# Bloat, deep chests, and show breeders



## CT Girl (Nov 17, 2010)

Very interesting post CM. I have noticed in the show ring more dogs with these shallow "more refined" chests. I have also noticed that these dogs lack the springy floaty gait characteristic of a well put together poodle. I have never considered if this tendancy leads to bloat or if it would indeed lesson the tendency to bloat. I wonder if any study of this is being done - taking a series of measurements and noting if a certain body type is more prone to this malady.


----------



## Keithsomething (Oct 31, 2009)

CM, I think you hit a few good points here. It kind of incenses me when people blame show breeders solely as the cause of breed related health issues...There are hundreds if not thousands of BYB's churning out standard poodles quicker than anything, yet ALL the blame is laid at the feet of a show breeder?

The diseases thrown at "show" breeders doors that truly annoy me are SA, epilepsy, and bloat...these diseases are thought to be polygenetic...so they could potentially pop up in ANY line at ANY time because of the multitude of genes it takes to make them occur, how someone can predict that they'd produce any of these is beyond me...and how anyone can expect someone to predict these things...well that leaves me dumbfounded


----------



## Countryboy (May 16, 2011)

I hope that u don't see this as 'cherry-picking' but some of yr words have brought a question to my mind.



CharismaticMillie said:


> which should come near the elbows and moderately sprung ribs


I could couch this in probably a whole paragraph of words but my 'blunt' question is, "Says who?" "Fanciers" say that, right? But all the Bulldog Fanciers are killing their breed. Who's to say what the Poodle show world is doing to ours. 



CharismaticMillie said:


> Many show-bred poodles are refined and have less bone than poodles not bred for the show ring. Recently, many breeders have focused on "pretty" and refined which often means much less bone. When you get less bone, you often get less chest. There are plenty of overdone dogs with shallow chests in the show ring. So to say that showing/show breeders have caused chests to become excessively deep is probably not true.



U may be right . . it may not be true. But by the words above the only Poodles allowed to breed will be ones with lighter bones , 'coz the lighter-boned ones are prettier. The rest will be neutered . . culled from the gene pool.

I hope that everybody can understand why this can't be good for the breed.

Fanciers are doing this, people. They're killing our breed. Spread the word...


----------



## Countryboy (May 16, 2011)

Keithsomething said:


> The diseases thrown at "show" breeders doors that truly annoy me are SA, epilepsy, and bloat.


Mostly these accusations are being fired by other show breeders. That takes a whole lot of the 'sting' out of them for me.  lol

Sling away, people!


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

Countryboy said:


> I hope that u don't see this as 'cherry-picking' but some of yr words have brought a question to my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


******


----------



## CT Girl (Nov 17, 2010)

Great point Keith. I do think you can point to a narrowing of diversity in bloodlines to show breeders but the combination of factors that result in SA, epilepsy, and bloat are unknown. I don't see a higher incidence of these issues in non champion or performance lines. As you point out it can pop up in any line.


----------



## Countryboy (May 16, 2011)

"Says our breed standard"

Oh... yr Breed Standard says so. And yr Breed Standard is??? One the immutable Laws of Physics??, Mathematics??, any other Science??? 

No?!! It's not???? It's just something made up by a bunch of people? I see... 

Are these people infallible??, completely free from any self-interest??, or are they a little bit of heaven come to earth....

The Breed Standard is of use only to the SSS... Stuffed Shirt Snobs. The Fancy/Pretty world.

Not much use to we who have Poodles as pets. Who's breed is being killed by the show world.....


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

CT Girl said:


> Very interesting post CM. I have noticed in the show ring more dogs with these shallow "more refined" chests. I have also noticed that these dogs lack the springy floaty gait characteristic of a well put together poodle. I have never considered if this tendancy leads to bloat or if it would indeed lesson the tendency to bloat. I wonder if any study of this is being done - taking a series of measurements and noting if a certain body type is more prone to this malady.


I don't think that a springy gait would impact bloat but the Purdue study found that chest depth-width ratio does impact predisposition for bloat. A deep chest with well sprung ribs is probably less at risk than a deep chest with narrow rib width. A shallow chest with well sprung ribs would be less at risk than a shallow chest with narrow ribs width.

The Purdue Bloat Study suggested that the best candidates for breeding are those with a low chest depth-width ratio and without any first degree relatives with bloat.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

Countryboy said:


> Oh... yr Breed Standard says so. And yr Breed Standard is??? One the immutable Laws of Physics??, Mathematics??, any other Science???
> 
> No?!! It's not???? It's just something made up by a bunch of people? I see...
> 
> ...


Countryboy, did you read my above posts at all? You must have missed my point.

Do you choose to own purebred poodles? If so, you should be happy that there is a breed standard. Without one, there would be no poodle breed.

I would argue that those who pay closest attention to the breed standard are likely those who are competing against that standard in the show ring. Yet even then, *show breeders/exhibitors deviate from the standard for what is more attractive/popular. This includes, as I explained above, a trend of breeding more refined dogs who have less bone and often shallower chests. On the other hand, it is not uncommon to see a poodle bred for purposes other than the show ring with more bone and a deeper chest.*

So how are the fanciers ruining the breed?


----------



## mom24doggies (Mar 28, 2011)

Countryboy said:


> Fanciers are doing this, people. They're killing our breed. Spread the word...


