What do dog breeding and economics have in common?
They are both dismal sciences. They appear to have little in common, but the truth of the matter is they actually share a certain amount of similarities that leads to me to make some analogies. I am not a trained economist, but I am a political scientist, who has been trained in some economic theory. If I get something wrong in this post, it is because I am not an economist by trade and because I am oversimplifying for the purposes of making an analogy.
When Thomas Carlyle described economics as “the dismal science,” he was actually writing a very bizarre and racist essay on why the British Empire needed to re-institute slavery in the West Indies. He contended that slavery was better for the moral development and economic security of the people of the West Indies. However, there is some suggestion that his critique of Malthus, who wrote about the virtues of letting the “excess” poor starve to death, may have been where he first called economics a “dismal science.”
But I think the reason why it is called a dismal science today has very little to do with Carlyle.
One part of economics looks at the various trade-offs associated with policies and decision. The best known type of this analysis is the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), which has been used in the US since the 1980′s for budgeting purposes. The ideal economic policy is one where the costs are totally outweighed by the benefits. The problem with doing these type of analysis is we don’t always have “perfect information”– that is we don’t know what all the real costs and benefits inherent in the policy or decision are, nor do we know what these could be in the future.
That’s why things get to be dismal. Even before the formal CBA became part of many policy making decisions, economists were always looking at costs. When one policy is pursued, another is not or some “horrible” is risked. Because we don’t have perfect information, the best economists are always looking for these potential costs and pitfalls in order to get the best information possible.
I think the Eagles got this issue best with this line from the song “Lyin’ Eyes“:
“I guess ev’ry form of refuge has its price.”
And if you think about it, it fits– although economists would change “price” to “cost.” (Price has a very different meaning in economics.)
Harry Truman once said, “Give me a one-handed economist! All my economists say, ‘On the one hand on the other.’”
And that’s exactly how economists think.
But in a weird way, it is also how dog breeders think.
At least that’s been my experience.
Every possible decision that a breeding program makes has consequences– some of them negative and some of them positive. This is the “micro-economic” equivalent of dog breeding.
Every breed club or registry makes policy that also has also consequences for the breed at a much more macro-level.
Dog breeders want to produce dogs that 1. have good temperaments, 2. have good health, and 3. have some qualities that make the dogs superior in either conformation or some defined behavioral trait.
There are lots of ways to do this. If one wants consistency, one line breeds. If one is really experienced and wants certain traits established in a line, close line-breeding and inbreeding can be used. One can also use those methods to cull out particular genetic disorders and conformational faults. This is actually what is described in most dog breeding manuals.
However, there are negative consequences to doing this. Over many generations, the genetic diversity of a line becomes weakened. One can experience what is called an inbreeding depression. Over time, the animals lose their fertility and ability to thrive. However, it is very hard to observe this phenomenon unless one has been in a breed or strain for a very long time. Inbreeding depressions are ultimately comparative, because the fitness and fertility is something that is reduced over time. If one does not know what the original fitness was, one cannot see the inbreeding depression. However, that does not mean it is not real.
So one should be open to outcrossing with other lines. Because of the way most registries operate, one can only breed with other lines of the same breed.
However, here’s the “on the other hand.”
Outcrossing does increase genetic diversity. However, it can also introduce bad things you didn’t see before. Maybe the other line has a hidden genetic disorder that the breeder suddenly introduces into his or her line. Or maybe the other line has traits that interact very poorly with the genetics of the original line. Maybe the dogs are developing bizarre conformation, or they simply lose their working abilities. It is always a “horrible” that exists when bringing in new blood to counteract the effects of line breeding and occasional inbreeding.
Such problems that result from outcrossing are what is called an outbreeding depression.Outbreeding depressions happen whenever crossing two populations results in offspring that are either poor fits for the environment or task at hand or results in offspring that are unhealthy.
Here’s a good example of an unplanned outbreeding depression–my “golden boxer.” This dog was a terrible guard dog, as one would expect from a golden. However, she was a terrible swimmer with no retrieving instinct. She had the traits of both breeds. It’s just she had them in ways that were incompatible with either being a retriever or being a watch dog. The boxer line she from which she came had a very high amount of osteosarcoma, and it is from that disease that she died at the age of 11. Her “inbred” dam was a golden retriever who made it to the age of 14.
Now, these same consequences exist at the registry and kennel club level. However, the consequences at this level affect more dogs and affect the entire population in the registry or kennel club for the long term.
We can keep registries closed and allow breeding only with dogs in those same registries. We will be able to maintain some consistency in type and behavior over the entire breed or strain. In performance registries, we will get consistency in the desired behaviors. We will also be able to get some handle on the genetic diseases– at least in the short-term.
We can also allow breeders to breed from just a select few studs, which produce huge chunk of the puppies born per generation. This also will allow the breed to have consistency in type, behavior, and disease.
But at some point, these genetically depauperate breeds and strains are going to experience trouble. The inbreeding depression problems will pop up, and reduced genetic diversity always makes the immune system weaker over the long term, which can mean digestive issues, skin problems, and maybe even increases in cancer.
So what can what can registries do about this problem?
