​​I was dismayed to read a negative comment on both videos. It went a little something like:
 
I came here to see how to train my dog not to chase birds. My dogs go crazy at the sight of birds. All you are doing is showing how good your dogs are. No one cares about that. Waste of time.
 
Always one to take on board {constructive} criticism in an attempt to improve communication, I went back to review the videos. Had I not made it clear that I was actually teaching? Reviewing the videos I realized that to anyone new to dog training or used to added punishment or forceful techniques requiring unpleasant {aversive} stimulation, it did indeed look like I was doing nothing and just showing off how the dogs didn’t chase the birds. The dogs didn’t even seem to want to chase them.
 
This set me to pondering; how I could get the message across that a viewer was actually watching a carefully planned training session? That I was actively involved in changing the behaviour of these two dogs from the moment the video began. Maybe I should have shown a “before” shot of the dogs going crazy and chasing the birds. My train of thought stopped dead in its tracks right there!
 
One of the most important principles when changing behaviour is preventing the undesired behaviour from occurring in the first place. Any behaviour that is practised and reinforced gets stronger. In a practical sense it means if a dog is given the opportunity to continue chasing birds, no matter how infrequently, it will make changing this behaviour a little harder than if it had been consistently prevented. I make a conscious decision to only get “before” footage in any or a combination of the following situations:
 
* It is safe to do so.
* I need a baseline that I have never seen before.
* I need to test a hypothesis of whether intervention will work.
* I am prepared to work a bit harder during training to counter the consequence of this rehearsal of the undesired behaviour.
 
For these two dogs, chasing birds was highly reinforcing. I wanted the best chance of getting good results so I chose not to put them in a situation where chasing would occur. Another consideration I had was that I had worked lovingly and consistently to gain the trust of the Willie Wagtails. I was now able to use them to help me during dog training. Being chased by a crazy dog is very stressful. I did not want to undo the wonderful progress I had made getting them to come to me on cue, nor did I want to cause them any undue stress. Hence – no “before” footage. It also means I'm not prepared to deliberately let each dog fail {chase the birds} by making it unnecessarily challenging early during training in order to demonstrate that they really want to chase! Viewers will just have to picture Zoe, the Cocker Spaniel, launching onto the outdoor table to chase the Willie Wagtails. Likewise, my reports of Scout, the Black Lab puppy, lunging and barking like a banshee after birds will have to suffice.
 
You may be wondering about the title of this blog by now. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with surfing!
 
The training in the videos certainly looks like two dogs who didn’t chase birds in the first place. It was Zoe’s first session and Scout’s second. In terms of effectiveness, no barking and chasing ticks the box. In regard to ethics and humane practice, the lack of physical or psychological intimidation, another tick. This is due to being a teacher who S.U.R.F.S with dogs (and other animals).

From the moment I decided to help the dogs stop chasing birds, I was formulating a plan to give them the best possible chance of succeeding quickly and without frustration. The plan went something like this:

 * Prevent all bird chasing at any time, not just training sessions. Keep dogs inside when Willie Wagtails come to visit. Check for Willies before letting the dogs out the back. Have the dogs on lead when going out the front. Be constantly vigilant, ready to run the dogs inside if I see the Willies before they do.
 
* Choose an alternative behaviour to chasing, lunging and barking at birds. For Scout this was to look at me or look at the birds in place of chasing them. For Zoe it was to stay on a chair. It needs to be easy. Too hard and it makes chasing the birds the chosen option. A behaviour that is already in the dog’s repertoire can make training quicker. Scout was used to looking at me for reinforcement so this was a head start. Zoe chose the chair and was more relaxed there, so I utilized this.
 
* Choose a reinforcer that will be more reinforcing or at least of equal reinforcement value to the birds. This was really interesting and challenging and one of the reasons I made Zoe’s video. Scout would work for dry kibble. Zoe wouldn’t touch roast chicken when birds were around but she would stop everything for a scratch and a silly word! Go figure. It’s the individual who tells you what they find reinforcing at any particular point in time.
 
