For the past five or ten years, a new fad dog has appeared on the scene.
I first heard of them in Bruce Fogle’s Encyclopedia of the Dog. That book had a section on what are now called “designer dogs.” Among them was a specially bred guide dog called a “Labradoodle.” It turns out that an Australian guide dog agency wanted to produced a guide dog that was hypoallergenic (which, of course, don’t exist).
Now, they could have used standard poodles, but I’m sure they already had a specially bred Labrador line for this work. Add a little standard poodle, the argument went, and you’d create a super guide dog that would not bother the visually impaired who also had allergies to dogs. (Today, there is actually a particular strain called an “Australian Labradoodle” that has other breeds crossed into it.)
Of course, it didn’t take long for people to start cross-breeding Labs and standard poodles in this country. And then it was just a slight jump to start crossing goldens and poodles. Because a lot of working strain goldens were deemed “pet quality,” I’m sure that lots of them wound up in the doodle breeding programs. That was not a very good thing for working strain goldens, which already have some issues with genetic diversity. If you want to know where many of the working-type goldens went, I’d look no further than the goldendoodles.
These dogs have been popular for a time, and because too many of them have been bred by people who have very little concern for health, the genetic conditions of both goldens and poodles have popped up in these dogs. Aggression issues that pop up in goldens also exist in goldendoodles.
In the next few years, the market for doodles is likely to get saturated. I would say that in the next ten years, there won’t be as many doodles as there are now. They are likely to follow the cock-a-poo or cockerpoo, which was the first “designer dog.” The fad will slowly fade, and the new “in” dog will be something else.
But what will happen to the lines of retriever that disappeared into the doodles?
Well, they will be gone.
I am not opposed to cross-breeding these dogs to make pets.
However, these dogs were never going to replace the purebred dogs.
I don’t think this fad has that much staying power.
“But what will happen to the lines of retriever that disappeared into the doodles?
Well, they will be gone.”
Well, in Labs, I’m reasonably certain that the lines either didn’t disappear, or would have disappeared anyway.
Just from casual observations, it seems that those breeding a Lab to deliberately cross use a Lab they either bought for that purpose or bought and later decided to use, for one reason or another–they don’t go to an outside stud, and they certainly don’t lease a dam. These dogs are either nice dogs that have siblings that are nice dogs that will be used elsewhere within the Lab gene pool because the litter/s were sold on full registration and they’re nice dogs someone may want to breed, OR they are not-so-nice dogs (though probably much loved) that wouldn’t be bred except for either the cash or the allure of novelty of the doodle.
I think goldens are mostly the same, though there may be some more “hidden treasures” out there–you might have a minor point there. Doodles don’t seem to be commanding the prices they did 5 or more years ago, so I too doubt the trend will continue for long.
Not my cup of tea personally, but I have a couple of colleagues that love their doodles, from a breeder that by all accounts takes wonderful care of her couple of dogs and keeps in touch with her puppy buyers. Doesn’t have a clue about health clearances–but then again, her puppy buyers aren’t interested in breeding, and the breeder only breeds one generation, because gen 2 can look and act like anything (and they usually look scruffy!), so she just doesn’t. So, I guess health only matters for the one generation, and “you pays your money, you takes your chances.”
I ain’t afraid of no ‘doodle. ;)
I think the problem of the ‘doodles is that in many cases the sales pitch has gotten out of hand – in particular the widely held belief that they have the “low grooming requirements of the lab and the no shedding of the poodle”. In other words, a magical dog that doesn’t shed and yet does not require grooming.
I’ve met several people who completely bought this sales pitch and finally figure out the truth when dealing with their young adult badly matted ‘doodle. That’s when the rodeo begins. The smart poodle owner regularly takes their poodle puppy from a very young age to the groomer for brief visits – the pup gets handled all over, a quick brush out, lots of pets & praise. The young poodle learns to calmly accept all part of being groomed. Unfortunately many ‘doodles don’t get this early exposure and during their first grooming (often resulting in a complete shave down) they are often highly alarmed about clippers around their face, muzzle, ears, feet, rump, & tail. If the owner tried to previously de-mat their dog by the “brush & yank” method, the ‘doodle will be even more leery of this adventure.
