Wiston Cap, a most used sire in trial border collies from the 1970's.
A common refrain in the blogosphere is that dog shows are bad for dogs.
They cause people to select for esoteric traits and bred from just a few “elite” sires.
Show dogs all look the same because they are so inbred, and this is so bad for dogs.
Then I hear the exact same people extol the virtues of working trials.
Working trials are totally different from dog shows because they select for behavior and working conformation.
The dogs can’t be inbred because working-bred dogs vary so much in appearance.
Such is the common refrain.
And it’s bogus.
Absolutely totally bogus.
In reality, trials aren’t really about work.
They are about competitions.
They are about winning.
I know next to nothing about actual herding trials, but I do know that they are competitions that are based upon a series of esoteric rules.
The border collie is a trial dog. It evolved in its current form to be run in sheepdog trials.
Where I grew up, the most common stock dogs were English and Australian shepherds. We don’t have vast acreages here and thousands of sheep.
We do have lots of small farms, and a loose-eyed dog that has a definite off-switch is a far more practical animal to have on these operations.
Border collies are very useful in the West and in Scotland and Northern England, where there are really big holdings that have lots of sheep on them.
America is generally not a big sheep producer.
The border collies we have here are not primarily kept for their economic utility.
They are kept for trials.
The claim often repeated is that because working border collie registry (The American Border Collie Association) is much better than the show registry, simply because it maintains a working registry. And in theory, it is open.
But if you look at border collie pedigrees, you see the most-used sire effect.
Border collies are not glorified mongrels as some of these people often proclaim.
They are actually purebred dogs that are subject to a very similar selective pressures that show dogs experience.
For example, in the 1970′s, there was a dog named Wiston Cap that was a great trial dog. And everyone wanted a piece of him.
Wiston Cap appears in virtually every border collie pedigree.
And border collies have hip dysplasia and eye problems– exactly like any other purebred dog.
The border collie is a breed, not a landrace. Its standard is behavioral, but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t subject to the same problems that show dogs experience. (Please let that sink in before typing nasty comments on this post.)
That’s actually not too different from what one sees in working strain golden retrievers. The big thing right now is talk about how the golden retriever is so at the mercy of the most-used sire effect.
The common claim is that it is just show dogs that experienced this bottlenecking around just a few sires.
In reality, the field-line dogs have experienced an even similar bottleneck. The most common dog to find in a field-line golden pedigree in North America is Holway Barty. I’ve also noted that in European working line goldens, the Holways seem to dominate the gene pool.
Both working goldens and border collies vary in appearance. It doesn’t mean they aren’t experiencing genetic diversity issues.
It simply means that selection for an elite in trials has led to a very similar bottlenecking that we have seen in dog shows.
It matters not that the dogs vary in appearance.
They are less genetically diverse and subject to the problems of compromised genetic diversity.
For anyone to complain about the closed registry system in the AKC and other registries and ignore the problems in working dog registries is quite intellectually dishonest.
Or perhaps it’s just ignorance.
If it’s ignorance, I can forgive it.
But if it is romantic bullshit that drives this mythology, then the working dog advocates are no better than the worst of the show dog people.
And not only that, they ignore the truly ethical people in the dog show world, who really want reform and want to do better.
I am done doing anti-AKC posts.
They are mindless.
And unless you are willing to take on the whole rot that is within dogs, they are nothing more than hypocritical bromides.
Which should be laughed at.
The only way to breed for genetic diversity is to breed for genetic diversity and to think of the entire gene pool of the breed when selecting breeding stock. It would require a collaborative effort across many breeders, but it can be done.
We should not delude ourselves that working dog registries are inherently better because they breed for “work” (trials).
Each registry must be judged according to the same standard.
If you can’t do that with any intellectual honesty, then you cannot criticize anything the AKC does.
You cannot.
If you do, you are a hypocrite.
And the dog world could use a few more intellectually honest people.
***
My friend Christopher Landauer is a border collie breeder.
He has committed the sin of breeding a show border collie to a trial dog.
In theory, the American Border Collie Association allows for an open registry, but it is not customary to breed these two types of dog together.
Indeed, it is quite heretical.
And within the cliques that mindlessly defend working dog registries, Landauer is defamed.
“His dogs have never seen a sheep.”
“He’s a Republican– ewwww!” (That’s my favorite attack on him. As if politics had anything to do with it!)