* Set up the environment {antecedent arrangement} to achieve immediate success. In Zoe’s case, she could resist the birds for longer if she was sitting in a chair. If she was standing, it was a very quick transition to chasing. For Scout, she needed the lead on at first and I needed to stand close to her, even blocking her view as soon as the birds were present and asking for her to look at me. The environment includes the birds: they need to be further away at first. It’s easier {more economical} to get reinforcement from me than run the distance after the birds. Dogs do what works and will choose the easier of two options if the reinforcement value is comparable.
 
* Choose a high rate of reinforcement at first to make it worthwhile to just watch the birds. I’m talking once every three seconds. I’m talking reinforcement for just glancing at the bird for a microsecond. I’m talking, if I see your ear prick up towards the sound of the bird, I’m reinforcing. If I waited too long and was stingy with food or scratches, both dogs might as well try to chase.
 
* Change the environment and increase difficulty of the task when the dogs demonstrate they will succeed. A stationary bird 10m away is easier to resist than a stationary bird right in front of a dog’s nose. A moving bird is often harder to resist chasing than a stationary bird. I stopped using the lead almost immediately with Scout and had it loose just for safety. Eventually I used a 10m lead so she could walk away from me and choose to come back instead of chasing the birds. For Zoe, having her sit on the ground instead of the chair was making it harder for her. Then having her stand would be making it more difficult. Each subject will let you know what they find harder or easier. It is the teacher’s role to tailor the plan to meet the learner’s needs at any particular time.
 
* Keep the rate of reinforcement high when making the task more difficult – or I may lose the dog to the original reinforcer. This doesn’t mean I will always need a high rate of reinforcement. Once I have trained the dog to a high level, the reinforcement can be changed. This may mean I still reinforce continuously but can use lower value reinforcement. For example, I can praise Scout now when she looks at birds and give her a pat and she responds to this. In the early stages of teaching, this would not have been the case.
 
* Maintain the behaviour. Give refresher training sessions. Randomly reinforce excellent behaviour with an unexpected, high value reinforcer. Continue using more natural reinforcers in everyday life e.g. attention, praise, play, physical contact, access to sniffing. This keeps the behaviour going. However, if I consistently ignore the dogs when they look at me or the birds, eventually they may revert to another behaviour that does pay off. Probably barking and chasing again.
 
I’ve resigned myself to the fact that I didn’t make a movie depicting a riveting, edge-of-your-seat, battle of wills fight against two crazy dogs straining to tear after birds. Instead I shared a moment in time of thoughtfully planned training devoid of frustration. No frustration for the trainer, trainee or the feathered helpers. It was also two snapshots that filled me with joy: to have the birds engage without fear and the dogs succeed so quickly.
 
Enough of my musings! Now that I’ve given a backstory to what is going on, what do you see happening in the videos?

I've included a third video showing Scout's progress and how she responds to verbal cues to come away from the birds and shows little interest in them now.

Video links for email subscribers:
​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDwN2ZtgbAY

I'm one of those people who is guilty of taking photos of my dog with a silly hat on. I get great pleasure out of getting a neat shot of Zuri with a hat that corresponds to a special occasion and sharing it. Getting good shots of a dog with a silly hat can be no mean feat. If you approach it the right way, it is amazingly easy and can be enjoyable for both photographer and subject. For me, it must cause no or very minimal signs of stress in Zuri. Here's a sneak peak into how I capture adorable shots of Zuri. She's such a good sport. (Video link for email subscribers)  

I mention the "trust account" that I have with Zuri. Below is a video by Dr Susan Friedman which describes this trust account beautifully. (Video link for email subscribers)

Have you ever wondered what home training looks like?  I mean, in the real world, with real people and real dogs with everyday annoying problems? Not highly edited and contrived versions?

The stuff that sells dog training on TV is amazing for entertainment value. The cases usually look severe and are talked up to a point that a resolution seems impossible. Yet, in a few minutes, miracles occur. I’m not big on miracles in dog training. Especially not when the motive is for entertainment value. Definitely not when the dog suffers physical or psychological harm in order to suppress the behaviour whilst making a trainer look like Jesus. I’m not a fan of instant behaviour change that could have been modified using less harmful (but less flashy and TV worthy) methods. Behaviour that is suppressed whilst the consultant is present but returns or worsens later because the methods are too dangerous or distressing for guardians to continue on their own are not helpful.

