Photo of a collie from 1915.
I discovered a rather interesting story about how the collie became a fancy breed. I had always heard that the collie was mixed with the borzoi to make its narrow muzzle, but I was later presented with evidence that this may not be the case. However, I did find that outside blood did indeed shape the collie into a fancy show breed. It was not what I was expecting. It is also a very interesting case study into what happens to a breed once they become “fancy” or, as their breeders call them– “improved.” I am going to directly quote what I found, for it is quite instructive:
The collie was the most popular pet dog of late Victorian England and a prime example of a breed reconstructed to meet the figurative needs of fanciers. Collies were originally valued for the qualities they had developed as hardworking Scottish sheepdogs–intelligence, loyalty, and a warm shaggy coat. Once they were firmly established in the Stud Book, however, breeders began to introduce modifications and improvements, which were tested not against the rigors of the Highland winter, but in the fashionable marketplace. [Emphasis mine] By 1895 there were seven independent clubs devoted to the breed’s welfare, many of which sponsored all-collie shows, as well as strong collie representation in the Kennel Club and regional canine associations. The large number of pedigreed collies seems to have been exacerbated the tendency of fanciers to fabricate subtle points of distinction between animals and artificial models to measure them against. As a result, fashions changed swiftly and collie standards were among the most volatile; breeders redesigned their animals or restocked their kennels in accordance with the latest show results. Plasticity could even take precedence over pedigree; in order to instill some temporarily admired attribute, breeders were sometimes willing to contaminate the strain. In the early days of showing, collies were often crossed with Gordon setters to achieve then fashionable glossy, black-and-tan coats. For decades experts could detect “traces of the bar sinister”– telltale ears, head, and general heaviness– in many show animals. Even without crossing (which became less common after the Stud Book gained sway), fashion could undermine the character of the breed. The 1890s saw a craze for exaggerated heads with long, pointy noses. In 1891 a Kennel Gazette reviewer complained that show judges had given away all the prizes “to dogs of the greyhound type whose eyes bore an inane, expressionless look.” Critics alleged that such dogs could hardly display the intelligence characteristic of their breed because there was no room in their heads for brains.
Harriet Ritvo, The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age (1989) p. 113-114.
Now, these developments partially explain why the fancy went to the closed stud book system. That certainly could reduce volatility in type, but dogs have such plasticity in their phenotype (because of tandem repeats) that fad breeding can still lead to massive shifts in type.
I’ve seen it in my own breed in just a the past few years. To me, the most of the goldens that are being offered today are nothing like the dogs I remember. The type has shifted from a more moderate and less exaggerated dog into something more heavily built and excessively feathered. The color range has shifted almost entirely. One can no longer find the darkest mahogany color in goldens, unless one really looks hard and doesn’t automatically assume that light builds and dark colors are indicative of cross-breeding with Irish setters.
So in that piece we see that one breed of dog started out with functional behavioral and physical conformation, and after just a few decades of fad breeding, it becomes a very different dog. So much for the fancy preserving dog breeds. The fancy may have that intent, but as an institution, it is very much susceptible to fads and trends, as well as contrived characteristics that are actually detrimental to the health and function of the dogs. What shepherd would want a collie with such a narrow head and very little herding instinct?
Now, I found it interesting that Gordon setters were used to increase the number of black-and-tan dogs in the bloodline. However, black and tan and solid black were the most common colors of the British herding landrace that became the collie-type dogs. The Gordon setter got its black and tan coloration from an outcross with a black -and-tan collie. One must remember that Queen Victoria’s collies were all black-and- tan, but that particular coloration may not have been universally evident in all show collie populations. So the best way to remedy that problem was to cross-breed with Gordon setters.
I’ve heard of other such outcrosses with show dogs. Many of these have been clandestine, for the modern institutionalized fancy is based upon a closed stud book.system. For example, I’ve read that Labrador breeders crossed in golden retrievers to reduce houndish characteristics in yellow Labradors, as well as to increase biddability (which was always a perceived problem in yellow Labradors) and lengthen the coat. As well all know, the yellow Labradors were heavily outcrossed to lemon foxhounds to increase the likelihood of producing that color, which was not evident in the St. John’s water dog. It is also well-known that flat-coated retrievers were heavily interbred into Labradors to make them more competitive in early twentieth century field trials. The faulty black-and-tan color in Labradors has always existed within the breed and within the old wavy-coated retriever, which is the ancestor of the flat-coat and the golden, but I’ve come across more than one person who claims that the black and tan color in Labradors is the result of interbreeding with Rottweilers. However, I think it is much more likely that the color is the result of the founder effect from the St. John’s water dog and from the infusion of collie and Gorden setter blood in the old wavy-coated retriever.
