Dog Breeder Question?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Hahaha, yes Poodles are ridiculous. The original "poodle cut" was meant to keep their vital organs and joints warm when they jumped into freezing water. "Pudel" in German means to "splash."

Does it really now?

Originally Posted by PetPony

Does it really now?

[German Pudel, short for Pudelhund : Low German pudeln, to splash about (from pudel, puddle) + German Hund, dog.]

You asked, so I double checked.

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

Playing the devil's advocate ... white toes on a lab would definitely fall under the category of weird recessive trait that 1. might be linked to cross-breeding, or 2. might be linked recessive health problems. Repetitive line-breeding/inbreeding can throw things like that too. Just food for thought.

It's not linked to cross-breeding or recessive health problems per se, though it could be linked to a highly inbred line since it is recessive with a very low frequency. There is actually a very low frequency of a certain black-and-tan recessive gene in Labs too.

It could be but I'm pretty doubtful about that. The breeder was one of the techs who I used to work with and she was a very responsible breeder.

PP's smirking because she's from Germany and I'm assuming that the term is old/different dialect or something, hehe.

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

LetItSnow, I firmly believe that all standards are written with function in mind. Does everyone that breeds/shows conform to it? Absolutely not. In my breeding practices, do I try to? Yes.

I'm not questioning your breeding practices! I have no reason to do that.

But, ok, "all standards are written with function in mind." Let's go with that.... so then:

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

The show German Shepherds are a perfect example. They have pelvic angles significantly less than 30, and they have beautiful flying trots. But what people don't realize is how useless that movement is.

... so what function is the GSD standard aiming at? A flying trot that looks good but isn't actually beneficial to the dog in any way whatsoever (by your own words, you call it 'useless')? That hardly seems like a worthwhile 'function'. It seems far more likely that somewhere along the way people started valuing an 'appearance' that has nothing to do with the dog's performance, and now prize that more highly than a healthy animal.

I'm not even remotely convinced that "all standards are written with function in mind."

My reference to show Shepherds was to the dogs themselves, not the standard. They shouldn't have the angles they do, but people have bred dogs that look flashy (and are useless). If judges understood the standard and function then they could see that the exaggerated trot of the show dogs does not fit the breed's function.

The standard itself states that the top line should be strong and level, and the dog should move with an elegant, efficient, "machine" gait.

Here's a link to the GSD's illustrated standard by Linda Shaw. She goes over specific examples of how each change to angulation changes movement, etc. She mentions the ideal angle for the GSD's pelvis to be 30-35 degrees, but dogs like that are often overlooked in the show ring because they don't have the dramatic movement of the over-angulated dogs.

http://www.workingdogs.com/lshaw1.htm

I just have to say that this thread has been really informative! While I think about equine confirmation pretty much daily, I never even paused to think about the confirmation standards in dog breeding.

Thanks for all the info, Bracco Pointer and all! We need more "educational" threads like this.

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

Here's a link to the GSD's illustrated standard by Linda Shaw. She goes over specific examples of how each change to angulation changes movement, etc. She mentions the ideal angle for the GSD's pelvis to be 30-35 degrees, but dogs like that are often overlooked in the show ring because they don't have the dramatic movement of the over-angulated dogs.

http://www.workingdogs.com/lshaw1.htm

That's interesting... So are you saying that the reason why the messed up breeds are the way they are because judges are corrupt and don't judge based on standards which should be good for the health of the breed? I haven't heard that one before

Originally Posted by Minnerbelle

That's interesting... So are you saying that the reason why the messed up breeds are the way they are because judges are corrupt and don't judge based on standards which should be good for the health of the breed? I haven't heard that one before

I'm not either or disagree on what Bracco said (because I don't know dogs like she(?) does), but this wouldn't the first animal where judging standards have resulted in animals that are not necessarily suitable for performance.

Originally Posted by Philliab

I'm not either or disagree on what Bracco said (because I don't know dogs like she(?) does), but this wouldn't the first animal where judging standards have resulted in animals that are not necessarily suitable for performance.

I took what bracco said to mean that the judging standards are suitable for performance, but that the judges just don't follow them and judge based on flair or whatever suits their fancy, leading to that breed's demise. Maybe I read that wrong.

Originally Posted by Minnerbelle

I took what bracco said to mean that the judging standards are suitable for performance, but that the judges just don't follow them and judge based on flair or whatever suits their fancy, leading to that breed's demise. Maybe I read that wrong.

Oh! Sorry. I read it as judges have created their only standards for perfect conformation based their perception of flair or beauty and not on what has been proven as suitable for performance.