A lot of problems that everyday people have with their everyday dogs may not involve drastic, dangerous behaviour. However, the impact of these problems on daily life are not trivial. Problems can involve some very annoying things, like barking. This is a behaviour which doesn’t physically injure anyone, yet it can be an exasperating and persistent frustration driving a wedge between a guardian and their relationship with their dog, not to mention friends and neighbours. Dogs get relinquished or euthanized for excessive barking. It’s a tiresome habit that can make enjoyable events, like having visitors, extremely stressful. It’s often a practice that a guardian can be at a loss to remedy by themselves but for which a Google search provides all the answers; yet none seem to work when put into practice.

Did I say I don’t believe in miracles in dog training? I don’t believe that a behaviour that has been strongly practised for months or years is suddenly “cured” in one 30 minute TV episode. Or one YouTube video – yet I personally do enjoy contributing to YouTube. I do, however, believe that amazing transformations can occur at breakneck speed.  You just need to know what you are doing. Nothing beats throwing out the one-size-fits-all recipe book on changing behaviour (especially the TV and internet recipes books) and utilizing individual assessment of the subject and the environment where the problem occurs. Trust me on this. I also think the changes made using humane techniques that honour the dog as a sentient being and a member of the family are amazing and can also be entertaining. I retain a sense of wonder when a dog responds to something very subtle I have done with my body language, my timing, or my consistency. How awesome to achieve success without the need to manhandle a dog into position or continually correct verbally or physically. I love the part of my job that is hands-off the dog. Hands-off except for the belly rubs and scratches, to those dogs who enjoy it of course.

Here’s an example of what faster-than-a-speeding-bullet training can look like. It’s done in real time with very little editing. This example is specific to Humphrey and is not a “how-to” example to cure barking for all dogs. It’s a “how it was done specifically for Humphrey” example. First, Humprey’s behaviour was assessed by asking lots of questions about the problem and getting as much history as possible. Then the behaviour was observed, including a functional analysis or test of the behaviour. The purpose of this test was to confirm what the behaviour looked like, what triggered it and what might help resolve it. The plan is then demonstrated to the guardian to continue. This is really important. It has to be reproducible by the guardian, not just the consultant, since it’s the guardian who will be continuing the training.  If followed, this plan will work to decrease and ideally stop this behaviour. At this stage, after only one session of teaching, Humprey’s barking isn’t “fixed”. However, he has shown he has the potential to learn very quickly if taught consistently and is prevented from practising the behaviour in between training session.

OK, so maybe not a blockbuster movie full of suspense and drama but I’m sure in Humphrey’s world it has made an impact.

Email subscribers can click here to see the video example. 

Buffy, the maltese x shih tzu had come to stay for some board’n’train time. Buffy is cute as a button, affectionate, fun, playful and a quick learner. Zuri, my Rhodesian Ridgeback, and Buffy are truly the odd couple. They get on well and play beautifully. 

Yet on day one of Buffy’s stay, I was about ready to tear my hair out in frustration. What was Buffy doing that was driving me nuts?

Barking.

Shrill, incessant barking at every noise she heard inside and out. Barking when someone walked down the street. Barking when someone came to the door. Barking when they walked in the door. Barking when a visitor moved. Barking at the dog behind the fence. Barking at something hanging on the line. Barking at stuff I couldn’t see or hear. I swear even Zuri had no idea what Buffy was barking at some of the time.

By the end of the day I had a headache and was screaming silently in my head, “Shut the @#*%  up!”

What a terrible dog trainer.

Or maybe not.  Maybe just human. We all have good days and bad days. So do dogs. I took a headache pill, shut the front door, gave Buffy a treat dispensing toy and played with her to help her acclimatize to her new surroundings. I got through the day and decided to make a plan to help Buffy reduce her barking when I was refreshed and headache-free the next morning. 

