In the poodle world there is this huge disconnect about the multi-colored Poodle. The best way to describe it is as... think of the Poodle Club of America (PCA) as the Titantic and the Multi-colored Poodle as the Iceburg.
Seriously!
I personally think that PCA's diehard stance against the multi-colored poodle will eventually bring them down if they don't change with the times.
Many of the 'old' school of poodle people in the PCA world are dead set against the multi-colored poodle and in fact would be perfectly happy to return to the bucket age (in which multi-colored poodles were drown in a bucket at birth).
Many newcomers to poodles in general (or anyone in poodles less than 15 years) tend to see nothing wrong with a multi-colored poodle. So its a disqualifying fault according to the AKC/PCA breed standard. So what! Its just color!
The old school would gasp in horror at that one! What do you mean?? The AKC breed standard is the GOLD standard for the Poodle! They have to 'protect' the breed from the rest of us!
But is that breed standard really so GOLD? These are people who have such tunnel vision that they can't even rationally talk about the fact that the poodle breed standard has varied over history over which colors are acceptable and which aren't and in fact the poodle breed standards vary from venue and country... If they can't even get one standardized breed standard throughout the world for this dog.... how can they make such a stink about a poodle born not solid in color through no fault of its own?
But many do. There is much hand wringing and moaning over the existance of these NATURALLY OCCURING coat patterns and how dare people openly advertise them on websites and bring them out in public instead of shamefully hiding them in backyards away from public view.....
Which led to an article that was published by PCA in their newsletter in the summer of 2006 regarding these dogs. Feel free to read the article on the PCA website for yourself. Those of us in the multi-colored poodle world were so outraged at the absolute falsehoods in the article, that I wrote this editorial in response.
Regarding that Return of the Raconteurs
Commentary by Katharine Dokken
Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved
Published in The Parti Times, Issue 31, August 2006.
NO copying of this article is permitted without the explicit written permission
of the author!
I read with interest and dismay the recent anti multi-colored poodle article by Jacklyn E. Hungerland, published in the Poodle Papers, Summer 2006 issue, produced by the Poodle Club of America, and a smaller version first printed in Dogs in Review, June 2006 issue.
Ms. Hungerland starts off her rambling and disjointed piece by talking about the "Integrity of the Poodle" which apparently has something to do with seasoned hunters feeding poodle puppies lobster out of a can. Can you even buy lobster in a can? Then again, as a working stiff, my budget is more along the lines of generic tuna in a can, so what do I know. My only question is, what does lobster in a can have to do with the integrity of poodles? Then Ms. Hungerland jumps from lobster into the "Role of History" in poodles bypassing completely that the poodle was originally a parti-coated dog! The parti-coat is certainly nothing new under the sun. Ms. Hungerland mentions that the first breed standards written for the show ring defined the poodle as: black, white, and brown. As if we should all be closely following something written over a hundred years ago? I think modern science has gone forward quite a bit in the last century. And if we should all be following these old edicts as if they are gospel, then why isn't the point of her article the fact that the standard poodle isn't in the working group and instead is in the non-sporting group. You can thank the United Kennel Club for correctly classifying the standard poodle as a gun dog! She then goes on to mention the current AKC/Poodle Club of America (PCA) breed standard which of course now recognize several more solid colors than a hundred years ago but still disqualify parti-coats.
Then Ms. Hungerland finally gets to the real point of this rambling epistle when she starts her anti-parti rant with the section titled: "The Return of the Raconteurs."
Perhaps Ms. Hungerland isn't aware what is happening in the current world these days? Has she opened a newspaper or watched TV in the last two or three decades? As her outdated views in this article would strongly suggest. I "google'd" her term since I had never heard of it before (to 'Google' means to internet word search using the highly popular Google search engine) and found a web encyclopedia entry for the following: The Raconteurs: "Raconteurs a rock band, featuring several members previously known for other musical projects." The listing goes on to say, "according to the current definition, The Raconteurs qualify as a rock-and-roll supergroup, featuring the songwriting of Jack White of The White Stripes and Brendan Benson, both of whom are Detroit, Michigan musicians. In the band's own words, however, they are not a supergroup, asserting that the term implies something pre-planned, when they are actually 'a new band made up of old friends.'" Or an older definition of this outdated term is: One who tells stories and anecdotes with skill and wit. Okay, what's so bad about that?