So the early fancy had license to crossbreed for phenotype, and the modern fancy has always had rumors about clandestine crossbreeding. My response is actually quite simple: Why can’t we have license to crossbreed for health reasons?
How could this be accomplished? Well, in the early days in which retrievers were separated into show dog breeds, there was a class called “Interbred.” Interbred dogs were a mixture of two different strains that the KC had declared separate breeds. These dogs would be run as “Interbred,” as would their offspring for three generations. After being bred to a specific breed for three generations, the phenotype of the descendants of this interbred dog would be examined to allow it to be registered as a purebred.
I don’t see why such a system could not be implemented today, but I do worry that fad breeding would run amok in such a system, as it did with the early show collies. That is why breed standards must be evaluated and written with functional conformation in mind. Such a system is entirely absent in the dog fancy right now.
We also need controls on how often a stud dog is used to keep the gene pool more open. Today, virtually all dog breeds (especially mine) are suffering from a compromised gene pool– most of which can be blamed on using just a few stud dogs to produce a high percentage of the offspring.
I would be very happy if we got some of these reforms. It would mean that we’re finally thinking about dogs are organisms and as creatures that have feelings, emotions, and intelligence. I can’t imagine any conservation organization that would try to breed endangered species under such a weird system. Indeed, in the case of the subspecies of cougar called the Florida panther, the Texas cougar was introduced to Florida to increase genetic diversity.
But dog people don’t think like biologists. They think like proper Victorians.
I don’t know if I buy the Gordon Setter idea – as I’ve gotten older I’m taking breed histories with a big grain of salt (a ridiculous number of breed histories claim that X breed “goes back to ancient Egypt and is found depicted on the tombs of the Pharaohs”). For example one of my Collie books claims that the sable was the result of a cross with the Irish Setter. Interesting idea except that the genetics of the Irish Setter red and the Collie sable are totally different.
Anyway, tri color (black with tan points with white trim) is widely found in the Collie’s close relations, the Border Collie and Shetland Sheepdog. If one assumes that the early Collie breed did not have tri-color why would the breeders go to a completely different type of dog, the Gorden Setter, to bring in this color when it would have been much easier to breed one of the Collie’s cousin breeds and have a better chance to retain type?
Anyway, according to all of my Collie history books, one of the major founding dogs in the breed was Trefoil – a tri-color whelped in the 1870s. Tri-colored collies were widespread and in fact more popular than sables in the late 1800s.
Anyway, my 2 cents.
The black and tan coloration in retrievers definitely comes from collies. My reading is that the majority of collies originally were as you say– black and tan, black, or tricolor. Queen Victoria had a bunch of black and tan collies. But my reading of this is that they wanted to ensure that the dogs would be black and tan, so they went with the setter. The Gordon is itself a derivative of the collie. Originally, it came in a bunch of different colors, but the black and tan has become the only standard color. I think it’s possible. Keep in mind that borzoi are very different from collies, but they are often suggested as the breed that gave them their muzzles (I’m very skeptical). Flat-coated retrievers allegedly have borzoi in them, and lemon foxhounds were crossed into lines that carried yellow Labradors to make that color more likely.
Check out the retriever on the left:
http://www.donaldheald.com/search/detail_01.php?booknr=5565961&ordernr=5266
It was well-known that collies were bred to setters, Newfoundlands (of either type), and water spaniels to found some strains of retriever. Black and tan markings on early retrievers were the result of the collie blood, but it was also known that the St. John’s water dog had black and tan every once in a while, which is recessive to black.
Now, here’s the thing about sable. It could come from collies, because in the older collie-breeds, like the English shepherd, you have a color called “clear sable.” In border collies, this is called “Australian red.” These are e/e’s just like Irish setters are. Some of these dogs are darker in color.