Admittedly, Buffy has a history of barking and practice does make perfect – especially with dog behaviour.  Even so, Buffy was barking more than normal. I put this down to being in a new environment and missing her mum to whom she is very attached. She was more sensitive to noises, movement and new objects than usual. Understanding this made coping with it that first day a little more bearable. Just a little.

A combination of devising a plan to teach Buffy an alternative to barking, providing stimulation with treat dispensing toys, other toys, play time and a little time to get used to a new environment quickly decreased the frequency and intensity of barking immensely.

I didn’t intend to give a tutorial on how to stop dogs barking. I wanted to impress that it’s O.K. to get annoyed with your dog. Our dogs are not perfect. They're dogs. We are not perfect. We're human. When annoyance strikes, take a step back, count to ten, breathe deeply or do whatever you need to avoid taking the annoyance out on your dog. Do whatever humanely helps reduce the annoyance (or impact of the annoyance) at the time and revisit the dilemma when you can think clearly. Then problem solving can begin and it can be fun, rather than frustrating.

The day after my melt down; here’s a video account of what Buffy and I (with a little help from Zuri) achieved.
(Email subscribers click here for video link)

In previous blogs I’ve talked about designer dog names and marketing, given examples of how branding increased demand for unwanted dogs and described where dogs come from. In this final blog I discuss my view of mass producing and marketing dogs for profit.

Call it like it is.

Ever wondered why commercial puppy breeding businesses have attracted the name puppy farms, mills and factories? That's how they are run: mass produced with efficiency.  

Efficiency means achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.

• Efficient use of space (smallest, easily maintained spaces for maximum production),
• Efficient use of staff (least number and wages for maximum output e.g 5 full time staff, 5 casual staff for 1500 puppies a year, 300 breeding bitches and 50 breeding dogs),
• Mass quantities produced,
• Fast and high turnover.

A large range of product choice (different types of dog) is also desirable. It is no coincidence that the majority of "designer dogs" are mixes of the smaller breeds. They take up less room. They remain cuter for longer. Cute sells. They have an increased shelf-life as puppies than the larger breeds and will be saleable on display in the pet shop for longer.

Businesses need to make a profit and keep expenses down. The following practices are often not adopted as they do not reduce costs:

• Vet checks, medical care and genetic checks of parents.
• Resting a bitch and not breeding her each time she is in season.
• Keeping puppies for 8 - 10 weeks to avoid problems later in life in preference to moving them on at 4 - 6 weeks.
• Socializing, training and housing puppies in a home environment.
• Housing adult breeding parents in a home environment.

Efficient does not mean ethical.

Many puppy farms are registered and provide the minimum legal requirements. These minimum requirements may not meet the dogs' health, social and psychological needs. Many puppy farms advertise their produce as being "ethically bred". What they mean by this is rarely explained and how they actually breed is far from ethical.

The factory/mill/farm is a primary producer and seldom sells direct to the consumer as this is not cost effective. The other pressing reason is that if the consumer saw how the puppies were produced, they wouldn't be so keen to buy. 

The product is contracted out or sold in bulk to a secondary producer. 

Are yah hearing me?

The dog has become a mass produced commodity at the expense of the dog and the consumer.

Not convinced there's money in mass producing dogs?

The prices of dogs from a large Australian on-line store which only advertises Designer Dogs is from $1295.00 to $1895.00.  Using the average price of $1595.00 and 1500 puppies per year (figures supplied by puppy farm supplier), the on-line store would turn over almost $2.5 million. That’s just selling the produce from one puppy farm. It's a small business (defined by the small number of employees) with a good turnover.

How is the consumer exploited?

A beagle cross can be adopted from a refuge for an adoption fee. This is set to cover the cost of vet care, desexing, housing and feeding until a home is found.  This doesn't really cover costs and the refuge relies further on donations, fund raising, volunteers and government grants.

Change the name to "Beagalier" and you can ask an extra $1000 or more (on-line retail price $1495). Shipping is usually extra. You have just marketed a cross breed for a pedigree price! Actually, that's even more than many pedigrees.