Wow...that was confusing. Think I'll just read this thread from now on and keep my mouth shut.

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

My reference to show Shepherds was to the dogs themselves, not the standard. They shouldn't have the angles they do, but people have bred dogs that look flashy (and are useless). If judges understood the standard and function then they could see that the exaggerated trot of the show dogs does not fit the breed's function.

So you're saying that there is a consistent (it has to be ubiquitous and consistent, or you wouldn't get breed lines modeling it) movement amongst judges to push for a particular shape/look/movement in a dog that is contrary to the actual standard, and harmful for the animals?

That's almost ... bizarrely hard to believe. How would you get a vast majority of judges to agree not to judge based on the standard, but to instead use some non-standard appearance? Community value over time, I guess?

And even if you're right, it just emphasizes how screwed up the whole judging/breeding/standards world really is: and most importantly, how it is absolutely not focused on creating healthy, highly functioning animals. I'm sure there are good people involved in breeding and standards - there have to be, and I know breeders that I consider to be foremost concerned about producing healthy animals. But on the whole, it looks to me like the overall result coming out of the community is less healthy animals.

From my perspective - and I've never been fully immersed myself in the conformation aspect, though I know a lot of people in a lot of breeds who are - it's a little bit political and a little bit "well, the standard says x, so more x is better!" interpretation by breeders and judges.

I have a question that's not really on topic...

In Germany, to get your GS registered you have to send in hip and dental x-rays (?) to make sure you have a dog that's healthy in those aspects. Is it the same in the US, too? I don't know if other breeds do that, too, in Germany, but I was just wondering if anyone knew about that..

Originally Posted by PetPony

I have a question that's not really on topic...

In Germany, to get your GS registered you have to send in hip and dental x-rays (?) to make sure you have a dog that's healthy in those aspects. Is it the same in the US, too? I don't know if other breeds do that, too, in Germany, but I was just wondering if anyone knew about that..

certain breeds need to get certifications in certain aspects. We used to do some of this at school in ophtho and cardio rotations.

cardio was mostly for cavaliers

ophtho for havanese, etc. We did some ERG-type stuff as well as basic eye exams

Originally Posted by dyachei

certain breeds need to get certifications in certain aspects. We used to do some of this at school in ophtho and cardio rotations.

cardio was mostly for cavaliers

ophtho for havanese, etc. We did some ERG-type stuff as well as basic eye exams

They don't have to do these things to register with the AKC though. Some breed clubs have pretty strict codes and will only list breeders who health test, but there's no registration restriction for it like there is in Germany.

Originally Posted by nyanko

They don't have to do these things to register with the AKC though. Some breed clubs have pretty strict codes and will only list breeders who health test, but there's no registration restriction for it like there is in Germany.

I couldn't remember if it was the clubs or if it was the AKC.

clubs make more sense.

There are so many backyard breeders where I am now that people spend thousands on and they give good breeders a bad name.

Do you think there would be any way to make health checks a requirement if enough people were for it? Good breeders shouldn't have a problem with is as they want their dogs to be healthy anyways..

Originally Posted by PetPony

Do you think there would be any way to make health checks a requirement if enough people were for it? Good breeders shouldn't have a problem with is as they want their dogs to be healthy anyways..

I don't think it's possible here in the AKC. The AQHA does it for HYPP. All horses who trace back to the first known contributor of the mutation, Impressive, must be genetically tested clear or heterozygous only, no homozygous individuals will be accepted for registration and heterozygous individuals have a notation on their registration certificates. It's caused quite an uproar and that's for a disease we know the exact causative mutation for. To set a hardline restriction on registration based on quantitative traits like hip dysplasia and patellar luxation tend to be would be a pretty uphill battle to fight and to be honest, may end up to the detriment of genetic diversity in the long run. Decisions to breed must be made based on a lot of different factors, and I think that these types of inherited traits should absolutely play a role in that decision but even as a geneticist would hesitate to say that they should be a huge enough factor to deny registration. That's missing the forest for the trees IMO.

For most breeds, the standards have existed for a very long time. Judges must pass tests in order to be qualified to judge a breed. Their interpretation of the standard (i.e.: hat's most important? what is "noble" in appearance? what is "strong?") is based largely on who educated them. If they are taught to focus on one small aspect of the breed, then they may forgive worse faults. Most judges do a very good job considering they often judge dozens of breeds, although there is certainly politics involved for some of them. It's an imperfect system, although I feel the fault is on the judges and not the standard.