However, I’ve always believe the ancestor of the red setters was the original Celtic red spaniel that originally was common in France.
.
Hi,
I know the conversation has gone into another direction but I’m still don’t buy the Gordon Setter bred into the Collie for the Black & Tan color.
In my old age (OK middle age), I’ve become pretty skeptical and I’m always asking myself what I’m reading makes sense – does it pass the sniff test.
The collie is my breed (though I’m partial to the smoothies) and one thing is clear is that the founders of the breed were really hung up on a tightly defined type of head and this is reflected in the standard: it goes on and on about the head, muzzle, eyes, ears and expression. The rest of the dog gets, IMHO, a quick run through. Color & markings aren’t that big of a deal – the white markings can be minimum or maximum, they have to be one of the stated color/patterns (sable, tri, blue merle or, in the US, white) but there’s nothing about the importance of the quality of the coloring. Other than the head, the other big deal is the coat – for a rough it has to hard & dense so it stands out and makes the apron (the front of the chest) poof out nicely.
So considering that those early breeders were very concerned with head qualities and the poofy coat, and that tri-color was widespread in the breed, the stated reason to breed to the Gordon Setter just doesn’t make sense. (“In the early days of showing, collies were often crossed with Gordon setters to achieve then fashionable glossy, black-and-tan coats.”)
I don’t know, maybe I’m just a cranky 47 year old curmudgeon but, IMHO, just because something was written long ago, doesn’t make automatically true especially if it seems to be in conflict with multiple lines of information.
I think it is within the realm of possibility simply because you can breed out the Gordon setter characteristics very quickly. Not many genes actually separate these breeds, and when you breed back to the original strain, the outcross can be lost.
I don’t think borzoi were crossed into the collie. And considering how faddish those early years were, it’s very possible that these with GS characteristics disappeared.
I think it’s Scottish deerhounds that have an ancestor that was an English mastiff– if you want to hear the strangest outcrossing I’ve heard of.
http://www.antya.com/wikisearch.php?s=English+Mastiff
“Mr. S. E. Shirley brought out several black-tan-and-whites, which were bred on his estate in Ireland, and they met with success on the show bench. These were Tricolour, Trefoil, Hornpipe, Hualakin and Tartan, and, although they were long-coated animals, there was a distinct taint of the setter about them, more especially the latter, who favoured the setter type more than that of the collie. Nevertheless, the crossing of this strain with those of Old Cockie and Old Mec proved successful, as evidenced by the production of the illustrious Charlemagne.”
The dog book, Volume 1, James Watson – 1906
Thank you for finding this.
Gordon setters are part collie, and collies were also crossed into retrievers, especially wavy-coats.
Mr. Shirley was the founding president of the Kennel Club in 1873, and he is responsible for standardizing the wavy-coated retriever, which eventually became the golden and flat-coated retrievers.
There is a tendency among some commentators on this blog to deny that the British herding landrace dogs have any relationship to the gun dogs. However, it is pretty obvious to me, after looking at many old depictions of both types, that there is a relationship.
I don’t believe most breed histories, but here are some of the red spaniels from Renaissance Italy:
http://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/pisanellos-spaniels.jpg?w=450&h=321
Another version of the Gordon setter cross has it that the Duke of Gordon so fancied the outstanding Collie bitch Maddy (a great sheepdog, but ALSO an outstanding bird dog who often defeated the pointers and setters at the ducal shoots) owned by one of the Duke’s shepherds that he incorporated Maddy in his breeding program. Therefore, Collie is BEHIND the Gordon setter, Irish setter, Golden retriever, and certain other breeds through this cross.
Of course, you are 100 percent correct.
And this would also explain why they added a bit of Gordon setter to the show collie.
Originally, most collies were black, black and tan, tricolor, or black and white.
The UK KC actually used to have something called the B registry, specifically for outcrossing between breeds.
Why no cross-breeding for health? Because a lot of the most vocal members of the fancy are psychotic. Crazy people don’t listen to science or common sense. I have cross-breeds, and I do it for practical reasons, to reduce coat to a functional level. When I dared to breed a litter of purebreds, I got harassed and threatened, in large part because ‘we don’t approve of cross-breeding.’ If cross-breeding for a practical purpose, to increase function or add a desired trait, is a no-no, why would cross-breeding for health, something you usually can’t see, especially something as nebulous as producing a more heterozygous immune system, be okay?