The truth is he has the goods. He’s a very good researcher.
Check out this exchange he had about Wiston Cap with one of the people who waves the flag for the working registries no matter what. (It’s in the comments.)
The registry may be open, but it’s just not customary to breed show border collies to working ones.
If you do for the case of genetic diversity, you will be attacked.
And he has been.
To be honest with you, from what I’ve seen of Kennel Club critics, they are just as prone to exalting people to the status of mandarin as anyone in an established breed club.
If you want to really learn about border collies, I really suggest you take a look at these two posts:
***
I was once one of those people who mindlessly promoted working dog registries and trials as a way of making things better for dogs.
The truth is only through a careful consideration of the long-term health of gene pools can things be made truly better for dogs.
No gimmicks.
Just because dogs vary in appearance does not mean they vary all that much in terms of genes. Variances between breeds, in case you didn’t know, are actually determined by very small genetic differences.
Looks don’t actually tell us that much about genes. That is why one should always be skeptical of taxonomy when it’s based on nothing more than morphology (like Ron Nowak’s theory on the red wolf’s position within the genus Canis).
Just a few days ago, my good friend Arlie Hubbard posted this article about African butterfly fish on my facebook wall. African butterfly fish were believed to be a single species that lives in both the Niger and Congo Basins. They look relatively similar throughout their range, but when their mitochondrial genome was analyzed, the variance between populations was very great– 15 percent, which is as much as one would see in an entire family of fish. Butterfly fish from the Congo Basin may not be able to interbreed with the ones from the Niger Basin. Thus, we actually have two species of butterfly fish.
Appearances told us that they were the same species.
But our eyes can lie to us.
Our eyes cannot see the exact differences in the genetic material.
We need to stop trusting our eyes.
Our eyes can make big deals out of differences. A wild wolf from the arctic looks very different from a chihuahua, but genetically, they are quite similar.
When we assume that border collies and working retrievers are not having problems with genetic diversity because they have a wide range of phenotypes, we are making the same error.
Genetic diversity is something all persons concerned with animal husbandry should be concerned about. Granted, if you are breeding animals for meat, dairy, and eggs, one shouldn’t be as concerned. And there are definite advantages to breeding in and in to fix traits.
But if you’re wanting to save endangered species and produce dogs that have decent, long, healthy lives, we have to think in the macro-sense. We have to carefully consider how gene pools are being concentrated. We have to be willing to allow some diversity in type and behavior, just so we can keep these breeds and types viable.
Please note that I’m not saying border collies and working golden retrievers are the worst cases out there, but I am saying that that it just because they are bred for working purposes does not make them immune to these problems.
And the value of a dog should not solely be based upon its prowess in trials or shows.
That’s a very dangerous position, and one that can really reduce genetic diversity.
The goal should be to increase the ability of the average dog within a population, not to breed an elite. We should have lots of very good dogs, not a few superior dogs that everyone wants to breed from.
But to get people to think like this requires an almost entire inversion of the dynamics of dog culture, which was pretty much developed the late eighteenth century and fully crystallized in the earlier part of the twentieth century.
This century requires a new paradigm for how we relate to dogs.
And to get there we all have to be intellectually honest.
If you wanted to increase the genetic diversity in your breed would you:
(A) Make it easier to bring in new blood
or
(B) Make it more difficult to bring in new blood
?
The ABCA has chosen B. After realizing that a few eye tests here and there aren’t really a commitment to health in the breed, they have instituted higher standards. Not for the existing dogs or their progeny. No. But for ROM dogs. Now, not only do you have to pass the working trial and vote of the board, you also have to provide hip scores for both parents of the dog to be ROM’d.
You might say “good, requiring hip scores is a great start!” but they are not asking this of popular sires, not asking it of the national champion and reserve champions at sheep and cattle trials, not asking it of any dog that already has an ABCA number. They are only asking this of NEW dogs.
So, apparently, the mere handful of dogs entering the gene pool via ROM each year are the ones who must be causing that 25% HD (estimated by a well respected working BC person on their board) we see in the breed.
What a half-assed effort! And what a stupid thing to do, discouraging the already almost-never-used-ROM process even more.
If you look at many websites for breeders of dogs like Goldens they seem to brag about how many puppies a certain male of theirs fathered??? Like its a good thing? Maybe these are truly the backyard breeders? But, certainly they have so much momentum… there’s no stopping them unless you burn down their operations.