A judge should ideally look at every aspect of the dog and judge 1. "type" distinct to the breed, 2. structural correctness (are the legs straight, etc?) and 3. "character" and personality. It's up to the judge to decide which of the three is most important, and the stress that they put on each part, and how they evaluate it. A judge can be a "head" person, a "gait" person, or anything in between. A good judge can see every part of the dog. There are a lot of good judges, and there are definitely some mediocre ones.

Health test requirements would be up to the individual breed club, not AKC. If the breed club tells AKC that they require all breeding dogs to be hips/eyes/patellas/etc then AKC will follow. When a breed first joins AKC the studbook is opened for a short period of time. After the studbook closes, only descendants from those dogs are registrable with AKC, unless exceptions are made for imports or foreign dogs. For a lot of breeds, they push as many dogs into the studbook as possible during that short window, without regard to health. If the breed club is smart, they can have control over the dogs that enter the studbook and continue to monitor health problems in future generations. Very few breed clubs take that option. It is possible for the breed club to tell AKC that the only dogs that can be registered must also be registered in the breed club (and then impose health restrictions on breeding dogs from there). It would be up to the breed club to set limits and decide at what point they would deny registration.

The power of the breed club is mostly in puppy-selling power. They can choose to only promote dogs that are health tested, or dual-titled, or whatever. People will want to buy the dogs that the breed club promotes because they will be seen as "the best." The Portuguese Water Dog Club of America and the Verein Deutsch Drahthaar (North America; not AKC) are examples of breed clubs that have done a great job carefully and intelligently regulating the health of their breed.

So is it this:

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

If judges understood the standard and function then they could see that the exaggerated trot of the show dogs does not fit the breed's function.

Or this:

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

Most judges do a very good job considering they often judge dozens of breeds

I mean, saying that the unhealthy characteristics are because judges tend to over-focus on a particular trait seems inconsistent with saying that "most" judges do a very good job. If "most" did a good job you ought not see breeds tending toward unhealthy traits. I don't see how you can have mostly good judges, but breeds that are tending toward lower health, while at the same time claiming that the vast majority of standards are written with an eye toward the best-functioning dog. All those things just don't add up to me.

In the end, the bottom line is that I don't see the value of 'pure' breeds. Hell, almost all of the very best-performing dogs in the world - Iditarod/Yukon Quest/etc athletes - are technically mutts. (I'm just using that type of working dog as an example because it's maybe the only one I'm intimately familiar with.)

Knowing that, and knowing that many (some? most?) of the breed clubs are promoting practices that lower the overall health of the breed makes me stubbornly resistant to the show community. Obviously you and I disagree, and that's cool. And I am certainly not saying that all breeders are irresponsible. But thanks for all your info - it's a lot of really useful info.

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

.
In the end, the bottom line is that I don't see the value of 'pure' breeds. Hell, almost all of the very best-performing dogs in the world - Iditarod/Yukon Quest/etc athletes - are technically mutts. (I'm just using that type of working dog as an example because it's maybe the only one I'm intimately familiar with.)

Alaskan huskies may be mutts, but they are still bred in a very specific way to have certain traits. You couldn't take any dog off of the street and plug it into their bloodlines and get winning dogs. Same with lurchers and other crosses used for a purpose. Some traits are better than others for doing a specific job, and that's where purebred animals come from. I'm more with you than not on the whole conformation aspect, believe me, I can see where the OP is coming from with the standards but in the end I'd personally rather see a dog that's exceptional at its job but maybe has too long of ears or is a couple inches too tall or has a white foot or whatever be bred than one who has never even been used for its breed purpose but conforms perfectly to standard.

Originally Posted by nyanko

Alaskan huskies may be mutts, but they are still bred in a very specific way to have certain traits. You couldn't take any dog off of the street and plug it into their bloodlines and get winning dogs.

Right. But there's a heckuva lot fewer genetic problems like you see in the studbook-limited breeds, since there's no breed registry issues to contend with. I don't have any issue with breeding for positive traits; it's the "appearance at the cost of everything else" approach of (some? many? most?) breed clubs that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

Right. But there's a heckuva lot less consistent genetic problems like you see in the tightly studbook-limited breeds, since there's no breed registry issues to content with. I don't have any issue with breeding for positive traits; it's the "appearance at the cost of everything else" approach of (some? many? most?) breed clubs that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Funny you should mention that, because I have personally worked on a study concerning an encephalopathy that occurs in certain lines of Alaskan huskies.

