Goldendoodle: help sorting thru conflicting cross-ref. breeder info
Rak
I'm being obsessively careful about finding a goldendoodle breeder.
Know basically the dog I want (smallish--but NOT mini goldendoodle
preferably first generation mix, open to others; either sex; any color
except silver; estimated <50 lbs). Alternatively, labradoodle (wavy to
shaggy hair) and the above characteristics. Not looking for bargain.
Preferably some training.
Non-negotiable: 2 year health warranty, hip, eye tested, registered,
no more than 6-8 litters/year (preferably <5), access to meet the
parents, 2+ litters followed through for temperament--references to
their owners.
AREA: VA, MD, WV, PA.
I've combed through all recommended goldendoodle.com breeders, but
running into conflicting info after cross-referencing in posts, or
after talking/emailing owners, or hearing the "raised by family" has a
veeeery big family.
Would really appreciate information to help prevent any problems
prospective owners increasingly run into.
Thank you!
Amy Dahl
Rak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm being obsessively careful about finding a goldendoodle breeder.
> Know basically the dog I want (smallish--but NOT mini goldendoodle
> preferably first generation mix, open to others; either sex; any color
> except silver; estimated <50 lbs). Alternatively, labradoodle (wavy to
> shaggy hair) and the above characteristics. Not looking for bargain.
> Preferably some training.
>
> Non-negotiable: 2 year health warranty, hip, eye tested, registered,
> no more than 6-8 litters/year (preferably <5), access to meet the
> parents, 2+ litters followed through for temperament--references to
> their owners.
Frankly, the genetic testing and warranty sound more characteristic of
the better breeders you find among purebred dogs. I have never heard
of a breeder of mixes offering such things. In purebreds, good breeders
are hoping to improve their stock over generations; crossbreedings are
basically a genetic dead end, so why bother? Furthermore, hip (OFA) and
eye (CERF) evaluations are done with reference to what is considered
normal within a given breed. There are no standards for mixed-breed
dogs--no reference base for range of hip-joint conformations, no database
on frequency of various eye problems.
Registration, again, is a problem. Registration exists to keep track of
individuals and pedigrees within a breed. Unless there is a special
registry for
"goldendoodles," treating this mix as a breed, you will not be able to
register
such a dog. Certainly you will not receive a registration that qualifies
your
dog to participate in events licensed by the major registries, AKC and
UKC,
because they do not register mixed-breed dogs.
>
>
> AREA: VA, MD, WV, PA.
>
> I've combed through all recommended goldendoodle.com breeders, but
> running into conflicting info after cross-referencing in posts, or
> after talking/emailing owners, or hearing the "raised by family" has a
> veeeery big family.
>
> Would really appreciate information to help prevent any problems
> prospective owners increasingly run into.
> Thank you!
You would probably have a lot more success finding the kind of commitment
you seek from a good breeder of Golden retrievers or a good breeder of
Poodles.
Good luck.
Amy Dahl
Janet Puistonen
This is going to be long, so I hope you will bear with me.
As a golden owner, I would suggest that you visit the GRCA (Golden Retriever
Club of America) web site and read up on what is considered ethical breeding
of goldens. When you have done that, you will see that no breeder who would
knowingly provide a dog to someone who is going to breed mixes deliberately
can be an ethical breeder. That means that people producing the kind of dog
you cite simply cannot be using good breeding stock. (One generation of
health testing, albeit better than nothing, is not going to provide the kind
of odds against disease that you are evidently wise enough to be looking
for.)
Six to eight litters per year is a very large number, especially for large
breeds that produce a lot of puppies. You will find that most good active
Golden breeders have more like two or three per year, if that. To me, even
five litters per year is a warning sign that the person is pumping out
puppies for $$, not trying to breed good dogs.
And "I'm just trying to breed good pets" is not an adequate response.
Firstly, most puppies produced by the careful breeding of two healthy show
or performance dogs will be pets, not showdogs. Secondly, IMHO there is no
"just" about being a good pet. A poorly-bred dog is much less likely to be a
good pet, because it is less likely to be healthy and sound and have a good
temperament. Trust me, I have a well-bred golden who has been shown
successfully and is a superb pet, and a golden from rescue who was produced
by one of those "just pet" people. The latter dog is physically and mentally
challenged, through no fault of her own. She is NOT a "good pet."
Frankly, the fact that they are breeding mixes deliberately makes the fact
that they are in it only for the money absolutely certain. And "registered"
is a meaningless concept for mixed-breed dogs, which is what a
"goldendoodle" is. "Registries" that accept such dogs are simply scams
created to help people market their product to innocent or ill-informed
buyers. Access to meet the parents is also a questionable criteria. Good,
ethical, breeders search for the best stud dog to use with their girls to
improve the resulting puppies, and frequently use dogs that live across the
country. The people most likely to breed two dogs they happen to own,
especially repeatedly, are the people who are pumping out puppies for money.
You should certainly be able to see and meet the mother, though.
You may also run into people who are running what are called "satellite
mills." There is one in my area who is marketing the concept as "guardian
homes." This means that he gets to breed your girl 3 or 4 times before you
fully own her, and means that he can keep more and more girls in production
without acknowledging that he is in fact running a puppy mill.
Goldens are wonderful dogs, and there is no need to cross them with poodles
to make them fabulous pets. If allergies are your issue, I suggest you
consider buying a poodle of the size and type you prefer from an ethical
poodle breeder, or look into one of the other breeds that tend to be easier
on those with allergies, such as the Bichon Frisee. (Don't forget that
poodles were bred for hunting, just like goldens and labs, and they can be
kept in an all-over "puppy clip" that is attractive and utilitarian.) And of
course, you should spend some time with the breed in question to be sure
that you won't react to them. There isn't really such a think as a
hypoallergenic dog.
Good luck.
Rak
Amy Dahl wrote:
>
"genetic testing and warranty sound more characteristic of
> the better breeders you find among purebred dogs.
considered
> normal within a given breed."
Yes, I'm sorry for not being clearer: I meant having the parents meet
those requirements.
What you say is consistent with what my vet advised: ("There are no
standards for mixed-breed
> dogs--no reference base for range of hip-joint conformations, no database
> on frequency of various eye problems.")
>
>Again, my mistake--this also referred to parents--poodle/golden: "Registration, again, is a problem. " I'm not interested in breeding nor showing, just doing my best to get a healthy dog.
>
>
> From what I've corrected, would you still say:
> "You would probably have a lot more success finding the kind of commitment
> you seek from a good breeder of Golden retrievers or a good breeder of
> Poodles."
>
> Thanx--appreciate the thorough response.
Amy Dahl
Rak wrote:
> >
> > From what I've corrected, would you still say:
> > "You would probably have a lot more success finding the kind of commitment
> > you seek from a good breeder of Golden retrievers or a good breeder of
> > Poodles."
I would still say that. There are breeders of Goldens and Poodles who
do not offer what you seek, of course, but I believe the better ones are
far, far better than anything you will find among breeders of crossbreds.
The idea of a breed with an identity, an established "correct temperament,"
and the potential to improve one's breeding stock with each generation,
form a context that attracts people who really strive to do something well.
*Some* of these people care about the pet-puppy buyer, and will offer
guarantees and contracts, talk to you at length to make sure the breed is
a good choice for you, and make themselves available for help and
advice on keeping the dog, behavioral issues, and so forth. Others may not;
they are more interested in improving their dogs than on developing a
relationship with the buyers of the littermates of the one they keep.
There's kind of a Catch-22 in crossbreeding. Someone who really knows
the ideal temperament of Goldens and that of Poodles is almost always
going to be drawn to trying to breed that ideal Golden or Poodle--not to
obliterating the genetic potential of an excellent dog by crossbreeding it.
Therefore, people who crossbreed are almost certainly ignorant of good
temperament (it takes a *lot* of experience to become knowledgeable
about temperament). Furthermore, they are unlikely to be getting their
purebreds from a really good source, as Janet suggested. The kind of
breeder we would all like to buy from will work to avoid letting their dogs
be used in crossbreeding. There is a good chance the parents of the
crossbreds come from breeders you would in no way consider, and are
therefore at best inconsistent with respect to temperament and soundness.
In general, the kind of person who is knowledgeable about dog care,
behavior, and training and could act as a resource for the life of your
pet will gravitate toward rescue, shelter work, or breeding purebreds,
or maybe teaching dog-training classes. This level of involvement
almost always biases people against the deliberate breeding of mixed-
breed dogs, for a number of reasons.
So, you can get a "goldendoodle" if that is what you really want, but I
encourage you to look beyond the marketing and see that, most likely,
-the parents of your crossbred don't meet the standards you laid out;
-the breeder is not the kind of resource that is there for the life of your dog; and
-temperament does not figure in a meaningful way in the breeding of your dog.
I may be wrong, and there may be somebody dynamite out there breeding
these crosses, and I may get sued, but this is my understanding of how
the world of dogs works. I hope I've provided a little useful perspective.
Amy Dahl
Christy
"Rak" <rak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151877906.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I'm being obsessively careful about finding a goldendoodle breeder.
Interesting. I'm torn. On the one hand, I want to commend you for doing
signifigant research on your future dog. On the other hand, I am boggled
that you are seeking a purpose bred mix when there are plenty of non-trendy,
existing dog breeds to choose from, many of which have similar
characteristics to this mix. Poodle - curly coated retriever - Portugese
water dog. Have you investigated these breeds?
> Know basically the dog I want (smallish--but NOT mini goldendoodle
> preferably first generation mix, open to others; either sex; any color
> except silver; estimated <50 lbs). Alternatively, labradoodle (wavy to
> shaggy hair) and the above characteristics. Not looking for bargain.
> Preferably some training.
>
> Non-negotiable: 2 year health warranty, hip, eye tested, registered,
> no more than 6-8 litters/year (preferably <5), access to meet the
> parents, 2+ litters followed through for temperament--references to
> their owners.
