# A hypothetical discussion ...



## Fluffyspoos (Aug 11, 2009)

I would be all for it as long as the introducing breed had a clean bill of health with no history of health problems, and all the following dogs looked like poodles to the T still. I read about the dalmatians, they were also trying to help them from becoming def so often too right?


----------



## flufflvr (Mar 20, 2010)

I would be all for it. If the poodles still looked and acted like poodles, and they were really more healthy, then definitely. Without health and good temperament you just don't have much. They're having the same types of discussions with cavaliers right now too.


----------



## bigpoodleperson (Jul 14, 2009)

But what new problems could it potentally introduce into the breed?

I have heard of the dalmation fight. I have met a LUA dal at the dog park. Having seen a 2 year old Dal. at the clinic that has had 3 severe stone episodes in his short life, i am all for them!


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

I was wondering the same thing as bpp.


----------



## Lilith (Sep 29, 2010)

This question reminds me of stories of white kids being tossed out of schools back when because it was discovered that their great-great-great-grandma was black. After all, they were UNPURE.

Seriously. I'm sorry, but it makes me ill to think that people are still so hung up on the idea of 'genetic purity' that this is even a reasonable question to debate. Plus I find it frustratingly selfish of folks and I'd support a law banning anyone who said they'd rather have an unhealthy dog than an "UNPURE" dog from ever breeding a dog again. I'm not joking. 

Isn't the whole point to IMPROVE THE LINES? If we're only talking about improving the lines by having perfect spots or the right shaped nose, but NOT also healthier, hardier dogs, then I would have to count myself as baffled, upset, and permanently opposed to dog breeding. #1 must always be the welfare of the DOGS, with #2 being how pretty we think they are.


----------



## wishpoo (Sep 12, 2009)

I have to agree with Fluffy- If dog's appearance and temperament wold not change and new line would have ZERO health problems (and I do not know of any breed that does not have ones ), than it would be OK :noidea: BUT, I do not know how it can be actually achieved. 

I do not know anything about Dalmatians and can not judge "improved" versus "original" Dalmation, but if "new" dog really has no difference but improved health , than I do not see why it would be such "sacrilege" :confused3:, but I am probably naive regarding all of that ...

NOW - how about this "dandy fact" that I heard this weekend at the show :

Shelties carry a gene to produce merle coloring. If one breeds one merle to another merle, some puppies in the litter will be BLIND OR DEAF !!!!! Now, do you think breeders do not do that ????? YES THEY DO ! ON PURPOSE - to get double merle with "stunning coloring" :afraid::banghead::boom: 

I was told that it is "not a problem, puppies live normal life, can "find their way around just fine" :bulgy-eyes::faint:

I was shocked !!!! 

Most poodle breeders now work sooo hard to test and improve health . Yes, many BYB don't and some hide stuff in show lines also, but overall trend is positive !!!! IMO


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

I agree with Lilith, myself - the history of eugenics and "purity" is a curious, and sometimes dangerous, thing. It will be interesting to see how the discussions go on Cavaliers - I know there has been a proposal to try to recreate the breed with cockers mated to papillons, but have heard no more about it recently (there is a school of thought that says this is how they were originally recreated back in the early 20th century, rather than through selection from the King Charles spaniel).

And as for deliberately breeding merle to merle, the mind boggles. I am glad to say that in the UK, merle to merle bred Shelties cannot be registered with Kennel Club, at the request of the breed association.


----------



## wishpoo (Sep 12, 2009)

> And as for deliberately breeding merle to merle, the mind boggles. I am glad to say that in the UK, merle to merle bred Shelties cannot be registered with Kennel Club, at the request of the breed association.


Hopefully that trend will "spill over" to other places :alberteinstein: !!!! I still can not believe I heard what I heard : ((((


----------



## Sutton Bend (Jul 28, 2010)

NO breed, as far as I know just sprang into being. Every breed is a cross with another type of dog. If it does not introduce a disease/issue not currently in the breed, and improves a serious problem, it is a no brainer to me! 

Obviously I am interested in keeping poodles poodles. Purity for the sake of purity makes little sense to me, but I do think major caution needs to be exercised. It has been proven over and again when non-native species are introduced to control native pests it can create a whole host of other unforseen issues. Obviously this example is different than the proposed scenario, but I am using it to show how new problems/consequences can occur which may be equal or worse than the original.