Well, they can open the registries. That will allow a gene flow between populations again, and it can take care of some of the problems. It can reshuffle the genetic deck so that dogs don’t get exposed to negative recessives. It can eliminate some of the problems associated with the inbreeding depression. Over the the long term, it is likely that it could have very real effects on these gene pools.
But there are problems here, too. One is that the consistency in conformation will disappear, and if one breed is known for its working ability and the other is not, it is possible to introduce nonworking characteristics into a strain. This is also an outbreeding depression but at a much larger level.
Let me make myself clear: I am in favor of opening up the registries. I do not think in that in the long term the breeds are all that viable.
But when I say this, I’m also aware that there are potential negative consequences to doing this. The most obvious of which is the breeds are not going to be as consistent in type and behavior, and the other is that if related breeds are used as outcrosses, the differences between related breeds are going to become little more than theme and variation on the same dog. I am willing to accept some of that.
And I am also aware that we are not going to breed out genetic diseases. It’s impossible. All organisms have genes for bad things. It’s just the way things are. One can line breed and inbreed to cull these diseases. I think this is illusory in the long term, because at some point, the diseases caused by negative recessive are going to line up and a whole new disease will pop up. It’s not a matter of if. It is a matter of when. And what are you going to do? Line breed and inbreed until you get rid of that?
In the long-term, breeders would be better off focusing on genetic diversity rather than trying to breed out everything, but of course, that has all the possible negative consequences I’ve just mentioned.
Also, not all genetic diseases are recessive or can even be answered with simple Mendelian genetics. With those, the answer is far more complex.
And all of it is complex.
I think it ultimately comes down to how much variance a breeder can tolerate and how consistent a breeder wants to be with his or her line. In the old days, this was actually much easier, for breeders kept their own distinct lines, which they would use as outcrosses every couple of generations. Most breeding today is a collaborative effort, and that means dealing with another person’s desires and goals. Different people will have different ideas about how much variance will be tolerated in the dogs.
So what is the solution to all of this?
I think the solution in the end is to give breeders more freedom to use whatever breeding system they feel is appropriate. I’m not for banning inbreeding and close line breeding, but such breeding cannot exist within a closed registry system. It is asking for trouble over the long term. If we are to maintain a closed registry system, then we are going to have think hard about how many litters a stud can sire and how often a breeder should outcross.
But still, we have to keep in mind that breeding “in and in,” as Bakewell did, and outcrossing both have positive and negative aspects. Those of us who advocate for greater genetic diversity in dogs and more open registries should at least admit this reality, and we should also admit that opening the registries doesn’t always solve the problem and can have some negative consequences.
I think that if we tried to talk like this, we might be able to get a dialogue going. And if we have a dialogue, maybe we can actually come up with ways to solve these problems.
I’m a public choice guy at heart, so I reserve my greatest skepticism towards anything that further enhances the cartels’ (kennel clubs) control over breeding. The heart of that control is the closed registry system – I don’t think conformation breeding is necessarily evil in and of itself, but conformation (and performance, for that matter) breeding within a closed registry is a slow-motion suicide pact.
If I’m reading you correctly, I think I agree with your solution – ceding control in favor of transparency. Instead of passing more unenforceable restrictions on breeding, require full disclosure, and let the chips fall where they may. To use the lingo of my current field, you’re essentially calling for open-sourced dog breeding. 90% of everything will be crap (individually, at least), but the net result is a better macro environment.
That’s it.
Ok, count me as officially intrigued. My background is economics (and, to a lesser extent, biochemistry), but I’ve been in IT for the last decade, and now think largely in terms of networks. These are all just first-draft thoughts, so please forgive me if I’m a bit scattered.
The Kennel Clubs are fond of saying they’re “only” a registry, but that seems to underestimate how much power and influence that entails. A registry is by definition an a dumping ground for vast amounts of data. How much of that data has been digitized? The first level of what you’re talking about is putting all of the existing data in the AKC archives into a searchable database. That is, admittedly, a huge and expensive undertaking, but seems to be a fundamental duty for an organization that’s “only” a registry.
The second level of the network would be veterinary records. Could you link an aggregate veterinary database with the breed database? Microchips are cheap and ubiquitous, which would enable unique, identifiers for individual dogs. As far as I know, data privacy laws don’t extend to animals, but since these are intrinsically linked to the owners who are covered, there would need to be a way of making it anonymous without compromising the aggregate data.
The third level of the network would be a combination of breeders and third-party reviewers/certifiers. AKC is clear about not certifying health, but there’s no reason why responsible breeders who want to distinguish themselves from the rest couldn’t do it, either. For example, there are a ton of APBT breeders within the UKC absolutely despise the unhealthy, hulking, lumbering mutants that are being bred and sold as “Pit Bulls”. Instead of a bureaucratic fight over breed standards and what constitutes a “true” APBT, they can band together and certify other breeders who adhere to their own private standards, and market themselves using data supporting the superiority of their dogs. An open registry, meanwhile, would allow them to outcross as necessary to maintain their dogs.
I need to think on this more.
But I think you’d have privacy issues from the breeders of those animals.
Of course, you could get them to give up on some privacy to have access to a registry.