Well, good luck. If you do find a breeder such as you've outlined, I'll be
suprised. More than suprised - shocked, in fact. I honestly would be very
happy if there existed a breeder who was responsible in producing these
mixes, since obviously there is a demand (why, I don't know - every one I've
met has been a nightmare!) But I have even more stringent guidelines for
what I consider responsible breeding, so I'm constantly being disappointed
by the folks pumping out these puppies.
> I've combed through all recommended goldendoodle.com breeders, but
> running into conflicting info after cross-referencing in posts, or
> after talking/emailing owners, or hearing the "raised by family" has a
> veeeery big family.
>
> Would really appreciate information to help prevent any problems
> prospective owners increasingly run into.
> Thank you!
Have you taken a moment to reflect on why you're having such difficulty
finding the type of breeder that you seek? If not, I'll give you my
thoughts.
Breeding dogs the right way, the responsible way, the rare way, takes
something special. The person who produces puppies for the right reasons,
reasons other than cash (or the fun of having puppies, or to show kids the
magic of new life, etc.) has to have some kind of underlying passion for it.
Perhaps they are seeking that next amazing champion showdog, or a nationals
winning agility dog, or an OTCH obedience dog, or a top level Schutzhund
dog. No matter what the end goal is, they know that it cannot be
accomplished by simply breeding two random dogs and hoping for the best.
They put in endless hours of time researching, studying, learning about
their breed, the standard, the history, etc. They put their hands on as many
dogs as they can, comparing and contrasting. They do all the health tests,
research the pedigrees and learn about the health of the ancestry. When they
eventually breed, they have vast amounts of time and money tied up in that
litter, and they are stringent about placing those puppies so that they are
safe and loved for their entire lives.
Why, then, would the above referenced breeder be mixing two disparate
breeds? What would the driving passion be behind producing puppies for the
pet market? There is no passion required, no hours of research and planning,
and no need to provide those guarantees,with nothing to back them up. The
type of breeder who makes these puppies and the type of breeder I outlined
are so vastly different as to nearly be different species. Of course, there
are many of the former and very, very few of the latter, which is why you
are not finding what you seek. These rare few aren't wasting their time
breeding mutts. So why are you seeking one? If a mutt is what you want, find
a rescue - you're just cutting out the middleman (the breeder) because they
all come from the same place. If you decide to find that passionate breeder
who does it right, and forgo the fancy of the trendy mutt, then you'll have
an easier time of it. Not easy - but easier.
Christy
Janet Puistonen
> "Rak" <rak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1151877906.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm being obsessively careful about finding a goldendoodle breeder.
>
> Interesting. I'm torn. On the one hand, I want to commend you for
> doing signifigant research on your future dog. On the other hand, I
> am boggled that you are seeking a purpose bred mix when there are
> plenty of non-trendy, existing dog breeds to choose from, many of
> which have similar characteristics to this mix. Poodle - curly coated
> retriever - Portugese water dog. Have you investigated these breeds?
I thought of the Portugese Water Dog for him also.
Rocky
rec.pets.dogs.breeds:
>> Poodle - curly coated
>> retriever - Portugese water dog. Have you investigated
>> these breeds?
>
> I thought of the Portugese Water Dog for him also.
Or a Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier. Generally, in my experience,
a soft terrier breed and good with family life.
PWDs are goofier and more energetic, but also a good breed to
look at.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
Rak
I'm definitely looking into the PWD--it seems to meet most of what
we're looking for. I really appreciate this!
Rak.
Paula
>What you say is consistent with what my vet advised: ("There are no
>standards for mixed-breed
>> dogs--no reference base for range of hip-joint conformations, no database
>> on frequency of various eye problems.")
>>
>>Again, my mistake--this also referred to parents--poodle/golden: "Registration, again, is a problem. " I'm not interested in breeding nor showing, just doing my best to get a healthy dog.
>>
>>
>> From what I've corrected, would you still say:
>> "You would probably have a lot more success finding the kind of commitment
>> you seek from a good breeder of Golden retrievers or a good breeder of
>> Poodles."
>>
>> Thanx--appreciate the thorough response.
Why is the goldendoodle or labradoodle attractive to you? Perhaps
people here can help you get what you want in a dog from a purebred
whose breeder has better health and temperament information across
generations. You could also look for a cross-bred dog like what you
want through rescue. If you can't get the guarantees you want from a
breeder, and I agree that is highly unlikely with any breeder who
breeds crosses, you could pay a lot less for a rescue and save a life.
If there are potential health problems, at least you have more money
for vet bills if you pay less for the dog. Many of the dogs on
petfinder.com come with health insurance, even. If you do find a
mixed breed dog breeder who meets your requirements for the dogs they
breed, I hope you'll report back here. I'd love to know of them
because I haven't seen any. It's hard enough to find a responsible
breeder of purebreds.
--
Paula
"Anyway, other people are weird, but sometimes they have candy,
so it's best to try to get along with them." Joe Bay
Robin Nuttall
> "Janet Puistonen" <box...@verizon.net> said in
> rec.pets.dogs.breeds:
>
>
>>>Poodle - curly coated
>>>retriever - Portugese water dog. Have you investigated
>>>these breeds?
>>
>>I thought of the Portugese Water Dog for him also.
>
>
> Or a Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier. Generally, in my experience,
> a soft terrier breed and good with family life.
I don't often disagree with Matt, but no! NOnononononono! Significant
health problems (protein losing syndrome, hypothyroidism, cancer, etc.),
and very significant temperament problems. NOT a good breed with kids.
NOT a beginner breed.
I have a good friend in the breed club. She's been looking HARD for a
quality puppy for 3 years now. She just can't find anything that has
both viable structure and viable (as in not extremely
reactive/aggressive) temperament. And she has big connections and is
looking all over the U.S.
>
> PWDs are goofier and more energetic, but also a good breed to
> look at.
>
This I would agree with, or a good Standard or Mini poodle.
Janet B
clicked their heels and said:
>> Or a Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier. Generally, in my experience,
>> a soft terrier breed and good with family life.
>
>I don't often disagree with Matt, but no! NOnononononono! Significant
>health problems (protein losing syndrome, hypothyroidism, cancer, etc.),
>and very significant temperament problems. NOT a good breed with kids.
>NOT a beginner breed.
I'm in total agreement. I wouldnt recommend a SCWT to anyone, but
especially not as a first dog.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Robin Nuttall
Heck, my friend who is in the breed club won't recommend them either!
She loves the breed but is just in despair over trying to find something
halfway healthy without severe temperament issues. And she says the
Irish imports are just as bad...
Rocky
rec.pets.dogs.breeds:
>> Or a Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier. Generally, in my
>> experience, a soft terrier breed and good with family
>> life.
>
> I don't often disagree with Matt, but no! NOnononononono!
> Significant health problems (protein losing syndrome,
> hypothyroidism, cancer, etc.), and very significant
> temperament problems. NOT a good breed with kids. NOT a
> beginner breed.
I won't address the health issues, but, except for one SCWT of
the dozen I know, they're quite soft dogs and are easier to
manage than PWDs. Maybe it's the lines around here, I dunno.
Robin Nuttall
I know several dozen as well, and like I say, I talk a lot to my friend
in the breed club. She has one of the top titled SCWT in the country and
she'll tell you flat out that they are NOT good with kids and NOT good
first-time dogs. Even her dog, who is quite personable with people, is
very dog aggressive.
Rocky
rec.pets.dogs.breeds:
> I know several dozen as well, and like I say, I talk a lot
> to my friend in the breed club. She has one of the top
> titled SCWT in the country and she'll tell you flat out
> that they are NOT good with kids and NOT good first-time
> dogs. Even her dog, who is quite personable with people, is
> very dog aggressive.
And then there are those like the one who's going to start in my
daycare this Wednesday - at his "interview", he got along right
away with Rocky, Friday, and an unneutered Belgian Shepherd.
He's also the first dog the couple has ever owned. As I said,
maybe it's the lines around here, but he's generally
representative of the SCWTs I know.
golden...@ablewise.com
as well as any hybrid can be registered with Universal Kennel Club,
CKC or other known Kennel clubs. Also, you can test a breeding dog
until it drops dead and this WILL NOT prevent the offspring from coming
down with some sort of genetic ailment because many dogs can pass TESTS
and be a silent carrier.YOu can easily locate doodle breeders by typing
"GOldendoodle" in your google search box.
Amy Dahl
golden...@ablewise.com wrote:
> FIrst of all, goldendoodles ARE A REGISTERABLE! BREED. Goldendoodles
> as well as any hybrid can be registered with Universal Kennel Club,
> CKC or other known Kennel clubs. Also, you can test a breeding dog
> until it drops dead and this WILL NOT prevent the offspring from coming
> down with some sort of genetic ailment because many dogs can pass TESTS
> and be a silent carrier.YOu can easily locate doodle breeders by typing
> "GOldendoodle" in your google search box.
Note: when I referred to UKC, I meant the United Kennel Club, an registry
that celebrated its centennial a few years ago. This (real) UKC holds
conformation shows, obedience, and field events, and is the parent registry
for a number of American breeds, including the working coonhounds.
"CKC" is commonly used by Americans to refer to the Canadian Kennel
Club, the national dog registry of Canada (not that it's a government body;
international dog transactions generally recognize one registry per
country).
I am pretty sure this poster is applying the same initials to the
Continental
Kennel Club. The real CKC will not register "any hybrid"! As I said
before, the purpose of registration is to keep track of individuals who may
be listed in pedigrees, so that an accurate stud book can be maintained for
breeding purposes. There is no point in registering any animal that is
not a member of an identifiable breed and potentially part of the breeding
pool of that breed...unless it be to fool unwary buyers into thinking their
dog has legitimacy because it has "papers."
The previous poster is correct that genetic testing does not eliminate
defects in a single generation. It makes possible selection against
health problems that, over several generations, will thereby become
less prevalent in the breed. Again it's the difference between the long
view--trying to improve one's stock over time--and the short view,
getting a litter of pups on the ground that do not represent the future
of the breed, because they aren't of the parent breed, being mutts.
