# leondoodles



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

yep u guessed it leonberger x poodle pups
quote.............The benefit of having one of these dogs is that due to the poodle side of them they will be more Athletic in there joints, they will shed less hair & it makes them very trainable.

whatever next!


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

:nonod:  And how exactly are they guarantee they are more athletic in their joints?! but people will be taken in.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

I wonder which one was the mum


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

mum was the leonberger


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

dexter said:


> mum was the leonberger


Still an awful cross


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

You would not believe the uproar that this advert has caused! I don't think I've ever seen the Leo people so angry.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

Links?....


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

No links as we don't want to promote them, or cause a fight when they came on here.... I thibk my mod hat may come off then ;-)


----------



## Rache (Jul 24, 2010)

I can't believe how Lots of cross breeds are now more expensive then pedigrees.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Where I live, where there are not many registered dogs (our CKC registers only 45,000 yearly and most of those in Quebec and Ontario). Its the purebred registered dogs, especially the less common breeds, that still fetch the highest prices here, most often with little health testing. Usually then come the designer crossbreeds, Shih Tzu and Poodle mixes especially, then the mutts.

We have mostly unregistered dogs and mutts here - 90%.

I made a map showing the locations of the show event venues (yellow dots) across the prairies - most venues have shows one weekend a year. Nothing in the Northern part of the provinces or the territories, and no health specialist clinics there either.










. . . . makes for a bit of a different perspective on breeders and breeds and even health testing (can't very well ask a Yellowknife breeder for opthamologist certificates on puppies!). Just thought I'd share my perspective place as I often get involved in these conversations.

CC


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Rache said:


> I can't believe how Lots of cross breeds are now more expensive then pedigrees.


Because they pull the wool over puppy buyers eyes by using the concept of "hybrid vigour" - which actually we are learning is far from true

Cross breeds can share the same conditions (e.g. Labs and Poodles, HD and PRA - Labs and cockers the same) - plus of course bring new diseases to the mix from both sides - plus there is emerging empirical evidence that actually, crosses are likely to be MORE prone to joint problems than their pedigree counterparts.

Then of course there is the common myth that anything crossed with a poodle will be 'hypo-allergenic" - when it was proved many years ago that this is inaccurate and why the experiment in Australia failed.

Sadly, programs such as PDE and the RSPCA's at best misinformed campaigns don't help - yes, there are a small number of breeds that have been highlighted as having their share of problems, but generally, dogs bred for the showring and working have to, by default, be bred for health and temperament as well as conformation.

Assimilate all the above and lo and behold - all of a sudden - it's not difficult to see why some believe cross-breeds are the better option to those failing to do their research - many BYB and PF cash in on this 

There are still only a small number of ethical responsible breeders of cross-breeds and some people working tirelessly to try and improve the situation by educating puppy buyers and hopefully forcing breeders to 'clean up their act' - but like most things it's going to take time (and unless the laws change the issue will never fully be resolved ); during that time, the puppy buying public will continue to be conned by bad breeders of both crosses and pedigrees 

It's often been construed that I have something against cross-breeds or that I am a pedigree snob - I don't and I'm not - I love ALL dogs, it's some of the lemons that produce these cross-breeds I don't like


----------



## Lumikoira (May 20, 2011)

Tanya1989 said:


> You would not believe the uproar that this advert has caused! I don't think I've ever seen the Leo people so angry.


How riling! So hard for pure-breed breeders to see how easy these crosses appear to be come by.... just found out about an 'accidental' mating between two pets (albeit not cross) in our breed who haven't had endorsements lifted or been health tested... now i worry that these non kc reg 'pedigree' pups will open the doors tfor the PFs - sad day in our breed indeed


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

swarthy said:


> . . . - plus there is emerging empirical evidence that actually, crosses are likely to be MORE prone to joint problems than their pedigree counterparts. . . .


I agree with much of what you posted, Swarthy, but I have yet to see this evidense. Where is it?

The evidense I have found the other way is here: http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/maa/kotie/vk/maki/breeding.pdf



> "The inbreeding coefficient of a dog had a significant detrimental effect for hip dysplasia in the German Shepherd and the Labrador Retriever"


Of course testing, and a history of testing in lines and breeding on that information, is what has made the difference in one breed, and that is the Rottweiler, mentioned in this same paper.

CC


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> The evidense I have found the other way is here: http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/maa/kotie/vk/maki/breeding.pdf


Believe me, if I had the links I would post them - they do exist, but don't behin to ask me where and when I found them - I will endeavour to find them again.

Can I also say that this is research - published research will always have a wide diversification of outputs, and will often contain more than an elemtn of subjectivity - just as for every report saying it is OK for pregnant women to drink 'x' units a week, you will find many contradictory reports saying that pregnant women shouldn't touch alcohol at all

There will ALWAYS be conflicting opinions regardless of the subject - and IMHO - we don't have enough evidence of hip and elbow scoring in cross-breeds to either substantiate or disprove the hypothesis.

I say hip and elbow scoring, because surgical intervention is not reported on - so all we have to work with is health-test results

Sample sizes to prove / disprove the theories around cross-breeds would need to include scoring results and then monitoring for the dogs life to measure what other arthritic and joint issues crop up

This is a LONG study which would require a large sample size. Until then - most of what we read is merely conjecture frequently incorporating subjective bias.

Just as the RSPCA are slating pedigree breeds, when the major problems only affect a miniscule proportion of dogs - probably accounting for less than 10% of all dogs registered from 250  breeds - unfortunately, we know that bad news spreads around 10 times as fast as good news 

The simple fact is we don't truly know - we do know that cross-breeds are far from immune when it comes to joint and other genetic problems -

If someone is breeding cross-breeds, then they should be using the tests relavent to both breeds; even if hips are not a problem in one of the pedigree breeds, you should be scoring the dogs because they are being 'mixed' with a breed where there is an issue - as we don't know whether these genes are recessive or dominant, or whether there is a mix which lead to HD - so crossing with a dog that doesn't have these issues is no guarantee that the progeny will be any healthier than if the dogs had been mated to dogs of their own breed.

Similarly, joints can be damaged in the womb, during whelping and raising litters - and these issues are probably more likely to arise when dealing with PF who probably do very little to assist their bitches and care for the babies - so by default there is going to be a higher proportion of 'incidents' which can cause problems.

Also. poor breeders seldom give their puppy buyers advice and guidance on good feeding and exercise regimes, the use of stairs etc

All the above have the potential to lead to a greater risk of problems for ALL poorly bred pedigree and cross-breeds.

The fact that the "breed average" and median point for Labradoodles are on a par with Poodles and higher than for Labs - similarly, the highest point in the range of scores for Labradoodles is lower than Labs (although with over 70K Labs scored you would expect to see the full range) - yet it is higher than the highest poodle score by 16 points should be raising some questions.

Unfortunately, we don't yet have any statistics for any of the other "poodle" crosses.

I've got a report to finish for work, when done, I will see if I have bookmarked the reports I read and post the links


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

comfort creature your in the Edmonton area aren't you? Here around Leth we travel to Calgary for eye testing, hip xrays can be done in leth only one vet that is really well known for good x rays though. But I have noticed a higher incidence in Southern Ab for hips, elbows and eyes being tested. Most people though still like the crosses more and I agree with the dog shows and they are so very clicky here Judges always seem to only give a good look at prof. handlers. I was lucky with my first show had a really nice Judge and she took the time to give me some tips...and have a chuckle


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

swarthy said:


> . . . All the above have the potential to lead to a greater risk of problems for ALL poorly bred pedigree and cross-breeds. . . .


Absolutely agree here. Brings up another thought.

If you look at my image from the first page you will understand why I have difficulty then with exactly defining what is 'poorly bred' and who would be the breeders others like to label as "BYBs" as I have full recognition that some breeders are working without the same advantages as others.

Many of ours, breeding both mutts, crosses and mixes, have no access to specialists (cardiologists, opthamologists) or specialist equipment (MRIs), any venue in which to compete or title their dogs, and yet are doing their very best. I won't/can't slight them for that.

CC


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

canuckjill said:


> comfort creature your in the Edmonton area aren't you? Here around Leth we travel to Calgary for eye testing, hip xrays can be done in leth only one vet that is really well known for good x rays though. But I have noticed a higher incidence in Southern Ab for hips, elbows and eyes being tested. Most people though still like the crosses more and I agree with the dog shows and they are so very clicky here Judges always seem to only give a good look at prof. handlers. I was lucky with my first show had a really nice Judge and she took the time to give me some tips...and have a chuckle


I am in the Edmonton area - North an hour, so close to a major center, but I am from much farther North, and family live there, and I still keep that perspective in mind always.

We got a cardiologist in Edmonton just two years ago. Before that anyone that wanted testing had to make the 5 hour trip to Calgary (my OH says it is 4 hours but I can't do it in that time - probably pee stops ). Those North of here still have nothing available. Still no opthamologists but for the yearly clinic - and we are a major center.

Close to Calgary you are in a better position, re # of shows and testing as I believe there is a center there that does both eyes and hearts? . . . but the message seems to be coming across the ocean that, for instance, if a breeder doesn't optho. test their pups they're not reputable.

It is dangerous to be spreading these types of messages without giving the perspective that not all breeders have access or are working within even similar environments. AR is getting too close. Did you know that in places in Saskatchewan it costs $100 yearly to license an intact dog? In NB the license fee is $250, and that is a requirement if you even sell a single pup?

Frankly if we are going toward a world where only tested dogs can be bred from - as per regulation - that would be the END of pet dogs in all of the Northern Territories and the North part of our provinces. PETAs goal then achieved, here anyway. I like it that good breeding practices are being touted and believe in that, but as I am from where I am from I recognize the danger of pushing too fast where the facilities are not yet in place.

CC


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

For the love of fcuk


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Absolutely. Get back on topic. Realize, however, all of these 'slam breeder by what they breed' types of threads have ramifications that can and do reach elsewhere.

On topic:

Leon-doodles. . . . crossbreeders . . . must be bad. Message recieved. Have fun with this tired old topic.I thought crossbreeding threads were banned?

CC


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Looking on the sisterships advertising site tonight I was surprised and pleased to see many Labradoodles and Goldendoodles who's parents were both health tested - way to go I feel as they are both lovely "breeds" IMO.

Some crosses are okay and though I love Mals as they are if people want to cross them there's nothing we can do to stop them. As long as the mix isn't ridiculous or behaviourally dangerous I don't see too much of a problem if the parents have their breeds health tests done. If the parents are roughly equall in size and one's not tiny (sire) and the dam is huge, producing pups with potential skeletal diversities that could cause pain and discomfort to the offspring and the choice of parents have at least some thought put into it then viva le difference!

I have read articles on pure bred dogs with health problems, some because the gene pool has been too small and imported stock are needed. I see on the Mal forum puppies imported for breeding later, adults too are imported as well bred Mals over here often share similar pedigrees because they are not as popular as some breeds - yet! I haven't read articles about crossbreeds with health problems, that isn't to say there aren't any just that I haven't seen them. My three crosses came from very dubious "breeders" and so far, two being seven years old, have not had a days ill health!

With any these luck these Leondoodles will be healthy too as that's surely what's most important, there will still be good ethical breeders who would never cross them and love both Poodles and Leonburgers for the beautiful breeds they are. 

ETA - you don't need hip/elbow scoring records of cross breeds, especially as there aren't many done at the moment anyway. A good reflection on health problems in crossbreeds would be to ask an orthopaedic specialist what breeds they mostly see with HD and ED. Noel Fitzpatrick said the most common breeds he see's are Labradors and Golden Retrievers, with a few other random pure breds. When I asked about whether he see's crossbreeds his reply was "not very often" That could mean that they just don't get taken to see him but then you could say the same about the other random pure breds - or it could be that they are not in general unhealthy!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> Absolutely agree here. Brings up another thought.
> 
> If you look at my image from the first page you will understand why I have difficulty then with exactly defining what is 'poorly bred' and who would be the breeders others like to label as "BYBs" as I have full recognition that some breeders are working without the same advantages as others.


Obviously, I can't speak for Canada because I don't have the knowledge - but I can say that in the UK ignorance and geography are poor excuses for the large majority - the information on the main schemes is widely available online and covered off more times on forums such as this than you could shake a stick at.

There are vets doing hips and elbows across the UK, the BVA eye Panellist link is probably posted more frequently than many other dog links and if people bothered to give themselves just an hour online, they would inevitably find the information on health-testing they require for the majority of breeds (there are some breeds where the information is hard to come by - and often in those instances, few if any of the schemes are used regularly on breeding dogs - and until usage becomes established - then it's difficult to distringuish between those who test and those who don't).

Whilst I am a big advocate of health-testing - I also don't see any need for testing for the sake of it - usually health-testing starts because it is known or suspected that there may be a specific problem within the breed - and rightly or wrongly, it can sometimes take a while for everyone to catch on.



comfortcreature said:


> Leon-doodles. . . . crossbreeders . . . must be bad. Message recieved. Have fun with this tired old topic.I thought crossbreeding threads were banned?


The thread is not about cross-breeds per-se - it's about the lemons who irresponsibly breed them and worse still, make false claims to an unsuspecting public effectively conning them out of large sums of money

By highlighting these what are effectively fraudulent adverts - it just MIGHT stop some people making a mistake and ending up with a heap of trouble in return for their cash - this applies as much to bad pedigree breeders as it does cross-breeders.

As I've said many times before, I have no issues with the dogs themselves - but the people usually at the helm


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I fully understand why someone wouldn't put their dog through a GA for no reason although it is invaluable for the particular breed records to know what lines are potentially carrying what as well as lines known to be on the whole healthy.
There was no reason to have Flynn hip scored but as he had an x ray which showed HD I had him scored purely for breed records. I would absolutely love to know what his siblings hip scores are but their owners wouldn't have them anaesthetised simply for my curiosity. Noel also said hip scores are irrelevant as a dog with a high score may show no problems yet one with a low score still can - he said x rays will show the full extent of the HD and he is never interested in hip scores.

So scoring dogs will not determine whether they have symptoms, that is dertermined by how they move.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Malmum said:


> . Noel also said hip scores are irrelevant as a dog with a high score may show no problems yet one with a low score still can - he said x rays will show the full extent of the HD and he is never interested in hip scores.
> 
> So scoring dogs will not determine whether they have symptoms, that is dertermined by how they move.


 x-rays have to be taken for hipscores and are scored under expert panels (i.e. not one opinion). - and in the UK measured on several aspects of the hipjoint.

Dogs can go onto develop OA later in life irrespective of their hipscore yes - just as a fit human can develop OA / back problems etc (the PennHip method of scoring claims to assess the risk of OA by the laxity of the joint - however, their limited sample size of dogs from their research did not re-enforce this belief.

As for how they move being the only factor- sorry - but this is complete *RUBBISH* - I've got a dog here with a hipscore not much lower than your Flynn and she moves like a dream - she did very well in the showring.

Similarly, I know of dogs with scores on a par and HIGHER with your boy who are beautiful moves and gone on to become Show Champions. I know of dogs again with scores much higher than your boy (nearly double in some instances) that have done exceptionally well in the showring.

Movement is absolute KEY to doing consistently well in the showing for Labs and is a primary factor that will sway many all round judges in placings.

HD can often be asymptomatic and the ONLY thing that can determine whether there is a problem is hipscoring taken from x-rays - which is why hipscoring is such an important health-test when breeding.

I know of dogs with excellent hipscores who move oddly - some dogs with 0/0 hipscores have very tight uncomfortable to watch movement - whereas dogs with scores off the scale can glide around the showring - you only have to look at the furore over the moment of some GSD's with excellent hipscores to see this.

As for x-rays - you cannot make a set of plates look better than the hips actually are, but you can easily make them look much worse than they are - which is why experienced breeders know that the choice of vet taking the plate is absolutely paramount.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

The movement of GSDs - the furore was over the very weak hocked American Show lines. You do get cow hocks in German lines but it makes no difference to health or comfort - so it's not really the first thing considered when breeding.
The English lines without the hocky-ness can't gait so are useless anyway lol.


