A few days ago, I wrote about what the dog fancy was doing to certain breeds of dog. I argued that a lot of the problem is that dog fanciers are indoctrinated into thinking that exaggeration is beautiful or, as they call it, “correct.”
Well, I think that how one gets indoctrinated is much more like the scenario in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World than George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. I must confess that I’ve never thought indoctrination in free societies ever resembles Orwell’s dystopia. In free societies, the consequences for going against the flow typically don’t involve terror or government censorship. I’ve always felt that indoctrination typically goes with stripping a person of his or her rationality, intellectual curiosity, and desire for justice, rather than outright oppression of those human aspects.
And the way that is done is much more insidious than outright oppression. It is done simply by rewarding desire. Desire is rewarded until the person no longer thinks about the wrong things.
How this is done in the dog world is actually quite easy to trace.
Let’s take the average person who is just getting started in purebred dogs. He or she is probably not the average pet owner, who goes off to buy the nearest fad dog in the paper. I’m talking about the serious person who wants to get into dogs.
Now, because this person has been taught to think through his or her purchases, extensive research comes before purchase. Breed books are purchased, along with dog encyclopedias. All of these books say the same things. Buy a dog from a reputable breeder. Reputable breeders breed to the standard. The standard is a standard of perfection against which the dogs are judged. Anyone who breeds dogs but does not show them is a backyard breeder or a puppy miller.
It doesn’t occur to the average person in this position to recognize this obvious fact. The books are all written by breeders who show their dogs and breed for the standard! Now these books alone won’t turn the average person into a dog fancy flunky.
No, that process really requires the prospective purebred dog enthusiast to actually follow that advice in the books and meet with a show breeder. The breeder most likely won’t let the puppies go to anyone, which is a very smart idea. However, the breeder usually won’t sell a puppy to anyone unless the breeder retains some co-ownership rights or the puppy is sold with an agreement that it be shown. One might be able to get “pet quality” pup off of the breeder, and if that is the case, the indoctrination process stalls out. However, if the prospective purebred dog enthusiast wants to breed dogs, then the process really begins to play itself out.
Generally, anyone who purchases a breeding dog off a show breeder is going to have to show the dog. And it is in dog shows that the rewarding desire bit really starts to get to people. Dogs that “fit the standard” and have “fancy points” win. Desire is rewarded. Covetousness is coddled.
It doesn’t matter if any of these traits is an exaggeration that would encumber the dog’s movement or health or would prevent the dog from doing its original purpose. Follow the standard and the fancy points and the dog will do well.
Soon, the prospective dog fancy person is in the full swing of it. The selective breeding bug has bitten rather hard. Selective breeding is based upon the standard and whatever wins. Such behavior is rewarded in the culture of the fancy, and eventually, the person begins to internalize these values.
After just a few years under such a regime, the person begins to think under the strictures of the fancy. Any evidence that suggests that some of the breeding practices in the fancy are wrong is discounted. The evidence is either entirely misunderstood or ignored.
The fancy has trained you what a quality dog is. Don’t let those scientists or even breed historians get in the way. They don’t know what quality is. Quality is adhering to the standard.
Now, if a breeder begins to deviate from these strictures, there are consequences. There is no torture or jail time. You most likely will get insane troll comments on your blog, and at the very worst, the breeders in the breed clubs will band together to keep you from ever getting a dog of that breed again. If you are in a rare breed, this can be a problem.
In this system, conformity is rewarded. Conform and you’ll be fine. Going slightly off the program, though, is heresy. And that’s why you find so very few dog breeders who think there is anything wrong with current breed registry system. They have simply been rewarded so many times to accept the current system of how things are that they don’t even consider that something could be wrong.
That’s how we get the Brave New Dog World.
Please note: This is a macro-level analysis. There are breeders of dogs who want to change things. My advice– set up a new registry system based upon health, genetic diversity, and function. Of course, that’s far easier said than done.