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

I am sure that many of you here have seen the documentary, _Pedigree Dogs Exposed_ (be warned, it is unpleasant : Documentary - BBC - Pedigree Dogs Exposed Video by bordercollie19 - Myspace Video )

I don't know how far down the road Poodles are, in this regard, but I do see that there are a number of Poodle breeders that are striving for low _COI_s.

There is a good discussion of these issues here : Inbreeding and using COI to analyze potential pairings (yet more on Pedigree Dogs Exposed)|Ruffly Speaking .


----------



## Fluffyspoos (Aug 11, 2009)

Though what sort of dog is low enough on health issues even could be introduced to the lines and still keep poodles looking like poodles?

Pointers and Dalmatians do look a lot alike.


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

nu2poodles said:


> I am sure that many of you here have seen the documentary, _Pedigree Dogs Exposed_ (be warned, it is unpleasant : Documentary - BBC - Pedigree Dogs Exposed Video by bordercollie19 - Myspace Video )
> 
> You may be interested in the web site, which is where I read about the dalmatians Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog


----------



## cbrand (Aug 9, 2009)

I'd support mixing but what exactly would you want to mix with? Certainly not a PWD. They have just as big a problem with Addisons as we do and structurally they are very different from Poodles.

GSP? You will sacrifice coat, quality of head, and carriage but I think you could introduce some better physical qualities in terms of fronts. Of course you'd have a more active dog to contend with.

Afghan? You'd get that pretty side picture that so many people strive for but the coat could be a bear to keep. Plus, you might have to give up the idea of having an easy to train dog.

As far as the BBC documentary goes, I think it is important to remember that many of the UK's problems with pedigree dogs comes from the fact that their gene pool is especially small as a result of years of strict quarantine regulations.


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

Not perfect, because they also have PRA & HD problems (others ?), but I would certainly at least take a careful look at the Irish Water Spaniel if I were considering doing something like this.

Thank you fjm, I will take a look --- I was scouting Pointers in field trials way back when this cross was being discussed, but since those days, until recently, I have not been very much involved in these things.

cbrand, there's no question that any cross is probably going to introduce changes (bad/good) to the phenotype. It may be that the Poodle gene pool is large enough that the problems can be worked through if all the breeders get on board about doing something. So far, I am quite impressed with several breeders dedication toward lowering the COI in their dogs, even if it means some sacrifice in "type".

About the time I left the dog scene (about 15 years ago), some lines of Weimaraners were suffering some pretty severe auto-immune problems.


----------



## Liz (Oct 2, 2010)

Given that this is hypothetical ... I think any time a purebred dog has been developed that has a high risk of a severe disability, we actually have a duty to cross-breed to reduce the frequency or severity of the problem. Developing a breed with severe problems is no different than irresposible breeders who don't test breeding stock to prevent/reduce the likelihood of heritable diseases, IMHO.


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

I believe breeding dogs for certain traits is important, else I would be on my way to the nearest rescue or shelter instead of here.

But I also think this discussion is important for the sake of our beloved dogs. I admit that I am a believer in the "form follows function" way of thinking, and I believe that the "function" part gets terribly distorted by the exclusive emphasis on phenotype characteristic of dog shows as currently practised. Actually, in many (extreme ?) cases it seems, the only "function" left to the dog is to be "shown".

Thus, in some breeds, you get a clear distinction between the "field" dogs and those bred for the "bench".

I want to add a quote from the article I cited above ( Inbreeding and using COI to analyze potential pairings (yet more on Pedigree Dogs Exposed)|Ruffly Speaking )(it's worth thinking about, I think) : "... the only breeders who have the philosophy that closer breeding is preferable to outcrossing are the dog fancy and the import-bred Arabian horse fancy. The rest of every other group I’ve been involved with (cow, goat, sheep, rabbit, other horse) thinks that this is CRAZY and INSANE. They don’t even use the words like we do–it’s not an 'outcross' if you breed to an unrelated sire; it’s just a normal breeding."


----------



## Winnow (Jan 2, 2010)

This is a interesting read 
GENETICS

Bob tail boxers.

I think they get KC pedigree today on those boxers.


----------



## Lilith (Sep 29, 2010)

I have 2 devon rex cats, which have been a breed only since the 1950s or 60s or so. One of the features that is extremely important to this breed (and in fact sort of defines and was the raison d'etre of the breed) is the short, curly, non-shedding coat. It is extremely common for breeders to cross-breed devons to normal short-haired or other cats in order to keep the gene pool healthy. It is extremely common for Devons to have coats that range from nearly normal and almost shaggy to being completely bald. 

