is what happens when you have an agenda - you tell only one side of the story. Eugenics is a much broader term which also includes eliminating hereditary defects by exterminating undesired gene pools. You've defined purebreds as being the undesirable gene pool. So let's not appear foolish and tell only half the story.

livestock breeders got the point pretty quick, once the purebred livestock were not doing so well.

Let's not also fool ourselves into thinking livestock breeders are breeding companion animals or that their intentional crosses are for the long term health benefit of the animal. These were your goals, correct? Your average cow never sees the full term of his life, he's too delicious for that. The only thing livestock breeders care about is the yield (that is a cow's purpose)...as it translates into $$$. The same can be said of "doodle" breeders...the fad translates into $$$. They'll say whatever they need to say to make you buy their animals, and they've got you on a hook.

the AKC still continued the eugenics tradition, because the dogs didn't have to perform...just look good.
the utilization of health tests only manages to put off the more serious problems temporarily.

And the AKC is only a registry. You don't buy dogs from the AKC. Conformation trails are merely one form of peer review.

As far as the health tests are concerned, there aren't even tests available for many breeds and diseases. We're just at the infancy of genetic testing. But all the genetics you say are excluded from purebred breeders is a false claim. Nature is never as simplistic as you describe it, not even with "doodle" breeders, nor has your science been demonstrated on any significant scale in doodledom. Theory is one thing, application in the real world is another.

The skill and luck of the breeder is demonstrated in her results. In the 80's the GSD was on the verge of complete collapse due to unthoughtful breedings and hip dysplasia (in fact it could be traced back to one German sire). However, one of the most inbred lines of dogs in the world has the lowest breed incidence of hip dysplasia and the highest success rate as a superior companion dog - the seeing eye German Shepherd. How can this be when you've said all along small gene pools are deleterious?

It's simple, one does not make breeding or buying choices based on single or subjective criteria - outcrossing can be as deadly as linebreeding, but smart breeders make careful selections EVERY generation.

so, how anyone can try to equate the advocating of crossbreeding to the philosophy of the nazis has facts completely screwed up.

When your view is one sided of course it is. But your bias is obvious to us.

[dog-man]

Originally Posted by ACampbell

What is the overall "goal" of a Golden Doodle breeder? .

the goal, as I see it, is merely to provide a good family dog, for the RIGHT families.

for example, me and my family.

my favorite dog is a golden.
however, i need to have a dog that sheds much less than a golden does.
but i DO NOT need a guarantee of low or non-shedding.

a goldendoodle from a good breeder, from what i have seen, is a highly friendly/gentle, highly intelligent dog.

i was told that they are good with cats, and i needed that, because i had an old cat that hated dogs.

a goldendoodle (just like a golden retreiver) needs exercise and company.
my doctor said i needed to get more exercise, and i work at home now, so it was a perfect match.

personally, i believe in the concept of hybrid vigor.
that doesn't mean mixing any breeds is a good idea...but from what i can see, a well-bred golden and well-bred poodle is a great match.
in that case, the crossing of genes between breeds is positive from a scientific perspective.
anyone care to argue that?
you won't have a leg to stand on...all you can do is confuse the issue with nonsense.

what more purpose does a goldendoodle breeder or buyer need?

all the answers i have seen, with an AKC philosophy of dog breeding are pretty vacuous.

[ACampbell]

Ok, so for your purpose you like golden retrievers, but not the HUGE shed factor? Even though with the fact you are crossing a massively shedding breed with a no shed breed will yield some of each...so in all train of thought, you COULD have gotten a dog that sheds like crazy still.
As for the cat part, that's part of prey drive...lots of dogs can be good with cats and lower on the shedding factor without having to make a new breed.

personally, i believe in the concept of hybrid vigor.
that doesn't mean mixing any breeds is a good idea...but from what i can see, a well-bred golden and well-bred poodle is a great match.
in that case, the crossing of genes between breeds is positive from a scientific perspective.
anyone care to argue that?
you won't have a leg to stand on...all you can do is confuse the issue with nonsense

Nonesense aside...do you honestly believe the people that are breeding these dogs are using top quality Goldens and Poodles? If that were so, why aren't they breeding to better the Golden or Poodle breed instead of making...mutts. Either they are money motivated or they don't have a top quality dog of either breed.
That's not a positive at all...for anyones sake. Either they are denying excellent genetics for a purebred breed - which you yourself would say is necessary since you seem to think purebred dogs have lost their edge...or they are breeding animals that couldn't hack it as a excellent quality dog for breeding purposes within their own breed.
Anyone can buy a dog of each breed and make a doodle. There will be variations that are either good or bad - genetically or conformation wise - at least with a purebred animal you can have a general idea of what the dog will look like when it's an adult...this will be a downfall for doodle owners or new owners that think the following:

"Because my dog is a doodle, it WILL not shed" - FALSE, how can you be sure of what genetic trait that particular animal got?