Why no outcrosses for health?
Well, what breed would you cross any other breed with? Why is there this assumption that outcrossing will solve health issues? Maybe with some, rarer issues that only affect a few breeds, but outcrossing will do nothing to help more wide spread issues that appear in many, genetically diverse breeds.
However, genetic testing the population as a whole, and limiting breeding to clears will do a great deal in cleaning up some issues (at least those with accurate genetic tests available), with no “new” blood needed.
Even in the breeds that have genetic tests for problems caused by simple recessives, they do not recommend only breeding from ‘clears’ because it will contract the gene pool down to nothing. Gene tests for recessive problems are useful because carriers can be bred to non-carriers with surety. No more test breedings. Eliminating carriers entirely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Genetic testing will allow for smarter breeding. If you think it’s going to eliminate defects entirely you are dreaming.
Actually it does– it reshuffles the deck.
You are not going to breed out genetic disorders with a closed registry (or with an open one). But you’ll never do it with a closed registry– simply because the more you narrow the gene pool, the more bad recessives will be exposed. That’s the one reason why the number of genetic disorders in purebred dogs is increasing. The genetic diversity– as a whole– is on the decrease.
The only one I’ve seen any marginal improvement in was the Bull Terrier, but it already was as a bad as it gets in terms of genetic diversity.
Blood purity is one of those toilet ideas that needs to be scrapped in this new millennium, don’t you think?
‘Toilet ideas.’ I like that, I’m going to steal it.
This should be instructive: http://www.terrierman.com/mcgreevey-some-practical-solution-dog-breeding.pdf
Why no out-crosing for health? Well, I would be in favor of that if it — 1) didn’t bring in deleterious genes, and 2) wouldn’t affect the temperament/disposition of what makes my breed MY breed. :) I found an outstanding treatise from a doctor in Canada about this very subject. If I can find it, again, I’ll post the link. With my breed, the Collie, I might consider out-crossing with the Border Collie and/or English Shepherd (both related to the Collie — in my opinion, descending from the Collie in his original form). However, I would NOT want to bring in the obsessive-compulsive disorder that the BC obviously possesses in spades!
Cindy
Trainer and Behaviorist
Cynologist
Bo Jove — this is it! :)
http://www.netpets.com/dogs/healthspa/bragg.html
To me, crossbreeding for a specific purpose is fine and dandy, so long as the dogs being bred are not dogs another breeder has tried to pull from the breeding pool (breeding should be intentional, and disregarding another breeder’s intent subverts the whole process, in my mind), AND so long as one knows there are homes for these dogs, whether the crossbreed turns out as hoped or not.
Crossbreeding “for health” doesn’t really mean anything to me–are you breeding for longevity? Working soundness over the life of the dog? What??? Strong immune system? Resistance to cold? Ability to deal with heat? A strong digestive system? Lung capacity? WHAT??? “For health” in and of itself is meaningless.
Every breed has problems. Crossing one breed’s problems with another breed’s problems doesn’t mean the puppies will have NO problems–what problems will be hidden? For how long? What problems will be uncovered? Is the breeding worth it? How do you evaluate health in the next generation, and the next?
If you have a dog that lives to 15, but it has arthritis or is blind the last 5 years of its life, is that success? What if it doesn’t have a day in its life that it’s ill, until it dies at 10? Is that success?
Breeding “for health” is meaningless without articulating what healthy means, AND having a community of people who agree on that meaning who will own these dogs and some who will share a vision for how to breed successive generations of healthy dogs. AND that has to be balanced with other things important to people–what is the dog’s purpose? desired temperament? size? biddability?
Anyone who talks hybrid vigor is either not going far enough in articulating what that means, or is simply full of it.
Crossbreeding “for diversity” is similarly meaningless to me.
I’m not against crossbreeding–but I think it’s probably even more difficult to do successfully than breeding purebred dogs. I think the really the only way to do it successfully is to have a clear vision of what one wants, a reason to want it (a purpose for the dog), and a very practical means of testing its success–like sled dog competitions or something.
