Meat mouth question...

JL Wortham-Morgan · **Posted:** Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:01 pm

I think there is a tendency for us to want to distance ourselves from the breed's problems today. We all want to believe that these health issues were something introduced by others way back in the early days. It is also tempting to say that this happened because they did not breed to the Standard. Wraps it up in a nice neat little package for us.

Yet many of the breed's problems DO have to do with breeding to the Standard....or at least the judge's interpretation of the standard. Our standard has also been modified a few times since the early days of the breed in the western world and not necessarily to the benefit of the dog's health & soundness. We also have to remember that there is the literal Standard (a group of ideas that folks have agreed are ideal) and then there is the actualization of the Standard....how judges are interpreting and applying the Standard in the show ring....and these 2 things may diverge significantly.

One need only look at our top winning dogs to see that the current trending interpretation of the Standard is. Our written Standard calls for:

Quote:

•Non-Sporting Group; AKC recognized in 1992.
•Ranging in size from 18 to 20 inches tall at the shoulder and 45 to 60 pounds.
•Hunting; guarding.
© The American Kennel Club, Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chinese Shar-Pei Breed Standard
Non-Sporting Group
General Appearance
An alert, compact dog of medium size and substance; square in profile, close coupled; the well-proportioned head slightly, but not overly large for the body. The short, harsh coat, the loose skin covering the head and body, the small ears, the "hippopotamus" muzzle shape and the high set tail impart to the Shar-Pei a unique look peculiar to him alone. The loose skin and wrinkles covering the head, neck and body are superabundant in puppies but these features may be limited to the head, neck and withers in the adult.

Size, Proportion, Substance
The height is 18 to 20 inches at the withers. The weight is 45 to 60 pounds. The dog is usually larger and more square bodied than the bitch but both appear well proportioned. The height of the Shar-Pei from the ground to the withers is approximately equal to the length from the point of breastbone to the point of rump.

Head and Skull
The head is large, slightly, but not overly, proudly carried and covered with profuse wrinkles on the forehead continuing into side wrinkles framing the face. Eyes--Dark, small, almond-shaped and sunken, displaying a scowling expression. In the dilute colored dogs the eye color may be lighter. Ears-- extremely small, rather thick, equilateral triangles in shape, slightly rounded at the tips; edges of the ear may curl. Ears lie flat against the head, are set high, wide apart and forward on the skull, pointing toward the eyes. The ears have the ability to move. A pricked ear is a disqualification. Skull--flat and broad, the stop moderately defined. Muzzle--one of the distinctive features of the breed. It is broad and full with no suggestion of snipiness. (The length from nose to stop is approximately the same as from stop to occiput.) Nose large and wide and darkly pigmented, preferably black but any color conforming to the general coat color of the dog is acceptable. In dilute colors, the preferred nose is self-colored. Darkly pigmented cream Shar-Pei may have some light pigment either in the center of the nose or on the entire nose. The lips and top of muzzle are well-padded and may cause a slight bulge above the nose. Tongue, roof of mouth, gums and flews--solid bluish-black is preferred in all coat colors except in dilute colors, which have a solid lavender pigmentation. A spotted pink tongue is a major fault. A solid pink tongue is a disqualification. (Tongue colors may lighten due to heat stress; care must be taken not to confuse dilute pigmentation with a pink tongue.) Teeth--strong, meeting in a scissors bite. Deviation from a scissors bite is a major fault.

Neck, Topline, Body
Neck--medium length, full and set well into the shoulders. There are moderate to heavy folds of loose skin and abundant dewlap about the neck and throat. The topline dips slightly behind the withers, slightly rising over the short, broad loin. A level, roach or swayed topline/backline shall be faulted. Chest--broad and deep with the brisket extending to the elbow and rising slightly under the loin. Back-- short and close-coupled. Croup-- flat, with the base of the tail set extremely high, clearly exposing an up-tilted anus. Tail--the high set tail is a characteristic feature of the Shar-Pei. A low set tail shall be faulted. The tail is thick and round at the base, tapering to a fine point and curling over or to either side of the back. The absence of a complete tail is a disqualification.

Forequarters
Shoulders--muscular, well laid back and sloping. Forelegs--when viewed from the front, straight moderately spaced, with elbows close to the body. When viewed from the side, the forelegs are straight, the pasterns are strong and flexible. The bone is substantial but never heavy and is of moderate length. Removal of front dewclaws is optional. Feet--moderate in size, compact and firmly set, not splayed.

Hindquarters
Muscular, strong, and moderately angulated. The metatarsi (hocks) are short, perpendicular to the ground and parallel to each other when viewed from the rear. Hind dewclaws must be removed. Feet as in front.