----------



## Mastifflover (Dec 13, 2011)

PMSFL I won't give my opinion as I have read the rules about crossbreeds and respect them but if only you could get your facts right it would help. I am not referring to the GSDs but the main of this thread, the next thing you will get insulted being told all dogs are mongrels


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Shrap said:


> The movement of GSDs - the furore was over the very weak hocked American Show lines. You do get cow hocks in German lines but it makes no difference to health or comfort - so it's not really the first thing considered when breeding.
> The English lines without the hocky-ness can't gait so are useless anyway lol.


Yes, but it was interpreted by many initially as hip issues - the very simply fact is there is frequently NO correlation between high hipscores / poor hips and movement - if there was - no-one would need to hipscore - hipscoring is imperative because of asymptomatic moderate and severe dysplasia.



Mastifflover said:


> PMSFL I won't give my opinion as I have read the rules about crossbreeds and respect them but if only you could get your facts right it would help. I am not referring to the GSDs but the main of this thread, the next thing you will get insulted being told all dogs are mongrels


What facts exactly? that the majority of cross-breeds are produced by PF and BYB? That there is no such thing as hybrid vigour? that conditions cross different breeds and therefore can be produced in pups?

That Poodle crosses are not hypo-allergenic?

All the above ARE facts - so which ones aren't we getting right?


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Mastifflover said:


> PMSFL I won't give my opinion as I have read the rules about crossbreeds and respect them but if only you could get your facts right it would help. I am not referring to the GSDs but the main of this thread, the next thing you will get insulted being told all dogs are mongrels


so why bother to make this your first post on the forum. roflmao pmsl.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

dexter said:


> so why bother to make this your first post on the forum. roflmao pmsl.


Ooops - didn't even notice that  :lol:


----------



## Mastifflover (Dec 13, 2011)

Y shouldnt I make it my first post. It was the first one that showed up on the posts to lok at so I did


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Mastifflover said:


> Y shouldnt I make it my first post. It was the first one that showed up on the posts to lok at so I did


Are you going to enlighten us on which facts we haven't got straight?


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Mastifflover said:


> Y shouldnt I make it my first post. It was the first one that showed up on the posts to lok at so I did


yeah it always does.  most people introduce their selves first before making a post


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

swarthy said:


> The thread is not about cross-breeds per-se - it's about the lemons who irresponsibly breed them and worse still, make false claims to an unsuspecting public effectively conning them out of large sums of money
> 
> By highlighting these what are effectively fraudulent adverts - it just MIGHT stop some people making a mistake and ending up with a heap of trouble in return for their cash - this applies as much to bad pedigree breeders as it does cross-breeders.
> 
> As I've said many times before, I have no issues with the dogs themselves - but the people usually at the helm


:thumbup1:
exactly ...........:thumbup1:


----------



## Mastifflover (Dec 13, 2011)

dexter said:


> yeah it always does.  most people introduce their selves first before making a post


MOST people? nah looking on intros only a small minority post intros and Ive been a member on here ages but forgot about it and do you know what? i canna be bothered to do intro nor enlighten the thick so as I said not going to break said rules as whatever guise ya use its still about crossbreeds and unless ya's exempt to the rules ya should know better


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Mastifflover said:


> MOST people? nah looking on intros only a small minority post intros and Ive been a member on here ages but forgot about it and do you know what? i canna be bothered to do intro nor enlighten the thick so as I said not going to break said rules as whatever guise ya use its still about crossbreeds and unless ya's exempt to the rules ya should know better


I think you really mean, you don't want to show how uneducated you are when it comes to knowledge about breeding, and are probably willing to spout the same old rubbish about unethical breeding because it suits your beliefs. You may find even those who support cross breeding on here, prefer to do so with the correct ethical approach, dogs aren't here to be bred for a whim, they're here because *we* choose to breed them, and there are only two ways of doing that, the right way, and the wrong way. Give it your best shot if you think you can tell anyone on here that most cross breeders are in it to produce healthy animals, and that it creates genetic diversity, oh and all pedigrees are from different dogs aren't they? Same old drivel comes up every now and then, fortunately, most members are able to spot it a mile off, makes for good entertainment though 

PS I'm not anti cross breeding either and am fully aware that probably the majority of pedigrees are badly bred, but then that goes back to there are two ways of doing things, and the more often people continue to spout inaccuracies about breeding, the more the myths are perpetuated about cross breeds/pedigrees etc.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

I wonder who this one is


----------



## Mastifflover (Dec 13, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think you really mean, you don't want to show how uneducated you are when it comes to knowledge about breeding, and are probably willing to spout the same old rubbish about unethical breeding because it suits your beliefs. You may find even those who support cross breeding on here, prefer to do so with the correct ethical approach, dogs aren't here to be bred for a whim, they're here because *we* choose to breed them, and there are only two ways of doing that, the right way, and the wrong way. Give it your best shot if you think you can tell anyone on here that most cross breeders are in it to produce healthy animals, and that it creates genetic diversity, oh and all pedigrees are from different dogs aren't they? Same old drivel comes up every now and then, fortunately, most members are able to spot it a mile off, makes for good entertainment though
> 
> PS I'm not anti cross breeding either and am fully aware that probably the majority of pedigrees are badly bred, but then that goes back to there are two ways of doing things, and the more often people continue to spout inaccuracies about breeding, the more the myths are perpetuated about cross breeds/pedigrees etc.


:laugh::ciappa::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Shrap	
Re: leondoodles
I wonder who this one is Wich ONE? what ya mean? I am someone with me own opinions but respect and dunna wear a label or feel the need to be part of anything like a "One group". Yas very narrowminded


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

are the kids off school???


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Shrap said:


> I wonder who this one is


me too


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Giant, extra hairy poodles.  Just what you want as a pet for your allergy prone child. :yikes:


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

I take it your parents couldn't get any tutors to come to your bridge to teach you English then? :nonod:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Mastifflover said:


> :laugh::ciappa::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
> Shrap
> Re: leondoodles
> I wonder who this one is Wich ONE? what ya mean? I am someone with me own opinions but respect and dunna wear a label or feel the need to be part of anything like a "One group". Yas very narrowminded


So you don't want to share your thoughts on ethical breeding? Perhaps you haven't got any then?? Shame on you if you don't want to be part of, and promote, any group that promotes ethical breeding, you don't have to be pigeonholed to have the right approach to something like that. I don't agree with any number of my peers with regards to breeding, but at least I'm willing to discuss it in an adult manner (perhaps that's where your downfall is) without resorting to calling people *thick* - which seems to be your only contribution so far, nice.

You don't by chance live under a bridge do you?


----------



## Mastifflover (Dec 13, 2011)

well to feed ya paranoia I could be putting it on or I could just be pretending to be thick and idiotic like some of the things ya lot put on here. Who can tell? Dinni know if school's are off well they ll have come home now if ya have em. Me I prefer dogs as they are loyal. don't have a nasty bitchy bone in their bodies and dogs have morals. Da only bitchiness is dogs is the female side of em and if this is how tha lot treat members I won't be posting here. Don't ya ever think what ignorant cows that are making assumptions about all mongrel breeders or cross ones? Ma mastiffs cost more than many of dem crosses and so do lots of breeds. Each to their own, me i wouldn't have em but live and let live me feels - pity ya dogs.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Mastifflover does have a point about the rules on crossbreeds as the same rule also covers BYB of such breeds.

In my view, testing prior to breeding is just as important in pedigree dogs as it is in mixed breeds. So why automatically assume all breeders of crossbreeds do not health check etc.

Also remember the major rule if you think anyone is a troll do not feed them, it is what they want. Not accusing anyone of being one, but some people are suspicious of a poster here.

I also think remarks about spelling and grammer are uncalled for, as you do not know if that person is dyslexic or has other reasons for mistakes, such as English not being their first language.

I personally think the breed concerned in this thread (Leondoodles), is a weird mix. But good luck to anyone who gets one etc.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Mastifflover said:


> *well to feed ya paranoia I could be putting it on or I could just be pretending to be thick and idiotic like some of the things ya lot put on here. * Who can tell? Dinni know if school's are off well they ll have come home now if ya have em. Me I prefer dogs as they are loyal. don't have a nasty bitchy bone in their bodies and dogs have morals. Da only bitchiness is dogs is the female side of em and if this is how tha lot treat members I won't be posting here. Don't ya ever think what ignorant cows that are making assumptions about all mongrel breeders or cross ones? Ma mastiffs cost more than many of dem crosses and so do lots of breeds. Each to their own, me i wouldn't have em but live and let live me feels - pity ya dogs.


I tried sticking up for your mistakes etc, but you have done yourself no favours by saying that. Feeding time is over goodbye!!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Mastifflover said:


> well to feed ya paranoia I could be putting it on or I could just be pretending to be thick and idiotic like some of the things ya lot put on here. Who can tell? Dinni know if school's are off well they ll have come home now if ya have em. Me I prefer dogs as they are loyal. don't have a nasty bitchy bone in their bodies and dogs have morals. Da only bitchiness is dogs is the female side of em and if this is how tha lot treat members I won't be posting here. Don't ya ever think what ignorant cows that are making assumptions about all mongrel breeders or cross ones? Ma mastiffs cost more than many of dem crosses and so do lots of breeds. Each to their own, me i wouldn't have em but live and let live me feels - pity ya dogs.


I think you'll find you're the one accusing everyone else on here of being thick, the only thing you've been accused of, is anything to back up your argument, so far you've posted nothing to really back up anything you've said, but just seem to be trying to provoke an argument. Hardly the best way to introduce yourself, no matter what age you are.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Just to add despite my reminding of the rules etc above, I have not read anything here on cross breeds offending etc.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoggieBag said:


> Mastifflover does have a point about the rules on crossbreeds as the same rule also covers BYB of such breeds.
> 
> In my view, testing prior to breeding is just as important in pedigree dogs as it is in mixed breeds. So why automatically assume all breeders of crossbreeds do not health check etc.
> 
> ...


The problem is, as has been pointed out before on this forum, this rule creates a bias, anyone can say anything about pedigree breeds, and slate pedigree breeds as all being inbred mutants, but mention cross breeding and everyone starts shouting about *the rule*. Any breeder should be prepared to stick up for the way they breed dogs, no matter what *type* of dog that is, and if they haven't gone about it the right way, they shouldn't have a leg to stand on. People have tried to pull the wool over members' eyes before when it comes to breeding, and been found out. Sometimes people post in ignorance, which isn't an excuse in itself, but they have found help here, even if they've had to take a few swipes on the chin as well.

This is one of the most lenient forums I think I've seen when it comes to breeding, which is an emotive subject, but when people just start to provoke an argument with no apparent knowledge to back it up, it does make you wonder if they're bored on a Friday night with nowt better to do.


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

I am a fan of a few crossbreeds, and like I said nothing here has offended me personally. 

Health tests are important regardless if the pair are the same breed or not. Which I hope we all agree on. 

As I say, nothing here could be offensive in my eyes. It is mostly a debate on if crossbreeds are more prone to things than pedigrees, as well as a few things people may believe to be true about crosses that are not, such as the Poodle cross/allergy thing.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

If you read their posts you can tell that they're not dyslexic and that they have at least VERY good English if it's not their first language. However, I find their online mannerisms excruciatingly annoying:

"*Ma* mastiffs cost more than many of *dem* crosses and so do lots of breeds. Each to their own, me i wouldn't have em but live and let live *me feels* - pity *ya* dogs. "


----------



## DoggieBag (Jan 20, 2012)

Either way they are now no longer a member. So I will let you get back to your Leondoodle chat


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

DoggieBag said:


> In my view, testing prior to breeding is just as important in pedigree dogs as it is in mixed breeds. So why automatically assume all breeders of crossbreeds do not health check etc..


Who is assuming that? I made it very clear in my post that most don't - meaning some do - I even highlighted the fact that there is now a breed average hipscore for Labradoodles

I also stated that I believe the same rules should apply to unethical breeders of pedigrees as it does for cross-breed.

I will never understand the majority of arguments for cross-breeding, but providing they are doing it ethically and not conning the puppy buying public, then I have no major gripe.

The point of this thread as I read it was yes - it is an unusual mix - but the advert contains blatant lies and unproven hypothesis - which people WILL fall for it - and THAT is something that needs to be stopped 

My views on deliberate cross-breeding are well known - and the same applies to deliberate pet breeding of pedigrees - BUT - these days I try to adopt a more moderate view on the subject - applying the same rules to anyone buying cross-breed pups as I would advise for buying pedigrees.

I would like to think I gave my full support to some members on here when they started their new site, and know that I openly and privately gave encouragement when it was just a concept - all credit to them.

I really hope it plays a role in forcing breeders hands to either clean up their acts or get out.

People have jumped on this thread because it mentions cross-breeds - when actually - we weren't targeting cross-breeds per se - yet people are still ramming the site rule down our throats - and certain antagonistic posts have been made to try and provoke arguments on the subject.

=========================

Lets be VERY clear on my own view. I don't understand pet breeders WHATEVER they are breeding - pedigree or cross-breed - but providing they are doing things responsibly, then good luck to them

I don't like to see the general public being conned - and there is a need for responsible breeders - the working and show folk cannot meet the demand themselves.

I love EVERY dog, tall, short, wide, slim - it's not the dog's fault they've been born, but in the same breath - I would LOVE to see BYB and PF having to turn to rescues and breed rescues to home their pups - WHY? because it would stop them breeding any more - or force them to do it responsibly.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I would think the majority of owners on this forum are pet owners with pet dogs who are neither shown or worked. There needs to be a pet market and there needs to be breeders doing health testing in order to supply it. We have had this discussion before on another forum and very many people are not even considered by breeders if they want a dog purely as a pet, some even found breeders rather intimidating with the kind of questions they asked and were still rejected. There aren't enough good breeders willing to allow their pups to go to pet homes and that is why these "doodles" need to be bred ethically, along with other pure or crossbreeds for owners who want a dog as a pet and not for show/work or breeding.

I would think most Labs in this country are not worked but are cherished family pets and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they at least look like their breed and are healthy. It's no good breeders saying they don't see the point in breeding for pets and then slating byb's etc for supplying a demand, or frowning on joe public for buying from unethical breeders because they are the only ones who will actually let him have a pup.

While good breeders only breed as and when they want a pup who is going to supply the needs of potential dog owners?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Malmum said:


> While good breeders only breed as and when they want a pup who is going to supply the needs of potential dog owners?


The large majority of show and working bred dogs go to family homes - they HAVE to be bred for type, health and temperament in equal measures - because otherwise they cannot do what the need to in the showring.

I DID very clearly say that I recognise the need for good pet breeders - and have always done so long before I joined this forum - just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean I don't recognise the need - IMHO anything that takes business away from BYB and PF is a good thing.

I do believe that some pet breeders could get to know their breed and conformation far better than they do - too many people put health results as the sole reason for breeding without any understanding of the breed or what they might be trying to achieve; sadly, as a result, many pet bred dogs don't look anything like their breed and the situation is even worse for PF and BYB 

To me, breeding is not so much about where you are coming from - but where you are going to. I have never supported the "must be a champion" ethos I often see thrown about on here because it doesn't always follow through that 'good will produce good or better' and also because you immediately start throttling gene pools if you go along these lines.

I believe the desire to breed should include at least attempting to improve conformation and health whilst retaining temperament; I know there are some pet breeders who would give me a run for my money in Labs, but there are many more that really don't have a clue and use "the dog down the street" because they can - usually with no knowledge of pedigrees, how closely the dogs are bred or not as the case may be - if we are lucky, they will have undertaken the basic health tests.

They often don't understand type or working drive and to me that does an injustice to their breed - sometimes even the best laid plans don't work - but the least people can do is try to breed with that intention; that is where I struggle with cross-breeds, because what are you improving on if you don't have a 'type' or a blue-print to work to.

Having said that - I accept that there is an honest demand for these pups from people who like the unexpected, and hence, if they are doing it properly, I have no major issue. (sadly, there is much greater demand from people who believe the false claims or just think they are 'cute' and when they are no longer cute - too many dispense with them - these are facts which cannot be ignored  )

I don't understand why people breed solely for the sake of breeding - but I never once said that there isn't a need for these people who are doing it responsibly - it is inherent in virtually every single post I have ever made on the subject and I have always strongly defended pet breeders right to do that to others who don't view them in the same way.


