# Thinking about types of breeders... (long)



## ArreauStandardPoodle (Sep 1, 2009)

May I kiss you? Well at LEAST say THANK YOU!!!!! This paragraph of your OP strikes home with me in such a HUGE way:

"What of breeders who have agoraphobia, social anxieties or other issues that limits there involvement in such things, or the breeder who stays home to care for a medically dependent loved one, or the breeder who has livestock or a home business that needs to be run on a daily business. None, absolutely NONE of these things eliminate the possibility that they have dogs of quality and have a breeding program of quality and are producing sound offspring."

I do have agoraphobia. It is much improved over the past two years, which is why Quincy has a championship. I have been judged, laughed at, called names (BYB among them) and crucified for not being involved in showing. Well, whether or not one wants to believe it, this is the #1 reason why my dogs have not been shown. Other reasons have to do with the politics of showing, cheating, etc., etc. You put a person with anxiety disorder in a building full of people who HOPE you will not beat their dog, so in essence hope you will fail, it is more stress than one can cope with. My puppies have been proven in other ways. Murphy is the 2011 Federal winner, German Youth Champion. He is also going to take his final test to be a Red Cross search and rescue dog in the fall. Brandi at Strathglen Poodles has her RN, Lucy, Plumcrazy's girl has her RN and is part way to her RA. Quincy is a Canadian champion and has his CGN and will be persuing his RN later this year. A number of our puppies are working toward being therapy dogs. I also have co-owners whose lives might not be as cut and dried as mine, who might have kids as a priority over maintaining show coat. So, maybe a bit unorthodox, but they are being proven. The people who have my puppies cherish their pup, who was totally house broken in a week, who doesn't know a stranger, who has people stopping in the street to find out about them, who is fantastic with children, who is smart... A CH. in front of their parent's name would not change any of that. Their parents are health tested, have low COI's, wonderful temperaments and are a joy to live with. 

Say what you will, judge me all you want...I know the truth and I have a list of people who are thankful for the dog they bought from me, JUST the way things were.

We will be showing two dogs in the near future. But not because anyone else THINKS I should, but because I want to.


----------



## petitpie (Nov 16, 2011)

There must be several "bottom-line" criteria for a responsible breeder that should be followed?


Health testing for sire and dam

In-home living and raising for parents and puppies

Grooming acclimation for puppies

Continued support from breeder


I'm assuming vet care, good food, and registration for all goes without saying. What else should puppy buyers be aware of as a "must have"?


----------



## Yaddaluvpoodles (Mar 20, 2010)

Lost my reply. Hate it when that happens.

Even "bottom-line" criteria can be subjective depending on the person looking for a puppy.

For example: Health testing--how many people here are willing to buy a pup from parents who haven't been tested for SA, yet SA is one of the more prevalent issues in our breed? And JRD--now an approved, peer reviewed test.. but how many breeder's test for it. I still don't see a whole lot of breeder's testing for NEwS or DM, yet those are genetic tests! I do see a lot of folks doing hips.. yet it is certainly possible to have pups who are HD affected out of poodles who are not. Even more thought provoking.. it is possible to have puppies who do not have HD out of parents who do.

So.. which tests are important and why? That is most likely going to be an individual choice based on the individuals priorities.

RE: In home living and raising for parents and puppies-- again.. how much is too much? Wasn't there just an article discussing Hip Dysplasia posted to this forum which mentions the importance of exercise for puppies? Yet time and time again, I see these warm fuzzy darling photos of pups behind puppy gates in kitchens, living rooms.. etc.. on these hard slick surfaces. How many breeder's live in homes with postage stamp size yards.. do those pups REALLY have what they need for proper hip and bone development? While the ultimate for proper socialization, in home MAY not be the ideal when it comes to hips.

I'm using some extreme examples merely because I want to make the point that charts which are so cut and dried.. are great for the person who made them. They reflect that person's needs, desires and beliefs. However, for the rest of us, when looking for a pup, we need to consider what our individual "bottom line" criteria is. Often breeder's fall across a wide spectrum, not a good/bad, responsible/irresponsible.

I'm betting that if everyone else takes a look at the chart and thinks about the possible implications of some the things mentioned that.. well.. there might be a few people scratching their heads and saying "REALLY?!?"

Any one else have thoughts regarding this chart?

Darla



petitpie said:


> There must be several "bottom-line" criteria for a responsible breeder that should be followed?
> 
> 
> Health testing for sire and dam
> ...


----------



## petitpie (Nov 16, 2011)

Distance from the breeder could also be a problem in interacting personally with the breeder and the dogs. I would like to begin looking close-by but that may not be possible.


----------



## Countryboy (May 16, 2011)

I wonder if it's restrictive to use phrases like 'bottom line' or 'must haves'. I like Yadda's use of 'spectrum'. 

Maybe it's that I've been around long enuf that the black container of printer ink in my head has seeped into my corrector fluid just enuf so that I see most things in shades of gray.  

An old boss of mine used to say... 

"As u go thru life yr gonna meet a lot of people. The only thing that's sure is that 5% of them are gonna love u, 5% are gonna hate u, and the other 90% are gonna fall somewhere in between."

IMO, that applies to the good vs bad of breeders, too. 

Moi??? Would not care if the breeder didn't show. My only requirement, if I was taking a dog, was that it came with papers. I didn't want a Doodle. And was planning on keeping it in a hunting/sporting clip anyway. So conformation didn't matter to me.


----------



## Quossum (Mar 18, 2011)

I think that particular guide is a pretty good one (though the puppy price entry needs to be updated), but it is just that, a general guide, particularly aimed at "Joe Q. Public" who really might not know the difference between a "good" breeder and a "bad" one.