It is a pretty good explanation of why the OP is having difficulty finding
a breeder that does genetic testing.
Amy Dahl
Mary H Healey
news:1151976266....@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> FIrst of all, goldendoodles ARE A REGISTERABLE! BREED.
Bullshit.
> Goldendoodles
> as well as any hybrid can be registered with Universal Kennel Club,
> CKC or other known Kennel clubs.
That'd be ConKC, "CKC" is usually reserved for the Canadian Kennel Club.
And "UKC" is the United Kennel Club, not this "Universal Kennel Club" of
which you speak. I wonder why these kitchen sink paper factories choose to
name themselves in such a way as to mimic the initials of well-established,
well-regarded registries?
They ain't "hybrids", neither. Mules are hybrids. Goldendoodles are
merely marketing in search of a product.
Further,
>Also, you can test a breeding dog
> until it drops dead and this WILL NOT prevent the offspring from coming
> down with some sort of genetic ailment because many dogs can pass TESTS
> and be a silent carrier.
And many dogs can be prevented from breeding when their dysplasia or other
problem is uncovered. And the *odds* of a healthy pup from tested and
proven healthy parents is greater than the odds of two untested randombred
animals producing healthy progeny.
> YOu can easily locate doodle breeders by typing
> "GOldendoodle" in your google search box.
Unfortunately, that's probably correct. But it doesn't answer the OP's
questions or concerns.
Christy
<golden...@ablewise.com> wrote in message
news:1151976266....@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> FIrst of all, goldendoodles ARE A REGISTERABLE! BREED.
No. They are neither registerable, nor a breed. Only purebred dogs of
registered litters are registerable with any legitimate registries. As for
being a breed, they fail to meet the most simple of requirements - they do
not breed true. One golden/poodle mix bred to another will not produce
puppies with expected characteristics - they will produce a variety of
traits ranging from golden to poodle. Ergo, you breed mutts.
Goldendoodles
> as well as any hybrid can be registered with Universal Kennel Club,
> CKC or other known Kennel clubs.
These are not kennel clubs. They are paper mills. They will issue papers to
any dog, regardless of known pedigree, purebred status, etc. They exist
solely to provide lowlife breeders the means to fool uneducated buyers.
Also, you can test a breeding dog
> until it drops dead and this WILL NOT prevent the offspring from coming
> down with some sort of genetic ailment because many dogs can pass TESTS
> and be a silent carrier.
I'm interested in where you acquired your genetics information? Because it
is as inaccurate as everything else you've written. By these statements I
assume you have NOT done genetic testing on your dogs prior to breeding?
Lovely.
Incidentally, dogs that pass tests are not guaranteed to produce healthy
offspring - but they are sure as hell more likely to than dogs that fail
tests. That's just simple logic. But if you don't test, you don't know
anything about the chances of producing problems. And some tests, such as
the DNA markers for certain disorders, CAN prevent the offspring from coming
down with those disorders if the parents are proven not to carry them. But
again, if you don't test...
YOu can easily locate doodle breeders by typing
> "GOldendoodle" in your google search box.
Yes, but you can't locate responsible ones, ever.
Christy
Paula
wrote:
>> YOu can easily locate doodle breeders by typing
>> "GOldendoodle" in your google search box.
>
>Unfortunately, that's probably correct. But it doesn't answer the OP's
>questions or concerns.
You can also find all kinds of get rich quick scams on the internet.
Doesn't mean you want to send them money.
I just looked through some goldendoodle web pages and there are a lot
of ugly goldendoodles. Some of them are cute, but not most of them. I
think I'd get a golden/poodle cross from petfinder as an adult to make
sure it turned out the way I wanted it to and without paying an arm
and a leg. The thing that really made me cringe was a breeder
advertising that she had mini goldendoodle litters available. How
many dogs was she breeding and culling to get minis from golden
retrievers? I admit to not knowing a whole lot about genetics, but I
don't see a bunch of mini's coming out of a first generation cross
even if the poodle part is mini.
Rak
up on a couple of your entries in direct emails, and was impressed by
how helpful people were. For those who spend a lot of time reading and
writing in this forum for the sake of maintaining breed integrity,
protecting dogs and consumers, let me tell you that you made a
difference.
As educated as I thought I was, there was a lot to learn.
I hope we can end it on that note, so that future posts can lead to
direct assistance in decision-making and resources, rather than stay at
argumentative stages (not that there is anything wrong with that--it's
just not very helpful when someone's needing real-time help.)
So, thanx again, everyone...
Rak.
Janet Puistonen
> I want to thank the people who helped me sort through this. I
> followed up on a couple of your entries in direct emails, and was
> impressed by how helpful people were. For those who spend a lot of
> time reading and writing in this forum for the sake of maintaining
> breed integrity, protecting dogs and consumers, let me tell you that
> you made a difference.
>
> As educated as I thought I was, there was a lot to learn.
>
> I hope we can end it on that note, so that future posts can lead to
> direct assistance in decision-making and resources, rather than stay
> at argumentative stages (not that there is anything wrong with
> that--it's just not very helpful when someone's needing real-time
> help.)
>
> So, thanx again, everyone...
>
> Rak.
Rak, you have to realize that the argumentative stage isn't directed at you:
it's directed at this "goldendoodle breeder" and at anyone who may happen to
stray across this conversation when googling in search of information.
If it makes you feel more comfortable, I suggest you start a new thread
about your now-refined search.
The_Insanely_Freakin_Simply...@hotmail.com
dog abusing punk thug coward active acute chronic
long term incurable mental case and professional
dog trainin an ETHICKAL BREEDIN FRAUD,
Amy Dahl wrote:
> Maybe I can be the first to jump on this one....
Then The Sincerely Incredibly Freakin Insanely Simply Amazing
Grand Puppy, Child, Pussy, Birdy And Horsey Wizard will likely
jump on you and bitch slap *(or is that CHIN CHUCK) you back
into your coffin <{): ~ ( >
"I Would Never Advise Anyone To Slap A Dog
I Do Not Believe There Is A Single Circumstance
Ever, Where Slapping A Dog Is Anything But
Destructive," "I don't see why anyone would want
to choke or beat a dog, or how any trainer could
possibly get a good working dog by making them
unhapper, fearful, cowering, etc." sez amy lying
frosty dahl.
amy lying frosty dahl continues:
"On the other extreme, the really hard dogs
we have trained require much more frequent
and heavy application of pressure (PAIN j.h.)
to get the job done,
This is continued resistance to your increasing
authority, and the job is not done until it is overcome
Get A 30"- 40" Stick.You can have a helper wield
the stick, or do it yourself. Tougher, less tractable
dogs may require you to progress to striking them
more sharply
Try pinching the ear between the metal casing and
the collar, even the buckle on the collar. Persist!
Eventually, the dog will give in
but will squeal, thrash around, and direct their
efforts to escaping the ear pinch
You can press the dog's ear with a shotshell
instead of your thumb even get a studded collar
and pinch the ear against that
Make the dog's need to stop the pinching so
urgent that resisting your will fades in importance.
CHUCK IT Under ITS Chin With That Ever Ready
Right Hand, As it catches on, try using the stick
and no ear pinch.
When the dog is digging out to beat the stick
and seems totally reliable without any ear pinch,
you are finished
If the dog drops it, chuck it solidly under the chin,
say "No! Hold!"
(stay on the ear until it does) (perhaps because
the ear is getting tender, or the dog has decided
it isn't worth it)" lying frosty dahl.
"Chin cuff absolutely does not mean slap,"
professora gingold.
terri willis, Psychoclown wrote:
"Nope. That "beating dogs with sticks" things is
something you twisted out of context, because you
are full of bizarro manure."
lying frosty dahl sez she doesn't twist:
"None of my posts, prior to or subsequent to
Jerry Howe's attacks, encourage anyone to
twist ears, beat dogs, confront, intimidate,
frighten, or any of the crap he constantly
attributes to me," lying frosty dahl.
BWEEEEAHAHAHHAAA!!!
"Pudge Was So Soft That She Could And
Would Avoid A Simple Swat On The Rump
With A Riding Crop," lying frosty dahl,
discoverer of CANNIBALISM in Labradors.
Perhaps the mom dog didn't want her babies
HURT all their lives like HOWE HOWER dog
lovers PREFER to HURT THEIR DOGS?
"John ran out, grabbed Blackie by the collar, and
gave the dog two or three medium whacks on the
rump with a training stick while holding him partially
off the ground. John then told Blackie to sit, ran back
to the line and cast him back to the dummies."
The Puppy Wizard sez a mom dog eatin her babies
to SAVE THEM from a fate like that, is COMMENDABLE.
We're gonna teach folks THAT AIN'T NORMAL...
> Rak wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm being obsessively careful about finding a goldendoodle breeder.
There's LOTS of them arHOWEND ain't there, lyin frosty dahl.
> > Know basically the dog I want (smallish--but NOT mini goldendoodle
> > preferably first generation mix, open to others; either sex; any
> > color except silver; estimated <50 lbs). Alternatively, labradoodle
> > (wavy to shaggy hair) and the above characteristics. Not looking for
> > bargain. Preferably some training.
You like to train your pups to have a gentle MHOWETH by
shovin your fingers DHOWEN their throats to gently choke
them HOWETA MHOWETING. AIN'T THAT correct, lyin frosty dahl.
> > Non-negotiable: 2 year health warranty, hip, eye tested, registered,
> > no more than 6-8 litters/year (preferably <5), access to meet the
> > parents, 2+ litters followed through for temperament--references to
> > their owners.
Sounds like MOST ETHICAL GoldenDoodle breeders. DON'T IT, lyin frosty
dahl.
> Frankly, the genetic testing and warranty sound more
> characteristic of the better breeders you find among
> purebred dogs.
That so? You mean amongst ETHICKAL BREEDERS who SCREEN their
dogs for GENETIC PROBLEMS caused by ETHICKAL BREEDIN?
> I have never heard of a breeder of mixes offering such things.