 You state this as fact, when in reality it is your opinion. And this is my opinion: if we didn't have breeders, poodles would cease to exist. A good many breeders I know of are doing their best to preserve the poodle as a beautiful dog able to function properly. However, health issues DO and always will exist. It is part of life. :-/

ETA: I must ask CB, what is your solution to this "problem" of breeders destroying the poodle breed? I see you tearing them down a lot but I don't think I've ever seen you suggest an alternative.


----------



## Keithsomething (Oct 31, 2009)

Frank...look through any pedigree being used by BYB's you'll find quite a bit of Kit-sue or Leatherstocking THOSE pedigrees are killing our dogs! Anything NOT being told and hidden is killing our dogs (again I've said it before but I don't personally like PHR, but I do believe people need to be HONEST!)... "show" breeders are such a SMALL minority in poodles its disgusting and its even more disgusting that they're blamed for the majority of issues and thats why the wycliffe crap is BS, any breeder (like the one who likes to tout COI's in everyones face on THIS forum) latches onto it because it justifies them doing NOTHING with their animals!

You wanna change it? Find a diverse dog with a diverse pedigree and show it...change what everyone expects to see if you feel its to bad otherwise shut up about it

ETA...I'm not literally telling you to shut up


----------



## Countryboy (May 16, 2011)

Keithsomething said:


> You wanna change it? Find a diverse dog with a diverse pedigree and show it...change what everyone expects to see if you feel its to bad otherwise shut up about it
> 
> ETA...I'm not literally telling you to shut up


Well I'm some glad that yr not saying that, Keith.  'Cos u would one very disappointed person if u were.

Me??? Shut up??? . . . I can't see it happening, really...

It's not me who's eliminating diversity . . it's Fanciers. They are the only ones who can change this. Not me...

If my views run counter to the interests of the make-up artists who are dying fur, painting noses, or putting eye drops in their bewigged dogs eyes I can only say, meh.....:yawn:

If bitches ever saw their Show Ring Studs without all their makeup, the bitches would run a mile.  lol


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

Countryboy, since you believe that fanciers are ruining the poodle breed, what do _you_ think is a proper course of action for breeding standard poodles? Since you think that a good breeder will not pay attention to a breed standard, what _should_ a good breeder do? How should they go about picking breeding pairs? And without a breed standard, how do we ensure that we continue to breed what looks and acts like a standard poodle?


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

Countryboy said:


> Well I'm some glad that yr not saying that, Keith.  'Cos u would one very disappointed person if u were.
> 
> Me??? Shut up??? . . . I can't see it happening, really...
> 
> ...


Not _all_ fanciers do these things. Many fanciers believe in diversity. Many show without dying fur, painting noses, using eye drops, or wigging dogs.


----------



## CT Girl (Nov 17, 2010)

"If my views run counter to the interests of the make-up artists who are dying fur, painting noses, or putting eye drops in their bewigged dogs eyes I can only say, meh....."

This is insignificant and not really germaine to the health and stability of the breed. When I helped a friend show her horses we chalked their blazes and put a little hairspray on the mane and tail but that doesn't fool a decent judge. It is just putting forward a more attractive package. For me the rigidity in style of coat shown and the emphasis on hair is crazy. I would prefer a show ring where an owner could show a dog instead of a handler but I don't see that happening any time soon. I don't see a problem with the breed standard which seems reasonable to me. Do you have a specific issue with it or is it just a general dissatisfaction with all dog shows?


----------



## Indiana (Sep 11, 2011)

CT Girl said:


> "If my views run counter to the interests of the make-up artists who are dying fur, painting noses, or putting eye drops in their bewigged dogs eyes I can only say, meh....."
> 
> This is insignificant and not really germaine to the health and stability of the breed.


I'd have to agree, who doesn't put on a nice outfit when we're trying to put our best foot forward, like in a job interview? We all know the show world is not perfect; I'd prefer more emphasis on structure, overall balance, soundness and temperament, and not so much on grooming/handling skills and flash (although I will happily admit to being dazzled by pure beauty in a dog or two as well, not naming names but one rhymes with "Undone", ha,ha). BUT, there are enough breeders out there that you can get quite a lot of variety in poodle lines even in the one breed--just look at all the different poodle types that belong to us PF members! I guess it boils down to, you want a breeder with a vision who is strong, persistant, resourceful and has a goal-oriented breeding program because there ARE so many challenges to achieve health, diversity and still find dogs to breed to who physically complement the dogs already in your line. Which just means that we as purchasers of poodles need to find out what the breeder we're interested in DOES aim to achieve with their program. Which I have to admit that I did not put enough thought into before I got the dogs I have now, but I've grown since then! Still time, I'm not close to 50 yet (remember that other thread, ha,ha!). Anyway I don't think personally for all its challenges that the breed will ever die out because we love it too much!


----------



## outwest (May 1, 2011)

Not all fanciers ruin the breed. I believe many want to do what is right.

I do not remember poodles having bloat issues when I was a teen working for a vet. I remember a couple great danes and a particular borzoi, but no standards that I recall. Standard poodles used to be more robust in bone. You were very astute to notice that, CM.

I have been going to dog shows for decades. I always make a point to watch the poodles. In the last year or two I think I am seeing a trend, at least I hope it isn't in my head. The top winning dogs lately are not the skinny, extreme, ultra flashy dogs they were 5 years ago. It seems they are rewarding the dogs with more substance! I hope what I see is true. In the last few shows in particular I was so excited to see the dogs I liked, prancy, but with stronger lines and muscle, win! Has anyone else noticed this trend? 