[...] [...]
Whether in the fancy or out, into breeds or into cross-breeds or into hybrids or into rescues or into finding a nice mix or trolling Craig’s list for the perfect mutt-match or whatever…
A person has to USE THEIR BRAIN to EVALUATE the breed literature, web-site, language of the breeder, health information available, pedigree information available, the dogs themselves if a breed or other group type of dogs, the sire and dam if available, and the puppy itself.
YOU CAN’T TAKE THE PERSON’S BRAIN OUT OF THE PICTURE.
An example: My brain tells me that no matter what the breed literature and breeders may say, a German Shepherd from show lines is crippled. If someone else’s brain isn’t functioning well enough to figure that out, there’s nothing anyone can do for them.
An example: My brain tells me that no matter what the pictures in the “Lab” book section at the bookstore and the CH breeders tell me, an overdone rotund squat dog is not going to be an efficient upland hunter. If someone else believes this, there’s nothing anyone can do for them.
But maybe a person is interested in a breed where the breed standard means something and some of the breeders know what they’re talking about–that needs to be evaluated too.
Breed-dog or cross-breed or hybrid or All-American, USE YOUR BRAIN.
And if folks are stupid with their money and affections–well, that’s not new.
The problem is that too much of what happens is about stopping people from using their brains. It’s very sad– and very scary.
Example: My brain tells me that the huge amount of coat the majority of show afghans have is not functional. My brain also tells me the early could not have grown such a huge coat no matter how many special grooming, conditioners, and nutritional supplements are use. My brain also tells me that the afghan hound akc standard is not really such a bad standard and there is really no reason that the dogs should look like tall ambulatory mops even if the breeder DOES breed ‘to the standard.’
This is fun, I could go all day.
Scottie, I actually know a number of breeders that intensely dislike the current closed registry system. The problem is that if you buck the system by cross-breeding you are removing your dogs and their genes from the system. If you buck the system by not showing or breeding fad types, you also end up with limited gene flow across lines. If the breeder wants to continue to benefit the ‘greater good’ of the breed, they have to work within the system. Neither solution is actually workable from a long term viewpoint. I have hopes that eventually my crossbreeds and their offspring will make it back into the system, but that is so far into the future and depends on so many changes being made to the way ‘breeds’ are viewed that I’m not losing any sleep over it.
I think what those breeders should do is get in contact with each other and just say to hell with it all. I don’t think you can reform it. Maybe in Europe, but here, I think it’s a lost cause.
I don’t assume any ill will here. I don’t think any of these people intentionally go out of their way to cause these sorts of problems. It’s just the culture is what it is.
Standards, I’ve found, are like scripture– even the devil can quote them to suit his purpose.
A new registry would need to be legitimized in the eyes of the public in order for it to really succeed. There are plenty of registries that popped up due to the frustrations given by the AKC. And because these registries were too relaxed in their qualification process it became easy for commercial breeders to exploit this and suddenly stamp a registry name behind their product. Notice I say “commercial” breeders.
There was a time when you could cross register a dog from the ACA to the AKC. And if you actually look at what the ACA was all about well you would find that there goals were aimed towards healthier dogs since back then it was supposedly founded by frustrated Veterinarians. That’s what I was told about ten years ago. Since then its been dropped as an option for cross registration. Possibly because the Dog fancy could see that in the ACA if a dog looked like the breed standard in a photo then you could register the dogs as foundation stock without AKC papers. And start your own breeding program with hybrids and outcrosses then backcross these results into pure lines and then cross register back into the AKC. It was an avenue towards improving a breed if used correctly or saving a gene pool if not exploited. However, it seems the old school breed clubs got their way and dropped that avenue to legitimize dogs. And the propaganda seems to be the words “backyard breeders” and “puppymillers” use this registry along with others like the CKC because the AKC will not deal with those inhumane breeders.
