Golden Retriever Dog Forums banner

1 - 20 of 92 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Edit: I added a post with the following paragraph. But, because this paragraph has the potential to significantly change responses, I decided to incorporate it, as an edit, into the original post.

After reading through responses and thinking on the topic, I realized that I could have done a better job of stating the original question. Instead of "At what point-in-time does a "breeder of mutts" gain credibility?", I should have asked "What differentiates a 'breeding program' for 'a breeder of mutts'?".

Original post continues below...
Not gonna lie. If there was a 40lb version of Kona, that would be wonderful. But, given a choice between a 30lb-to-40lb "something" and Kona-at-65lbs, I'll gladly take Kona-at-65lbs.

With that said, I looked long-and-hard at breeders claiming to be breeding golden doodles with the objective of reliably producing a 40lb'ish version of a GR. I recognize that there's no telling what specific characteristics the first generation of offspring will inherit. And, I also get that breeders of purebreds may be less-than-enthusiastic about providing top-quality dogs to someone looking to produce a mixed-breed litter.

But...

If a breeder can demonstrate a focused program and efforts towards breeding to reliably produce specific, desired characteristics (ostensibly, with the objective of gaining breed recognition?), at what point do their efforts become looked at as valid (vice, over-charging for mutts)? Especially if these breeders are "doing it right", which likely means not many of their early efforts can be sold as anything other than "mutts", and should be priced accordingly and targeted for neuter/spay contracts.

Add Note: I get that this is likely more a "process" than "time" assessment. But, right now, it seems like there's a blanket moratorium on any attempts.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
937 Posts
The thing is, there are A LOT of people who breed purpose bred mixed breeds. Border Collie x Whippet crosses are one of the most sought after crosses for sports. Golden Retriever x Labrador are bred purposely, often for seeing eye work. A lot of hog hunting dogs are mix breeds. Many working stock dogs are unrecognized cross breeds (McNabxBC, hanging tree cowdog, etc). They are not necessarily doing it "right", ie, I do not think too many of these people are health testing, but there is a GOAL in their breeding programs. These programs seek to breed dogs that can best perform the task they were bred to do. Another example I can think of was a consecrated effort by people to create a "medium sized, longer coated, companion sighthound" which ended up becoming the Silken Windhound.

Doodles, on the other hand, and MANY other "designer" mixed breeds, were bred for the purpose of looks + money. When you're breeding without a specific goal, you end up with a smorgasbord of dogs with no particular ideal in mind regarding temperament, size, health...etc.

Edit: another one that comes to mind is the "Alaskan Husky" which is a term referring to a variety of dogs bred to run sleds, typically very long distance, think the Iditarod. These dogs have a "pedigree" but very few of these dogs are purebred in anyway. They're basically mutts bred solely for the purpose of sled racing and they're regularly crossed with Saluki, Border Collie, Greyhound, Anatolian Shepherd Dog, etc.

Edit #2: another interesting thing I came across the other day is our police forces importing GSD/BM crosses for work. The primary breeds are still BM and GSD, why, I don't know. I don't know enough about these breeding programs. Sometimes GSD/Dutchy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,639 Posts
Never.
The process of AKC granting status is longer and more difficult than one might think, and even if it were (thinking you may mean a doodle mix) breeding true is a part of that and they do not.
There is no validity to any efforts- some people HAVE created breeds, for instance, Czechoslovakian Vlcak Dog Breed Information - American Kennel Club but this one has ben under concentrated and very controlled breeding with stud book records, etc since the 50's... that's 70 years... and they are just now entering foundation stock status.
The reality is, people who mix breeds are not good at what they do. They're not scientists, nor sportsmen. They are just making dollars.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
937 Posts
Never.
The process of AKC granting status is longer and more difficult than one might think, and even if it were (thinking you may mean a doodle mix) breeding true is a part of that and they do not.
There is no validity to any efforts- some people HAVE created breeds, for instance, Czechoslovakian Vlcak Dog Breed Information - American Kennel Club but this one has ben under concentrated and very controlled breeding with stud book records, etc since the 50's... that's 70 years... and they are just now entering foundation stock status.
The reality is, people who mix breeds are not good at what they do. They're not scientists, nor sportsmen. They are just making dollars.
I have a question about the FCI, they recognize a lot more breeds than the AKC does. What is the difference between those programs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,639 Posts
No idea...it's not my registry so I have no experience with it (other than doing puppies @ int shows for practice)
 

·
Golden Ret Enthusiast
Joined
·
1,938 Posts
Never... There is no such thing as credibility mixing dogs on purpose. Crossing on purpose is a money grab 99.9% of the time. A mutt is a mutt designer or not. And find some that are doing health clearances on BOTH breeds. Not going to happen.