----------



## hazel pritchard (Jun 28, 2009)

OMG was shocked when i saw this, i wonder how many will buy a poodle x and think they wont have to hoover up dog hair,
I have a poodle x whippet,,, i didnt go out to find this x , hes a rescue, so i didnt really care what hes crossed with, but he does loose hair.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

hazel pritchard said:


> OMG was shocked when i saw this, i wonder how many will buy a poodle x and think they wont have to hoover up dog hair,
> I have a poodle x whippet,,, i didnt go out to find this x , hes a rescue, so i didnt really care what hes crossed with, but he does loose hair.


Yes - and therein lies at least part of the problem - people advertise them as "non shedding" and people buy them with that understanding. I can't speak for other breeds - but young Lab pups don't shed their coats - so the new owner could, on that basis, be forgiven for believing that's because it is crossed with a Poodle and because of course, the breeder told them it wouldn't moult 

Then of course, when the time comes that the dog does shed it's coat - some owners get rid and so the 'pillar to post cycle' starts 

I acknowledge some will buy them because of allergies in the family, although a lot of people indicate it is the dander rather than their coats which causes problems - these people may not have a choice - then there will be those that are just house-proud and dump them because they do what mother nature intended and moult 

I know after we lost our corgi, my mum refused point blank to have another dog because of the moulting - we did eventually win her round - but it took time, and I know it remains her main dislike of owning dogs - she loves dogs so long as they don't shed on her carpet and furniture


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

swarthy said:


> x-rays have to be taken for hipscores and are scored under expert panels (i.e. not one opinion). - and in the UK measured on several aspects of the hipjoint.
> 
> As for how they move being the only factor- sorry - but this is complete *RUBBISH* - I've got a dog here with a hipscore not much lower than your Flynn and she moves like a dream - she did very well in the showring.
> 
> ...


Sorry only just seen this.

I know scores are given by three scrutineers when sent to the BVA and nine points are assessed, the one of interest to the ortho surgeon apparently being the Norberg angle.
I didn't say movement was the only factor in determining HD, far from it as Noel said you cannot tell if a dog has HD by how it moves and only x ray can tell that. I was saying that even with high scores a dog can still move well as with lower scores sometimes not so well. Therefore the hip score doesn't in itself have a great deal of bearing in the degree of HD a dog has as the Mal with the score of 69 had much better movement than Flynn (55) - as I have said on a few occasions before. 
As for moving in the show ring, I don't know much about showing but I do know movement is important in all breeds if watching shows are anything to go by. The movement of the dog is always commented on, so I assumed it was an important factor all round.

On another note, do you think that dogs with hip scores above the BMS should be shown and then go on to become champions? Surely a Champion of any breed should be the *near perfect example* of the breed, both inside and out and dogs with massive hip scores who should not be bred from are in a way not really perfect/fit for function within their breed. Isn't that a little deceitful? Also doesn't the showing and placing of such dogs possibly encourage people to use them for breeding regardless of their condition?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I fully understand why someone wouldn't put their dog through a GA for no reason although it is invaluable for the particular breed records to know what lines are potentially carrying what as well as lines known to be on the whole healthy.
> There was no reason to have Flynn hip scored but as he had an x ray which showed HD I had him scored purely for breed records. I would absolutely love to know what his siblings hip scores are but their owners wouldn't have them anaesthetised simply for my curiosity. Noel also said hip scores are irrelevant as a dog with a high score may show no problems yet one with a low score still can - he said x rays will show the full extent of the HD and he is never interested in hip scores.
> 
> *So scoring dogs will not determine whether they have symptoms, that is dertermined by how they move.*





Malmum said:


> Sorry only just seen this.
> 
> I know scores are given by three scrutineers when sent to the BVA and nine points are assessed, the one of interest to the ortho surgeon apparently being the Norberg angle.
> I didn't say movement was the only factor in determining HD, far from it as Noel said you cannot tell if a dog has HD by how it moves and only x ray can tell that. I was saying that even with high scores a dog can still move well as with lower scores sometimes not so well. Therefore the hip score doesn't in itself have a great deal of bearing in the degree of HD a dog has as the Mal with the score of 69 had much better movement than Flynn (55) - as I have said on a few occasions before.
> ...


Sorry Malmum, I read it the same as Swarthy, and must admit, I was confused by such a statement? 

Where you go on to say movement isn't the only determining factor, your first bit seems to imply this is the determining factor, maybe I'm not reading it right?

As for the BMS, where would you draw the line, how far above the BMS, or would you advocate the BVA's view that only dogs of that score and below should be used? It'd count Tau out for a start, her Dam is above the BMS, by 4 points at the time of scoring, and yet she's got a 0:0 hip score. This is a bug bear of mine I'm afraid, the breed mean standard is just that, a mean score, it doesn't mean the lowest is the best *overall*, it means that we try to maintain low scores overall. Yes, a 0:0 score is better than a 3:3 score, or a 10:10 score, in isolation, without looking at the rest of the dog, but will that 0:0 score make as valid a contribution to the gene pool over the next few generations to come, or is it just a tick box?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Malmum said:


> On another note, do you think that dogs with hip scores above the BMS should be shown and then go on to become champions? Surely a Champion of any breed should be the *near perfect example* of the breed, both inside and out and dogs with massive hip scores who should not be bred from are in a way not really perfect/fit for function within their breed. Isn't that a little deceitful? Also doesn't the showing and placing of such dogs possibly encourage people to use them for breeding regardless of their condition?


Yes I do believe they should be shown - breeding and showing aren't always inextricably linked - in fact, there are a surprising number of people who show and don't breed - fi you and the dog enjoy it - then it's a hobby just like anything else.

As for breeding, it depends on the dog, the score, temperament and it's other health results.

Many conditions aren't and never has been as straightforward as some insist on trying to portray - that includes hipscoring.

I did an extensive analysis of the Labrador Hipscoring database from 1979 to 2008 - the outputs were, to say the least, interesting;

On the high side, up to a certain point - progeny ALWAYS scored lower than their parents - conversely, at the bottom end dogs frequently scored higher than their parents but on or below the breed average - so on both sides - up to this given point - over 95% of dogs scored below the breed average from both sets of parents.

Many people argue that with-holding bad plates affects breed averages - certainly in a breed such as Labs, this is highly unlikely - in numerically smaller breeds - it probably does have an impact.

Similarly, the BVA have now started publishing rolling breed averages - could with-holding plates have an effect? possibly - but with over 20K dogs scored in a three year period, again, it is unlikely.

An average is just that - all the scores thrown together - and people shouldn't be disregarding dogs based solely on having a marginally higher hipscore if everything else is in order.

Obviously, as you start to creep up the numbers - greater scrutiny has to be placed on the score along with the other factors; many of the dogs I am aware of have not been bred from, or if they have, nowhere near the level a dog og that status would normally be used.

Why take away the pleasure of showing from the owner and dog? most people set their own tolerances on what they will and will not breed from -doing well in the showring is unlikely to force someone's hand just because they can.

I loved showing my girl, she was never going to make a SH CH - but she was great fun to show and did well for me; I knew I would never breed from her, despite having a waiting list as long as my arm from a range of people.

I waited a long time for her, and put a lot of effort (and money) into her - it wasn't about wanting to breed from her, it was about wanting to enjoy a hobby that was mine after many years of devoting my life to my career and my family.

===================

Ultimately, we still have a lot of people buying pups from breeders who don't health-test their dogs - it's surely better to have the information at your finger-tips to enable people to make informed decisions rather than to have no health-tests at all.

I wouldn't rule out a dog because of one single factor - but that doesn't mean I would breed from them either; apart from having a high hipscore - I really didn't think my girl was 'mother material' - her eyes light up when she sees puppies and you can almost hear her mind whirring round as to how she is going to corrupt them 



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry Malmum, I read it the same as Swarthy, and must admit, I was confused by such a statement?


Glad it wasn't just me that read it that way - and of course, it is incorrect and why we must keep stressing to people that just because the dog might look healthy, doesn't mean it is - HC and HD (and probably many other conditions) often display no external signs - only testing will throw them up.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I should have said HD can sometimes be determined by movement alongside X rays. Flynn exhibited a classic "stilted gait" and on the rare occasions he actually had a short run he would "bunny hop" a little. We didn't really need x rays to confirm his HD both my vet and I were pretty sure he had it and that it was severe, sometimes movement can clearly show the problem and of course other times it may not. Add to that the clunk when he sat down it was all pretty evident what his problem was and although Noel said you can't tell by movement he always has the dog walk a few yards back and forth so he obviously gets some idea by this observation.

I know from threads on the Mal forum that breeders have said ideally dogs for breeding should be below the BMS of 13 but I also know of an exeptional breeder who lifted endorsements on a bitch with a score of 28, which I would have thought was far too high to breed from and possibly detremental for the bitch to even carry the litter.
I never understood why people would constantly enter their Grand Champion cats in shows and prevent new comers from having a chance when their cat couldn't go any further in the show world. As you say it's a hobby, so perhaps that was why but I see it with Mals too and invariably the same ones always win - bit of a forgone conclusion really. Not sure how I feel about dogs with high scores winning at shows, obviously their HD isn't presenting itself otherwise they couldn't move properly but hopefully they're not bred from just because they may do well in tbe ring.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Not sure how I feel about dogs with high scores winning at shows,


but just where would you draw the line ? - for example I have a bitch here who has epilepsy in her lines - she shows no signs and has never had a fit herself but is almost certainly a carrier of this horrible condition and is unsuitable for breeding - does this mean because she is genetically 'unhealthy' she should not be shown ? - I also had in the past a male dog who although entire himself came from a line that passed on monorchidism - again he was never bred from even though he was shown successfully and gained his Ch title - should he not have been shown ?

Showing is a hobby - and a great many show dogs are NEVER bred from - in fact a great many exhibitors have no wish to be breeders, they simply enjoy their hobby for it's own sake.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Bijou said:


> but just where would you draw the line ? - for example I have a bitch here who has epilepsy in her lines - she shows no signs and has never had a fit herself but is almost certainly a carrier of this horrible condition and is unsuitable for breeding - does this mean because she is genetically 'unhealthy' she should not be shown ? - I also had in the past a male dog who although entire himself came from a line that passed on monorchidism - again he was never bred from even though he was shown successfully and gained his Ch title - should he not have been shown ?
> 
> Showing is a hobby - and a great many show dogs are NEVER bred from - in fact a great many exhibitors have no wish to be breeders, they simply enjoy their hobby for it's own sake.


I've actually had people slate me for breeding from Tau, because Indie's elbow grade is 2:1, yet look at all those who don't bother to elbow grade, or who do, and breed anyway, despite results. I really worry about this health testing route we seem to be going down, knowing a status is great, understanding where to go from there is a whole different thing. There are too many people wanting 100% clear tick box approach, which is easily achievable now, but what about ten or fifteen years down the road, when we've got double the amount of tests available? And some of those conditions will be more likely, should they develop, to affect quality of life, such as epilepsy, and cancer, yet we've discarded umpteen otherwise healthy dogs from a gene pool, just because of a genetic status.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've actually had people slate me for breeding from Tau, because Indie's elbow grade is 2:1, yet look at all those who don't bother to elbow grade, or who do, and breed anyway, despite results. I really worry about this health testing route we seem to be going down, knowing a status is great, understanding where to go from there is a whole different thing. There are too many people wanting 100% clear tick box approach, which is easily achievable now, but what about ten or fifteen years down the road, when we've got double the amount of tests available? And some of those conditions will be more likely, should they develop, to affect quality of life, such as epilepsy, and cancer, yet we've discarded umpteen otherwise healthy dogs from a gene pool, just because of a genetic status.


This is exactly the dilemma I've been having. I posted about it here: http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/216014-mdr1.html


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> This is exactly the dilemma I've been having. I posted about it here: http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-breeding/216014-mdr1.html


I did read it but haven't commented, as I think most of what's been said in various posts I'd agreed with from the experienced breeders, but it really is worrying to me if we're having this sort of dilemma now, with a tiny handful of tests available to us, and if we feel we're pressued into breeding 100% genetic status clear of anything dogs, as a priority over other considerations.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

What has Indie's elbow grade got to do with breeding Tau? Sorry I'm confused lol. Are they related?? I wouldn't breed from a dog with an elbow grade of 2 in immediate family either.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Shrap said:


> What has Indie's elbow grade got to do with breeding Tau? Sorry I'm confused lol. Are they related?? I wouldn't breed from a dog with an elbow grade of 2 in immediate family either.


They are half sisters, different sires - even with a gene pool as supposedly large as Labradors, you're cutting out an awful lot of healthy animals if you don't breed from dogs that have relatives that have higher elbow grades, or hip scores than the *ideal*.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> They are half sisters, different sires - even with a gene pool as supposedly large as Labradors, you're cutting out an awful lot of healthy animals if you don't breed from dogs that have relatives that have higher elbow grades, or hip scores than the *ideal*.


I'm only talking from experience of my breed of course, but almost all the dogs I've looked at from breeders I know have elbow grades of 0 with the occasional 0/1 or 1/1. I've actually never seen a breeder use a dog with an elbow score of 2. Apart from the English lines breeders. One of a very well used studs has a grade of 3. Disgusting 

In your situation I would be looking at the other siblings on mother's side and what sire has produced before jumping in saying no. If you have enough reason to believe the sire is increasing grades - I'm assuming you've done this and that's why you're happy breeding? If they are only half siblings without themselves having done the research into your lines they've no right to say that really have they


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Shrap said:


> I'm only talking from experience of my breed of course, but almost all the dogs I've looked at from breeders I know have elbow grades of 0 with the occasional 0/1 or 1/1. I've actually never seen a breeder use a dog with an elbow score of 2. Apart from the English lines breeders. One of a very well used studs has a grade of 3. Disgusting
> 
> In your situation I would be looking at the other siblings on mother's side and what sire has produced before jumping in saying no. If you have enough reason to believe the sire is increasing grades - I'm assuming you've done this and that's why you're happy breeding? If they are only half siblings without themselves having done the research into your lines they've no right to say that really have they


And what about all the ungraded siblings and relatives? Your argument would work, if all the relations were graded, unfortunately they're not, so you can only really look at a tiny proportion of the picture, and of course, the dogs in front of you.

And yes, I've looked back through all the health test results available throughout both pedigrees, back to at least the fifth generation, and have come across absolutely nothing to convince me there are any problems within either lines, and in truth, I'm not even convinced Indie's elbow results are a accurate reflection of her true grade, given that the vet mucked up one set of plates that were rejected by the BVA, almost unheard of. I had a waiting list for pups from Indie, and had been accepted to use a good quality stud dog, yet I took the hard decision to have her spayed.

I know a GR dog that's offered at selective stud with an elbow grade of 2, and I know the owner a little - at least they know the grade, and have proven the dog in competition; however, you will still find many bitch owners would prefer to use a dog that hasn't had their elbows graded, than a dog with a grade of 2. And yet the unknown quantity could prove to be a 3 for all they know, because, as has been said earlier on this thread, not all dogs show outward signs of the condition of their elbows or hips.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Just because you don't have the full picture is no reason to ignore the information you do have.
Which you didn't.
My last post was just saying what I would think about before saying yes or no, and that whoever slated you had no right without all the facts themselves.

And my view is that all dogs should be health tested before being shown yes - and if you get a bad result then show in companion shows at the likes of dog trust events. Even if not everyone who shows breeds, A LOT do. Obviously puppy classes would be an exception, but they can't be made up as a pup.

I also think all working breeds should be worked/proven in a working environment before entering the conformation ring. You can't be classed as a good example of the breed if you can't do what it was originally bred for.

There is one GSD group in Scotland that requires health tests and working qualifications to join/enter the show. It's excellent. In Germany dogs have to be health tested and SchH qualified. There is a bitework part of shows.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Shrap said:


> Just because you don't have the full picture is no reason to ignore the information you do have.
> Which you didn't.
> My last post was just saying what I would think about before saying yes or no, and that whoever slated you had no right without all the facts themselves.
> 
> ...


Yes, but on that argument, you would avoid the dog with a 2 elbow grade, in preference for an unknown, or many would, because the '2' grade is in the minds of those looking to breed, bad, and I think we need to disassociate ourselves away from that exact way of thinking. It's like the genetic status for affected, which often means the dog isn't clinically affected, and may never be affected within it's lifetime. At the moment, health test status is taken in a bit of a fluffy way (for want of a better way of describing it) I feel, where everyone wants to breed clear of everything, and I think breeders have got some cold, hard clinical decisions to make in the future. The more we know about our dogs, the more conditions we will find out they are possibly going to suffer from within a life time. There will be two options, carry on breeding with that knowledge, or stop breeding.