Of maybe it doesn’t have to be that complicated.
Somehow we have to come up with some way to get people to think of breed differently than they do now.
Good point. There needs to be a hard, unbreakable way of aggregating the data and make it anonymous, without losing the transparency.
The best analogue I can think of is the disaggregated education data that had been tracked under NCLB. Test scores could be tracked according to individual school and disaggregated by demographic data such as income, parents educational level, and ethnic group, but only if there was a sufficiently population of each category. You could get aggregate test data for subgroups over 20. For dogs, this would mean you could track by breed, by region, or possibly even type of breeder, but not by individual breeder. Tracking would also have to be on strict volunteer basis.
The issue will be with breeders and enforcement. Most responsible breeders already require contracts which detail the owner’s responsibilities and usually limit further breeding; ensuring anonymity would be the key in those cases. Puppy mills could potentially be brought into the fold as the cost of compliance would be relatively low; this could be done in exchange for some legal protection. It’s the BYBs who would be most likely to resist, but the whole point of this is to bring them into the system.
Agh! I need to get back to work. Why do I keep coming back to read this site when I’m busy? If I get fired, I blame you.
“Agh! I need to get back to work. Why do I keep coming back to read this site when I’m busy? If I get fired, I blame you.”
I know EXACTLY what you mean… I have so much work but I feel pulled like a magnet…
What you are saying sounds interesting but the AKC seems very inflexible. There would have to be a huge number of people clammering for change in order for change to occur. They use that “we are only a registry” whenever it is convenient.
I’d like to see several changes. While AKC states it is “only a registry”, they have historically forbidden clubs to make rules regarding “what is a champion” that differ from their standard conformation competition system and they have only recently agreed to accept and acknowledge titles such as Schutzhund (see their recent agreement with the GSD club on that). The past has created breed clubs that are overwhelmingly conformation-oriented. So –
1. allow an appendix registration system — this identifies any “outside the breed” crossing to be identified for 3 -5 generations and makes it just difficult enough to discourage those who would do it on a whim and just easy enough that it can be done.
2. Where anyone has done any health check on their dog, allow that to be in the certified pedigrees. If you don’t want to do hip xrays, fine. But if you do, it goes on your dog’s certifications. Ditto for any DNA test for PRA, etc etc. You aren’t Forcing it, but you are letting the marketplace have information regarding quality.
3. Open up various working certifications — carting, messinger dog, etc — AKC has actually started doing that this year but it should be expanded. Tied to that is allowing any dog in any performance venue. If my Belgian can “course” better than a Irish Wolfhound or his Labrador can herd better than her Samoyed, then so be it.
4. At the same time, allow for more variance in performance to breed specifics. Shelties really don’t herd identically to ACDs, tending in France isn’t identical to tending in Germany. There’s no reason why you shouldn’t have more variation allowed in the herding programs. I don’t know about the retriever tests, but from what I’ve read, Goldens work different from Labs — there’s no reason why variations in the trials can’t sometimes emphasise one breed and sometimes another. Just tell people what kind of trial it is. “one size fits all” promotes a single answer to a question rather than variations on the theme.
5. make the information on the registrations/studbooks open, at least to members. It’s very hard to find a dog if that dog isn’t actively being promoted in a publication. This makes finding diversity within a breed that may exist very difficult. You don’t need to put up the person’s name/address, you can allow for people to query about a dog without putting the owner’s information out to the world.
The question is, if someone DID cross a Golden back to a setter or a setter/flat coat X Golden, would that dog be evaluated on what it can do in hunting or ignored because it wasn’t “pure”?
Peggy Richter
Regarding point #2, the AKC does put such information on the official pedigree, if the dog has achieved certification with OFA, CERF, or a CHIC number. CHIC is Canine Health Information Certificate (if I’m remembering correctly) and indicates that the animal in question has been certificed in each of whatever health examinations/tests the Parent Club for that breed has specified. In Golden Retrievers, that is OFA hips, elbows and cardiac exams plus CERF for eyes.
Point 4– Good luck! No one has yet convinced the Retriever Advisory Committee to approve specialty (single-breed) field trials for retrievers.(Even though it’s allowed in the Rules). Heck, even a first at the Golden Retriever Club of America’s National Specialty trial does not count as a “first place” required to earn a Field Champion title (or Amateur FC, either). But Brittanys MUST earn a first at a Brittany-only trial…rules for earning a field championship in pointing breeds are quite different than those for retrievers. All retrievers must run by rules and standards written and implemented almost entirely by Labrador people. Pointing breeds have National Championship trials for each of most of the various breeds. Retrievers– there is one Open, one Amateur, for all retrievers combined.
And just ask the Airedale folks about their fight to try to get Airedales accepted for field work!
CHIC is not especially helpful, though, because it just says the test(s) were done, not that the results were passing. Additionally, CHIC is a lifetime thing. If CERF is required for my breed, I can do it this year, never do it again, and maintain my dog’s CHIC status even though she no longer has a valid CERF number.
CHIC is probably more useful if it’s important to you to have a breeder who tests.