Even if they do, the dogs they got to mix will have to have come from back yard breeders as no credible, reputable breeder would sell a puppy to someone that planned to mix.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Breeds have been created recently; the Mini American Shepherd comes to mind for me. These dogs definitely became popular just for looks (created for smaller stock according to the official history, I guess like shelties? I've heard skepticism about this among my herder friends, as there isn't really "small stock" in the US unlike in Shetland, but someone else please chime in); people want small Aussies because they're pretty and cute, and they think small dogs need less exercise/are more convenient/meet more rental rules. I'm conflicted about this type of breed; on one hand, dogs are mainly companions nowadays and cuteness + companionship is one big function, but on another, this is encouraging people to just see dogs as accessories. People who want dogs for Instagram should just get a stuffed animal IMO, but I guess it's better to make a reputable source of puppies for them instead of only giving them puppy mills/BYBs.

Another more obscure example is the silken windhound. I think it's mostly because the breeder was already a well-established Borzoi breeder who was getting older and needed a smaller dog. She was transparent about her process though, and now the breed is on its way to becoming established. It was a bit of a **** show because there was controversy in the sighthound world already with supposed long-haired whippets, which were revealed to have been secretly crossbred with shelties. There's also the silken windsprite, which I believe is a different matter; I'd have to ask my sighthound friends for more insight.

I think the Australian Labradoodle is technically a real breed, but since Poodles exist and have perfectly fine temperaments (seriously, the reason people don't want them is just because of misogynistic associations), I don't see why anyone would want one.

The creator of the doodle trend had good intentions since he was trying to create lower-allergen service dogs (my understanding is that the standard poodles he tried had higher rates of washout, but my personal theory is that this is because the flavor of training at the time trended more toward positive punishment, and poodle temperaments trend more sensitive and neurotic than Labs and Goldens), but he's since stated that he regrets his actions.

Sport crosses that come to mind are Border Whippets (fast herders), Whippet Bedlingtons/Border Bedlingtons (flyball), Border Papillons (tiny herders), Alaska Husky (sled racing); I don't think anyone cares to make these "real breeds" (aka recognized by kennel clubs) any time soon, since these breeders and owners are unlikely to be concerned with standards other than performance.

EDIT: I forgot Lab/Golden service dog crosses! The Mira Foundation in Canada breeds Lab/Bernese Mountain Dog crosses for guide work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Not gonna lie. If there was a 40lb version of Kona, that would be wonderful. But, given a choice between a 30lb-to-40lb "something" and Kona-at-65lbs, I'll gladly take Kona-at-65lbs.
OK, I accidentally stumbled upon another of your threads asking about all the hate on "mutts", and it seems like this weight thing is a huge sticking point for you and your current dog.

Link for posterity

You could try for a very small female; they can sometimes hang more around 50lb, or a cocker for your next dog (I realize this is a relatively big size down, but in show lines I believe dogs generally range toward the upper height + weight ranges because they look more impressive in the show ring, so it will be more toward the 35+lb range than the 26-30lb range). If you're open to a different coat type (hear me out), poodles come in a moyen size (Karbit is a US breeder for this, otherwise you may need to try Canada) that ranges between 30-45lb. If you shave a poodle down, they feel like velvet and resemble a generic pointer-type gun dog, and there are poodles working as service dogs and therapy dogs.

People look down on "designer" mutts (I don't think anyone looks down on shelter dogs or purpose-bred crosses) because it encourages people to see dogs as accessories instead of living beings that you must work with and care for. If you're breeding health-tested, temperament-tested crosses for sport, service, or some other not-just-aesthetic purpose, I doubt anyone would look down on that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
The responses are interesting. Especially given that, at some point in time, the golden retriever was also "a mutt". There appears to have been a defined, focused purpose for the breeding program being pursued, but...

Please, don't get me wrong. We're head-over-heels with Kona, and we made a deliberate choice to pursue a pure-bred golden over other options, with eyes-wide-open. We knew about health concerns, and "health" was more of a priority than our other concerns (size, exercise needs, grooming and "maintenance").

With all that, I'm a bit surprised at the vigor with which "never" is being proclaimed. I get some of it (I think). I dislike what I'm going to categorize as "fad breeds", those dogs that are being bred as a fashion accessory, or as some demonstration of "look what I can do!". This disdain extends to those who are pushing this approach. I really love the term "thintelligence" from the Jurassic Park novel, and think it applies all too well.

But, "never" has two major issues (my opinion, likely to be in the minority on this forum 😁, and I'm okay with that).