I don't think any one of those criteria tosses a breeder to the "dark side," and I think there are probably very few breeders who meet every one of the criteria on the "light side." 

It's kind of like when someone asks about a breeder based on their website, and the experienced ones among us mention a couple of "red flags"--"It seems they also produce doodles," or "There's no mention of health testing there." Even those red flags don't (necessarily) toss that breeder to the dark side. Maybe the potential buyer has no problem with doodles. Maybe the breeder health tests but doesn't list that on their site. 

For many of the criteria listed, there could be perfectly valid reasons why that breeder doesn't do that thing, but at least a chart like this one gives the puppy buyer some guidelines and perhaps even some questions to ask the breeder. "I notice you don't show your dogs; is there are reason for that?" "Yes, unfortunately I have some health issues, and there aren't many shows around here. But I've kept well-versed with the breed, and am actively looking to improve my line, and let me explain how..." Goodness knows we have seen over and over on this board situations where a potential puppy owner didn't ask *enough* questions about the breeder of their potential new pup, and ended up in a bad situation.

I do think there is a spectrum, and it's all up to the individual how many "red flags" you're willing to accept, and which ones WILL throw that breeder to your personal Dark Side. For example, I was looking at a breeder who charged more for multi-colored pups. Not exactly a well-loved practice here. However, she also health-tested her breeding dogs, showed them, and met pretty much all of my other criteria. I could overlook one practice I didn't agree with. As yadda says, even health-testing isn't necessarily a cut-and-dried issue.

If the chart makes people think and opens up dialogue, then I'm all for it. But I would hope that most people would realize that the items in a chart like this aren't set in stone, and most of them could have very reasonable explanations for not being met. I guess there are people out there who might take guidelines like this a little too seriously and utterly reject any breeder who doesn't meet every criteria. That's their right, too. Reminds me of the situation in a thread recently about rescues rejecting what most of us would call "perfectly good" homes due to some hardline requirement not being met, like no fenced yard or whatever. Hey, I read an interview in Poodle Variety with a breeder who said she would not sell a puppy to a home where there wasn't someone home all day. Well, my hubby and I both work, so I realized with a chuckle that she probably wouldn't sell a puppy to ME! Can you imagine the gall? And just look at my Sugarfoot, so poorly trained and cared-for! :aetsch: 

Food for thought, though! Thanks for bringing up an interesting topic!

--Q


----------



## petitpie (Nov 16, 2011)

When you get the feeling (or fact) that selling the puppy (the money) is more important than the welfare of the puppy and puppy buyer, then that might be a red flag.


----------



## LEUllman (Feb 1, 2010)

I'm delighted to see this thread, because frankly speaking, this forum has often struck me as extremely judgmental when it comes to breeders. If I was a breeder, no matter how "good," would I be good enough for the perfectionists around here? Let's say I could check every box on the "Good Breeders Do This" list but one. Would that one omission mean being subjected to ridicule and scorn? If the answer is yes (and I sadly suspect it is), I would stay far away from here, which is a lose-lose situation.

I usually enjoy hanging on Poodleforum, but I swear, threads that ask questions about who is or isn't a "good breeder" quickly come to resemble what happens when meat is thrown into a shark tank.


----------



## GlennBaxterFamily (Apr 28, 2011)

I read through that list and some of it I personally am doing and others I am not. I am not looking for "just" a pet but rather a working dog and as such I have a very specific list of things that I am looking for. This puppy is an investment in my daughter’s future and as such price is not a disqualifier for me. What is important to me is health testing. 

My daughter was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder so perhaps I understand genetics a bit better than an “average” owner. I do understand that just because I get a puppy from parents who have been completely health tested does not mean that the puppy cannot come down with a genetic disorder or disease. In my daughters case there is no family history of this disease going back 12 generations, yet my daughter has it, and her bio-mother and father are both carriers. As I said in another post I believe that we are stacking the deck in our favor by seeking a puppy from fully health tested parents.

Temperament is another requirement for me. I expect this puppy to do a job, a very specific job, and as such it needs to have a specific temperament. 

I spoke with two wonderful breeders today, neither of which is close enough for me to personally inspect their home, their breeding dogs, or to see/interact with the puppies before they come home. I would work with both of these breeders and would gladly except a puppy that they thought would work well for what we need. So for me being able to “visit” the breeders home is not a requirement.

The breeder showing the parents is also not a top-list thing for me. I am going to look at what the breeder’s puppies are doing, both from the parents of the litter I am thinking of, and past litters not from those parents. I believe that will give me an idea of what the breeder’s breeding pairs produce and what the breeder is striving for when he or she breeds a litter. 

Food/vaccines are a hot topic and everyone has their own opinions. Some would never accept a dog from a breeder who feeds Pedigree (as an example) even if their dogs did well on the food. A lot of “top” dogs with multiple titles are raised on Pedigree. What the puppies/parents are fed is not a concern for me. Vaccines on the other hand are a concern but it would not disqualify a breeder, at least not for me. Unless I had to sign a contract saying I would give vaccines that I disagree with or feel are harmful.

Overall I think the list is ok. I also think that it would lead a lot of inexperienced dog owners to not use a breeder, who in reality is a “good” breeder.


----------



## Carley's Mom (Oct 30, 2011)

This is a great thread. Thanks!