And again…. the physical testing for these physical disorders….. don’t determine the outcome of future litters with any certainty. They just don’t. And stats only reflect the dogs that are tested and who’ve had that information posted. So in theory it looks good on paper, but in reality it is not conclusive either way.
So yes… definitely a half assed effort. And an excuse to say “look we’re doing something”
What they need to do is stop the same sire process.. or even the same Bitch process. Let it mix a bit. Take a step back and then evaluate all the real effort later.
I wouldn’t worry so much about bitches, but yes, more bitches need to have litters.
The real problem is sires. Sires, just because of biology, can have far more offspring than any bitch. They can leave a huge imprint on a line.
“And the value of a dog should not solely be based upon its prowess in trials or shows.”
That’s my favorite line.
I love Christopher’s line that inbreeding is the inward cancer that we can’t see when we look at the pretty dog in the show ring or the field. That changed my entire perspective on the world of breeding on either the show or the working spectrum.
In fact, when I was researching lurchers I came across a UK breeder who used ONE stud and TWO bitches but had over 5 generations working on his land… massively inbred but really quick to catch prey. Beautiful dogs, too. Only one had a mangled looking paw (birth deformity).
And when I was researching Shikoku I began to see that pedigreed or not, most of the US dogs are in some way related to Japanese or Polish dogs and in a very short time they will be completely bottlenecked. Rarely are they shown or field trialed – there’s just no honest effort within that breed’s circle.
Humans are so destructive. But the true value of a dog should never be weighed only in show or work performance. They are absolutely words to live by.
You must have found the BC Boards thread (possible several) where Eileen Stein claims that the BC and the sled dog are only different in that the BC has a registry and the sled dog does not.
The last time a sled dog was bred to new blood? Probably yesterday. The last time a Kelpie or a Beardie shows up in the BC gene pool was a century ago.
===
Eileen Stein
Posted 22 September 2010 – 10:33 PM
“I think border collies ARE a breed like Alaskan Huskies. They are like Alaskan Huskies in that they are bred to a working standard rather than an appearance standard, and they are a breed rather than a type in that they have been bred to that working standard long enough that they almost always meet that workiing standard better than any other kind of dog. I don’t really understand why you think dogs must be bred for aesthetics, or must have no significant variation conformation-wise, in order to be a breed.
Alaskan Huskies don’t have a registry and border collies do — that’s the only significant difference. And probably that’s the only thing that has kept the AKC from going after them.”
That might be the funniest bullshit I’ve ever seen.
Yeah, the sled dogs are an open system.
The ABCA is not like the sled dogs.
My word. I cannot believe someone would say that.
The Alaskan husky is a glorified performance bred mongrel.
The BC is not.
The JRT is not– although the puddin’ types are.
It’s from several pages into this thread:
http://www.bordercollie.org/boards/index.php?showtopic=29564
I would have missed it save the link to my blog showing up on my traffic reports. I find it humorous that the skeptic who started the thread is immediately accused of being me. I guess that’s an honor.
Alaskan huskies have such recent new blood in them that they can associate, genetically, characteristics like speed to that introduced blood using DNA microsatellites. The study is:
“A genetic dissection of breed composition and performance enhancement in the Alaskan sled dog.”
Re: the reference to Holway Barty in the “bottleneck” of field trial Goldens — if you do further study, you might find that thisis primarily due to his grandson FC Yankee’s Smokin Red Devil bred to FC Windbreaker’s Razzmatazz — no less than five litters that produced six field titlists and some 13 other Qualified OAA dogs– many of which were also bred to produce trial winners. The Red – Razz breedings are behind nearly all present day trial Goldens; that’s the real bottleneck.
I’ve seen a number of the Holway dogs, in three countries, over some 35 years; and all of them were of good character, excellent working aptitude, and generally well structured, sound dogs with good longevity. There’s more than one reason that others have chosen to use Holway dogs in their breeding programs; whether they have always done so in the best way, is debatable.
My first dog had definite Holway ancestry.
Very good dog. She sold me on golden retrievers.
Lived to be 13.
I like that Holway type.
I must admit it.
I do.
You are as always right on your facts and conclusions. But in an effort to elevate the relative value of breeding for looks vs. breeding for performance, I think you miss a key point.
Trial dogs are healthier. They can breathe, they can move, and they don’t die particularly young, despite living really active lives.