Issue #1 is that this gives people a ready-made excuse not to even put out any effort. If there is no level-of-effort that will gain approval, however grudging or temporary, then there's zero incentive to give any consideration to making an effort. I get it (again, I think). Most of the people throwing together two different breeds don't really appear to care. For me, it's a somewhat scary proposition. Yes, you could get the-best-of-both-breeds. Or, you could get the-worst-of-both-breeds. In the end, this is one of the considerations that moved us toward the pure-bred golden.

Issue #2 is similar to #1, but has a much narrower focus. What if someone really had a serious objective in mind, a definitive purpose for the breeding program? Essentially, that person needs to be willing to put in a lot of time, heart, and $$$ into their efforts...and be willing to "swim upstream" the whole time. Be willing to be called a hack, a money-grubber, etc.

What if someone (a) had a reasonable objective, (b) was willing to only breed physically and emotionally sound dogs, (c) was not selling their "failed experimental results" as anything but non-breeding pets, priced accordingly, and (d) was willing to pull-the-plug on any line that was not progressing towards the stated objectives of their breeding program? And, was in it for the long haul? Are they also a "never"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
OK, I accidentally stumbled upon another of your threads asking about all the hate on "mutts", and it seems like this weight thing is a huge sticking point for you and your current dog.
Top concerns, for us, with getting a golden retriever were:
  • Were we the right family for a golden retriever?
  • Were we willing to accept some of the health risks (especially cancer and heart), given that we wanted a "companion dog"?
  • Were we ready for a larger dog? More from a space-and-exercise perspective than "pure size".
In the end, all other options just didn't measure up to our desires for a golden.

People look down on "designer" mutts (I don't think anyone looks down on shelter dogs or purpose-bred crosses) because it encourages people to see dogs as accessories instead of living beings that you must work with and care for. If you're breeding health-tested, temperament-tested crosses for sport, service, or some other not-just-aesthetic purpose, I doubt anyone would look down on that.
I may have to plead-the-5th on this one. Since we were, and still are, primarily interested in a companion dog, our concerns (once you get past the health issues) were/are purely aesthetic. A 40lb dog would fit so much better into our lifestyle. Problem is, GRs are not 40lb dogs. Ergo..."Kona"! 😁
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
937 Posts
The responses are interesting. Especially given that, at some point in time, the golden retriever was also "a mutt". There appears to have been a defined, focused purpose for the breeding program being pursued, but...

Please, don't get me wrong. We're head-over-heels with Kona, and we made a deliberate choice to pursue a pure-bred golden over other options, with eyes-wide-open. We knew about health concerns, and "health" was more of a priority than our other concerns (size, exercise needs, grooming and "maintenance").

With all that, I'm a bit surprised at the vigor with which "never" is being proclaimed. I get some of it (I think). I dislike what I'm going to categorize as "fad breeds", those dogs that are being bred as a fashion accessory, or as some demonstration of "look what I can do!". This disdain extends to those who are pushing this approach. I really love the term "thintelligence" from the Jurassic Park novel, and think it applies all too well.

But, "never" has two major issues (my opinion, likely to be in the minority on this forum 😁, and I'm okay with that).

Issue #1 is that this gives people a ready-made excuse not to even put out any effort. If there is no level-of-effort that will gain approval, however grudging or temporary, then there's zero incentive to give any consideration to making an effort. I get it (again, I think). Most of the people throwing together two different breeds don't really appear to care. For me, it's a somewhat scary proposition. Yes, you could get the-best-of-both-breeds. Or, you could get the-worst-of-both-breeds. In the end, this is one of the considerations that moved us toward the pure-bred golden.

Issue #2 is similar to #1, but has a much narrower focus. What if someone really had a serious objective in mind, a definitive purpose for the breeding program? Essentially, that person needs to be willing to put in a lot of time, heart, and $$$ into their efforts...and be willing to "swim upstream" the whole time. Be willing to be called a hack, a money-grubber, etc.

What if someone (a) had a reasonable objective, (b) was willing to only breed physically and emotionally sound dogs, (c) was not selling their "failed experimental results" as anything but non-breeding pets, priced accordingly, and (d) was willing to pull-the-plug on any line that was not progressing towards the stated objectives of their breeding program? And, was in it for the long haul? Are they also a "never"?
Look into the development of the Silken Windhound. AKC won’t recognize, but it was a breed developed with a goal in mind. The first litter was whelped in the 80’s and the breed was only recently recognized in 2010’s by UKC. UCDavis used to keep a database of Silken genetics, I don’t know if they still do.
If there is a goal and a need, people will create a breed. There is just not often enough people to do it. If you had asked here prior to getting Kona, I might have recommended an NSDTR, even if they are more athletic.