…and then one can search the OFA and CERF databases, in which only dogs with “normal” results will be found. Or, one can contact the dog’s owner directly for information, including copies of the actual exam reports. “Normals” will also be noted on AKC registration papers and certified pedigrees.
Sure, it’s not the whole story, but a place to start.
In the years up until WWII, the Kennel Club in the UK was something close to an open registry. Dogs with unregistered parents could be registered as belonging to a breed. Both “Interbred” and “Crossbred” retrievers could be registered. (and after 3 generations backcrossed to purebred, be registered as purebred).
There are hundreds of Golden Retriever registrations before 1939 with at least one unregistered parent. These could have been Goldens, or….almost anything, apparently.
There are several incidences of siblings being registered as different breeds. For instance: Buster of Packwood, registered as Golden Retriever and his litter brother Ben of Packwood registered as a Labrador…in the same issue of the Kennel Gazette. Their sire, Banchory Danilo, dam Cefn Clara; whelped June 1, 1926.
There is a bit of compromise needed from both sides of the fence on this. Outcrossing along with selective breeding and genetic testing. All have their benefits and if each is used properly can compliment the others. We have PRA and Irish Setters as an Example of proper Genetic Level testing in combination with selective breeding. And we have Designer Dalmations as an example of careful selective outcrossing and back crossing to eliminate a deadly bladder problem. So we know that there are benefits from each side. What the dog world needs more of is the cooperation between each side. A common ground in between. Better selection of crosses based on function and form and better selection of line breeding based on founded Genetic information.
Then perhaps you would have the Irish Setter with more genetic diversity and the Dalmation that is not ostracized for being a hybrid that is only 99.999% Dalmation.
If what M.R.S says about our past is true then we’ve a lot to learn from checking ourselves now and reviewing what worked back then. Being more open minded and going back to the principal of “if it looks like a retriever and acts like a retriever, then its a retriever”.
And then separating on type. It definitely allows for more diversity long term.
“Information gained is knowledge. Knowledge understood is wisdom.”
Can’t remember where I heard or read that quote (probably from Pagey Elliott), but it seems to be applicable here.
As to the KC registration data, Frank Weeks’ compilation of British registrations is a primary source, along with photocopies of relevant KC publications.
I understand that the Dalmatian people with the normal uric acid dogs are registering some with the British KC; and once KC-registered, they can be then registered with AKC. There are ways….
Yes, there are problems and loss of uniformity with outcrosses, but isn’t weeding through them(spaying and neutering and homing them as pets) preferable to debilitating genetic disorders in your breed of choice? Some weeding is going to have to occur, regardless. To me, the major problem with a lot of dog breeds suffering genetic problems is that those breeds are DOMINATED by DOMINEERING conformation oriented people–they don’t know anything else so really have nothing to compare their too severely inbred dogs selected for mainly conformation points(some inbreeding is fine, and has gone on since man first domesticated animals. But many conformation breeders do it WAY too much!). So I say make Peggy Richter’s #3 MANDATORY BEFORE ANY DOG CAN SHOW IN CONFORMATION! Even toy breeds can have some sort of temperment/training tests conjured up to suit their abilities. Many conformation people would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into such an enforced scenario–at first! But I bet it would eventually catch on, and people would absolutely revel, in time, to their breed’s activities and abilities–way more fun and puposeful than just boring, boring, boring. trotting around a show ring!! Registries INSISTING on functional dogs(proof BEFORE registry) would go far in helping reduce both physical and behavioural problems–handsome is as handsome does, after all. It would be crystal clear to even the densest judges that dogs that could not perform their breed’s tests would NOT be eligible for the title “champion”, no matter HOW perfect their ear set……
The problem is always going to be enforcement. I’m sure I would agree to any number of rules you would support, but they’re meaningless if you can’t get people to follow them (and you won’t, short of some draconian enforcement regime). And the more restrictive the rules you propose, the greater the incentive (and payoff) there is to gaming them.
That’s part of the (theoretical) beauty to open registry – it requires no enforcement. All of the effort is expended on maintaining a closed registry – opening the books only requires you stop enforcing the existing rules, rather than forcing people into new rules. In reality, overcoming inertia and bureaucratic resistance from the dog culture is an enormous hurdle, but it’s something you need to do regardless of the change.
Unfortunately, there will always be the problem of …shall we say…misrepresentation. Deliberate or not.
Is that “English Setter” one proposes to breed to, actuallyas represented, or is it an amalgam of English, Irish, Springer, and a dash of Jack Russell just for kicks?
Honesty (transparency”?) has to be complete, otherwise we’re still working blind.
I have dogs that are not physically well set. Nothing debilitating, but the product of careless breeding, none the less.
Because of this, I have been studying the material that breeders put on the Internet – (yes you get what you pay for).
1. The dogs I have are capable of doing what I can teach them to do – breeding helps
2. A good dog is good based on characteristics that have nothing to do with what wins in the ring – or at trial, most times
3. OFA is crap for studying lines – it is anonymous, voluntary, and incomplete – only film of “braggable” merit is recorded
4. I have found no independant resource to review the close relatives of a breeder’s stable: how many siblings of a prospective pup were culled? How many siblings of the breeding pair will never be admitted to?
