Talk:Labradoodle

Proper Treatment and Care

i recently purchased a labradoodle which has proved to be rewarding in many ways. she is smart, quickly trained, and affectionate. the problem i am having is with groomers who want to make her look like a poodle. we love her long full hair. groomers tell us horror stories about how she will go blind, people only let their hair grow for "shows", and two different groomers have wanted to cut hair around her eyes which completely alters her look. we want a labradoodle, not a poodle. i wish there was more info about this on the internet. we don't want our dog to be blind. but we want her to look like a labradoodle.

Then find another groomer.

ask for them to cut her like a portuguese water dog

Breeders or Puppy Mills?

Someone should address claims that the larger Australian labradoodle breeders are nothing more than puppy mills.

I would like to know more about this too. Most people are very fond of my labradoodle except my mother, who showed sight hounds for 15+ years. The arguments I've participated in and heard from others are that labradoodles are generally less a nuisance to people with severe allergies, but that they are also supporting puppy mills. The article on Puppy mills gives some information, but it does not directly address labradoodles. I also suggest that this topic might or might not be more suited on the actual Puppy mills article, but I think it depends on how abstract or general any of such information is. --Trakon 23:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"I disagree with the author below who states that, "Anyone who breeds designer dogs is breeding soley (sic) for money, as these dogs serve no other purpose".

Any popular breed will have a full spectrum of breeders, from the responsible and ethical, through the uninformed or careless, right down to outright puppy mills. However, there are also many principled and reputable breeders of so-called "designer dogs". A lot of crossbred breeders started off as purebred breeders, but became disillusioned with the increasing incidence of health problems in their chosen breeds, and the inability and/or reluctance of the registry bodies to take effective action. All the research that has been done shows that crossbreds are generally healthier and live longer than purebreds.

In addition, many of the pure breeds around today started off as working dogs, and the very characteristics that make them such wonderful herding, guarding or fighting dogs make them completely unsuited to the life that most dogs now lead, in suburban homes and yards. It's life to which Labradoodles, Cockapoos and many other crossbreds are ideally suited, and I believe there can be no more legitimate purpose that producing healthy, happy family pets."124.189.32.5 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who breeds designer dogs is breeding soley for money, as these dogs serve no other purpose. Many do indeed border on BYBS and Puppy Mills. But more specific info would be needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiotMonday (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent from the tone of the information on this page that the writers are supportive of the "Australian" claim to labradoodles. What is missing is any discussion of the fact that the entire attempt to create an "Australian" labradoodle is in response to the increase in the number of American breeders in recent years. The first Australian breeders have attempted to take claim to the breed and are now attempting to create something entirely other than a simple labrador retreiver/poodle mix to maintain their place in the breeding market. There is no reference at all to the American Labradoodle Association in the information or anything that relates to their prespective; which is to breed companion dogs with the best of the lab and poodle characteristics. A "pure" breed consistency for show purposes is not an objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.81.11 (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions About Breeders

I'd like to know more about the battles between different multigen breeders. Is it all based on $ or is there some true merit to both sides?

"While the author below is largely correct, I feel it should be noted that all the research that has been done shows that crossbreds are generally healthier and live longer than purebreds.

Inherited problems are most often caused by recessive genes. This means that both parents need to carry the problem gene for the offspring to have any chance of being effected. Consequently, hybrids cannot suffer from a hereditary problem, unless both the parent breeds are effected by the same disease, the same gene pairings are causative in both instances, and the individual dogs in question are also carriers. Even under those circumstances, there is a far greater chance of them being unaffected than not, and testing the parent dogs increases the odds even further.

Thus while puppy mills do indeed produce largely first cross dogs, there are also many responsible and ethical breeders who breed them. These breeders believe that the significant health benefits of crossbreeding far outweigh the production of predictable characteristics, such as a consistently non-shedding coat."124.189.32.5 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to explain. Multigen breeders breed a Labradoodle to a Labradoodle with a specific goal or standard in mind to achieve in the resultant litter of puppies. Just throwing a Labrador and a Poodle together really doesn't achieve much - every puppy in a mixed litter could be different, and there's no guarantee that any of them aren't going to shed. If you are truly trying to produce puppies that don't "blow coat" or shed the way a Labrador does, you'll have to breed Labradoodle to Labradoodle in order to ensure that. I work in a store that unfortunately sells puppies, and of course Labradoodles are hot sellers right now, so the puppy millers are all about it. But all the dogs from the puppy mills are first generation crosses. For a so-called "shedless" dog, there's a really thick coating of hair all over their kennel trays every morning, let me tell you. Most of the ones I have seen come through the store shed worse than purebred Labradors, and they're not even six months old yet. Also, the idea the mixes or crosses are more healthy than purebreds is a myth. They're not. If you breed a Lab with bad hips to a Poodle with bad hips, guess what - you're still going to have puppies with bad hips, regardless of the fact that they're mixes. Crossing dogs does not erase genetically inherited defects. We have a "Yo-Chon" at the store right now - a mix between a Yorkshire Terrier and a Bichon. Why was this dog crossed? To avoid the skin problems and allergies that Bichons, as pure white dogs, are prone to, supposedly. This dog has a hernia, cherry eye (prolapsed third eyelid) at the ripe old age of 2 and a half months, entropion, and luxating patellas (floating kneecaps). At least the entropion and the luxating patellas are genetically inherited disorders. The cherry eye is a result of the entropion. Essentially it all comes right back to responsible and knowledgable breeders no matter what kind of dog you are discussing. Some people will say Multi-gen breeders are making the gene pool smaller, but as of right now, as far as I know, Labradoodles are not registered mixes. They have a lot of time before they ever are. Every dog breed known to man right now had a lot of different dogs in it's history, and most of those weren't even breeds, just cur dogs that happened to have traits that someone found desirable. It's when they become a registered "breed" that the gene pool will effectively be closed, and everyone should just stop yapping about multigen or not, because irresponsible breeding produces bad dogs no matter how you do it or what breeds you use. Codababy 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture of 'Top Gear Dog'