If you go to trials or some of the trial on-line forums, theese people talk about a lot of things, but their dogs dying at 7, hips, allergies, and cancer aren’t common topics.
But guess what great dane people spend all their time talking about on line amongst themselves? Cavalier people? bulldog people? Yorkie people? Sick young dogs.
Even if a trial English Pointer’s genetic load is as bottlenecked as some rare show breed, there is something about the selection for activity vs. selection for “flashy ears” that is keeping these dogs healthy and long lived.
For a reality check, go on gundogforum.com and find the topic where guys try to calculate/estimate the cost of ownership of their working dogs. It is schockingly low and they all count on at least 12 years of life.
I certainly agree, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t affected.
It also doesn’t mean that we might not have these problems in the future with these lines.
Question for you, bill. Do you find that gundog owners tend to use a lot technology to put a litter on the ground? Antibiotics, thyroid meds, hormone implants to bring the bitch into heat, progesterone to maintain the pregnancy, do you see a lot of that? What about after the pups hit the ground? Lots and lots of effort to keep a failing pup going? Or no?
Jess, I don’t know. I have done one litter in my life, in 1996, I was 18 and should have known better. They luckily made great family dogs, and are starting to die.
But to be honest real breeders don’t talk much about the a activity you describe. So who knows. I’d guess, like most else, as the money gets bigger, so does the “technology”.
The reason I ask is because selection for fitness goes far beyond just testing for genetic disease and breeding functional dogs. There are breeders that are selecting for unfit dogs by their breeding and puppy raising practices. Reproductive fitness does not exist in a vacuum, the dog is a whole, and an animal that is very unfit in one department is likely unfit in several more.
Reproductive fitness has gone out the window in many dogs bred for show. I’m not talking just dogs that are weirdly shaped, like bulldogs. I mean lines in all breeds. I think this is more likely in show dogs because of the large ego/money investment in the dogs, and the limited number of litters bred by ‘responsible’ breeders. I don’t see this in pet breeders, if a bitch doesn’t conceive, they spay, place and replace her. I was curious as to practices in performance dogs.
Jess, I only know performance/dual breeders. Not many, but more than the typical layperson. I have yet to hear of “a lot technology to put a litter on the ground? Antibiotics, thyroid meds, hormone implants to bring the bitch into heat, progesterone to maintain the pregnancy.” Honestly, I didn’t know these things exist, though I’m not surprised by any means.
AI, surgical AI–definitely done on a regular basis, but not preferred.
Join a canine reproduction mailing list. You’ll be appalled. Dogs that have no libido and must be bred using AI, surgical implants to bring a bitch into season at a convenient time, bitches that have bacterial overgrowth and must be on antibiotics to conceive, bitches that must have supplemental progesterone to carry a litter to term, repro vets that routinely dose bitches with thyroid hormone to ‘increase litter size’, bitches whose behavior does not match their ovulation state during heat, breeders who will spend weeks nursing along a sickly puppy only to have it die, etc. I could go on and on. This stuff is routine for some breeders.
I’m not against technology, but it can be abused. You can have an OFA excellent bitch that is not carrying PRA or whatever prevalent conditions exist in the breed, but if needs antibiotics to conceive because her own body cannot keep normal bacteria in check, she is not healthy. These practices are not the way to produce healthy pups.
Since most breeds within a closed system, they are carrying a significant genetic load at this point in time. In breeds that still have rigorous fitness selection in breeding stock, you are going to have less influence by inbreeding depression.
I can honestly say I have not encountered such things in Lab or flat-coat breedings, nor in golden breedings, though I haven’t as much experience with goldens. Not saying the practices don’t exist.
There is a Golden breeder that routinely c-sections all their bitches. Show dogs, can’t remember the name.
Routine c-sections are often done merely for the convenience of the breeder. The vast majority of Goldens (show, pet, field or performance) whelp naturally and are good mothers.
Crazy good mothers in fact.
Ours tried to get in the whelping box and mother the litter whether they were the mother or not.
anybody who would put a healthy bitch + litter under-GA for intra-abdominal surgery on the dam FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE is IMO shockingly careless of risk, pain, etc –
the vet should double the fee. >>:—{ just because – the $$ can go to their kids’ college-fund.
and the breeder should IMO be drummed-out of the breed club, and their dogs pedigrees de-listed; that should be a violation of breeding ethics, if it is not already in writing AS an ethics-violation.
disgusting – bitches with stitches nursing pups so their breeder doesn’t have to have their schedule disrupted?!?! bloody be-dam*ed heartless sods, with more $$ than brains or heart, IMO.
more justification of the needless use of antibiotics, too, i’d bet.