5. There are breeders who do make test/scan results easily accessable on their web sites. But they are so few. Of those I have found, the breeder’s focus tends to be on performance. And that fanciful term, “linebreeding”.
My point? I am researching now for what might eventually become one of my future dogs. But it will be hard to do better than one I have now, one that no one put any thought into the breeding of, one that no one can trace on a pedigree, one that has never been tested on things one might expect to find in his breed.
I am developing a very cynical attitude toward anyone espousing the virtue of breed. Breeding? Yes! Breed? Have someone paint you picture, carve you a statue, write you a story, for all “breed” is worth. And “type” is what you have when nothing else matters.
Good luck in your search!
It seems to me that if there was an open registry that there would have to be specific rules in place so that people aren’t breeding a dog such as a Hovawart to a Golden Retriever simply because they resemble each other since a Golden Retriever should remain a retriever… However, in an open registry would there simply be retrievers long fur and short and then available in certain colors? …would the breeds become less specific? Or are you talking about keeping the breeds but cross breeding for function and health.
I’ve said it before and I stand by it: we already have a model of how a well-managed open registry works in the warmblood horse registries.
In short, any individual horse can (in theory) become registered as a warmblood (and there are different levels of conditional registration, as well). Each individual is inspected by professionals, both for conformation and working ability.
You get a breed that has pretty good genetic diversity, high quality almost across the board (offspring of registered animals aren’t automatically registered, IIFC, so there’s incentive to only breed for quality, not just for pedigree), AND the breed as a whole remains true to type.
Note, also, that warmbloods are usually more expensive, even though there are a lot of them out there.
“warmblood horse registries.”
How do you differentiate between the various types of warm bloods? Are the horses referred to by their particular type of outstanding ability? …or is a warm blood a particular type of horse that has a refined purpose…
I’m sorry, I don’t have knowledge of these horses. I’m just trying to understand why you wrote: “you get a breed that has pretty good genetic diversity, high quality almost across the board (offspring of registered animals aren’t automatically registered, IIFC, so there’s incentive to only breed for quality, not just for pedigree), AND the breed as a whole remains true to type.”
You use the word “breed” and that is where I am getting confused…
Sorry, there’s a lot more to it than I’ve made it sound, (and I’m far from an expert on all the ins and outs) but the general model is what I think dog breeders should follow.
http://www.sonestafarms.com/wbinfo.htm
A “warmblood” IS a breed… it has a type, it has a specific conformation and purpose, and pedigree does matter a lot of the time. It is a little confusing because there are different warmblood registries, (but they are all pretty similar).
The important part is that individuals are inspected before they’re allowed to breed, and there’s also an “open studbook” policy – so that, in theory, any individual that meets the warmblood standard can be registered as one.
It’s a model for an open studbook where the breed “type” remains true, even when genetics from other breeds is added. Also, having to pass an inspection before breeding a stud gives incentive for quality over ONLY breeding for pedigree.
Thanks for clarifying. I think I get it now.
It would not be difficult to set up such a facility within the AKC. They already have the Foundation Stock Service (FSS) for breeds not yet fully “recognized”. They already have Conditional Registration for dogs with a doubtful ancestor. They already use identifiers for dogs that may carry certain genetic traits (such as descendants of the white, or albinoid, Dobermans).
Surely it would not be difficult to set up an Interbred or Crossbred registry similar to the Appendix used in horse registrations. It would then be easy for people to use –or not to use– the outcrossed dogs.
If AKC will allow crossbred/random-bred dogs to participate in some AKC events, well, who knows what might be possible. The KC (UK) allows them in obedience and agility.
And yes, AKC DOES allow non-purebred dogs in obedience, agililty, and rally…as of May 1, 2010.
They would have to allow for foundation stock services to establish new lines for existing breeds to really make a positive impact. Then situations like the Dalmations won’t require jumping through hoops via cross registrations and a fair amount of lying.
And it opens the doors for individual breed clubs to consider intelligent outcrossing to improve diversity long term.
I am a bit of heretic on this one.
The AKC has institutional capabilities to solve some of these problems.
And you need some kind of institution to act as a quality control.
Anytime you get groups of primates together about ANYTHING, you better have rules and the means to enforce them! An open registry is a lovely idea– for Heaven. As for draconian rules and enforcement–the AKC already has lots of those!(one interpretation of the AKC is Anal Kings of Control)–it’s just that the ones in place now don’t produce better dogs, just visual carbon copies, which some primates one day for some reason decided were what better dogs are! So let’s just add a rule that your dog has to FUNCTION in some way before it can show–other breeds in other countries already do this–like Weimaraners in Germany must pass field trials FIRST, and Norweigan Elkhounds in Norway must hold a moose at bay before it can be entered in conformation–you can bet those dogs are TRULY good examples of their breeds! The tests don’t have to be so difficult as actually hunting moose, of course, but even some fascimile would do much to prevent human “kennel blindness” that is so prevalent, finally interjecting the idea that dogs should not be considered as just wardrobe accessories, but living, functional beings with a heritage that needs to be respected and is worthy of ACTUALLY being preserved(instead of the artificial lip service dedicated to preserving dog breeds as it exists now among conformation dominated kennel clubs). It really is a simple, logical, common sense step, but it will be like pulling teeth to get it established!
