goldendoodle golden-poo
ty
they are virtually non-shedding. I found some breeders in my area of
Toronto, Ontario but they are charging about $1500 Canadian for the
dogs. Is there anywhere else to get a goldendoodle cheeper? are they
a good dog?
Tara
@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
> Has anyone had a golden retriever crossed with a poodle. I'm told
> they are virtually non-shedding.
That's completely untrue. While it IS true that they tend to shed
significantly less than a Golden Retriever (I think there's a thread
going on here right now about just HOW MUCH that actually is), they Do
still shed.
> I found some breeders in my area of
> Toronto, Ontario but they are charging about $1500 Canadian for the
> dogs. Is there anywhere else to get a goldendoodle cheeper? are they
> a good dog?
Designer mixed breeds are really controversial. I have to say, as a
trainer who has worked with dozens of them, I have yet to see one that
had a steady, solid temperament. Most breeders are, by definition,
working with breeding "stock " (I hate that word in terms of dogs, but
that's the accurate term) that is less than stellar. Standard Poodles
have a *lot* of temperament issues in the not-so-well-bred lines (which
is most of them in North America). This includes major fear issues, shy
shrp behaviors (including biting), and overall skittishness. It would be
nice if the calmer temperament of the Golden Retriever were able to
balance that out, but genetics simply do not work that way. Until
breeders learn how to aactually splice genes and select *exatcly* which
parts of which dog they want the puppies to inherit, it will *always* be
a crap shoot. You could end up with the heavier shedding coat of the
Golden, with the shy-sharp temperament of the Poodle. The tendancy
towards Hip Dysplasia of the Golden, with the Thyroid issues of the
Poodle. Many of the "Hybrid" breeders try to tell you that first gen
"hybrids" don't get diseases, but that is a flat out lie.
A good number of the purposely bred Golden/Poodle mixes I've worked with
ended up with Hip Dysplasia before they were even a year old. That's
because a lot of the designer breeders simply don't do what they should
be doing to eliminate those diseases from their lines (some even believe
the lie that first gen hybrids don't get the typical illnesses and don't
understand that they are creating sick dogs.)
There are more and more of these purposely bred mixes ending up in
shelters and rescues every day. If you want to get one, I would go that
route. At least a rescue is more likely to know about what kind of dog
you're going to end up with....and even if not, you won't be rewarding
an irresponsible breeder with over a thousand bucks for mixing dogs
simply for the cute name.
Tara
Janet Boss
Tara <noth...@verizon.not> wrote:
> While it IS true that they tend to shed
> significantly less than a Golden Retriever
Hoo boy - not all of them! I've been pretty amazed at how heavy a
shedder some are.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Janet Boss
Tara <noth...@verizon.not> wrote:
> You could end up with the heavier shedding coat of the
> Golden, with the shy-sharp temperament of the Poodle.
Whoops - this is very true!
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Doodle Planet
know the real deal about the
Goldendoodle..which happens to be a registered hybrid BTW...go to our
site at http://www.goldendoodleworld.com
You will find them available for less than $1500 as the Goldendoodle's
popularity has soared since
1997 and is steadily becoming more popular than the Golden Retriever,
itself.
The Goldendoodle...when created correctly sheds very little. The
person who told you they are heavy
shedders must have come across a Goldendoodle that was created
improperly. We've created
Goldendoodles since 1999 and while you can watch them go through their
many coat changes and phases, you don't see the hair shedding. That
doesn't mean they are a non shedding dog. Even a
Chinese Crested Hairless dog sheds. Someone here recommended you check
the dog pound. Fortunately for now, the GOldendoodle rarely finds
itself in such a place which is why you'll need to
find someone who is either "re-homing" a doodle or go through a
breeder who creates them.
Shelly
> Goldendoodle..which happens to be a registered hybrid BTW
"Registered hybrid"? What on earth does that mean?
> The Goldendoodle...when created correctly sheds very little.
"Created"? Do you make them in your Frankenlaboratory?
--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)
Melinda Shore
Doodle Planet <golden...@ablewise.com> wrote:
>The replies you have received are complete nonsense. If you want to
>know the real deal about the
>Goldendoodle..which happens to be a registered hybrid BTW...
"Registered" means nothing other than that the birth and the
parents are written down somewhere, and the registrars you
guys use would register a pet pig if you sent them the
money. They're the pet world equivalent of the
International Star Registry.
You're the only person here who has a financial interest in
the "Goldendoodle," and the incentives for your provision of
information are very different for the incentives for
everybody else.
>Fortunately for now, the GOldendoodle rarely finds
>itself in such a place which is why you'll need to
>find someone who is either "re-homing" a doodle or go through a
>breeder who creates them.
The local Craigslist has an ad from someone unloading a
so-called "Labradoodle" because her husband's allergic to
the dog. Fortunately for you guys and unfortunately for the
rest of us, the question of whether or not misleading or
even downright dishonest advertising is protected speech is
still open.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
If you can't say it clearly, you don't understand it yourself -- John Searle
Shelly
> It means goldendoodle maintains a registry by some of those "I'll take your
> money and give you a sheet of paper" puppymill registries.
I know that, and you know that, but I was wondering how this
particular puppy miller would define and justify it.
Doodle Planet
unfortunately your post in here is not accurate 100% and is
misleading. First of all, while it is a noble
thing to try and prevent HD in dogs....testing in no way prevents the
breeding dogs from having HD free
offspring. That's a fact whether you want to believe it or not. Many
breeders who have their breeding dogs tested still produce dysplastic
puppies and some of those breeders were show breeders or
veterinarians. Until a genetic laboratory for dogs can create DNA
markers that can provide a breeder
with "carrier" information on their breeding dogs...there is no test
on the face of this earth that can guarantee anyone...breeder or
buyer...a disease free dog. Humans haven't perfected disease free
humans and I'm not sure why people like yourself believe it is
possible for the dog.
We have created Goldendoodles and other Poodle hybrids since 1999. We
have had consistancy in solid grounded....very intelligent...loving
and outgoing temperaments on our hybrids and we've had consistancy in
coat. The only inconsistancy we've had with hybrids is individual
sizes because they are indeed a hybrid. Lumping the "Goldendoodle"
into a whole is quite unfair to the Goldendoodle. It would be similar
to lump all purebred dogs into categories because temperaments,
coat...etc....really has to do with the breeder...their breeding stock
and their experience. If a breeder has crappy breeding stock, they
will have crappy offspring. Our Goldendoodles are created with dogs
who have over 400 OFA good,
Champion ancestors that came from some of the best purebred Golden
Retriever and Poodle breeders out there..some do not even exist any
more since our pedigrees date back well into the early 1930s.
You are also incorrect about calling the Goldendoodle and other
hybrids "designer" dogs. This dog's mixture began in Australia for a
purpose. It was to help those own an assistance dog who had allergies
to heavy shedding purebred dogs. Also, I don't know which breeder sits
back raking in thousands of dollars and its obvious you are not a
breeder because if you were, you would not be making that statement.
Being a breeder is a never ending job that goes around the clock,
seven days a week with no vacation time...no time off and a breeder
NEVER makes a real profit considering the fact they spend thousands of
their own dollars on their dogs and puppies......vet costs are ever
increasing year by year
and there is nothing cheap about raising dogs and breeding them.
Breeding is NOT a 9-5 job that provides one with a paycheck. You need
a reality check on your comment about that part. That's a dream...not
reality! I wish I could sit back...collect the cash and take a trip
around the world from selling dogs...wouldn't THAT be a hoot! Dream
on. I don't know of too many people willing to shovel dog poop for a
living that has no insurance, pension or other perk benefits and
continually work without a day off for little to no pay. Its really a
shame when people such as yourself put down not only an incredible and
terrific dog...but also the ones who create them.
On Feb 6, 11:27 pm, Tara <notha...@verizon.not> wrote:
> "ty" <kieranflemin...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1170817851.107037.317890
Melinda Shore
Doodle Planet <golden...@ablewise.com> wrote:
>First of all, while it is a noble
>thing to try and prevent HD in dogs....testing in no way prevents the
>breeding dogs from having HD free
>offspring.
It's also true that in those breeds that have gotten
religion about testing and about not breeding dysplastic
dogs, they've been able to enormously reduce the incidence
of hip dysplasia in the breed over the course of just two
decades.
I reckon there are two reasons for your dishonesty about
this: 1) you've got a financial interest in selling doodle
dogs, and 2) you're rationalizing your own irresponsibility.
Shelly
> First of all, while it is a noble thing to try and prevent HD in
> dogs....testing in no way prevents the breeding dogs from having
> HD free offspring. That's a fact whether you want to believe it
> or not.
Testing for HD is not fool-proof, but it does stack the deck in
favor of healthier dogs.