That so? PERHAPS THAT'S on accHOWENT of THEY AIN'T BREEDIN DOGS
who got GENETIC PROBLEMS in their chumpion lines, eh lyin frosty
dahl?
> In purebreds, good breeders
Like yourself, lying frosty dahl?
> are hoping to improve their stock over generations; crossbreedings
> are basically a genetic dead end, so why bother?
Perhaps to get different traits, like the GoldenDoodle
etc. offers lyin frosty dahl <{}; ~ ) >
> Furthermore, hip (OFA) and eye (CERF) evaluations are
> done with reference to what is considered normal within
> a given breed.
That so? You mean, amongst ETHICKAL BREEDERS who KNOW
their SELECTIVELY BRED HAND PICKED and TESTED for
generatiHOWES after generatiHOWENS of CHUPion purebred
field stock, lyin frosty dahl?
DOESN'T IT MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU that those "GENETIC PROBLEMS"
are CAUSED BY YOUR ETICKAL BREEDING and VETERINARY MALPRACTICE?
If they AIN'T GOT IT in their line, then, THEY AIN'T GOT IT.
FurtherMOORE, PRA, like CHD (Canine Hip Dysplasia a vitamin
C deficiency like scurvy) is a metabolic / nutritional defect
and SHOULD NOT PRESENT as a clinical problem anyMOORE NHOWE
that we KNOW ALL abHOWET IT:
http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/fileadmin/gdba/images/downloads/
CPRAisntanymore.doc
Central Progressive Retinal Atrophy - isn't anymore June 1999
The most exciting outcome of this work is that the supplementation
of vitamin E to the dog's diet can maintain the blood levels at
sufficiently high values to stop the disease in its tracks.
What has been established is that in dogs which developed this
disease, there is a defect present in the metabolism pathway of
vitamin E. In the clinically affected breeds we studied, the
serum levels of vitamin E are usually lower than normal and this
means that there is less vitamin E available to the retina.
The constituent chemical in vitamin E is an important antioxidant
substance and it helps protect retinal tissue from damage caused
by light. Thus, where there is insufficient vitamin E the retina
can be easily damaged. The greater the deficiency the quicker the
disease appears and the quicker it progresses.
The work we have done has shown that affected dogs are simply
not able to retain ingested vitamin E in their system and
after a meal there is a rapid decay in the blood levels.
In fact this disease is very similar to the disease which
affects the human retina and is called FIVE (Familial
Isolated Vitamin E deficiency). We believe the source of
the defect may be a deficiency of the transport factor
produced by the liver that is required to move vitamin
E around in the circulation.
Some twenty years ago I looked at what could only be
described as an epidemic outbreak of RPED in the Briard
breed and it was those findings which suggested that a
nutritional factor was probably involved in the aetiology
of the condition. At that time, some thirty percent of the
breed was affected with RPED to varying extent by six years
of age.
At the time I completed a limited assessment of possible
nutritional factors and was impressed with the similarity
of RPED and the retinal changes which occur in acute Vitamin
E deficiency. In a number of both normal and clinically
affected Briards there was an indication from the blood
work that vitamin E might be significant.
One of the disease scourges of the pedigree dog world is
blindness caused by a number of progressive degenerations
of the retina, grouped together under the term "Progressive
Retinal Atrophy'1 (PRA).
It is a term that strikes fear into the hearts of dog breeders
simply because of its severe effects and the fact that there is
no treatment available.
So what is PRA and why have I entitled this article in such a way?
Sadly, intensive breeding programmes designed to improve the
standard of pedigree dogs have, on occasion, managed to select
deleterious genetic material and that material is seen as disease.
Intensive breeding does not produce the genetic mutations themselves
but the selection involved increases the incidence of mutations in
the general population. Random breeding on the other hand dilutes
this incidence.
With this disease the age of onset is variable and, unlike PRA,
this is not related to the breed of dog involved. RPED has been
recorded as early as fifteen months of age, but it may not make
its appearance until the eighth year of life in the same breed.
It was this considerable variability in the age of onset and the
speed of progression within the same breed which I considered to
indicate that factors other than a genetic predisposition may be
at work.
There is no doubt that breed predisposition clearly demonstrates
a genetic input, but it would seem obvious that other non-genetic
factors could influence the age of onset and the speed at which
the disease changes occur.
-----------
http://www.belfield.com/article5.html
Canine Hip Dysplasia (CHD), a crippling disease of the coxofemoral
joint (hip), was first observed and reported in 1945 by the late Dr.
Gary Schnelle. Dr. Schnelle was the staff radiologist at Angels
Memorial Hospital at Boston, Massachusetts and reported his
observations
in The North American Veterinarian Journal and termed the condition
"Congenital Coxofemoral Subluxation".
Though "congenital", by definition, means "existing at
birth but not hereditary", Schnelle theorized the cause
to be a recessive gene. Today, this condition is associated
with the large breeds of canines, however Schnelle's initial
observations were in the smaller breeds i.e., cocker spaniels,
terriers, etc..
During the 1960's, Dr. Wayne Riser, a veterinary pathologist,
collaborated with a geneticist and postulated the concept that
CHD was "polygenetic with environmental overtones" and during
this time frame, the term "Canine Hip Dysplasia" was born.
There has been a string of professionals who have perpetuated the
heredity theory even until the present. We have been encouraged to
breed selectively, alter, and in some cases, euthanize the afflicted
canines.
This is what the veterinary experts have been insisting the dog
breeders and fanciers do to prevent CHD for the past fifty-two
years. Is it possible we have been on the wrong track for more
than a half century? One authority, of a veterinary teaching
institution in a personal correspondence to the author, admitted
the "experts" have failed to solve the CHD problem.
In 1976, The author published his observations ("Chronic Subclinical
Scurvy and Canine Hip Dysplasia") in his small animal practice through
the administration of vitamin C to prevent CHD. Whether this concept
has been accepted or not it has sparked controversy, and has some
veterinarians reassessing the archaic heredity theory. There are two
unanswered relevant questions the "experts" have failed to answer to
prove the heredity theory.
Why are we so loathe to believe the idea today that so many
of our killers today such as cancer and heart disease can
be prevented by getting enough of the substances found in
fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods?
Perhaps in the past we had the excuse of a lack of evidence,
but today that dodge is no longer an acceptable excuse for
neglecting healthy practices. And Dr. Packer points out that
a healthy diet is not nearly enough, we need to supplement
our modern diets to get the optimum amounts of these antioxidants.
Dr. Packer explains that of the hundreds of known antioxidants
there are five which seem to be the most important, and which
operate as a network, meaning that they help balance and recycle
each other. Cells are essentially filled with water surrounded
by a fatty wall, so both fat and water soluble varieties are
important.
Two of the network antioxidants are water soluble (vitamin C
and glutathione), two are fat soluble (vitamin E and CoQ10),
and one (lipoic acid) is both fat and water soluble. The
importance of this latter team member has only been known in
the last decade. It may be the most important of all and most
daily supplement manufacturers don't even include it.
Here's another EXXXCELLENT study on dysplasia
and vitamin C: http://www.workingdogs.com/doc0039.htm
> There are no standards for mixed-breed dogs--no reference
> base for range of hip-joint conformations, no database
> on frequency of various eye problems.
Yeah, on accHOWENT of THEY DON'T EXXXIST if you ain't a
ETHICKAL BREEDER tryin to IMPROVE the DEFECTIVE LINES
you're ETHICKALLY BREEDIN for improving the breed.
> Registration, again, is a problem.
That so? For whom? YOU? The A.K.C.?
> Registration exists to keep track of individuals and
> pedigrees within a breed. Unless there is a special
> registry for "goldendoodles," treating this mix as a
> breed, you will not be able to register such a dog.
You mean, with the A.K.C. and your pals?
> Certainly you will not receive a registration that qualifies your
> dog to participate in events licensed by the major registries, AKC
> and UKC, because they do not register mixed-breed dogs.
Well then, perhaps they'll just make due witHOWET YOUR APPROVAL?
> > AREA: VA, MD, WV, PA.
> >
> > I've combed through all recommended goldendoodle.com breeders, but
> > running into conflicting info after cross-referencing in posts, or
> > after talking/emailing owners, or hearing the "raised by family" has a
> > veeeery big family.
That's irrelevent hogwash.
> > Would really appreciate information to help prevent any
> > problems prospective owners increasingly run into.
He means, other than lyin?
> > Thank you!
>
> You would probably have a lot more success finding the
> kind of commitment you seek from a good breeder of Golden
> retrievers or a good breeder of Poodles.
Or a ETHICKAL breeder like yourself, lyin frosty dahl?
> Good luck.
Successfully handling raising and trainin dogs AIN'T
a matter of LUCK, lying frosty dahl. "Luck is for
SUCKERS," The Puppy Wizard's DADDY <{); ~ ) >
> Amy Dahl
"Warning: Sometimes The Corrections Will Seem Quite Harsh And
Cause You To Cringe. This Is A Normal Reaction The First Few
Times It Happens, But You'll Get Over It." mike duforth, author:
"Courteous Canine."
And from terri willis, Psychoclown wrote:
"Nope. That "beating dogs with sticks" things is
something you twisted out of context, because you
are full of bizarro manure."
Here's lying frosty dahl BEATING A DOG to TRAIN IT:
Borrowed from: "Puppy Raising Tips" from
professional trainers, John and Amy Dahl.
"Around four months many puppies can withstand a
correction. Unfortunately this is the time they start
teething and if their mouth hurts, they may act
generally sensitive. If this is the case, be patient and
wait for all those baby teeth to fall out.
In training, retrievers often respond to physical correction
better than verbal correction. While "NO!" is extremely
useful if puppy is about to bite an electrical cord or steal
food off the table, when you are teaching them something
(like obedience) a sharp jerk on their lead or swat with a
stick gets the message across with less emotion and less
effect on their confidence.
If they drop the dummy and act like their mouth hurts
when they are teething, stop all retrieving and wait for
their mouth to feel better. A correction should be just
severe enough to get the dog to respond.