I know England has taken a tough stance on health, actually removing some wins from dogs that had health issues or proved to have surgical corrections. Whoo Hoo! Maybe that mind set is trickling over to the US (and Canada?). It's about time. 

I don't think standards are beyond hope healthwise. It takes young fanciers to take health seriously and breed accordingly. I don't care how good looking a poodle is, don't breed to it if it isn't healthy. Also, try to breed to dogs that are older so you know they maintain their health and don't break down at 7 years old.


----------



## Countryboy (May 16, 2011)

CT Girl said:


> "If my views run counter to the interests of the make-up artists who are dying fur, painting noses, or putting eye drops in their bewigged dogs eyes I can only say, meh....."
> 
> This is insignificant and not really germaine to the health and stability of the breed.


I beg to differ. It is germane 'coz there's many members here that don't know of all the backroom tricks played while campaigning a dog. Now they do. And they've seen it confirmed by y'all.

"Not all fanciers do these things. Many fanciers believe in diversity. Many show without dying fur, painting noses, using eye drops, or wigging dogs."

The corollary of that is that some do. Did all u pet owners in the forum know that it's common in the show ring? I'll bet ya didn't.... 

"Countryboy, since you believe that fanciers are ruining the poodle breed, what do you think is a proper course of action for breeding standard poodles? Since you think that a good breeder will not pay attention to a breed standard, what should a good breeder do? How should they go about picking breeding pairs? And without a breed standard, how do we ensure that we continue to breed what looks and acts like a standard poodle?" 

Those are all fantastic questions, CharismaticMillie. But I've only been involved in the Poodle world for three years this coming April. I don't have the answers. But I have the ability, as an outsider, to call out all the Fancies in their desperate search for 'fronts', 'thinner-boned', more 'refined', and 'prettier' dogs. A goal that overrides all issues of health or temperament. And comes at the expense of diversity. 

But u ask these questions in the right place . . . Poodle Forum. There is probably no greater collection of Poodle expertise in the world than there is in here. Why don't we throw some of those questions out for comment? Right here in PF. 

How do we fix the breed???? 

The only thing that's popped into my mind while I was takin' a break is that we breed all dogs. Square ones, long ones, short ones, fat ones and skinny ones. They all have genes. And all these genes may be important. We don't know. But to cull these dogs from the gene pool is to eliminate these genes forever . . . the good and the bad.

Now, I can see a lot of problems with that one quick idea. No need to reply to tell me how impossible that may be. I will admit right here and now that it would be at least impractical.

But why don't we start some threads on it? 

So I'll throw that question out to the membership here... How do we keep the breed from becoming something so 'finely-boned' that it breaks?


----------



## MaryLynn (Sep 8, 2012)

Science was brought up, well all science functions on levels of certainty, and this is based mostly off of the precision and the accuracy of the data that has been gathered. Since most of the data that I have seen being put forth has been purely cultivated from confirmation bias (ignoring the facts that would lower the certainty of your opinion, and only looking at the information that would support your opinion).

Basically, there is a chance that fanciers are ruining poodles, and there is a chance that they are not, however the chance that they are not is much greater than the chance that they are.

The reason for this is because we're looking at a genetic history of divergence from wolves that could be as old as 150 000 years, or as recent as 15 000, plus factoring in the substantially decreased genetic diversity that has happened over the last 200 years due to selective breeding. Genetics and dogs is something only recently studied (because of their lack of genetic diversity within breeds, we can use their DNA to locate gene specific diseases that are prevalent in breeds-this helps us locate the same/similar diseases in humans). 

So basically, everyone who breeds poodles is really in the same boat. All of the breeders are (in a genetic sense) dealing with little diversity. This is true for every breed of dog. We did this during domestication, and we've done it to other species, too-however not as much as with the dog. 

It's impossible to say that this will destroy poodles, or any other breed of dog. It's also impossible to say that since every 5-10 years different bone structures of poodles desired by fanciers will destroy the breed. It's also impossible to say that strictly ignoring breed "standards" and doing your best to breed diversity visually (two very different looking dogs) will create much genetic diversity since most physical traits take up very little genetic "space."

The thing that's cool is that the grey wolves that dogs are domesticated from (and can still be hybridized with to produce viable offspring) themselves have some 4-5 distinct "family trees." A very large portion of the human population can be traced the Genghis Khan, and most of the inhabitants of Ireland/Scotland can be traced to King Nials of the Nine. 

Genetics have this very funny way of working themselves out on their own in nature, hopefully as we conjure up more data we can truly find methods for ensuring that we are breeding for the future.

Right now all we can do is hope that our breeders intentions are the best despite what history has given them. 

I personally believe in 'us' to do the right thing. Look how many improvements breeders have made in such a short amount of time? Genetic testing, hip & eye testing, spay/neuter contracts, pre-home screenings? We're on the right track.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

Countryboy said:


> So I'll throw that question out to the membership here... How do we keep the breed from becoming something so 'finely-boned' that it breaks?



I don't think you need to worry about that happening. While some breeders breed for light bone, I believe there are enough poodle breeders out there breeding for more bone to balance things out. 

Some lines are known for more bone than others. And that's a good thing!


----------



## NOLA Standards (Apr 11, 2010)

er hmmm

hmm hmmm


(me clearing my throat for attention)


HUGE generalizations going on here, ya'll!

