Canine Training and Activity Center Christi McKeen

03/21/2026

Excellent analysis. Also great points made when evaluating a study/results of a study.

You’ve might have seen today’s headline: “Crossbreed dogs show more behavioural problems than pure breeds, study suggests.” It’s already flying around social media and I can practically hear the “told you so” crowd warming up.

I read the actual study this morning. The headline findings didn’t sit right with me. Something didn’t add up.

So I decided to pore over it properly - the methods, the variables, the statistical models, the references. And the more I read, the more problems I found.

Honestly, I really wanted this study to be good. Everyone who works with dogs knows that online groups and forums are full of people struggling with their cockapoos.

But then, every daycare, every dog walker, every dog-friendly pub in the UK is also full of cockapoos. Because they’re incredibly popular.

The question has always been, are these dogs genuinely more problematic, or are we just seeing more of them everywhere, including in the “problem” pile? That’s a popularity versus prevalence question, and it’s a really important one.

So when I saw a study that appeared to be trying to separate those two things out, I was genuinely hopeful. Finally, some proper data.

It didn’t deliver.

Let me tell you why I’m someone who would notice that.

I’ve spent over 15 years as a specialist in canine separation anxiety. I’ve seen tens of thousands of dogs in my community. And a huge number of those have been cockapoos, cavapoos, and labradoodles.

The question of whether these dogs have more behavioural problems than purebreds comes up constantly in my work. It’s a question I’ve been actively interested in for years. I’ve read the research on this topic extensively.

I shared my life for 15 years with two amazing cockapoos.

So I have both the professional and personal interest to take this study seriously.

And I did take it seriously. Which is exactly why I have problems with it.

To be fair, there are things to credit here. This is a large study - over 9,000 dogs- and they used a validated, standardised behaviour questionnaire called the C-BARQ.

They collected a lot of useful data on training methods, owner demographics, and breeding background. The ambition is genuinely welcome. We need more research like this, we really do.

And here's what they concluded. (Cross breed dog parents brace yourselves...)

They found that cockapoos and cavapoos scored worse on several behaviour measures - things like excitability, fear, separation-related problems, and aggression.

Labradoodles were more of a mixed bag, actually scoring better than poodles on several measures.

Sounds straightforward, right? Crossbreeds behave worse. Case closed.

Except it’s not. Because here’s what the study didn’t do, and this is where it falls apart.

**They ignored what happens when a breed gets popular. And it’s the key to this whole study.**

This is a big one. Every dog in this study was acquired from 2019 onwards. That means the entire crossbreed sample was purchased during or after the COVID puppy boom.

This is the exact the period when demand for cockapoos, cavapoos, and labradoodles massively outstripped the supply of responsibly bred puppies.

We all know what happens when a breed explodes in popularity. You get a flood of inexperienced, profit-driven breeders producing puppies with no screening for temperament, no health testing, no proper early socialisation, and no support for buyers.

The market gets swamped with dogs from backyard breeders and puppy farms. This isn’t speculation...it’s exactly what happened with these crossbreeds during COVID.

And here’s why that matters so much. Those of us who work in dog behaviour have long known that where a dog comes from matters enormously.

We have solid research on this such as McMillan’s work on pet store dogs, Wauthier and Williams on puppy farming, among other.

And this solid research shows that dogs from poor welfare breeding operations (puppy farming, backyard breeders and overseas puppy mills) show significantly higher rates of aggression, fear, and separation problems.

This is one of the most well-established findings in canine behavioural research.

So did the researchers measure breeding quality properly? No. They used one question. A single yes-or-no: “Did you see the puppy’s mother when you collected it?”

That’s it.

Anyone who works in dog welfare knows that “meet the mum” stopped being a reliable indicator of a good breeder years ago.

Every puppy farmer and backyard breeder everywhere now knows to have a mother dog on site. It’s the first thing they learned to fake.

Using this as your measure of breeding quality in 2026 is like using “do they have a website?” to identify a legitimate business.

And if you’re reading this thinking “oh no, did I buy from one of these places?” — please don’t beat yourself up.

The reality is that unscrupulous breeders have become incredibly sophisticated. They have beautiful websites, lovely photos, convincing stories, clean-looking homes.