One of my devons has a short-haired great-grandparent. Is she impure? Not truly a Devon? HA! What she is is a healthy, funky-looking cat that is every bit Devon. 

When someone starts talking about how a certain breed can ONLY EVER be bred with that breed, and how a certain breed MUST have EXACTLY a specific type of shape/color/etc, then we're in trouble. Nature does not work that way - period. Anyone with even a basic understanding of genetics would realize that within any family there will and must be variation of phenotype. If I saw a group of humans that were all perfectly 5'8" tall, the exact same shade of brown, the same hazel eyes, the same build, etc - I would freak out and think they were some sort of freaky inbred cult. It's just not normal to push a group of individuals towards uniformity.

In any large group of poodles you are going to have some with coats that aren't 'perfect', and some with temperaments that aren't 'perfectly poodle' (several folks on here have posted behavior problems, shyness, aloofness, etc that have gained responses like "that's not typical for a poodle"), and some with colors or faces or bodies that aren't 'show quality'. If you cross-breed once in a while(to any other breed of dog, take your pick), you increase the frequency of these not-quite-perfect-poodles. You do not eliminate the breed, any more than my Devon's great-grandma-short-haired eliminated Devons from the face of the planet. And as for showing - you simply pick out the ones that happen to appear a certain way and win your big awards with them. Same as people and beauty pageants. You don't try to drive an entire population to be beauty queens!


----------



## bigpoodleperson (Jul 14, 2009)

> When someone starts talking about how a certain breed can ONLY EVER be bred with that breed, and how a certain breed MUST have EXACTLY a specific type of shape/color/etc, then we're in trouble.


But the reason we have Breeds is to have a predictable shape/color/etc.


----------



## PaddleAddict (Feb 9, 2010)

bigpoodleperson said:


> But the reason we have Breeds is to have a predictable shape/color/etc.


And it's not just about shape and color, but also predictability of temperament, intelligence, trainability, movement... otherwise, why have purebreds? 

With the outcrossing to entirely different breeds (i.e., Dal to Pointer) I would think most people are worried about unintentionally introducing an even bigger problem, or changing important breeds features. I don't think it's just about being "pure," I mean there are purebred dogs that just don't have the features or health or temperament of the breed and people don't want to breed those dogs either, even though they are "pure."


----------



## Cdnjennga (Jul 30, 2009)

I did some reading on this last night, and it seems there's 2 reasons pure Dalmation lovers are against this new low uric acid Dal.

1) The link between uric acid and the formation of the stones has not conclusively been proven.
2) The low uric acid Dals tend to have smaller spots than the pure - it's theorized that the breeders unknowingly encouraged this issue to grow by breeding for a spot pattern that goes hand in hand with this crystal issue. Accepting these new Dals would go against the desired look of the breed.

The thing that stood out for me is that this uric acid issue is in every. single. Dalmation. Every single one of them has high uric acid, although not every single one of them actually has the stone issue. So if they don't cross breed, this issue will forever more be in the breed (particularly in males, who really suffer from it).

So with that in mind, I support crossing breeding when it has a clear purpose such as it does here. I agree that we have breeds because we want consistent looks, personality, etc. But it can't be at the expense of health. Especially when these new Dals are 99% or so pure Dal (there is only one Pointer in their pedigree).

One of the LUA dals appeared in a show in the UK (I believe) and won best in group. I think that says something as well!


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

Cdnjennga said:


> One of the LUA dals appeared in a show in the UK (I believe) and won best in group. I think that says something as well!


Yep - Best of Breed at a major show: Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: The UK's first GM Dalmatian - and she's a winner!


----------



## Karma'sACat (Jun 1, 2010)

I think comparing LUA dals to "improving" poodles is kind of apples to oranges. With the dals, they had a very specific goal in mind: lower the uric acid levels.
What is the goal of introducing another breed in to the poodle? Just saying improving the breed or making it healthier is kind of silly, it is so vague you would never make progress because everyone would have a different idea of improvement or better health.
Not to mention crossing to a shedding breed could ruin the allergy friendliness of the breed. How often do we talk about doodles being horrible for animal allergy sufferers?
Unless there was a specific purpose in mind, I don't think introducing a new breed is a great idea.