I wonder if there are dog breed communities out there that laugh at us for wringing our hands over these issues?
Are there some dog breeds/types that whether by design, circumstance, or accident, are generally healthy, free from genetic issues, consistent in appearance, AND good at their work?
I know mostly gun dogs, but my thoughts would be English Pointers, German Shorthairs, and Deutch Drathaars.
I read most topics at Gundogforum.com, a site dominated by serious pointer and GSD people. These topics hardly ever come up.
Their dogs die like any others, but no one blames genetic disorders.
Their dogs are all AKC registered, but no one gives the Club a second thought after they get their paper. (they love the records of pedigrees, though)
They may well have popular sire problems, but no one is sounding the alarm. I recall ONE debate when a new breeder asked for advice on a grandaughter/grandfather breeding.
Wouldn’t it make sense to just applaud, support and emulate these groups, rather than trying to force Kennel club snobs and overweight dog show matrons to change their behavior?
Let fanciers show their silly, sick, inbred, exaggerated dogs to themselves. Just tell everyone you know hw rediculoous they are.
<>
I frequently do. My cross-bred project is completely outside the system. However, I hold no illusions that they will ever make into the stud books, not if present thinking prevails. The project will die with me.
<>
There are NO dogs free from genetic issues, period. To think so would be the height of foolishness. All living organisms have defects. Whether they cause mortality or quality of life issues is the problem.
<>
That may be an artifact of your board, or it may be because working populations tend to outbreed more and don’t see as many issues related to close breeding.
<>
Whether this is foolish or not would depend on what they are dying of and when.
<>
Eventually that will come back to bite them in the ass.
<>
I don’t do conformation shows. I’m not much into any kinds of competition, especially if it involves a great deal of travel. But if I want my Azawakh, say, to be able to contribute to the world’s population of Azawakh, I have to work inside the registration system. That means I must register with a club that is recognized by AKC (Azawakh are an FSS breed.) As of right now, the Azawakh FSS stud book is open, because its not fully recognized by AKC; I can register my dogs with desert blood with the Azawakh Club of America and once they’ve got three gen pedigrees they can go into FSS. This is also a way for foreign breeders who are working under more restrictive kennel clubs to get desert blood into their programs. I am afraid that once Azawakh gain full recognition, which is going to happen whether I like it or not, the stud book will close to the desert breds. I could simply breed Azawakh outside the system, but those dogs would not be able to contribute their genes to the world wide population. If the registry was open, I wouldn’t have to worry about that.
The world of purebred dogs, especially in breeds that are numerically small, is a lot more complicated than just “start your own club, then.”
The Chinook people have a cross-breeding program that is recognized by UKC. There is no reason that other breeds could not emulate that program. Breeders have the choice to participate or not.
Well that got all messed up and I can’t edit it. Oh well.
meant to type GSP, not GSD. BIG difference as it relates to this discussion.
Just call them Kurzhaar, and you don’t have that problem.
Yeah, that’s much easier to spell.
I came across this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100120093525.htm
It talks about how much us humans have changed the dog over the last 150 years to the point where there is more variation in the skulls of various breeds than between the other members of the Carnivora group.
this Science Daily had some other articles pertaining to dogs and breeding that wre interesting… not to in depth but bringing to light some interesting theorys regarding breeding and also DNA…
If you go to: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080622225503.htm
in related stories there are some interesting articles…
In a New York Times article dated June 12, 2007, entitled “As Breeders Test DNA, Dogs Become Guinea Pigs”, there is very interesting discussion regarding the tools used for breeders today to “shape” their breed. The author, Amy Harmon, uses for an example the whippet which is a breed that has developed a mutation that the breeders are taking advantage of to create faster dogs. The mutant dog’s purpose is solely to be bred to produce these faster dogs. This “bully dog” looks extremely muscle bound and looks like a bit of a throwback. The article describes how breeders are using DNA to check for physical traits, genetic diseases, and even ability. I’m sure retrieverman has a hundred posts on the topic of genetics on this blog.
I suppose that in some cases, a breeder would need to go outside the breed for certain traits such as avoiding passing along a genetic disease. Through genetics, a person could find a related dog that does not carry a particular disease gene but has enough genes that match the purpose (since that can be found genetically) as well as physical traits that compliment the breed. This could be done in an open registry. The question will always be will function outweigh appearance in an animal that is domesticated to be a human pet.
Supply and demand seems to drive our current selection of canines. Many dog owners want the dog that is in a movie or television show or that they feel will make them look good when they walk down the street. Thankfully some people want a dog that they can take hunting or do agility or some other event with… A fad right now is to rescue a dog and, where I live, they have to ship dogs in to our shelters to keep up with that demand. Many of the dogs come from South America and most of the ones that aren’t, are pit bulls that were bred for fighting (yes I know that there are a lot of nice pit bulls but they get to our local shelters from people who breed them to fight.)