Given all the difficulties, I hope there will always be breeders who protect the integrity of the breeds I enjoy, whether there are folks who are crossbreeding or not.
Why would we do this?
Because it reshuffles the deck, making it less likely that these negative recessives and incomplete recessives won’t appear.
When you breed for less genetic diversity, you make it very likely that these genetic disorders will pop up.
In fact, if you try to solve these problems by trying to breed it out of a closed registry system, you will be successful. However, you will have reduced genetic diversity even more, making it likely that new genetic problems will be exposed, simply because most of these are recessives or incomplete recessives.
You are far better off trying to increase genetic diversity.
I’m surprised that only dog people don’t seem to know this. Most show cats are outcrossed with suitable breeds for this very reason. If you eat pork or beef, it is very likely that the animal that produced it was a crossbreed or has had a crossing somewhere within the past 3-5 generations.
I don’t know why dog people treat this as if it is a great heresy. But virtually no other domestic animals are kept in a closed registry system.
The longer that a breed remains “purebred”; that is, bred to the standard of a “fancy”, rather than purely for ability and utility, the more degenerate that breed becomes. The AKC is the worst thing that ever happened to dogs, at least in this country. When the AKC decides to “welcome” a breed to its fold, you may as well kiss that breed goodbye, because in twenty years or so, it will be a caricature of its former self.
Like the Border Collie now is in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Show lines have been consistently bred in the UK and New Zealand since the 1970s, and in Australia since the early 1900s. And now…in the United States. You can no longer say that the Border Collie is only bred to a working standard. They are NOW going through the same metamorphesis as the Scotch Collie (Rough & Smooth) did in the very very late 1800s up to and including the 1920s. Fortunately or unfortunately, nothing ever remains static.
This is one of the best articles on out-breeding I’ve seen. I would be very careful about what type of dog to outbreedto, as I would be concrened about changing the very nature of your own breed. For example, if I outbred my Collies (is Scotch Collies) to an excellent example of a Border Collie, I most defnitely would NOT want to bring in the radical change in character that that might bring in — the obsessive-compulsive, can’t sit still and oftentimes destructive behavior unless given enough work to do character. To be honest, I don’t think that most of us in this day and time would be able to or even want to. I for one want an animal that is easy to live with. With care, though, it would be most tempting to do some test breedings. BTW For those who may not know, the AKC has set a precedence of test breeding to help filter out health issues. I still have a copy somewhere of an article pertaining to this from I believe the 1970s when they allowed conditional registration of some Dalmatians where they were bred with Pointers to see if this would help with the crystal formation issue in Dals. Eventually, I believe they cancelled the registrations when they saw it wasn’t going anywhere.
http://www.netpets.com/dogs/healthspa/bragg.html
Cindy: “I still have a copy somewhere of an article pertaining to this from I believe the 1970s when they allowed conditional registration of some Dalmatians where they were bred with Pointers to see if this would help with the crystal formation issue in Dals. Eventually, I believe they cancelled the registrations when they saw it wasn’t going anywhere.”
No. For the real history of the backcross project go here: http://www.showdays.info/LUA.php
From the link:
“After 4 generations, in 1981, with the assistance of several prominent Dal breeders, notably Alfred & Esme Treen who wrote the original and classic book on Dalmatians, and with the official consent and support of the DCA Board of Directors, AKC agreed to register 2 of the backcross Dals.
The Controversy
When the board proudly announced to the club that the backcross dogs had been registered, the reaction by the club members was not favorable. In fact, it might be said pandemonium ensued. Many members favored the backcross, but many were adamantly opposed. It has been said it split the club. There was a very heated debate, and friendships were torn asunder. Each side was adamant and emotional. Many felt the board should have sought the consent of the club before AKC recognition.
Certain things aren’t exactly clear in retrospect, especially some chronology (i.e. what happened when and in what sequence), but as a result of the controversy, AKC was prevailed upon to place the two backcross registrations on “hold” status. It’s not clear if this was the result of a club vote, or if it was a result of the controversy and the vote came a bit later. Subsequently the club voted to not only stop the registration process for the backcross Dals, but to ban the topic from future club discussion, as well as any overt effort to assist or promote the backcross effort.”