A labrador cross isn't as fetching as the sound of a "Cavador" (Labrador crossed with a King Charles Cavalier Spaniel).  Would one be willing to pay an estimated retail price of $1895 for a labrador cross? 

In conclusion.

With so many existing dogs (both cross breeds and pedigree) waiting for forever homes, and so many others euthanized, this is my opinion;

I find it amoral to mass produce dogs, develop catchy "designer" names in order to increase consumer demand and price and then transport them nationwide for sale.

I used amoral instead of immoral deliberately.

Amoral definition:

"Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something."

I'll reiterate here that abiding by minimum requirements to keep an animal alive and breeding is not the same as providing an environment that causes no harm. Nor does it necessarily provide an environment where a dog can flourish. The law should not be confused with ethics.

I hope this blog series has educated and raised concern about where our puppies come from and the ethical issues that surround their production and sale. I encourage you to look a little deeper and do your own research when the time comes to select a new furry, family member. The action of every individual has the power to influence the conditions in which dogs are bred. Consumer demand drives the wheels of supply. If consumers demand humane practices or walk away, puppy suppliers will need to comply to keep in business.

Video on how Designer Dogs are farmed ABC 7.30 Report on Designer Dogs (Youtube)

Transcript and original video (on right) of the ABC 7.30 Report on Designer Dogs

Where puppies come from - Animals Australia

RSPCA on puppy farms

The maker of the Labradoodle regrets his creation

The links I provide contain valuable information but do not imply that I agree with all content in its entirety.

Part One of this blog series looked at the clever marketing strategy behind naming dogs. Part Two gave two powerful examples of how marketing increased demand for dogs. In Part Three I discuss where dogs come from and why it matters. You may be unpleasantly surprised.

The low down on dog breeders.

1. Registered breeders who care about their dogs concentrate and specialize in one, two or maybe three breeds. They often show their dogs or have a keen interest in performance breeds (agility, obedience, herding, hunting, tracking, guide dogs, assistance dogs, search and rescue etc). It's often a passionate hobby verging on a lifestyle.

2. Backyard breeder is a term used for breeders who are not registered with a club or council. Backyard breeder litters are often the result of accidental breeding of intact family pets. They may also be planned for various reasons, such as to let the children see the miracle of birth before spaying or for profit. 

3. Puppy farms, factories or mills is a term used for commercial breeders who breed dogs in large numbers, usually numerous breeds and often designer breeds. They are often registered breeders with the council. They may, however, be "underground", unregistered breeders which mean their location and name is not easily traced. Sadly, it can literally be underground. They do not usually sell direct to the public but employ contractors to sell the puppies. The contractors used include pet shops, on-line pet sales and individuals. It will seldom be divulged where the puppies come from. Puppies are often described as being from "local breeders" but no contact details are ever provided. The puppies may be represented as being bred in a home environment but there will always be a reason you cannot view the parents or see where they came from e.g. the parent animals are with the in-laws who couldn't cope with the litter, or they're selling the puppy for a friend who had an emergency, or who lives in the country, or who doesn't have a computer to respond to emails.

One example of how puppies are sourced for resale is below. A simple advert on-line.

So, why does it matter where dogs come from?

A quick word on ethics.

Paul and Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behaviour helps or harms sentient creatures".

Breeders may follow the minimum requirements of the law governing provision of food, shelter and exercise. The minimum requirements are exactly that - the bare minimum to keep a dog alive and breeding. This is where ethics differs from legal requirements. Ethics includes a moral obligation to provide the best possible environment and care for a sentient being.

Ethical breeders plan litters and are more interested in their dogs' health, function, structure and temperament than money. They study lineage, know the breed strengths and challenges intimately and get vet checks of parents for genetic disorders.  They won’t breed a dog who may pass on genetic health conditions to offspring. They don't over breed a bitch or breed her too young. The parent animals are living with them in a home environment. They keep puppies for at least 8 weeks to avoid health and behavioural problems later in life. They attend to all vet care. They sell the puppies themselves.

Great breeders bring up the puppies in their home, socialize and train them before you buy. They will be proud to have you see the parents and breeding environment, since they have invested a lot of effort and love in the breeding process.