----------



## schmoodle (May 14, 2012)

Yaddaluvpoodles said:


> For example: Health testing--how many people here are willing to buy a pup from parents who haven't been tested for SA, yet SA is one of the more prevalent issues in our breed? And JRD--now an approved, peer reviewed test.. but how many breeder's test for it. I still don't see a whole lot of breeder's testing for NEwS or DM, yet those are genetic tests! I do see a lot of folks doing hips.. yet it is certainly possible to have pups who are HD affected out of poodles who are not. Even more thought provoking.. it is possible to have puppies who do not have HD out of parents who do.
> 
> So.. which tests are important and why? That is most likely going to be an individual choice based on the individuals priorities.


Personally, my ideal is a (standard) breeder that does: hips, CERF (yearly), SA (yearly), thyroid, cardiac, DM, neonatal encephalopathy, von willebrand’s... and I think that's it. And no/minimal Addison's in the family history. Not because I'm so naive as to think this guarantees no health problems, but because I want to see that they're not breeding carriers/affecteds to like. I completely get the concerns about genetic diversity, and wanting to use some dogs even if they're not perfect -- but it seems to me that breeders also have a responsibility to their buyers to minimize risk by breeding those dogs to unaffected dogs.

Re hips, I know it's complicated, but my understanding is that it's 100% genetic (though polygenic) -- but environment modifies the expression. In other words, a dog that doesn't have the genetics to be dysplastic will never be dysplastic. I'm not a professional of any sort, and I don't even have a poodle yet -- but my current, layperson's opinion is that a breeder shouldn't breed a dysplastic dog. But a dog with fair hips and no dysplastic dogs in its immediate pedigree would be okay, ideally bred to a dog with excellent hips.

Temperament is very important to me. Conformation titles... nope. Couldn't care less. 

Like others have said, it is a spectrum. Maybe I will end up with a breeder that hasn't tested for all of the above. But if they have the most important ones, and I feel I can trust them, and everything else looks great... so be it.


----------



## zyrcona (Jan 9, 2011)

If people only bought from breeders who satisfied all the right criteria on the list, hardly anyone would be able to get a dog. The other breeders would all go out of business, and a few generations later the breed would die out from all the remaining dogs being too related to breed together.

People breeding for diversity sometimes do dirty things, like using stud dogs owned by casual breeders or even mutt breeders, who may be lacking in some health tests, because the dogs have low Wycliffe. People breeding for conformation also often do dirty things by linebreeding again and again in order to fix a particular look into their dogs and causing the COI to gradually creep up. You will find nearly every breeder who has been around for long enough has done something silly, or had something bad happen at some point if you dig deep enough. What is more important is to find a breeder who fits with your own morals and what you are looking for in a puppy.

I don't dislike dog shows, but showing is not important to me at all if I'm looking to buy a puppy. It doesn't benefit the dog or any of its descendants that it won a bit of ribbon. All well and good for the person the dog won the bit of ribbon on behalf of, but the way I see it, it's ego and a way of marketing one's stud dog/ kennel name to others in the fancy. 'Show quality' and 'conformation' are just euphemisms for 'looks pretty', and yet from what is written around the Internet a lot of people put enormous prestige in a puppy that has parents whom a judge decided 'look pretty'. Looking pretty is not the main function of a dog.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

zyrcona said:


> 'Show quality' and 'conformation' are just euphemisms for 'looks pretty', and yet from what is written around the Internet a lot of people put enormous prestige in a puppy that has parents whom a judge decided 'look pretty'. Looking pretty is not the main function of a dog.


It's not about "looking pretty", it's about whether or not the dog meets the breed standard. There are some ugly breeds out there  but their standard is their standard...


----------



## Countryboy (May 16, 2011)

Of course it's about 'looking pretty'! 

As Zyrcona stated, people use euphemisms for this. If yr gonna take issues with euphemisms then yr debating semantics . . yr not debating standards, yr not debating breeders, yr not even debating dogs.

Debating semantics is a waste of time in this forum, IMO.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

Countryboy said:


> Of course it's about 'looking pretty'!
> 
> As Zyrcona stated, people use euphemisms for this. If yr gonna take issues with euphemisms then yr debating semantics . . yr not debating standards, yr not debating breeders, yr not even debating dogs.
> 
> Debating semantics is a waste of time in this forum, IMO.


My intent is not to debate semantics, Countryboy. You may consider my post a waste of time, but I put some thought into it and I hope it can add some balance to this thread at the very least, and someone might appreciate it at the very most. I see a very big difference between 'looking pretty' and structure. Ideally you will have both, but a conformationally correct dog _will_ conform to the breed standard in structure, build and appearance. When breed standards are developed, it is in most cases not to create a "pretty dog". It is to maintain the structure and appearance of a breed with a specific purpose. The purpose of that dog is behind the breed standard. There are very real differences between pretty and correct in the breeding world and in the showing world. Breeding for correctness is important. Breeding for showiness happens, too. As does breeding for pretty. (I'll take structure over pretty any day) Correct in conformation does not equate necessarily with pretty, fancy, or showy. If one wants a poodle, to some degree you probably want a dog that adheres to the standard. Do they want a fancy, showy, pretty dog? Maybe not. And that's okay. 

My point of my post, Countryboy, was to separate correctness in conformation from pretty/fancy/showy because they are not necessarily one in the same and I believe that is overlooked. A dog with good conformation does not mean that it's just a pretty dog. It means that the dog conforms to the breed standard. I _very much_ understand people not caring whether or not they acquire a pretty, show quality puppy. Or whether or not the breeder produces pretty, show quality poodles. But I think it's a bit more reasonable for puppy buyers to expect that their breeder is breeding dogs that conform reasonably to the standard. That is the point of a purebred dog, after all.


