Does anybody have one and where can I get one

Is it something you cook in a wok?????

Try dogbreedinfo.com they have alot of breeders like that regestered most are in the us but there might be some in the uk

Breeders like what? I take it you mean careless.

who breed xbreeds i don't agree with it either as there are enogh rescue xbreeds in dogs homes

lol@ wok.:).

Thank goodnes it's not Labrador crosses this time!

The worse thing is that 'goldendoodles' were started by a VET!

Jesse

Have just seen advertised SCHNOODLES....SchnauzerXPoodle I presume.It seems to be the in thing to own an OOOOODLE !!!!!!!

Why the hell did a vet start xbreeding youd think they would know better

I have to say i laughed when i read the post, but they actually is such a dog!!!! What is the difference between a cross breed and a hybrid cross, and why is it these dogs do not have defects, is it a particular way of breeding. Can anyone give me any information, i am slightly confused!!!

These dogs do have defects!!!In fact they can inherit the defects from both parents so if for example you cross a breed with a hip problem and a breed with eye problems the pups can have neither,one or both defects!!!The biggest problem is that the parents of these breeds are not health tested.
Archer

They can have problems, just like any other! Don't believe the hype!
:)

So why are they being advertised as a breed? Anyone know?

Think the answerer to most of these questions could be summed up in one word MONEY

To con people into thinking they're getting something special and fleece them of more money?

Ok - going to play devil's advocate here. I agree that the majority of these crosses are done to fleece people into spending lots of money on something that is essentially a cross breed.

BUT don't forget that some now established breeds were developed quite recently by people cross breeding - Cesky Terrier and Eurasier spring to mind immediately as 20th century creations - and lots of breeds were created in the 19th century. Many other longer established breeds have had outcrosses to other breeds in recent memory (wasn't there a deerhound lady who used greyhounds at one point - quite legitimately and with the knowledge of the KC - and there was a similar experiment recently using Corgis to try to produce naturally bobbed boxers - all with KC approval!).

So it is not NECESSARILY an irresponsible thing to embark upon a breeding programme that involves cross breeding - or to try to create a new breed. BUT the important thing is it is a "breeding programme" - the object should be to produce animals that breed to type when bred to each other - and it therefore requires taking serious control of the progeny, being scrupulous about health testing and being very selective in breeding on.

If however crosses are always first generation then it is a cross breeding scam and not a new breed! I suspect that is the case in most of these "doodles" and "poos"!

Janet

For a 'Breed' to be recognised it not only needs to breed true to type but has to have a reasonable gene pool that also is breeding true to type, so all the many poo breeds do not count.

Most of the old dog breeds were produced for a reason, in the same way as the esteemed Parson produced the terrier which bares his name as the ultimate ratter. Hounds, Gundogs (originally hunting dogs) Lap dogs (To take the fleas away from the person who's lap they were sitting on) were all produced for a purpose. They take generations to become established and rarely does it happen within the lifetime of the originator, again, witness the esteemed Parson! The Labrador came into existence in the early 1800's but was not recognised by the KC until 1903.

Incidentally, up until very recently the retrievers, Goldens, Flatcoats, Labradors etc. were NOT breeds! They were varieties and as such inter breeding was allowed by the KC under certain circumstances!!!

Regards, John

So correct me if i'm mistaken, i am right to believe that some cross breeds become a breed over time?

Well, all breeds are man-made - created by mixing breeds with the characteristics you want, but with a specific purpose in mind. As far as I'm concerned, crossing breeds just because the 'mix' has a comical name regardless of the physical or mental characteristics of the breeds being crossed isn't a valid reason!
:)

I think that is the whole point.When people like Parson 'created' a new breed it was done so for a reason...ratting,retrieving etc.However now it seems to be just for the sake of making a few quid.
It is always beyond me why if someone has a good example of their chosen breed they would chose to breed to a dog of another breed...answer maybe that its NOT a good example,not registered,not pure bred...take your choice.
Lets face it there are a limited number of reasons for keeping a dog nowadays(PET,SHOWING,WORKING TO GUN,OBEDIENCE ETC...) and dozens of breeds that can fill every possible reason so why do we need more!!Concentrate on improving what we already have not breeding more mongrels/crossbreeds cos thats what they are.(JMHO)
Archer

I agree completely that the people promoting doodles and poos are largely out for the money not to create a new breed for a good reason but that doesn't mean that crossbreeding is always irresponsible which was the point I was trying to make. When the PRT was created there were already ratting dogs, so why did he create another? Presumably because he had specific requirements that were not met by any existing breed. The same may be true in some cases today. The Eurasier for example was created to make the ideal companion dog. I believe the GDBA originally crossed poodles with labs to get the trainability of the latter and the coat of the former but I may be wrong. So there may be good reasons in some cases.

But in most cases it is all about money and to call these first generation crosses "breeds" is a misnomer.