Repeated weak corrections are very stressful to the dog."
=====================
Amy Dahl writes:
"From where I sit, there is a difference. I haven't noticed
any of the contingent who like Koehler trying to force
their method on everyone, or calling others names because
they do not use the method.
I personally believe the Koehler method is a more
humane way of teaching than any alternative I have
studied.
And I am not averse to learning--I have studied a I have studied a
number of methods.
Koehler, of course, stops far short of the specialized
work I do with retrievers, and some of the things in his
book, such as making the dog walk behind the handler
on the "finish," are inappropriate for retriever work.
Why do I think Koehler's method is more humane than others?
First, I don't believe "corrections vs. no corrections" is as
significant to dogs as it is to people. Applied correctly,
Koehler's method uses *no* intimidation, fear, or emotional
manipulation. It is clear and definite, and the handler's
actions are always predictable. The method is masterfully
designed to prevent confrontation or vying for control in
any way. It places high demands of responsibility on the
trainer, and takes a great deal of commitment to do correctly,
so it is not for the casual "dabbler." When done well,very
few corrections are needed.
In brief, I think the clarity, predictability, and absence
of emotional blackmail weigh more strongly in the method's
favor, than the occasional brief unpleasantness of correction
weighs against it." lying frosty dahl.
END lyingfrosty dahl
Animal Behavior Forensic Sciences Research Laboratory
Subject: Soft Dogs = An Iron Clad Case Of Dog Abuse - (Stick Man) dahl.
HOWEDY People,
Without ever having read this article in advance, I've written
the subject header and intend to go through the dahl article
to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our expert field dog
trainers are incompetent lying dog abusing Thugs.
> Oak Hill Kennel
> Soft Dogs
So called soft dogs means a dog that'll collapse to the ground
or shake and quiver for days after being shocked, choked,
pinched, and beaten. That's what our field dog trainers breed
DOWN for, to get a dog that won't bite them when they
viciously pinch and twist their ears between spikes or the
buckle of their collars and the brass of a shot shell.
> by John and Amy Dahl
> First published in The Retriever Journal, December/January
> 1997-98
> There is not universal agreement as to the meaning of the
> term "soft" in describing a retriever.
Because there's no rhyme or reason to ever hurting a field dog
to make them interested in working... hunting. That's the most
NATURAL thing in the world for a Retriever Dog to do.
> Many enthusiasts confuse lack of desire or recalcitrance in
> training with softness
You mean the dog's withdrawal to defend itself by cowering
and shaking and pleading not to be HURT someMOORE.
> while others label shyness, spookiness, and other
> deficiencies of attitude as softness.
What else would we expect our dog abusers to say when they're
jerking and choking and pinching a dog to motivate them to
want to work with them as their partners? Oh. That's the
problem. Our field dog training experts do not train their
dogs to be partners, they hurt and intimidate and force their
dogs to do as they're told, or get HURT.
> We apply the term softness more simply to the inability or
> unwillingness of a retriever to respond well to heavy force.
PAIN, INTIMIDATION, CHOKING, SHOCKING, and BEATING.
> When dealing with such a dog,
In my nearly forty years of specializing in temperament and
behavior problems in mostly giant breed dogs I've never found
the need to beat a dog with a stick. And it's been over twenty
five years since I've used a correction... I've learned alot
during my career.
> the use of pressure (pain, jh) must be restricted to the level
> at which a desirable response is achieved, without overwhelming
> the dog.
Well isn't that NICE of you! You don't approve of overly
HURTING your dogs to motivate them to want to work and do
everything you ask.
> Although there seems to be a tendency among some to drop a
> soft dog like the proverbial hot potato,
Because they can't train a dog without HURTING it. Why must
you experts HURT dogs to train them? There isn't anything you
do in field work that I don't need to do for protection work,
just a little different spin, that's all. Dog training is dog
training and a dog is a dog.
> we find the soft dog,
But not to our experts. Our experts have hard and soft and
lots of other euphemisms for temperament problems THEY CAUSE
in their absurd, vicious, warped training methods.
> on the average, no more difficult to train to top
> performance than the "hard"
> dog -- the dog which is not very susceptible to pain.
Notice our experts are moore concerned with pain and HOWE to
administer it than actually motivating the dog to want to
work. That's where I start off teaching my students, HOWE to
command their dog's attention through praise and motivate
their dogs to naturally want to do everything they're asked
because that's the most NATURAL thing for a PACK animal to
WANT do, follow the directions of the pack leaders in a
hunt... The very most basic fundamental rule of dog training
is UNKNOWN to our experts.
> Often the soft dog can be taught lessons through light
> pressure more easily than the hard dog through heavy pressure.
What? What lessons are taught through pain and fear? Pain and
fear inhibit learning and memory recall and inhibit the dog
from TRYING out of fear of being HURT someMOORE.
> Parenthetically, we would deceive ourselves,
You ain't deceiving nobody no moore. I'm blowing the whistle
on you BIG TIME.
> and fail to deal with the project of training a dog
> properly,
PROPERLY? HURTING DOGS IS NOT PROPER.
> if we did not admit that all correction has an element of
> pain, physical or emotional, in it.
Sorry, lyng frosty dahl. Only dog abusing Thugs need to
inflict pain, fear, and intimidation into a learning
situation.
> The key is to understand the
The nature of our dog abusing trainers. They're mentally
deficient, and incompetent when it comes to handling and
training dogs, or they wouldn't NEED to HURT them.
> use of pressure and to apply it to a degree and with a
> frequency that will get the job done without making the dog go
sour.
But it may make some dogs go sour... isn't that correct? NO.
That's not correct. There's no correct way to hurt and
intimidate a dog to train it.
> Soft dogs are not all soft in the same areas or to the same
degree.
Yes, I expect you'd know all about the different ways dogs
experess pain and fear.
> Some soft dogs lack drive,
Could that be because you're HURTING and INTIMIDATING them,
lying frosty dahl?
> range,
That could be because they know you can't HURT them at a
distance...or in field trials.
> birdiness,
Perhaps the pain has something to do with diminished desire to
even think about a bird???
> or initiative.
HOWE could your hickory stick fail to motivate your dogs???
> These failings are not necessarily related to softness
Right. They're related to incompetent uncaring vicious rotten
dog abusing Thugs hurting dogs because they don't understand
HOWE to train them without inflicting PAIN and INTIMIDATING
them.
> and are about equally common in average and hard dogs.
You mean a dog is a dog, dahl?
> Slowness, dislike of the water, and avoidance of difficult
> cover may all occur in the temperamentally soft dog, but again
> are not necessarily a result of the softness.
Moore doubletalk.
> Dogs that are extremely susceptible to discomfort in cold
> water, may, however, be described as having a form of
> softness that prevents their becoming good cold water dogs,
> even with extensive training.
I wouldn't know... I'm afraid of cold unless it's food.
> When we think of soft dogs we more often think of those we
> know or have trained who were soft in the sense that it took
> very little physical force to make them comply.
Oh, now that's a switch (pardon the pun).
> Often these dogs were extremely talented, had great drive
> and speed, were birdy and intelligent and had endearing
> personalities. Several made excellent field trial performers.
Rare is it that you have a dog you don't need to hurt a lot?
> Modern electric collars can make training less traumatic for
> soft dogs such as this golden bitch
Yes, shocking the dog is much nicer than beating and twisting
its ears and choking IT...
> One of these was FC/AFC Jaffer's Blackie. Blackie was a
> large dog with great drive, intelligence, and charisma. He
> was soft. A lesson could be taught to him quickly with
> little pressure,
You mean without hurting and intimidating him much?
> and he would retain it.
Yes. Research into learning tells us we cannot learn and
retain and recall information if we are in pain and under
duress.
> Shortly after Blackie came in for training, at 2 1/2 years
> of age, John was running the dog on some lining problems when
> Blackie stopped midway to the dummies
You and john were in front of the dog?
> and plastered his nose to the ground. He was glued to bitch
> scent from a female who had run the test previously.
Well, that would make a dog trainer angry, wouldn't it?
> John ran out, grabbed Blackie by the collar, and gave the
> dog two or three medium whacks on the rump with a training
> stick while holding him partially off the ground.
What is this "training stick?" I've never used a stick except
to throw for the dog to play with. You beat your dogs in
training with a stick.
> John then told Blackie to sit, ran back to the line and cast
> him back to the dummies.
And the dog came to you and your dh dog abuser?
> Blackie responded beautifully and we can't remember his ever
> putting his nose down while being run on a test again.
Because you were smart enough to pick IT off the ground and
BEAT IT.
> He was an example of a dog having all the right
> characteristics of a competitive retriever
You mean Blackie didn't try to defend himself as any
respectable dog would do because he's been beaten down.
> while soft enough to learn the lessons quickly and with
> little pressure.
Seems to me you'd do well to get the heel outta this business
before you end up in jail for animal abuse.
> FC Oak Hill Exponent (Pudge) was another example of a soft
> dog with great drive, speed, and cold water ability. Pudge
> was so soft that she could and would avoid a simple swat on
> the rump with a riding crop, even when on a check cord.
Why would you want to beat a dog with a horse whip while it's
tied to a tree?
> This form of softness, moving quickly to avoid physical
> correction,
Amazing! The dog has the audacity to avoid being beaten by
you?
> made her difficult in some ways,
Yeah. You had a hard time BEATING her cause she keeps ducking,
you pig.
> but she was so susceptible to what pressure we were able to
> apply
You mean you was able to train her even though you kept
missing hitting her with your horse whip?
> that her learning rate was almost unbelievable.
Oh. Maybe she became so confident she could outmanouver you
swinging your horse whip that she was able to relax enough to
figure out HOWE COME you were beating her???
> When she was three years old,
Did she make it to four, or did she throw herself into the
ocean to avoid being beaten anyMOORE?
> even though she was an excellent marker, she
> couldn't do tests having two bird throwers close together.
> Faced with this situtation, Pudge couldn't decide which one
> to go to and would pop (stop and look back) out of
> confusion.