They have learned exactly what to say and show to make you feel confident you’re buying from a good breeder.

They are deliberately designed to be hard to spot. Plenty of experienced dog people have been caught out too.

This isn’t about blaming owners - it’s about an industry that has become expert at deception.

The study collected no data on where the dog was actually purchased, whether it was from a Kennel Club registered breeder, a breed club referral, a Pets4Homes ad, or a Facebook marketplace listing.

No data on whether health tests were done on the parents. No data on whether there was a waiting list. No data on the breeder’s experience. No data on early socialisation. Nothing.

They also included no comparison with other breeds that went through the same popularity explosion.

French bulldogs, for example, experienced an almost identical demand surge, breeding quality collapse, and first-time-owner demographic shift during the same period.

(Side note: my own client list and Facebook group are also full of French bulldogs and dachshunds — other breeds that have surged in popularity. Funny, that.)

If they’d included French bulldogs and found the same elevated behaviour scores, that would have told us the story is about popularity-driven breeding issues, not about crossbreeding.

But they didn’t. Which means they literally cannot tell the difference between “crossbreeds have worse behaviour” and “dogs from the unregulated puppy market have worse behaviour.”

And that’s just the biggest problem. There are more.

1. They didn’t adequately account for owner experience.

The study found that 50% of crossbreed owners were first-time dog owners, compared to 34% of purebred owners. That’s an enormous difference.

First-time owners are consistently shown in research to report more behavioural problems. Partly because they may genuinely struggle more with training, but also because they’re more likely to interpret normal dog behaviour as problematic.

I know this from personal experience. The only reason I recognised that my cockapoo Percy’s separation anxiety wasn’t normal was because I’d already lived through a very different experience with my first dog, India. I had a benchmark.

If Percy had been my first dog, I might not have spotted it — or I might have assumed all dogs were like that. Most first-time cockapoo owners don’t have that comparison point, and nobody should expect them to.

A cockapoo doing zoomies when the lead comes out is not a behavioural problem. It’s a normal dog being excited about a walk.

But if you were told to expect a calm, easy, low-maintenance companion - because that’s what the breeder's photos on IG suggested -- you might well score that as “high excitability” on a questionnaire.

That’s not an owner failing. That’s an owner who was sold a lie by an industry that profits from unrealistic promises.

The researchers tried to adjust for first-time ownership statistically, but they treated it as a simple yes/no variable. There’s a world of difference between different types of first-time owner, and you can’t capture that with a tick box.

2. They didn’t include training as a variable in their behaviour models.

The study collected data on training methods. They know that cocker spaniel and labrador retriever owners were significantly more likely to use a combination of reward and aversive training methods compared to the crossbreed owners, who used more rewards-only training.

And yet they didn’t include training methods in their statistical models. So they’re comparing groups who trained their dogs in fundamentally different ways, and attributing the behavioural differences to breed genetics. That’s a glaring omission.

And by the way, a shout out to all you first-time dog owners who are choosing to train your dogs with kindness. The study found that crossbreed owners were more likely to use reward-based methods than the purebred gun dog owners. That’s something to be proud of, not penalised for in a behaviour comparison.

3. The questionnaire can’t distinguish between suppressed behaviour and genuinely transformed behaviour.

Here’s where it gets really interesting. The study itself acknowledges that better “trainability” scores in the purebred gun dogs may reflect forced suppression of behaviour through aversive methods rather than genuinely better temperament.

They actually wrote that. Suppressed behaviour not improved behaviour.

But then they still treated those scores as evidence that the purebreds were better behaved.

Suppressing behaviour and helping a dog do things differently are not the same thing.

A dog trained with punishment may appear more “obedient” on a questionnaire, but that doesn’t mean they’re better behaved. It means they’ve learned to shut down. That’s not a good outcome. It’s a welfare concern.

And before anyone jumps on this as evidence that aversive training “works”, no. The research on the harmful effects of punishment-based training is extensive and clear. What this study shows is that aversive methods can suppress the expression of behaviour enough to skew a questionnaire. That’s not the same as having a well-adjusted dog. Not even close.