I can see a difference where a breed has a specific problem within the gene pool, but where there is a healthy population overall, I do not agree with discarding dogs that are't perfect according to their genetic status or other health test results, with the proviso that it depends very much on the rest of the dog.

I don't agree with having to health test dogs for showing them, not where the person isn't interested in breeding, it'd be a nice to have bit of info, but otherwise it's an outlay that will force many of those who enjoy it as a hobby to stop participating.

In the same way, I can't see people who aren't interested in gundog stuff for example, taking their dog out to work to prove their ability, there is the option there, but I don't feel it should be compulsory. There are actually more and more people involved in gundog stuff, it's become popular just as a way of training using the natural ability of the dog.

I'm probably not making much sense as I'm still stuffed full of cold, and I hope you don't feel I'm picking on your posts, but there have been some interesting points raised by the debate I feel.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

To get back to judging HD on movement. A long while back I worked for a vet who had a great interest in this. He would pick put a dog with HD when it came into the surgery for something else. he would then ask the owner if he could xray it and if he was wrong then he would not charge them. They always had a degree of HD. This was with young dogs before any arthritic changes so he would perform a very simple operation which never seems to be used any more. He would cut the pectineal muscle on the inside of the thigh and resect a short length of it. By the time the dogs came back to have the stitches out the owners would have noticed that their dog moved much more easily, even though they had not been aware of a problem before.

I really dont understand why that op has not taken off. I had a collie who, though never lame, would not jump, would not run for long and was just not right for a young collie. I was working in another practice then and the other nurse and I took an illicit xray! and she had almost square femoral heads. I asked the vet to operate, he had never done it but it is so simple he did it under my instructions. Before the stitches were out she was running, jumping park railings for fun and a totally different dog.
A friend of mine had a young beardie with HD, on my advice she persuaded her vet to operate. That dog lived till it was 15 and never had a moments more problems with her hips.

Obviously a bit off topic as you still would not breed from them - but it solves a lot of problems for the dog - so long as it is done young and before any arthritis sets in.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Blitz said:


> To get back to judging HD on movement. A long while back I worked for a vet who had a great interest in this. He would pick put a dog with HD when it came into the surgery for something else. he would then ask the owner if he could xray it and if he was wrong then he would not charge them. They always had a degree of HD.


A dog with a score higher than 0/0 has a degree of HD - and some 0/0 hip dogs move very stiffly.

For every one he picked out, how many did he miss? such an experiment can only work if you test the dogs you don't believe to have a degree of HD as well as the dogs that do.

A friends dog came to stay with me for quite a long period after she was rushed into hospital - as soon as I saw this dog in action, I knew something was wrong - to me, he displayed all the symptoms described in pups with severe HD.

His hips were fine, he had OCD of the hock; he was operated on successfully when he hit 12 months - but I would have put money on his hips being the problem and so did the vets and the specialist until they started investigating.

HD can be, and often is asymptomatic - there are owners out there of many dogs blissfully oblivious to the fact their dogs have poor hips - and such dogs often live to a ripe old age without any major problems - exercised regularly and sporting good muscle, these dogs should stay as healthy as their good hip peers - also - an increasing number of pet owners give their dogs supplements as they get older - again, masking potential problems, and so long as the dog is pain free, good luck to them.

-----------------------------------------

My girl has moderate HD - comments such as "looks like she could go all day" and "moved well" were frequently seen in her critiques - she was knocking on the door for her stud book number and only a few points off gaining her Show Certificate of Merit - but I know there are dogs out there with similar and higher scores who have done much better - it's difficult to mask bad movement as it is - and you don't get put up under that many different judges if there is a visible problem.

As it happens, my girl went on to damage her knee pretty much ending her show career - a real shame as she was born to show; was there a correlation between her hips and knees? if there was, it's never been highlighted by the vet, orthopod or physio - but knowing how it works in humans, I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility 

==========================



Malmum said:


> I know from threads on the Mal forum that breeders have said ideally dogs for breeding should be below the BMS of 13 but I also know of an exeptional breeder who lifted endorsements on a bitch with a score of 28, which I would have thought was far too high to breed from and possibly detremental for the bitch to even carry the litter.


In theory I can see where you are coming from, and I openly acknnowledge that was another concern with my girl.

OTOH, why would there be a problem if the bitch is fit and well muscled? Don't forget, we are talking averages and sometimes I think it's easy to forget this.

The current breed average for Clumber Spaniels is 35 (that has dropped considerably in recent years)


The Breed average for the Black Russian Terrier is 36 
The Bulldog is 42
The New Foundland is 26
The Otterhound is 33 (the rolling 5 year breed average is 48)

The average for the breed is solely for THAT breed; it's important to look at the bigger picture - no-one wants to push a breed average up - but actually - if Mals follow a similar pattern to Labs - then the occasional outstanding dog from excellent lines is not going to have a major impact on the overall average - historical records prove that actually, these occasional high scoring dogs have not far off 100% probability of producing progeny with scores lower than theirs.

That's not advocating that everyone should be breeding regardless of hipscores, but it does prove that you absolutely MUST look at the whole picture and also probably it should be left to those with many years experience in the breed who know their lines inside out.

I've seen one dog with high scores used at VERY limited stud - and every single progeny hipscores (and all came back below the breed average_

Our database clearly shows certain lines as being hip improvers -(but even within that you get the occasional surprise result)

You can't breed solely from those lines, because you would ultimately compromise elsewhere not to mention the impact on the gene pool - particularly if another condition came out to bite you on the bum in 5/10 year time.

In any breed it's important to maintain as broad a genetic diversity as possible; that's a position luvmydogs finds themself in at the moment - I don't envy their predicament; in one way it must be nice to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of a new breed in a country, but in the same breath - the position they now find themselves in is a tough one; although if I have understood things correctly, the condition is not on a par with many other canine conditions - so there is scope for an element of flexibility - sometimes however, you are damned if you do and dmaned if you don't.

Breeding decisions will never be clear cut, and I think if they always are, then we are missing something.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

swarthy said:


> A dog with a score higher than 0/0 has a degree of HD - and some 0/0 hip dogs move very stiffly.
> 
> For every one he picked out, how many did he miss? such an experiment can only work if you test the dogs you don't believe to have a degree of HD as well as the dogs that do.


My point was though that he was picking out dogs by movement, xraying them to confirm and then operating - and each dog actually improved the way it moved and its level of activity in spite of the owners being unaware of the problem. One has to assume that most of these dogs were suffering up to a point and would probably have got worse or there would have been no difference after the op.
and he was only doing it for his own interest so he did not xray random dogs.
It would be interesting to do that though.

I was also interested to know if anyone else had heard of the pectineal operation.
I know that if I had a young dog with HD I would insist on it being done as it can do no harm, there is no recovery time and it is not expensive.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

swarthy said:


> A dog with a score higher than 0/0 has a degree of HD - and some 0/0 hip dogs move very stiffly.


There are some farmers who have sold dogs on because of stiff movement - even though the dog has great hip scores. They say the dogs cannot turn as quickly as a dog with looser hips.



swarthy said:


> HD can be, and often is asymptomatic - there are owners out there of many dogs blissfully oblivious to the fact their dogs have poor hips - and such dogs often live to a ripe old age without any major problems - exercised regularly and sporting good muscle, these dogs should stay as healthy as their good hip peers - also - an increasing number of pet owners give their dogs supplements as they get older - again, masking potential problems, and so long as the dog is pain free, good luck to them.


If a dog is asymptomatic and working perfectly in the field, why eliminate them from breeding stock?



swarthy said:


> In any breed it's important to maintain as broad a genetic diversity as possible; that's a position luvmydogs finds themself in at the moment - I don't envy their predicament; in one way it must be nice to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of a new breed in a country, but in the same breath - the position they now find themselves in is a tough one; although if I have understood things correctly, the condition is not on a par with many other canine conditions - so there is scope for an element of flexibility - sometimes however, you are damned if you do and dmaned if you don't.
> 
> Breeding decisions will never be clear cut, and I think if they always are, then we are missing something.


It terrifies me most of the time lol. It is a big responsibility.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

To the original topic, I can't see what benefit that cross could have? 

To the health test/genetic diversity discussion.

I first thought having a carrier bitch was the most upsetting thing possible, I thought oh well that's the good hips and clear eye cert out the window I was in tears. But after talking with knowledgeable breeders on here and within my breed I found that having a carrier was not a bad thing, you just had to be more careful. 

I don't think any breed should cut out carriers, or dogs with slightly above average hips. I know within my breed there are some stud dogs that have been used quite often and if we were to cut all the non perfect dogs out then most of the breed would be gone and we would be left with alot of closely related dogs. 

I think as long as you know what you are doing or have mentors who have experience with it there's no real need to cut out a dog with 1/2 points over average hips or who is a carrier.

I know the thread was on about elbows but I have little experience with elbow scores.


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

Sorry to drag up an old post, and I'm sure being a newbie, you would expect me to introduce myself elsewhere but I stumbled upon this forum whilst doing a google search for a _Leondoodle_, or should it be a _Pooberger_?!

Now firstly, I'm not a breeder and for me a dog is for one reason only and that is to be a family pet, after all, this is the Pet Forums isn't it?
I know when there were talks of a couple of litters of Leonberger x Standard Poodles about, that many people within the Leonberger community were up in arms about their precious breed. Not so much in the Poodle community mind!

But why are so many Leonberger owners so against crossing within their breed? After all, Leonbergers were a bit of a 'mongrel' in the first place with a bit of a St Bernard, a bit of a Newfie and a Pyrennian thrown in the mix a bit later to add some colour! I'm sure if we had internet forums 160 years ago, then the Newfoundland community would have been up in arms at the thought of their beloved dogs been cross bred with some whisky barrel carrying bear!

When I stumbled across this on a search, I was quite astonished to read many people replies on this subject in such a negative way.
yes, I hear what you are saying about hip scores, elbow scores etc etc, but are too many people that tied up in numbers that they are actually losing sight of what is the best part of owning a dog is all about?

For the record, my wife and I have 3 dogs.
Firstly a little beagle....Mad as a hatter, love her to bits. Her name is Molly and she's just over 2!
Secondly, we have a beautiful 6 year old Leonberger. Excellet pedigree (grandfather on the cover of the Leonberger book) and she is my soul mate. I have no interest in showing her and I never have done. She was never bought to show and I do feel that too many dog owners do miss out on so much of a dogs life by carting them around to shows week after week.
For me, I'd rather be out and about on a walk over the fields and up the hills and down again. Luckily, we live in the country and we have all this on our doorstep, and I don't ever have to worry about hips and elbow score and whether she is standing correctly with her head held high and performing for the judges. That may be for others, and each to their own, but my Leo is happiest when she's bounding through the woods after squirrels, or running through our stream chasing ducks and then plopping her self down smack in the middle of the deepest part, then getting out and showering me in the process!
You can keep all your rosettes and trophy's and lifetime supply of pedigree chum, I have the biggest prize and that's when she greets me in the only way a leo can when I walk through the door in the morning or when I get home from work!

...and now on to our third dog...yes, we have a Leondoodle.
It was a cross breed which was never meant to happen and the lady we got her off admitted that the mating was purely accidental as her moms Leo was a rescue dog which they were of the understanding had been neutered. Evidently, this wasn't the case.
Yes, everyone can all be up in arms about it, but it happened. One of 2 recent litters of Leondoodles (or Poobergers as we like to affectionately call ours!).
Crass as some may see it, I have no interest in the hip scores of the parents. The dog has been born already and we cannot change that. All the dog needs is a good loving home and that is something which we can give her, so we had one from the litter from Shropshire. Our 'Flo' (Florence/Flo-Jo) is now 11 weeks old and I wouldn't swap her for anything. She has oodles of character and very reminiscent of how Roxy was when we first had her 6 years ago.

We have no idea of what she will look like at 18 months, only time will tell.
We have no idea if she will moult or not, and to be honest, I don't really care! The Dyson comes out daily anyway so nothing will change there!

First and foremost, she is a pet and she will be loved and given the best life she could ever hope for. She doesn't ever have to worry about being bundled in to the back of a car every other weekend to be shown and criticised by others at dog shows up and down the country, instead she has long walks in the woods and swims in the stream to look forward to.
After all, that's what owning a pet is supposed to be about isn't it.

If people are genuinely interested, then I will post up pictures on a regular basis of Flo growing up so people can see how she develops and looks, but if any derogatory or nasty posts are made at any point, then I will simply delete and move on.
Too many people spend too much time bickering on internet forums and criticising others and get tied up too much that they actually miss out on so much in life. You're only here once, just enjoy it! 3-5 mile daily walks with my 'girls' in the country come rain or shine is one of life's luxuries for me.


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

a gratuitous pic of my girls....

Flo aged 11 weeks. Our Beagle Molly has met her match but little does she realise just how big she will grow!!










and a couple of our 'normal' Leo!!


----------



## shamykebab (Jul 15, 2009)

You have some lovely looking dogs there, and I appreciate your points re the development of the Leonberger. 

However, I don't think the show folk will appreciate your impression of the life of a show dog. I can't speak for longer-haired dogs but I know that the majority of show dogs also enjoy normal "dog lives".

Regarding hip and elbow scores - they aren't seen as a badge of achievement, rather an indication of the breed's and dog's health. As your young pup was the outcome of an accidental mating I don't think I'm wrong in assuming that her parents weren't scored. With this in mind, and the fact that she potentially may grow to be a large adult, I would be very careful in the amount of exercise she gets - 3 to 5 miles daily is far too much for such a young dog (apologies if you are already aware of this).

As I said above, your girls are stunning, particularly your Leo. It's a breed that I've earmarked for the future, hopefully. Please keep posting photos of your young cross - it'll be interesting to see how she develops.

By the way, "Pooberger"? Sounds delicious :lol:.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I love your dogs and I too wouldn't want a dog for show, much preferring the home life with my guys and the walks we share together. Then again I have never been part of a showing community so I really can't speak from experience as to whether the dogs enjoy it or not, I know many are so used to it that it's a part of normal life for them. I know of many show Malamutes who are also worked and therefore lead a very normal life with a little bit of stardom thrown in, plus the occasional zest of a love life - reckon they thinks that's a pretty cool existence. :001_cool:

However I wouldn't be quite so flippant about hip scores if I were you. Obviously your Leo girl has come from pretty good stock and I would imagine all of her ancestors have had all the relevant health checks, so it's a pretty safe bet that she won't have any hip or other health problems the breed may have.
Your 'Pooberger' on the other hand may not be so fortunate - hopefully she will be lucky and escape any hip problems that either breed may throw her but I can tell you should she be unlucky enough to develop HD it's not a bed of roses, not for you and definitely not the dog. If both parents are health tested and have good scores for their breed (of no interest to you I know) then she may be okay but as she has been mixed it's not as clear cut as one may think it may be.

So from someone who knows just what it's like to see a dog of 18 months old struggle to even walk for ten mins, then go through two total hip replacements before the age of three years, dislocating one along the way and having two major 2 1/2 hour ops in the course of eight days, I can only shudder at the thought of anyone being so misguided as to say they 'don't care' about hip scores.

My boy may look fine now and admitted he has a normal life with no restriction but I watched him go to hell and back at times during his recovery after the second op. No dog should have to go through such trauma and if everyone 'didn't care' about hip scores many many more would and those without insurance lead a short but painful life or even be euthanized. 








For the sake of your new little girl lets just hope you don't end up eating your words eh?


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

shamykebab said:


> I would be very careful in the amount of exercise she gets - 3 to 5 miles daily is far too much for such a young dog (apologies if you are already aware of this).


Don't worry, the littlun' doesn't come with me on the big walks. We've only just had her and are treating her growth/fitness development as that of a Leo.


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

Malmum said:


> However I wouldn't be quite so flippant about hip scores if I were you. Obviously your Leo girl has come from pretty good stock and I would imagine all of her ancestors have had all the relevant health checks, so it's a pretty safe bet that she won't have any hip or other health problems the breed may have.
> Your 'Pooberger' on the other hand may not be so fortunate - hopefully she will be lucky and escape any hip problems that either breed may throw her but I can tell you should she be unlucky enough to develop HD it's not a bed of roses, not for you and definitely not the dog. If both parents are health tested and have good scores for their breed (of no interest to you I know) then she may be okay but as she has been mixed it's not as clear cut as one may think it may be.


