here is an article about the regrets of the inventor of the Labradoodle idea  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/13/inventors-idea-regret

So interesting - and so true - maybe Jemima should read it - might make her think twice about the damage her programme did too!!

Be interesting if he does write his memoirs -I'd love to read them. I think his biggest mistake was giving the cross a cute name. If he'd stuck to Labrador/Poodle cross, things might have been different.

That was a really interesting article, such a shame to read about the horrible consequences of his actions. x

ive seen these dogs first hand at our training class and at 1 point 90% of the class was made up with them :( and my god! these dogs are nuts!!! there owners in desire, and paid from £800 to £1000 pound for them :( ....people will never learn ,and i wonder how many will end up in kennels because their owners just carnt cope with them!

I saw a couple at my rally trial today and they seemed ok, but I imagine with the size and strong willed-ness (my new word of the day!) they would take some training!

I think it sad that he has regrets now he is able to see the damage he has done but admire him for speaking up. I wonder if those who have encouraged the Puppy Farmers, Bankbook breeders and irresponsible BYB  of late with their TV programs and articles designed to rubbish the pure breeds and their breeders, particularly if associated with showing. At the same time encouraging the breeding of anything to anything, no health testing needed because they automatically become healthy if they are not a pure bred dog, no careful planning all the study you know is that one is a bitch and the other a dog and off you go breeding lots of lovely mongrels  making lots of lovely money and filling lots of lovely rescue kennels.

Will any of these people put their hand up to say they were wrong, doubt it as it takes a big man to omit their mistakes but I hope one day when they hear of yet another mix breed being PTS because it is sick or there is no room in rescue they may just be moved to wonder.

>"Bankbook breeders"

OO that's a very descriptive and apt phrase ;)

I've never understood the attraction of a fancy-named mongrel.  But then I don't understand the need for 'designer' anything - after all everything manufactured is/was designed at some point - including our lovely pedigrees!

Perhaps we should be emphasising the antiquity of some of the pedigrees?  After all antiques roadshow seems to be in the public consciousness.  However it could be a double edged sword - the Bankbook breeders would then switch back to pedigrees and ruin all the good work breeders have been doing.

the Bankbook breeders would then switch back to pedigrees

Unfortunately they already do, this is why it is so galling that in the most part those who show and breed mainly to acquire a pup for themselves and blamed for the carelessness of the Bankbook breeders.

And yes, of course, our breeds were developed but they were developed, in most part, to suit a need or purpose and not as now to fill a bank account or just because they can.

> And yes, of course, our breeds were developed but they were developed, in most part, to suit a need or purpose and not as now to fill a bank account or just because they can.

Also most breeds evolved from existing local types that were good at particular things or suited a particular climate/terrain, not from scratch.

My won breed even though pretty old developed and was refined from Hunting Spitz, now that group of dogs are specific breeds, similar to what happened with Retrievers, Spaniels and Terriers etc.

So the various broadly similar use/type dogs were refined into specific types.

Nobody considered mating on purpose dogs of wildly differing type or traits.

Mate two terrier breeds you will have a crossbred terrier but a terrier nether the less, with terrier traits, ditto two retrievers or Spaniels, as they have broadly similar looks and traits.  Mate a Buhund and Elkhound and you still have a Nordic Spitz, with broadly similar characteristics, but their strong points blurred by the mix, the result may or may nto make a good hunting dog or good herder, so not much point.

I suppose breeds evolved due to specialising for a purpose etc.  Now that most breeds are primarily pets the specialisation is no longer needed as much and people forget what the purpose of establishing breeds was in the first place.  Personally I think the breeds should be preserved as a reminder of what their purpose was, even if most are no longer required for it.

>Personally I think the breeds should be preserved as a reminder of what their purpose was, even if most are no >longer required for it.

Absolutely!

Nova, Brainless,

When referring to 'designed', your posts were what I was referring to.  Though it is likely that there was no thought of actual 'designing' when our old breeds were formed, nevertheless great thought and knowledge went into the breeding of them.  They had a purpose and had to be fit for that purpose.  The people involved recognised that wildly disparate breeds would not be beneficial to the dogs they were trying to achieve or to the end result.

Contrast this with the random mixing of 'designer' dogs from pedigree breeds that are incompatible now, and it's clear that the only purpose is money making, preferably as quickly as possible, and the only knowledge is that of a shopkeeper - how to make the 'goods' more attractive to buyers. 

Actually, these Bankbook Breeders remind me most of Victorian and Edwardian shopkeepers - if they could get away with putting water in the milk, arsenic in sweets and sawdust in the bread they would, as long as it looked OK and sold, they had no conscience.