----------



## bigpoodleperson (Jul 14, 2009)

I cannot think of Any health issue poodles have that would be fixed by ONE outcross to another breed....


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

As I say - purely hypothetical.


----------



## bigpoodleperson (Jul 14, 2009)

I understand that. Just thinking though.


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

I don't think anyone seems to be proposing a cross as things stand now. But there is a concern that "traditional" breeding practises are decreasing the gene pool and that some breeds could reach a "point of no return" w/r to genetic issues within the breed, as the Dalmations seem to have done.

Thus, it seems, a number of Standard Poodle breeders have forsaken "linebreeding" (which increases the COI) and are seeking to produce greater genetic diversity ("outcrossing." lowering the COI) in their dogs. 

We do not currently understand the inheritance of Addison's, for example, but that does not mean that we will never understand it, or that a cross of some sort or another will not be required to eradicate it from the Standard Poodle, if that is what is desired.


----------



## pudlemom (Apr 16, 2010)

nu2poodles said:


> I am sure that many of you here have seen the documentary, _Pedigree Dogs Exposed_ (be warned, it is unpleasant : Documentary - BBC - Pedigree Dogs Exposed Video by bordercollie19 - Myspace Video )


Wow I have not seen this but watching it was very Disturbing,quit sad what we are willing to do in the name of what we see as beauty with no reguards to the welfare of the dogs.


----------



## Karma'sACat (Jun 1, 2010)

bigpoodleperson said:


> I understand that. Just thinking though.


Same here. I posed my questions to see what others would say.


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

Hello pudelmom, ... yes, it is disturbing. But it is heartening to see people taking heed ! 

I was marveling at the heard of deer that pass through my yard every evening, looking for the little treats I give them : how perfectly marked and beautiful and healthy they are. We even had a set of triplets last Spring ! Some I can distinguish from the others, but it is mostly by the amount of familiarity they express towards me. 

I think our attempts at selection are feeble compared with that of nature.


----------



## Lilith (Sep 29, 2010)

Another reason I have a poodle: the breed seems pretty healthy.

But my understanding of breeding is that it got started when folks started breeding dogs that were good at something to other dogs that were good at something. Shape, size, and color followed function. Probably a pretty healthy way to go about things.

If we're breeding ONLY to have size, shape and color, but don't care about temperament, health, or ability, then THAT is what I mean by we're in trouble. Because you can have a very sick but very pretty dog and decide to breed him because all you want is the pretty. Not good, genetically speaking, for the breed.


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

Which is very much what seems to have happened with Cavaliers, Lilith. Starting with a tiny gene pool, and then selected for a smaller and smaller head ... And as for what has been done to the German Shepherd, I have seen hardly one with sound back legs after the age of five in recent years.


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

This is a very interesting discussion, and a good one for all dog lovers to have, as disturbing as it is.

Here is what one Standard breeder said back in 2001 :

"I believe, with an 18% COI average for 10/100 (10 generations/100% known) in Standard Poodles it presents the breed with a complicated dilemma. The dogs are more pre-disposed to hereditary immune-mediated disease (as reported by their owners and breeders with more regularity today. We realize we are not alone in this mess as we are witnessing greater occurrences running in family combinations). OH, but these same 18% average COI Poodles win BEST IN SHOWS and #1 dog all breeds or way near the top each year around the globe. Best at the National can be 25% inbred, and everyone still runs to him with their 18% average cousins and well, you get the picture. And so, each year those winners have more of the same concentrated genes, each decade it becomes harder to produce an outcrossed breeding. In my experience, it is becoming a worsening situation "thing," to answer your question more directly. I know a breeder that thinks inbreeding in this variety will prove to produce super dogs slipping through the genetic pinhole, unscathed by immune-mediated disorders. I have already fallen for that, and was part of the experiment with that mindset. The dogs were some of the most beautiful and they also produced a high percentage of immune-mediated health conditions. Not in just one combination, but in several that I witnessed. I will err on the side of caution and breed for diversity as that has been proven to increase longevity by the geneticists conducting population studies over and again. I love this variety; I would like it to survive." [ "An Interview With The Breeders' Guild" -- TIARA Standard Poodles ]

As I said earlier, in my search for a Standard, I have come across several breeders who have altered their breeding practice toward greater diversity. I do not know how successful they have been in this endeavor.


----------



## neVar (Dec 25, 2009)

So finally sat my butt through that documentary last night. 