Sorry if came across a bit flippant but my point being is that too much emphasis is put on a perfect score. Both the parents of our Pooberger are from good stock, but how that pans out in the crossing of the breed, know one as yet knows and only time will tell.
Whatever happens, she is in good hands and will be given all the love and attention she needs.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

how comes every cross leonberger /poodle litter was accidental and yet owners chose to charge exhorbant money for a pup ? no one heard of mismate and why shouldn't the leonberger fraternity look after their "precious" breed? Trust me if a dog didn't like being "carted" off to a show we'd know about it .

haven't got time to post anymore. off out to take my "show dogs " for their first run of the day"


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Coxy914 said:


> Sorry if came across a bit flippant but my point being is that too much emphasis is put on a perfect score. Both the parents of our Pooberger are from good stock, but how that pans out in the crossing of the breed, know one as yet knows and only time will tell.
> Whatever happens, she is in good hands and will be given all the love and attention she needs.


The point is - ALL dogs are lovely, small, large, giant, pedigrees and cross-breeds, I have nothing against any of them and neither does anyone else - not sure the same could be said for many of the breeders though 

No-one is likely to say your pup isn't cute, because I'm sure it is - just like every other pup.

Your pup is one of the lucky ones to have stumbled across you as owners - the majority of "accidental" pups aren't homed carefully and frequently don't end up with owners like yourself who will stand by their dogs come what may - with too many owners giving up on them when they realise, they do moult, or have grown bigger than they expected, or has developed health-problems - some of which may have been preventable.

Sadly, the scenario of these poor pups who end up in rescue and often pushed from pillar to post and then PTS at an early age because no-one wants them now they are no longer a cute little puppy is one which is played out across the globe on an almost daily basis 

The sad fact is the majority (not all) cross-breeders seldom care about their dogs, they just see them as cash cows and often get rid of them when they no longer generate income 

As for show-dogs, my health at present does limit the amount of physical activity I can give them  ; thankfully, I have a partner who is a great support in this area - two of them are presently hoolying around the garden, rolling in the mud and tormenting one another.

I get a bouncier happier response out of them when they are going to a show than I've ever had when they go to the beach.

Dogs who don't like showing aren't shown for very long as it really is a lot of hard work and contrary to popular belief - no-one wants to show an unhappy dog - but don't think they don't have normal lives, because the majority of them do

Some of mine are show dogs, one (and very occasionally two) days a week and ALL of them are much loved family pets 7 days a week, with their lives lived as such.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

dexter said:


> yep u guessed it leonberger x poodle pups
> quote.............The benefit of having one of these dogs is that due to the poodle side of them they will be more Athletic in there joints, they will shed less hair & it makes them very trainable.
> 
> whatever next!


Just like the thread I started yesterday, in fact: http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/233825-why-would-anyone-believe.html

Newfoundland x poodle, guaranteed no shedding, no drooling!


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

dexter said:


> how comes every cross leonberger /poodle litter was accidental and yet owners chose to charge exhorbant money for a pup ? no one heard of mismate and why shouldn't the leonberger fraternity look after their "precious" breed? Trust me if a dog didn't like being "carted" off to a show we'd know about it .
> 
> haven't got time to post anymore. off out to take my "show dogs " for their first run of the day"


given the cost of Leonberger puppies, our cross was a fraction of that. I've no idea of how much the puppies in the other litter were but I don't call the price we paid extortionate at all.

And as for whether a dog likes getting carted off to a show or not, is down to the individual not the dog. If a dog has been brought up to attend shows, then that is the only life they know and they down the very nature of how dogs are, they will do what their owners want and do (in most cases, although as a Beagle owner, that statement has very little weight!!). If they don't know any other way of life, then it's like everything else in life, you do what you know.
Personally, it's not for me, but it is a case of each to their own. Don't flame me for being a newbie and having an opinion! 
I've been brought up around Car Shows (judged concours at a number of events) and in truth, it's very similar. Some people do become very passionate and very competitive which ends up taking the shine off the whole thing. I remember taking a car of mine to a show back in 2007 and came 1st. The chap who came second had won for the previous 6 years. Up until the trophies were handed out, we were having a really good chat. After that, he didn't speak for 12 months! A few years later, we're really good friends now, and I know a lot of that goes on in all show circles despite what some people may say to the contrary.


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> Just like the thread I started yesterday, in fact: http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/233825-why-would-anyone-believe.html
> 
> Newfoundland x poodle, guaranteed no shedding, no drooling!


If people believe this, then more fool them. Ours were never advertised as such and I do expect a certain amount of hair to vacuum up every day, and some regular grooming. I think you have to be very naive to think otherwise with any dog like this.

and anyway, we all love Newfie's because they drool and shed hair!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Coxy914 said:


> Sorry to drag up an old post, and I'm sure being a newbie, you would expect me to introduce myself elsewhere but I stumbled upon this forum whilst doing a google search for a _Leondoodle_, or should it be a _Pooberger_?!
> 
> Now firstly, I'm not a breeder and for me a dog is for one reason only and that is to be a family pet, after all, this is the Pet Forums isn't it?
> I know when there were talks of a couple of litters of Leonberger x Standard Poodles about, that many people within the Leonberger community were up in arms about their precious breed. Not so much in the Poodle community mind!
> ...


Hip scores, elbow scores, all the tests having nothing to do with showing. If your Leo cross is unlucky, you may forget about those walks in the country rain.

When purchasing a giant breed puppy, even if it is a cross, these scores are so important. If you had ever known the heartache that comes with seeing a dog, especially a huge one, crippled with dysplasia as Malmum's dog, or in my case early onset arthritis, which cannot be tested for, you would realise why the scores are essential.

Anyone who says they are not needed because they are sold as pets, is just trying to avoid the expense and make more money.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Coxy914 said:


> And as for whether a dog likes getting carted off to a show or not, is down to the individual not the dog. If a dog has been brought up to attend shows, then that is the only life they know


What a LOAD of rubbish :lol:

Only life they know indeed, most dogs are shown on average, once a week - what do you think they do the rest of the time? live in a cupboard?

An increasing number of show-dogs are being worked - mine enjoy hoolying around the park, the beach, the garden - they regular enjoy getting muddy and stinking, they are bathed once a year IF they really need it, they get pounding around the streets and quite frankly enjoy the same normal existence as the majority of other pet dogs.

Once a week, they get a wipe down and taken to a show (sometimes, we have no shows during a week) - people don't show 7 days a week - not even during the height of the summer show season - I think we have just two weeks of the year where there are 3 feasible shows - and even then, increasingly decisions have to be made because of rising entry fees and fuel costs 



newfiesmum said:


> Anyone who says they are not needed because they are sold as pets, is just trying to avoid the expense and make more money.


Yes - some people would do well to have a look at some of the owners stories on the Lab health website 

Also, in my own experience, dogs who do go on to have problems with hips and elbows where they come from tested parents, generally exhibit far less problems (and are often asymptomatic) when compated to dogs from poor breeders - whether this is because good breeders also often provide information on sensible diet and exercise is anyone's guess - but it can't be coincidence


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Coxy914 said:


> If people believe this, then more fool them. Ours were never advertised as such and I do expect a certain amount of hair to vacuum up every day, and some regular grooming. I think you have to be very naive to think otherwise with any dog like this.
> 
> and anyway, we all love Newfie's because they drool and shed hair!


Unfortunately, people looking for a dog for the first time, may well believe it. Supposing you had always wanted a large dog but thought your allergy prevented it, and you come across this. Knowing nothing about dogs, you might jump at the chance, cough up your £1000, and then find yourself very ill and having to give up the dog. You can bet your life this sort of breeder will not take him back.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Coxy914 said:


> given the cost of Leonberger puppies, our cross was a fraction of that. I've no idea of how much the puppies in the other litter were but I don't call the price we paid extortionate at all.
> 
> And as for whether a dog likes getting carted off to a show or not, is down to the individual not the dog. If a dog has been brought up to attend shows, then that is the only life they know and they down the very nature of how dogs are, they will do what their owners want and do (in most cases, although as a Beagle owner, that statement has very little weight!!). If they don't know any other way of life, then it's like everything else in life, you do what you know.
> Personally, it's not for me, but it is a case of each to their own. Don't flame me for being a newbie and having an opinion!
> I've been brought up around Car Shows (judged concours at a number of events) and in truth, it's very similar. Some people do become very passionate and very competitive which ends up taking the shine off the whole thing. I remember taking a car of mine to a show back in 2007 and came 1st. The chap who came second had won for the previous 6 years. Up until the trophies were handed out, we were having a really good chat. After that, he didn't speak for 12 months! A few years later, we're really good friends now, and I know a lot of that goes on in all show circles despite what some people may say to the contrary.


you have made a VERY sweeping statement about dog showing, most show dogs ARE 1st and foremost much loved pets, who also get to do the things you say your dogs do!, with the added bonus of going to shows and spending the day with their owners whilst interacting lots of other dogs, i think you'll find any dog that doesnt enoy the show scene wont get very far in the ring because it wont look happy, i have a beautiful bitch, probably my best dog, but she never liked showing so i stopped taking her...i cant force her to like it...whilst those i show that love it are bouncing off the walls when they see me getting my show bag ready!

im afraid there are far too many 'accidents' particularly of poodle crosses to be believable & anyone who supports such a byb, one who does no health tests so cares little for the health of their puppies, is just perpetuating the exploitation of dogs bred purely for money, JMO!


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Coxy914 said:


> And as for whether a dog likes getting carted off to a show or not, is down to the individual not the dog. If a dog has been brought up to attend shows, then that is the only life they know and they down the very nature of how dogs are, they will do what their owners want and do (in most cases, although as a Beagle owner, that statement has very little weight!!). If they don't know any other way of life, then it's like everything else in life, you do what you know.


What a daft comment. I'll probably do about 15 champ shows a year with my dogs. That leaves 350 non-showing days in the year. How on earth can showing be the only life they know? :lol:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> If a dog has been brought up to attend shows, then that is the only life they know and they down the very nature of how dogs are, they will do what their owners want and do


You obviously don't know dogs very well :lol:

I don't show but get the same erroneous comments when I 'work' my dogs. It's laughable. Come back from a walk and my (well trained) dogs will go straight in the car. Try getting them back in the car when I have my training bag on is a nightmare! Not one of them is prepared to miss out on the fun!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> You obviously don't know dogs very well :lol:
> 
> I don't show but get the same erroneous comments when I 'work' my dogs. It's laughable. Come back from a walk and my (well trained) dog will go straight in the car. Try getting them back in the car when I have my training bag on is a nightmare! Not one of them is prepared to miss out on the fun!


he he - tell me about it - I don't know how the dogs know when it's a show day - but they do and they go nuts.

It's a great fun socialisation opportunity - where else would you get that many dogs in one place? they somehow "know" when we are nearing a show destination - and again go nuts.

We did try being discrete with the showbag to see if that made any difference - it didn't - they STILL know


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Coxy914 said:


> given the cost of Leonberger puppies, our cross was a fraction of that. I've no idea of how much the puppies in the other litter were but I don't call the price we paid extortionate at all.
> 
> And as for whether a dog likes getting carted off to a show or not, is down to the individual not the dog. If a dog has been brought up to attend shows, then that is the only life they know and they down the very nature of how dogs are, they will do what their owners want and do (in most cases, although as a Beagle owner, that statement has very little weight!!). If they don't know any other way of life, then it's like everything else in life, you do what you know.
> Personally, it's not for me, but it is a case of each to their own. Don't flame me for being a newbie and having an opinion!
> I've been brought up around Car Shows (judged concours at a number of events) and in truth, it's very similar. Some people do become very passionate and very competitive which ends up taking the shine off the whole thing. I remember taking a car of mine to a show back in 2007 and came 1st. The chap who came second had won for the previous 6 years. Up until the trophies were handed out, we were having a really good chat. After that, he didn't speak for 12 months! A few years later, we're really good friends now, and I know a lot of that goes on in all show circles despite what some people may say to the contrary.


roflmao x rather controversial first post huh? crossbreeding to showing.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

swarthy said:


> he he - tell me about it - I don't know how the dogs know when it's a show day - but they do and they go nuts.
> 
> It's a great fun socialisation opportunity - where else would you get that many dogs in one place? they somehow "know" when we are nearing a show destination - and again go nuts.
> 
> We did try being discrete with the showbag to see if that made any difference - it didn't - they STILL know


I am of the firm opinion that dogs are telepathic. They know precisely what you are thinking at any given time. I only have to think: I had better take the dogs out, and there they are, looking at their leads. I don't have to do anything, just think!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Coxy914 said:


> Sorry to drag up an old post, and I'm sure being a newbie, you would expect me to introduce myself elsewhere but I stumbled upon this forum whilst doing a google search for a _Leondoodle_, or should it be a _Pooberger_?!
> 
> Now firstly, I'm not a breeder and for me a dog is for one reason only and that is to be a family pet, after all, this is the Pet Forums isn't it?
> I know when there were talks of a couple of litters of Leonberger x Standard Poodles about, that many people within the Leonberger community were up in arms about their precious breed. Not so much in the Poodle community mind!
> ...


Oh dear - I don't know where to start here - whether to begin with your erroneous opinion of the life of show dogs (which, from one of your later posts, seems to be based upon showing cars  ) or whether to sigh with sorrow at your cavalier attitude to hip scores.

Hip scores first, I think. Hip scores are not something that only people who show dogs need to worry about; they are something every dog owner, show and pet owners alike, should be concerned with. Hip scores are a tool for ethical breeders to try to ensure that the dogs they breed do not end up with crippling disease. If you had ever seen a dog with hip dysplasia, if you had ever seen all the suffering and pain it causes, you would not be so flippant and uncaring about the subject. I hope and pray that you (and your dog, of course) are lucky and that she does not develop this awful affliction, but unfortunately the fact that she is bounding about with abandon at the moment is no reason for you to hide your head in the sand, dismiss hip scores as irrelevant and assume that it is not going to happen.

As for show dogs - passing lightly over the fact that if you are under the impression that judges look at hip and elbow scores, that you get pedigree chum as prizes, or even (these days) that you get rosetttes at shows, then you don't really know much about showing at all - what makes you think that show dogs are not loved and valued family pets? What makes you think that people who show their dogs don't enjoy time with their pets? What makes you think that show dogs don't race through woods and fields and get muddy? For me - and for all the people I know who show - their dogs are much loved pets first and foremost, and live a full and happy doggy life.

Here are just a few pics of my show dogs so that maybe you can begin to reassess your opinion of the life of a show dog:


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

lol amazing pics spwellweaver. how dare you get them muddy


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

dexter said:


> lol amazing pics spwellweaver. how dare you get them muddy


:lol:

I will, of course, be ordered to put them back into their gilded cages or be drummed out of the show fraternity forthwith!


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

Did that poster just compare showing dogs with showing cars? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Look at my show dog:

KO'd after a few hours bombing around the park in and out of the muddy bogs that I made sure to show him because he loves them so much!










On my bed:










When we go to shows you'd think he was a husky. He sings and sings and sings until he's out the car. It's by far one of his favourite things in the world. It's a treat to him, whereas his runs in the woods, parks, fields are all normal activities.

I don't think I need to say anymore on the hip scoring point, everyone has said everything already


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Shrap said:


> Did that poster just compare showing dogs with showing cars? :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Look at my show dog:
> 
> ...


Now that top picture is just what a dog should look like! He looks like he's had a great time.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I don't think anyone is 'flaming you' for being a newbie and having an opinion, at least I hope I don't come across that way but to read you saying the 'too much emphasis is put on hip scores' actually makes my blood boil when just this time last year I was actually sleeping in the garden at night with my boy because it was the only place he felt comfortable enough to sleep, attached to him by a lead to my wrist because he wasn't allowed under any circumstances to stand up on his own after his dislocation. Straight from a dream to standing up next to my boy and it was the most hellish eight weeks ever with only three hours max sleep at a time because he had to have sedatives to keep him calm, couldn't be crated because of my having to support his every move with his sling. At times the sedatives would work in reverse and make him hyper instead.
All the sedation and anaesthesia took it's toll and I thought at the stage below I was losing him as he did this unconscious moaning and peeing for over *30* *hours* non stop - how exhausted he must have been and how many tears I shed, still do just looking at it!