Keithsomething - Anne and Lombardi are out of KITSUE's RUBY LEE. You don't have to like her - you don't have to be impressed with either Annie or Lombardi, but that structure AND health is evident in both Annie and Lombardi (and Rose and Irma) makes me push back a little bit when such a generalization as yours is made.

I KNOW, because I traveled and met so many of Annie's relatives, that they had BOTH health and longevity. _(Annie and B have everybit the "diversity" proclaimed in Yada's dogs. I don't market it as that. Perhaps because I am not sold - like CM - just yet on the research - because it is, for the time being, simply a hypothesis.)_

Sue -who I do not know personally, may be castigated for many things, but to generalize and assume and even state that Kitsue has a pedigree that is "killing" our dogs - is just inaccurate and misinformed.

Because I can speak from experience regarding this particular statement - I'll make it - there are jewels in BYB programs. Jewels that equal in conformation many "show bred" dogs. They might be 1 in 20 or even 1 in 40, but they exist.

Where I - as a member of the fancy - or even an aspiring member of the fancy- have an issue with BYB is mass production of poodles for dollars. We've all read these threads, but I strongly believe breeders should be INVOLVED in their breed, be an advocate of the animal(s) they are breeding.

Health testing is only a minimum standard.

Like some show breeders - BYBs inbreed and linebreed. They repeat breedings of their own animals. That is not breed diversity. 

CB - some of those poodles fell out of the ugly tree and smacked into every branch on the way down.... and they aren't healthy, either.

My love is a BYB bred parti. He's neutered - 29 1/2 and over 100 pounds. He has a beautiful shoulder layback and fabulous neck and a lovely head. He is long as a freight train - though he is square (at 29 1/2 inches he can be long as a freight train and still be square). His rear is perhaps a little straight and his bone is sufficient to support his size. He does not appear coarse, nor is he feminine (despite the fact I neutered him at 5 months).

He has a prominent poststernum and depth of chest - he is however, a bit slab sided.

I have discovered he has bloat bred to bloat bred to bloat in his line.

Fortunately, he is the most mellow dog you have ever met and I have hopes and prayers involved that he will never bloat - despite structure that is textbook for bloat.

"Show" breeders can not be villainized for creating or breeding bloat. While it does and has occured in show lines - I have proof, beside me on the couch, that BYB's do it as well.

And, if a BYB does it for the $ and a show breeder does it (breed a dog whose line has known bloat or other issue) for another pup that is beautifully structured - it is the Show breeder that is killing our breed???!!

I just can not agree with such a generalization.


And good grief I just wrote a chapter in a book...


Tabatha
NOLA Standards


----------



## Countryboy (May 16, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> I don't think you need to worry about that happening. While some breeders breed for light bone, I believe there are enough poodle breeders out there breeding for more bone to balance things out.
> 
> Some lines are known for more bone than others. And that's a good thing!


It is indeed a good thing, CM. I agree with ya there.  

"So finely-boned that it breaks"??? Awwww...  ... I just couldn't resist that line. Mea culpa...  lol


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> I found the comments on bloat interesting and wanted to comment in a separate thread.
> 
> Due to the poodle breed's build, a dog with a moderately deep chest which should come near the elbows and moderately sprung ribs, poodles are predisposed to bloat structurally. Just as Labs, Weimaraners, Dobermans, Goldens, Great Danes, etc. are. I'd say this is just as true for poodles bred by non-show breeders as well as poodles bred by show breeders.
> 
> ...



CM, though it was made in the context of a mention of bloat, I intended my remark to address a more general issue regading the relationship of form and function. I did not mention bloat, but I am in agreement with you that "there is a good case for a variety of phenotypes (including temperament!) that might predispose a dog to bloat ..." And I am also in agreement with Fluffyspoos, that food is likely an important contributing factor. I suspect that how we breed dogs also plays a part, but I am not trying to make a case for a a particular structural characteristic (i.e., deep/shallow chests) being involved.

I don't know whether the current trend in Poodle breeding is for more or less bone/chest (beyond things I have read on this forum); what I do know is that excessive focus on breeding for and based on the sorts of phenotypic traits that can be judged/measured in the show ring can produce physiological and behavioral problems. That is because the majority of breeders (including the hobby & BY breeders) are focused on breeding this or that trait or set of traits without much attention being given to how that emphasis is affecting the function of the animal. There is no way to tell when deep is too deep, or shallow too shallow, unless this is simply a matter of aesthetics (fashion), _OR_ the dogs are tested in some functional capacity where benefits or deficits become apparent. The depth of chest (or whatever feature) is not a purely aesthetic phenomenon, but showing tends to treat it primarily as such --- not absolutely, but primarily --- until some obvious problem arises. The relationship between the Pug's spinal cord issues and the focus on breeding Pugs with tightly curled tails is an example of this.

Why do we cut the tails off our dogs ? Historical precedent ? Well there's historical precident for lots of behavioral characteristics in the breed, but proficiency in these capacities is not generally regarded as making a Poodle suitable for breeding. (I said "generally" --- I am aware that there are exceptions.)

Is a Pointer that has lost the strong desire to point, through many generations of breeding for other qualities that are recognized in the show ring, still a Pointer ? Or perhaps it's now just a dog that resembles a Pointer to people who have never seen a Pointer in its _raison d'etre_, the field.

Why is it that The Poodle Standard has very little to say about the behavioral characteristics of the dogs ?

Why does the traditional Poodle clip somewhat resemble the "natural" hair growth pattern of the Irish Water Spaniel ?