That's the same problem you guys have with the glove in the
directed retrieve and the other example you mentioned the
other day about the dog going to the previous exercise when
the field is changed... you HURT the dog and that's why they
go out of control. Same problem for barking on line in susan
fraser's example where she and lyingdogDUMMY concluded they've
got to "steady" the dog moore by BEATING HIM for barking, the
reason he barks in the first place... kinda like homeopathy.
> This behavior was making it difficult to teach her the more
> challenging marking tests.
The dog was scared out of her wits, becase you and your dummy
husband BEAT HER.
> Pudge had had two force-on-back programs with a stick
You mean you needed to beat her for two hours...
> and a long 100-yd cord before this and was well forced to
> go.
You let her run full tilt for 100 yards and then jerk her
assoverbucket to teach her a lesson. That's a good way to
cripple or kill a dog.
> John's solution to the popping on marks was to put the
> electric collar on her -- with no preliminary conditioning
> we are ashamed to say, as we would not do this today -
Well let's talk about that, since you refuse to discuss this
aspect in our snake proofing discussions... From your own
words, the dog must be properly conditioned to the collar
before and after the training involving introducing the dog to
the shock, so the dog doesn't become DEPENDENT on wearing the
shock collar to be TRAINED... IOW, our so called snake
proofing lessons are INEFFECTIVE unless the dog has been
properly conditioned to the shock collar, a proceedure that
requires at least a week, preferable two weeks and a few days
of wearing the collar after the training has been effected to
OUTWIT the dog into responding even in the absence of DURESS,
i.e. wearing his shock collar. Got it? Your snake proofing
methods are faulty, and you and I know this, and NOBODY is
saying nothing, but KILLFILE JERRY.
> - and send Pudge on her marks. When she popped he would give
> the back cast with transmitter in hand, nick her lightly
> with the collar,
You mean SHOCK her. Let's discuss corrections. Every
incompetent trainer who uses force will agree that a light
correction is going to nag the dog and NOT be effective, and
may even provoke the dog. So, are you giving an ineffective
lite correction, or are you giving the dog an EFFECTIVE
correction.
As a koehler trainer, you know as well as I do that koehler
would solidly chastise you for giving lite corrections, as he
has stressed throughout his definitive treatise on PAIN and
INTIMIDATION methods of TRAINING.
> and holler "Back!" This worked so well that after two or
> three sessions of this kind Pudge stopped popping, drove
> back to her birds, and made her FC within the year.
So, evidentally the lite corrections were EFFECTIVE
corrections. That's why I've offered one thousand dollars for
any trainer to train a dog while wearing a dual tuned shock
collar themselves... lite corrections my @$$.
> On the other extreme, the really hard dogs we have trained
> require much more frequent and heavy application of pressure
> to get the job done. Such were Dual Ch/AFC Warpath Macho,
> who was extremely difficult to get to stop on a whistle, and
> FC Penney's Nifty Bouncer, who had convinced himself and
> almost us that he would never wait until he was sent to take
> off after a bird. Both of these dogs, although excellent
> performers, needed frequent and convincing use of physical
> force to keep them under wraps. They, too, were happy, hard
> workers, but being tough they were higher maintenance dogs
> in training.
Yeah. Are there any two letters in the alphabet (FC, JH, CH,
etc.) worth beating your dog over?
Any "trainer" who has to hurt their dog to make him work,
should get the heel outta this business and leave the work to
those who know HOWE to outwit a puppy dog without beating him.
> What degree of softness, and in combination with what other
> traits, might we want in an hypothetical "ideal" retriever?
Why don't you learn HOWE to make your dogs enjoy working with
you and teach them what you want them to do, instead of just
beating choking and shocking it into them?
> The late Mike Paterno, who trained and handled the famed
> NAFC/FC Dee's Dandy Dude, once said "The easiest dog to
> train is a soft fast dog. The hardest dog to train is a
> fast hard dog."
I just love it when two dog abusers talk about abusing dogs.
You'll notice their discussions have no meaning to anyone
other than a dog abuser.
> There is a good deal of truth in this statement.
Yeah. For the same reasons as you couldn't lay your horse whip
on Pudge.
> The fast soft dog may have plenty of speed, style,
> and momentum to make a top retriever while being responsive
> enough to be brought under control easily. Conversely, the
> hard fast dog -- already tough to get under control --
> covers so much ground so rapidly that a single cast or
> whistle refusal often puts him beyond recovery.
IOW he's outta HURTING range.
> In trials this gives an overall appearance of discipline
> failure, and in training makes teaching hazard concepts
> difficult as he can get out of the area of the hazard so
> quickly.
That doesn't have to be the case. If you didn't HURT the dog,
he'd listen.
> A soft dog, especially a smart soft dog, can be particularly
> well-suited to a beginning trainer.
For the reason above, LESS NEED TO HURT IT means the dog
learns faster and remembers easier...
> A novice training his or her first dog is usually willing to
> adapt the methods to the dog,
Good point. If you had effective methods, the dog would adapt
to the method. That's called TRAINING, isn't it, lying frosty
dahl.
> and to invest the time and tennis-shoe soles needed to teach
> each concept with minimal pressure.
You mean they're willing to actually work at training the dog
instead of just beating choking shocking and pinching and
twisting its ears and toes and testicles and shooting it with
slingshots?
> Such a team are Lane and Huck, who have
> recently begun training with us a couple of times a week.
> Huck (the dog) is very intelligent, soft, and responsive.
> Until his move to our area, Lane had no guidance on how to
> train him.
You mean he managed to train his dog without the help of
watching at the heel of an expert dog abuser like you?
> He noticed that the books contradict one another
Imagine that? And I've discredited all the books...
> and treated them with (appropriate) skepticism.
Get outta this busines... dog abuser.
> Using his intuition and his knowledge of what he wanted
> the dog to know -- and his voice -- Lane had taught Huck to
> mark multiple falls and to handle extremely well. Our input
> has been to explain field trials and the types of tests Huck
> needs to learn to compete. Right now it looks as though Huck
> will be competitive in the Derby.
Imagine that, he managed to train a dog WITHOUT HURTING IT???
SHAAAZZZAAAM!!!
> Lane's commands are unconventional, but who cares? Huck is a
> wonderful example of what a soft dog can achieve for a
> dedicated trainer who pays attention to the dog's response
> and employs a light touch.
YET YOU PREFER TO INFLICT PAIN and INTIMIDATION because you're
an incompetent dog abusing Thug.
> By the same token, a soft or sensitive dog will fare less
> well with a trainer who is predisposed to train all
> individuals exactly the same and with plenty of force. And
> conversely, a hard dog might require more force than many
> novices are willing to apply.
I just love to hear a dog abuser discuss abusing dogs...
> Bitches as a general rule tend to be somewhat softer than
> males, and this may explain the high level of performance
> they often achieve in the hunting field and in trials. Being
> more easily trained by less physical pressure, they learn
> quickly and retain lessons well.
Hey? That's what I've been telling you bums for years. Now you
notice. NOW you FORGET and resume HURTING the dog again.
> This is by no means universally applicable, of course.
Of course, that's HOWE come you got that title LYING in front
of your name, lying frosty dahl.
> When we think of such bitches as Nodak Bonnie Girl; Want To
> (Missy), one of the best bitches we have ever worked with;
> or Scarlett of Lakestone, also extremely talented, we are
> also reminded that great hardness is by no means exclusive
> to males.
Ahhh. Good. I like to remember all the dogs I've hurt in the
past because I didn't know any better. But the problem is,
your list of recent memory is already bigger than my entire
list of forty years professionally working with mostly giant
breeds with handler aggression problems from dogs having been
abused by lying dog abusing Thugs like you, lying frosty dahl.
> Breed differences in softness may perhaps be best addressed
> by considering the Chesapeake Bay Retriever.
Yes, now there's a dog you're AFRAID to HURT cause they'll
likely defend themselves and let you have it, and customers
frown on their so called self proclaimed expert trainers
HANGING their dogs because they've been HURTING them and the
dog was provoked to ultimately defend himself.
> While they are considered the toughest of the retriever
> breeds by many writers, the Chesapeake in fact has a
> distinct inclination to softness.
Perhaps that's because you're AFRAID TO HURT THEM???
> We have seen many individuals of this breed who were so soft
> that the slightest tap with a training stick would make them
> flinch and cower.
Yes. The next move is to go for your throat. Dogs don't LIKE
being beaten.
> Some of these dogs can be well trained if they have great
> talent and drive,
But not by a dog abuser.
> but care must be taken to avoid traumatizing them with high
> levels of physical force;
Because they're likely to rip your goddamned throat out for
ya. I'd love to get you in court in front of a criminal jury
for dog abuse.
> the Chesapeake rarely can learn through these methods and is
> easily ruined.
That's why our Labrador lovers have bred their dogs DOWN to be
willing to tolerate being jerked and choked and beaten and
shocked and having their ears and toes and testicles pinched
and twisted.
> Labs and Goldens can be found in all combinations of
> softness and hardness, as well as with variations in
> speed, drive and other traits, but the same
> principles of training apply.
You mean if we don't hurt and intimidate the dog they learn
faster.
> Chesapeake Bay Retrievers are often soft
You mean they don't understand PAIN and INTIMIDATION. When
they collapse, that's when they get dangerous, because you
risk pushing their SURVIVAL INSTINCT button, and that's when
the dog turns on you. Chessies are too big for a gentle lady
like yourself to HANG unless you're prepared in advance with a
hitch on something or a nice tree limb or door to HANG your
student over till his eyes roll back in his head and his
tongue turns thick and blue and falls out the side of its
mouth and when you put IT on the ground it should stagger to
it's feet and PUKE, or you didn't freakin HANG IT PROPERLY...
as per your koehler book.
> In training the soft dog it is of utmost importance to show
> the dog what is expected of her or him.
Oy! What a miserable s.o.b. you are. A soft dog you're gonna
train, a tough dog you're gonna beat and shock and choke and
twist and pinch???