But when you review what happened today, Well those same commercial breeders still have millions of dogs produced annually with AKC papers. And many of those dogs produced look nothing like the standards the papers say they represent. And the AKC really has no hand in policing the millions of people who exploit these animals for profit. In fact if you took away all those commercial breeders that use the AKC to bolster the profit margin of their puppies then the AKC would probably pack it in and go belly up. Thats possibly 50% or more of the revenue they take in. And for a registry that is already feeling the drop in membership the one thing that has remained a constant for them is these same commercial breeders.
So a new registry would need to be sort of “clicky” to begin with. And it would need to keep tabs on its dogs. To the point where none of them get in the hands of commercial breeders using its credentials. That is the realm of the AKC now. And the goals would truly need to be aimed at very sincere efforts to maintain the working characteristics and the health for the types of dogs being added to it. Maybe, Ability and Health should be the primary focus and conformation remains, but with realistic standards in place to the benefit of the breed health.
Its nice to talk about it. But, until the “grown-ups”, as Retrieverman said, step up and be responsible. Its just talk.
The biggest problem is that in our country most people are scientifically illiterate.
I’m not a scientist– not by any means.
But I do know what science is saying about what we’re doing to dogs.
What will happen is the AKC will lose market share and the paper mill registries will take over– that means no quality control.
I don’t like it, but that’s the path we’re on.
The akc has already lost a huge amount of market share. I know a bunch of people who only use akc because they have the reciprocity deal with FCI; akc becomes necessary if you want your dogs to contribute to the breed in other countries. ‘Just leave the registry system’ is too simple of an answer, it’s more complicated than that. What are those few breeders going to do until all the others see the light? Their dogs will be less desirable as breeding prospects because they aren’t registered. They won’t be able to be incorporated in breeding programs overseas. You end up with a breed division like show and working lines. If you could start putting something in the water worldwide to make everyone see that the closed registry system is a road to oblivion, then it would be simple.
Now, this breed has issues with genetic diversity, but border collies are in a kind of international.
It’s not just international breeding that holds this together.
It’s just a tangled web of bad policy choices dating back to the nineteenth century.
I’ve always felt that money wasn’t the main reason why this thing is what it is. I think it’s the fundamental culture of the fancy.
These people will go bankrupt doing business exactly the same things that are killing them.
It’s actually getting to the point that I may have to give up on the golden retriever for good. Not that I want to, but it’s just too far gone.
Well, this blog reaches around the world. There’s a definite start in the right direction. The one thing that does not exist as far as I know is a global registry. And the World Wide Web actually opens the door to make this possible.
The cross section of readers of this blog alone represents the entire world.
OMFG!!!
You hit it out the park Scottie. And in a very courteous way might I add.
What happens to a free thinking individual once the Dog Fancy gets their mitts on them is like a metamorphosis. They soon become part of the hive. Pathetic in the opinion of the rest of society. I thank fate every day I look at my Flatties from breeders with a mind of their own. And I still shake my head over the one I have from a control freak.
Thank You, Thank you.
Hmmm…. maybe my having chosen a rare breed has made my experience a bit different. You should hear the discussions among the Irish Water Spaniel folks, debating whether the breed is in danger of being divided into two groups — the hunting/retrieving lines and the show lines.
Many, many breeders place several pups from each litter into hunting (or hunt trialing) homes. A lot of effort goes into making sure that hunting instinct and desire are not lost. Recently I asked on the IWS Yahoo group of anyone hunted with their IWS, and got flooded with responses by people who use them for both upland game birds and water fowl.
On the other hand, there are show people who groom their dogs to what I think are ridiculous heights. The cut is not as stylized as the Poodle, but for the show ring, many people trim to full, fluffy columns of fur on the legs, which I don’t think is a practical cut for the field. Still, I’m not unusual in the breed in that I’ve been sucked into the show world, but my dog also is in training to hunt.