Keithsomething said:


> .... It kind of incenses me when people blame show breeders solely as the cause of breed related health issues...There are hundreds if not thousands of BYB's churning out standard poodles quicker than anything, yet ALL the blame is laid at the feet of a show breeder?
> ...


I think the reason that show breeding is singled out as _a_ cause, and perhaps a primary cause, is because it is in the atmosphere of showing that emphasis is placed on certain physical, phenotypic traits, which are then bred for, sometimes in excess and to the detriment of the animal's well-being. That was the point of "Pedigree Dogs Exposed". And even if the documentary has some inaccuracies, as you have expressed elsewhere, it does, I think, make some valid and important assessments of problems in pedigree dogs that have resulted from the sort of breeding showing fosters. 

The show breeders "set the Standard", as it were.

Many of the BYB's who are interested in making money selling their standard poodles will be concerned to have them fit the popular phenotypes, which are frequently determined by the winning show dogs. If the dogs of such BYBs have pedigrees, then they most likely go back to show breeders anyway. I believe the dichotomy you are drawing is, at it's foundation, a false one. BYBs that select _primarily_ on the basis of physical phenotype are in the same boat as the recognized show breeders who select similarly (perhaps with more refinement & resources, but ...). It's not always the case, but there is a tendency for this type of selection to prevail over other considerations until the results become _painfully_ obvious, and it is this tendency that is frequently fostered in the "dog show" atmosphere.

In general though, and though I have nothing more than personal experience to go on here, I suspect that there is less pressure to conform to the refinement of a certain set of physical phenotypic traits ("what will win in the ring") among non-showing, hobby breeders, some of whom may be focusing more on a desirable balance of all the qualities associated with the breed. I am not talking about the haphazard BYBs, just interested in $, or who breed because their dog is so pretty, or cute or whatever, but those who strive to breed good, healthy Poodles, to fulfill one or more of the functions associated with the breed, because they are interested in and love the breed.

It's not exclusive. Those who breed for show can and some _do_ breed for other qualities that are not essential for success in the show ring. But it's easy to lose sight of those "non-essential" qualities, along with other qualities that do not "show" in the conformation ring,

As I have mentioned before, the result of selecting primarily for physical phenotype is fairly clear in a breed like the English Pointer, where the "show dog" phenotype differs markedly from that of the top "field dogs". Many of the show Pointers have lost the abilities, both physical and behavioral, that are required for competent field performance. They were bred without being tested for these abilities, generation after generation. Now, pretty to look at, perhaps, in the show ring, trotting, but often lumbering, idiotic, when viewed in the field, braced with a fast, intense, working field Pointer.

Consider : an allergy to grasses or other vegetation is a debilitating flaw in a field dog ... 

There's a bunch of people out there, running dogs in the field, at great expense (--- you have to maintain a couple horses and a trailer, among other things, if you want to do this yourself --- or hire a trainer/handler), who never give a single thought to making any money from their breedings. They just want to make better dogs and watch them perform. There are some untoward extremes here too --- it's not a perfect world.

What would happen if there was no money to be gained in showing; breeders just give away (or ask a nominal sum for) the pups they're not going to use ? Guess that would sort the wheat from the chaff pretty quickly, and the $$$-making BYBs and puppy mills would essentially be out of business.

Meanwhile, I am trying to figure out what to do about freeing Rain's "wild hairs" (-- making them functional --- especially those around her eyes) from the rest of her massive head of hair so that she can go _safely_ into the heavy cover this winter and explore, and hunt, which _she really loves to do_ ...

Suppose you have a dog that fits the Breed Standard to near perfection, but lacks certain behavioral traits considered characteristic of the breed ? The Poodle Standard is very slight and nondescript in this regard. Suppose we take "joie de vivre", often mentioned as characteristic of Poodle temperament. Your dog develops a bit of a nasty streak, and is a bit shy, but not so much that you can't show him successfully. And you have shown him successfully, hoping that he's just going through a phase; or worse, you make excuses for his behavior and deny the realization that his behavior is not as "poodly" as you'd like. _He fits_ The Standard _to a T (since it makes few demands regarding Poodle demenor); he's finished !_ Breed or not ?


It's not a prison if you never try the door.


----------



## stealthq (Aug 4, 2011)

nu2poodles said:


> ...
> what I do know is that excessive focus on breeding for and based on the sorts of phenotypic traits that can be judged/measured in the show ring can produce physiological and behavioral problems. That is because the majority of breeders (including the hobby & BY breeders) are focused on breeding this or that trait or set of traits without much attention being given to how that emphasis is affecting the function of the animal. There is no way to tell when deep is too deep, or shallow too shallow, unless this is simply a matter of aesthetics (fashion), _OR_ the dogs are tested in some functional capacity where benefits or deficits become apparent.
> 
> ...
> ...


_YES_. Though most BYBs are breeding for looks too - a rare color or size, etc.

I don't know why breeders (of all critters, not just dogs OR poodles) continually make this mistake but they do. It must be a human thing to tend to place primary importance on what we can see even though the unintended consequences are seen over and over. I wish there were something like the German Shepherds' breed tests (although they have fallen victim to 'sport' rather than real work) where the dog must pass minimum requirements for conformation, temperament and obedience and have a title in some kind of sport/work (several qualifying options here) in order to be officially considered suitable to breed. Does not stop people from breeding without doing this, but it does set the standard.