I find it interesting that there are horses in this country that are open registry and that they are embraced well and sell at a good price. In the canine world, the public seems to feel that AKC is the “Good Housekeeping seal of Approval” and all other registries are just run by puppy mills. I think an open registry would work with gun dogs and other working dogs. Hey, the Seeing Eye has worked with a number of out crossed dogs that they even breed themselves at times. I think that conformation breeders will be slow to change since it seems to me that they are more in control of the breeds at this point in time in history and I doubt they will want to give that control up easily.
If we consider that supply and demand is part of our capitalistic society, then change will have to come by advertising to the masses.
JMO
Here’s one of those whipppets:
http://media.canada.com/133a26b3-7939-4ba4-b93e-0c570ecf1751/WENDY-1.jpg
Yes.
It’s a whippet.
They call them bully whippets.
Did they really name that dog Wendy?
Yes that’s her name.
The resistance to out-crossing goes far beyond the accidental acquisition of undesirable traits or behaviors due to cross-breeding. It hinges on the nebulous concept of ‘breed purity,’ which is only definable IF you have a closed registry.
AKC defines purity as three generations of known ancestors. If there is a question of purity that goes more than three gens back, AKC will not invalidate all the registrations of the subsequent dogs. Which is why there are still merle Chihuahuas and merle Cockers being registered.
The Dalmatian club of America decided once again to deny registration to the LUA Dals, even though there was only cross to a Pointer that happened around thirty years ago.
All this despite the fact that is used to be fairly common practice to outcross to a related breed to get a desired characteristic, and then just LIE ABOUT IT.
Here’s a link that shows several lab breeders “lost the records” http://labradornet.com/index_e.html
I may have posted this before but it is worth reviewing.
Search through http://www.k9data.com and one can find out crosses to other retrieving breeds mainly prior to WWI.
I am fairly certain these crosses were to get a better working dog, which I consider more in keeping with the phrase “to improve the breed” than what conformation people may have in mind when they say it. If they’re improving the breed why do the problems keep getting worse?
The Golden Retriever was not registered separately by the Kennel Club until 1913. Previously (and even up until 1948 or so) the “breed” was Retriever, and the “varieties” were Flat-Coated, Curly-Coated, Labrador, Golden, etc. Coat type and color defined them, rather like Beagles, where size defines the variety.
So in those early days, it was not a case of “outcrossing of breeds”.
And yes, in those days retrievers were working dogs, and mostly owned by well-to-do people with kennelmen and game-keepers. A very different lifestyle than in this country today.
Dog shows originally were intended to have a person with practical knowledge compare dogs, and determine which appeared to be most suitable for purpose, based on the dog’s structure and other useful physical qualities. (The very first dog show was confined to setters and pointers).
The business of conformation showing has become something far, far beyond those early years– BUT there are still dedicated people who hew to the original idea (and show their dogs). And they should not be included in a blanket condemnation of “conformation” activities.
Which is probably where the comparison to horse breeding breaks down. Most horse breeds are still used for something, so conformation is tied-in much more tightly with working ability. In fact, I can think of only one good example of a “conformation only” show and that’s halter horses (mostly quarter horses).
Halter-bred QH are only bred to be lead around a show ring by hand and look pretty – many of them are never even trained to ride. And it’s only in the last few decades or so that halter breed lines became so distinctly different from other QH “working” strains.
Fugly horse of the day talks about this sometimes: http://fuglyblog.com/?p=1818
There is no option as far as a registry that is acknowledged to the extent of the AKC . There used to be a pathway with cross registration via the ACA, where you could outcross then back cross and provide foundation stock…. then three generations into it you show a consistency in type and you’ve established a new line. Then you could cross register with the AKC. I think the process could work if people didn’t abuse it. I have no idea if that’s why the AKC eventually stopped allowing cross registration, but if there was a registry with a good established system in place it could possibly be the better alternative to the AKC. Maybe there is one and just due to popularity the AKC overshadows it to the point of non-existence. Maybe its about money for the AKC? after all, why bother allowing cross registration if it means someone may prefer not to, or to give the fees to another registry????
I’m still confused about why AKC would care that much about PEDIGREE. If you’re staying true to a breed standard, and paying registration fees, why would they care about “purity” for purity’s sake?
I think that in the beginning it was more about keeping careful records of pairings to track the lineages when previously things were just jotted down in scribbles or resigned to memory and recollection. But literally its its about careful record keeping that can be done and still remain an open registry.
What Purists thinking seems to forget is that all dog breeds were created from mixing other dogs before it. Sometimes by human intervention and sometimes just by chance. But the difference today is every dog is more likely inbred to some degree.
If you can trace back hundreds or thousands of dogs to a small pocket of studs and/or dams…. and still see that this is a good thing…. hmmmm then why are we so against the polygamist cultures? What are they doing that is so different when a father beds a niece or 1st cousins or siblings. I remember learning of what inbreeding did to British Royalty in an attempt to remain within pure royal bloodlines. Hemophilia anyone???
And the recently reviewed isolated human population that Scotty presented here where severe Asthma was killing many on the inhabitants due to a thin gene pool and interbreeding within closely related lines.
Even if we introduce Genetic testing into the mix…. your choices are still limited and now the road towards infertility and a severely weakened immune system is traveled down faster.