"I bought a doodle because they are hypoallergenic" FALSE - again, like the coat issue...thats playing roulette.

I'm not disputing the fact that they may be very friendly and intelligent - both the parent breeds are...so that's a given, unless like I mentioned earlier...someone was using a crappy bred dog to pump out puppies to fill the demand.

But now onto genetically inherited diseases. What about Addison's Disease? Common in poodles...so how can any breeder of a mixed dog guarantee that dog won't get it? They can't - here's proof

No Standard Poodle Breeder is correct in stating that they know for certain that any Standard Poodle alive will not be affected by this disease

http://www.tiarapoodles.com/addisons.html

There are no worthwhile health screenings to help avoid the disease. The only way to know if a dog is a carrier, is if the dog has produced the disease.

It also can show up at any time in life. A poodle owner with a poodle bred from a responsible breeder, would know this. Since there is no way to test it, I'd rather not take bets on such a horrifying disease. At least they get a warning!

A DNA test is not available for Addison's disease in Standard Poodles (or any other breed at this time) and until that blessed day arrives, all Standard Poodles are to be considered carriers

This is half your dogs lineage...along with many other diseases that might not crop up right away.

IMHO, "Hybrid Vigor" is a cover up statement. The dog may or may not get the inherited diseases. Working with 2 completely different genetic lines can be disasterous at worst...sucessful at best...again, back to playing Roulette.

There is no guarantee...while your dog maybe the best dog out there - I can guarantee you that there are others that shed a lot, have genetic disorders, hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, Von Willebrands Disease...etc.
Without a common goal to eradicate or to sterilize animals with said disorders - it will always be prevalent. This goes for purebred or mixed bred dogs. Sounds cruel, but to remove a genetic defect you must remove the genetics.

A person that is interested in buying a mixed breed dog needs to be twice as aware of the genetic predispositions of the animals parents. Most are not, it's a fad for now, it's a shame that not as many people are disease saavy as they should be. It would be the same for a person going out to buy a GSD pup...however, the occurance of HD in GSD's is pretty well known...how many people know about Addison's Disease or Von Willebrands? I can assure you, it's not as many as there needs to be. I'd never heard of Addison's Disease before coming onto DF...I've never owned a poodle or any other breed associated with the disease...I also think doodles are cute...
So, when I go and buy a doodle and it, after several years, starts vomiting, has diarrhea, and some of the common symptoms of A.D...I am definetely going to feel jipped that I was not aware of their genetic predisposition to it. But who knows, I could get lucky and get one that wouldn't have it...you just don't know though.

[dog-man]

Originally Posted by ACampbell

Ok, so for your purpose you like golden retrievers, but not the HUGE shed factor? Even though with the fact you are crossing a massively shedding breed with a no shed breed will yield some of each...so in all train of thought, you COULD have gotten a dog that sheds like crazy still.
.

there was an informal survey of goldendoodle owners.

the vast majority reported a low shed rate.
the percentage that shed a lot was not large.

as well, by choosing a doodle with curly hair, you up your chances of low or no shed very considerably.

i do not see ANY shed on Oinest, and the goldendoodles i know either do not shed or are low shed.
the few that do were from puppy stores, and so there was no consultation with a knowledgable breeder.

Originally Posted by ACampbell

As for the cat part, that's part of prey drive...lots of dogs can be good with cats and lower on the shedding factor without having to make a new breed.

a golden is supposed to be among the best dogs to live with cats.

having part golden in the mix is a good idea to me.

Originally Posted by ACampbell

Nonesense aside...do you honestly believe the people that are breeding these dogs are using top quality Goldens and Poodles? .

i think the better breeders do use top dogs.

but, it is also important how one defines "top dog".

my breeder used to breed goldens exclusively.

she said that Oinest's dad was the best dog she ever had...but he would not have been able to be top in the show or field competitions.

he was a well-tempered, intelligent, stable, athletic, healthy etc dog.