How the Dalmatian club acted is a prime example of the scientific ignorance and devotion to mythology that characterizes the closed registry system.
Great information, Jess! Thank for the timely update. I think we can all learn from our past. Maybe not all people, but some of us can and maybe help to lead our dogs in this 21st century!
http://www.terrierman.com/mcgreevey-some-practical-solution-dog-breeding.pdf
“Crossbreeding “for diversity” is similarly meaningless to me.”
Major histocompatibility complex. Allergies and diseases where the immune system goes haywire like autoimmune disease also fall under that particular category.
http://cc.ysu.edu/~helorime/inbrimmune.html
“Given all the difficulties, I hope there will always be breeders who protect the integrity of the breeds I enjoy, whether there are folks who are crossbreeding or not.”
What is ‘integrity?’ I have seen ‘Salukis’ that I KNOW have a Greyhound in the woodpile, yet they look like Salukis, act like Salukis, and when bred to a Saluki they produce offspring like themselves. At what point do these dogs have ‘integrity?’ Do the low uric acid Dalmatians have ‘integrity?’ For some reason, when an outcross to another breed is brought up, common sense seems to go out the window and suddenly you get this:
“Every breed has problems. Crossing one breed’s problems with another breed’s problems doesn’t mean the puppies will have NO problems–what problems will be hidden? For how long? What problems will be uncovered? Is the breeding worth it? How do you evaluate health in the next generation, and the next?”
We’re not talking about picking a dog up from the side of road and including it in a breeding program. These are purebreds, we know what health problems they have, the health history of the dog and it’s ancestors. It’s also extremely unrealistic to suppose that we can breed out ALL health problems. These are not machines, they are living systems and extremely plastic, mutable systems at that.
Inbreeding and closed stud books do not ‘make bad genes appear so we can eliminate them.’ That is a fallacy. There are trade offs for closing the registry, just like their are for cross-breeding. Life is not without risks.
Jess, point by point:
–Immune diseases are an interesting point. If a breed is self-imploding, an intelligent outcross is not something I disagree with.
–”What is ‘integrity’”? That’s a valid question. I hope that in the retriever breeds, that there are always breeders who are thinking about this question seriously and in a nuanced way. To me, the breed has to LOOK like the breed–not like a caricature, and not like an approximation–and BEHAVE like the breed, including all of the temperament and biddability and performance aspects and etc.–and has to not have such an addition of another breed’s subtle qualities (mannerisms, quirks–hard things to put a finger on) such that my own breed’s subtle qualities are eclipsed. I think a breed CAN have integrity–it can be itself, and someone should appreciate it and maintain it, by thinking seriously about what ‘integrity’ means for that breed. I think there are breeds that are “pure” that have totally lost their integrity through inbreeding.
–”We’re not talking about picking a dog up from the side of road and including it in a breeding program. ” I’m not suggesting anyone do that–I’m assuming this is a rhetorical flourish on your part, or else you really misunderstand me.
–”These are purebreds, we know what health problems they have, the health history of the dog and it’s ancestors. ” Ah–but we don’t! Look up the tortured history of EIC in Labs–a simple recessive! It is present in up to 40 percent of the population as either carrier or affected status, with an estimated 4 percent genetically affected, but a smaller number clinically affected. Nonetheless, it is devestating, and even maybe 2 or 3 percent clinically affected is HUGE. AND YET–20 years ago, it was assumed to be epilepsy, or heat stroke, or “just one of those things,” and 10 years ago it was a whisper, and 5 years ago it was a rumor! Additionally, there are traits that are polygenetic–such as hip dysplasia–that can be bred away from within a breed, but when you bring in other breeds, the predictability of the problem becomes far more dicey. I don’t think we know as much as we think we know, I guess.
–”It’s also extremely unrealistic to suppose that we can breed out ALL health problems. These are not machines, they are living systems and extremely plastic, mutable systems at that.” I agree. In fact, I think there’s great danger in trying breed OUT health problems–they ARE living systems, and they are going to die of something–we have an obligation to weigh longevity and health and various risks to each very, very carefully, for the individual dog and for a breed or other population as a whole.