4. Their genetic argument contradicts itself.

The study tries to explain cockapoo aggression scores by pointing to historic research on aggression in cocker spaniels namely the so-called “Cocker Rage” literature.

But that research is weak, outdated, and primarily relates to specific colour lines in English cocker spaniels, not the breed as a whole.

More importantly, their own data shows cocker spaniels scoring well on the aggression measures. So if cocker spaniels don’t have an aggression problem in their own data, how can cocker spaniel genetics explain aggression in cockapoos?

And crucially if you accept basic genetics, crossing two breeds should produce offspring that fall somewhere between the two parents. That’s regression to the mean.

So even if cocker spaniels did carry aggression-related genes, you’d expect cockapoos to be less aggressive than cocker spaniels, not more.

The genetic argument doesn’t just fail to support their conclusion. It actively contradicts it.

So what does this study actually show?

It shows that dogs acquired during a puppy boom, disproportionately from unregulated breeders, by first-time owners with novice expectations and less training experience, score worse on an owner-reported behaviour questionnaire than established purebred breeds with decades of structured breeding programs and more experienced owners.

That's it. Not a thing more.

That’s not a finding about crossbreeds. That’s a finding about the puppy market. And it’s a finding that those of us working in dog behaviour and welfare have been shouting about for years.

If you’re a cockapoo, cavapoo, or labradoodle owner reading this, please hear me...

-Your dog is not defective.
-Your dog is not genetically doomed to be badly behaved.
- And you are not a bad owner.

If your dog has behavioural challenges, that doesn’t mean you’ve failed. It just means you’re dealing with something that may well have started long before your dog came home to you.

Breeding matters. Early life matters. And neither of those things was in your control.

And it could also be that you’re simply an attuned, sensitive dog parent - that you’re genuinely concerned about your dog and invested in their behaviour.

That doesn’t make you or your dog a problem. That makes you a good owner.

What this study should make you angry about isn’t your dog’s breed. It’s an unregulated breeding industry that has been profiting from these dogs while setting them and their families up to struggle.

And if you’re someone about to smugly share that Guardian headline in your purebred breed group please read the actual study first.

*The study referenced is: Bryson et al. (2026), “Comparing undesirable behaviours between ‘designer’ Poodle-cross dogs and their purebred progenitor breeds,” published in PLOS ONE.*

03/23/2025

To anyone who received an old email receipt from me yesterday, I am sorry. Was having my website worked on, and it was found that not all emails had gone through. Sorry for any confusion!!!

09/21/2024

I detest this guy, National Geographic, and to some extent, Oprah Winfrey (she made him and several other charlatans famous, including Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz) but the truth is that reality shows are orchestrated to be entertaining, not educational. A TV show about me would make most people fall asleep when dealing with fear, reactivity, or aggression. I work with dogs in tiny steps, under threshold (meaning as stress free as possible) and without the use of corrections such as fear, pain, or intimidation. Changing behavior requires brains, not brawn. My best tools are consistency, observation, environmental management (preventing unwanted behavior from continuing such as the use of a trash can with a lid vs. an open one) and time. The last one, time, is where most pet guardians struggle. Most people that call me are completely frustrated with their pet, in part because they are living with the unwanted behavior 24/7. But it's also, sometimes, because they have watched shows like from this clown, who seem to be able to cure serious behavioral issues in a half hour. I'm not a magician. In the same way that I can't get you in shape to run a 5K, or teach you a new language, in a single session, I can't help a dog, or their people, with serious behavioral concerns. We, as the supposed smartest species on the planet understand that for ourselves and our children, learning, and changing behavior takes time-when are we going to give that grace to our best friends?

BEYOND CESAR MILLAN

20 YEARS LATER.....The following review was submitted to National Geographic by Dr. Andrew Luescher, DVM, Ph.D, DACVB (board-certified veterinary behaviorist).

Dr. Luescher, former director of the Purdue University Veterinary Behavior Clinic was asked to provide feedback on "Dog Whisperer" tapes prior to the show's airing.

