The Bloke Who Made The First Labradoodle Litter Regrets Playing God

He's called his creation "Frankenstein’s monster".

They say a good person is one who can own up to their mistakes and that’s exactly what the inventor of the Labradoodle has done.

Australian man Wally Conron has referred to his creation of the Labradoodle as “Frankenstein’s monster”. He told the ABC that the doggos are “either crazy or have hereditary problems”. A tad shocking considering poodle-cross breeds are a common choice amongst dog-lovers, especially those who can’t handle hair.

Conron originally bred the first Labrador and poodle cross in 1989 for a blind woman whose spouse was allergic to dog hair. He’d intended on creating an allergy-friendly guide dog, a choice he now deeply regrets.

Post-creation of the Frankenstein floof.

Conron, a former breeding manager with the Royal Guide Dog Association of Australia, feels as though by producing the first litter of this crossbreed he inspired the creation of other poodle-cross creations. And now he fears people are over-breeding.

Poodle-cross pooches might be incredibly popular now, but Conron told the ABC that the leftover puppies from his original litter weren’t easy to give away. He turned to the guide dog association’s PR team to encourage people to adopt them.

He said he realised what he’d done “within a matter of days”. 

“When I’m out and I see these Labradoodles I can’t help myself, I go over them in my mind,” he said.

Which has me wondering: do problematic breed-buyers ever feel a similar pang of guilt? Have the human parents of pugs, bulldogs and French bulldogs simply chosen to glaze over the information about how it’s probs not a good idea to support the production of these breeds?

Are people just ignoring the facts?

Vets themselves have even dubbed these dogs “anatomical disasters”. One vet anonymously wrote to the Guardian: “every structure that should make up the nose [of brachycephalic dogs] has been squashed flat.”

It’s safe to assume that most people at least perform a quick Google search before purchasing a breed. Is this just a case of wilful ignorance? The only thing I’m wilfully ignoring is the fact that one human year doesn’t actually equal 7 dog years.

Yes, Conron the labradoodle maker made a mistake, but at least he’s owned up to it – can we really say the same about buyers of boujee breeds?

Cracking Avocado DNA To Make Cheap Guacamole Is The Most 'Strayan Science Ever

Hello hass for 43 cents.

Researchers from The University of Queensland are partaking in an international, yet intimate study of the Hass avocado. In science-speak, they’re “sequencing the genome.” Basically, what that means is they’re attempting to understand the beloved fruit’s DNA sequence. 

It’s an endearing visual: a bunch of scientists in lab coats prodding and poking at a bunch of avos – but that’s not really what we’re interested in. What we’re interested in is why they’re studying the avocados.

Surely there are more important things to be researched?

The short of it is that scientists want to understand the fruit’s genome better because it’ll allow producers to protect crops from diseases. 

That’s right – we, as a nation, may soon have an avocado abundance. Though here’s hoping that doesn’t lead to a bunch of unholy, weird inventions like the avocado infused chocolate bar.

Price drops are soon to be happening, dear friends, and I, for one, am keen as hell for the day I’m able to eat avocado for breakkie, lunch and tea. 

According to The Land, one of the researcher’s, Professor Mitter, even said: “there’s a huge potential for future crop improvement and breeding that we can now tap into.”

Lead avocado grower, Russel Delroy, also makes a case for a huge price drop. Last year, he told the ABC that he forecasts a drop to about $2 a kilo in the next 5 years, as opposed to the current $4.50 to $9 a kilo we’re currently paying. 

43 cents? I’ll take one hundred thanks.

Which, according to my calculations, means that in 4 years time you could be paying 43 cents for your average, 215-gram Hass avo. It’s big news, guys. Just imagine the amount of guac you’ll be able to make.

Unlike the news about ‘avozillas’ – the giant avocados being sold by Groves Grown Tropical Fruit in QLD – this news applies to everyone.

Originally, we were excited about the production of huge avocados, it was a story with a shock factor. Soon enough, however, we realised that most of us can’t afford them (they’re $9 a pop) and will probably never have the chance to eat them (they’re exclusive to QLD).

Giant avos? For QLD only? That’s un-Australian.

While this sciency news doesn’t have the same shock factor, it’s important for one particular reason. Scientists are yet to sequence the final genome of the fruit but when they do they’ll be able to provide Australia’s farmers with important avo-protecting information. That’s right, Aussie farmers may be seriously helped by this research and their avocado farming productivity could increase greatly.

And, really, amongst all of the struggles our country’s rural community faces, who doesn’t love a good win for our Aussie farmers? 

Apparently All Of Us With Tattoos Are Impulsive and Reckless, So Thanks For That, Canadian Researchers

If you got tattoos, you've also got issues!

Canadian economists have surveyed 1104 people with tattoos. The study, published by the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, was conducted because the researchers were interested in a paradox: despite the fact it’s been proven inked-up individuals are discriminated against in the workplace, tattoos remain a growing trend.

Tattoos? Who wants ’em anyway?

Oddly enough, the results don’t really tell us anything about why people like getting inked. Rather, the study seems to be geared at psychoanalysing or picking-apart the personalities of tattooed people.

The results: people with tattoos are not good at controlling their impulses.

We have the answer!

Which, to be fair, probably was the case that one time Ryan Gosling tried to tattoo himself.

It’s hard to see how the study tells us anything at all about the ‘rise’ in tatt popularity. Especially considering its biggest takeaway was that people with visible tattoos are more likely to be “shortsighted” and “reckless”, according to The Times.

Apparently the research process involved dishing out a questionnaire to tattooed people about their finances, health and social life.

I mean, I’m no scientist, but when a thing becomes a “trend” shouldn’t external forces be factored in, too?

Me, critically analysing this very critical study.

The more I get to learn about this study, the more I’m imagining it was conducted by someone’s ultra-conservative uncle.

Respondents to the survey were even asked to complete multiple tests specifically designed to measure their impulsivity. Which seems to imply that people get tattoos solely as an impulsive choice. Nevermind aesthetic value.

The Cognitive Reflection Test measured participant’s impulse control. A payment stimulation also determined whether respondents would hesitate to wait longer to receive a large cash payment as opposed to waiting for a shorter amount of time for a decreased amount of money.

The economists did find something though-they found that Australians are “marking milestones, commitments or life-chapters” by getting a tattoo. And to that I say: tell us something we don’t know.

Pop-up Channel

Follow Us