I hope my breed stays true to its roots. A lot of us are out there protecting that status.
http://patricedodd.wordpress.com/
In golden retrievers, I would say that the vast majority of them don’t retrieve and have too much coat.
I used to want to get into showing Cresteds, but not anymore. When the top winning dogs are practically fully-coated and have to be shaved bare the day of the show to appear ‘smooth and hairless’ so that they can have lush, flowing furnishings, my preferred type (the ‘true hairless’) has an uphill battle. It’s twice as hard to show a THL, because they’re not as ‘flashy’. And it’s sad, because the standard actually allows for quite a variety in the dogs, but that doesn’t mean a thing when so many judges only prefer a set style of type.
Out of one side of the mouth, many breeders go on about the gospel of the ‘breed standard’, right as they shamelessly exploit loopholes in it or purposely misunderstand it to allow whatever fashion they like, no matter how antithesis it is to the true spirit of the breed. And people who don’t want to tolerate those games are basically cast out of the fancy, or never allowed in.
I never wanted to show dogs.
I always wanted to preserve a breed that I’ve always felt was an excellent dog in so many ways.
I envy the JRTCA people.
I just had a discussion with someone about ‘preserving’ the Afghan hound. IMO it can’t be done, not without a large breeding program and a good source of COO dogs. You could attempt to recreate the original hound, but it would be a very difficult and sloooow process using just the stock available in the west. That’s why I cross-breed.
We have the stock. It’s just it’s all in different breeds.
BTW, don’t they put Nair on some Chinese crested hairless dogs to make them look balder?
Yep. Some dogs actually have a complete, single coat if they’re not shaved or depilated. Usually the very hairy ones are Naired, so as to minimize the stubble (the standard says ‘smooth’ after all!). True Hairless dogs often have some extra hair that needs shaving (often a strip down the back and up the legs), but I don’t consider a full-body Nair job to be ‘trimming for neatness’. =P
Some breeders will even say, with a straight face, that some ‘hairlesses’ can only be identified by the lack of molars (and perhaps a bare patch on the belly) and that’s just ‘okay’! It’s incredible. They’ve redefined what the word ‘hairless’ means so they can do their fakery with a ‘clear conscience’. It’s shameless!
That, plus the rampant ignorance over their own breed’s genetics and history just makes it too hard for me to respect a lot of them. These people who are claiming to be the -only- true moral keepers and purveyers of a breed, and yet they do not know the most basic facts about it? They don’t seem to care about the breed’s history or traditional (pre-AKC) type? It boggles my mind. They care only about ‘flashy furnishings’ and put that above all other values, and they are rewarded for that in the ring. When Terrierman describes most show fanciers as ‘hairdressers’ he’s totally on the mark — so manyl seem obsessed with breeding more hair onto their dogs above all other considerations, just so they have more coat to play with and manipulate. The fact that this would be done to a HAIRLESS BREED, however, just blows my mind.
I honestly believe that in another 15-20 years or so, nearly all ‘show quality’ Chinese Cresteds will be completely artificial, with only ‘BYBs’ purposely breeding the ‘inferior’ True Hairless type. And that makes me sad… because that has been the fate of many other breeds as well.
Sounds exactly like the future for my breed.
I doesn’t surprise me at all. Every treatise and retriever book says this– Golden retrievers have too much feathering, breed for less feathering. Every single one of them.
And the show ring is all about feathering.
Most books also argue against breeding lots of bone in a retriever because it leads to poor swimming posture and reduces agility. Again, ignored in the ring. The opposite is preferred in the ring.
I don’t know why these people don’t think about why the Newfoundland dog (as in the same breed we have now) is no longer used as retriever.
Sorry to burst the bubble on Flat coat breeders as well, but in the ring the dogs with the heavy feathering do better. And we’re talking almost Golden levels of feathering. Not starting a fight here, just stating what’s clearly seen in the ring.
I have to get extensions in black and liver now.