Originally Posted by ACampbell

...do you honestly believe the people that are breeding these dogs are using top quality Goldens and Poodles? If that were so, why aren't they breeding to better the Golden or Poodle breed instead of making...mutts. Either they are money motivated or they don't have a top quality dog of either breed.
.

you see, you are assuming that a mutt (a cross-breed) is somehow inferior.

yes, i think they are money-motivated....i don;t have a problem with that, if they also love dogs, and want to make money by having the best dogs.

the vast money that many show dog breeders spend on breeding and showing their dogs is not all money well-spent.
the expenses in traveling and showing is not necessarily returning that value back in to the quality of the dog.

these people want ribbons...that can lead to bad decisions too...if they also love dogs, then it is not as bad.

Originally Posted by ACampbell

"Because my dog is a doodle, it WILL not shed" - FALSE, how can you be sure of what genetic trait that particular animal got?

"I bought a doodle because they are hypoallergenic" FALSE - again, like the coat issue...thats playing roulette.
.

the Australian doodles aside (i am not knowledgable about them), any breeder who claims this is a liar, and any buyer is a fool.

however, the breeders and buyers i know are up front and knowledgeable of the risks.

as i mentioned before, they seem to be lower shed and lower allergenic than goldens, and so there is usually a positive step up, if this is preferable for you.

Originally Posted by ACampbell

A person that is interested in buying a mixed breed dog needs to be twice as aware of the genetic predispositions of the animals parents.
how many people know about Addison's Disease or Von Willebrands?

actually, a person who buys a purebred dog has to be more diligent about these recessive genetic problems than one who buys a cross (although both should be diligent).

IF Von Willebrands is a recessive genetic problem (i believe it is)...and IF golden are less prone to it than poodles (i believe they are)...then the mere crossing of the two breeds lessens the chance of the offspring getting Von Willebrands by quite a bit.

i have to clarify...it lessens it for poodles...and does not significantly raise the odds for goldens, if that recessive gene is not common to them.

in general, crossing is considered very positive, from a genetic helath perspective...there are individual cases where it can be detrimental...what we are after is to raise the odds for a healthy outcome, for all dogs.

[Xeph]

IF Von Willebrands is a recessive genetic problem (i believe it is)...and IF golden are less prone to it than poodles (i believe they are)...then the mere crossing of the two breeds lessens the chance of the offspring getting Von Willebrands by quite a bit.

Having perhaps, but what about being a carrier?

And "less prone" does not equal immune. There are breeds less prone to hip dysplasia than the GSD...doesn't mean they're free of it.

[ACampbell]

I'm glad to see that you can point out the good factors of said breed...now to be an advocate you need to be able to point out the negatives as well.
No offense, but an informal survey doesn't mean a whole lot. I could put up a survey on this website and people will vote...but it's not necessarily the end all, be all of the breed.

I noticed with Addison's Disease it also affects the PWD, Poodle...etc. Could this be hereditary to dogs with a curly coat? If that is the case, which I'm not sure of but would like some input, would that not make a dog from either breed or a mixture thereof, more likely to have said disease? IF that is the case, and say I have allergies (I do, just not to dogs thank God) to dogs, I would want one with a curly coat - more hypoallergenic (so I've read) - but doesn't that up my chances to have a dog with a genetic problem?

I'm not disputing that you have a wonderful dog, from a wonderful father...even though he wasn't "show quality" - which makes about absolutely no matter to me at all - but you didn't mention the mother?

Top quality doesn't always necessitate a purple ribbon in all events...in fact, some of the animals I've seen considered "Grand Champion" would not interest me whatsoever...(especially with the APBT these days...WTF is going on there?! I don't want a hippo, I want an athletic, sleek dog...not one that looks like it could pull a wagon across the prarie!)
I'd rather see dogs being bred for temperment and health than looks anymore...again, the "blue hippo" syndrome that has hit the APBT . . .but they are placing in shows and I don't know why...

Top quality, as per MY definition - would be a dog that is conformationally sound, healthy and free of genetic disorders, and looks like a representative of that breed should look like. Show ring results aren't always indicative that the dog is healthy or free of genetic disorders - unless they are forcing people to provide more than OFA certs. for showing...

I've lived on a horse ranch and shown horses my entire life (well up until the last 2 years or so) this is where I get my definitions from...seeing horses that can barely walk but are absolutely gorgeous is a total turn off...seeing a horse that might not be as beautiful (i.e. overly large head, heavier boned, etc) that is useful is more important to me...but not to all.

I guess it all comes down to person preference. I don't think making a hybrid breed is any better than a GOOD purebred breeder. I do think that a lot of people are doing it for the money with little regard to health issues.
IF, and I stress, IF, the Golden doodle becomes a breed that is bred with a standard and comes out consistently (I'm not sure how that would be achieved because they are a direct mix...), and people are made aware of the potential health issues...then it will have my respect as more than a cross-breed...not until.