–”Inbreeding and closed stud books do not ‘make bad genes appear so we can eliminate them.’ That is a fallacy. There are trade offs for closing the registry, just like their are for cross-breeding. Life is not without risks.” I completely agree. I think it’s possible to become fanatical on both sides of the argument–both the “fancy” side and the “outcross” side.
I’m not theoretically against outcrossing–but to my mind, if it’s going to be practiced, it has to be done AS deliberately, if not MORE deliberately, than breeding within a closed registry.
Retrieverman said,”I don’t see why such a system could not be implemented today, but I do worry that fad breeding would run amok in such a system, as it did with the early show collies. That is why breed standards must be evaluated and written with functional conformation in mind. Such a system is entirely absent in the dog fancy right now.”
I think out-crossing with the intention of bringing dogs back in later generations might be a rational approach to health problems in some breeds. But are there enough rational, disciplined, knowledgeable, experienced, honest people out there who are interested in going this route?
It’s the only hope.
I think a reformed fancy is going to have to be more pro-active, even Draconian, on how dogs are bred.
Because dogs live with people their entire lives, they can’t be regarded as commodities. Unfortunately, too many people believe that they are.
Hogs are commodities.
Cows are commodities.
Poultry birds are commodities.
Dogs can’t be mass-produced and not lose their quality.
We disagree on how dire the situation is with retrievers, I guess.
You’re more worried about it not being done–I’m more worried about it being done badly.
another link:
http://cc.ysu.edu/~helorime/purge.html
If it’s not done at all, many of these breeds will cease to exist. Not just retrievers.
Yes, it can be done badly, and I know what you’re aiming at.
“I think a reformed fancy is going to have to be more pro-active, even Draconian, on how dogs are bred.”
That can backfire too. That’s how they have the breeding of German Shepherds set up in Germany. The specifications for breeding stock are very strict, right down to the number of puppies that the dam is allowed to nurse. But “German” German Shepherds still morphed from solid, unexaggerated working dogs into creatures with roached backs and big blocky heads, more reminiscent of hyenas than of the wonderful dogs I have always loved.
You keep talking about genetic diversity, and I do agree that diversity is lacking in any closed system. But, once again, where are you getting this new blood? Most of our popular breeds are from Europe, and most have been developed (and stud books closed) within the last 100-200 years – information that you agree with, since you have posted similar things on this blog. So, where is this new blood? The same genes are going to be present in the non-”show” dogs. 200 years is a drop in the bucket in terms of diversification of anything genetic – even longer (say, as long as dogs have been domesticated), which is the main reason any of those “DNA” test for dog breeds are so inaccurate – all breeds are too genetically similar to be easily separated via DNA.
Do I think an open registry will help same breeds? Yes, along with genetic tests where available, the study of lines and resulting offspring (to follow issues that are either developing of there is no test for), etc. In other words, what good breeders already do, within the KC system and without cross breeding.
I’m not suggesting anything radical.
In the FCI countries, there is one Belgian shepherd with four varieties that are interbred under strict guidelines.
You can’t solve this problem with a closed registry system. If you try, you will solve the genetic problem that you’re breeding out, but you will have probably made it more likely that hidden bad recessive and incomplete recessives will meet, meaning that new genetic disorders will pop up.
It’s also possible to have an inbreeding depression in which you wind up with lots of crap dogs, but most breeds are a long way from that. But if you take this too far, you will have it.
Closer to home, look at coonhounds. There are at least six recognized breeds, and numerous lines within those breeds, but crossbreeding is routinely done, to obtain dogs with a certain ability or combination of abilities.
Of course, now that the AKC has their paws on it, coonhounds will be bred for “type”, and the wonderful ange of abilities and vigor obtained from outcrossing will be a thing of the past.
Are you trying to say that because most breeds come from Europe they are all so closely related that outcrossing will have no value?