The thought of parti-coated poodles being referred to as a new band made up of old friends is actually a very good way to describe these beautiful poodles. Because as any student of poodle history knows, the parti-coat was part of the foundation of the breed. Definitely very old! And the fact that these dogs are currently enjoying a resurgence in popularity after decades of facing a bucket, can only be positive! Very much "The Raconteurs" in my mind! What a great way to refer to them as! Or someone who tells stories with skill and wit, you betcha! Nothing negative about that!
But was that what Ms. Hungerland meant by her use of the term? Somehow I think not! Somehow I think Ms. Hungerland had some sort of other definition in mind, something old, out of use, and discredited in modern society, just like her opinions on these poodles.
Is it just me? Or does everyone else see a huge gaping hole in the thought processes of this article right from the start? In discussing why parti-coated poodles are so wrong, Ms. Hungerland jumps from hunters and lobster to 100 year old breed standards for the show ring and mentions black, white, and brown as being acceptable colors. Then she jumps to the fact that blues, grays, silvers, browns, café-au-lait, apricots and creams are colors that are part of the present standard and jumps right into her anti-parti bias. Does anyone else see the screaming irony here? She briefly mentions how breed standards have changed over time in history to incorporate new colors but because the United Kennel Club has changed their standard to be slightly different in regards to color than PCA/AKC during this same time frame, that that is somehow something absolutely awful? It was okay for the AKC/PCA breed standard to change to accept, blue, gray, silver, café-au-lait , apricot, and cream over the years. That was okay, but it's not okay that another registry in existence and almost as old as the AKC has changed their breed standard to accept multi-colored poodles? Why not! After all, if these other colors are suddenly acceptable these days and weren't before, why can't a non-solid colored coat be accepted? And what about the fact that reds are registered and shown and there are a number of red champions across all three varieties, but red isn't actually mentioned in the breed standard? If you use the same logic for your argument there is really no difference in the two trains of thought. No one has ever provided any scientific or historical reason as to why the parti-coat should be a disqualification in the poodle anyway! Since Ms. Hungerland holds a PhD, I'd expect more scientific fact in her article to back up her statements against the parti-coated poodle, yet she provides none.
Furthermore, Ms. Hungerland talks about how parti-colored miniature and toy poodles were introduced into the United States just a few years ago from Germany. I'm sorry to see Ms. Hungerland so misinformed. The parti-coated poodle has certainly always existed in the United States and didn't need special importation from Germany just a few years ago to accomplish this! Doesn't anyone remember that very famous dog who won the non-sporting group at Westminster in 1934, 1935, and 1936? And of course went Best In Show in 1935! I speak of AM/ENG/FR/SW CH Nunsoe Duc De La Terrace Of Blakeen. That very famous solid white standard poodle who was known for carrying the parti gene and producing parti-coated offspring? That dog? Yes, the Duc came to the United States from Switzerland via England, but the fact remains, he was a high profile sire, did carry the parti gene, and just goes to show that this is yet again nothing new in the poodle world.