[youtube_browser]fqtXncLXnHo[/youtube_browser]

I then spent the next three months on tenterhooks that his muscle would build enough for the hip to stay in. It was the worst experience of my life - truly - this dog means the world to me for personal reasons and to see him like that and think I was going to lose him was unbearable!

I have learned the hard way, as has Flynn that there can never be too much emphasis on hip scoring and newbie or not that is a most ridiculous statement to make!


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol:
> 
> I will, of course, be ordered to put them back into their gilded cages or be drummed out of the show fraternity forthwith!


hehe x there's me thinking us show people were only dry weather dog walkers


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

Shrap said:


> Did that poster just compare showing dogs with showing cars? :lol: :lol: :lol:


Absolutely, and why not I ask?
We use our cars all week, and at a weekend, some of us will spend hours getting it cleaned and getting it ready to show and then drive it home and use it all again next week.
Having the right pedigree of dog is akin to having the right marque of car. The judges in both worlds can be exceedingly harsh and exceedingly biased as they can in all walks of life.
Be it horses, dogs, cars or whatever our hobby is, of course we want the best for them when we come to show them off to others.
The competition is just as stiff, and the social aspect is the same where a lot of people with the she interests gather together. 
There is not a massive amount of difference between the 2 at the end of the day. People will spend thousands on their cars and people will spend the same on their dogs. if the dogs is unwell, you will pay whatever is needed to your vet to get he/she better, if your car is unwell, you'll pay whatever at your local trusted garage to get her running right again.

Not so laughable when you can see first hand how certain aspects are mirrored across both lifestyles.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Coxy914;1061975129 said:


> Absolutely, and why not I ask?We use our cars all week, and at a weekend, some of us will spend hours getting it cleaned and getting it ready to show and then drive it home and use it all again next week.
> Having the right pedigree of dog is akin to having the right marque of car. The judges in both worlds can be exceedingly harsh and exceedingly biased as they can in all walks of life.
> Be it horses, dogs, cars or whatever our hobby is, of course we want the best for them when we come to show them off to others.
> The competition is just as stiff, and the social aspect is the same where a lot of people with the she interests gather together.
> ...


Really, if you have to ask, Why not? then I really feel for you. Does your car have a soul? Is your car part of the family, as important and loved, yes really, really loved, as any other family member? Will the loss of your car reduce you to a state of mourning for many, many years to come?

The show aspect itself may be similar, but a car can be replaced, an animal cannot. It is a living creature, no spare parts available.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

are the trolls out and about?


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> Really, if you have to ask, Why not? then I really feel for you. Does your car have a soul? Is your car part of the family, as important and loved, yes really, really loved, as any other family member? Will the loss of your car reduce you to a state of mourning for many, many years to come?
> 
> The show aspect itself may be similar, but a car can be replaced, an animal cannot. It is a living creature, no spare parts available.


For me personally, no, but for many a man, I'm afraid the answer will be yes.
Many a grown man gets very passionate about his car(s) and I have seen grown men reduced to tears after having their car written off.
Don't think for one minute that a man can't love a car as much as he can a dog! trust me, for years I have seen it...


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Coxy914 said:


> For me personally, no, but for many a man, I'm afraid the answer will be yes.
> Many a grown man gets very passionate about his car(s) and I have seen grown men reduced to tears after having their car written off.
> Don't think for one minute that a man can't love a car as much as he can a dog! trust me, for years I have seen it...


I am also capable of loving a car; I had to sell my Mazda Xedos 6, a car I really loved, but I don't cry my eyes out every time I think about it.

I would have thought that type of man you are describing would have no use for a dog or any other living creature................are these cars called "Christine" by any chance?


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I am also capable of loving a car; I had to sell my Mazda Xedos 6, a car I really loved, but I don't cry my eyes out every time I think about it.
> 
> I would have thought that type of man you are describing would have no use for a dog or any other living creature................are these cars called "Christine" by any chance?


err no, but they do give there cars names!
That's the point I'm making is that people do get very passionate about their hobby. It's hard to understand some peoples feelings towards anything mechanical if you have no feelings towards that yourself, in the same way it's hard for people who do not like cats and dogs to appreciate the lengths people will go to to look after and show their beloved pets. I see both sides and always have done so can appreciate both and see the similarities between both.
I have friends whose entire summer is spent 1 week car show, 1 week dog show and so one throughout the show season. How they can afford to do it all is beyond me, but they do and they both support each others hobbies, which is just as well as they would never have any time for each other.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Coxy914 said:


> Absolutely, and why not I ask?
> We use our cars all week, and at a weekend, some of us will spend hours getting it cleaned and getting it ready to show and then drive it home and use it all again next week.
> Having the right pedigree of dog is akin to having the right marque of car. The judges in both worlds can be exceedingly harsh and exceedingly biased as they can in all walks of life.
> Be it horses, dogs, cars or whatever our hobby is, of course we want the best for them when we come to show them off to others.
> ...


Because you are looking at it from the owner perspective not the dog's or car's  Car's are inanimate objects and don't have feelings  Dog's are living creatures and certainly do. In fact, the more I do with my dogs, and show dog's LOVE showing as mine LOVE working - as someone already said - walks, swims etc are everyday occurances so while they do enjoy them, the real excitement comes from doing something else (in my case what they are bred for and what is running through their veins).

That's irrelevant though, the thing that most disturbs me is your dismissal of health tests. Weren't you aware that pets get HD too?


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> That's irrelevant though, the thing that most disturbs me is your dismissal of health tests. Weren't you aware that pets get HD too?


Err, I've never dismissed health tests. Where did I say that?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Coxy914 said:


> Err, I've never dismissed health tests. Where did I say that?


Here

*Crass as some may see it, I have no interest in the hip scores of the parents*.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Coxy914 said:


> Err, I've never dismissed health tests. Where did I say that?


You stated that there was too much emphasis put on hip scores and you had bought a giant breed cross with no scores.


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> Here
> 
> *Crass as some may see it, I have no interest in the hip scores of the parents*.


Hip scores and health tests are not entirely the same.
OK, I'll admit my statement was probably not worded best, in fact reading it now, it's pretty dire in all fairness, but the point I was trying to make is that there's a great deal of emphasis on a perfect hip score, yet this can still lead to problems in later life (albeit reduced), the fact is we have neither hip score of either parent as now it's pretty irrelevant. The litter has been born and that we cannot change. I am aware of the problems that this breed and our puppy could face in her life as with any large breed dog. She may have a normal healthy life and I pray that she does, but if she doesn't, then I will do everything I can to make sure she does. 
I have no idea who has any of the pups from the rest of the litter but I do hope they will be in the same position as myself to make sure they want for nothing and get the gift of life that they deserve.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Coxy914 said:


> Hip scores and health tests are not entirely the same.


Hip Scoring is one of many available health tests, alongside DNA testing etc. It's the same thing.


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

Snoringbear said:


> Hip Scoring is one of many available health tests, alongside DNA testing etc. It's the same thing.


either way, it's largely irrelevant now.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Thank the Lord I wasn't born a man and also that the only 'man' now in my life is Flynn. So much less complicated and harmonious. :thumbsup:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Coxy914 said:


> Hip scores and health tests are not entirely the same.
> OK, I'll admit my statement was probably not worded best, in fact reading it now, it's pretty dire in all fairness, but the point I was trying to make is that there's a great deal of emphasis on a perfect hip score, yet this can still lead to problems in later life (albeit reduced), the fact is we have neither hip score of either parent as now it's pretty irrelevant. The litter has been born and that we cannot change. I am aware of the problems that this breed and our puppy could face in her life as with any large breed dog. She may have a normal healthy life and I pray that she does, but if she doesn't, then I will do everything I can to make sure she does.
> I have no idea who has any of the pups from the rest of the litter but I do hope they will be in the same position as myself to make sure they want for nothing and get the gift of life that they deserve.


 if byb's didnt have a market for these puppies from un-health tested parents they'd soon stop having these 'accidental' litters, then there would be less puppies born into a life of potential pain and suffering!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> if byb's didnt have a market for these puppies from un-health tested parents they'd soon stop having these 'accidental' litters, then there would be less puppies born into a life of potential pain and suffering!


Spot on, Noush! If people weren't seduced into paying huge prices from unethical breeders like the one who bred Coxy's dog, then there would be no demand and the money-grabbers would stop their unethical breeding. And before this degenerates into the usual crossbreed v pedigree thread, I am talking about ALL unethical breeders - pedigree and mongrel.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Thank the Lord I wasn't born a man and also that the only 'man' now in my life is Flynn. So much less complicated and harmonious. :thumbsup:


You took the words right out of my mouth


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Coxy914 said:


> For me personally, no, but for many a man, I'm afraid the answer will be yes.
> Many a grown man gets very passionate about his car(s) and I have seen grown men reduced to tears after having their car written off.
> Don't think for one minute that a man can't love a car as much as he can a dog! trust me, for years I have seen it...


Well, I asked my OH about this. Now, bear in mind that he is a man who moved to the country to get away from traffic noise, but watches Formula 1 all weekend, a man who drools when he sees a Ferrari, a man who had an old jag for years that he just cleaned and polished and took for small runs before he polished it again, a man who had tears in his eyes when he finally sold it to another doting man because he felt he "didn't have time to look after it properly". In short, a man who loved his car.

According to him, the love is not the same at all. He says that whilst he loved his car, the love he felt for it was vastly different from the love he feels for our animals - in fact he cannot understand that anyone could think that it was. In his words, even if he had his ultimate dream car, he would give it up in a second if he had to choose between that or one of our animals.

(heh heh - every now I then I realise why I married him and why we're still together 38 years on  )


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Coxy914 said:


> Sorry if came across a bit flippant but my point being is that too much emphasis is put on a perfect score. Both the parents of our Pooberger are from good stock, but how that pans out in the crossing of the breed, know one as yet knows and only time will tell.
> Whatever happens, she is in good hands and will be given all the love and attention she needs.


you said the leo is a rescue so how would you know its from 'good stock'....breeding from a rescue is about as unethical as it gets!



> It was a cross breed which was never meant to happen and the lady we got her off admitted that the mating was purely accidental as her moms Leo was a rescue dog which they were of the understanding had been neutered





Spellweaver said:


> Spot on, Noush! If people weren't seduced into paying huge prices from unethical breeders like the one who bred Coxy's dog, then there would be no demand and the money-grabbers would stop their unethical breeding. And before this degenerates into the usual crossbreed v pedigree thread, I am talking about ALL unethical breeders - pedigree and mongrel.


very true, sadly some people dont look at the bigger picture before they buy these puppies:thumbdown:


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Not getting into the cross/pedigree thing but wondered those who say perpetuate the problem by buying the pups from accidental or what you consider unethically bred litters. What would you have happen to them? 

Put to sleep, surely not? 
Given away, but see it on here should never give them away as it attracts dodgy types?
Hand them to rescue, but that just makes the situation worse?

I am not talking about puppy farmers thats a different issue altogether.


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> Not getting into the cross/pedigree thing but wondered those who say perpetuate the problem by buying the pups from accidental or what you consider unethically bred litters. What would you have happen to them?
> 
> Put to sleep, surely not?
> Given away, but see it on here should never give them away as it attracts dodgy types?
> ...


Given to rescue makes the problem worse temporarily, in the long run it prevents suffering and eases rescues burden.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Shrap said:


> Given to rescue makes the problem worse temporarily, in the long run it prevents suffering and eases rescues burden.


But wouldn't that encourage people who think it would be nice to have a cute puppy from their dog knowing they could dump the rest on rescue?


----------



## Shrap (Nov 22, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> But wouldn't that encourage people who think it would be nice to have a cute puppy from their dog knowing they could dump the rest on rescue?


Majority of people would realise that it would cost them a hell of a lot and they'd be cheaper buying a pup. There will always be stupid people though, I grant you. I doubt it would actively encourage people to do it, most people know about rescues already and they don't turn away puppies.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Not getting into the cross/pedigree thing but wondered those who say perpetuate the problem by buying the pups from accidental or what you consider unethically bred litters. What would you have happen to them?
> 
> Put to sleep, surely not?
> Given away, but see it on here should never give them away as it attracts dodgy types?
> ...


As you say, we're not talking about puppy farmers here, but unethical breeders who see "accidental" litters as a way to make large amounts of cash. (If it's an "accident"  they feel they can somehow be excused not doing all those pesky and expensive health tests that eat into their profit)

If no-one bought their puppies from them, and they were left with a whole litter of puppies they had to either give away, take to a recue centre or even keep; then you can bet your bottom dollar that would be the last litter they ever bred. Once they realised that having an "accidental" litter was not profitable they would stop breeding and find an easier way to scam money from people.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> But wouldn't that encourage people who think it would be nice to have a cute puppy from their dog knowing they could dump the rest on rescue?


Not at all - yes, therre would be bigger pressures on rescue initially, but as others have said, in the longer term, it would benefit rescue. - it would also ensure that the pups have a higher chance of landing in their forever home quickly rather than being pushed from pillar to post between various owners and rescue until there comes a point for many of them when quite simply, no-one wants them any more  This scenario is far more common with pups from unethical breeders 

It's the simplest law of supply and demand - if people didn't buy them, BYB and PF wouldn't breed them.

I know that doesn't account for the accidental litters, and occasionally, accidental litters do go un-noticed until it is too late, but there are very many more whereby the owners have pretty much stood by and watched the dogs mate (in some instances SEVERAL TIMES) , then ask for help 7/8 weeks down the line when it is too late to do anything about it. Not sure what the full answer is here, but it has to be around education of some description for people to understand that male and female entire dogs can equal puppies, it matters not if the dogs are full siblings, half siblings, mother and son, father and daughter - they don't understand that these matings are "taboo".


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Shrap said:


> Given to rescue makes the problem worse temporarily, in the long run it prevents suffering and eases rescues burden.





DoodlesRule said:


> But wouldn't that encourage people who think it would be nice to have a cute puppy from their dog knowing they could dump the rest on rescue?


Coming from the perspective of someone who worked with rescue 30 years ago when the thought was 'we'll just give the xtra pups to rescue' I am adamantly against the idea of promoting this notion.

People NEED to take ownership of what they have done and make a GREAT effort to home puppies before giving them to rescue.

The LARGEST problem that keeps pets being dumped is the fact that people are TAUGHT that there is a system that will bail them out. People are being TAUGHT to NOT take responsibility.

Suggestions like this are given and then the same ones who suggest this complain that society can't be educated.

If I'm coming across harsh it is because this has me fuming . . . the fact that the end result of promoting this kind of suggestion can't be easily seen.

We have come very far where we live by promoting the knowledge of ownership responsibility. We have achieved no-kill for dogs by promoting the fact that people NEED to take responsibility and NOT believe rescue is there for a bail out for dumb or careless decisions or mistakes. People then become proactive and more prevent unwanted pregnancies. I hate seeing the reverse being promoted.

With regard to people getting money for pups, there is NOTHING wrong about the idea that pups have a worth and a cost. THAT is good as well. A person that puts their heart, soul and time into raising an accidental litter still has every right to ask for recompense.

If those involved in carefully purposed bred dogs deliberately want to promote their dogs as of more value then PROMOTE their testing and PROMOTE the reasons their dogs are more valuable. DO NOT diminish the value of accidentally bred pups. That is a backwards approach that I will frown on for many reasons.



> It's the simplest law of supply and demand - if people didn't buy them, BYB and PF wouldn't breed them.


And the laws of supply and demand also tell us that when there are a shortage of the TYPE someone might want then they will find it somewhere and pay as much for it as they want to.

There might be an overpopulation of energetic medium/large untrained teen dogs turned into rescue that need homes, but THOSE are not going to be purchased by so and sos who have made up their mind on something different. Numbers prove, over and over and over again, that there is a SHORTAGE of supply with regard to pups on the market of many categories, and you won't budge supply and demand until the idea is addressed that overpopulation (pups bred) is NOT the issue. RETENTION is and that can ONLY be addressed by educating people as to the responsibilities required for owning a dog, and keeping a catch system in place for those that refuse to be educated. That catch system should NOT be reverting back to a position of 'where to get a random bred pup from' (whilst most teen dogs were killed as so many pups were always available) as it was here 30 years ago.