----------



## Yaddaluvpoodles (Mar 20, 2010)

I like a lot that you are clear in what you are looking for.. clearly defined criteria helps meet goals. A couple of comments/questions/and what are intended as being helpful suggestions based on what I am interpretting your wants to be..... 





schmoodle said:


> Personally, my ideal is a (standard) breeder that does: hips, CERF (yearly), SA (yearly), thyroid, cardiac, DM, neonatal encephalopathy, von willebrand’s... and I think that's it.
> 
> This is your list, I understand that and as such, represents your wants.. as it appears to me you are wanting what security testing can bring, I would encourage you to add the JRD test to your testing list of tests. (You may have already decided that it's not important to you and so it's not there because of that)
> 
> ...


Just some thoughts and hopefully of help to you, if not.. delete me!

I believe that establishing a trusting relationship with a knowledgeable breeder is one of the very best things a puppy buyer can do.

One last comment about lines free from health issues: I very recently exchanged emails with someone having had a poodle from a top name breeder. The poodle had a major health issue. The owner, knowing that the breeder has somewhat of a temper made the choice not to inform the breeder. She has, however, submitted paperwork to PHR. Unless someone mentions it to the breeder, that breeder will be unaware of this particular incidence of health issues in her lines. I don't doubt for a moment that she is telling people "not in my lines, never happened". That is the case with many breeder's, they don't ask.. and people don't tell them.

Good luck with your search!
Darla


----------



## Countryboy (May 16, 2011)

This is the 2nd thread in a row where u've taken issues with the 'wording' that members have used in posts. I call that debating semantics.

But go ahead... if that's what u want to do. To me, it's a waste of time.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

Countryboy said:


> This is the 2nd thread in a row where u've taken issues with the 'wording' that members have used in posts. I call that debating semantics.
> 
> But go ahead... if that's what u want to do. To me, it's a waste of time.


The wording does not bother me, Countryboy. It's the concept that I personally disagree with. I believe we are allowed to debate concepts and share opinions on this forum, correct? Is that not the point of the forum?

There are breeders who breed purely for pretty. But a pretty dog does not equal a correct dog. A correct dog conforms as objectively as possible to the breed standard in structure, appearance, and build. A pretty dog is..a pretty dog. There are lots of pretty dogs in the show ring. But are they correct..? 

Many people looking for a poodle pet may not care about a pretty dog that might be seen in the show ring. I get that. But I also don't (personally) see the point in breeding if not to breed dogs that conform as closely as possible to the standard.


----------



## Yaddaluvpoodles (Mar 20, 2010)

zyrcona said:


> If people only bought from breeders who satisfied all the right criteria on the list, hardly anyone would be able to get a dog. The other breeders would all go out of business, and a few generations later the breed would die out from all the remaining dogs being too related to breed together.
> 
> Very true! However, because puppy buyers, like breeder's have differing priorities, we are somewhat protected from that at this time. Where the danger comes in is.. when kennel clubs or legislation is in place that mandates testing and regulates breeding choices.
> 
> ...


*****


----------



## Yaddaluvpoodles (Mar 20, 2010)

CharismaticMillie said:


> It's not about "looking pretty", it's about whether or not the dog meets the breed standard. There are some ugly breeds out there  but their standard is their standard...



Well.. I tend to lean toward the "pretty" too. It may depend on the judge, but overall appearance seems to count for a lot, sometimes inspite of what's under the coat. I remember seeing a top winning girl going around the ring on one occasion, who was so ewe-necked that if the handler ( very much a top name in handling) would have released the leash, I think the poor girl would have kept going in a straight line, smacking the nearest wall before she ever realiized it was in front of her. Really. I wasn't the judge, the judge felt this was the best girl in the ring. 

Just an observation, but I believe that you could take a magnificent poodle.. clean, no matts, shorter coat, untalented groomer and put it in the ring against a poodle who is structurally incorrect, unable to move without sidewinding and interfering, but who is impeccably groomed with magnificent coat.. and have the "pretty" poodle come out on top. I suspect everyone at ringside would say "too bad that other poodle was so poorly groomed, he would have moved ahead". "Pretty" is alive and well in the conformation ring.. which again, is unfortunate for our breed. IMO.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

Yaddaluvpoodles said:


> Well.. I tend to lean toward the "pretty" too. It may depend on the judge, but overall appearance seems to count for a lot, sometimes inspite of what's under the coat. I remember seeing a top winning girl going around the ring on one occasion, who was so ewe-necked that if the handler ( very much a top name in handling) would have released the leash, I think the poor girl would have kept going in a straight line, smacking the nearest wall before she ever realiized it was in front of her. Really. I wasn't the judge, the judge felt this was the best girl in the ring.
> 
> Just an observation, but I believe that you could take a magnificent poodle.. clean, no matts, shorter coat, untalented groomer and put it in the ring against a poodle who is structurally incorrect, unable to move without sidewinding and interfering, but who is impeccably groomed with magnificent coat.. and have the "pretty" poodle come out on top. I suspect everyone at ringside would say "too bad that other poodle was so poorly groomed, he would have moved ahead". "Pretty" is alive and well in the conformation ring.. which again, is unfortunate for our breed. IMO.




I do _completely_ understand and agree with your point, Yadda. You've actually helped to make my point.  I separated pretty/fancy/showy from conforming to the breed standard. I have witnessed that correctness/conforming to the breed standard is very different from pretty. And I agree, pretty sometimes wins over correct.

A good breeder does not have to be breeding fancy/pretty/showy to be breeding correct conformation. There is no reason why a non show breeder cannot breed a _correct_ dog that conforms and adheres strongly to breed standard.