In this letter to National Geographic (date unknown), Dr. Luescher writes,

"I think this series, if aired, would be a major embarrassment for National Geographic. It is not stimulating or thought-provoking, since none of the presented techniques are new. They are outdated and have long been abandoned by most responsible trainers, let alone behaviorists, as inappropriate and cruel. I very much hope National Geographic will pull the plug on this program."

Please read the entire letter (It's not long.) and share: http://beyondcesarmillan.weebly.com/andrew-luescher.html

This program and trainers who have mimicked the behavior seen in this program have done so much damage to the dog training industry, dogs, and the human-animal bond.

I have met and spoken to Dr. Luescher personally, and I share his sentiments, as do all other trainers in the evidence-based, best practice camp. Meanwhile, much of the unsuspecting public still looks to National Geographic as an authority and has no idea it has thrown science to the wind, at least in terms of dog behavior and training.

Cindy Ludwig, MA, BS, RN, KPA-CTP, CPDT-KA
Canine Connection LLC
Willard, MO

Image copyright Valder Beebe Show, CC BY 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Cesar_Millan_Mar_2018.png

03/09/2023

True story! I have never been bitten by any sort of Bully type breed, GSD, Rottie, or any other "scary" dog. I was bitten by a Lab, a rabbit, a gerbil, pony, and Anole.

A BBC investigation published today has revealed that dog bites reported to the police (in England & Wales) have risen by a third over the last 5 years. And, predictably, much of the media coverage has centred around these bites being caused by ‘out of control’ dogs of certain breeds. But is that accurate? What is the real story when it comes to dog bites?

⚠️ breed is a poor predictor of aggression
⚠️ the vast majority (80%) of dog bites happen in the home and come from family dogs
⚠️ the risk of bites may be increased in the presence of pain or disease in the dog
⚠️ the majority of dogs that bite are motivated by fear or anxiety, not ‘badness’
⚠️ the use of physical punishment or physical force is a risk factor in creating a fear response and aggression
⚠️ the majority of accidents to children occur when there is lack of active parental supervision

So, how do we reverse this trend? Rather than relying on governments to act (after all previous legislation like the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act is both profoundly flawed & ineffective) we can all play a role to improve safety around dogs.....

✅ educate yourself about canine body language & behaviour
✅ ensure your dog’s fundamental needs, including exercise, social contact & access to species specific activities, are being met
✅ understand that dogs are autonomous, sentient animals and not playthings here for our amusement or social media likes
✅ understand your dog doesn’t know how to live in a human world and that it’s your job to teach them when you can and manage them when you can't
✅ understand that your dog is allowed to proportionately express their discomfort or displeasure just as you are and that you should listen when they do
✅ take the time to find a responsible breeder / rescue. Poor breeding and irresponsible ‘rescue’ results in physically and temperamentally compromised dogs being placed in unsuspecting, ill equipped homes with potentially devastating results
✅ be realistic about your experience & skill levels when choosing a dog to join your family. Match your challenge to your skills. You don't learn to drive in a Ferrari for good reason. Dog ownership is no different...
✅ follow & learn from responsible, ethical trainers who understand the roots of behaviour & not simply how to suppress it
✅ actively supervise (or separate) children & dogs

Every dog has the capacity to bite regardless of breed or size. And the consequences of a bite can be devastating for the dog and for the humans. But we can mitigate that risk by understanding and accepting our dogs for the amazing species they are. By choosing wisely, meeting their needs and listening to what they tell us. As dog owners, we all have it in our power to make a positive change to these statistics. The buck stops with us.

©️Aileen Stevenson, The Perfect Puppy Company

03/01/2023

When Chantelle first met Mr. Magoo, he was in pretty rough physical shape. He had next to no hair, open sores everywhere, he stunk like death, and his body was infested with mange. His ears were noticeable only because of how poorly the crop was done.

Chantelle’s mom, already hesitant about adding this dog to her family, asked why his ears looked that way. The lady doing the meet and greet chimed in suggesting that it was because he was a possible "bait dog".

Chantelle knew what the word meant but her mom had no idea – imagine how awkward it was trying to explain to her already nervous mother why adopting a “bait dog” was a good idea.