Anyway, I’ve seen this happen now several times and I feel terrible for the dogs ( and their owners too – they don’t like seeing their dogs getting hurt). Overall the ‘doodles I’ve met have been nice enough in temperament. I wouldn’t want one because I prefer clean legged, slick coated dogs that bring in a minimum of mud/dirt/debris after a long hike in the woods/fields.
Which is why the Labrador replaced the poodle-type water dogs as a working retriever in the first place.
The Lab’s coat is truly special. It is short, dense, and waterproof. Before that breed, and its ancestor, the St. John’s water dog, developed, most water dogs were of the poodle type and had to be trimmed to be functional.
It’s not that poodle-types aren’t good retrievers. They are.
It’s just their coats are hard to care for.
We like to say that our smooth collies have “Teflon Coats” as burs, dirt, & mud slide right off. Smoothies with the proper hard, close-fitting guard hairs don’t get wet in the rain but ones with the softer open coats do. I know they don’t have nearly as oily of a coat as a Lab’s and I suspect that makes a big difference in how well they tolerate water temps. It has to be a darn hot day for my collies to enjoy swimming and the few times they have had to swim in cool/cold weather (not voluntary on their part) they’ve been quite shivery afterwards. Though their chattering teeth might have been due to the shock at the indignity of it all.
The poodles I meet up with all have open, soft, and dry (not oily) coats and it’s hard to imagine a worse coat for working in the fields & water. I’ve never met a working (hunting) poodle but I’ve read that they are perfectly happy to do water retrieves. Maybe poodles are much tougher about tolerating cool water temps and/or maybe they are not bathed so often and have an oilier coat as a result.
RM – have you met a hunting poodle & felt it’s coat? Is it oily?
It’s naturally oily, but the way they are groomed, they tend to wash out all the oil.
If they are worked as water dogs, they don’t develop the proper show coat texture. There are even suggestions that the dogs be worked in wetsuits to keep them from becoming oily!
http://www.vipoodle.org/PDF_Files/ShowCoat.pdf
Wow that’s a lot of work. I understand that getting that whole poodle show look takes hours anyway and that’s for a poodle who’s only a conformation dog. I can’t imagine adding all the additional steps to protect the coat and ever having enough time to train. I don’t know if I’m bone lazy or really smart. ;-)
“1. Growing coat is an attitude. That attitude is that the hair is made of precious gold and must be protected at all times. ”
Oi.
I’ve never met a stupid poodle of any size.
I can’t say the same about their owners.
BTW, goldendoodles do shed quite a bit. Goldens shed like crazy. They are least “hypoallergenic” dog I can think of. Not only do they shed, but their coats are so oil that the dander sticks to the hair, making the allergies worse.
The ‘doodle pitch certainly does aim high sometimes, doesn’t it. My sister-in-law just got more or less taken on a similar mini-Aussie pitch–that’s one BIG small dog she wound up with, though she’s happy with him in general.
From my understanding, the Australian Shepherd is split with the show dogs being larger with bigger bone & hair, lots of pretty chrome and calmer temperament and the working lines being smaller, often minimal white & coat and much more intense. And so when folks started to breed mini-Aussies, they used working dogs for their breeding stock resulting in some high octane little dogs.
That said, I’ve wondered about how much Aussie was in a couple of the mini-Aussies I’ve met. One looked darn Sheltie-ish and the other strongly Papillon.
Yes, I’ve seen show Aussies and they look nothing like my grandpa’s old farm dogs, which were a bit coyotish and heavily merled (with no white at all) to the point of being somewhat ugly.
Goldens have had the exact same split as the Aussies.