Flat-coats in full coat: http://video.westminsterkennelclub.org/player/?id=1008341
Goldens in full coat: http://video.westminsterkennelclub.org/player/?id=1008424
I believe I already did a post on these videos.
The flat-coats are fine. The goldens are off in outer space somewhere.
Saw that show. And yes those Flatties are nice. There are some I’ve seen that were over the top. I don’t think its across the board. But some are coming in with tails and feathering that makes you say hmmmm? And they’re winning. If it becomes a trend like it did for Goldens…… Well, doesn’t history tend to repeat itself?
I’m not seeing it.
Here is a good illustration of ‘Hairy Hairless’ vs ‘True Hairless’. Nobody -outside- of the Crested culture would honestly say the first dog is ‘hairless’ by any stretch of the imagination: http://www.chinesecrested.com/pages/examples.html
That hairy hairless reminds me of this photo of a street dog hairless from Mexico: http://www.heydogs.com/breeds/h/photos/HairlessKhala1.jpg
Oh, ick. Is that poor dog’s hair GREEN?
It’s heavily matted. It’s got all sorts of nice things in it.
The bigger photo of it is at the bottom of this page: http://www.askart.com/AskART/photos/BON20070213_3783/160.jpg
BTW, as far as I can tell, a “Khala” is a Latin American street dog that is hairless.
Goldens really should look like this: http://www.askart.com/AskART/photos/BON20070213_3783/160.jpg
Those are Mrs. Cottingham’s Woolley line.
People forget that breeding to the standard and breeding to win are not necessarily the same thing. I have always found it amusing that the three breeds I have chosen to own predate their standards by hundreds, if not thousands of years, yet people take the standard oh so very seriously.
Pai, I find your comment about true hairless being considered ‘inferior’ interesting. Earlier forms of a breed being considered inferior seems to be pretty standard. The Mackenzie Afghans that you have pictures of, and Afghan Bob, are often called inferior, or poor quality, in the majority of books. Modern COO Afghans are called mongrels, or only the dogs that came from the King’s kennels are considered ‘pure.’ The language used to justify denigrating the ancestral type is very telling.
More coat = ‘improvement’ in these people’s minds, that’s why. Everything else is sacrificed on the altar of ‘flashier looks’. It doesn’t matter if the dogs end up completely artificial and only look ‘correct to the standard’ while groomed for their few minutes in the show ring…. to those folks, the reality of the dog (outside of the ring and winner’s photo) -doesn’t matter-.
That bizarre mentality is what I can’t wrap my mind around more than anything else about the dog fancy.
Yes, they do use Nair!
http://www.evercrestkennels.com/Grooming.html
Evercrest is actually a kennel that admits to valuing and promoting the True Hairless type and criticizes the current ring fad. The fact they are open about that makes me respect them more than a lot of other folks, as the quickest way to start a fight in the Crested community is to openly talk about body hair!
So I suppose you know about the Wirehaired Pointing Griffons, the breed(s) that has split into an AKC group and a non-AKC group?
In about 1980 there was a movement in the US to mix breed the Czech Fousek with the Wirehaired Pointing Griffon. This resulted in a split in the breed group, and the folks who wanted to bring in the CF formed the Wirehaired Pointing Griffon Club of America. It has its own registery and is separate from the AKC-affiliated club, the American Wirehaired Pointing Griffon Association. They both use the same breed name, though.
Breeders in both groups seem to prefer hunting homes. On its website, the WPGCA even says they place pups only in hunting homes. And I was told by several AWPGA breeders that their contracts require hunting instinct testing before a puppy owner can breed his pup.
I guess I don’t have an opinion on this. Seems like both groups are getting what they want.
http://patricedodd.wordpress.com/
Oops! I submitted too soon. I wanted to add also that if I were going to get a WPG, I’d choose based on the breeder, the line, and what I wanted to do with my dog, not necessarily which group the breeder was a member of.