“We bought into this for a little bit,” remembers Chantelle, “and I can say with certainty that these two misused words ‘bait dog’ influenced the way Magoo was treated and how we saw him. Eventually, through social media, we found the couple who removed him from the environment he was in and we spoke to the rescue who brought him here to Calgary. We found out that he was not a victim of dog fighting, but instead a victim of poverty, a lack of resources, and neglect. Over the years, I learned something even more important – his past is interesting to know, but it doesn’t matter or define who he is.”

We have previously discussed the propensity of rescues and shelters to speculate that scarred, injured, or dog-selective dogs are “bait dogs”. Before that we looked at the paucity of evidence showing that “bait dogs” are even a thing in professional dog fighting operations. Today we talk about how the label may actually harm the dog it’s trying to drum up empathy for.

By applying a “bait dog” label, we are marketing this dog as a victim, and encouraging an adoption out of pity rather than suitability to the home. Because of its imagined past, the owners may feel inclined to write off behaviour issues. Have you ever seen someone with a misbehaving dog try to explain the behaviour along the lines of, “It’s not his fault. He’s a RESCUE!!”? While we of course need to be compassionate and work within our dog’s limitations, it’s demeaning to them to assume that because they have a sad background (real or imagined) they have a free pass for misbehaviour for life – particularly if this translates to aggression or dangerous behaviour.

Another concern is that the more that abuse is sensationalized, the more that sick people will copy it. In rescue, the few “bait dogs” we’ve seen are the result of troubled young men from low income communities trying to train their dogs to fight by encouraging them to attack weaker animals. It’s very rare, but it happens – and it happens because they have heard so much chatter about “bait dogs” that they assume that’s how it’s done. Another example is the phenomenon of finding a dog with its muzzle taped shut. Five years ago this was unheard of, which made it so bizarre when the first case hit the news. However, as this was covered extensively in the news, more and more cases popped up.

We are not downplaying the tragedies that occur to some dogs, and the abuse that some dogs suffer. But the abuse shouldn’t define them. And speculation about abuse absolutely shouldn’t define them. Let’s encourage shelters and rescues to perform thorough assessments on the dogs that we see in front of us today, and match them with families that will love them, appreciate them, and work with them based on their potential, not based on what we believe to be their past.

03/01/2023

Having worked in shelters for many moons, it has been a real issue that folks assume that any bully breed, actually any dog, that has scars is/was a bait dog. The fact is dogs can end up with scars from all sorts of things including skin issues, running through brush, playing with dogs that have long nails, etc. This is especially true if a wound, or skin infection is itchy and the dog has access to scratching or nibbling on the area.

“Bait dog” is a term used to describe a dog that was used as "bait" in dog fighting rings. We hear about “bait animals” a lot in the news and in the rescue community, but there’s not much objective evidence that this is a common practice in organized dog fighting.

“Professional and amateur dog fighters do not use ‘bait dogs’. That is a term that has been used and sensationalized by the media. Fighters will “roll” their dogs (a term used to test a dog to see if he/she has game). They will have the dog fight an established fighter to see if the dog continues even after they are exhausted and/or getting beat; this is probably where the term ‘bait dog’ came from. If the dog does not fight, quits, or does not show promise, the poor dog would be killed since they are considered a disgrace and of no value to the fighter.” –Janette Reever, Manager of Animal Fighting Response with the Humane Society of the United States

Dog fighting is illegal in North America. A “bait dog” is evidence of illegal activity and to allow that dog to wander or end up in the shelter would be incredibly foolhardy. It’s certainly possible that wannabe dog fighters use and abandon “bait dogs”, but one has to ask if they do so based on hearing about the practice so often in the media. We don’t hear about “bait dogs” seized during dog fighting busts. The dogs from these seizures are typically fighting or breeding dogs (also victims of abuse, but rarely attract the same degree of attention).

So how are there so many “bait dogs” in rescue?

Dogs can end up in the shelter with cropped ears, injuries, scars, and wounds for many reasons. If they are stray or roaming, it’s highly possible they have had a scraps with dogs, cats, or wildlife. Dogs within a home can fight for any number of reasons. For some reason, certain rescuers are quick to jump to the most dramatic and ugly conclusions.