Then Ms. Hungerland goes on to talk about what actions that breeders and PCA/AKC affiliated clubs can do against parti-coated dogs. I quote: "By this time you should be asking yourself what has been done by the parent club, the PCA, to discourage this violation of the breed standard." What violation?? Does Ms. Hungerland fail to understand simple genetics? The parti-coat is recessive; therefore breeders will NEVER be able to eradicate it from the gene pool. Decades of bucketing these poor puppies never accomplished this goal, so just how does Ms. Hungerland think she can? There is no DNA test for the various coat pattern genes (Piebald/Parti, Phantom/Tan-point, Sable, Brindle, etc.) that exist in the Poodle gene pool. Ms. Hungerland goes on to recommend that PCA ask all their affiliated clubs to educate the public against these dogs and discourage all members of the public from buying these dogs. Why? Are breeders supposed to return to the horrible bucket generations and euthanize these puppies at birth? Any two solid colored poodles bred together who have the 'misfortune' of carrying any of the recessive parti-coated genes, can produce a parti-coated puppy. What is the poor afflicted breeder supposed to do with the puppy then? According to Ms. Hungerland all members of the public should be educated into not buying these dogs… So is the breeder supposed to keep it? After all, they didn't 'buy' it and thereby violate Ms. Hungerland's tender sensitivities. But if they keep it… they are still committing a violation of the breed standard in Ms. Hungerland's opinion. WOW! Is that harsh or what? And just try asking a modern Veterinarian to euthanize a perfectly healthy puppy because the fact that it was born the 'wrong' color somehow violates a written piece of paper somewhere? And therefore should be put down? And what about the fact that these poodles have always been able to be entered in AKC performance events and have and do compete there successfully earning any number of performance titles. That's no violation of the breed standard.
Let's get back to that integrity of the breed argument for a moment. The health of the poodle gene pool has never been worse. Genetic disease is wide spread and the popular sire syndrome along with the Wycliffe bottleneck has made the standard poodle in particular very highly inbred. In fact there is so much concern among the newer people to poodles that groups have formed simply to study the genetic diversity of the standard poodle and hunt down remnants of older lines that avoided the Wycliffe generations to restore back some genetic diversity to the gene pool; lost breed type and function; and lost temperament and instinct. It's not all about racking up those AKC Champions and stroking egos. What ever happened to the poodle being a water breed? Large portions of the poodle population these days has lost its natural love of water. Dogs have to be introduced to it and encouraged to develop a love for it and many never do. You call that natural? Yet none of this seems important to Ms. Hungerland. What about PRA that whipped out large portions of the miniature gene pool before a DNA test was available? The genetic health of the poodle and the rampant disease in the breed apparently isn't important to Ms. Hungerland. All she can gripe about is a dog suffering from the sin of being born the wrong color. What decade is this anyway?
Ms. Hungerland sums up her article by passing along a story about a parti-colored standard poodle she had seen at an AKC show. She said, "this dog was sired by a dog that had fairly recently won Best of Breed at the national specialty out of a bitch from a prominent line. The dog is registered with AKC and will be shown in UKC shows. Think about it. This is the kind of Poodle the public will see. Is that what you want? If not, take action. Contact the PCA and implore them to take effective steps to educate the public." Has Ms. Hungerland even read her own words? This was not some backyard bred dog produced by the uneducated and unknowing. By her own words, this parti-colored poodle was out of a Best of Breed winner and from well known prominent show lines. Sounds to me like it's a pretty well bred poodle no matter what its color! And as a matter of record, the dog she saw is now a UKC Champion. As for educating the public, the public ADORE parti-coated poodles! They think they are gorgeous! It's the Poodle Club of America that does not understand that public thinking has changed over the years and they have failed to keep up with modern times. Not the other way around. I think its time Ms. Hungerland joined the modern age and realize that the world has changed in the last 100+ years! Better check the expiration date on that lobster.... I think its way past its freshness date.
**The author, Katharine Dokken, a freelance writer, is the founder and editor of The Parti Times, a monthly electronic show newsletter devoted to the multi-colored poodle and maintains the website, Parti Poodle World (http://www.partipoodleworld.com), to educate people about the true history of the multi-colored purebred poodle. Ms. Dokken is also currently a serving member of the Board of Directors for the United Poodle Breeds Association (UPBA) a UKC affiliated club for the Poodle/Standard Poodle breeds.
**Note: This article is in rebuttal to the Hungerland article as published in the PCA newsletter, Poodle Papers, Summer 2006 edition, which differs from the article version published by Dogs in Review in the same time frame.