Coat
The extremely harsh coat is one of the distinguishing features of the breed. The coat is absolutely straight and off standing on the main trunk of the body but generally lies somewhat flatter on the limbs. The coat appears healthy without being shiny or lustrous. Acceptable coat lengths may range from extremely short "horse coat" up to the "brush coat," not to exceed one inch in length at the withers. A soft coat, a wavy coat, a coat in excess of one inch at the withers or a coat that has been trimmed is a major fault. The Shar-Pei is shown in its natural state.

Color
Only solid colors and sable are acceptable and are to be judged on an equal basis. A solid color dog may have shading, primarily darker, down the back and on the ears. The shading must be variations of the same body color and may include darker hairs throughout the coat. The following colors are disqualifications: Albino; Not a solid color, i.e.: Brindle; Parti-colored; Spotted; Patterned in any combination of colors.

Gait
The movement of the Shar-Pei is to be judged at a trot. The gait is free and balanced with the feet tending to converge on a center line of gravity when the dog moves at a vigorous trot. The gait combines good forward reach and strong drive in the hindquarters. Proper movement is essential.

Temperament
Regal, alert, intelligent, dignified, lordly, scowling, sober and snobbish essentially independent and somewhat standoffish with strangers, but extreme in his devotion to his family. The Shar-Pei stands firmly on the ground with a calm, confident stature.

Major Faults
Deviation from a Scissors Bite.
Spotted Tongue.
A soft coat, a wavy coat, a coat in excess of 1" in length at the withers or a coat that has been trimmed.

Disqualifications
Pricked ears.
Solid pink tongue.
Absence of a complete tail.
Albino; not a solid color, i.e.: Brindle; Parti-colored; Spotted; Patterned in any combination of colors

Approved January 12, 1998
Effective February 28, 1998

Here are just 2 obvious divergences between the written Standard and the "applied" Standard (as underlined above).

Quote:

The head is large, slightly, but not overly

Quote:

The bone is substantial but never heavy and is of moderate length

Yet if one looks at the most of our "Top winning dogs" one is seeing VERY large heads, heavy boned short dogs with alot of overdone wrinkling...even to heavily draped socks on the rear legs of adults. THAT is what is winning....not the moderate Pei or the bone mouth pei.

Then let us look at where the current written standard is calling for traits that predispose them to further issues.

Quote:

covered with profuse wrinkles on the forehead continuing into side wrinkles framing the face. Eyes--Dark, small, almond-shaped and sunken

There we have a predisposition to both entropion issues (see Dr Tintle's article on Entropion) and profuse wrinkle which also goes hand in hand with excess Hyaluronan and (as we are learning more and more of the influence of excess HA) the many issues that this can cause with their health.

Quote:

The tail is thick and round at the base, tapering to a fine point and curling over or to either side of the back.

And this....do you know what causes a tail to curl? A defect in the shape of the vertebra...see below

Quote:

Summary
Hemivertebrae happen when the vertebrae of the canine spine are congenitally deformed so as to fuse or otherwise develop abnormally in a manner that creates a twisting wedge in what should be a very straight spine. A deformity like this in the bony spine can mean a twisting in the spinal cord as well and, potentially, a compression of this exceedingly delicate central nervous system structure.

Hemivertebrae are responsible for the characteristic “screw tail” of bulldogs, pugs and other dog breeds for which the curled tail is considered a requisite trait. In the spinal cord-less tail, however, several defective vertebrae in a row do not present a problem. In some dogs, however, one or more vertebrae other than in the tail may be affected.

Those are just a few of the issues that I feel are questionable with the current standard.

A breed standard is just a compilation of ideas of a group of people....and unfortunately sometimes human ideas can be flawed or ill-conceived and as such these ideas may not serve the dogs.

IMHO when the breed Standard is not serving the better health, soundness, longevity, purposefullness, function and well being of the dogs then it SHOULD be challenged. The standard should serve the dogs and not our egos or our frivolous ideas about what traits are asthetically pleasing.

Grillgirl · **Posted:** Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:09 pm

Quote:

IMHO when the breed Standard is not serving the better health, soundness, longevity, purposefullness, function and well being of the dogs then it SHOULD be challenged. The standard should serve the dogs and not our egos or our frivolous ideas about what traits are asthetically pleasing.

We need to recognize and leave off treating this breed like living stuffed toys. If you want big, mushy and perpetually infantilized to kiss on, find something other than a living creature to form into that object. :cry:

This breed is a perfect example of a freak of nature (although not the only breed we humans have perverted). It is not natural what they have been made into and made to suffer with. We've made a serious grievance against mother nature. That is the message their problems carry to us. How absurd it all is.