So, do you test your dogs for HD? Do you test/screen them for other
diseases? Which ones? What sort of health guarantee do you
provide? How do you determine which of your dogs are worthy of
being bred? What sorts of homes do you place your dogs in? What do
you do if a placement does not work out? And, most importantly, why
do you breed?
> We have created Goldendoodles and other Poodle hybrids since 1999. We
> have had consistancy in solid grounded....very intelligent...loving
> and outgoing temperaments on our hybrids and we've had consistancy in
> coat.
Golden retrievers and Poodles are not separate species. What you
are "creating" are mixed breed dogs, *not* hybrids.
> You are also incorrect about calling the Goldendoodle and other
> hybrids "designer" dogs. This dog's mixture began in Australia for a
> purpose. It was to help those own an assistance dog who had allergies
> to heavy shedding purebred dogs.
That program was also, if I recall correctly, a failure.
Shelly
> It was... But those standing to profit from the concept fail to
> acknowledge that.
> If they truly wanted to start a breed, why not use the Curly
> Coated Retriever, already in existence? OH... because they can't
> claim De$igner dog$ price$
That's what I don't really understand about the various *oodle
mixes. Aside from providing a source of income for their breeders,
there doesn't seem to me to be any purpose for breeding them. The
characteristics the breeders claim to be seeking are readily
available in other breeds--often the one of the very breeds they are
using to create their designer mixes. It fails the logic test, big
time.
Melinda Shore
Shelly <scouv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>That's what I don't really understand about the various *oodle
>mixes. Aside from providing a source of income for their breeders,
>there doesn't seem to me to be any purpose for breeding them.
Jeff "Help me help me there's an AR activist under my bed"
Dege recently argued the need for dogs bred specifically for
pet qualities. That implies that there's a shortage of dogs
with pet qualities, but hey, some people seem to think we
need more.
Mind you, nothing I've seen leads me to believe that doodle
breeders look for anything specific in their breeding stock
beyond functioning gonads.
Sionnach
"Doodle Planet"wrote:
> Tara,
> unfortunately your post in here is not accurate 100% and is
> misleading.
TWANNGGGGG! That's the sound of the irony meters all blowing up....
Let's see now - on one hand we have Tara, who has no motivation for her
post other than the good of dogs and dog owners. On the other hand, we have
you, who is ADVERTISING a "product" that you sell.
I think the average bear can figure out which one of you is more likely to
present information which is "inaccurate and misleading".
>>First of all, while it is a noble
> thing to try and prevent HD in dogs....testing in no way prevents the
> breeding dogs from having HD free
> offspring.
Well, DUH. Of course TESTING doesn't prevent anything. However, waiting
until your "breeding dogs" are old enough to have a reasonably accurate test
profile, and then choosing NOT TO BREED depending on the testing, will go a
long way towards reducing the incidence and severity of HD and other
inheritible disorders.
> Humans haven't perfected disease free
> humans and I'm not sure why people like yourself believe it is
> possible for the dog.
Nobody said, or even implied, that it's possible to do so; and indeed,
since many diseases are INFECTIOUS or ENVIRONMENTALLY INDUCED, it would be
pretty silly to think that genetic testing can prevent all disease.
Nor did anybody say or imply that it can prevent all inheritable disorders,
either; but see my statement above about REDUCING them. That has very much
been done both in humans and in canines.
>
> We have created Goldendoodles and other Poodle hybrids since 1999.
Oooh, wow, a whole SIX YEARS! Or, IOW, you started "creating" crossbred
dogs right around the time they became a lucrative fad. Oh, and drop the
"hybrid" marketing bullshit, will you? The term "crossbreed" has served dog
breeders just fine for hundreds of years, and is a far more accurate term.
We
> have had consistancy in solid grounded....very intelligent...loving
> and outgoing temperaments on our hybrids and we've had consistancy in
> coat.
Hm. I don't think six years is really long enough to be making claims of
"consistency"...
>The only inconsistancy we've had with hybrids is individual
> sizes because they are indeed a hybrid.
No, they're not. They're CROSSBREEDS. Golden Retrievers and Poodles are the
same species.
> Our Goldendoodles are created with dogs
> who have over 400 OFA good,
> Champion ancestors
What about the other inheritable disorders carried by both breeds?
>that came from some of the best purebred Golden
> Retriever and Poodle breeders out there..some do not even exist any
> more since our pedigrees date back well into the early 1930s.
Any breeder of any pedigreed dog can say the same. And anybody with any
intelligence and/or knowlege of dogs knows that pedigrees are just family
trees, not some sort of mystical guarantee of quality.
>
> You are also incorrect about calling the Goldendoodle and other
> hybrids "designer" dogs. This dog's mixture began in Australia for a
> purpose. It was to help those own an assistance dog who had allergies
> to heavy shedding purebred dogs.
That's the first time I've ever heard that claim made for the
"Goldendoodle". I know it's true that the orginal cross of LABRADORS and
Poodles was made with that goal in mind; I also know that everything I've
ever read or heard says that it was an experiment which FAILED.
> Also, I don't know which breeder sits
> back raking in thousands of dollars
It depends on your definition of "breeder"; *responsible* breeders rarely
turn a profit, but puppymillers, puppy farmers, and even backyard breeders
often make a profit because they don't spend money on health care.
There are dozens of Amish in my area who turn quite a tidy profit on
"hybrid" dogs, because they treat them like any other livestock (and it's a
big fallacy to think that just because they're "plain people" they always
treat livestock optimally).
I, personally, don't have a major problem with people responsibly crossing
WORKING dogs to get desired working qualities. However, when thousands of
wonderful mixed and crossbred dogs are dying in shelters, I have little or
no respect for people who create more dogs - regardless of whether those
dogs are crossbred or "pure" - simply for the pet market, and even less for
those who make exaggerated false claims about the quality of those dogs
based on the myth of "hybrid vigor".
Shelly
> Jeff "Help me help me there's an AR activist under my bed"
Naw, that was just a "hoax device." HTH!
> Dege recently argued the need for dogs bred specifically for
> pet qualities. That implies that there's a shortage of dogs
> with pet qualities, but hey, some people seem to think we
> need more.
Even if there were such a shortage, as far as I can tell, *oodle
breeders don't seem to be addressing it.
> Mind you, nothing I've seen leads me to believe that doodle
> breeders look for anything specific in their breeding stock
> beyond functioning gonads.
Yes, and in that, they're not any different than most purebreed dog
breeders. Crappy, indiscriminate breeding is crappy, indiscriminate
breeding.
Shelly
> Well actually the same can be said about the PitBull. The same traits
> extolled of their virtues can be found in many other breeds sans aggression
> issues.
I don't think that's true, nor is it a good analogy, considering
that Pit Bulls *are* a breed, and a relatively old one, at that.
Shelly
> I agree with that, but I don't see any point in fighting the Dog aggressive
> issues when you can get the same thing in other breeds. It's the people
> that are the issue, but I just don't see a great demand for bull
> fighting/dog fighting dogs.
But you *can't* get the same thing in other breeds. And even if you
could, you still run the risk of getting serious dog aggression.
It's not like every Pit Bull is dog aggressive, or like they are the
only breed that is.
I say that as someone with a dog aggressive dog of a breed that is
closely related to the Pit Bull. I've known enough Pit Bulls and
Boxers to *know* that there are no substitutes for either of those
breeds.
But what any of that has to do with breeding *oodles is beyond me.
Shelly
> what does the pit bull have that no other breed has?
Well, for a start, how many breeds would you feel comfortable
grabbing by the mouth end while they're in the midst of a fight or
when they're in extreme crittering mode?
strength
agility
physical beauty
gregarious with humans and friendly with strangers
enthusiastic (joie de Pit Bull is not unlike joie de Boxer)
great sense of humor
ALSO BIG HEADS!1!!!
Yes, all those things can be found in other breeds, and many of them
in the same breed, but I can't think of a single breed that would
come close to substituting for a Pit Bull. Not even Boxers, and
they're about as close as it gets, in my opinion.
To put the shoe on the other foot, what do you see in *your* breed
that cannot be found in another breed? I'm sure you think Elkhounds
are special, and that you would not be very impressed if someone
told you that you could find what you wanted in another breed. I'd
be *very* surprised if you said that there was a substitute for an
Elkhound.
sighthounds & siberians
wrote:
>what does the pit bull have that no other breed has?
Why does it have to have a quality unavailable in any other breed in
order to continue existing?
Mustang Sally
Shelly
> also elkhounds... except they shed! and perhaps the head isn't "that" big
>
> I'm sure the elkhound is not the only breed that fits these criteria
I'm pretty sure that most Pit Bull enthusiasts would not consider an
Elkhound to be an acceptable substitute for their breed of choice,
anymore than you would find a Pit Bull to be an acceptable
substitute for yours.