Exceptional breeders ask YOU lots of questions before allowing you to take one of their precious cargo home. They are eager to keep in touch and enjoy updates. They may offer contracts, often with a clause that they will take back their puppies rather than have them resold or given up. At the expense of losing a "sale", they may suggest that their particular breed is not the best match for the lifestyle you have described.

Knowing where dogs come from means you can make a difference.

An understanding of where a puppy originates and the choice not to purchase that puppy may help prevent parent dogs from being used as breeding machines. Buying a cute puppy to save it from the pet shop cage or nasty, flea-ridden backyard may save that individual puppy. It doesn’t save future puppies from the same conditions. It doesn’t save the parent from subsequent breeding cycles in those conditions. It actually condemns a bitch to more breeding to meet the demand.

Knowledge of ethical breeding procedures also protects the consumer from buying a puppy with future health or behavioural problems that result from poor breeding and selling practices. A bit of research will also be some defence against being misled by false breed claims e.g. hypoallergenic.

Another way to help reduce unethical breeding practices is to consider adoption from a rescue or refuge.  If this is not an option, do some homework and ask lots of questions of the breeder or contractor. If there is transparency and honesty, you will find it easy to obtain answers. If getting questions answered is like pulling teeth, consider it a red flag.

In the fourth and final blog in this series I discuss how big the business of designer dogs has become and why it concerns me with such passion.

Some useful links for those looking for a dog or puppy:

RSPCA Smart Puppy and Dog Buyer's Guide On-line

Smart Puppy Buyer's Guide PDF

Infographic on how to thoughtfully choose a dog

RSPCA Policy on Pet Shops

Dogs’ Refuge Home

Staffy and Bully Breed Rescue (Facebook)

NB The links I provide contain valuable information but do not imply that I agree with the content in its entirety.

In Part One of this series I talked about "designer dogs" and the reason for giving them fancy names. Now I'll give two powerful examples of how changing a name increased consumer demand dramatically.

Not convinced there's power in a name?

Example One

Wally Conron, puppy-breeding manager of the Royal Guide Dog Association of Australia in the 1980's, describes why he renamed his poodle x labrador puppies. No one was interested in them until: 

"By eight weeks of age, the puppies still hadn't found homes. Frustrated and annoyed with the response to the trio of cross-breeds I had carefully reared, I decided to stop mentioning the word cross-breed and introduced the term labradoodle instead to describe my new allergy-free guide-dog pups.

It worked – during the weeks that followed, our switchboard was inundated with calls from other guide-dog centres, vision-impaired people and people allergic to dog hair who wanted to know more about this “wonder dog”. My three pups may have been mongrels at heart – but the furore did not abate." (1)

You brand your product. It sells.

Wally Conron also mentioned his concerns after coining the name "Labradoodle":

"I quickly realised that I’d opened a Pandora’s box when our next litter of ten labradoodles produced only three allergy-free pups. 

I began to worry, too, about backyard breeders producing supposedly "allergy-free" dogs for profit. Already, one man claimed to be the first to breed a poodle- Rottweiler cross! 

Nothing, however, could stop the mania that followed. New breeds began to flood the market: groodles, spoodles, caboodles and snoodles. Were breeders bothering to check their sires and bitches for heredity faults, or were they simply caught up in delivering to hungry customers the next status symbol? We’ll never know for sure.

Today I am internationally credited as the first person to breed the labradoodle, but I wonder, in my retirement, whether we bred a designer dog – or a disaster!"  (1)

Example Two

One rescue centre's adoption campaign used the very principle that a name sells to increase adoptions of abandoned dogs. They gave designer names to the dogs. No two names were the same, each dog was a unique “design” just waiting for a forever home. They had a subsequent increase in adoptions.  It was a win-win-win situation for all involved;

1. the adoption centre saved a dog, received income and more space to save more dogs,
2. the dog got a new forever home, and
3. the adopter got a new family member at a reasonable price.

Now that’s where I applaud clever marketing.