My opinion, strong I know.

Pearlee · **Joined:** Sun May 16, 2010 9:15 pm **Posts:** 54

You can not honestly compare a Shar Pei tail to a english bulldog tail or a pug tail etc. etc. I used to breed engl. bulldogs and you are talking apples and bananas. As for show dogs as I stated earlier this is where knowledge and strict conviction comes into place. English Bulldogs also have been messed up so bad it is not even funny, because the price of these guys is still quite healthy.
I went into Shar Pei in 1980 because the breed is quite similar in temperament intellience and personality etc. and I did my homework and purchased healthy stock. And I enjoyed every second of having Shar Pei in my live, I also miss the Bulldogs, but the heartaches just became too much for me to handle. The problems in the Shar Pei with their health are strictly genetic and have little or nothing to with the standart. Todays genetic / healt problems are the result of past "time bombs "of prior breedings as tomorrows problems will be the result of problems in the past compoundet by present known/unknown problems within the breed. The only hope to clean up this or any other breed is thourough research of all of the pedigrees involved in a breeding and do complete genetic testing and only breed the soundest of the breed, something that will never happen. As long as people consider themselfs knowledeable but refuse to abide by the standards of a breed then the knowledge of the past which was used to create the standart is totally useless. Standards were created by breeders exhibitors and knowledgeable breeder judges to describe the ideal example of the breed (and that includeds health , as well as temperament)and yet it is flexible enough to allow for individual interpredation. Major faults in a standart were determined by knowledgeable breeders, exhibitors and breeder judges to weed out genetically inferior examples of a breed and these dogs should be totally eliminated from any breeding program."

JL Wortham-Morgan · **Posted:** Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:41 pm

Quote:

You can not honestly compare a Shar Pei tail to a english bulldog tail or a pug tail etc. etc.

Yes there ARE pei with extremely curled tails (I happen to OWN one now and have seen MANY of them over the years I have been in the breed) and if these traits are bred on too heavily (as the CURRENT breed standard encourages) it absolutely CAN lead to problems later on as is now being observed in other breeds that bred to enhance this trait over time because THEIR breed Standard encouraged it.

As far as the rest of it, well I have already pointed out a few examples of where our CURRENT standard is not conducive to health & soundness. Yes the lion's share of breed problems are genetic but some of these problematic genetic traits are a part of the current breed Standard and these TOO need to be addressed and the breed standard brought more into alignment with genetic traits that do NOT compromise the health or soundness of the dogs. The current breed standard IS a part of the problem...not ALL of the problem but certainly a part of it. Even worse the potentially problematic genetic traits in the Standard are ENCOURAGED and are bred on, even characaturized and the problems caused by this dynamic we are most clearly in denial about. As we learn more about some of these traits....see below

Quote:

profuse wrinkles on the forehead continuing into side wrinkles framing the face.......moderate to heavy folds of loose skin and abundant dewlap about the neck and throat.

And then read the newer and emerging research on the multitude of problems caused by the excess Hyaluronan that comes from breeding to the Standard (for these very same traits) then at some point it SHOULD occur to us that maybe, just maybe, breeding for so much excess skin/wrinkle as the standard calls for could actually be a BAD idea.

As long as individials live in denial that breeding of such problematic traits because a piece of paper (breed Standard) SAYS such are ideal (even when science and reality demonstrate otherwise) nothing will improve. Holding a list of ideas (that imperfect humans dictated) as sacred when some of them may actually be causing suffering for these animals is the epitome of human folly. Instead of trying to solve the breed's issues by breeding to a faulty standard, we need to make certain that such "Standards" are held to the HIGHEST of standards.....those which serve the dogs.

Whether a trait that causes genetic health/soundness problems is sanctioned by the breed's Standard or not makes no difference...a problem is a problem and just because a breed standard says it is ok to breed on such problems doesn't make it ok.

AHo · **Joined:** Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:40 am **Posts:** 3