One of the ways *oodle breeders rationalize breeding is that they
are trying to produce a dog that has characteristics not found
elsewhere. Then, on the rare occasions they describe those
characteristics, they're almost always found in one of the parent
breeds.
That really has nothing to do with Pit Bulls, though, which are *not
*a scammy designer mixed breed, and do *not* need to have their
"creation" justified.
Suja
"Shelly" <scouv...@yahoo.com> wrote in message:
> strength
> agility
> physical beauty
> gregarious with humans and friendly with strangers
> enthusiastic (joie de Pit Bull is not unlike joie de Boxer)
> great sense of humor
> ALSO BIG HEADS!1!!!
It is just so difficult to articulate what it is that makes a breed special.
Unless you have met a bunch, spent time with them, and liked their
specialness, there is just no way to explain it. And the things some people
consider as huge negatives are just no big deal for others. Just as an
example, I for the life of me cannot understand the appeal of GRs (Hi,
Janet!) and to a lesser extent, Labs.
Ms. Isabelle's mom would like something non-Pit for her next dog. She wants
a dog that can go anywhere and not create any waves, maybe something like a
Pug or a Boston. Dad is a *huge* Pit fan, doesn't even want to consider any
other breed.
The way he sees it, she can get her dog, he'll get his Pit, his dog will eat
her dog, and they'll be back to where they are now. Yes, he's just kidding.
Suja
Suja
"diddy" <di...@nospam.diddy.net> wrote in message:
> also elkhounds... except they shed! and perhaps the head isn't "that" big
No offense, but Elkhounds are SO NOT anything at all like Pits.
Suja
Shelly
> they are producing scams for $$$
Yes. I know that, and you know that, and I think we've passed this
tree before.
Shelly
> It is just so difficult to articulate what it is that makes a breed special.
> Unless you have met a bunch, spent time with them, and liked their
> specialness, there is just no way to explain it.
I think familiarity makes it even harder, actually. I know for
absolute certain that Boxers are very, very special (laugh if you
must), and that they are unlike any other breed out there, but
articulating what that specialness is is pretty much impossible.
> And the things some people
> consider as huge negatives are just no big deal for others.
Yep. Dog aggression is not my favorite thing, but it's also not a
big deal. And I say that as someone who is directly affected by it
rightthisminute. I would love to get a second dog, but it's just
not going to happen. It sucks, but the benefits of having a dog
like Harriet are *more* than enough to compensate for it.
> Just as an
> example, I for the life of me cannot understand the appeal of GRs (Hi,
> Janet!) and to a lesser extent, Labs.
Nor can I. Or the appeal of pretty much any dog that is hugely
hairy (Khan excepted, of course). I've lived with hairy dogs, and
I've loved them dearly, but it's not *appealing* to me. I'd put up
with it for the right dog, but it is not a selling point.
> Ms. Isabelle's mom would like something non-Pit for her next dog. She wants
> a dog that can go anywhere and not create any waves, maybe something like a
> Pug or a Boston. Dad is a *huge* Pit fan, doesn't even want to consider any
> other breed.
Are they sold on a puppy? An older Boxer that is known to be dog
friendly might fit most of their joint criteria.
> The way he sees it, she can get her dog, he'll get his Pit, his dog will eat
> her dog, and they'll be back to where they are now. Yes, he's just kidding.
Uh-huh. Suuuuure.
Lynne
> I for the life of me cannot understand the appeal of GRs (Hi,
> Janet!) and to a lesser extent, Labs.
There's no accounting for taste! These are my 2 favorite breeds (that I
can realistically own, that is). :)
--
Lynne
Shelly
> There's no accounting for taste!
None whatsoever.
I'd hate to have someone dictate to me what sort of dog I should
like, and I wouldn't dream of doing so to anyone else.
> These are my 2 favorite breeds (that I
> can realistically own, that is). :)
They're lovely dogs, but they are about at the bottom of my list of
breeds I could live with.
Lynne
> I'd hate to have someone dictate to me what sort of dog I should
> like, and I wouldn't dream of doing so to anyone else.
I absolutely agree!
--
Lynne
Tara
news:1170942908.8...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> Tara,
> unfortunately your post in here is not accurate 100% and is
> misleading. First of all, while it is a noble
> thing to try and prevent HD in dogs....testing in no way prevents the
> breeding dogs from having HD free
> offspring.
Are you kidding????
I mean, if you just test the dogs, and then breed them no matter what the
results say, then you'd be right (horribly horribly irresponsible, but
right). That would not prevent CHD in the offspring. Testing isn't like a
disease condom that allows you to breed your dogs while protecting against
THAT disease. But I'm assuming you know it doesn't work that way..
> That's a fact whether you want to believe it or not. Many
> breeders who have their breeding dogs tested still produce dysplastic
> puppies
The more a breeder tests for those diseases, and the more they REMOVE the
effected dogs from their breeding lines. That's not going to prevent *all*
incidents of CHD, but it sure goes a long way to the overal imrovement in
the health of that breed. In that, you're absolutely wrong. The numbers of
dogs with CHD has been proven (long term proof too, by the way) that
testing, and then removing the affected dogs from the breeding pool,
drastically reduces the incidence of CHD in the offspring.
I'm shocked, and a little bit frightened that you either don't know that or
that you deny the facts as they've been determined over the last few
decades of work.
> and some of those breeders were show breeders or
> veterinarians.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Some of the most
irresponsible breeders I have come across have been veterinarians. And
there are plenty of show or performance breeders that don't qualify as
*responsible* about what kind of puppies they're producing.
Are you suggesting that if other people can get away with being
irresponsible and producing sick puppies, then you should be able to get
away with it too? Otherwise, I'm totaly unclear on what the point of that
comment was.
> Until a genetic laboratory for dogs can create DNA
> markers that can provide a breeder
> with "carrier" information on their breeding dogs...there is no test
> on the face of this earth that can guarantee anyone...breeder or
> buyer...a disease free dog.
I'm not even talking about "guarantees" here. I'm talking about reasonable
effort based on what IS available now. And you've already argued that its
somehow pointless to do even the most basic testing because you *might* end
up with a dysplastic pup or two over the years? Purebreed dog or not, I
would *never* get a pup from a breeder with that attitude about testing.
> Humans haven't perfected disease free
> humans and I'm not sure why people like yourself believe it is
> possible for the dog.
Again....you're kidding, right? You have to be.
People have not been the sole product of selective breeding for the last
umpteen hundred years. And yet you want to compare the two?
> We have created Goldendoodles and other Poodle hybrids since 1999. We
> have had consistancy in solid grounded....very intelligent...loving
> and outgoing temperaments on our hybrids and we've had consistancy in
> coat.
Well, that's the exact same thing every single one of my clients was told
by *their* Golden/Poodle breeders. In fact, I have yet to come across a
breeder (responsible or horribly irresponsible) who DOESN'T say exactly
that. The Golden/Poodle cross that was nearly crippled by her dysplasia
before she was a year old....well, her breeder told the owner the *exact*
same thing. So those words have long since ceased to mean anything.
So, if every single habitual breeder (for lack of a better term) says the
same thing about how great their dogs are, how is one to know iin advance.
Well, the proof is in what you do to SHOW that this is what you're
producing. If you don't at least do the basics of genetic health testing,
and the very basics of training and working with your dogs in a field where
third party assessments exist, then you, quite simply, are not proving
anything at all. Unless those basics are happening, they're just words that
are likely untrue.
> The only inconsistancy we've had with hybrids is individual
> sizes because they are indeed a hybrid. Lumping the "Goldendoodle"
> into a whole is quite unfair to the Goldendoodle. It would be similar
> to lump all purebred dogs into categories
Um, you are aware that they *ARE* lumped into categories...right? Labrador
Retrievers, German Shepherd Dogs, Pharoah Hounds, etc.
> because temperaments,
> coat...etc....really has to do with the breeder...
Sure. That's why simply saying that you want a Labrador Retriever isn't
saying much. Getting one from a pet shop or a BYB (which is where most
"Oodle" crosses originate from) would produce FAR different results than
getting one from a responsible breeder. Even within that category, there
are vast differences between working lines, hunting lines, show lines, etc.
> their breeding stock
> and their experience. If a breeder has crappy breeding stock, they
> will have crappy offspring.
Of course. And I have yet to come across an Oodle breeder who starts with
that stock who *also* produces consitantly sound dogs.
I also have yet to come across an Oodle breeder who is aware of (or admits
to) some of the behavioral problems that their dogs tend to show. And
that's from the Oodle breeders that I have come across that actually at
least do *some* of the things that responsible breeders would do to prove
they're standing behind their dogs. I have yet to come across one that
doesn anything that truly tests temperament or trainability, though. And I
think THAT is a MAJOR problem....and why we're seeing so many behavioral
issues in those dogs.
> Our Goldendoodles are created with dogs
> who have over 400 OFA good,
> Champion ancestors that came from some of the best purebred Golden
> Retriever and Poodle breeders out there..