CC


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> Coming from the perspective of someone who worked with rescue 30 years ago when the thought was 'we'll just give the xtra pups to rescue' I am adamantly against the idea of promoting this notion.
> 
> People NEED to take ownership of what they have done and make a GREAT effort to home puppies before giving them to rescue.
> 
> ...


I can see your point very well, but back in the fifties when I was a little girl and when there were genuine "accidental" litters of crossbreeds, any pups or kittens not able to be given away, ended up in the river and nobody thought anything was wrong with that. I wouldn't want to go back to that either.

I am not against people buying crossbreeds; as said, they are born now and need homes. What I am against is people deliberately breeding outrageous crosses and charging a fortune for them as a rare breed. Or promoting them as guaranteed non-shedding, which is really just asking for the dog to end up in rescue anyway.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> I can see your point very well, but back in the fifties when I was a little girl and when there were genuine "accidental" litters of crossbreeds, any pups or kittens not able to be given away, ended up in the river and nobody thought anything was wrong with that. I wouldn't want to go back to that either.


They ended up in the river here too, and in buckets drowned as well is they were pure and mismarked . . . and others ended up dumped at rescue, many of them.

That has changed because our societal attitude with regard to the life value of a dog has changed. That is a good thing.



> I am not against people buying crossbreeds; as said, they are born now and need homes. What I am against is people deliberately breeding outrageous crosses and charging a fortune for them as a rare breed. Or promoting them as guaranteed non-shedding, which is really just asking for the dog to end up in rescue anyway.


I happen to fully disagree with you on this. I could care less what price someone pays for a dog they will love, whether it is cross or pure.

I am also not any more against the deliberate breeding of crossbreeds than against the deliberate breeding of purebreds, and the non-shedding claims are a straight repetition of what those in purebreeds do.

Some in each category do it for profit and in my experience the number of duplicitous purebreeders outnumbers duplicitous crossbreeders. Most that cross or mutt breed here do NOT charge an arm and a leg for pups, while those that breed pure do . . . as registered dogs are the rarity. If you'd like I'll post some ads up we get here on Kijiji freeads promoting the 'rare' and 'valuable' purebreds.

That topic, however, has nothing to do with the outrageous suggestion that it would be best if these people should just 'hand the muttbred pups to rescue'.

I read those invested in the purebred dog breeding system on this thread attempting to suggest that theirs are the only pups that should be 'ethically' purchased or charged a price for. They are promoting their system of breeding as being the 'ethical' one because they believe in it. I get that.

What they need to realise is that others, and many of us, do not agree.

I will buy from a crossbreeder or a mutt breeder IF I believe their program and the dogs they produce are of value. I will buy an accidentally bred pup IF I believe that pup will fit into my home and I will make a good home for it. I do NOT see purebred pups, or the purebred pups produced in that established system as the ultimate, and I know here that most others do not either.

Do not try to tell me that that decision is wrong or a muttbred pup is more risky, as I know that it is not. The value in a purebred is in its predictability, and not every one cares a lot about that.

If those that believe in the purebred breeding system want to promote their way as the best then do so by selling what is positive about what you do. Some will take you up on it but realize others will not and there is not a darn thing you can do about that.

There will always be a faction of society that wants 'pure' dogs. That is where the market for pure dogs lies. I happen to believe there is great value in that market but I don't believe it was ever meant that 'all' of society should be directed this way.

Throughout history the evolution and even breed creation relied on dogs that were randomly bred in landraces and in villages, while the 'elite' bred pure, and not necessarily because pure were best. It was a hobby. Those 'elite' also reached into landrace populations when their lines needed diversity. Trying to promote the idea that we should now all accept the 'breeds' decided upon by the 'elite' one hundred years ago and a short time following is NOT going to work as there is not historical precedent. People and societies are just not like that.

The rescue problems are NOT fixed by promoting the purchasing of only purebred dogs. First of all they are fixed through better management and direction from leadership. Then they are fixed by promoting ownership responsibility - the idea of NOT buying without due consideration of temperament fit if you are choosy about that, the idea of training and bonding with your dog, and that teen dogs are hell to deal with but that is part of being a dog owner, and that if you don't want a dog pregnant then that is your responsibility too, and importantly that if you face a problem with your dog (such as an accidental pregnancy) then YOU are the one to follow up on that and home those dogs properly and follow them for life. Doing THAT for one litter, even if the pups are sold for a price, will put most people off of ever taking a chance on that mistake again.

CC


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I read those invested in the purebred dog breeding system on this thread attempting to suggest that theirs are the only pups that should be 'ethically' purchased or charged a price for. They are promoting their system of breeding as being the 'ethical' one because they believe in it. I get that.
> 
> What they need to realise is that others, and many of us, do not agree.


I think you may have read a different thread than I have. The posts I have read have not been arguing that purebred breeding = good and non-purebred breeding = bad. They have been discussing how it would be possible to stop unethical breeders of ALL dogs (purebred and mongrels) breeding dogs purely for money, without the relevant health tests to ensure as far as possible the animals they breed live a long and healthy life.

By far the best way is to educate people not to buy from these kinds of breeders. If someone bred a litter that no-one bought, then they would not be in such a hurry to breed again. And yes, if they could not give their pups away some may end up in rescue - but better that it happens to only one litter than this sort of breeder keeps on breeding, pocketing money, and flooding rescues with many pups and older dogs that their buyers have got rid of because they cannot afford the vets fees for the illnesses they weren't tested for, or because they have just lost inetrest in the dog (because they weren't vetted properly by a breeder who was more interested in pocketing money than making sure the dog was going to a loving forever home).



comfortcreature said:


> The rescue problems are NOT fixed by promoting the purchasing of only purebred dogs.


I don't think anyone is suggesting they would be? 



comfortcreature said:


> First of all they are fixed through better management and direction from leadership. Then they are fixed by promoting ownership responsibility - the idea of NOT buying without due consideration of temperament fit if you are choosy about that, the idea of training and bonding with your dog, and that teen dogs are hell to deal with but that is part of being a dog owner, and that if you don't want a dog pregnant then that is your responsibility too, and importantly that if you face a problem with your dog (such as an accidental pregnancy) then YOU are the one to follow up on that and home those dogs properly and follow them for life. Doing THAT for one litter, even if the pups are sold for a price, will put most people off of ever taking a chance on that mistake again.


But the kind of unethical breeder (once again, no distinction between pedigree breeder and cross-breeder) we are discussing on here is not going to do that. Hence the dogs from such breeders are much more likely to be adding to the rescue problem.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Once they realised that having an "accidental" litter was not profitable they would stop breeding and find an easier way to scam money from people.


Ah but sometimes accidents actually do happen, whether the cynical believe it or not. Sometimes those accidents are well reared, cared for greatly, no expense spared raising them and homes vetted so thoroughly that potential buyers walk away in disgust at some of the very personal questions asked.

Sometimes even idiots who have accidents can be just as good at supporting their buyers til the dog no longer walks the face of the Earth and will always be available to take back any dog, regardless of why.

Sometimes even people who have bred dogs and shown them are little better than the idiots who have accidents, they may not health test but they have good friends in the show world which somehow exonerates them. Sometimes there can be a lot of hypocrisy in the dog breeding circuit.

Sometimes people are tarred with the same brush and without even knowing the true facts are judged by others who likely consider their beliefs and own practices beyond reproach. Sometimes even ethical breeders are doing wrong by having litters in current climes but would many see it that way and agree - I very much doubt it.

Sometimes we should all sit back, take a look at ourselves and see that none of us are perfect, have all made some kind of mistake in our lives and pointing the finger without knowing the facts is one we all make at times!

Of course there are BYB's, looking at the BRS we can all clearly see who they are. I for instance could have been classed as one - no one would have known that I, the seller had no idea of my girls mating yet anyone could assume I did it for the money. I had no trouble selling my pups, all wonderful homes as I did it right and will always be in contact, that I know for sure.
The only pup with problems is here with me and anyone who knows me knows what that pup means to me, as do his siblings. The BRS shows no more litters from my dogs and you can see sometimes a one off litter in the BRS that could have genuinely been an accident. You can also see some 'ethical' breeders producing pups with no health checks in their background - breeders who like I said are somehow accepted just because they are known to others and part of the show world. This cannot just be a Malamute thing - surely! The reason I don't 'do' facebook is because of the hypocrisy I found between some people in the Mal world on there.

We can all be quick to jump to conclusions but with a little research can actually find out facts! It's all out there in black and white if you really want to be sure you've got it right!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I think you may have read a different thread than I have. The posts I have read have not been arguing that purebred breeding = good and non-purebred breeding = bad. They have been discussing how it would be possible to stop unethical breeders of ALL dogs (purebred and mongrels) breeding dogs purely for money, without the relevant health tests to ensure as far as possible the animals they breed live a long and healthy life..


No. We've very much been reading the same thread.

Noushka said



> if byb's didnt have a market for these puppies from un-health tested parents they'd soon stop having these 'accidental' litters, then there would be less puppies born into a life of potential pain and suffering!


Spellweaver said



> Spot on, Noush! If people weren't seduced into paying huge prices from unethical breeders like the one who bred Coxy's dog, then there would be no demand and the money-grabbers would stop their unethical breeding. And before this degenerates into the usual crossbreed v pedigree thread, I am talking about ALL unethical breeders - pedigree and mongrel.


There is a direct attack here on the breeder of Coxy's dog with a bunch assumed about this breeder but little known. Coxy has already said that the breeder explained the sire of the litter was a rescue that was supposed to be neutered. As one here who does not believe in spay-aborts unless in extreme circumstances I would have probably seen the litter through myself under the same circumstance. I have in fact taken in (fostered) two pregnant females and gotten them through their litters in the past, eventually homing their pups for a fee (that went to the rescue I supported but the pups were still 'sold'.) Would I be one of those 'money grubbers' then?

As I fostered here for a great length of time I have had a rescue here supposed to be spayed that was not, to my surprise. I have also had a boy here from rescue that was supposed to be neutered that was not. I caught that fairly quick but I also had had the previous experience with a female. You think it would be hard to miss but it happens.

The breeder that bred Coxy's dog had an accidental litter - yet the insinuation here is that it was deliberate and that this breeder is to grouped with 'unethical money grubbers'. I take exception to that.

This is the suggestion that those who find themselves in the same accidental predicament as Coxy's breeder should not be asking for money for the pups they raise.

I disagree. I don't believe that would help the situation in rescue one tiny iota.

I believe Coxy's breeder should ask for money for their effort into raising and homing pups, whether or not parents were health tested . . . as long as they are honest to the buyers that the parents were not.

I know many a breed where NO testing is required and where involved breeders that do it are hit and miss, yet they are touted as 'reputable' because of their involvement. People in these breeds take their chances buying pups, and I see this situation as no different.



Spellweaver said:


> By far the best way is to educate people not to buy from these kinds of breeders..


Which kinds of breeders? Those that have accidental litters or money grubbers? How do you distinguish which breeders are money grubbers if that is the point you are making?

The best way is to educate people not to buy dogs that won't suit them. Coxy explained that the breeder did not make any claims about non-shedding qualities. Coxy was not 'fooled' into this purchase.



Spellweaver said:


> If someone bred a litter that no-one bought, then they would not be in such a hurry to breed again. And yes, if they could not give their pups away some may end up in rescue - but better that it happens to only one litter than this sort of breeder keeps on breeding, pocketing money, and flooding rescues with many pups and older dogs that their buyers have got rid of because they cannot afford the vets fees for the illnesses they weren't tested for, or because they have just lost inetrest in the dog (because they weren't vetted properly by a breeder who was more interested in pocketing money than making sure the dog was going to a loving forever home)...


IF your point is about supporting money grubbing breeders, I agree it is best we educate people to purchase from those that care for pups and parents well and home their pups carefully, but again I'd like to know how one is supposed to distinguish which breeders are and which are not money grubbers. I don't consider those homing an accidental litter carefully and charging for the pups to be money grubbers.

I posted:



> The rescue problems are NOT fixed by promoting the purchasing of only purebred dogs.


The response:



Spellweaver said:


> I don't think anyone is suggesting they would be?


I believe it is insinuated all over the place in this thread and on many other threads as well. No need for confusion. I believe it is a tangent worth discussing.



Spellweaver said:


> But the kind of unethical breeder (once again, no distinction between pedigree breeder and cross-breeder) we are discussing on here is not going to do that. Hence the dogs from such breeders are much more likely to be adding to the rescue problem.


Problem is that I cannot make out WHAT kind of breeder was being discussed as Coxy's breeder - who had an accidental litter - was being accused of being 'unethical' and being grouped in with money-grubbers.

CC


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Coxy has already said that the breeder explained the sire of the litter was a rescue that was supposed to be neutered


TBH - if Coxy had said the dam was supposed to have been neutered I would have been less sceptical, but they thought the sire was neutered?! It's generally pretty easy to tell the difference between a neutered and entire male!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I got a male in here that had been with another fosterer for four months without knowledge of the fact he was intact.

I also had a min Poodle male neighbour dog AND a Sheltie mix neighbour dog that managed to tie with females years AFTER being neutered. My Dad's Papillon did the same, come to think of it, with my sisters dual Champion retired girl that she homed for an involved breeder/good friend. She was to be spayed following her rehoming but it was within three days of my sister getting her and she was in a silent heat.

I have a male Tibbie here right now that I would swear was neutered by his size, but I know he is intact. I'm sure he has no pride in the matter as long as everything works, but he is a tiny boy in that area with barely distinguishable testicles . . . and only if you really feel around for them. 

Harder to know than you might think.

CC


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I got a male in here that had been with another fosterer for four months without knowledge of the fact he was intact.
> 
> I also had a min Poodle male neighbour dog AND a Sheltie mix neighbour dog that managed to tie with females years AFTER being neutered. My Dad's Papillon did the same, come to think of it, with my sisters dual Champion retired girl that she homed for an involved breeder/good friend. She was to be spayed following her rehoming but it was within three days of my sister getting her and she was in a silent heat.
> 
> ...


A neutered dog mating and tying I'm more than aware of  but 'we thought they were neutered' is an excuse used too often. Even if the rescue had told them he was neutered, then it would normally have been picked up when they took him to the vets... oh sorry, I'm assuming responsible owners take a dog to the vet when they first get it for a check up and to register (as the rescues I've volunteered for asks).


----------



## Beverage (Mar 22, 2012)

Two great breeds... one strange crossbreed :/


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> Ah but sometimes accidents actually do happen, whether the cynical believe it or not. Sometimes those accidents are well reared, cared for greatly, no expense spared raising them and homes vetted so thoroughly that potential buyers walk away in disgust at some of the very personal questions asked.
> 
> Sometimes even idiots who have accidents can be just as good at supporting their buyers til the dog no longer walks the face of the Earth and will always be available to take back any dog, regardless of why.


I agree totally that accidents can and do happen - but I wouldn't call people who have accidents idiots like you do . Accidents, by their very nature, can and do happen to everyone from every walk of life. However, an accidental mating does not have to lead to a litter. If the health history of the sire and dam are known and the breeder decides to still go ahead, that is one thing. But if the health history of even one of the dogs is unknown, surely it is better by far to abort the litter than to risk being responsible for a litter of dogs with painful and debilitating conditions. It doesn't matter how much love and life-time support the breeder is willing to give - to breed animals that could end up with pain-filled lives is wrong imo.



Malmum said:


> Sometimes even people who have bred dogs and shown them are little better than the idiots who have accidents, they may not health test but they have good friends in the show world which somehow exonerates them. Sometimes there can be a lot of hypocrisy in the dog breeding circuit.


I don't think anyone on here would disagree with you about this - in fact I don't klnow why you are trying to turn this into yet another pedigree v non-pedigree thread. I have said in several of my posts so far that my remark are directed at ALL unethical breeders, pedigree breeders and cross breeders alike.



Malmum said:


> Sometimes we should all sit back, take a look at ourselves and see that none of us are perfect, have all made some kind of mistake in our lives and pointing the finger without knowing the facts is one we all make at times!


All my responses so far have been to facts given on this thread - namely that someone has bred a litter from a rescued dog with no known health history. In my opinion that is unethical. If it was accidental, the only reason I can see for a breeder not to terminate the pregnancy and risk the health of any progeny is money.