*%$#@!…
– terry
> join a canine repo list, be appalled
AMEN to THAT! I joined several lists and even borrowed a fellow breeder’s “Canine Repro and
Whelping & Puppy Intensive Care” book in preparation to breed and whelp my litter.
I can’t begin to describe the horrors of what these breeders find acceptable. Or that the entire industry (and it’s an industry, these people give seminars all year round on how to whelp these puppies that would otherwise die) is even necessary.
And it’s not just the twisted breeds like bulldogs. The lady who wrote the intensive care book is in Cavalier KC Spaniels. And if you read her book, you’d cry at how nonchalant she is with her breed’s inability to birth live and healthy young.
I have that book. It’s highly recommended, you know. I just never really felt the need for an OXYGEN TANK when I whelped my litters.
I have a large collection of dog breeding books, from the very old to the very new. The difference in perspectives between then and now is very, very interesting.
“relative value of breeding for looks vs. breeding for performance”
Bill, this is a false dichotomy. Not only are their more considerations one can breed for, there’s also a huge difference between how one breeds and why one breeds.
And I’m not sure what working forums you frequent, but a search for “sarcoma” on BC-L turns up plenty of people chiming in about their experiences, including the list owner.
Despite having a very credible claim to having one of if not the largest “working” culture, Border Collies are not particularly healthier than other dog breeds, and when you compare them to close relatives, you find things like twice or more incidence of HD.
Collies and Aussies are certainly in the “working dog” family, but they do not have a dominant trial culture to the degree of the Border Collie, and the Collie has been abused by the show world something fierce. They rank near the very bottom in HD expression, the BCs do not.
You are probably right. I don’t know trial herding dogs (but I LOVE to watch them on tv). They may be sick messes that cost their owners thousands in vet bills each year.
False dichotomy? Come on. Newspaper ads not withstanding, Springer Spaniels are bred for one of two possible reasons. Winning pageants, or boosting pheasants.
Yes, there are numerous breeds where there are two pillars holding the gene pool up. But it doesn’t HAVE to be that way.
I’ve written about the 4 estates of the Border Collie {work/trials, show, sport, pet} that deals with that topic. Spot and Pet minded breeding ads to or at least maintains more of the gene pool.
Nothing is a magic formula, and every solution has another problem, and every problem has more than one solution, and there are gives and takes.
Just “thinking” out loud here–maybe some missteps in my thought process or info, please point out anything I’m not considering.
With Exercise Induced Collapse in Labs, there is perhaps as much as 35-40 percent of ALL Labs (not just field Labs) who are either carriers or affecteds. Pulling all carriers and affecteds out of the gene pool has, thankfully, been mostly dismissed as nonsense.
Hopefully, the pressure of the desire to breed otherwise healthy and talented “clear” dogs will be balanced by the desire to breed extremely talented or biddable carriers and affecteds (to clears, of course), and the gene pool will remain relatively diverse.
At the same time, there are also a number of genetic affecteds who are not symptomatic. No one knows why. There seem to be more of these dogs in the show lines–but these are dogs that aren’t exposed to the circumstances that can bring collapse, so it might be just a function of environment. But some research indicates there might be some genetic factor that counters the gene that leads to collapse, and there’s some focus on (get this) the extra fat that the show dogs seem prone to carry compared to the more lean and lithe field Labs.
Ah, the irony. Then again, show Labs seem to have more trouble with PRA and heart problems. The field Lab people certainly don’t want dogs that collapse! And one would hope that the show Lab people, most of whose dogs go to pet homes, don’t want dogs that go blind and have heart problems in middle age. Could the same forces that split the breed bring them back together? Not inconceivable.
Labs are lucky–they’ve remained diverse through the selective breeding that has nearly split the breed. Who could have planned that?
Bill–yes, that what I see too, totally unscientific. Working Lab folks seem to count on 12 years; under 10 would be disappointing, and over 14 is ancient but not unheard of.