How far back are those champions?
You see, there's a joke about that: If you go back two or three
generations, then EVERY dog of a popular breed has at least a few
champions....including the dogs found in shelters.
> some do not even exist any
> more since our pedigrees date back well into the early 1930s.
Um, this means nothing. You know that, right?
> You are also incorrect about calling the Goldendoodle and other
> hybrids "designer" dogs. This dog's mixture began in Australia for a
> purpose. It was to help those own an assistance dog who had allergies
> to heavy shedding purebred dogs.
You do know they scrapped that program due to it not really working out
that well....right? They couldn't get consistancy in the dogs they were
trying to produce (something you are alleging you've managed to do fine,
when an entire research project couldn't figure out how to create
consistancy in temperament and structure)
And,unless the purpose of *your* breeding program is producing solid,
reliable low shedding service dogs, then you ARE simply producing "designer
dogs". You really don't get to have it both ways.
> Also, I don't know which breeder sits
> back raking in thousands of dollars and its obvious you are not a
> breeder because if you were, you would not be making that statement.
Um, I didn't say that. Read for content.
I DID say that the purchaser would be forking over that kind of cash to the
breeder....which is true. For some reason, Oodle breeders see the need to
charge more than double what responsible breeders tend to charge for their
responsigbly bred purebreed dogs.
> Being a breeder is a never ending job that goes around the clock,
> seven days a week with no vacation time...no time off and a breeder
> NEVER makes a real profit considering the fact they spend thousands of
> their own dollars on their dogs and puppies......vet costs are ever
> increasing year by year
> and there is nothing cheap about raising dogs and breeding them.
Why don't you read a little bit in thse newsgroups before you spout off
about what people do or do not know.
People here are *very* aware of what goes into reasonably responsible
breeding. I'm glad you have a clue about that too.
> Breeding is NOT a 9-5 job that provides one with a paycheck. You need
> a reality check on your comment about that part.
No. You need to read what I actually wrote. I didn't say that.
> That's a dream...not
> reality! I wish I could sit back...collect the cash and take a trip
> around the world from selling dogs...wouldn't THAT be a hoot! Dream
> on.
Oh wake up. Stop spouting off about something I didn't even say.
> I don't know of too many people willing to shovel dog poop for a
> living that has no insurance, pension or other perk benefits and
> continually work without a day off for little to no pay. Its really a
> shame when people such as yourself put down not only an incredible and
> terrific dog...but also the ones who create them.
Actually, I'm *only* putting down the ones who create them. Dogs are
wonderful,no matter what package they come in. That's why people who
irresponsibly create them without a deep understanding of those
ramifications piss me off.
Tara
Marcel Beaudoin
> Tara,
> unfortunately your post in here is not accurate 100% and is
> misleading. First of all, while it is a noble
> thing to try and prevent HD in dogs....testing in no way prevents the
> breeding dogs from having HD free
> breeders who have their breeding dogs tested still produce dysplastic
> veterinarians. Until a genetic laboratory for dogs can create DNA
> markers that can provide a breeder
> with "carrier" information on their breeding dogs...there is no test
> on the face of this earth that can guarantee anyone...breeder or
> humans and I'm not sure why people like yourself believe it is
> possible for the dog.
While it is not possible (yet) to completely eliminate the possibility
of HD (or any other number of Genetic problems with dogs) careful
breeding and genetic testing/matching can significantly reduce the
possibility that the result of such a breeding will have HD or
something else.
Marcel
Shelly
That was in the context of the exchange with Diddy. I didn't mean
to imply that you'd suggested any such thing!
I only mentioned it because the I've frequently encountered the
attitude that Pit Bull folks should just switch to another breed.
Diddy's posts were heading into that territory, I think. As if it
were that simple.
Marcel Beaudoin
> The replies you have received are complete nonsense. If you want to
> know the real deal about the
> Goldendoodle..which happens to be a registered hybrid BTW...go to our
> site athttp://www.goldendoodleworld.com
Or, better yet, go to www.petfinder.com, and do a search in your local
area for Golden retriever mix or Poodle mix. Betcha you find a hell of
a lot more for a hell of a lot less.
> You will find them available for less than $1500 as the Goldendoodle's
> popularity has soared since
> 1997 and is steadily becoming more popular than the Golden Retriever,
> itself.
> The Goldendoodle...when created correctly sheds very little.
BWAHAHAH
You don't crete a dog. You breed a dog and hope that you get what you
want. Anyone (And I mean ANYONE, respectable breeder or not) who
guarantees anything about the temperment of the dog, health of the dog
etc (beyond the very basics) is either clueless or lieing. And when
you are mixing two breeds, the guarantees that you could reasonably
give drop even lower.
> The
> person who told you they are heavy
> shedders must have come across a Goldendoodle that was created
> improperly. We've created
> Goldendoodles since 1999 and while you can watch them go through their
> many coat changes and phases, you don't see the hair shedding. That
> doesn't mean they are a non shedding dog.
So what you are saying is that every one of your golden retriever/
poodle mixes inherits only the shedding style of the poodle. Every.
Single. One. If so, then congratulations Sir, you have managed to beat
genetics.
> Even a
> Chinese Crested Hairless dog sheds. Someone here recommended you check
> the dog pound. Fortunately for now, the GOldendoodle rarely finds
> itself in such a place which is why you'll need to
> find someone who is either "re-homing" a doodle or go through a
> breeder who creates them.
Despite what this guy says, the pound is still the best place to find
a mixed breed dog. Maybe not right away, but you will be able to find
one.
Marcel
Tara
@mid.individual.net:
>> We have created Goldendoodles and other Poodle hybrids since 1999.
> Oooh, wow, a whole SIX YEARS! Or, IOW, you started "creating"
> crossbred dogs right around the time they became a lucrative
> fad. Oh, and drop the "hybrid" marketing bullshit, will you? The
> term "crossbreed" has served dog breeders just fine for
> hundreds of years, and is a far more accurate term.
Funny, on their web page, they have some weird computer guy that says
they've been breeding poodle mixes (they call them something else, of
course) for 10 years. They specifically say they've been breeding them
since 1996.
They also say its important that the breeder have basic knowledge of
genetics. You'd think someone with a basic understanding of genetics
would understand that this breeding combo has nothing whatsoever to do
with hybrids.
>> Our Goldendoodles are created with dogs
>> who have over 400 OFA good,
>> Champion ancestors
>
> What about the other inheritable disorders carried by both breeds?
>
Well, they don't even test for CHD in the first place, so its highly
unlikely that they'd be testing for ahything else.
On their website, these numbers are presented a wee bit more "clearly"
(although still used in an incredibly misleading way)
Here's the wording on their website:
"Our Poodles have over 400 OFA Good, Champion ancestors within their
lineage"
This is, apparently, the total combined number that includes the grand
total of tested and/or championed dogs in their dogs' lineage.
Being "within" a dog's "lineage" could certainly include being a distant
second cousin. And talk about resting on the laurels of all the work
that's been done before they got their dogs. They haven't OFAd dog 1.
Funny that they say testing doesn't prevent illness in the offspring,
but they keep mentioning that *other* people tested their dogs that
*their* dogs are related to. Apparently THAT'S supposed to mean
somthing, though the poodle mix breeder testing their own dogs would,
apparently, mean nothing at all. Sounds like a tap dance.
The page that the above quote comes from reads like the world's longest,
and most misleading rant, by the way. Its kind of scary.
http://lrkgoldendoodles.homestead.com/goldendoodlefactsindex.html
Thye reimnd me of a less informed version of the poodle/Golden breeders
I've come across that knew at least a little bit about what the myths
involved were. Unfortunately, even those breeders were still breeding
some weird temperament issues. I notice that this breeder has that
excuse all wrapped up in advance, since they 100% blame all temperament
issues on the owners. They don't believe in a genetic component to
behavior. Oh joy.
tara
Tara
> Fortunately for now, the GOldendoodle rarely finds
> itself in such a place which is why you'll need to
> find someone who is either "re-homing" a doodle or go through a
> breeder who creates them.
>
shelters and rescue groups would vehemently disagree with that statement.
But then, since so few of these poodle mix breeders keep track of *all* of
the pups they produce over the lives of those pups, they would really have
no way of knowing whether or not that's even true.
Tara
KWBrown
> If they truly wanted to start a breed, why not use the Curly Coated
> Retriever, already in existence? OH... because they can't claim De$igner
> dog$ price$
I understand where you're going, but the Curly is a hard dog. You'd
need to do a fair bit of temperament tweaking... and then it wouldn't
be a Curly any more.
Handsome Jack Morrison
wrote:
>Just as an
>example, I for the life of me cannot understand the appeal of GRs (Hi,
>Janet!) and to a lesser extent, Labs.