----------



## Yaddaluvpoodles (Mar 20, 2010)

Sorry CM! I should have continued reading before responding to your last post.

I do think it's important to keep in mind that the breed standard is a guide to what the "ideal" standard poodle looks like. I will agree that poodles need to be of sound structure, however, think of all the challenges that presented (and to some extent, still plague) the red breeder's. The problems with bobbleheads (my term for short legged, big heads) in the mini x standard crosses, however, most breeding programs are progressive, not fixed in time. For example, at one point, I could have pointed my finger at the Shangri-la poodles and said "oh my.. look at those bobbleheads! Not anything that should be in our breed, they aren't good representations of the breed standard". However.. the Shangri-la breeding program was evolving, moving closer and closer to the breed standard with each breeding. I still hear people today saying "have you seen the poodles that so and so has, that poodle shouldn't be bred!" However, that particular poodle may be an integral part of an evolving breeding program and may, possibly bring to that program traits that weren't obtainable elsewhere. 

If we keep the breed standard as a goal, an ideal and hopefully breeders are maintaining structural soundness.. well.. it all works out to the benefit of our poodles.

There is a possibility that in order to "save" our standards, we may end up needing to outcross to other varieties/sizes again (I know, there are some breeder's doing it now. The majority of those breeder's however, are doing it for the $$ involved, not out of concern for the breed... I'm aware of health issues that have not been made public or shared on PHR..setting up the next generation of breeders for failure as well as not being of benefit to the breed)




CharismaticMillie said:


> _will_ conform to the breed standard in structure, build and appearance. When breed standards are developed, it is in most cases not to create a "pretty dog". It is to maintain the structure and appearance of a breed with a specific purpose. The purpose of that dog is behind the breed standard. There are very real differences between pretty and correct in the breeding world and in the showing world. Breeding for correctness is important. Breeding for showiness happens, too. As does breeding for pretty. (I'll take structure over pretty any day) Correct in conformation does not equate necessarily with pretty, fancy, or showy. If one wants a poodle, to some degree you probably want a dog that adheres to the standard. Do they want a fancy, showy, pretty dog? Maybe not. And that's okay.
> .


----------



## zyrcona (Jan 9, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> It's not about "looking pretty", it's about whether or not the dog meets the breed standard. There are some ugly breeds out there  but their standard is their standard...


The people who breed and show them no doubt think they are pretty.  Most breeds in the show ring today look more exaggerated than the same breeds years ago. Over time, the desire to stand out from other competitors is turning some breeds of dog into caricatures of their breed standards.

'Pretty' is a subjective term. This is the breed standard in my country, which is also subjective. Viewed by an outsider who has never seen a poodle before, dogs from both casual pet breeders and 'quality' show breeders are likely to fit the standard. Any additional interpretation added to the standard is a result of cultural osmosis, fashion, and politics. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but I do not agree that dogs from non-show breeders are incorrect according to the breed standard (which is that written document and that alone) as a result of simply being of a different type to the type popular in shows.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

zyrcona said:


> The people who breed and show them no doubt think they are pretty.  Most breeds in the show ring today look more exaggerated than the same breeds years ago. Over time, the desire to stand out from other competitors is turning some breeds of dog into caricatures of their breed standards.
> 
> 'Pretty' is a subjective term. This is the breed standard in my country, which is also subjective. Viewed by an outsider who has never seen a poodle before, dogs from both casual pet breeders and 'quality' show breeders are likely to fit the standard. Any additional interpretation added to the standard is a result of cultural osmosis, fashion, and politics. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but I do not agree that dogs from non-show breeders are incorrect according to the breed standard (which is that written document and that alone) as a result of simply being of a different type to the type popular in shows.


I agree...a correct dog is a correct dog, no matter where the dog comes from. Here in the States, we have an illustrated standard, which helps make correctness a *little* less subjective. http://www.poodleclubofamerica.org/illstand.htm And while this series of illustrations is still an interpretation, it is at least the official interpretation here. 

And as I said, correct is not synonymous with fancy, exaggerated, pretty or showy. It's pretty blatantly obvious when you compare the illustrated standard to much of what wins in the show ring.

I see the chart in the first post as a helpful guideline. It may be a bit excessive, but I do still think it would have been beyond helpful for many people who have made mistakes (that they now regret) in their choice of breeder due to a lack of understanding of what a good breeder's program looks like.

I agree with Quossom's post. That there are likely legitimate reasons why a good breeder would fail to meet some of the "good breeder" criteria on the chart. Perhaps a disclaimer...on the chart..such as "these are only guidelines", "good breeders will meet more criteria on the "good breeder" side than the "bad breeder" side. The criteria on the chart may be an excellent guideline for buyers to learn about their breeder. If they don't meet all the criteria (which they WON'T - no breeder will!) then find out why. The chart can help a buyer know what to ask the breeder. What characteristics to look for. I think that the chart throws all of the possibilities in the air that many new buyers may have no idea are important when looking for a breeder.


----------



## zyrcona (Jan 9, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> I see the chart in the first post as a helpful guideline. It may be a bit excessive, but I do still think it would have been beyond helpful for many people who have made mistakes (that they now regret) in their choice of breeder due to a lack of understanding of what a good breeder's program looks like.


This is a good point. Forming a balanced opinion on something like what's ethical in dog breeding will take someone a long time to do, and if a person simply doesn't have the time or inclination for that, a generalised list can be helpful. However, too much of this kind of thing can lead to 'Prince Charles mindsets' in which someone may espouse strong feelings about their opinion based on what someone has told them and without any real research, understanding, or questioning. Someone who started at the same point but considered more and evolved their opinion over time may arrive closer to the other side of the tracks, but with their own personal justification.