Although this is the first time I am submitting a comment to this forum I have been viewing it for a long time. I have lovingly owned Shar-Pei for over 20 years and have had my share of breed and breeder-related problems. That being said I am intrigued by the current topic. A standard is a written description of what a dog should and should not have. It is specifically designed so that a CONFORMATION Judge can determine whether and how much the dog he/she is viewing matches that which is described in that breed's standard, and thus to be able to rank it compared to others being judged. This is why it is written in plain English (or whatever language it is used by the judge). As it describes the CONFORMATIONALLY "ideal" requirements of the breed it is also used as a guide for breeders to strive for in their breeding program. Aside from faults, which may or may not be genetic, it does NOT address health issues - whether general or breed-specific. A standard-wise dog may or may not be healthy, either physically or genetically, and it should be the responsibility of the "reputable" breeder to ensure that ONLY genetically and physically healthy, as well as CONFORMATIONALLY superior representatives of the breed be used in a breeding program. It was mentioned that past and present breeding contain timebombs. This is a FACT and is well known by reputable breeders who, in their breeding program, do (hopefully) exhaustive studies of their and other dogs in the hope of reducing the effect of these problems. Anyone who, in my opinion, breeds a dog with obvious MAJOR faults (i.e., Spotted), because it is "healthy" is doing a disservice to the breed. Dogs, like these, should be loved but NEVER bred. There are enough dogs out there with problems (CONFORMATIONAL, genetic or individual dog-specific) without exacerbating the issue.

I would appreciate it if, anyone replying to my comments, use plain-English in their reply and NOT deviate from the issue. I do not like to use this but I am NOT impressed by those whose philosophy is "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with...".

And, finally, the Shar-Pei standards have been around for over 20 years and still the health issues increase. Does this mean that the standard is flawed or that those who don't do their homework and do flawed breedings are the problem. This problem is endemic in all breeds where people who should be mentors to others are not totally involved in the improvement of their breed.

Grillgirl · **Posted:** Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:48 am

AHo wrote:

Although this is the first time I am submitting a comment to this forum I have been viewing it for a long time. I have lovingly owned Shar-Pei for over 20 years and have had my share of breed and breeder-related problems. That being said I am intrigued by the current topic. A standard is a written description of what a dog should and should not have. It is specifically designed so that a CONFORMATION Judge can determine whether and how much the dog he/she is viewing matches that which is described in that breed's standard, and thus to be able to rank it compared to others being judged. This is why it is written in plain English (or whatever language it is used by the judge). As it describes the CONFORMATIONALLY "ideal" requirements of the breed it is also used as a guide for breeders to strive for in their breeding program. Aside from faults, which may or may not be genetic, it does NOT address health issues - whether general or breed-specific. A standard-wise dog may or may not be healthy, either physically or genetically, and it should be the responsibility of the "reputable" breeder to ensure that ONLY genetically and physically healthy, as well as CONFORMATIONALLY superior representatives of the breed be used in a breeding program. It was mentioned that past and present breeding contain timebombs. This is a FACT and is well known by reputable breeders who, in their breeding program, do (hopefully) exhaustive studies of their and other dogs in the hope of reducing the effect of these problems. Anyone who, in my opinion, breeds a dog with obvious MAJOR faults (i.e., Spotted), because it is "healthy" is doing a disservice to the breed. Dogs, like these, should be loved but NEVER bred. There are enough dogs out there with problems (CONFORMATIONAL, genetic or individual dog-specific) without exacerbating the issue. .

Hello AHo, glad you felt it was time to join the forums.

The role and value of importance assigned to a dog Standard is what this topic has tossed back and forth, a topic that started out with a question about meatmouths (so indeed, the topic has already deviated and interestingly so). Your explanation is one that has been offered by a group of members in this topic on prior occassion. It is the use of and belief in the concept of a standard, after it has been set (by processes themselves that have evolved in recent times) as an involitile coda (gospel is a term has been used by some here), somehow set apart from the very human origin, once set, never to be questioned or challenged. Indeed, gospel...not mere guidance.

In the near future, I think we shall see that the standard for the Chinese Sharpei is not infallible and beyond questioning. That it has in some parts, codified faults, allowing those who interpret the grey areas to create an animal where the belief is that 'more is better'. More wrinkles, more bone, more head, and smaller and tighter ears (more of that trait). Here is the emphasis is on the appearance and phenotype of the dog. Even when looking at struture, proper angulation for example, the standard addresses how the dogs appear. And so how they appear is what is bred for.

What if the wrinkling the very standard calls for is itself the source of a major health issue in the breed, as Jan has argued? Should we not then question the standard at these points and consider changing it towards more moderation, back towards a more traditional dog? Why must we always insist on our version of the breed, what some refer to as "The Americanized" version and then point towards the standard to justify this version?

What if the Americanized version is itself the ticking time bomb? I believe that it is. Is the problem the standard? Or is the problem those who interpret the standard to suit their idea of a Sharpei? I don't believe that a standard can be seperated from the humans who created it and maintain it with their support and actions. I don't believe a standard can be seperated from what is in reality happening to this breed.

And I don't believe anyone is exempt, "good" breeders, "bad" breeders the dog fancy or the buying public. They are all what is happening with and to this breed.