On another note, since there's so little on appropriate poodle temperament in the standard, I think I'm going to conclude that Kohl fits perfectly. He may be lacking the more refined nature of other poodles I've known, but he fits the retrieving water-dog with a joy for life just perfectly. Honestly, he's a lab in a poodle suit. With clown shoes.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

nu2poodles said:


> what I do know is that excessive focus on breeding for and based on the sorts of phenotypic traits that can be judged/measured in the show ring can produce physiological and behavioral problems. That is because the *majority* of breeders (including the hobby & BY breeders) are focused on breeding this or that trait or set of traits without much attention being given to how that emphasis is affecting the function of the animal.
> I am not sure what the "Majority" are doing, but I know that GOOD breeders, are breeding for a balanced animal. One that is balanced in all aspects: health, temperament, structure, conformation. It's well known that breeding for one specific trait is problematic. But the good thing is that GOOD breeders are aware of this, and _doing their best_ to breed the most balanced poodle possible, _without losing type, which is what makes a poodle a poodle. _ Frankly, I don't care what the "majority" are doing. I will support those that are doing _what is right._
> 
> There is no way to tell when deep is too deep, or shallow too shallow, unless this is simply a matter of aesthetics (fashion), _OR_ the dogs are tested in some functional capacity where benefits or deficits become apparent. The depth of chest (or whatever feature) is not a purely aesthetic phenomenon, but showing tends to treat it primarily as such --- not absolutely, but primarily --- until some obvious problem arises. The relationship between the Pug's spinal cord issues and the focus on breeding Pugs with tightly curled tails is an example of this.
> ...


*******


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

stealthq said:


> ... he's a lab in a poodle suit. With clown shoes.


I love this description ! We are lucky that these qualities are prevalent in the breed !


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

nu2poodles said:


> I love this description ! We are lucky that these qualities are prevalent in the breed !


Are you saying that you would rather a poodle be built more like a lab? It sounds to me like maybe you would prefer other breeds to the poodle? Maybe I am misinterpreting. But there are great differences between a lab and a poodle both in structure, temperament, intelligence, and historical function.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

Also, Countryboy, I really don't know _where_ to post this because there are now three threads with a discussion on how show breeders are ruining the poodle breed. So, I'll just throw it here.

You mentioned that only the fanciers (who are of course ruining the breed...:rollseyes care about the breed standard. Should you doubt that the poodle breed standard describes a moderate dog built to for a _function_, I suggest you read this entire article. 
http://www.chateaublancknls.com/fourdefinitions.htm
I'm sure nu2poodles will enjoy it to.

To pique your interest, I will go ahead and quote the part I suspect you will find the most interesting:

"_Caricature is a form of mockery, and when a breed's history has been tossed aside as unimportant, there is no longer that impersonal criterion toward which to breed, namely, that a dog must look and act as if it could do whatever it was developed by man to accomplish. Perhaps, unconsciously, the public feels this and loses faith in the breed. Too, such dogs will no longer act a certain way because they are no longer bred for a certain purpose - even their appearance is a travesty on dogdom!

This is the reason for preserving a Standard, built upon the PURPOSE of the breed.

Therefore, a dog most typical of its breed is not exaggerated; he is so much in perfect balance that at first glance he appears far from extraordinary. The others around him in the show ring are more noticeable. Their faults and virtues hit one like a blow; yet the eye keeps returning to that smooth, functional creature whose every part seems proper to him. Even the novice observer is drawn to him and exclaims, "I cannot help liking that dog; he just seems satisfactory." He is indeed a satisfaction. He is an ideal come true and, therefore, he is perfectly balanced. True type, because it is functional, is always completely balanced.

Poodle Origin
Our own breed, the Poodle, no longer hunts professionally, and since this article is about him, *let us study the "original" Water Dog. Compared to Spaniels, he was shorter in body and higher on leg. These characteristics enabled him to climb, to get through swamplands and heavy mud with greater ease. His chest made one think or the prow of a ship - deep rather than broad, with a moderate spring of ribs. Everything about this dog was effective for work, in and out of water.*

His hindquarters were unusually well developed and strong for the purpose of climbing and swimming; for a similar reason, his feet, though well-padded, had long, flexible toes with considerable thin membrane between them - "webbed feet," the ancients called them. In thick mud and in water these strong feet spread out most effectively, and on dry land the muscular toes arched well-up; it was a strong and useful foot, not in the least like that of a Terrier. Today, when one hears someone say that his Poodle has "feet just like a Terrier," one knows that owner is either ignorant of Poodle type or else he hopes to impress an equally ignorant judge!
The neck and shoulders of the original Poodle were like those of any good hunting dog: the latter was sloping and well laid back, and the former clean, long and flexible enough to permit a high head carriage on both land and water.

The head was oval-shaped with a moderate though definite occiput - the "bird bump" - a moderate though definite stop, and extremely flat cheeks; a head streamlined for sharp, marsh grass and actual water diving, yet roomy enough for a calm, unexcitable brain. The muzzle was long, strong and tight-lipped as, of course, pendulous lips and open flews could choke or drown a dog delivering a struggling bird through the water. Also, unlike Spaniels, the eyes were not at all prominent, they were almond-shaped and set far apart. A large, prominent or protruding eye could be severely damaged in sharp marsh grasses and in rough water.
Ears of the Poodle were Spaniel ears, but the length was of small account; the set-on was the important feature. They were to be set low, about on a level with the eye, because highly set ears were not only in the way in thick, rough coverage but they did not efficiently protect the actual ear orifice. Today, low-set ears give any Poodle the "right expression," regardless of length."_ Hayes Blake Hoyt


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> Rather than singling out and generalizing blame on the show breeders as a whole, why not a discussion on how irresponsible breeders are contributing to the detriment of poodles' well-being.