I think a lot of it was (like any documentary) a bit tainted to one view. 

I do think that kennel clubs need to hold their breeders to a higher level. Testing etc. 
however i do think that it is a huge task to follow. IT would be great if the AKC/CKC etc started their OWN health data base. OFA/Pennhip/dna testing etc. However i also realize in doing so that they woudl be biting their own foot- as they would loose i'm guessing a huge chunk of their registrations etc. 

I also think that AKC has done a good job with this new award for breeders of the next level- that test that prove their dogs etc. 

I have said for a long time that i think dogs LIKE some breeds of horses should be required to pass an inspection. Stallions that are warmbloods can not produce registered offspring until they are inspected. at age 2-3 they come in and seen moving and their conformation is scored. head , legs, front legs, hoves, back all each get a score, any peice below a 5 means a stallion can't pass. over all his marks all combined must equal (most breeds it's a 7). 

Then the stallion must be 'proven' to recieve lifetime. Any health issues that come up (IE a large % of babies having OCD in their joints etc) and approval is yanked- babies can't be registered anymore. Most breeds require the stallions to be xrayed of joints before approval as well. 

I THINK dogs should do this. At a dog show should be available. 2-3 judges score the dogs movement- conformation and it gets a pass or it doesn't. required for any future litters to be registered.


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

neVar said:


> Then the stallion must be 'proven' to recieve lifetime. Any health issues that come up (IE a large % of babies having OCD in their joints etc) and approval is yanked- babies can't be registered anymore. Most breeds require the stallions to be xrayed of joints before approval as well.
> 
> I THINK dogs should do this. At a dog show should be available. 2-3 judges score the dogs movement- conformation and it gets a pass or it doesn't. required for any future litters to be registered.


Hello, neVar, just to be the devil's advocate a bit longer, I don't think this is sufficient for the "working breeds" (actually, I don't think "soundness" or "ability" can be proved in the show ring -- and this is evidenced by the breeds I am most familiar with, Weimaraner and English Pointers). So they have developed "hunting tests" and "agility competitions", etc. to help preserve the abilities in some breeds. But these are not required, and some breeds have split into "field" and "bench" strains. Often these different strains differ quite markedly in "type". There are even some breeders attempting to preserve the hunting qualities in the Poodle, and I suppose that many of the dogs that are sound & successful in the field would not be successful in the show ring.

That being said, I see a fair number of breeders who are concerned with these issues and working hard for the "whole" dog.

... no Poodle yet ...


----------



## cbrand (Aug 9, 2009)

I pretty sure that with GSDs in Germany that you have to get a passing score before you can breed. Anyone know if this is true for other breeds?


----------



## wishpoo (Sep 12, 2009)

What is done to GSD is just criminal !!!!! IMO :afraid: 

Coming from Europe where I grew up knowing this breed very well (since every other "pet" was GSD), I was flabbergasted when I came to the USA :ahhhhh: First few GSDs I met I was sure they were crippled rescue dogs :angry: and both me and my husband made a mistake asking : "Oh, what is wrong with his legs : (((??? " and were greeted with raised eyebrows and "...emmm...nothing" !

To make the story short - if I ever decide to have a GSD nowadays - it is going to be OFF bench imported bloodline :airplane:



> Another reason I have a poodle: the breed seems pretty healthy.


I am very sad to say that it is VERY far from being a fact : (((


----------



## neVar (Dec 25, 2009)

With the horse breeds who do inspections the proven is in tye sport they are bred for. Jumpers are proven by jumping. This gives breeding stock who are talented but also have the structure to supory it 

Doesn't mean all the babies make it to the top levels. But it improves the breed while maintaining standards.


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

I agree with you here, neVar, I think horses are much better off in this regard.

But not without problems. 

My horse story: once upon a time, I bought a beautiful, dapple gray Missouri Foxtrotter horse. He was out of a very famous gray sire. I had him 3 or 4 years and he developed a small growth on his third eyelid. This biopsied as a melanoma, and we quickly removed the entire third eyelid. But the cancer spread like wildfire, and even though I took the horse to New Bolten Center, there was no saving him. My vet informed me that some 80% of grey horses were at risk for some degree of equine melanoma. One thing I noticed about this horse, who had very distinct, contrasty dapples, was that the pigment in the dark part of the dapple was actually "clumped" and very concentrated.