The GDBA try all sorts of things, some work some don't. The dog of choice at the moment is the Lab x Golden. Incidentally, first crosses only work for them! Second crosses just do not carry the trainability through so the forming of a breed with these two is never going to happen! The Labradoodle was an experiment to produce a non shedding guide dog. A great idea for a blind person, so much easier for house work! Trouble is, it lost out in trainability and only some did not shed. the experiment is as I understand it, not going to be repeated.

Regards, John

Thanks John - I hadn't heard how it had turned out. I was not suggesting BTW that the GDBA were trying to create a new breed but just that they had specific (and good) reasons for cross breeding - even if it didn't work! ;)

Because some vets seem to think cross breeds are healthier!

Jesse

Yes, I know where to get a Golden Doodle.

Any good supermarket, usually with the pasta and rice!

Oh, no!! That's a POT NOODLE.

Silly me. I told you ladies I wasn't domesticated at all.

Norm

Its an interesting moral/ethical debate really... (u have to excuse me, this is another one of my middle of the night, not enuff sleep postings).....

Yes, the example of the Parson Russel Terrier is a good one, as i understand it, the PRT was created as there was a need for a terrier that was both capable of going to ground, AND being able to keep up with hounds/horses, as one of the things Parson Russell despised was a terrier that had to be carryed on horseback. All well and good, as i suspect the terriers of the day were a pretty mixed bunch, so a man keen on his hunting, and not wanting it spoiled by less than efficient terriers created his own breed. It has to be said, Parson Russell himself was most probably a fairly ruthless man, considering the church at the time did not look favourably upon hunting at all, and he still went ahead.

To really create a new 'breed' as has been mentioned before, one must have a purpose in mind, to my mind that is far more important than appearance, as it would seem one begets the other, and not vice versa.
But having a purpose in mind is not enough, one must also, if one wants to see ones own breed breeding true in ones own lifetime, be a fairly determined, calculating, adn probably by todays standards, hard hearted person. The creators of todays 'modern' breeds, such as the PRT, and the Doberman (just to pull two out of the hat) would have had to cull off ANY and ALL pups that did not fit the strict criteria.
Also, they most likely followed breeding practices which today would have most breeders horrified, such as breeding very young and close line breeding.
Those things are easy to see if you follow the pedigrees of certain breeds back, usually to just one or two dogs, and then you find out the ages at which they died, as in the case of one very influential dog (whose name, im sorry, i forget) behind many of the best lines of todays German type GSD's who died at teh age of six!

The question is though, if it is immoral, and damaging to dogs in general and certain breeds specifically, to breed x bred dogs without a true function, just to look a certain way, where does that leave the many many breeds whose purpose is no longer valid?

How many otterhounds catch otters? How many GSD's are actually herding dogs? Dachshunds no longer hunt badgers, few Bearded Collies of the show type would be capable of herding sheep, there are no wolves for our wolfhounds to hunt, and how many ppl actually work Deerhounds to deer, and how many Corgi's are capable of droving cattle for hundreds of miles?

I am not taking sides here, i do not agree with breeding dogs for appearance, as much as appearance is one of the main things that attracts us to a breed.....but how many breeders on here, or in fact anywhere, can truely say that their dogs are capable of the purpose for which they were created?
Id be interested to know.

Should i ever decide to own/breed dogs, i would want to have dogs capable of doing both a days work outdoors, or a days showing in the ring, and doing equally well at both.

As an owner of crossbreeds, it is a tough thing, i dont think dogs should be bred willy nilly, without thought, or for money, or glory, but without someones inexperience, i would not have Rocky or Saffi.
Dill is another interesting point. He is what some ppl would call a man made breed, as a lurcher, he is a deliberate crossbreed. Some would say he is no more or less than a mongrel, his ancestry coming from the Bedlington Terrier, the Whippet, the Greyhound and the Working Bearded Collie.... but he IS bred for a purpose and even at his young age (adn teh fact that i as yet have no permission, and a few weeks till its truely rabbit season) is more than capable of doing what he was bred to do, and what both his parents do.

Hmmmm, im still thinking about this one, as im sure lots of others are...

Time for some sleep!

(and i wouldnt give house room to EITHER Pot Noodle or a Golden Doodle, or any other 'Oodles, Doodles, or Poo's!)

Em

You are right about the "purpose in mind" of some of the old breeders when they created the breeds. So many dogs would have been culled because they did not come up to scratch. But then, I think there was a natural "Hardness" about people in those days which is maybe not so prevalent these days. A dog was an animal, nothing more nothing less! I think modern thinking has changed the way animals, and dogs in particular, are looked upon. Certainly there are an awful lot of people around who look at them as "Little furry people" which they most certainly are not!

As to the breeds which no longer fulfil a function, does this make them superfluous to needs? What about the vintage cars? Old pig breeds? I could go on for ever. No, maybe they are not needed but to loose them would make the world a sadder place.

Regards, John

Cant disagree with you there John, im certainly not saying we should stop breeding dogs whose original function no longer exists, but, by the same token, wether we stop breeding them, or breed dogs that could not carry out that original purpose, the outcome will be the same, the loss of these breeds....which would indeed be a very sad thing/

Em

I get oodles of doodles and plently of poos from the dogs & kid I already have :D