I have attempted to indicate that I believe it is the _atmosphere_ or context of showing that tends to distort our perception of dogs. There is no question that "irresponsible breeders" contribute to the detriment of Poodles and other breeds as well. The issue would be what's irresponsible and what is not. You claim that "good" breeders "are breeding for a balanced animal", and I agree. But what I see as the primary concern and interest among the majority of "show" breeders and fanciers is not what I would consider an emphasis on balance, except in the purely physiological sense, as it is described in the Breed Standard.

I applaud those breeders who test their dogs in some performance capacity suitable to the breed, and consider this important. But I wonder how many would object if such testing were made a requirement for a dog to become a Champion.

Some Pointer people have been discussing such requirement for years, but I don't think it's been accomplished yet (I've been away from that world for a long time.) Lots of objection from the show people.

It is not enough to pay lip service ...



CharismaticMillie said:


> Do you mean from professional handlers or breeders? Showing a dog costs thousands of dollars. There is no money to be gained from a breeder/exhibitor by showing their dog....If you give away dogs, very few reputable breeders would exist. Health testing alone is expensive, as is whelping and raising a litter. [/COLOR]


No, I was referring to making money off the sale of dogs....Campaigning a field dog is equally as expensive (-- horses, trailers, traveling long distances, etc.), if not more so, as I tried to indicate. And the cost of whelping, raising, testing is similar for field dogs. 

Are you suggesting that if there was no money to be made from selling dogs that there would be more disreputable breeders ? Certainly there would be fewer breeders.

...what to do about freeing Rain's "wild hairs"...

Yes, I keep the front up in bands. I still need practice, I guess, separating out the wild hairs. They seem to be taking a long time to grow ...I hope I'm not breaking them. I liked very much how Zmyjka did his Cadence's eyebrows, and it may provide a solution, if I can do it. (Picture seems no longer to be available for me ? It was here, I think.)

For all my complain'in, I hope you can see how much I love my Poodle, and how "talented" I think she is. She's evidence for me that some Poodle breeders are paying attention to what I think are the important things.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

nu2poodles said:


> You claim that "good" breeders "are breeding for a balanced animal", and I agree. But what I see as the primary concern and interest among the majority of "show" breeders and fanciers is not what I would consider an emphasis on balance, except in the purely physiological sense, as it is described in the Breed Standard.
> 
> I think that perhaps your interpretation of what the primary concern and interest among the majority of "show" breeders and fanciers might be drastically different if you had some relationships with some of these breeders and participated in discussions with them about their beliefs and breeding goals.
> 
> ...


******


----------



## Countryboy (May 16, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> Also, Countryboy, I really don't know _where_ to post this because there are now three threads with a discussion on how show breeders are ruining the poodle breed. So, I'll just throw it here.


Post it wherever u like. I don't have the time to read endless, c/p'd claptrap anyway...


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

Countryboy said:


> Post it wherever u like. I don't have the time to read endless, c/p'd claptrap anyway...


 You have time to talk endless talk on this forum about your belief that show breeders are ruining the poodle breed but no time to read an article that will help you understand poodle history, origin and form/function better AND that shows that you and show breeders share many common beliefs?

I think your comment shows your _real_ dedication to the breed.


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> Reputable breeders put more money into their dogs. If they are giving their dogs away for free, how will they afford to show their dogs, proving that they meet the standard? How will they afford to do performance events? How will they afford to health test their dogs fully? ...


All of us, who were not independently wealthy, had _jobs_.



CharismaticMillie said:


> No reputable hobby breeder is making a profit off the dogs they breed. They must, however, charge for puppies in order to be able to continue their hobby and continue to improve the breed.


Basically, our philosophy regarding charging money for our dogs was to help ensure that we got _responsible owners_ for them. The amount we charged for them was usually miniscule compared to the amount it cost to produce them.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

nu2poodles said:


> All of us, who were not independently wealthy, had _jobs_.
> So you are telling me that in order to be a reputable breeder, you had better make enough money at your job to not only support your family, pay your mortgage, bills, etc., pay for the general costs of living, AND make an extra $10,000+++++ a year to support the hobby of showing and breeding dogs?
> 
> 
> ...


******


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> Are you saying that you would rather a poodle be built more like a lab? It sounds to me like maybe you would prefer other breeds to the poodle? Maybe I am misinterpreting. But there are great differences between a lab and a poodle both in structure, temperament, intelligence, and historical function.


Nah, I took the Lab part to be a reference to his proclivity for retrieving : "retrieving water-dog with a joy for life" ... and the "Poodle suit" to include the structure, not just the hair.

I am familiar enough with Labs to recognize the differences.

I would prefer a Poodle to be built in a way that best suits its function(s) and well-being (and would prefer that function(s) be more than an object of the groomer's table or the show fancy or to fill someone's pocket).

It seems that the Poodle had several functions through its history. Is that correct ?

I cannot imagine a dog that would suit me more perfectly than Rain at this point in my life.


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

nu2poodles said:


> I would prefer a Poodle to be built in a way that best suits its function(s) and well-being (and would prefer that function(s) be more than an object of the groomer's table or the show fancy or to fill someone's pocket).
> 
> It seems that the Poodle had several functions through its history. Is that correct ?