And the fact that I have made many mistakes in my life - and will no doubt continue to make many more (anyone who thinks they don't make mistakes is kidding themselves) - does not alter my opinion about that in any way.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> As one here who does not believe in spay-aborts unless in extreme circumstances I would have probably seen the litter through myself under the same circumstance. I have in fact taken in (fostered) two pregnant females and gotten them through their litters in the past, eventually homing their pups for a fee (that went to the rescue I supported but the pups were still 'sold'.) Would I be one of those 'money grubbers' then?





comfortcreature said:


> The breeder that bred Coxy's dog had an accidental litter - yet the insinuation here is that it was deliberate and that this breeder is to grouped with 'unethical money grubbers'. I take exception to that.





comfortcreature said:


> This is the suggestion that those who find themselves in the same accidental predicament as Coxy's breeder should not be asking for money for the pups they raise.





comfortcreature said:


> I believe Coxy's breeder should ask for money for their effort into raising and homing pups, whether or not parents were health tested . . . as long as they are honest to the buyers that the parents were not.





comfortcreature said:


> Which kinds of breeders? Those that have accidental litters or money grubbers? How do you distinguish which breeders are money grubbers if that is the point you are making?





comfortcreature said:


> Problem is that I cannot make out WHAT kind of breeder was being discussed as Coxy's breeder - who had an accidental litter - was being accused of being 'unethical' and being grouped in with money-grubbers.
> 
> CC


I don't think you and I will be able to come to any sort of understanding on this one because we are clearly at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

The quotes above clearly show that you believe it is ethical to continue with accidental pregnancies even when the health of the resulting litters could be at risk.

I believe it is unethical to do so. I cannot see why someone would willingly allow such a pregnancy to continue, knowing that they could be responsible for inflicting a painful life on the progeny. The only reason I can think of as to why they would take such risks is for monetary gain.



comfortcreature said:


> I know many a breed where NO testing is required and where involved breeders that do it are hit and miss, yet they are touted as 'reputable' because of their involvement. People in these breeds take their chances buying pups, and I see this situation as no different.


I agree with you - except that I would not call such breeders reputable.

And, once again, I repeat - the remarks I have made about unethical breeders are directed at both pedigree breeders and cross-breeders.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> I agree totally that accidents can and do happen - but I wouldn't call people who have accidents idiots like you do . Accidents, by their very nature, can and do happen to everyone from every walk of life. However, an accidental mating does not have to lead to a litter. If the health history of the sire and dam are known and the breeder decides to still go ahead, that is one thing. But if the health history of even one of the dogs is unknown, surely it is better by far to abort the litter than to risk being responsible for a litter of dogs with painful and debilitating conditions. It doesn't matter how much love and life-time support the breeder is willing to give - to breed animals that could end up with pain-filled lives is wrong imo.
> 
> Depends how far gone that pregnancy is and the risk factor involved. In my case at almost seven weeks it was not an option, I wouldn't have considered it so and neither did my vet at the time.
> With Mals the only required health tests are hip scoring and eye testing. Eye testing which IMO is pretty pointless as it mostly shows later in life when dogs previously tested negative and have produced many litters. I did not have eye tests, the dogs could have been carrying the defect but then so have many show Mals who later showed the disease and usually after the age of three, the age my Mals were at that time.
> ...


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> A neutered dog mating and tying I'm more than aware of  but 'we thought they were neutered' is an excuse used too often. Even if the rescue had told them he was neutered, then it would normally have been picked up when they took him to the vets... oh sorry, I'm assuming responsible owners take a dog to the vet when they first get it for a check up and to register (as the rescues I've volunteered for asks).


I see you disbelieve what this poster has told. I do not and see no reason to disbelieve it.



Spellweaver said:


> I don't think you and I will be able to come to any sort of understanding on this one because we are clearly at the opposite ends of the spectrum..


I doubt it as well.



Spellweaver said:


> The quotes above clearly show that you believe it is ethical to continue with accidental pregnancies even when the health of the resulting litters could be at risk.


Only if you have made assumptions that are wrong. You assume the health risk to the pups is high. It is not. Every litter born involves risks. The risk in many accidental litters of dogs - depending on the breed or mix involved - is not significantly raised to that of the risks in many deliberately bred purebred dogs that have been tested in higher risk breeds. In fact it is often lower. If you take the stance that the risk is too high then you best take the stance that full breeds of dogs not be bred anymore.



Spellweaver said:


> I believe it is unethical to do so. I cannot see why someone would willingly allow such a pregnancy to continue, knowing that they could be responsible for inflicting a painful life on the progeny. The only reason I can think of as to why they would take such risks is for monetary gain.


What kind of pregnancy? An accidental pregnancy? Accidental does not mean the dogs involved, or their health status, is unknown. Risks can be assessed even for accidental pregnancies.

And that is not even to address the heightened risk to the bitch of a spay termination. I have lost a foster to spay surgery. She wasn't pregnant and spay terminations offer a higher risk.THAT risk is also to be included in these decisions.

There is no way to make an across the board claim about those going forward on an accidental breeding being unethical or not, or assuming to know what is on someone's mind when that decision is made. Malmum has posted very well to this point.



Spellweaver said:


> I agree with you - except that I would not call such breeders reputable..


You are saying you would call breeders in breeds where health testing was not required, that did not do it then, disreputable?

I find that an odd stance to take. Sometimes tests are necessary and addressing them is being avoided by the clubs and the breeders within know that full well. Other times they are truly of so little risk there is no necessity. I could not make a blanket judgement myself. I'd have to assess on a case by case basis.

IMHO Pugs have some high risks (66% fail rate on hips is one). I read a thread recently where admiration was shown by posters here for the Pug breeder's decision to not to have health checks done and compete for BOB at the toydog show, yet those same dogs show no health test results on the KC database or on the one breeder's site (the other does not offer a site), and the parent of one that can be found shows none either. I saw no inquisition of those breeders practices before support was offered.

Maybe that admiration and the stand behind those breeders is not to be understood as support for those breeders . . . but it certainly comes across that way.

It is when I read posts that get behind those breeders, and breeders in other high risk breeds, without the same type of inquisition and judgement with regard to risks involved for the pups that crossbreeders would get, or even those that choose to go forward on an accidental litter, that I find myself doubting the sincerity of the claims made about equal assessment all the way around.



Spellweaver said:


> And, once again, I repeat - the remarks I have made about unethical breeders are directed at both pedigree breeders and cross-breeders.


Without yet clarification of what makes a breeder ethical or not. I'm not to worried about that as there are too many variances to ever come to agreement.

I do worry about the idea being put forward that buyers should be discouraged from purchasing pups from accidentally born litters and that it would be better for those litters to go to rescue, which was what my original post addressed.

CC


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I see you disbelieve what this poster has told. I do not and see no reason to disbelieve it.


No, I don't disbelieve what the OP has said - and think that is rather inflammatory - which saddens me as while we don't always agree, your posts are interesting and informative. However, I do have doubts about the honesty and integrity of the breeder.


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

crikey, I wish I'd never replied to this thread now and just left it alone. 

I do respect that everyone has a right to an opinion, and yes, even I came on here with an opinion which some people did not agree with, but I've never been on a forum which has so many argumentative people on in my life.

I was hoping to share photo's of our Flo whilst she was growing up so people could see how she turns out, and also what problems we may face with her during her growing up years and also in later life, and whether indeed our dyson vacuum will be working a little more as she does shed her coat, but seeing peoples reactions to the breed, I'll keep those pictures for my friends and family only. I'm not going to flaunt my dog to the public as something from a freak show circus which it seems some people on here think she is due to the cross breed.

over and out..


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Coxy914 said:


> crikey, I wish I'd never replied to this thread now and just left it alone.
> 
> I do respect that everyone has a right to an opinion, and yes, even I came on here with an opinion which some people did not agree with, but I've never been on a forum which has so many argumentative people on in my life.
> 
> ...


I'm afraid you have got the wrong end of the stick entirely. Nobody has anything against your dog, or her cross, it is more about the remarks you made early on about show dogs and how they are treated, whilst knowing nothing about it and equating a dog show with a car show, for heaven's sake!

No wonder you received some hostile remarks. It has nothing to do with your lovely dog, who is lovely because all dogs are.


----------



## Coxy914 (May 2, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I'm afraid you have got the wrong end of the stick entirely. Nobody has anything against your dog, or her cross, it is more about the remarks you made early on about show dogs and how they are treated, whilst knowing nothing about it and equating a dog show with a car show, for heaven's sake!
> 
> No wonder you received some hostile remarks. It has nothing to do with your lovely dog, who is lovely because all dogs are.


I'm not referring to those remarks, the last 2-3 pages are all about ethical/unethical/accidental breeding etc etc, and no mention of shows etc. That comment/argument has long gone 'for heavens sake!'

Comments like this are hardly going to make me want to reach for my Nikon



Beverage said:


> Two great breeds... one strange crossbreed :/


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Coxy914 said:


> I'm not referring to those remarks, the last 2-3 pages are all about ethical/unethical/accidental breeding etc etc, and no mention of shows etc. That comment/argument has long gone 'for heavens sake!'
> 
> Comments like this are hardly going to make me want to reach for my Nikon


can i just ask why you think shows should be mentioned


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Malmum said:


> There you go again assuming you know the facts! There you go again offending me as it seems to also assume I wouldn't terminate my litter due to making money from them.


I have assumed nothing - I was expressing my opinion that I could see no other reason for people to do such a thing whan they could clearly save all the potential suffering. This is a forum and people are allowed to express their opinons even if they differ from yours.

And why you are taking this personally I have no idea - because if you actually read my replies properly you will find that my remarks were about breeders who allow a pregnancy to continue even when they don't know the health history of the sire or dam. If you are in that category then fair enough - but I automatically assumed that you were not. Still, if you want to don a hair shirt and play the martyr then be my guest ..........



Malmum said:


> Should I have aborted a perfectly healthy litter at seven weeks gestation? When at four years of age seven of the eight have shown no health problems at all, some working dogs? No not at all and I am glad I didn't even though I had to see my boy in pain at some point he now has a normal life,


I can't answer your question as to what you should and should not have done - all I can say is what I would have done in similar circumstances. I personally wouldn't have aborted a litter at seven weeks - I would have done exactly what you did. However, I can't envisage a situation where I would have let it get to seven weeks before having to make that decision. I have entire males and entire females and if I had an accidental mating the girl would be down to the vet for a mis-mate injection immediately. And don't take that as my saying you should have done that and go on about me not knowing the facts  - I am not talking about you. I repeat, I am saying what* I *would have done in that situation.

I'm glad your boy is better and free from suffering now, and I'm also glad that you have so far been lucky in that none of the rest of the litter have suffered. I hope that luck continues to hold.



Malmum said:


> No I am sure it doesn't and I am sure you will know just about everybody inside out - even without ever meeting them!


How ridiculous! Nowhere have I purported to know anyone. I have merely expressed my opinion - and if you don't like the fact that people are actually allowed to express opinions which differ from yours then that's tough. Live with it.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Only if you have made assumptions that are wrong. You assume the health risk to the pups is high. It is not. Every litter born involves risks. The risk in many accidental litters of dogs - depending on the breed or mix involved - is not significantly raised to that of the risks in many deliberately bred purebred dogs that have been tested in higher risk breeds. In fact it is often lower. If you take the stance that the risk is too high then you best take the stance that full breeds of dogs not be bred anymore.
> 
> What kind of pregnancy? An accidental pregnancy? Accidental does not mean the dogs involved, or their health status, is unknown. Risks can be assessed even for accidental pregnancies.


It impossible to asess the risks if the health history of either the sire or the dam is not known - which is what I was posting about.



comfortcreature said:


> There is no way to make an across the board claim about those going forward on an accidental breeding being unethical or not, or assuming to know what is on someone's mind when that decision is made. Malmum has posted very well to this point.


I have made no such claim and done no such thing. I have merely expressed my opinion that

a) it is possible to stop unwanted pregnancies very early on with a mismate injection 
b) as this is readily available, there must be some other reason for a breeder to continue with an accidental pregnancy where the health of sire or dam is not known and hence the health risks to progeny are unable to be assessed accurately
c) the only possible reason I can see for continuing such a pregnancy is for financial gain
d) to breed not knowing what you are going to produce merely for financial gain is unethical

And, as I said to Malmum - people are allowed to express their opinions on a forum even if they differ from yours.



comfortcreature said:


> You are saying you would call breeders in breeds where health testing was not required, that did not do it then, disreputable?


Don't be silly. I was talking about the "hit and miss" breeders you mentioned. Even in breeds with no mandatory health tests ethical breeders will still test - they will at least hip score and take into account the health of the sire and dam. Breeders who don't do this - ie the breeders who according to you rely on "hit and miss" methods - are unethical.

Surely you aren't advocating breeding by hit and miss methods?



comfortcreature said:


> IMHO Pugs have some high risks (66% fail rate on hips is one). I read a thread recently where admiration was shown by posters here for the Pug breeder's decision to not to have health checks done and compete for BOB at the toydog show, yet those same dogs show no health test results on the KC database or on the one breeder's site (the other does not offer a site), and the parent of one that can be found shows none either. I saw no inquisition of those breeders practices before support was offered.


So you think it's a valid premise that because there is bad practice in one area of dog breeding, it can be used to excuse and promote bad practice in another? Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## DRAMBUIE999 (Jun 1, 2012)

Shame you wer lied to. Miss Lathaam owns the female dog,(poodle) bur the owner of the sire is not her mother, I wonder what other lies you were told?


----------



## hazel pritchard (Jun 28, 2009)

dexter said:


> yep u guessed it leonberger x poodle pups
> quote.............The benefit of having one of these dogs is that due to the poodle side of them they will be more Athletic in there joints, they will shed less hair & it makes them very trainable.
> 
> whatever next!


What interests me about "the trend" to x poodles with almost every breed of dog "because poodles shed less hair" !!! is when oh when are people going to learn this is not true and so many poodle x's are now ending up in rescues 
I have a whippet x poodle, he will be 2 yrs old later this month ,ive had him 9 months and am his 4th owner !!!!!!!!!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> What interests me about "the trend" to x poodles with almost every breed of dog "because poodles shed less hair" !!! is when oh when are people going to learn this is not true and so many poodle x's are now ending up in rescues


Sadly I think it is another demonstration of how selfish we are becoming. We want a dog and we want one that will fit in easily into our lives rather than taking account of the dog. It's the same when, increasingly, people buy a dog because of the way it looks and don't take account whether their lifestyle would suit it's temperament and character.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

This is just personal thoughts before anyone flames me!

I don't think rare breds should be crossed deliberately. (Saying that, I saw two Eurasiers today and they truly are stunning)

I would never again buy a dog without the parents being hip scored. One of mine has hip dysplasia and it prevents him from doing what he should. He cannot run for hours or he becomes very lame. He is not a giant breed: hip dysplasia can affect any dog of any size.

The breeders of so-called 'designer' puppies do not appear, from the dozens of adverts I have seen and the websites of people doing it 'officially' ie lots  to be health testing. I'm not saying no-one should get a cross breed, but if you want a better chance of a long lived, healthy dog, whether it is purely for pet purposes or to be shown, it is *my opinion* that you're better off getting it from health tested parents. At this time, it is *my belief* that the majority of these dogs are pedigrees.

  
Waits for flaming.


----------



## catseyes (Sep 10, 2010)

Not flaming but my little zelda is a crossbreed and both parent were fully health tested. They are out there its just a case of finding the bright breeder.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

catseyes said:


> Not flaming but my little zelda is a crossbreed and both parent were fully health tested. They are out there its just a case of finding the bright breeder.


Like I said, the *majority*, not all.


----------



## DRAMBUIE999 (Jun 1, 2012)

dexter said:


> mum was the leonberger


Sorry, but if you are referring to the leondoodles in Shropshire, the leonberger was the father, an "Accidental" mating, by a supposedly neutered male!!!


----------



## DRAMBUIE999 (Jun 1, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> Still an awful cross


If This is referring to the litter in Shropshire, the leonberger fathered the puppies. The poodle's owner has now apparently acquired a male Newfie. I dread to think!!!


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

DRAMBUIE999 said:


> Sorry, but if you are referring to the leondoodles in Shropshire, the leonberger was the father, an "Accidental" mating, by a supposedly neutered male!!!


no i wasn't  the original post was in january


----------



## DRAMBUIE999 (Jun 1, 2012)

same litter


----------