I think in any breeder, enthusiasm about their breeding objectives is a good sign. If a breeder operates outside of mainstream ideas but can explain their own ideas for working the way they are, I can respect that breeder even if I don't agree with them. The breeder to beware of is the one who can't answer why they chose a particular stud to use on their bitch (other than that he was nearby and had a penis) or has no idea what kind of home their puppies are suited for.


----------



## schmoodle (May 14, 2012)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Darla!



Yaddaluvpoodles said:


> I would encourage you to add the JRD test to your testing list of tests. (You may have already decided that it's not important to you and so it's not there because of that)


I read about that at one point, but I thought that they didn't find the genetic marker for it yet (to identify carriers) so that was why it wasn't on my list. Maybe I need to read more about it?



> "And no/minimal Addison's in the family history." Wow! That's a biggie. How many generations are you going to be looking at? Quite honestly, if I have a standard owner who tells me that there is no Addison's in their family history, I would probably be making some decisions as to whether or not they are ignorant or liars.


I wasn't thinking like a 15 generation pedigree on that, just parents, grandparents, and previous litters. But I only know the basics about Addison's that I've read online -- what would you recommend looking for? How would someone try to screen breeders for this? Since there's no OFA test?



> I recently publicly shared that I own a boy who has produced both AD and HD. I acquired him knowing that. While knowing that the whole point of genetic diversity is to maintain or even re-establish the health of our breed, he is of uncommon genetics, having less than 10% Wycliffe influence. I don't know if I will use him for live breeding, that's a big debate and one that as time goes on, I may (or may not) share here, if I do.. it would come with full disclosure to any puppy buyers.


I think that disclosure is really important, and I'm so glad to hear that you would do that. Have his hips been OFA'd or pennhip'd and they came back okay? It seems like a balancing act for breeders. It makes sense to me to keep a dog like this in the genetic pool, so long as he was bred to dogs that counter-balance his deficiencies -- like girls with minimal AD and HD in their families. Does that make sense?



> ...who's to say that the stud with excellent hips REALLY will have excellent hips over his entire lifetime? Xrays are like SA biopsies and CERF examines, good only at the moment they were taken and somewhat subjective to interpretation.


I had read that hip dysplasia is usually apparent by 16 months, though there are some late developing forms because of osteoarthritis and other diseases. Is this not totally true?



> I believe that establishing a trusting relationship with a knowledgeable breeder is one of the very best things a puppy buyer can do.


This is so true. It seems like you can do everything you can to educate yourself, but at the end of the day you just have to trust someone. With health, because there might be problems popping up in previous breedings that you don't know about. And with temperament, because if you want something very specific, you have to trust that they'll know how to match you to the right puppy, and that they're breeding for the temperament qualities that you want.

Thanks again!


----------



## Yaddaluvpoodles (Mar 20, 2010)

schmoodle said:


> Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Darla!
> Welcome! Unfortunately, I have a sick poodle. Not mine personally an 11 year old Vic pup, working service dog who collapsed. I've spent a bit of time waiting by the computer for the past couple of days for updates, lab results etc. The news isn't good, I am very, very sad.. but it made for a couple days of productive postings... (lopsided grin)
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## zyrcona (Jan 9, 2011)

Yaddaluvpoodles said:


> I am acquainted with a couple of breeders who WILL NOT xray. No way, no how, under no circumstances. Why? Because the research done on radiation exposure.. is pretty horrific. In addition, one has shared that everytime a bitch is xrayed, it exposes eggs to radiation, radiation is cumulative and this breeder's belief is that the affects of exposure of one bitch possible causes epigenetic changes that can cause problems generations down the line.


For anyone interested in protecting their poodles' gonads from x-rays, you can buy pieces of lead sheet on the Internet. If you cut with a sharp putty knife or chisel (or fold) a strip narrow enough to leave the hip joints visible to the x-ray machine, I don't see that most vets would have a problem with laying the strip on the dog's abdomen for the x-ray.

Here is a picture showing where a bitch's ovaries are when she is lying in the position she will be put in for her x-ray:










Since this is a breeding forum, I hope no-one needs an equivalent diagram for a dog. ;-)


----------



## tintlet (Nov 24, 2009)

this would not work because OFA looks at the spine, not just the hip joints


----------



## pudelmann (Feb 29, 2012)

I just read this thread today and wanted to share my experience if it is not too late. 

So the story goes like this. I encountered a border collie in a park a while back. He was very well cared and beautiful to my novice eyes and very active yet friendly and warm at the same time. Not jumpy or crazy hyper like my friend's border collie (well, my sample is pretty small though). There were several young kids at the park and he was very good with them, too. 

I was quite impressed by the dog and got to talk to his owner. I learned that he was a 3-year-old purebred from a breeder. Very smart with nice personality and super healthy. Then I asked about his breeder and she mentioned that she got him from a breeder who doesn't show. She said that she's a very careful person and contacted all the reputable BC breeders in the nation but eventually clicked with this particular breeder. 

According to her, this breeder doesn't show due to her job and other duties, but does everything else just right. All of her breeding stocks have champion parents from reputable breeders. Does all the recommended health testings and provides the proof. Have a litter once a year or every other year. Doesn't really advertise (no website) but screens buyers like crazy. AKC (or UKC?) registered. And the list goes on. 