My impression is that goldens aren’t so lucky, and are increasingly less lucky, but I couldn’t point to any studies (but I’d be curious if anyone has a list of them??? Seems to be gospel, almost).
From what I can tell, flat-coats have both the best and worst of it–if they are lucky enough to live past 10, they can very well live to 14. But one might die at two, or six, or eight. Then again they are generally very healthy dogs–until they get sick!
Tangled webs.
In Goldens, longevity often is dependent upon what the bloodlines are. In lines that are known for a high rate of occurence of lymphoma/leukemia, the greater the influence of certain ancestors, the earlier age of mortality. (ref. Dr. Jeglum at U of P, don’t know if it has been publilshed).
Certain other lines, the median age of death is around 14, with numbers living to 16 or even more. This information from personal knowledge.
The GRCA did a health survey of dogs owned by its members (several thousand) a few years ago, with the help of Dr Glickman of Purdue. It may be available through the GRCA website.
I linked to it on the blogroll somewhere.
http://www.goldenretrieverfoundation.org/insidepagesdata/healthsurvey/GRCA%20Health%20Survey.pdf
blckgldn-n-labmix did you say that 35-40% of all labs have or carry Exercised Induced Collapse?
That’s a lot of labs. If the field bred lab puppies are usually genetically free of this, then any athletic event would be a sort of test to weed out affecteds.
Studying honest pedigrees and talking with breeders who are open about which of their dogs are affected could identify some of the carriers, but clearly a DNA test which identifies carriers is needed.
If no such test is in the near future, then how can you be against removing affecteds and carriers from competive gene pools? Just because the carriers are winning? Who in your family works for a genetic testing company?
I can understand why a genetic testing company would say not to remove the carriers – if everyone did then few people would need their test anymore.
But I don’t work for them, and they don’t pay me, and if they don’t pay you, then how can you say that carriers should be bred just because they win shows or field trials?
That sounds ghastly! Follow that idea to it’s end. If people who win shows/trails breed the carriers to get more dogs that win, then soon the population of dogs bred to win will become highly affected, especially when one of these winning carriers become a popular sire.
Of course you can take out a third of the breeding dogs from the breeding gene pool – that isn’t a side effect of dog shows, it was the original intent – to breed the winners, which is functionally the same as NOT breeding the losers.
The only change is WHICH dogs are being removed from the gene pool. The dogs that aren’t typy enough for shows or intense enough for trails OR those carring Exerise Induced Collapse.
There is but one ethical choice. Some. People. Are. Not. Making. It.
25 percent of all border collies carry collie eye anomaly.
And Christopher just pinpointed the source.
Stay tuned.
“blckgldn-n-labmix did you say that 35-40% of all labs have or carry Exercised Induced Collapse?”
That is the current estimate. It is based on genetic testing at the University of Minnesota. Google “Katie Minor.” Estimates may be skewed a little high because people who suspect it to be present might be testing more than those who are not–but the opposite phenomenon (denial/not testing) may be at work as well.
“That’s a lot of labs. If the field bred lab puppies are usually genetically free of this, then any athletic event would be a sort of test to weed out affecteds.”
Field bred and show bred Labs seem to be have about the same percentage of carriers genetically. It is a simple recessive. It appears to be a very old mutation. It has now been found in other retrievers, and in Boykins. Not all genetic affecteds are symptomatic. Researchers are currently trying to figure out why.
“Studying honest pedigrees and talking with breeders who are open about which of their dogs are affected could identify some of the carriers, but clearly a DNA test which identifies carriers is needed.”
There is a DNA test.
“If no such test is in the near future, then how can you be against removing affecteds and carriers from competive gene pools? Just because the carriers are winning? Who in your family works for a genetic testing company?”
I have no idea what you are talking about here, and I’m afraid to guess.
“I can understand why a genetic testing company would say not to remove the carriers – if everyone did then few people would need their test anymore.”
I don’t believe anyone is making money off of cheek swabs, particularly not this one.
“But I don’t work for them, and they don’t pay me, and if they don’t pay you, then how can you say that carriers should be bred just because they win shows or field trials?”
Carrier and affected status is information. To dictate what one can and cannot do in a breeding program based on one genetic issue is pure folly, particularly when carriers are pervasive in the breed and the repository of valuable genetic material.
“That sounds ghastly! Follow that idea to it’s end. If people who win shows/trails breed the carriers to get more dogs that win, then soon the population of dogs bred to win will become highly affected, especially when one of these winning carriers become a popular sire.”