Yeah, what's to like about breeds that are exceptionally smart,
attractive, easy to train (yes, even you could probably train one,
Suja!), are more than capable of handling virtually any service- or
therapy-related assignment, are extremely resilient, are rugged, that
get along well with kids, strangers, other dogs, are outstanding
performance dogs in the field, the obedience ring, etc., are generally
long-lived, are funny, have a gentle nature, and are quite devoted to
their owners.
Yuck!
Damn those Labs and Goldens! Why would anyone ever want one?
It boggles the mind!
What we really need more of, you see, are relatively dumb,
hard-to-train breeds, breeds that demand special skills to even own
safely, breeds that look upon kids as prey, breeds that are totally
worthless in the field, do poorly in the obedience ring, etc.,
generally live only 6-7 years, are frequently aggressive to both man
and canine, and couldn't care less about their owners!
Yes, now those are "appealing" breeds, eh?
Freakin' maroons.
--
Handsome Jack Morrison
Oh yeah. About those polar bears "stranded" on that ice flow, because of "global warming"?
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/214655.php
Climatologist Calls Global Warming Fears 'Greatest Deception in the History of Science':
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Soft People, Hard People:
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/soft_people_hard_people.html
Resisting Global Warming Panic:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/resisting_global_warming_panic.html
What if "global warming" is a good thing?
http://www.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2007/02/02/what-if-global-warming-is-a-good-thing/
Ten interesting prognostications for 2007:
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2006/12/beldars_prognos.html#more
Rare sighting in Canada: Quebecois with balls! Who knew?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/070130/canada/canada_stoning_col_2
John Kerry, Ugly American:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_ugly_american.html
Historically Speaking, Shit Happens:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/01/historically_sp.html
Global Warming Groundhog Day:
http://www.dartblog.com/data/2007/01/006940.php
Muslims 'about to take over Europe,' says Bernard Lewis:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467834546&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
Sionnach
>> itself in such a place
Bullshit. I ran a national search on "Golden Retriever" on PetFinder (the
only way to find "doodle" dogs on there is to search for one of the parent
breeds), and came up with 2,481 dogs. Skimming through the first few pages,
I saw at least 4 goldendoodles specifically identified as such (that is to
say, they're ID'd as GR/Poodle crosses), and several other "GR mixes" which
looked like them. And all of them look like the "goldendoodles" that I'm
seeing at my local park.
Looking under "poodle" shows even higher numbers of Lab/Poodles.
And btw, Petfinder is only the tip of the iceberg; the vast majority of dogs
in shelters and breed rescues aren't on there.
Shelly
> what other breeds?
Elkhounds, silly!
Robin Nuttall
> Tara,
> unfortunately your post in here is not accurate 100% and is
> misleading. First of all, while it is a noble
> thing to try and prevent HD in dogs....testing in no way prevents the
> breeding dogs from having HD free
> offspring. That's a fact whether you want to believe it or not.
Actually your "fact" in itself is a lie by exaggeration. While it is
true that testing does not guarantee HD free dogs, it's through testing
and removing affected dogs from the gene pool that you drastically
reduce the chance of producing puppies with HD.
If you look at the OFA web page, you will see breeds reducing the
incidence of dysplasia by sometimes very large numbers, simply by
testing using the phenotypic test and not using dysplastic dogs in their
breeding program.
It's called stacking the deck in your favor.
As for your total crap about your mutt hybrid dogs--that's all it is.
Shelly
> plus medium size, short coat, drive and working ability
Yep.
> fwiw, i've spent a lot of time thinking about alternate breeds, partly
> because it interests me, partly because i do tire of the
> dog-aggression, and partly because i'm afraid things will get to the
> point where these dogs are illegal (though recently there have been
> breed bans overturned, so that's a good sign).
Same here, though obviously to a lesser degree. I mentally "try on"
different breeds, and a few of them *do* appeal to me, but I've had
to reject them for various reasons. Rotties are too big, Bostons
are too small (for now), Briards are too hairy, Dutchies are too
serious, Bulldogs are too unhealthy, and, and, and...
> none of the dogs on my short list are much like pit bulls at all :-/
Few things are!
> they're also, for the most part, significantly larger than my pit
> bulls, and i *like* the medium size. 40-50 pounds is my ideal dog
> size.
Size has become something I'm more aware of. I love big dogs, but I
don't want to live with them. Fifty pounds is toward the top end of
my preferred size range. I would maybe go as high as 60lbs, but I'd
rather not. I want to live with dogs I can carry, if necessary, and
who won't crush me in my sleep.
Shelly
> to be fair, i don't know much about elkhounds, but they have very
> little appeal to me. they're FURRY!
They're very nice dogs, but no way could I handle the grooming.
And, if I could, I'd have Chows.
Melinda Shore
I prefer a dog I can carry, which tops out at about 60 lbs.
You never know when you'll need to. The last few months of
Duncan's life I was carrying him up and down the stairs
several times/day.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
If you can't say it clearly, you don't understand it yourself -- John Searle
Shelly
> I prefer a dog I can carry, which tops out at about 60 lbs.
Yep.
> You never know when you'll need to. The last few months of
> Duncan's life I was carrying him up and down the stairs
> several times/day.
That's *exactly* what I'm concerned about. I'd hate to have to call
on a neighbor, or make a friend drive all the way across town, just
to help me, um, hoist my dog. As it were.
ceb
@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
> elegy wrote:
>
>> to be fair, i don't know much about elkhounds, but they have very
>> little appeal to me. they're FURRY!
>
> They're very nice dogs, but no way could I handle the grooming.
> And, if I could, I'd have Chows.
>
U R NOT LISTENING GRRRR ZOOEEE
--
Catherine
& Zoe the cockerchow
& Queenie the black gold retriever
& Max the Pomeranian
& Rosalie the calico cat
Shelly
> U R NOT LISTENING GRRRR ZOOEEE
OR MAYBE A COCKERCHOW OKAYTHEN?!!!11!
Opinicus
> You never know when you'll need to. The last few months of
> Duncan's life I was carrying him up and down the stairs
> several times/day.
Sigh... Kanyak stopped going upstairs entirely in the last year we were
living in a duplex in Foca. That was three years before he died. He could
still get around on his own until about the last month but chose not to make
the effort of the stairs I guess.
Shelly
> Sigh... Kanyak stopped going upstairs entirely in the last year we were
> living in a duplex in Foca. That was three years before he died. He could
> still get around on his own until about the last month but chose not to make
> the effort of the stairs I guess.
I've got a friend whose old dog is having trouble with stairs.
She's living in a 3 story house, and her bedroom--where, of course,
the dogs insist on sleeping--is on the third floor. The house is
also on a steep hill, so there are a bunch of steps just to go in
and out for walks. Charlie an uncomplaining little fellow, but he's
obviously getting stiff from arthritis and old age, and the steps
aren't helping.
ceb
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
> ceb wrote:
>
>> U R NOT LISTENING GRRRR ZOOEEE
>
> OR MAYBE A COCKERCHOW OKAYTHEN?!!!11!
>
OKAYTHEN!! DONOT GET ONE THAT SCREEEEEMS AS THEY ARE WEERD.
PS Are there any nekkid black dogs? The only ones I can think of have
white as well. OTOH, despite appearances, I DO like all the various dog
colors.
Shelly
> They have no where near the grooming a chow has.
After a certain point, it really doesn't matter, because it's all
TOO MUCH.
> And they are nothing like
> a Chow (eg, no interdog aggression issues..
Why would "nothing like a Chow" appeal to someone who *likes* Chows?
> never been on a viscious dog list.. and never will be)
You are very fortunate, but if it were me, I'd be careful with the
"never" word.
Shelly
> OKAYTHEN!! DONOT GET ONE THAT SCREEEEEMS AS THEY ARE WEERD.
NOT TO WORRY! NO SCREEMING ALOUD!11!!
> PS Are there any nekkid black dogs? The only ones I can think of have
> white as well. OTOH, despite appearances, I DO like all the various dog
> colors.
Reverse brindle Boxers can be very nearly black. And, of course,
Pit Bulls/AmStaffs, and StaffyBulls come in black. And Greyhounds,
IGs, and Whippets, and Pugs, Great Danes, Chis, and Neos.
Marcel Beaudoin
> PS Are there any nekkid black dogs? The only ones I can think of have
> white as well. OTOH, despite appearances, I DO like all the various dog
> colors.
I gots me a can o'spraypaint that sez that *any* nekkid dog can become
a nekkid black dog.
Marcel
Lynne
> She's living in a 3 story house, and her bedroom--where, of course,
> the dogs insist on sleeping--is on the third floor
My new dog will probably grow to be about 70-75 lbs. I decided that since
I live in a ranch, we'll be okay for hopefully a very long time. :)
--
Lynne
ceb
@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
> Reverse brindle Boxers can be very nearly black. And, of course,
> Pit Bulls/AmStaffs, and StaffyBulls come in black. And Greyhounds,
> IGs, and Whippets, and Pugs, Great Danes, Chis, and Neos.