I think a lot of it has to do with neoteny. More wolf-like dogs, those with narrow muzzles and lighter frames, are more likely to show predatory motor patterns. That’s probably why we have this split.
And the heavier built dogs tend to produce the cutest puppies. That’s why I think they have taken over the golden retriever gene pool.
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/in-golden-retrievers-breeding-for-cuteness-leads-to-coarseness/
I’ve discussed this, and I had an Aussie expert leave a comment.
My brother and sister-in-law have two Aussies–one from show lines, a gorgeous, tri-color, showy animal, with lots of bone and lots of coat, but man-oh-man can that dog run, and he is fast, agile, and biddable; in the house, very calm; a little hand-shy. The other they sort of got themselves roped into through a mother-in-law connection; it was billed as a mini breeding, but is AKC registered; it is tall, lighter-boned, and has more of a border-collie disposition and habits and even look to it. It’s a nice working dog, actually, and she’s happy with it as a competition obedience dog and will do agility with him down the road, but he’s hardly mini-anything, and not a real good example of an Aussie in terms of type, either show or working.
My sister-in-law says the examples she’s seeing in casual observation of show dogs is that the Aussie’s are getting smaller and lighter again, and that their older dog–once a near ideal–would probably be considered overdone now. I don’t know if that’s true or not, it’s just one person’s observation.
I’m not an expert on these dogs, but the ones that are actual farm dogs are not heavily boned animals at all. They look like merle coyotes with their tails cut off.
The dog you don’t like is actually the dog that someone who has cattle would chose.
The reason why herding dogs have wolfish features is that it was determined that dogs with wolfish features can better put the fear of God into stock
These are what I am more accustomed to: http://users.htcomp.net/slashv/home.htm
And just like when I first saw the show versions of Golden retriever, I was taken aback when I first saw them. They don’t look anything like the actual working dogs.
I actually don’t think either of them look like Aussies–but one is decidedly beautiful, and one is decidedly not. They’re both good dogs in their own way, though.
Which one do you think cattle and sheep would respect?
That’s an interesting question, really. The older, “showy” one I’ve known longer, and while he’s certainly not a working dog by trade, they let him run on their little farm/ranch, and he’s a very athletic dog and does not hesitate to keep the horses in line–he’s very agile and will work around their feet and under them, and they give him way naturally. He has a huge amount of presence when he’s outdoors.
The not-mini “mini” is far more active at all times, to the point of being hyper, but he’s a young dog, really still a puppy. I don’t doubt he would love to work, but I haven’t seen him loose with other animals. He wants to control everything, but he’s not real mature yet.
So, I guess I suspect cattle and sheep would probably respect both, but I don’t really know.
I’m used to merle dogs with no white on them and just a little bit ugly :).
I just hate the name in general and pretty much anything else with “doodle” or “poo” in it. “Doodle” is what I do with a pencil and paper when I’m bored, and “Poo” is what I do in copious amounts after eating a burrito.
I just know I’m stuck-up enough to call all my dogs their appropriate breeds, or mixed-breeds. It’s a Lab-poodle mix, and don’t tell me otherwise! Not that I would get one anyway…personally I am a fan of smoother faces and do not like that scruffy look that needs trimming every few weeks.
Even if they did manage to make this mix (or any “designer mix”) into a purebred, the name would be all wonky. No one who created any purebred back in the day named the dog for what all went into it…rather, they named it based on who created it (Dobermann), what it did (retreiver, cocker, hound, etc), where it came from (Rottweiler), among other creative things. Blending the name of two purebreds to create a dog that has little to no function of either pure breed is just worthless.
I just saw a big goldendoodle walking down the street (on a leash). I could tell it was a goldendoodle because its gait was exactly like the English golden retrievers that people are now using to make white goldendoodles (which aren’t really white).
My brother recommended I would possibly like this blog. He used to be totally right. This publish actually made my day. You cann’t believe just how so much time I had spent for this info! Thank you!