Quote:

And, finally, the Shar-Pei standards have been around for over 20 years and still the health issues increase. Does this mean that the standard is flawed or that those who don't do their homework and do flawed breedings are the problem. This problem is endemic in all breeds where people who should be mentors to others are not totally involved in the improvement of their breed.

I believe both the standard is flawed and flawed breedings are the problem. And I would expand your statement above to say that this problem is endemic in all breeds in our times...period. But that then is a larger topic altogether and I wouldn't want to deviate... :wink:

JL Wortham-Morgan · **Posted:** Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:57 pm

Quote:

I would appreciate it if, anyone replying to my comments, use plain-English in their reply and NOT deviate from the issue. I do not like to use this but I am NOT impressed by those whose philosophy is "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with...".

Im not sure where this is coming from or who it is aimed at. Im not sure who you feel is trying to baffle folks with BS here....If there is any question or anything unclear in my reply please let me know and I will happily provide you with either clarification or supporting data. No BS here.

Quote:

the Shar-Pei standards have been around for over 20 years

Our current AKC Breed Standard was approved in 1998. I think prior to that the most recent revision was when the breed was admitted into the Non-Sporting class in 1992 I believe. I believe it was also revised when (or just prior to) Pei were initially accept into Misc class before that. Back in the breed's beginnings here in the US there were at one time 3 different Standards that breeders used as their guiding light...The Chinese Standard, the original CSPCA standard (from the west coasts CSPCA inc) and then the Official CSPCA, inc standard (east coast).

Quote:

A standard is a written description of what a dog should and should not have. It is specifically designed so that a CONFORMATION Judge can determine whether and how much the dog he/she is viewing matches that which is described in that breed's standard, and thus to be able to rank it compared to others being judged. This is why it is written in plain English (or whatever language it is used by the judge). As it describes the CONFORMATIONALLY "ideal" requirements of the breed it is also used as a guide for breeders to strive for in their breeding program

Standards are not set in stone....and really, they SHOULDN'T be. As we learn more about the impact of phenotypical characteristics on a breed's health and as we discover that some of the desired traits (as I mentioned above) may be (to any significant degree) a causitive factor in any health/soundness/longevity or temperamental issue we need to re-evaluate whether this trait is something we should endeavor to breed away from and thus revise our standard for sake of better health/soundness/longevity. After all wouldn't it be silly to intentionally breed toward a trait that compromises the breed's health/soundness/longevity?

A breed's Standard describes the COSMETIC traits that are desired. Basic criteria for judging a doggy beauty contest. Of course it is written in the language of the land (plain english in my case) but still is vague enough to allow for interpretive differences...which is why different judges put up different "types". One judge may like the heavier wrinkled, typey dog while another might select a more moderately typey dog that moves better, etc. One can look at a regions top 20 dogs and see what trends there are presently in judging.

Quote:

And, finally, the Shar-Pei standards have been around for over 20 years and still the health issues increase. Does this mean that the standard is flawed or that those who don't do their homework and do flawed breedings are the problem.

BOTH. There will (sadly) always be breeders who put other things above health/soundness/longevity & temperament. Whether that be a breeder who breeds close relatives of FSF/Amyloidosis pei because a dog will win in the ring and produce physically attractive pups or whether that be a breeder who breeds for color above health and so on. There are breeders who dont' know any better and breed flawed or sickly or unsound dogs and those that do know better and do it anyway. This we cannot completely control obviously though we can educate, and work toward things like having our KCs implement mandates for compulsory health testing, etc as some other breeds have done to improve their breeder's standards of practice.

Also...
Our standard IS flawed...even just the 2 primary issues I mentioned in above posts (entropion and excess Hyaluronan issues) are predisposed due to traits SPECIFICALLY called for in our current breed standard. See quote and links below by our breed health experts.

Quote:

Why are Shar-Pei Particularly Predisposed to Entropion?--by Dr Linda Tintle. Published in the The Barker Magazine (January-March 2010)

From the Chinese Shar-Pei Club of America’s Breeders Standard: “The head is large, slightly, but not overly, proudly carried and covered with profuse wrinkles on the forehead continuing into side wrinkles framing the face. Eyes – dark, small, almond-shaped and sunken, displaying a scowling expression.” The CSPCA standard calls for “sunken” or deep set eyes. Their eyelids may lack sufficient support.

Also, a wide head with “profuse wrinkles on the forehead continuing into side wrinkles framing the face” may lead to ptosis if the brow wrinkles are heavy and excessive.

http://www.wvc.vetsuite.com/Templates/C ... cf3d13cb30

Quote:

Shar Pei and Hyaluronan--Dr Linda Tintle. Published in The Barker magazine (October-December 2009)

Wrinkles = Shar-Pei. Wrinkles are the one characteristic that is universally associated with the breed. But why are Shar-Pei wrinkled?