>
That's quite a list of dogs that didn't occur to me! I could love most of
those dogs, given the opportunity. But probably as I get older I will
steer clear of the strong dogs, alas. I know they can be trained and
everything, but still.
But mostly I wind up with mutts, I mean "mixed breeds" except for the Pom
aberration.
So many dogs, so little time/space/money.
ceb
news:1170966506.2...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Also, any hairy dog can become a nekkid dog, ergo any dog can become a
nekkid black dog.
--
Janet Boss
wrote:
> Just as an
> example, I for the life of me cannot understand the appeal of GRs (Hi,
> Janet!) and to a lesser extent, Labs.
No problem. I have NO use for "dumb blonde" Goldens, and Labs just
don't do it for me. I have had a few lab MIXES that I adore, but it was
the non-labby part of them that gave them more of the personality I
want. OTOH, some of the field labs are very appealing, but I don't have
enough energy to give them what they need.
I also realize that not everyone appreciates the gregarious nature of
the Golden, Lab, and FCR. Can you imagine? People not wanting a dog
who's always right there saying "whadarewedoingnowma? There are times
when the Chow personality would seem more convenient......
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
ceb
05FD6B.161...@news.individual.net:
> I also realize that not everyone appreciates the gregarious nature of
> the Golden, Lab, and FCR. Can you imagine? People not wanting a dog
> who's always right there saying "whadarewedoingnowma?
But we all need a helper in the kitchen. And bathroom. And every other
room and oh, especially going upstairs. Also, outside. Especially
outside. And you better not get in the car without a helper! Not the
car!!! For the love of god, take me with you!!!!!
There are times
> when the Chow personality would seem more convenient......
>
I really enjoy having 3 different kinds of dogs with 3 distinct
personalities (not that all individual dogs don't have their own
personalities). I wind up interacting with them in different ways, and I
find each of them interesting in their own way.
If I only had one dog, or even had to choose only one breed of dog, I
think it would all boil down to "joie de vivre" for me -- that's
something I count on my dogs for. So I tend to veer toward the less
"serious" dogs. But I like smart, too.
Handsome Jack Morrison
<ja...@bestfriendsdogobedience.com> wrote:
[...]
>People not wanting a dog
>who's always right there saying "whadarewedoingnowma? There are times
>when the Chow personality would seem more convenient...
...than actually, you know, TRAINING a Lab or GR to know when and how
to "settle" and when and how to "go to work"?
<sigh>
--
Handsome Jack Morrison
Oh yeah. About those polar bears "stranded" on that ice flow, because of "global warming"?
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/214655.php
Climatologist Calls Global Warming Fears 'Greatest Deception in the History of Science':
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Soft People, Hard People:
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/soft_people_hard_people.html
Resisting Global Warming Panic:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/resisting_global_warming_panic.html
What if "global warming" is a good thing?
http://www.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2007/02/02/what-if-global-warming-is-a-good-thing/
Ten interesting prognostications for 2007:
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2006/12/beldars_prognos.html#more
Rare sighting in Canada: Quebecois with balls! Who knew?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/070130/canada/canada_stoning_col_2
Global Warming Groundhog Day:
http://www.dartblog.com/data/2007/01/006940.php
Muslims 'about to take over Europe,' says Bernard Lewis:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467834546&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
Melinda Shore
ceb <ce...@nospam.virginia.edu> wrote:
>If I only had one dog, or even had to choose only one breed of dog, I
>think it would all boil down to "joie de vivre" for me -- that's
>something I count on my dogs for. So I tend to veer toward the less
>"serious" dogs. But I like smart, too.
It's all about what Chris J calls joie de husky. "Anything
worth doing is worth overdoing."
Tara
news:1170956122.1...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 8, 6:20 am, diddy <d...@nospam.diddy.net> wrote:
>
>> If they truly wanted to start a breed, why not use the Curly Coated
>> Retriever, already in existence? OH... because they can't claim
>> De$igner dog$ price$
>
> I understand where you're going, but the Curly is a hard dog. You'd
> need to do a fair bit of temperament tweaking... and then it wouldn't
> be a Curly any more.
>
>
I agree with this. Plus CCR shed a LOT.
But, I've always thought that the designer Poodle/Retriever mixes were
somewhat similar to the PWD, but without the consistancy or stability.
Tara
Tara
news:YOSdnYjBXoOJE1bY...@insightbb.com:
> on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:40:20 GMT, Shelly <scouv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> She's living in a 3 story house, and her bedroom--where, of course,
>> the dogs insist on sleeping--is on the third floor
>
> My new dog will probably grow to be about 70-75 lbs.
Excuuuuuse me?
Tara
Lynne
> Has anyone had a golden retriever crossed with a poodle. I'm told
> they are virtually non-shedding. I found some breeders in my area of
> Toronto, Ontario but they are charging about $1500 Canadian for the
> dogs. Is there anywhere else to get a goldendoodle cheeper? are they
> a good dog?
As others have suggested, watch for one on Petfinder.com or at your local
shelters. So many end up there. Not only will you get one at a more
appropriate price, but if you get an adult that has been evaluated, you'll
know more of what you are getting. It's a crap shoot with mixed breed
puppies, and that's exactly what there are. AKA mutts.
Just to be clear, I have nothing against mutts. I share my life with one
who is the apple of my eye.
--
Lynne
Lynne
> Excuuuuuse me?
Hope to have news tomorrow... <fingers crossed, knocking on wood, avoiding
ladders, etc.>
--
Lynne
Janet Boss
Handsome Jack Morrison <handsomeja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are times
> >when the Chow personality would seem more convenient...
>
> ...than actually, you know, TRAINING a Lab or GR to know when and how
> to "settle" and when and how to "go to work"?
Of course, but I love their happy go lucky, greet everyone, hostess with
the mostest attitude, but........ The tails can really do damage during
a crowded indoor party. A breed trait if FCRs is constant licking
(which can be curbed, but it takes a little effort that is challenging
while cooking and socializing) and I'm shocked that some people don't
like that! Asking multiples to settle and stay out of the way in a
crowded house with a lot of food and drink at tail height, is something
I haven't fully figured out (outdoors, their manners are fine and the
space allows for some freedom of movement). Yes, I can put them in a
down stay, but there's just no place for them to stay off out of the
way. And then there is the fact that some portion of the party
attendees WANTS to interact with them and even PLAY with them, and that
tends to complicate things (not to mention confuse them as to what
exactly is wanted). I always hope for balmy weather during my Christmas
party - people can play with them OUTDOORS and everyone's happy. So
yes, a Chow, milling around but not interested in anyone, who's tail is
not problematic, seems more CONVENIENT at times. Not that I want a
Chow, and I'll deal with the inconvenience. Nothing to do with failing
to train.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Lynne
wrote:
> Hope to have news tomorrow... <fingers crossed, knocking on wood,
> avoiding ladders, etc.>
You musta missed this:
http://tinyurl.com/3xye9d
--
Lynne
ceb
@panix3.panix.com:
> In article <Xns98D1AB01DF984...@128.143.2.66>,
> ceb <ce...@nospam.virginia.edu> wrote:
>>If I only had one dog, or even had to choose only one breed of dog, I
>>think it would all boil down to "joie de vivre" for me -- that's
>>something I count on my dogs for. So I tend to veer toward the less
>>"serious" dogs. But I like smart, too.
>
> It's all about what Chris J calls joie de husky. "Anything
> worth doing is worth overdoing."
When I was teaching Zoe to walk on a loose leash, I couldn't use praise
when she was doing it correctly, because when I praised her, she seemed
to think "oh, you like THAT? Well, let me show you some REALLY GREAT
walking!" and then she would try to pull me down the street again.
She also learned "down" when a friend came over and sat throughout the
evening, giving Zoe treats when she responded correctly to "down." By the
end of the evening, Zoe would walk over to my friend and hurl herself to
the floor.
And of course, there's the old "if they laugh, repeat the behavior ad
infinitum."
I think she has some joie de husky in her.
Tara
news:TLKdnfVoTf0RPlbY...@insightbb.com:
Oh no. I caught that one. Was keeping mum so as to not jinx the deal.
But between the post I was replying to and the pictures I saw of teeny
newborn baby puppies....well, I'm thinking there's more scoop to that news
then you're giving out.
Tara
Lynne
> And of course, there's the old "if they laugh, repeat the behavior ad
> infinitum."
Roxy has this gene, too. :)
--
Lynne
Lynne
> Oh no. I caught that one. Was keeping mum so as to not jinx the deal.
>
> But between the post I was replying to and the pictures I saw of teeny
> newborn baby puppies....well, I'm thinking there's more scoop to that
> news then you're giving out.