(but I know what you are getting at)

Originally Posted by nyanko

Funny you should mention that, because I have personally worked on a study concerning an encephalopathy that occurs in certain lines of Alaskan huskies.

(but I know what you are getting at)

Heh. Yeah, there's no getting around the fact that no matter what we do there are potential problems in any critter.

But the point is: If you can localize a genetic association for that encephalopathy, create a reasonably-priced test, then there's very little getting in the way of making it go away.

Do that with a registry breed and ... you've still got a mountain to overcome. Look at Dalmatians and their SLC2A9 gene. How easy would it be to fix that problem? (It's already been done, right? It's just that the lineage isn't accepted into the registry....). I think it SUCKS for Dalmatians in general that something so easy to fix is perpetuated in their line simply because of resistance in the breeding and standards community, where they care more about the studbook than the health of the breed. And that's just one easy example to think of.

You have a paper on the encephalopathy? I'd love to read it just out of interest in the animals. One of the most fun experiences of my life was running a team of dogs that competed in the Iditarod.

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

But the point is: If you can localize a genetic association for that encephalopathy, create a reasonably-priced test, then there's very little getting in the way of making it go away.

haha, would be nice if it were that easy in most diseases.

Do that with a registry breed and ... you've still got a mountain to overcome. Look at Dalmatians and their SLC2A9 gene. How easy would it be to fix that problem? (It's already been done, right? It's just that the lineage isn't accepted into the registry....). I think it SUCKS for Dalmatians in general that something so easy to fix is perpetuated in their line simply because of resistance in the breeding and standards community, where they care more about the studbook than the health of the breed. And that's just one easy example to think of.

Yep. The Dalmatian-GSP outcrosses eliminating the hyperuricosuria mutation and not being accepted into the breed is a big black mark on that entire breed IMO.

You have a paper on the encephalopathy? I'd love to read it just out of interest in the animals. One of the most fun experiences of my life was running a team of dogs that competed in the Iditarod.

I have no papers on it personally - my work was on the actual genetics aspect on it rather than the pathophysiology and we don't have quite enough to put out anything definitive on that aspect yet. But here is a blurb about the disease itself and history of it..., that has links to a few papers describing it in the late 90's.

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

So is it this:
Knowing that, and knowing that many (some? most?) of the breed clubs are promoting practices that lower the overall health of the breed makes me stubbornly resistant to the show community. Obviously you and I disagree, and that's cool. And I am certainly not saying that all breeders are irresponsible. But thanks for all your info - it's a lot of really useful info.

You also provided a lot of good info and hopefully the show community can work to improve themselves. I'd love to see more breed clubs grab the bull by the horns and tackle the health issues at hand. As more breeds enter AKC, they are becoming more aware of the mistakes done by their predecessors. I have my fingers crossed that they won't follow the same path. We can definitely agree that there's still work to be done!

I'm imagining a Disney movie about an out-of-place mutt outperforming all the purebreds in a sporting competition of some type. It would be like Babe, but for dogs.

Originally Posted by RadRadTerp

I'm imagining a Disney movie about an out-of-place mutt outperforming all the purebreds in a sporting competition of some type. It would be like Babe, but for dogs.

I think that some variant of this was written in 1903 and was called The Call of the Wild perhaps you may have heard of it.

Originally Posted by nyanko

Yep. The Dalmatian-GSP outcrosses eliminating the hyperuricosuria mutation and not being accepted into the breed is a big black mark on that entire breed IMO.

This is the one that always really gets me angry. No f*ckin excuse.

Originally Posted by RadRadTerp

I'm imagining a Disney movie about an out-of-place mutt outperforming all the purebreds in a sporting competition of some type. It would be like Babe, but for dogs.

I think my wife was around for the Suter/Poodle years in the late 80s and early 90s. It was before I knew her, so it was before I was introduced to dogsledding and Alaska in general, but.....

(I have no idea if Suter's Poodles were registered or not, so it's not exactly what you're talking about, but....)

I think his part-Poodle and all-Poodle teams finished the Ididtarod 3-4 times or thereabouts? Never won or placed highly, IIRC, but hey - finishing is an accomplishment. And they may have done great in other races, I dunno.

Originally Posted by nyanko

I think that some variant of this was written in 1903 and was called The Call of the Wild perhaps you may have heard of it.

Well, yeah, but I'm imagining talking animated animals, wacky sidekicks, a story about love between the breeds ( Lady and the Tramp-style), and a morality message about it's what's inside that counts, etc etc. Throw in a soundtrack where a typically raunchy hip hop song gets sung by kittens to a dance number mid-movie and you got a hit. Trust me.