|Barked: Tue Jul 3, '12 7:02am PST |
|Tyler- I know many of them are using multigenerational mixes now. And I also know that many of them don't guarantee what type of coat etc.
I'm not really sure why you like to defend Labradoodles, because the crux of the issue is that you (general) tend to look at specific pieces and from it infer whether or not a person is a good breeder. When you do the 'regular' list of things like health testing et al, YES, I have seen some of the mixes have PennHIP scores and what not. I have some that some of them may of CGCs or other certificates.
The huge part that is missing is that those 'requirements' are generally OK when looking at a breeder who is breeding an already established breed. And why is that? Because when you're breeding an already established breed, it takes the work out of having to established x generations of 5-6 unrelated lines and a few hundred dogs which breed true, to build what is generally considered and accepted as a breed with a healthy, large gene pool.
When you choose to breed a developing dog, you have that additional responsibility. And that development of a breed is what is lacking in the 'doodle breeders, even the ones from the parent club.
It really doesn't matter that you have 4 'doodles that you have health tested and you breed from generationally, because that doesn't establish a strong breed. That only maybe establishes your little pet project.
Serious breeders who breed crosses, don't breed a first generation cross and call it a breed. And those early generation crosses, aren't sold for money - they are kept for future development, or culled (by sterilization or otherwise) and given away as a failed part of experimental breeding. To inject the possibility to make money off of what is basically a early-generation dog without set characteristics (not a breed) is the same as selling mixes for tons of money. Last I checked the 'Australian Labradoodle Club' had some sort of thing where all puppies (of any backcross, any F) was $2000 USD.
It's really distasteful and I think shows a complete lack of knowledge in regards to building a strong breed foundation. There are many relatively new breeds and not all are uncontested - but I can say with certainty at least for one of my breeds, that Spurlin, who is the original founder of AKK, kept it as a personal project for over a decade (and even that is considered a short period of time). Only in '87 did she finally release some of the dogs to 1 kennel whom she worked closely with. At that time she had a pool of about 30 breeding dogs and even then knew that it was too small a genetic pool. She didn't breed an Alaskan Husky to a Sckippe and call it an AKK and start selling them for money. She kept the developing dogs and was quite selective in the breeding direction, even to the criticism that she was too harsh with culling.
The spay and neuter clause many of the doodle breeders insist on, I can't say are reflective of real culling selection, because for extra money you can get that exact same dog with breeding rights. Things like that.
And that's where I'm coming from - I don't see such a serious effort among the individual or club doodle breeders. Simply I see a way to make money on a mixed dog with no real direction. And I'm REALLY the last person to have a problem with new breeds..
|my posts | my page | gift me | become pals|| [notify]|