In Part Three of this designer dog series I'll talk about where our dogs actually come from. It may shock you.

Hear Wally Conron interviewed here.

See Wally Conron interviewed on the Project (from 19.00 - 22.35) - I had to post the whole video.

(1) Read Wally Conron's labradoodle story here.

NB The links I provide contain valuable information but do not imply that I agree with all content in its entirety.

The purpose of this blog series is to raise awareness of where our puppies may be coming from and the ethical issues that surround their production and sale. I hope it encourages you to look a little deeper and do your own research when the time comes to select a new furry, family member.

Part One looks at the insidious reason behind the oodles of new dog names (pun intended).

Dogs are big business.

Look at the list below of some purported breeds provided by a single puppy supplier. I use “purported” because the designer names used are not actually recognized breeds.

Beagalier  (Beagle cross Cavalier)
Cavocker (Cavalier cross Cocker Spaniel)
Cavador  (Cavalier cross Labrador)
Cavoodle  (Cavalier cross Poodle)
Groodle  (Golden Retriever cross Poodle)
Jug  (Pug cross Jack Russell)
Maltalier  (Maltese cross Cavalier)
Maltese Shih Tzu  (No designer name was given for this cross. What? Malty Shit not suitable?)
Mini Groodle  (Golden Retriever cross Miniature Poodle)
Moodle  (Maltese cross Poodle)
Pugalier  (Pug cross Cavalier)
Puggle  (Pug cross Beagle)
Schnoodle  (Schnauzer cross Poodle)
Spoodle  (Cocker cross Poodle)

So what's my point?

The list above is what has become known as "designer dogs".  It's a relatively new term coined in the late 20th century. These are actually cross breeds with a fancy, schmancy made-up name. There’s nothing wrong with cross breeds. Cross breeds abso-jolly-lutely rock! Pedigree dogs originally come from cross breeding. There’s nothing wrong with “designer dogs” per se. I even think fancy, schmancy names are quite humorous. What’s wrong is the impression the “designer dog” label gives implying that one may be getting a specially designed and recognized breed and the calculated reason behind doing this. 

“So, what’s the reason?” I hear you ask.

A consumer is charged a lot more for the privilege of purchase simply due to the Ritzy name.

Even pedigree dogs have become targets for "designer" names. Have you heard of "Teacup" dogs and puppies? It's another very clever designer label used to describe a smaller than usual dog from a miniature breed e.g. chihuahua, pomeranian. Cute sells. Nothing much cuter than a palm-sized puppy with an appealing name who stays puppy-sized forever. Be warned: small in size does not mean small in maintenance. These little fellows can be high maintenance. Read more about "Teacup" chihuahuas from a breeder.   Here's more advice from a trainer on choosing a breeder if the "Teacup" marketing has been successful!

Some buyers believe the designer name means it's an actual pedigree breed. It's kind of like designer clothes; say, Dolce and Gabbanna versus Target. Which would you expect to pay more for? Now what if you buy a Bali rip off with the Dolce and Gabbanna tag?  Not the real thing, but hey, no one can tell. It's all in the name.  Designer dogs are like the Bali rip off - except the price hasn't been dropped! It's been increased. Not a pedigree breed but the name implies some sort of special breed worth more than a cross breed.

That analogy in NO WAY implies that pedigree dogs are inherently better or should be valued any more than cross breeds. There's no dog snobbery involved. This is about what we are doing to dogs, including the manner in which we are breeding and selling them. After all, how many of us have wondered why on earth label clothes are so expensive when you can't even tell the difference with the copied version? They often come from the same sweat shops as the budget brands. Unfortunately, the sweat shop analogy can also be used to describe the process used to produce many "designer dogs". The designer label analogy is given to show the power of branding and labelling over how one perceives value and therefore what one might be prepared to pay for something.

This is what businesses do.  They market commodities.  They use branding as a tool to do this.  Dogs have become a commodity.

In the next blog, I’ll give two powerful examples of how consumers were not remotely interested in cross-breed dogs - until those same dogs were given designer names.

NB  The links I provide contain valuable information but do not imply that I agree with any content in its entirety.