Perhaps not whole breeds, but lines within breeds are in danger. And it really depends on what you mean by ‘crap dogs.’ I am on a large mailing list about canine reproduction, and I routinely see people who put their bitch on antibiotics during heat and pregnancy, both in order for the bitch conceive, and to carry a litter to term. No mention of finding out why these bitches have problems with bacteria. Repeat breeding of bitches that must be supplemented with progesterone to carry a litter to term. Bitches with poor mothering instincts. Dogs with low libido, low sperm count, etc. Bitches with thyroid problems (evidently if it’s not autoimmune, it’s okay to breed.) Dogs that only tolerate certain foods, that have environmental allergies. To me these fall under ‘crap dogs’, and at the very least, should be out crossed as far as possible to add some vigor to the line. I know there are plenty of breeders out there who value reproductive competence, but there is also a strong sort of complacency that it’s okay to breed from these dogs because they are ‘good examples of the breed’ as evidenced by conformation titles or points, which discounts that a dog is far more than just it’s appearance.
The threading on this kinda sucks after you get to a certain point.
FnL: You kind of missed my point on the known health quantities thing. We are never going to know ALL the diseases/problems/whatevers associated with each breed. New ones get diagnosed all the time and dogs are put to sleep for health problems that go either undiagnosed or incorrectly diagnosed. Staunch opponents of cross-breeding always play the ‘what new health problems are we going to get’ card. It’s both far more simple and more complicated than that, and can’t be reduced to simply ‘but we might get new problems.’ Purebreds are a known quantity, and you should be able to predict, with some accuracy, potential problems. BUT all dogs in and of themselves are also an unknown quantity, you never know when something new is going to pop up. So, I don’t think that’s a valid argument against cross-breeding. Plus with the research being done on epigenetics, genes influenced by environment, and things like how stress affects the fetus and that influences later health, it’s enough to make your head explode.
I have always liked Jeffrey Bragg’s idea of a registry that registers dogs, not breeds. Then it would be up to the breeder how they want to breed their dogs.
The threading is awful.
It’s very hard to moderate once I get more than ten comments per post.
Jess said, “Staunch opponents of cross-breeding always play the ‘what new health problems are we going to get’ card. It’s both far more simple and more complicated than that, and can’t be reduced to simply ‘but we might get new problems.’ Purebreds are a known quantity, and you should be able to predict, with some accuracy, potential problems.”
Okay, gotcha, I see your point–but I agree it’s both more simple and more complicated (so I both agree and disagree). In the example of Labs and EIC, they’ve determined that it’s actually a very old mutation (they don’t know whether it’s increased in the population or not, but the last I read they think it’s been pretty pervasive for a long time)–but it is not an easy condition to diagnose without a genetic test, AND breeders have not necessarily been forthright with themselves or each other. So again–not a new problem, and not a known quantity, and difficult to predict with any accuracy, until the last year–and that’s only if breeders do the genetic testing and share the information. What else might be out there? Let’s not be overconfident.
I guess I would call myself not a “staunch opponent,” but rather a “don’t screw it up (and most will)” opponent. I guess I just think most people are going to screw it up–or with retrievers, give up without following through!
Even if they are exceedingly well-bred I’m not sure the world needs more golden-whatevers or Lab mixes; I think the Chessie people are doing fine on their own; the curly folks are the only ones who know enough about curlies to have an outcrossing discussion; and I really, really don’t want to talk about flat-coats.
Given the reaction of Dalmatian fanciers to the very, very rigidly controlled LUA outcross, what are the chances of any of this ever coming to pass? If I recall correctly, the LUA Dalmations were 1 Pointer in 5 generations, or 31/32 “pure”. Evidently, even that wasn’t enough.
I have no idea what it would take to get it to happen.
What we need is another bona fide registry (and not a paper mill) that can actually put pressure on the AKC.
The main reason the Dalmatian clubs hated the outcrosses was because their spotting wasn’t as ‘perfect’ (in their minds) as the ‘pure’ ones. Of course, nobody who isn’t completely anal-retentive to the point of insanity about the ‘proper size and spacing’ of Dalmatian spots could tell the difference.
BTW, have you ever seen the nonstandard Dalmatian colors:
http://www.geocities.com/paisleydals/color.html
In one of the books I got my old photos from, the chapter on Dals mentions tricolor-spotted Dals as being common and a well-liked color 20 or 30 years back as the author reckoned (the book was written in the late 1800s). The author goes on to wonder why the breed club decided to disfavor the color, when only a few generations before people actually quite liked it.
Fads and politics.