Did you read the clip from the article that I posted above that describes how the breed structure relates to its function?


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> So you are telling me that in order to be a reputable breeder, you had better make enough money at your job to not only support your family, pay your mortgage, bills, etc., pay for the general costs of living, AND make an extra $10,000+++++ a year to support the hobby of showing and breeding dogs?


I don't use the term "reputable breeder"; I use the term "hobby breeder". 'Twas a hobby.

I spent considerably more than $10,000 on Rain last year. (I don't have any other family to support, though I still have an old horse, retired, that I keep up North).


----------



## CharismaticMillie (Jun 16, 2010)

nu2poodles said:


> I don't use the term "reputable breeder"; I use the term "hobby breeder". 'Twas a hobby.
> 
> I spent considerably more than $10,000 on Rain last year. (I don't have any other family to support, though I still have an old horse, retired, that I keep up North).


So no answer to my question? I seriously doubt most PEOPLE, including most reputable hobby breeders, can afford an extra $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 and up each year in addition to the rest of their living expenses, costs to support their family, etc. Should breeding only be for those with such surplus income?


----------



## Rayah-QualitySPs (Aug 31, 2010)

CharismaticMillie said:


> *Should breeding only be for those with such surplus income?*


CM this is not about you personally just about the quote.

*Yes Yes Yes*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

If your *goals* are about *money* or puppy sales you are no better than the puppy millers in Quebec and we all agree puppy millers are bad!

I have read this entire thread and would *love to comment* on many parts of it, (not enough time), but this quote is why, (_most_), show people are ruining the poodle breed. 

What is the *purpose* the show ring? 

The show ring was developed to *showcase breeding stock*. 

Breeding stock needs *honesty*! Not dye, not wiggies, not drugs to calm temperament etc.! How can you say you care about the breed if you need to cheat to win! Who cares if everyone else is doing it?

It *was* never about making enough puppy money to be able to show or about producing enough champions to be Top Dog. It *was* a sport for people with *disposable income*. 

This vicious cycle of breeding so you can show and then needing to sell more and more puppies so you can special your dyed, wigged, nose blacked dog is certainly not helping the poodle breed. 

There are *some* good show people who breed to better the breed but they are few and far between. Instead what I see more and more of is people who *want to win* for reasons other than to *develop better breeding stock*.

They want to win to prove they are better than someone else not because they have a better dog. 

If you want money to support your *hobby* of showing dogs get a better job!!!!!!!


----------



## cliffdweller (Jan 31, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> Did you read the clip from the article that I posted above that describes how the breed structure relates to its function?


I have now, lol; interesting article; a few remarks :

In the beginning (more or less), "... often _someone particularly familiar with the dogs' duties as well as the dogs themselves_ would be called upon to decide which dog present appeared best suited to perform its appointed work." [my emphases]

Fair enough.

Then, "in time owners allowed their dogs to be judged by men not necessarily owners, breeders, or even participants in dog duties, but simply familiar with the requirements of a breed. This judge had to decide which dog most conformed to its breed description or Standard, which was the correct type." 

I have tried to indicate how this fails to guarantee that a dog can actually perform its traditional function by using Pointers as an example. Most show breeders of Pointers, like those breeders of the Ridgebacks discussed in _Pedigree Dogs Exposed_, have no idea what is required for these dogs to perform their traditional functions, nor do many (most?) of the show judges. This has resulted in the "Type" (form) being interpreted (and all Standards are _interpreted _-- that's just a simple fact about how language works) in ways that do not correspond well with the traditional function (which many of these dogs no longer are able to perform well, if at all). In some cases, it appears that breeders and judges have chosen to ignore the Standard. :dontknow:

Today (yikes !), from the perspective of this notion of "Type", "the Bulldog's roll is as sound as the Shepherd's driving walk







; the bent forelegs of the Pekingese are also as sound as the straight forelegs of the Fox Terrier. For without these various physical and mental conformations, each breed would not fulfill its varied services for mankind." 

LOL, LOL ! In some ideal world, perhaps. I think _Pedigree Dogs Exposed_ handled this one adequately, and for anyone who has not viewed it : 




Interesting : "The neck and shoulders of the original Poodle were like those of any good hunting dog: the latter was sloping and well laid back, and the former clean, long and flexible enough to permit a high head carriage on both land and water."

My impression, following a quick read, is that Hoyt's ideas are good in _theory_. He appears to realize that there are problems, but can't quite grasp why. I think this is because he believes the Breed Standard can guarantee the suitability of the animal to perform a specific function without the interpreter (judge/breeder) understanding that function and what is required to actually perform it. I believe differently, that you cannot really understand the relationship of form and function without perceiving and understanding the actual function (and not merely some ideas about it).

Beyond this, and barring outright unsoundness, form is only half the battle; peak performers in this context have to have a lot of drive to _do it_ (whatever _it_ is -- retrieving, pointing, scenting, running, etc.).


----------



## outwest (May 1, 2011)

CharismaticMillie said:


> Are you saying that you would rather a poodle be built more like a lab? It sounds to me like maybe you would prefer other breeds to the poodle? Maybe I am misinterpreting. But there are great differences between a lab and a poodle both in structure, temperament, intelligence, and historical function.


What I got out of it was the poodle has drive. Many of them lack that. I have no doubt she/he knows the differences between a lab and a poodle.


----------