We don’t believe they are always doing it deliberately, but it’s certainly a fact that a “bait dog” story generates a lot more emotion, clicks, and attention than a profile of a regular old stray. One can argue that the end justifies the means, but we don’t agree. What do we really accomplish when we re-home a dog or raise awareness about a cause by exploiting emotions?

By applying a “bait dog” label, we are marketing this dog as a victim, and encouraging an adoption out of pity rather than suitability to the home. Because of its imagined past, the owners may feel inclined to write off behaviour issues. Have you ever seen someone with a misbehaving dog try to explain the behaviour along the lines of, “It’s not his fault. He’s a rescue!”? While we of course need to be compassionate and work within our dog’s limitations, it’s demeaning to assume that because they have a sad background (real or imagined) they don't need to meet a basic standard of conduct – particularly if this translates to aggression or dangerous behaviour. We are not downplaying the tragedies that occur to some dogs, and the abuse that some dogs suffer. But the abuse shouldn’t define them.

Imagined abuse should definitely not define them! To the rescues and advocates out there – let’s leave the past behind, especially when we don’t know anything about it. Let’s honour these dogs by seeing them as they are today, and working for a better tomorrow.

Photo from Canva

02/05/2023

Cough, cough...damn retrievers!

01/14/2023

Ask two dog trainers what they agree on, and it is that a third dog trainer is doing it wrong. It's supposed to be a joke, but the fact is, we are a very "catty" group.

I suspect that the increase in arguing has to do with the fact that several professional organizations are getting together to make dog trainers have a licence to train in every state. At a minimum, dog trainers will have to know rudimentary training, behavior, husbandry, and health issues.

It's going to be a bit of a mess in its infancy, but it is meant to prevent dog guardians from seeking training and behavior advice from folks that just hang a shingle and call themselves a dog trainer. Right now, anyone can call themselves a Professional Dog Trainer.

I truly hope that there is a requirement to obtain CEU's at each license renewals because there are plenty of folks STILL under the impression that Alpha Theory is viable despite being debunked in 1984.... that's right 1984!

As I have said in the past "I wouldn't hire an electrician if he was still using k**b and tube wiring. I want someone that is up to date, using the best products and skills they have currently." I feel this is more important when it comes to animals. We now have decades of scientific evidence on how dogs learn, which methods last longest, and which are the most humane. What I teach now, will likely be obsolete in a decade. And that's ok.

I struggle to understand why some of my local colleagues continue using antiquated, and sometimes harmful methods, when there's gobs of information, studies, and organizations based solely on animal behavior offering a nearly endless supply of classes, seminars, and offerings in our area of interest.

Just because something works, doesn't mean it is still the best way to approach an issue. The fact is....positive punishment (shock collars) does work. The issue is that there can be fallout, meaning that a dog's behavior can escalate, or redirect on an owner or bystander, or come out in a way the owner never anticipated. I used them in the past. I am a crossover trainer. This is not the case with positive reinforcement.

Locally, I am surrounded by "trainers" who think that every dog's problem is due to them being spoiled. Another who puts shock collars on 8 week old puppies, and still another who uses a shock collar to "clean up" their positive reinforcement work. That one, I don't get at all. There is no need to clean up positive reinforcement work, if you have done it right.

What I do know, is I am tired of debating these people. I'm talking about other dog trainers, not folks that come to me for training. I used to try to debate other trainers, but I have come to realize that the onus is on them to upgrade their skills in their chosen profession. This is what nurses, doctors, contractors, heavy equipment operators, mechanics, teachers, and a bazillion other professional people must do to continue working in their industry. It's high time dog trainers are required to as well. So I am thrilled that MA will be one of 3 states tested in licensing trainers. I have seen the test, it is honestly not difficult, but it will cull the worst of the worst unless they learn something new.

Today, I came across this dog trainer who summed up my sentiments nicely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=WYZXjGhmAww&fbclid=IwAR3mcAWUgvdg3AOcuRIT7LS6orZ0l2C3NUjQtWNg5CntXDXu9lOre2zdopU

Why doesn’t force free training work?Force-free is taking over the dog training industry. It’s easy to understand why! People love their dogs, dominance or a...