Wrinkles = Hyaluronosis. Shar-Pei look wrinkled because they have abnormally large amounts of hyaluronan (HA), chiefly in their skin and bloodstream. Mucin, a clear sticky gel, is primarily hyaluronan

...Shar-Pei have significantly increased amounts of HA in the extracellular matrix, as well as increased HA in their blood serum (as much as 20 times normal). Shar-Pei are presumed to have a defect in the metabolism of HA which leads to increased production of HA.

http://www.wvc.vetsuite.com/Templates/C ... daf7262081

On a side note....I encourage everyone here to read BOTH these articles as well as the new information due to soon be published on Shar Pei & Hyaluronan...VERY important health info with some far reaching effects on our breed.

On the flaws in this (or any) breed Standard...here is where I am coming from.

This current Standard is just a revised list of ideas on what a Shar Pei should be based on the factual data (in regards to health/soundness/longevity) that was available in 1998. It is 12 years down the road. It is (and should be) subject to change if it is found to NOT serve the actual dogs that are being created in it's image. This should be true of ANY breed Standard. As new scientific/medical data emerges that raises concerns as to the wisdom of the criteria outlined in ANY breed Standard it should be re-evaluated.

Ideally a breed Standard is a group of GOOD ideas that serve the breed. As new information emerges that may reveal that some of these ideas are actually "not so good" (or even bad) should we not adjust our Standard so that it better serves the dogs? Shouldn't the well being of the dogs be any breed Standard's prime directive?

Quote:

As it describes the CONFORMATIONALLY "ideal" requirements of the breed it is also used as a guide for breeders to strive for in their breeding program

SO then. If a Standard has breed specific criteria for traits that are shown to cause health/soundness/longevity issues how does breeding to that Standard improve the breed?

If the breed Standard's criteria is NOT in alignment with what we learn (from scientific/medical data) is necessary for health/soundness/longevity what is the ethical and morally responsible breeder to strive toward? Do we breed toward traits that current science tells us are unhealthy just because this group of ideas is held sacred by some? Do we ignore these flawed parts of our breed Standard that may cause health issues and just breed away from them? Or do we change the ideas that are shown to be flawed?

:wink:

Yves · **Posted:** Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:46 am

I'm not sure that the problem is the standard. I think that the people come from the customers who want more and more wrinkles,etc, and some breeders see this demand and produce shar-pei accordingly. And this big changes can create some of the health problems in the shar-pei.

Pearlee · **Joined:** Sun May 16, 2010 9:15 pm **Posts:** 54

Thank you Yves, you can see my point also. That is what I have been saying in a nut shell some breeders will breed what is a fade and in demand to sell their puppies, instead of doing what is right.
This goes for every breed not just the SP.

JL Wortham-Morgan · **Posted:** Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:46 pm

Quote:

I think that the people come from the customers who want more and more wrinkles,etc, and some breeders see this demand and produce shar-pei accordingly. And this big changes can create some of the health problems in the shar-pei.

Yves & Pearlee/AHo...I agree that too is a problem absolutely. Yet the standard itself is influenced by popular demand to call for traits (like the heavy wrinkle, sunken eyes) that are the root of a PLETHORA of health issues. Lets follow the line of logic in regards to the breed standard though first.

Thing is that one thing leads to another. Can we blame the breeders who breed to a standard that SPECIFICALLY calls for traits that are at the root of so many health issues? If breeders breed to the CURRENT breed's standard then they are breeding dogs that may have health issues associated with the very same traits (excess skin, profuse wrinkle, sunken eyes) that our breed Standard calls for. If they breed away from what we are now discovering to be unhealthy traits then they are also to be criticised?

So then here is a question for all...

Then what SHOULD a responsible and ethical breeder be breeding for....a faulty standard?

Pearlee · **Joined:** Sun May 16, 2010 9:15 pm **Posts:** 54

You are missing the point completely, and I am very dissapointed because I gave you more credit beeings you said you have been in the breed since the 80's, Good breeders should stand to their convictions as to what is right for the breed and not what the public or a one pet dog owner wants. There are enough back yard breeders to supply this demand. It is up to the ethical breeders to stand firm and do absolutely what is right for the breed and not accommodate the whims of a few in order to sell more puppies.

JL Wortham-Morgan · **Posted:** Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:48 pm

Oh MY...so VERY sorry to disappoint...

So then what is YOUR point Pearlee/AHo? That BYBs breed unhealthy dogs because they dont breed to Standard....that was left back at Pei 101.

What I AM talking about in MY posts is beyond that and SPECIFICALLY is addressing the breed's current standard.