Winning carriers have been popular sires for perhaps as long as there has been trialing. Winning clears have also been popular sires. Now that there is a test, wiser decisions regarding the future can be made. Indeed, from conversations with old-timers, it seems that prior to the 80′s, most EIC was diagnosed as heat stroke, or occasionally as epilepsy, and no one considered a genetic component other than suspected epilepsy at work until, I think, the mid-80′s.
“Of course you can take out a third of the breeding dogs from the breeding gene pool – that isn’t a side effect of dog shows, it was the original intent – to breed the winners, which is functionally the same as NOT breeding the losers.”
This is a recessive gene. It hides. It was well-hidden for many, many decades. Genetically affected dogs are often asymptomatic, so it hides especially well in some dogs. As I mentioned before, researchers are still exploring this.
”
The only change is WHICH dogs are being removed from the gene pool. The dogs that aren’t typy enough for shows or intense enough for trails OR those carring Exerise Induced Collapse.”
Removing all dogs that carry EIC would be disastrous.
“There is but one ethical choice. Some. People. Are. Not. Making. It.”
The only ethical choice is to understand the situation and make wise decisions. What is wise for one breeder may not be wise for another breeder, and what is wise for the breed is to continue to educate breeders to make wise and informed decisions.
If you are really interested in this–and it’s very interesting as an example of the study of genetics as it happens in the real world–Google “Retriever Training Forum.” There are literally hundreds of discussions about EIC, dating from pre-test to the present. Many threads include research links and explanations from the head of the project that uncovered the gene and the continuing work.
One thread is a permanent sticky titled “EIC Results – Feel free to post RESULTS here.” It is 43 pages long, has 428 replies, and 133,204 views.
blckgoldn, you’ve got it! “The only ethical choice is to understand the situation and make wise decisions.”
The genius of the DNA test for of identifying carriers is that it enables us to retain those carriers for their desirable qualities, without producing affected progeny. And within a very few generations, with continued testing and careful selection, the carriers can be replaced with clears.
In fact –and will seem anathema to some — assuming the trait is a simple recessive, the test makes it possible to even –gasp!– use affecteds in breeding. An affected bred to a clear results in all carriers, but phenotypically normal. Those carriers can be bred to clears, with probability of 1/2 the progeny being clears, 1/2 carriers. And there you have clear dogs to continue with, as well as carriers that may also be used if needed.
Check out any good book on basic genetics.
Now, if a trait is polygenic, as are many, or if one is considering several traits at once — it gets a whole lot more complicated!
i agree –
whether any breed is working or NOT, they need a diverse gene-pool with width + depth, not narrow demarcations of exquisitely-picky phenotype, with matador-sires swashing, buckling and siring all over Hell-en-gone.
dogs need to be allowed variety – a BC is still recognizable, altho they may have tulip, prick, drop or one-each ears, be whippy and slinky or upright and athletic – and SHOW lines already have more coat + substance – that was quick!
i know folks in the UK with BCs who were farm-bred, have no show or trial-lineage in their past 5 to 10-gens, and are wildly varied; the thing they most-often have in common?
they are shy-sharp or fear-biters or neophobic or timid with strangers –
due to lousy puppy-rearing and lack of socialization;
many were giveaways or finally sold at 4 to 6-MO or even older, and had NEVER been of the farm – some had never been out of the barn or shed.
their genes might be valuable – their behavior is either heartbreaking or appalling, depending mostly on whether U see them, or get bitten by one of them.
working-trials are valuable, but WORKING is IMO even more so – Labs who launch into a pond with a high-wide-n-handsome plunge, vs run the bank and cut across the chord to reach a dropped bird, DON’t win trials; but they hunt effectively and don’t get exhausted by that showy “straight line no matter what idiocy” trained behavior.
and who the H*** wants a 90# to 120# Flab-Lab in a bloody boat?!! ridiculous.
they take up more nautical real-estate than another hunter, who can SIT on a thwart and be mostly vertical.
invest in GENES – like “land”, they are not making any more; what we have, is what we’ve got…
and we need every one, even the carriers, even white GSDs, even black-n-tan Labs, even yellow Flatties, IMO.
we cannot count on spontaneous mutations to be BENEFICIAL – most often, they are not.
DoG bless them all,
– terry
“SHOW lines already have more coat + substance – that was quick!”