Could breeding over generations to produce this "desirable coloration" have contributed to the virulence of the melanoma in this horse ? I don't know (--too broken hearted to research--), but I would not be surprised if it did.


----------



## cbrand (Aug 9, 2009)

nu2poodles said:


> I will err on the side of caution and breed for diversity as that has been proven to increase longevity by the geneticists conducting population studies over and again. I love this variety; I would like it to survive." [ "An Interview With The Breeders' Guild" -- TIARA Standard Poodles ]


And yet J. B. R. got health problems when she decided to cross breed Minis to Standards. She got puppies with very low COIs, but ironically, she introduced a disorder previously seen in only in Minis into this line of Standards. 

Another breeder (who has been on this forum) who is in the low COI/limited Wycliffe pedigree camp produced a Standard Poodle with very low COI that still ended up with both HD and epilepsy. 

Diversity is good, but it is clearly not the only answer.


----------



## cbrand (Aug 9, 2009)

neVar said:


> With the horse breeds who do inspections the proven is in tye sport they are bred for. Jumpers are proven by jumping. This gives breeding stock who are talented but also have the structure to supory it
> 
> Doesn't mean all the babies make it to the top levels. But it improves the breed while maintaining standards.


So would you support an AKC rule that only dogs who have "proven" themselves in some way could produce registered offspring? As a buyer :biggrin1: would you be willing to only buy puppies from breeding dogs who were proven?


----------



## SpooWishes (Dec 7, 2010)

I wish the AKC had more 'merit badges'. 
Like receiving a low COI Merit Badge for a litter.


----------



## neVar (Dec 25, 2009)

if it helped weed out bad breeders yes would. Just like buy y horses who are regstered and have paretns wth health testing (xrys- and approved breeding stock) 

in breeds of horses that dont approve breedng stock there too have been issues with breeding for extremes (Lets look at the QHs wth their bull dog bodies and small feet and huge #s of navicular. Now this doesnt maen that the breeds dont change they do. and doesnt mean issues dont exst with the breeds. Joint issues are stll there. BUt IMO they do a lot to prevent to keep it from gettng worse.


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

cbrand said:


> And yet J. B. R. got health problems when she decided to cross breed Minis to Standards. She got puppies with very low COIs, but ironically, she introduced a disorder previously seen in only in Minis into this line of Standards.
> 
> Another breeder (who has been on this forum) who is in the low COI/limited Wycliffe pedigree camp produced a Standard Poodle with very low COI that still ended up with both HD and epilepsy.
> 
> Diversity is good, but it is clearly not the only answer.


I certainly agree with you.

I think there is always some "trial & error", just as there is in nature. But, as was pointed out in the article I cited earlier [ Inbreeding and using COI to analyze potential pairings ], "COI tells you nothing about whether the two dogs are going to produce high-quality offspring. ... You still have to choose a stud dog or bitch based on his or her quality and health testing and so on. ... Committing to a lower COI as much as you possibly can–not to the detriment of the dogs, but as a general rule–will create a breed that is substantially more sustainable over the long term (I mean decades or centuries here, which is–I hope–an important part of how breeders are planning their breedings)."

I think the problem with the traditional approach to dog breeding (linebreeding; pursuing a "type" for which only a few individuals within a population are recognized as being "prepotent") is that many individuals, who may inadvertantly be just those who are _not_ carriers of certain deleterious traits, are eliminated from the gene pool. I think this was the point of the Ridgeback discussion in _Pedigree Dogs Exposed_. [I'm not referencing the specifics of the example here, but the idea that we may be inadvertantly selecting _against_ the long-term survival of the breed. Note too, that the Ridgeback breeder who was interviewed, while claiming that selecting for the "ridge" was (traditionally, or, perhaps, mythologically) selecting for the "best hunting dogs", admitted that her dogs did not hunt.] 

Suppose there was a rule that no Poodle could be bred before the age of 7, and no Poodle displaying an hereditary disease could be bred. What then ?


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

The problem with "no breeding before the age of seven" is that it cuts out a bitch's breeding years. It is a conundrum I face with Sophy - the best advice I can find is to breed before she is 3.5 years old, yet PRCD in papillons is very rarely evident before 6 or 7, if then. And the development of the genetic test seems to have stalled through lack of samples (although I suppose that is a good thing, if it implies low incidence, rather than reluctance to admit to a problem in a breeding line).

