Here's something that really tickled me: last week at our obedience class, the instructor handed out a short article totally bashing the mixed-breed designer dogs that people are paying $1000 a pop for these days. Peke-a-poos, Cock-a-poos, Labradoodles, Goldendoodles, and such. The article basically says that these are mutts made by bybs to turn a buck, and you would be dumb to pay $1000 for them. The funny thing is, at least 1/2 of my class is comprised of these dogs.

I would not argue that many of these crosses are ill-conceived, and further that it is dismaying how uninformed many puppy buyers are. Also, it is admitted that the fad is way out of control.

However the question still remains: if a puppy purchaser wishes to know the characteristics of the parents, and control the development of the puppy to adulthood, and to avoid the risks inherent in the closed studbooks of purebreed dogs, then what to do?

I can tell you that you that many families could do a lot worse than get a "goldador" who didn't make the guide dog cut or buy a labradoodle with the usual purebred health certifications...these dogs are NOT hard to find.

Of course, the hybrid crosses all depend on the continuing success of the parent breeds, which have the usual closed stud book concerns...

It's easy to find fault with the designer breeds, but the bigger issue is why can't the dog fancy get its head around an approach to breeding that doesn't involve totally closed gene pools.

rgds, andrew may

Andrew, I like your last point.

I'm sorta OK with the labradoodle. It was conceived for a purpose (less shedding) and it breeds true to type in 3 generations.

The rest of the fad desginer dog BYB people piss me off.

I'm getting tired of the yuppies bragging about their Labradoodles and Goldendoodles stating the reason for their choice is shedding and allergies. they are justifying their choice so they can be hip or they don't want the expense of grooming a Standard Poodle.

I own my second Standard Poodle and chose the breed for their brains,athletisism, & clown antics. I personally love Labs and Goldens for what they are. Loyal service dogs and (labs) big lug clumsy hunting dogs that live to please. I am offended when I see owners with these designer dogs.

I feel bad for the labradoodle. It's a non-shedding dog with an undercoat. I saw a web site selling these dogs for $4,500.

Ugh, my uncle just bought a "malti-poo". He had even hired me to find him the "perfect" breed for him, I gave him a few options, contacts for rescue, a few breeders who looked okay, warned him about pet stores and BYBs and puppy mills, etc. Then a few weeks later,

"Guess what?! We got a malti-poo! From PJ's pet store!"

I could barely contain my anger. These weren't just impulse buyers who didn't know about puppy mills, they knew about it all! The dog didn't even LOOK healthy!

After I got off the phone with him, I said calmly to my boyfriend, "Here, take my phone so that I do not smash it on the floor."

Idiots. They told me later the reason they went to the pet store was because they didn't want to have to "jump through hoops" to get a dog, nor did they want to have to rent a car to go visit a breeder (they don't own a car). Lazy idiots.

I've seen one goldendoodle who was on her 4th home at 11 months old. She was a nutcase. And I've heard the same about other "doodle dogs". These byb's are creating high energy dogs and then selling them to families who have no clue as to what they are getting into. And all to line their pockets. Who knows but the goldendoodle I saw may have been an awesome sport dog in the right home, but the breeder had obviously not taken care to place her in such a home.

I guess I'd say if you have a legitimate purpose behind creating hybid pups, go ahead and do it. But you'd better know what you want to create and for what reason, and have done your research so you know how to get it. And then make sure the pups go to suitable homes - not just the first person with $500.

Argh!

Andrew:
They are not "hybrids", so there is no "hybrid" vigor. This is a term thrown about by the "Designer Breeders" and the woefully uninformed public who buy dogs from them. This mess was not created because purebred breeders don't have healthy enough stock. People are not buying these dogs because they think they are healthier than purebreds. They are buying them because of the "hype" put out there by the carnival barkers who are selling the dogs. They are buying them because they want the latest fads. They are buying them on impulse. Most of the people who buy them throw them away as soon as they get bored, or throw them away because they can't be bothered with having to deal with training a dog. All this because of the jack asses who jumped on the designer dog breeding gravy train. It's despicable. Lay the blame squarely at the feet of these amoral punks, where it belongs.