On the other hand, there are “breeds” in development...that are not good. Canis panther, the variety of doodles, the Tamaskan (I don’t understand this one much either), and the Mollosso Presa Mayo, which is just a monstrous concept.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
I may have to plead-the-5th on this one. Since we were, and still are, primarily interested in a companion dog, our concerns (once you get past the health issues) were/are purely aesthetic. A 40lb dog would fit so much better into our lifestyle. Problem is, GRs are not 40lb dogs. Ergo..."Kona"! 😁
By aesthetics, I meant “purely for Instagram”. People advertise doodles as somehow not needing grooming yet still not shedding (not possible), being "totally 100% hypoallergenic" (no dog is fully hypoallergenic; allergies are v nuanced, see comment below), without health issues bc “hybrid vigor” (not a thing except with super mixes maybe), naturally not needing training (all dogs need training)... basically, an “accessory” bc they don’t need care or interaction. Just cuddle and photograph! (heavy sarcasm)

Companionship IS a function; lapdogs like CKCS, Pekingese, and Shih-tzus were created just for this. If people health test and are upfront about dogs’ needs, then there’s no problem, and you’d be hard pressed to argue otherwise. A lot of actually getting a new breed recognized is reputation (being already established in the dog world helps as you’ve seen so you’re not just a rando making mutts and asking for admission. It’s an old boys’ club; nothing you say can change that), money, time, and paperwork. Until you’re recognized and widely known/owned, your one random operation breeding health tested mutts isn’t going to get much traction.

I assume this is so important to you because you see it as standing in the way of someone creating your perfect dog? My only advice there is... stop arguing and try to gain entry into the dog world to do it yourself, I guess. You’re never going to convince someone in the dog world to do it for you, or if that is your goal, this isn’t the way to do it. Or just get a big cocker; honestly they check all your boxes. A more obscure rec is the Small Munsterlander.

EDIT: added sarcasm flags in fake doodle ad
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
937 Posts
Interesting! My personal experience is that Toller personalities resemble Aussies more, even though they look like small red retrievers.
I like both! Aussies are a good breed but kind of reactive. I think they are quite similar, with Tollers probably being a little more active. Hard to generalize either breed 😅 I’ve known too many poorly bred aussies
 

·
Golden Ret Enthusiast
Joined
·
1,938 Posts
By aesthetics, I meant “purely for Instagram”. People advertise doodles as not needing grooming, but not shedding, being hypoallergenic, without health issues bc “hybrid vigor”, naturally not needing training... basically, an “accessory” bc they don’t need care or interaction. Just cuddle and photograph!

Companionship IS a function; lapdogs like CKCS, Pekingese, and Shih-tzus were created just for this. If people health test and are upfront about dogs’ needs, then there’s no problem, and you’d be hard pressed to argue otherwise. A lot of actually getting a new breed recognized is reputation (being already established in the dog world helps as you’ve seen so you’re not just a rando making mutts and asking for admission. It’s an old boys’ club; nothing you say can change that), money, time, and paperwork. Until you’re recognized and widely known/owned, your one random operation breeding health tested mutts isn’t going to get much traction.

I assume this is so important to you because you see it as standing in the way of someone creating your perfect dog? My only advice there is... stop arguing and try to gain entry into the dog world to do it yourself, I guess. You’re never going to convince someone in the dog world to do it for you, or if that is your goal, this isn’t the way to do it. Or just get a big cocker; honestly they check all your boxes. A more obscure rec is the Small Munsterlander.
Just so you know, there is no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog. It's a misconception.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Just so you know, there is no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog. It's a misconception.
Yup, my point was that it's all super blown up in the BS doodle advertising. Doodles are less likely to have the low-allergen poodle coat (which yes, poodles still have dander and saliva like all dogs, so it really depends on the severity of a person's allergies; plus allergic reactions can even vary from dog to dog, and you may react to a dog's adult coat but not their puppy coat... it's v nuanced). Anyway I thought my sarcasm was obvious, but I'll edit to add some sarcasm flags.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,762 Posts
The responses are interesting. Especially given that, at some point in time, the golden retriever was also "a mutt". There appears to have been a defined, focused purpose for the breeding program being pursued, but...
Perhaps others more experienced than I will disagree, but I'm not sure this is accurate. The "developer" of the Golden Retriever was never trying to sell what he was producing along the way as a breed (even though, yes, technically what he was producing along the way would fit the dictionary description of a mutt). It wasn't produced by accidental breedings or by chance. He was trying to produce a specific dog, with a specific number of traits and build. It took decades of work and research and data collection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,639 Posts
I'm with you Sweet Girl! Definitely a totally different scenario. Somewhere I posted a good history on it, maybe on the original 'mutt' thread... lots of dogs were disposed of who did not meet the planned future, and records were immaculate and from a position of grasping heritability.
 
1 - 20 of 92 Posts
Top