Yeah, I've been trying very hard (for months!) not to get too worked up and
jinx the deal. There are 5 males, with 3 males going to performance homes.
I am in line for male #4, but they aren't 72 hours old yet so they are
still in a very vulnerable stage. They are reported to be very robust,
though, thankfully. The breeder is a very cautious man, which I greatly
appreciate, so he doesn't want to make any promises until he's sure.
So I'm right on the edge of total excitement!
Did you see that handsome red daddy? I can't decide if I would prefer a
red boy or a blonde boy, but thankfully I don't have to decide. The
breeder will be picking my puppy for me and I'll be happy with either!
--
Lynne
Robin Nuttall
> Lynne wrote:
>
>> There's no accounting for taste!
>
>
> None whatsoever.
>
> I'd hate to have someone dictate to me what sort of dog I should like,
> and I wouldn't dream of doing so to anyone else.
>
>> These are my 2 favorite breeds (that I can realistically own, that
>> is). :)
>
>
> They're lovely dogs, but they are about at the bottom of my list of
> breeds I could live with.
>
Border Collies rank lower for me. No way, no how. I can think they're
pretty dogs, but I have absolutely no desire to own one.
Goldens are far down the list too. Not just the hair, but that endless
accommodation. I like a bit of spice and edge to my dogs. I don't care
for the gooey adoration thing. Dobermans love their people, but they
aren't generally gooey about it, and they have an edge.
Handsome Jack Morrison
<ja...@bestfriendsdogobedience.com> wrote:
>In article <ac7ns2pbdmrdguprd...@4ax.com>,
> Handsome Jack Morrison <handsomeja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are times
>> >when the Chow personality would seem more convenient...
>>
>> ...than actually, you know, TRAINING a Lab or GR to know when and how
>> to "settle" and when and how to "go to work"?
>
>Of course, but I love their happy go lucky, greet everyone, hostess with
>the mostest attitude, but........ The tails can really do damage during
>a crowded indoor party.
Well, yes, they can clear a coffee table faster than a speeding
bullet, so the solution to that "problem" is to not have anything
breakable and/or valuable on the coffee table.
>Asking multiples to settle and stay out of the way in a
>crowded house with a lot of food and drink at tail height, is something
>I haven't fully figured out (outdoors, their manners are fine and the
>space allows for some freedom of movement).
There are usually 7-8 Labs and Chessies running around my place,
sometimes more. A usually very crowded house, if I may say so myself,
usually filled with family, friends and visitors. I've never had a
problem with them bothering anyone. They do their sniffing, then they
go "settle."
>Yes, I can put them in a
>down stay, but there's just no place for them to stay off out of the
>way.
Which would you rather have running loose in your house, say, when
you're having guests over, especially guests with small children.
3 Labs? Or 3 Chows?
>And then there is the fact that some portion of the party
>attendees WANTS to interact with them and even PLAY with them, and that
>tends to complicate things (not to mention confuse them as to what
>exactly is wanted).
How do you think that might work out with, say, 3 Chows?
>So yes, a Chow, milling around but not interested in anyone, who's tail is
>not problematic, seems more CONVENIENT at times.
So, in a house full of strangers, including small children, you'd
trade 3 "dangerous" tails for 3 aloof dogs, suspicious of strangers,
territorial, etc?
That would be more CONVENIENT for you?
>Nothing to do with failing to train.
Then maybe a failure to really think this through?
Handsome Jack Morrison
wrote:
>I don't care for the gooey adoration thing.
Sayeth the owner of the original "velcro" dog.
Janet Boss
Handsome Jack Morrison <handsomeja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, yes, they can clear a coffee table faster than a speeding
> bullet, so the solution to that "problem" is to not have anything
> breakable and/or valuable on the coffee table.>>
Well, of course! But some guests are hard to train! I have a
not-so-big house, with 70 or so people in it every Christmas party.
There's just not enough room for ANYTHING!
>
> There are usually 7-8 Labs and Chessies running around my place,
> sometimes more. A usually very crowded house, if I may say so myself,
> usually filled with family, friends and visitors. I've never had a
> problem with them bothering anyone. They do their sniffing, then they
> go "settle."
Define "bother". Wag your whole body close enough that nothing is safe?
I only have one with that issue, but he truly doesn't know how to wag
JUST his tail! This year, we kept them on one level with a fair
amount of outdoor time, and it worked very well. My living room is just
too small for more than a dozen people along with the dogs (the
Christmas day crowd).
>
> Which would you rather have running loose in your house, say, when
> you're having guests over, especially guests with small children.
>
> 3 Labs? Or 3 Chows?
Depends. I have a good friend who has had 3 Chows (now has 2). Parties
at his house are not a problem. Dogs accept guests but don't interact a
lot. But they also don't mind being petted, touched, nudged, etc. One
is a purchased as puppy dog, - intact male, the other a rescue spayed
bitch. Both exceptionally pleasant. He does a great job with both
training and socialization.
>
> How do you think that might work out with, say, 3 Chows?
See above.
>
> >So yes, a Chow, milling around but not interested in anyone, who's tail is
> >not problematic, seems more CONVENIENT at times.
>
> So, in a house full of strangers, including small children, you'd
> trade 3 "dangerous" tails for 3 aloof dogs, suspicious of strangers,
> territorial, etc?
Nope. I wouldn't trade my dogs for the world, inconvenient at times or
not. Nor would I own a Chow. But it CAN be successful and safe.
> Then maybe a failure to really think this through?
Nope - a lot depends on the individual dogs.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Handsome Jack Morrison
<ja...@bestfriendsdogobedience.com> wrote:
>In article <n4ans21gdaf7k07du...@4ax.com>,
> Handsome Jack Morrison <handsomeja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, yes, they can clear a coffee table faster than a speeding
>> bullet, so the solution to that "problem" is to not have anything
>> breakable and/or valuable on the coffee table.>>
>
>Well, of course! But some guests are hard to train! I have a
>not-so-big house, with 70 or so people in it every Christmas party.
>There's just not enough room for ANYTHING!
Would you rather have, say 3 Labs, or 3 Chows at such a party?
>> There are usually 7-8 Labs and Chessies running around my place,
>> sometimes more. A usually very crowded house, if I may say so myself,
>> usually filled with family, friends and visitors. I've never had a
>> problem with them bothering anyone. They do their sniffing, then they
>> go "settle."
>
>Define "bother". Wag your whole body close enough that nothing is safe?
Define "safe"?
Define "nothing"?
>I only have one with that issue, but he truly doesn't know how to wag
>JUST his tail! This year, we kept them on one level with a fair
>amount of outdoor time, and it worked very well. My living room is just
>too small for more than a dozen people along with the dogs (the
>Christmas day crowd).
Now...imagine the same scenario with 3 Chows.
>> Which would you rather have running loose in your house, say, when
>> you're having guests over, especially guests with small children.
>>
>> 3 Labs? Or 3 Chows?
>
>Depends.
You're not kidding?
<sigh>
>I have a good friend who has had 3 Chows (now has 2). Parties
>at his house are not a problem. Dogs accept guests but don't interact a
>lot. But they also don't mind being petted, touched, nudged, etc.
As a general rule, do you think that's the way most Chows usually
behave?
Or in other words, do you think that most Chows don't mind being
"petted, touched, nudged, etc." by perfect strangers, especially small
children?
A simple "yes" or "no" should suffice.
>> How do you think that might work out with, say, 3 Chows?
>
>See above.
Yes, see above.
>> >So yes, a Chow, milling around but not interested in anyone, who's tail is
>> >not problematic, seems more CONVENIENT at times.
>>
>> So, in a house full of strangers, including small children, you'd
>> trade 3 "dangerous" tails for 3 aloof dogs, suspicious of strangers,
>> territorial, etc?
>
>Nope. I wouldn't trade my dogs for the world, inconvenient at times or
>not. Nor would I own a Chow. But it CAN be successful and safe.
No one said it couldn't.
But you said Chows would be more CONVENIENT for you than Labs, even in
a house full of strangers, etc.
That just doesn't compute for me.
>> Then maybe a failure to really think this through?
>
>Nope - a lot depends on the individual dogs.
IMO, much more depends on the breed than the dog.
Especially when one considers how much time and training that most
dogs get.
Which is why, IMO, "shit happens" way more often than it ever should.
bethgsd
"Tara" <noth...@verizon.not> wrote in message
news:Xns98D17E1533DB3ta...@130.81.64.196...
>>
> Well, they don't even test for CHD in the first place, so its highly
> unlikely that they'd be testing for ahything else.
I couldn't get through the whole website, it is dinner time after all. But
I did notice under their hips/bones heading they claim that OFA admits that
20-40% of dogs that are OFA good become dysplastic. That and they claim you
have to OFA yearly to get accurate results.