BTW creating new forum identites to argue a point is SPECIFICALLY against our forum's terms and conditions so please do not do it again.

Pearlee · **Joined:** Sun May 16, 2010 9:15 pm **Posts:** 54

I do not know what you mean by creating another identity, but if I understand you correctly I do not need another or several identities to voice my opinion I do quite well by having just one identity. I also practice what I preach

JL Wortham-Morgan · **Posted:** Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:59 pm

Actually Pearlee....as every one of my clients will testify to I DO practice what I preach.

As far as the ID thing I sent you a pm....hopefully there will be no further issue with this from you.

AHo · **Joined:** Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:40 am **Posts:** 3

In reply to my first comment, to the forum, one reply was, "Our standard IS flawed...even just the 2 primary issues I mentioned in above posts (entropion and excess Hyaluronan issues) are predisposed due to traits SPECIFICALLY called for in our current breed ."

As I am not impressed by so-called experts, I would like to know the scientific/medical/veterinary journal which addresses these issues, specifically in regards to the Shar-Pei. I like to read published information as these, in most cases, are the result of long-time, verifiable, studies, and not opinion.

I would like to know, as the standard is quoted where the standard, WHERE it mentions or promotes the problems it is ascribed to contain (entropion and excess Hyaluronan issues).

As to a Standard being cast in concrete,most every month the AKC Gazette(AKC's official publication) posts changes in breed standards. The procedure is that changes to a standard are submitted to AKC by the breed's parent club and AKC Delegates review the changes, and votes to accept or deny changed standard. As AKC allows for periodic standard changes, if requested by the Parent Club, this sure doesn't sound as though it is cast in concrete., if you or others feel that the standard is flawed, and, in your words, promotes health issues, I would suggest that you bring your concerns to the parent club so that changes can be affected. This, as opposed to complaining about it to those on the forum, might accomplish something.

It was stated:
"Yet many of the breed's problems DO have to do with breeding to the Standard....or at least the judge's interpretation of the standard."

and
"We also have to remember that there is the literal Standard (a group of ideas that folks have agreed are ideal) and then there is the actualization of the Standard....how judges are interpreting and applying the Standard in the show ring....and these 2 things may diverge significantly." Huh? As the standard hasn't changed but the breed has, where is that the judges fault? Before a judge can judge a breed he/she attends HANDS-ON Judges Education Seminar where qualified representatives of the Parent Club show judges a number of representative examples of the breed and then go over the standard pointing-out to the judges what is in the standard. Judges physically go over the ddogs and ask questions. I know this as I have participated in several Judges Educational Seminars (although with other than the CSP). Judges Educational Seminars are posted on the AKC web, www.akc.org

JL Wortham-Morgan · **Posted:** Sun Aug 01, 2010 5:06 pm

Quote:

As I am not impressed by so-called experts, I would like to know the scientific/medical/veterinary journal which addresses these issues, specifically in regards to the Shar-Pei. I like to read published information as these, in most cases, are the result of long-time, verifiable, studies, and not opinion.

Well, if you had actually READ the topic/article at the links I posted earlier (AHo/Pearlee) then you would know that this particular bit of information is now in the process of being peer-reviewed for journal publishing. Perhaps you should contact Dr Tintle directly with your reservations/concerns as to the veracity of her (and others) 20 years of research. In the meantime the PUBLISHED article on this is printed in the BARKER magazine and at DR Tintle's website at the links I ALREADY posted.

Quote:

Huh?

Let me put this in "plain" english for you.

Quote:

Huh? As the standard hasn't changed but the breed has, where is that the judges fault?

Judges are HUMAN and as anybody who has actually shown dogs can testify, personal preferences of judges DO absolutely apply to who wins and who does not. Of COURSE they do! Now when the primary identifying characteristic of a breed is a specific trait (ie: shar Pei = wrinkles) this IS often what will be remembered by the judge who is expected to fairly & judiciously judge over 100 breeds. Therefore this specific trait often is the primary factor in those judges that judge for breed type*.

*any who dont understand what breed "type" is please feel free to ask...we here at the Shar Pei forum are all about educating in the Shar Pei community.

sassy · **Joined:** Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:42 pm **Posts:** 5277

This has evolved into quite an interesting discussion , but alas it drove me to drinking - So in the spirit of understanding a good arguement., discussion, heated topic -I decline to acknowledge!
I will savor this for a later time!
I do feel strongly that the breed standard which was decided by man , and possibly men who were biased and uneducated in genetics (rather than modern day)is extremely flawed we should only look to the traditional Chinese Sharpei to see that.Not one Day goes By that I have Dee in Public that I am not questioned whether she is indeed a Shar-pei (purebreed) or not as she lack the wrinkles they have come to know and associate with shar-pei's -I actually carry a picture of both so if I were to get into an arguement with someone I would have proof -I've only had to pull it once. One needs only look at her traditional athletic legs to see the muscle development.She is considered a tweener. Some American , but some traditional traits.I only have concerns for health and that SHOULD BE THE STANDARD!
It matters not if they all DIE!