> Often the trainer must find a creative solution to make a
> concept clear to that particular dog.
You mean like my plan to see you criminally prosecuted as a
dog abuser?
> Once the dog understands through these demonstrations what
> you require, very little force is needed to get results.
Once you're committed to a criminal facility for the mentally
insane, we'll get laws passed protecting JQPubic from abusers
like you and janet boss and lying "I LOVE KOEHLER" lynn and
cindymooreon... and the rest of your Thug pals who call
themselves EXPERT dog trainers because they can beat a dog to
make it fearful enough to "REALLY DIG OUT to beat your
stick"...
> For example, many dogs need to be convinced to return from
> an opposite shore by water after getting their bird.
Yeah. Imagine if you called IT and IT realized you couldn't
HURT IT at that range? Maybe watch five or six months and a
cash customers dog flip you the dew claw and head for the
hills where he won't ever get shocked or choked or beaten or
chucked or cuffed or twisted or pinched. Damn, you got lots of
ways to HURT a dog, don't you? I've never done most of what
you teach.
> One common method is to first teach the "here" (come)
> command and collar condition the dog, then on the retrieve
> "here" "here" and they will plunge in
> and come back. Alternatively, the "here" command can be
> taught and thoroughly reinforced in the yard using
> distractions and correction (typically a jerk on a long
> check cord), until the dog is so reliable he or she can be
> called back across the water.
Well, seems nobody recommends jerking a dog to make IT come.
BUT SHOCKING IT seems to be in vogue. What's the difference?
You're punishing the dog for coming no matter HOWE to lie
about what you're doing. We'll discuss the come command in
another expose of our dog abusing Thugs.
> We currently have some Chesapeake puppies who need to learn
> this lesson.
You shove your fingers down their throats to choke them out of
mouthing anything, in the litter box. That's HOWE COME you got
to beat and choke and shock them to take the retrieve article.
> They are too small to wear the electric collar
Your pal fraudreck of sit means sit shock collar talk net
radio suggest punching some extra holes in the collar. Pretty
smart, huh?
> and as they are soft-natured
Until you start choking and beating them.
> and beginning to teethe (a condition which exacerbates
> softness in many dogs),
Yes, because you shove your fingers down their throats to
choke them out of mouthing ANYTHING, THAT'S WHY YOU GOT TO
HURT THEM TO PICK SOMETHING UP.
> the second method is much too harsh, so we are applying the
> soft-dog method. We demonstrate the principle by making it
> impossible to do anything but come straight back. We use a
> large trolling reel, 40 lb test monofilament
AND???
> and a trolling rod handle
To jerk and choke the puppy with...
> (end of the line attached to the puppy, of course).
Yes, the chokee.
> Put it in free spool and thumb the spool going out to avoid
> a backlash and when the dog reaches the far shore and the
> bird simply reel him back slowly but with steady pressure.
> If this is done correctly the dog will never panic and will
> take kindly to being guided directly back to his
> ever-so-forbearing trainer. Usually very few repetitions are
> necessary for the lesson to be learned.
Amazing! You didn't NEED to HURT the dog. But you did need to
hurt him up till then, because that's the nature of a dog
abusing Thug.
> This method is not for use in "cheating" situations but
> simply for getting a soft, unschooled dog to return and not
> mill around on the far shore.
Right. The "cheaters" get shocked, beaten, or choked IN
ADVANCE, to keep them honest.
> Every aspect of training should be made crystal clear to
> the soft dog before employing such methods as electric
> collar reinforcement, slingshot, etc.
Oh goody, we were talking about your use of the slingshot. You
denied you use it as koehler teaches. I've never read this web
page before as my stomach usually empties uncontrollably out
the wrong end when I read about hurting dogs to train them by
expert dog trainers who don't do what they say they do when
they're talking about not doing what they'd never do. Like
you've said, you'd never hit a dog.
> Another creative solution was needed for FC Glenspey's
> Evergreen Cricket, whom John got in training at 11 months of
> age. A talented bitch, Cricket was also very soft and had
> been treated roughly by others before she came here.
Where she'll be jerked and choked and shocked and beaten
PUPERLY.
> She would try to escape any physical correction and was good at
it.
You mean she wouldn't hold still in terror while you BEAT HER
cause some other bum trainer LOUSED HER UP by lettin her go
when they was whuppin her?
> She had become so shy of big men during her puppyhood
> that any hulking stranger of six feet in height could put
> her to flight.
Despite you shock and pronged spiked pinch choke collar and
training stick?
> In one Qualifying stake judged by a particularly large and
> heavy man, Cricket practically bolted
> when he raised his judge's book over her head to call for
> the birds in the first series.
Yeah... Course she wouldn't be afraid of a lady with a
training stick.
> This fear of large men had to be solved.
Yeah. Give her somethin to REALLY worry about.
> Cricket loved treats, and we capitalized on this by distributing
> treats to all of the large men we knew at a field trial -- there
are
> usually several. John would approach these men -- to
> Cricket, monsters -- with her on lead and casually encourage
> her up to them. The men, having been briefed, would call her
> up in a gentle way and feed her treats. It worked. Cricket
> lost her fear of big men and became competitive in field
> trials.
IMAGINE? Musta took months...
> The modern electric collar has become an excellent tool for
> reinforcement of taught commands among soft dogs in
> particular.
INDEED! They PREFER gettin BURNED, rather than BEATEN.
> By comparison, the emotion and drama of shouting
> and running out to the dog to make a correction,
You mean to HURT the dog because your EXPERT TRAINING failed.
> as needed in conventional training,
EXCUSE ME, lying frosty dahl. ONLY DOG ABUSERS NEED TO ABUSE DOGS
TO TRAIN THEM.
> can be too threatening for many soft dogs.
IMAGINE THAT??? Soft dogs... hrmph.
> Furthermore, the superior timing of corrections
You mean to HURT the dog puperly...
> with the collar generally allows lessons to be learned with
> fewer corrections.
You mean you hurt dogs for failing to learn what you couldn't
teach them?
> The lower levels of shock are no problem for the soft dog but
> they act as a reminder that someone out there is maintaining
> control.
You mean the dog KNOWS you're gonna HURT him. See my post
"Swiss Cheese" method..
> Often corrections can be accomplished with no shock at all
> merely by holding aloft the transmitter, recognizable to
> the dog from a considerable distance.
AS STATED: "The dog KNOWS you're gonna HURT him."
> On the other hand, the really hard dogs sometimes require
> such an escalation of shock intensity that even they are
> often confused and scared by the sensation of hard shock.
Because you're a EXPERT trainer...
> It is of course absolutely necessary to know your dog and what
> he can take,
INDEED. I'd like to invite you to test my dogs to see what they
can take. They'd MAUL you, and I'd be laugin too hard to call
them off. They'd rip you to pieces and bury the bones.
> and learn from, before applying any physical
> pressure in a training situation.
That so? HOWE do you TEST he dog's TOLERANCE FOR PAIN, in
advance of BURNING him? You'd have to jerk and choke IT on
a pronged spiked pinch choke collar and BEAT IT with a sstick
WOULDN'T YOU?
> Soft dogs often prove to be excellent performers as well as
> rapid learners.
Yes, terrorism IS a good teacher. I specialize in TERRORISM.
> So we should perhaps not decry the soft dog as an inadequate
> wimp, but rather see softness as a trait to be taken advantage
> of
Yeah, it means you got a 50/50 CHANCE of actually trainin the dog.
> through which we can train a dog more quickly, efficiently and
> thoroughly.
By waving your shock trainsmiter in the air?
> The soft dog may be showing us, "Hey! you don't have to hurt me
> much, I get the idea, and I'd like to cooperate."
IMAGINE? Kinda like as if I was breakin your arm?
> Let's hope many of them are that way and that we, as trainers,
> can recognize it and make the most of it when they come to us
> with that wonderful nature.
Yeah, INDEED. I like to give a good ass kickin while I'm breakin
a arm...
> Oak Hill Kennel, Pinehurst, NC (910) 295-6710
> Copyright © 1998 Oak Hill Kennel
So, that's HOWE COME it takes six months to train a field dog
that should train up in a couple weeks... Of curse, the "trainer"
is GETTIN PAID for every extra day in training they're brutalizin
the dog to force IT to do the most NATURAL job for a Retriever dog
to do...
The Sincerely Incredibly Freakin Insanely Simply Amazing
GRAND
Puppy, Child, Pussy, Birdy And Horsey Wizard <{}' ~ ) >
The_Insanely_Freakin_Simply...@hotmail.com
dog abusing punk thug coward active acute chronic
long term incurable mental case and professional
Amy Dahl wrote:
> Rak wrote:
>
> > > From what I've corrected, would you still say:
> > > "You would probably have a lot more success finding
> > > the kind of commitment you seek from a good breeder
> > > of Golden retrievers or a good breeder of Poodles."
>
> I would still say that.
INDEED? And you'd still be a lyin dog abusing fraud.
> There are breeders of Goldens and Poodles who
> do not offer what you seek,
You mean genetic testing of their ETHICKALLY BRED dogs
who are certified clear of GENETIC DEFECTS like PRA and
hip dysplasia, lyin frosty dahl <{}; ~ ) >
> of course,
Of curse.
> but I believe the better ones are far, far better than
> anything you will find among breeders of crossbreds.
Sez you? You're a proven lyin dog abusing mental case and FRAUD.
> The idea of a breed with an identity, an
> established "correct temperament,"
That's sheer idiocy, lyin frosty dahl. Temperament
is a effect of handling and training, Nature Vs
Nurture STUFF, not genetics.
> and the potential to improve one's breeding stock
If you gotta IMPROVE on your BREEDIN STOCK perhaps
YOU SHOULDN'T BE BREEDING THEM, wouldn't you agree?
Would YOU breed to a dog that NEEDS IMPROVEMENT?
> with each generation, form a context that attracts
> people who really strive to do something well.
That so? You mean, like HUNTIN? HOWE COME you gotta
jerk choke and shock a SELECTIVELY BRED HAND PICKED
and TESTED for generatiHOWENS after generatiHOWENS
of HOWENDS who INSTINCTIVELY HUNT?