I'll tell that to Mr. OFA Excellent. I doubt Wojo would be amused.
Beth
bethgsd
"Handsome Jack Morrison" <handsomeja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7mmms2h7qp5pcs3i5...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:28:52 -0500, "Suja" <span...@scs.gmu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>Just as an
>>example, I for the life of me cannot understand the appeal of GRs (Hi,
>>Janet!) and to a lesser extent, Labs.
>
> attractive, easy to train (yes, even you could probably train one,
> Suja!), are more than capable of handling virtually any service- or
> therapy-related assignment, are extremely resilient, are rugged, that
> get along well with kids, strangers, other dogs, are outstanding
> performance dogs in the field, the obedience ring, etc., are generally
> long-lived, are funny, have a gentle nature, and are quite devoted to
> their owners.
Hey! Just like my breed isn't for everyone neither are goldens and
labradors. Though, when I have people ask me about a good family dog I do
recommend those two breeds from responsible breeders and/or good rescue.
But if I ever get a retriever it will be a Chessie or a Flatcoat. Goldens
and Labs just don't do it for me.
Beth
>
bethgsd
"diddy" <di...@nospam.diddy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98D195F...@216.196.97.142...
> in thread news:UDKyh.25581$yC5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net: Shelly
> <scouv...@yahoo.com> whittled the following words:
>
>>
>> They're very nice dogs, but no way could I handle the grooming.
>> And, if I could, I'd have Chows.
>>
>
> They have no where near the grooming a chow has. And they are nothing
> like
> a Chow (eg, no interdog aggression issues.. never been on a viscious dog
> list.. and never will be)
I was bitten by an Elkhound when I was 10. I'm sure under today's weird
political environment there could be a case made to ban Elkhounds.
Beth
Handsome Jack Morrison
<bet...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>"Handsome Jack Morrison" <handsomeja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7mmms2h7qp5pcs3i5...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:28:52 -0500, "Suja" <span...@scs.gmu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Just as an
>>>example, I for the life of me cannot understand the appeal of GRs (Hi,
>>>Janet!) and to a lesser extent, Labs.
>>
>> Yeah, what's to like about breeds that are exceptionally smart,
>> attractive, easy to train (yes, even you could probably train one,
>> Suja!), are more than capable of handling virtually any service- or
>> therapy-related assignment, are extremely resilient, are rugged, that
>> get along well with kids, strangers, other dogs, are outstanding
>> performance dogs in the field, the obedience ring, etc., are generally
>> long-lived, are funny, have a gentle nature, and are quite devoted to
>> their owners.
>Hey! Just like my breed isn't for everyone neither are goldens and
>labradors.
Absolutely!
>Though, when I have people ask me about a good family dog I do
>recommend those two breeds from responsible breeders and/or good rescue.
Smart.
But someone who says she "doesn't understand the appeal of Labs and
GRs" is, to put it bluntly, talking out her ass.
And is probably from another planet.
>But if I ever get a retriever it will be a Chessie or a Flatcoat. Goldens
>and Labs just don't do it for me.
Beth, there's a HUGE difference between saying "Goldens and Labs just
don't do it for me" and saying "I for the life of me cannot understand
the appeal of GRs (Hi, Janet!) and to a lesser extent, Labs."
The latter is just plain stupid.
Janet Boss
Handsome Jack Morrison <handsomeja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As a general rule, do you think that's the way most Chows usually
> behave?
>
> Or in other words, do you think that most Chows don't mind being
> "petted, touched, nudged, etc." by perfect strangers, especially small
> children?
>
> A simple "yes" or "no" should suffice.
no, but it is obviously possible.
>
> But you said Chows would be more CONVENIENT for you than Labs, even in
> a house full of strangers, etc.
>
> That just doesn't compute for me.
sorry, but they COULD be. I'll still stick with my waggy dogs.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Handsome Jack Morrison
<ja...@bestfriendsdogobedience.com> wrote:
>In article <ekens2pgdqmnsrhe7...@4ax.com>,
> Handsome Jack Morrison <handsomeja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As a general rule, do you think that's the way most Chows usually
>> behave?
>>
>> Or in other words, do you think that most Chows don't mind being
>> "petted, touched, nudged, etc." by perfect strangers, especially small
>> children?
>>
>> A simple "yes" or "no" should suffice.
>
>no, but it is obviously possible.
It's "possible" that you'll be hit by an asteroid as you walk out the
door tomorrow, too.
<sigh>
>> But you said Chows would be more CONVENIENT for you than Labs, even in
>> a house full of strangers, etc.
>>
>> That just doesn't compute for me.
>
>sorry, but they COULD be.
And in a house full of strangers, especially one with small children,
with about the same odds that you'll be hit by an asteroid tomorrow.
Tsk tsk tsk.
Robin Nuttall
> "Tara" <noth...@verizon.not> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D17E1533DB3ta...@130.81.64.196...
>
>>Well, they don't even test for CHD in the first place, so its highly
>>unlikely that they'd be testing for ahything else.
>
>
> I couldn't get through the whole website, it is dinner time after all. But
> I did notice under their hips/bones heading they claim that OFA admits that
> 20-40% of dogs that are OFA good become dysplastic. That and they claim you
> have to OFA yearly to get accurate results.
Um, no. And the OFA has real data (like, you know, peer reviewd studies)
to prove it.
>
> I'll tell that to Mr. OFA Excellent. I doubt Wojo would be amused.
<snort>
Susan Fraser
> > bullet, so the solution to that "problem" is to not have anything
> > breakable and/or valuable on the coffee table.>>
>
> Well, of course! But some guests are hard to train! I have a
> not-so-big house, with 70 or so people in it every Christmas party.
> There's just not enough room for ANYTHING!
OK, big stabe coffee table (mine's round) with the outer perimeter
padded and upholstered, bare wood in the middle. So now you have
another place where people can "perch" but they cannot place food/
drinks within tail reach. ;-)
Susan "Design by Necessity" Fraser
and the (Interior Decorator) AuH2Ok9s:
SheBop, Shammie and Gris-Gris
Paula
news:Xns98D1643...@216.196.97.142:
> I agree with that, but I don't see any point in fighting the Dog
> aggressive issues when you can get the same thing in other breeds.
> It's the people that are the issue, but I just don't see a great
> demand for bull fighting/dog fighting dogs.
Since most, if not all, of the pitbull owners I know have dogs that were
already bred, I don't have a problem with them wanting that particular
breed. I would tend to agree that breeding pitbulls doesn't have a lot of
justification right now. I don't agree with bans on breeding them, but I
would have a hard time justifying doing it. There are too many out there
for the number of homes that can handle them already and the dog fighting
they were bred for isn't something I would breed dogs for even if it were
legal in my area.
Paula
Paula
@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
> I only mentioned it because the I've frequently encountered the
> attitude that Pit Bull folks should just switch to another breed.
> Diddy's posts were heading into that territory, I think. As if it
> were that simple.
Plenty of pitbulls out there needing homes, so I'd say that people who love
them and can handle them properly definitely should get them instead of
another breed. And the people who love them but aren't willing to deal
with the dog-aggressiveness responsibly should get a stuffed animal
instead. And those who breed them for all the wrong reasons and pass them
around to all the wrong people should be the subjects of extermination
orders and breeding bans instead of their dogs.
Paula
Paula
news:SaPyh.113700$h75.43415@trnddc01:
>
> Hey! Just like my breed isn't for everyone neither are goldens and
> labradors. Though, when I have people ask me about a good family dog
> I do recommend those two breeds from responsible breeders and/or good
> rescue.
Our neighbor's Golden hates all other dogs except one of our GSD's.
Gunther gets along with everyone, but is highly needy when it comes to
attention and affection and wants to crawl into the skin of family members
or complete strangers. He just wants to be petted and never to make waves
with any human or canine. I told the neighbor that our GSD was more of a
Golden than her GR. Goofball. It's interesting that his velcroness is
something our family puts up with but doesn't find one of his most
endearing qualities. Our neighbor who got a Golden loves that about him.
We both like the fact that he's never met a dog he didn't like.
Paula
Paula
news:78Pyh.113699$h75.55047@trnddc01:
It reminds me of the people who actually pointed out that since people
who have never smoked have also died of lung cancer, it doesn't matter if
they smoke. Some people just don't get the difference between shit
happens and shit's bound to happen.
Shelly
> I don't care
> for the gooey adoration thing. Dobermans love their people, but they
> aren't generally gooey about it, and they have an edge.
Nor do I. There's a huge difference between sticking to you and
fawning over you. Boxers, like Dobes, do the former but *notnotnot*
the latter. I like a dog who makes me earn her respect, who has her
own agendas, and who has the temerity to occasionally tell me to go
to hell. I also do not want a dog who is constantly asking me,
"What do we do now? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?"
--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)