As for dogs that like cats...that will never be a problem for me...I'm highly allergic to cats and I don't care for them at all (sorry I'm on the top of the food chain in my house, not a slave! lol or so I'd like to think anyway)

Another question for you. In the event (I hope not, but hypothetically) that your doodle were to come down with any of the problems associated with the two breeds...what is your recourse? I know if you buy a purebred from a reputable breeder with a contract and say the dog comes up with HD (it could happen even with 2 OFA cert. dogs being the parents) you would be in better shape than buying from a BYB that only guarantees they will be healthy for a year...I don't find that very fair. You have more genetic possibilities this way, would a breeder not be more liable since it could be a combination of these? I'm curious to know, when my hubby bought Lily (APBT) that I had picked out...we made sure her parents were HD free (I saw both parents also which was a good thing) because that's a problem with a larger dog . . .did your breeder show you information to "prove" that the father didn't have HD (like OFA cert) or anything like that?

Originally Posted by Xeph

Having perhaps, but what about being a carrier?

Not even that, just because Goldens are less prone to it, doesn't mean they aren't a carrier...who knows, you could have an epidemic of something like that...
Also the question is, WHY is the Golden less prone to having Von Willebrands? Has it been bred out or are good breeders not using dogs that are positive for it? Ok, so lets go with the second idea, that good breeders are avoiding matings with dogs that have or carry the disease...

With the dogs being a fad, everyone and his cousin jumping on the bandwagon and such...what is more likely? That they'll check to see if it's a genetic trait? Or if they bought the first Golden old enough to be bred and the first poodle and called it good? Even I could do something like that and call it a Doodle, but there's no guarantee the offspring of my impulse bought dogs will be healthy at all...THAT is my big problem with all of it...the puppies suffer because of bad breeding practices. While there may be some good breeders out there trying to make a new breed, I doubt this is the overall goal of the Goldendoodle market.

[dog-man]

Originally Posted by Xeph

Having perhaps, but what about being a carrier?

And "less prone" does not equal immune. There are breeds less prone to hip dysplasia than the GSD...doesn't mean they're free of it.

i don't understand your point.

less prone is important, and that is accomplished by not having a small group that has a high percentage of the same negative recessive gene.

one top solution, according to scientists, is to cross populations, to a healthy extent.

Originally Posted by ACampbell

I'm glad to see that you can point out the good factors of said breed...now to be an advocate you need to be able to point out the negatives as well.
No offense, but an informal survey doesn't mean a whole lot. I could put up a survey on this website and people will vote...but it's not necessarily the end all, be all of the breed.
.

this was not a vote...this was a survey of people who OWNED goldendoodles...not a scientific study, but better than some people here just pulling facts from certain orifices.

Originally Posted by ACampbell

I noticed with Addison's Disease it also affects the PWD, Poodle...etc. Could this be hereditary to dogs with a curly coat? If that is the case, which I'm not sure of but would like some input, would that not make a dog from either breed or a mixture thereof, more likely to have said disease? IF that is the case, and say I have allergies (I do, just not to dogs thank God) to dogs, I would want one with a curly coat - more hypoallergenic (so I've read) - but doesn't that up my chances to have a dog with a genetic problem?
.

if curly coat was related to Addisons, then you would be increasing the chances...i'm not sure of the point you are making.

but if the poodles and PWDs were occassionally outcrossed to a breed that didn't have it, the chances to receive it would go down.

experienced breeders can do outcrosses and still maintain the crucial traits of the breed.

Originally Posted by ACampbell

I'm not disputing that you have a wonderful dog, from a wonderful father...even though he wasn't "show quality" - which makes about absolutely no matter to me at all - but you didn't mention the mother?

she said the mother was intelligent, well-behaved and healthy.
she did not rave about her like she did about the father, but she did praise her.

i believe my breeder chooses the best dogs from her litters to continue breeding.

Originally Posted by ACampbell

Another question for you. In the event (I hope not, but hypothetically) that your doodle were to come down with any of the problems associated with the two breeds...what is your recourse? .

my breeder had the same guarantees as the better breeders...but what is the point of it anyway.

after a year, you love your dog, and you are not sending it back.

as i discussed on a different thread, if a dog is returned to the best of the purebred breeders, and the dog has a very serious problem, the breeder merely puts the animal down herself.

Originally Posted by ACampbell

.did your breeder show you information to "prove" that the father didn't have HD (like OFA cert) or anything like that?