I think a rule that no dog with a significant hereditable disease (affected rather than carrier) can be shown, and no puppies from such a dog can be registered, would be a start, but it still does not address the shrinking gene pool. As another experimental exercise, I looked for a possible stud for Poppy (I don't intend to breed her - just playing what if....). Her COI is already high, and it would be nearly impossible to find a red or apricot stud that would significantly lower it in the pups, due to a couple of very influential US and Australian sires. 

Extending the hypothesis - what if it were found that a trait of poodles - let's say the desirable dense, harsh coat - were found to be linked with a significant, undesirable recessive gene? This is closer to the Ridgeback issue. Breeding soft-coated poodles would then breed away from the problem, but would mean big changes in the way poodles are clipped, shown, etc. (Lights blue touch paper and retires three paces!)


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

fjm said:


> The problem with "no breeding before the age of seven" is that it cuts out a bitch's breeding years.


Yes, but isn't _part_ of the problem that we breed too few individuals too many times ? ... And that healthy individuals are, more or less arbitrarily (from the standpoint of natural selection), being removed from the gene pool ?

So what if we added to the above 7 year rule a second rule : No individual shall be spayed or neutered unless it displays (through tests or otherwise) a deleterious trait ? 

I just chose the 7 years in the above rules rather arbitrarily, as I am not familiar enough with the genetic diseases to know how much time would be optimum. I just wanted to make it sufficiently long. 



fjm said:


> I think a rule that no dog with a significant hereditable disease (affected rather than carrier) can be shown, and no puppies from such a dog can be registered, would be a start, ...


The problem is that many of the deseases do not show up until the dogs have been bred (some many times), as it was with HD before routine testing began.



fjm said:


> ... but it still does not address the shrinking gene pool.


Could rule 2 fix this ? Perhaps it would need to be modified by a limit placed on the COI, to encourage breeders to go to dogs they might not have chosen otherwise.

Actually, I hate rules; but are we (assuming we are breeders here, which I am not) caretakers of the breed or are we just feeding our fancy ?



fjm said:


> Extending the hypothesis - what if it were found that a trait of poodles - let's say the desirable dense, harsh coat - were found to be linked with a significant, undesirable recessive gene? This is closer to the Ridgeback issue. Breeding soft-coated poodles would then breed away from the problem, but would mean big changes in the way poodles are clipped, shown, etc. (Lights blue touch paper and retires three paces!)


'Caretaker', to me, means that the primary responsibility is to make them healthy and happy while preserving as many distinctive characteristics as possible.

What is "blue touch paper" ?


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

'deseases' should be 'diseases'

No Poodle yet ...


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

nu2poodles said:


> What is "blue touch paper" ?


Sorry - obviously a British thing! It was the traditional instruction on fireworks throughout my childhood - probably now replaced by several pages of Health and Safety disclaimers!


----------



## Lilith (Sep 29, 2010)

nu2poodles said:


> 'Caretaker', to me, means that the primary responsibility is to make them healthy and happy while preserving as many distinctive characteristics as possible.



Strongly agreed. If dense non-shedding coat were intrinsically linked to a disease, then a dense non-shedding coat is not a feature that should occur in nature. Same with a ridge, or a small head, or a flat face, or any other feature that we find cute, convenient, or easier for us if it somehow damaged the dog. How can anyone say they love a dog, but then choose _anything_ that is to the detriment of the dog for their own convenience or preference?


----------



## FozziesMom (Jun 23, 2010)

Fascinating and educational discussion. Loving it. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to consider an important thought. if I knew Fozzie would have a lower chance of addisons, HD, PRI, or epilepsy, would I sacrifice how he looks? Of course I would! That said, if he doesn't look like a poodle, then I'd wonder what breed I have. 



couple thoughts and do forgive my ignorance...I really do want to learn and understand:

1. Is part of the problem that the breed standard is SO specific? Example: What if the only defining features of a poodle were its dense, non shedding coat, size, and maybe 1-3 more characteristics? If the standard were broader that would of course mean more variety in the breed, but perhaps more health too?
2. My uneducated understanding is that most pure bred dogs are within 5 generations of each other regardless of breeds and that genetic variety within domesticated dogs is a myth...isn't that the argument poodle owners use to discourage " --oodle" breeders? If that is the case, how would "outcrossing" help?
3. Why are parti colored poodles excluded from breed standard? 

Thanks to all for sharing facts and thoughtful discussion.


----------