The owner was a little bit uneasy initially when knowing that this breeder doesn't show, but after talking to/visiting her, she was sold. And she said she can't be happier now. 

So from what I heard, this breeder sounds like a very responsible hobby breeder. And I don't see any reasons why I shouldn't buy from a breeder like this especially if I don't plan to breed. Is there anything I am missing?


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

pudelmann said:


> According to her, this breeder doesn't show due to her job and other duties, but does everything else just right. All of her breeding stocks have champion parents from reputable breeders. Does all the recommended health testings and provides the proof. Have a litter once a year or every other year. Doesn't really advertise (no website) but screens buyers like crazy. AKC (or UKC?) registered. And the list goes on.
> 
> The owner was a little bit uneasy initially when knowing that this breeder doesn't show, but after talking to/visiting her, she was sold. And she said she can't be happier now.
> 
> So from what I heard, this breeder sounds like a very responsible hobby breeder. And I don't see any reasons why I shouldn't buy from a breeder like this especially if I don't plan to breed. Is there anything I am missing?


Good breeders/bad breeders is not cut and dry. You have described many elements of a good breeder. If you are comfortable with the breeder, her reasons for breeding, how she uses health testing to guide breeding, how she raises her puppies, how she chooses dogs/bitches worthy of being bred, etc. then you likely have found a good match.


----------



## outwest (May 1, 2011)

I have read much of this thread and not contributed.

I do not think AKC showing is required for a breeder to be a 'good' breeder. I have very mixed feelings about AKC showing in poodles. In other breeds it isn't such an issue. I used to show AKC with another breed, but handled myself. I am getting a new puppy and am mulling over whether to try AKC or not. I have enjoyed UKC. I have gone, watched, analyzed AKC the best I could to figure out what it is that is bothering me so much. 

Things I have observed:
Very few owners are handling their dogs in poodles. Actually, almost the only ones I have seen are breeder handlers. Many handlers whip from one dog to another with a backup young handler ready to go in case two of the dogs in the different classes should win and they have to go up against each other. This is a major business for the handlers. It isn't that I think this is so wrong. That's where my mixed feelings come in. Some people are intimidated or don't want to handle their own dog. Having someone else do it can relieve them to watch and enjoy the show. 

A handler is in the ring for max of 10 minutes. I have seen handlers with a pair of scissors snipping away a few minutes before going in the ring. To most of them this is their livelihood. Is this wrong? Not necessarily, but it does create serious politics that lockout the poor schlep who wants to show their own dog. 

You could say that overall the best dog wins, but I don't think that is always the case. I have seen judges favoring one handler over another, smiling/chatting/socializing in the ring with a handler and then putting their dog up when clearly that wasn't the best dog. You can argue I didn't have my hands on the dogs, but I beg to differ. I can see poking out elbows and downfaces. I can see a dog with legs so long and pelvis so angled the rear legs fly behind and rarely come under the dog. In a couple of instances I saw an inferior dog winning in the first class (no points), to be shown again for points and missing the points by one dog. In my mind I see this as a way the judge retains his friendship with the handler, but doesn't actually have to give the inferior dog points. 

I DO NOT LIKE the dying/hairspray/wiggles/chalk! I was watching in the grooming area some gorgeous poodles being sprayed up. Some of those dogs had at least a half a can of hair spray applied. I sneezed. I can only imagine how awful it is for those dogs. 

I also have a problem with not allowing a regular cut on poodles. I understand needing to show they are capable of growing hair, but I think that can be done with ears alone. The skill of a groomer should not have any bearing on whether a dog wins or not, but it clearly does. The most perfectly groomed poodles are often the ones who win. 

I still think I would like to try showing in AKC because it is a way to be around dog people, make friends, show off your pet and have a fun afternoon. Geez...that sounds like UKC.  I have had some owners tell me point blank that AKC showing is not at all fun, but maybe because they bought into the game. I asked why they do it and they don't always have a good answer. AKC showing is a hobby, albeit it can be an expensive hobby. It can also be a fun, social hobby with people of like mind. It isn't a good gauge of a nice poodle. It helps, but should never be the most important thing people look at when choosing a poodle. So, how can you tell if a breeder is producing nice dogs that meet breed standard? Meet the sire and dam. Talk to previous owners. All you can do is educate yourself on the standard and think for yourself. Look at what is right in front of you, not at titles. 

I will get an appropriate groomer if I decide to give it a try, but I absolutely refuse to spray hairspray on my dog, dye their coat, blacken their nose or whack their toenails to the quick. Oh, my dog will have dewclaws, too. Someone has to put a foot down. Throwing a nice dog in front of a judge au naturale might help get others thinking the same....or not. And, that is where age and experience are in my favor. I won't expect to win.  

My point is, if you haven't figured it out, is AKC showing is not necessary to prove one has nice poodles meeting the standard. It is one aspect of poodles that can help identify a nice poodle, but it is faulty. The best way to tell if someone has nice dogs is to educate yourself fully and go with your heart.


----------



## peppersb (Jun 5, 2011)

Great post Outwest! Thanks for your insight. I've heard similar complaints about who wins and how hard it is for owner handlers.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

Outwest, just out of curiosity, if you show a dog AKC, do you plan for your dog to go in the ring without hairpsray? Or do you just mean that you yourself are not comfortable being the one putting on the hairspray?

ETA: This reminds me of the time when I attempted to spray my dog up only to create a rat's nest...the handlers around shook their heads and said I'd be better to take him in brushed out without hairspray than to take in a rat's nest. Ha.


----------



## petitpie (Nov 16, 2011)

I'm not sure I like the idea of hair spray, dye, or other touch-ups on a dog for showing purposes, either. It seems unnatural to the dog and seems to defeat the purpose of judging the best.