Its like life lessons screaming at us to change, yet the good ol’ boys, who are hell bent on following those standards set by long dead founders who probably had a more open system in mind anyway, will still march to the beat of that dead drum. Its almost like a elitist club of people who are pro for breeding retards and misfits of genetics.
Because it’s not really so much about dogs, but about people. Terrierman has several posts on the origins of dog shows and the purebred dog fancy.
The problem was the KC’s developed at around the same time as the Eugenics and Social Darwinist movements.
“Racial hygiene” was something people worried about.
Well then simply put…. The framework of the AKC is a perfect example of a failed experiment in Eugenics. Or actually a successful one if the failure was the end goal. It certainly failed British Royalty. ;-)
The big “plus” of the kennel club registries is that of record-keeping. Having pedigrees and breeding records centrally located, and published, as both AKC and the KC (UK) do, is invaluable.
One of the advantages of have “pure breeds” is that of predictability. If one is seeking a dog for a specific purpose, or temperament, then knowing what is typical of a certain breed or strain can be very useful information.
When these registries were begun, knowledge of genetics etc was minimal. In retrospect, one has to admire the good breeders of those early days, who had to rely on little more than their own direct observation and experience. If they had not created the breeds we know today — what would we have to work with, to hunt with, to be our companions?
Economics and dog breeding come together in the worst way when we see puppy farms making fortunes out of the misery of dogs. We must put a stop to it NOW
I agree. No more puppy mills.
You need to read that post again.
I’m talking about what dog breeding and economics have in common in terms of methodology.
I’m not big on mandatory anything. Hence I wouldn’t MAKE people do performance, I’d just reward it more. Ditto with health clearances — by the way there was a study not too long ago that found that OFA DID improve hips even though not all dogs are xrayed and mostly only passes get publically known –because the status of breeding to a good/excellent dog drove breeders to use such dogs. It might be FASTER to have it mandatory, etc, but that also has an issue of making a small breeding pool smaller still.
As for the retriever trials, interesting. In Herding, there’s a similar issue in that other than “B” course, none of the courses used are really developed to evaluate characteristics essential or historical to any given breed (C course is NOT a HGH and certainly not like a French tending trial). Now the GSD club created a working GSD “front” and sponsored both Schutzhund and HGH trials. And just recently AKC has opted to put the Schutzhund titles on their pedigrees. YES they are charging money for it (ok, money can persuade AKC. I’m ok with that). What it takes is for the parent clubs to REALLY push for this and ask WHY they can’t do something different and provide that $$$ incentive to AKC to do it. And do it anyway (as the GSD club did for years) if they don’t. But it does take dedicated performance folk. That’s why I’d push for changes in the “parent” clubs — these were almost all set up for conformation and the members have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
As for the Dals, well, some of those breeders who care need to start raising the roof on that.
It’s entirely possible that one might fail. But people will certainly fail if they don’t try.
Vr, Peggy Richter.
I believe you hit the nail on the head with the OFA. The tests themselves don’t cure hip dysplasia, but the practice of selection is enhanced with its use. It just requires actually breeding from “good or better”. They should also indicate that the tests only clear the dog at time of testing. The specimen could still be prone to dysplasia but will still live a normal life with no outward signs provided there is no change in diet to bring about obesity which will more than likely cause pressure in the area of the hip where the socket and ball are.
I believe the following excerpt is from the same studies you mention…
“Dogs with hip dysplasia appear to be born with normal hips and then to develop the disease later. This has led to a lot of speculation as to the contributing factors which may be involved with this disease. This is an inherited condition, but not all dogs with the genetic tendency will develop clinical signs and the degree of hip dysplasia which develops does not alway seem to correlate well with expectations based on the parent’s condition. Multiple genetic factors are involved and environmental factors also play a role in determining the degree of hip dysplasia. Dogs with no genetic predisposition do not develop hip dysplasia.
At present, the strongest link to contributing factors other than genetic predisposition appears to be to rapid growth and weight gain. In a recent study done in Labrador retrievers a significant reduction in the development of clinical hip dysplasia occurred in a group of puppies fed 25% less than a control group which was allowed to eat free choice. It is likely that the laxity in the hip joints is aggravated by the rapid weight gain.
If feeding practices are altered to reduce hip dysplasia in a litter of puppies, it is probably best to use a puppy food and feed smaller quantities than to switch to an adult dog food. The calcium/phosphorous to calorie ratios in adult dog food are such that the puppy will usually end up with higher than desired total calcium or phosphorous intake by eating an adult food. This occurs because more of these foods are necessary to meet the caloric needs of puppies, even when feeding to keep the puppy thin.”
Most dog food brands now recognize some of this.
There are large breed growth formulas, which was what my dog ate until she was 7 months old. Then she ate adult food.
its actually being recommended in the studies for many large breeds to be kept on puppy formula their entire lives. Since Adult dog food is more conducive to weight gain with less feedings.
[...] » Different Dog Breeding MethodsA Whippets Life natural rearing dog breeder for correct …The Dismal Science of Dog Breeding « Retrieverman’s WeblogAmerican Kennel Club – A Beginner’s Guide to Dog [...]