JL Wortham-Morgan · **Posted:** Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:36 pm

Quote:

I only have concerns for health and that SHOULD BE THE STANDARD!

AMEN Sassy! Amen!!!!

sassy · **Joined:** Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:42 pm **Posts:** 5277

I might also add- Haven't enough Pei's DIED and SUFFERED do to the current state of affairs - I haven't even been in this LONG and I know.If it is changing the Standards or more intervention by the AKC .
or stiffer penalties and Scrutiny SOMETHING MUST BE DONE...This breed will not survive another Decade at this RATE! ANYONE WHO DOESN"T UNDERSTAND THAT SHOULDN"T BE IN THIS BREED!
Sorry I seem so pissed - and I have a relatively healthy pei!But my heart pours out to the many who don't, that we hear from daily and the agony they feel helpless, in dealing with all the horror makes me ill!

JL Wortham-Morgan · **Posted:** Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:45 pm

Quote:

I have a relatively healthy pei!But my heart pours out to the many who don't, that we hear from daily and the agony they feel helpless, in dealing with all the horror makes me ill!

Me too Sassy....and it is ESPECIALLY heartbreaking of late as Dallas & Grace have passed, Murphy, Chloe, and others dealing with amyloidosis and SO MANY others here sick with one thing or another... it is simply heartbreaking!

Mosby Pop · **Posted:** Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:59 pm

Wow
This is REALLY intensive reading......

Personally....having lost my dearest Mosby to FSF (a champion bred male from a litter of six who also died of FSF within 3 years of their birth, yes, the whole litter) and noting that he was bred to "standard"...I must allow that somewhere...we have lost sight of "right and wrong" in breeding for the sake of producing a "standard" ... Upon trying to contact the two owners that bred Mosby's parents and wanting to inform them of the loss of all the litter mates, they BOTH failed to return calls or answer letters..EVER... and I do know that the bitch was indeed bred again by checking AKC files...

anyway...all I'm trying to say is that "standard", by definition, doesn't make it right....

Sassy is correct in stating that at this rate, Pei's as we know and love them..will be no longer....thanks to nonresponsible breeding...be around...

I have, as yet, had a Pei that made it past it's 5th BD...........

Yves · **Posted:** Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:38 am

sassy wrote:

I only have concerns for health and that SHOULD BE THE STANDARD!

But if you mix a shar-pei with a labrador and the puppy is healthy so he's in the standard?!?
I understand the point that health is important but the standard is based in order to keep a pure race first in terms of aesthetics, not to create bears or mini-peis or I don't know what (lol!), for instance.

Anne Lise Juncker · **Posted:** Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:50 am

Intresting point Yves,yes todays SP was mixed with other breeds before being send to US,there was also being send pregnant females over to US.

JL Wortham-Morgan · **Posted:** Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:44 am

Quote:

I understand the point that health is important but the standard is based in order to keep a pure race first in terms of aesthetics, not to create bears or mini-peis or I don't know what (lol!), for instance.

I dont think anyone is saying that we should throw away breed Standards. My point is that when any Standard for any breed is calling for traits that are causing or contributing to some serious health issues it should be re-evaluated and possibly adjusted to promote healthier dogs. I have always bred toward the breed Standard but lately I find myself feeling guilty for doing so.

When the Standard calls for traits that are linked to health issues then no breeder that breeds to that Standard can say honestly they are breeding for health first. This for me is a problem because it puts breeders in a morally compromising position.

As far as creating minis or bearcoats intentionally, I dont feel anyone here has suggested that we should do that. BUT since the AKC does have provisions set forth for to allow for different variations of breeds to acheive recognition who are we to condemn a breeder who breeds these variations as long as they are breeding for health/soundness first, following AKC's guidelines for acheiving recognition and not misrepresenting these dogs as something they are not. Our flowered pei, mini & bearcoats may one day have recognition as do the Harlequin Great Danes, particolored & toy poodles and other breed variations that were once just dogs that didn't fit in their breed's Standard.

Anne Lise Juncker · **Posted:** Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:48 am

I see your point JL,but am I right in saying there are many other breeds in todays US Shar-peis.

The Chinese Shar-Pei Information Forums and Discussion Group

Meat mouth question...

Who is online