----------



## Paragon (Feb 18, 2012)

Outwest,

As a groomer owner, breeder, handler, don't take yourself too seriously! My 8 year old is taking my Platinum bitch into the Nationals! My older daughter, my Special Platinum boy. I will be there, the Judge will have a go at my dog.... I will see people interested in poodles, whatever.... I am either crazy, or confident in the movement of my dogs. In the field, few could attempt to beat us! To me that is where it counts! We do win sometimes too...

I have seen all what you have described, and more! Remember it is a Sport! Some play fair, others.... The real breeders are there... They know what is at.... Let your dogs be judged by the real judges....

The Poodle ring can be a nasty place, don't let it be that for you! Enjoy your girl, do your best, and maybe, you will meet somone great! 

Quite frankly, the Contenental works well in our pond. Lots of boyancy, and swimming ability. It is there for a reason... Wiggies, I won't go there....

Paragon


----------



## outwest (May 1, 2011)

Paragon said:


> Outwest,
> 
> As a groomer owner, breeder, handler, don't take yourself too seriously! My 8 year old is taking my Platinum bitch into the Nationals! My older daughter, my Special Platinum boy. I will be there, the Judge will have a go at my dog.... I will see people interested in poodles, whatever.... I am either crazy, or confident in the movement of my dogs. In the field, few could attempt to beat us! To me that is where it counts! We do win sometimes too...
> 
> ...


Paragon, Agree 100%. I can't take it too seriously. I have no ego to protect. I have also met some great people in AKC.  

CM, everyone has a line to draw. If I try AKC with a poodle, no one will be spraying my dog with hairspray. No, I am not a flower child. I see no point to all the altering in order to win. Maybe I am not competitive enough for AKC. Hey, I saw a wonderful brown out of a puppy class go reserve recently. He obviously had no spray. It can be done. I can get away with it until a continental, so I have 6 months. 

My new puppy is a week old. LOL. When outcrossing, it is always unsure what parts will be stuck together in the progeny. At this point I might not even have a dog I feel should be in the AKC ring, so I am premature, but I am thinking about it.


----------



## Quossum (Mar 18, 2011)

Good for you, outwest, and I hope you DO get a conformation prospect! 

The AKC refusing to enforce their own rules is what has enabled the Poodle hairstyle to get so out of control. I think a long coat is reasonable for a glamourous show dog, but really--does it have to be so long that a special (or sometimes even an Open class dog/bitch) "has" to have half a can of hairspray, a dozen rubber bands on his neck and head, and a wiggie in order to compete? Not a very reasonable coat to maintain between shows, either. I know people do it, even dedicated amatuers, not just pros, but still...what about making showing more accessible, getting more quality dogs out there and maybe even in the gene pool?

I wish some of the "big names" in poodles / handlers would get on the historical continental bandwagon. I think it would be great if dogs could show in the regular classes in the sporting / lamb, (though even with much shorter hair, skilled grooming can make a very big difference), but I don't see that happening. 

Just my opinion. I've showed a spoo in AKC myself, though this was many years ago. I was pretty much always the only owner-handler (not counting the breeder-owner-handlers) in the ring. I was lucky enough to have a dog with a very nice, stiff coat, even his head, and I didn't use hairspray when I was in charge. When his breeder was with me, she'd insist on it, but to me he looked nicer without!

--Q


----------



## outwest (May 1, 2011)

Quossum said:


> Good for you, outwest, and I hope you DO get a conformation prospect!
> --Q


I hope so, too. After much scrutiny, my current girl is at least as nice as half the dogs in the AKC ring, but she is a totally different breeding from my new pup. The only thing I know for sure about my new pup is he/she will be an average sized black standard poodle and should have a fabulous personality.


----------



## 3dogs (Nov 3, 2010)

Why not try UKC? United kennel Club is all about owner/handler & no hairspray at all as well as showing in the Mod. Lamb. Go for it, build your experience & then if you want go for AKC. I personally am a UKC fan & would take that route for all performance titles.


----------



## momofthree (Apr 9, 2011)

Outwest has been showing UKC and has been doing a bang- up job! Her Bonnie is a Gr. CH!!


----------



## outwest (May 1, 2011)

Thanks, momofthree.  Bonnie did do well there. 

I love UKC, such fun. Not as much competition in UKC for standard poodles for conformation, though. Sometimes you are up against other gun dogs for points only (a couple shows mine was the only standard). I thought it would be cool to try AKC, much larger shows/more poodles (the AKC show last weekend had 17 standards!), but I do have mixed feelings about it. I could certainly give it a go while the pup was under a year (no spray needed). We'll see. I have to get a look at pup first and see if he/she would be competitive there. My first priority is personality and fit for my household with two current dogs.


----------



## Carley's Mom (Oct 30, 2011)

When I started looking for a Standard . I did not know about all the health problems. The breeder I got Carley from was fast to tell me how she had had all the test and passed them ect. I would have been much more interested , had I known about all the issues. I wanted to know about the health of her mother and grandmother ect. What did she know about her father's health ect,

I wanted a dog that was very much loved and did not have bad habits ect. I did not want to have to fix anything.

And yes, looks were important to me. I wanted a pretty dog.

It was important that the breeder did not have too many dogs. I wanted to know that they were in the home, not outside in a kennel and I wanted to see it for myself. NO MEETING ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD SOMEWHERE.

I got very lucky with Carley and hope to get another dog from the same place when the time comes. (If I don't get a rescue.)


----------