.

my breeder did not do those testings...however, she chose dogs to mate that showed no signs of these problems.

there are many goldendoodle breeders that do all the accepted tests of the better breeders..
if i got another doodle, if i did not go to the same breeder, i would go to a breeder that did the testing.

[ACampbell]

The dog being put down is not necessarily true. If it's better for the dog in terms of quality of life...then they should it, or the owner should have been caring enough to do it themselves...

That being said, if I bought a dog I wanted for specific reasons and did not come with a health guarantee - I wouldn't buy it.
Also, perhaps the idea of some people buying from a good breeder is to breed themselves - they buy the top quality so they can produce top quality. If the dog comes down with someone serious - the dogs purpose cannot be fulfilled (I know that sounds cold but can't think of a better way to put it and cook dinner at the same time) and therefore their money should be returned?
If a dog is bought for its hypoallergenic qualities, yet ends up shedding like crazy or being a problem to the allergies - should the person get their money back? Sure they love the dog, however, that doesn't mean that they are able to live with it...just my thought on it.

On that note, say your dog (hypothetically) that you paid X amount of $$ for...eats your cat? Or you can no longer keep him because he becomes aggressive toward your cat...it could happen. So what happens then? Granted, if he's already killed the cat you know not to get another one, but if the cat survives does the dog go outside or what? You said that was a specific reason you wanted the breed you chose is because of their lack of prey drive to cats and shedding...so if he had turned out to be a shedding cat eating monster...would you still be as happy?

[dog-man]

Originally Posted by ACampbell

Also the question is, WHY is the Golden less prone to having Von Willebrands? Has it been bred out or are good breeders not using dogs that are positive for it? Ok, so lets go with the second idea, that good breeders are avoiding matings with dogs that have or carry the disease...

.

it was probably not necessary to breed it out of goldens.

the foundation stock that started goldens might not have had that recessive gene present.

even though poodles are of ancient origin, the foundation stock that was used when the kennel clubs were formed was of limited number.

there must have been some Von Willebrand's gene among them...and then when all future poodles are bred from that smal loriginal group, a higher percentage of poodles have the recessive gene, than if they were allowed to mate without human intervention.

for the malady to present itself, both parents have to have the recessive gene...
if you mix breeds, the chances of both parents having the same recessive gene is lessened.

the breed clubs have relied on another solution...to try to weed out the dogs that have the recessive gene at all...the testing is not advance enough to do that well enough...
so for now, it is just a temporary bandaid.

[Xeph]

i don't understand your point.

less prone is important, and that is accomplished by not having a small group that has a high percentage of the same negative recessive gene.

What's not to understand? Just because the Golden Retriever is LESS prone to Addison's doesn't mean some dogs don't have it, or aren't carriers. And since you don't know about it until the dog produces it, the Golden father and the Poodle mother very well could have produced a puppy with Addison's.

Mighty dangerous crapshoot.

if you mix breeds, the chances of both parents having the same recessive gene is lessened.

Not if both breeds are prone to that health issue. Doesn't matter if the occurrence in the Golden is less, the point is they can still produce Addison's.

[ACampbell]

Yes I'm familiar that it takes two recessives (rr) to make a recessive gene show up...doesn't mean it won't happen. My father has brown eyes (Bb) and my mother blue (bb) - mine are blue also...this happens a lot...just because genetics say I should have brown eyes...mother nature definetely said otherwise.


Besides, that's a single disease, we are looking at a multitude of various diseases between the two breeds...it's a lot of chance that it might get overlooked due to people not being aware that there is a predisposition to these diseases within both breeds...

[Curbside Prophet]

I'd love to see how many grants "doodle" breeders have written to identify and eliminate hereditary diseases compared to what the Golden Retriever Club of America and the Poodle Club of America have written. Or the DNA data bank that's supplied by GRCA and PCA to researchers - but absent from "doodle" breeders. I think that says all that needs to be said about who actually is doing something about hereditary diseases.

[dog-man]

Originally Posted by Xeph

What's not to understand? Just because the Golden Retriever is LESS prone to Addison's doesn't mean some dogs don't have it, or aren't carriers. And since you don't know about it until the dog produces it, the Golden father and the Poodle mother very well could have produced a puppy with Addison's.

Mighty dangerous crapshoot.

.

it actually lessens the chances of a crapshoot, if you would have gotten a poodle instead.

it increases the chances if you would have gotten a golden instead...but not too significantly if they are not common carriers.

some level of crossing is advised for general good health in breeding.

that is the main problem which show breeders hide their head in the sand about.