> *Some* of these people care about the pet-puppy buyer,
INDEED. You gotta SELL PUPPYS to make a livin.
> and will offer guarantees and contracts, talk to you at
> length to make sure the breed is a good choice for you,
> and make themselves available for help and advice on
> keeping the dog, behavioral issues, and so forth.
That so? Let's talk abHOWET your GENETIC DIS-EASES that
you screen your backyard puppy milll breed stock to
ACCEPTABLE LIMITS of DIS-EASE?
> Others may not;
You mean on accHOWENT of THEY AIN'T GOT NO GENETIC DIS-EASES
in their LINE of ETHICALLY BRED DOGS who DON'T NEED IMPROVEMENT
over generatiHOWENS of SELECTIVELY BRED HAND PICKED from
generatiHOWENS of generatiHOWENS of HOWENDS, lyin frosty dahl <{}' ~ )
>
> they are more interested in improving their dogs than on
> developing a relationship with the buyers of the littermates
> of the one they keep.
You mean, like in the laboratory of Scott & Fuller et al?
> There's kind of a Catch-22 in crossbreeding.
That so? You mean, kinda like the Catch-22 in CHIN CHUCK
not meanin HIT the dog or beatin IT with a stick to make
it "REALLY DIG HOWET" or "REALLY DIG IN", a CATCH-22 that
makes you HOWET to be a lyin dog abusing mental case and
professional ETHCIKALLY CHALLENGED FRAUD, lying frosty
dahl <{}; ~ ) >
> Someone who really knows the ideal temperament of Goldens
> and that of Poodles is almost always going to be drawn to
> trying to breed that ideal Golden or Poodle--not to obliterating
> the genetic potential of an excellent dog by crossbreeding it.
That's a load of crap.
Let's talk abHOWET your STICK FETCH?
> Therefore, people who crossbreed are almost certainly ignorant
> of good temperament (it takes a *lot* of experience to become
> knowledgeable about temperament).
That so? In your "STICK FETCH" you tie the dog to a tree
and throw your "HAPPY BUMPER" just HOWETA ranged of the
dog bein able to pick it up, then BEAT IT with your stick
till the dog is REALLY DIGGIN IN or is it REALLY DIGGIN
HOWET, or does it matter at all, UNLESS you're tryin to
LIE abHOWET your STICK FETCH INSTRUCTIONS, lying frosty
dahl?
> Furthermore, they are unlikely to be getting their
> purebreds from a really good source,
You mean, from a ETHICKAL BREEDER like yourself?
> as Janet suggested.
janet is a liar and dog abusing mental case, like yourself:
"Loop the lead (it's basically a GIANT nylon or leather
choke collar) over his snarly little head, and give him a
stern correction" --Janet Boss
"J1Boss" <j1b...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040324071828...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> He was next to me and I could see his neck
> muscles pulsing. He didn't even blink an eye.
> Janet Boss
>
"sionnach" <rhyfe...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:c3qi15$2biuoh$1...@ID-45033.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "J1Boss" <j1b...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040323173916...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> > > I can't imagine needing anything higher
> > > than a 5 with it, even with an insensitive
> > > dog like a Lab.
An INSENSITIVE DOG???
> > I can't remember what model of Innotek I have, but
> > I had a pointer ignore a neck-muscle-pulsing 9.
Janet B wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:44:14 -0500, Janet B
> <j...@bestfriendsdogobedience.com>, clicked their heels and said:
> > Since you quoted me repeatedly, where does it say I beat dogs, choke
> > dogs, scream at dogs, etc? Thanks for your clarification.
.
> responding to my own post, I had to go back and look at the original
> post, to remind myself what "we" are all accused of doing:
>
> "screaming, choking, shocking, pinching, beating the living crap
> out of your dogs"
>
> Scream? no
>
> Choke? no
>
> Shock? e-collars are a lot more sophisticated than that
>
> Pinch? if you want to classify a momentary discomfort by a prong
> collar, go ahead, but unless you have first hand experience with
> one, your opinion means nothing
>
> Beat the living crap out of? hardly - no hitting exists
-------------
> The kind of breeder we would all like to buy from will
> work to avoid letting their dogs be used in crossbreeding.
You mean, they boycott OTHER breeders.
> There is a good chance the parents of the crossbreds come
> from breeders you would in no way consider, and are therefore
> at best inconsistent with respect to temperament and soundness.
That so? You mean, hard / soft / sharp / shy, etc., meanin
whether they can TAKE A BEATIN or not to learn HUNTIN?
> In general, the kind of person who is knowledgeable about
> dog care, behavior, and training and could act as a resource
> for the life of your pet will gravitate toward rescue, shelter
> work, or breeding purebreds, or maybe teaching dog-training classes.
Like yourself?
> This level of involvement almost always biases people
> against the deliberate breeding of mixed- breed dogs,
> for a number of reasons.
That's INSANE.
> So, you can get a "goldendoodle" if that is what you really want,
Yeah, that's kinda what he was LOOKIN for.
> but I encourage you to look beyond the marketing and see that,
> most likely, -the parents of your crossbred don't meet the
> standards you laid out;
You mean, that he AIN'T carryin a acceptable level of genetic DIS-EASE?
> -the breeder is not the kind of resource that is there for
> the life of your dog; and -temperament does not figure in
> a meaningful way in the breeding of your dog.
You mean, like HOWE when you shove your fingers DHOWEN a
puppys throat to gently CHOKE IT HOWETA MHOWETHING even
in the litterbox, lying frosty dahl?
> I may be wrong,
INDEEDY. HOWEver, you're BOTH WRONG and LYING <{); ~ ) >
> and there may be somebody dynamite out there breeding these crosses,
There's quite a few ETHICAL GoldenDoodle etc. breeders.
> and I may get sued,
AND you'll burn for eternity in HEEL <{): ~ ( >
> but this is my understanding of how the world of dogs works.
You're a liar a dog abuser and mental case and fraud.
> I hope I've provided a little useful perspective.
INDEEDY.
> Amy Dahl
"Warning: Sometimes The Corrections Will Seem Quite Harsh And
Cause You To Cringe. This Is A Normal Reaction The First Few
Times It Happens, But You'll Get Over It." mike duforth, author:
"CourteHOWES Canine."
onew...@netscape.net
2006 22:30:36 GMT, in rec.pets.dogs.breeds Amy Dahl
<a...@oakhillkennel.com> wrote:
>Certainly you will not receive a registration that qualifies your dog
>to participate in events licensed by the major registries, AKC and
>UKC, because they do not register mixed-breed dogs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not *quite* true, at least where UKC is concerned. Under
UKC rules, purebred dogs of unknown pedigree, dogs with
disqualifying breed faults and mixed-breed dogs can enter
and title in obedience, agility, weight pull and a few
other dog sports if they have a Limited Privilege listing.
Dogs must be spayed or neutered before applying for their
LPs.
So, you *can* compete with a mixed-breed within UKC as
well as a couple of other organizations. Just don't think
these privileges somehow constitute being "registered."
*~ *~ *~
Karen C.
Spammers be damned! I can't be emailed from this account! So there...
"You have no power here!
...Be gone! Before somebody drops a house on you too!"
Mark B
Rak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm being obsessively careful about finding a goldendoodle breeder.
> preferably first generation mix, open to others; either sex; any color
> except silver; estimated <50 lbs). Alternatively, labradoodle (wavy to
> shaggy hair) and the above characteristics.
snip some stuff
> Thank you!
Hi Rak,
Try http://www.sieversretrievers.com 25 years breeding labs & goldens.
They also breed goldendoodles and labradoodles.
Mark B
Janet B
their heels and said:
>
>Try http://www.sieversretrievers.com 25 years breeding labs & goldens.
>They also breed goldendoodles and labradoodles
my goodness they're pumping out puppies! I'm sure they aren't members
of LRCA and GRCA, since Goldendoodles and Labradoodles don't exactly
fit the COE.
Nothing about anything their dogs have DONE from what I could see, and
"state licensed"? ICK.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Rocky
rec.pets.dogs.breeds:
> my goodness they're pumping out puppies! I'm sure they
> aren't members of LRCA and GRCA, since Goldendoodles and
> Labradoodles don't exactly fit the COE.
Did you see the Freudian typo on their "Goldiedoodle" litter?
"4 FEMALES & $ MALES"
Janet B
their heels and said:
>
>Did you see the Freudian typo on their "Goldiedoodle" litter?
>
>"4 FEMALES & $ MALES"
Missed that - was probably too busy barfing over their wonderful site.
I lost count of this summer's litters.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
TaraG
"Mark B" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153771036.6...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I looked really hard at their website but saw very little that would make
them stand out as responsible breeders of any of the breeds they are
producing.
They only give a one year health guarantee for eyes and heart, and a mere 30
months for hips. No mention at all of Epilepsy. No mention of hip
certifications. No mention of titles of any kind on the dogs they are using
for breeding, nor mention of what's behind the parents, genetically
speaking. Just a bunch of call names and pics of the Mom dogs.
What was the basis of your recommendation?
Tara
Mark B
They are pretty well known in the St. Louis area as lab / golden
breeders. I know several people who have gotten golden retriever
puppies from them. No experience with their mixes though.
Mark B
TaraG
Around here, I guess the equivalent would be Goldrush Kennels. They're
really well known around here. Some people even think its adorable to call
them an "Upscale Puppy Mill", with not even the barest tongue in their
cheeks. I think they suck. So do most knowledgeable dog people.
Responsible breeding takes a lot. If you're at all interested, here's a good
place for some basic info on *the beginnings* of what to look for in a
responsible breeder.
http://www.dogplay.com/GettingDog/checklist.html#your_needs
There's a lot more, but its an amazing start to a very complex issue. I
didn't see anything on there that told me those guys were being
responsible....and I saw quite a few things that suggested they're pretty
much in it for the money way more than they're in it for the health and well
being of the dogs they produce.
Tara