They are not "hybrids", so there is no "hybrid" vigor.

*****

Any cross of two breeds is within common definitions of "hybrid."

*****

so there is no "hybrid" vigor

*****

Susan, I have a theory that one of the reasons the puppy mills like the "F1" crosses is because of hybrid vigour which is a well recognized phenomenon. This would simply be the application of fairly standard principles of animal husbandry to puppy production. If the pups are unimpressive it is more likely because of all that is lacking in terms of parental selection, basic health testing, environmental stimulation, nutrition, etc. in a puppy mill environment. It does not mean hybrid vigour is not present.

If you read the 1950s Scott and Fuller studies on F1 hybrids, you will see that hybrid matings produced larger healther pups...
Hybrid cows produce more milk, there is less "inbreeding depression" in outbred dogs...in poodles Dr. Armstrong's study showed that lower inbreed coefficients correlated to longer lifespans. Also extremes in conformation (big heads of King Charles Cavaliers or bulldog, a pug's nose) are moderated, to the benefit of the dam and/or puppy...

I don't defend puppy milling as an approach to breeding. However hybrid vigour is a real and measurable phenomenon.

For example it would explain for example why John Haudenshield's dutch*gsd cross is likely larger than its parents:

http://www.theschoolfordogs.com/index_files/Page596.html

In my view within functional categories of dogs that stud books should be open. For example a category might be "pointer", or "working police service dog", or "retriever". Breeders would make selections and be judged on the merits of the pups produced.

This point of view is clearly expressed in the book "Dogs" by Raymond and Laura Coppinger, both ethologists working out of Amherst, Mass. (I think). This book has been discussed on this board, but I do not believe that this part of his thesis was considered. They recommend a less qualified opening of stud books, with registries set up along the lines of equine registries that allow for crosses.

It made sense to me.

rgds, andrew may

I've seen one goldendoodle who was on her 4th home at 11 months old.

*****

I've seen a goldador that was the quintessential ideal dog. I'm not sure anecdotes prove anything. Like you say, a question of intelligent breeding. All breeding of pups has risks involved.

There have always been and always will be dog breeders of all descriptions that are subpar: maybe even the majority.

On the opposite side of the debate, is the purebreeder who ends up with 75% stillborn Black Labradors or guaranteed genetic defects due to bad luck or bad planning. With purebreeds, it can be said that the deck is stacked against the breeder for many issues due to concentrated genetics, the implications of genetic drift to produce health issues, and the logic of genetic concentration that results especially when one popular sire produces more popular sires...

To me the greatest argument in favour of opening the stud book is that it allows one to continue to use the best studs, without feeling pressure for a breed to engage in "zoo style" management of genetic diversity.

*****

With my Beauceron pup I selected a total outcross with a 1% inbreed coefficient at 10 generations. Yet the % blood of many significant dogs in her pedigree 6-10 generations back was over 6%, which is high by the standard of 2.4% I have seen referenced as a guideline for an outcross in some other forms of animal breeding. To be clear, I don't understand the basis for this benchmark, and don't think it is a magic number.

My own particular Beauceron had strong Ring and herding lineage on one side, and the other was show. She is a pet. If I had chosen a dog with strong evidence of French Ring achievement on both sides of her pedigree, the inbreed coefficient would have been in the high teens. No outcross is possible for to select a working beauceron.

I am sure that this issue is not so pronounced in working line gsds or malinois. however, I am guessing it may be harder than it used to be to detect this issue. Also, since with gsd the common reference for inbreeding only goes back five generations (5:5 on stud so and so), most likely this is not being assessed. I would be interested in hearing from breeders of working dogs on this point.

I am amazed that inbreed coefficient is not more often discussed as a factor in selecting a pup, since it correlates to longevity: it doesn't "prove" a pup will live longer, but it is the way to bet. It is not the only factor, and may not be the most important. However, the link is present.

*****

In conclusion, I fail to see how any discussion of "designer dogs" can avoid at least questioning the purebreed animal fancy. How can one not recognize in the success of designer dogs some element of rational rejection of the purebreed approach.