Please stop adding Image:Topgeardog.JPG back into the Labradoodle article. There is no fair use rationale noted on the image page allowing it to be used in the Labradoodle article. It's unlikely that picture would ever meet the fair use criteria to be included in the Labradoodle article, as other free images of Labradoodles are available. DrFrench 08:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Does anyone think this article needs protection? Every time I come back someone has put "Many bad breeders sell puppies with lies of allergy awareness. Go here to stop it" advertising some Labradoodle rescue site. Wolfie the Marshmallow 15:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The self-promotion on this page is out of hand. --Endlessdan 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

One person putting something in is not a valid reason for protection. I've noticed it seems nobody's bothered to even ask the person who is doing it to stop. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 22:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a great improvement on "Labradoodles were first introduced to provide a guide dog for the blind that didn't shed, and hence would be suitable for people with allergies to fur and dander." Far too many do shed and most sold are not low shedding multigens, I dont mind how it is phrased so long as it does not encourage people with allergies to buy an F1 labradoodle puppy because wiki says they dont shed.C

I see the misinformation is back!, this page does need protecting, we should agree wording that reflects the differences between the vast majority of shedding low generation labradoodles that are sold and the minority high priced genuine Australian multigens. Can we not collaborate on this? C

Removed from actual page

There does seem to be an error on this page. A Labradoodle is a mix of Lab and a Standard Poodle. Miniture Poodles and Labs are known as Minature Doodles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.93.231 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct date?

Near the beginning of the article it says that the first labradoodle was bred in 1989, but later in the document it says that the first owner was in 1950s. This should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.91.52 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a standard breed?

There is nothing on the page stating that the Labradoodle is not an AKA or international standard breed. Of course there is nothing preventing anyone from "inventing" a breed, but I doubt Wikipedia would want to sanction it. If we are listing the product of some creative hybridizing, it seems only fair that "non standard breed" should be up front. I think the listing of celebrities is a device to gain popular acceptance, and at the very least should be made into a paragraph, rather than a series of bullet endorsements.--Josephbyrd (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The very first thing the article says is "crossbreed or hybrid". In what way does this not rule out "standard breed"? Just because it has a certain name does not mean that the name represents a breed. Ever see a standard Mutt®? --99.163.50.12 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG! They are so cute, though! Even if they aren't a standard breed! But u r rite: someone should put that on there! Well, I'm new here, so I'm not the one to do it!! :)Sorry!--WikiN97 21:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Source for Derrick Pope

Can someone find a source for this:

NFL Miami Dolphin Derrick Pope and his wife Denise own a parti-coloured Labradoodle.

Owners section should be referenced. --Endless Dan 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, owners should be omitted, except perhaps in a few truly exceptional cases. Wikipedia cannot be a cross-reference to every object that every notable has ever owned.

Apart from the impractical and unencyclopedic aspect of naming owners for products, it's an open invitation for promotion along the lines of "So-and-so owns an XYZ, so it must be good." The implication, even with a citation is contrary to Wiki guidelines. For example, that somebody owned something hardly means that they liked it. To avoid bias the article would have to read "So-and-so owned an XYZ, but hated it, and returned it after two weeks." Without that such statements articles would just wind up being bald, bias, unfounded support for a product. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Owners

This owners section is ridiculous. From the uninformative list of celebrities to the embarrassing inclusion of the names of their pets. This is fanboy garbage and should be deleted.119.201.175.35 (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Does seem a bit daft. For starters, including people who aren't notable enough for a Wikipedia article of their own is a joke. I've removed all such entries - whether they are real and referenced but obscure (writing a book doesn't make you notable), or made up. Halsteadk (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Statement in Article

The article talks about Labradoodles "finding pleasure in learning." I have trouble understanding how anyone can know that a dog finds pleasure in something, since dogs can't tell us about it. The statement is not referenced so there's no visible scholarly source for it. I don't have the expertise to look into this issue, so maybe someone who does can do so. 67.71.2.203 (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)