I think the “change” looked quick in the US not because US breeders were amazingly focused and successful in adding coat and bone in their show dogs but because almost all the stock was imported from overseas where they’ve had decades more time to “refine” their lines with these traits.
In one sense, this brought a lot of new blood to the US via imports. In the other, it meant that the “show” gene pool wasn’t really expanded.
It would have been better overall if US breeders used US stock and developed the traits they wanted and also used imports. Instead, the interest in the sport outgrew the limited imported gene pool and most of the show dogs are highly related being from a small handful of UK and OZ kennels.
“invest in GENES – like “land”, they are not making any more; what we have, is what we’ve got…”
That’s brilliant. I’m going to steal it. There are many good parallels to be drawn with that analogy.
Thanks Terry.
“….even white GSDs”….. Based on the White Shepherds I’ve seen at UKC shows, the Whites are far superior to the “show-type” shepherds in basic construction and soundness, and often in stability of temperament as well. Color is more easily changed than is structure; these White Shepherds could be a valuable resource for the breed as a whole — if anyone dared to use them.
Yes, UKC recognizes the White Shepherd as a legitimate breed. And there are some splendid examples (with both show and performance titles). There is also the breed called White Swiss Shepherd in Europe.
Hi M.R.S. – you are so right about the white shepherds. I just thought the exact same thing a few days ago!
I thought back to German Shepherd Dog breeders that I have spoken with. If it weren’t so sad, I’d laugh at the memory!
How they believed that they were being “ethical” by killing newborn white puppies!
And how the hard core “ethical” breeders would, if a litter had even one white puppy in it, have both parents surgically sterilized!
But the people who saved the white puppies and bred them, are having the last laugh! Their dogs are sound movers.
re Ag-genetics –
>> Genetic diversity is something all persons concerned with
animal husbandry should be concerned about. Granted, if you
are breeding animals for meat, dairy, and eggs, one shouldn’t
be as concerned. And there are definite advantages to
breeding in and in to fix traits. <
i disagree – diversity in and between domestic breeds is at issue, no matter if it’s poultry or pointers; we NEED diversity.
that’s why the news that GMO-pollen [windborne] had contaminated heritage-maize in Mexico, from early-adopters with trial patches in rural areas, is a disaster; wild-type and family-bred strains with microclimate adaptations are the gold-mine of diversity, just like Peruvian + Chilean potatoes and chilies, etc.
a case in point: INBRED lean-pigs –
they were dam*-near clones, they were so inbred on ONE trait: lean, lean, Lean! meat; they were so jittery they trampled one another or broke legs in melees, reacting to sudden noises or strangers or…
they bit each-other’s tails off; they could not relax, lie down and rest, NOT react, NOT agitate, NOT obsess; they could not gain – they ran-off muscle when stressed.
genetically, like the modern-strain Leghorn or broiler-chickens, they are a dead-end trap; Leghorns now lay eggs, and burn-out by 2 or 3-YO; broilers collapse under their own weight, and get breast-sores from lying chest-down, by 8 to 10-WO.
broad-breasted white-turkeys for T-Day + Xmas cannot BREED – they require AI as the toms cannot inseminate a hen.
the loss of the Russian BERRY bank is IMO the biggest library-loss of valuable food-crop genes in modern history, and inexcusable.
stoopid, short-sighted, asinine – depressing.
seed-banks can only hold certain things – and a power-failure on cryogenic storage means U have a lot of garbage to get rid of, in an expensive storage-unit that just became a Dumpster with doors.
there are more – but U get the gist, i’m sure.
we need genes – as many as we can get, in circulation, in living beings – flora, charismatic fauna, microbes, invertebrates, molluscs, crustaceans, ANYthing – EveryThing.
i hope that logic and breed-passion will save genes in domestic species, and sanity and self-preservation will save wild genes.
if not [in either case] we are in deep, dark trouble.
– terry
as a breeder and trialist in herding dogs for some years, I’d like to disagree on some issues. NO, the trial dogs are not necessarily healthier. I’ve seen plenty of trial-bred dogs that have various health issues – just not ones that affect their running in trials. Food allergy? Deaf in one ear? Misaligned jaws? Doesn’t affect the Outrun/lift/Fetch in a herding trial. Plenty of BCs had HD – it is, in fact, one of the reasons why the registry is now asking for hip status of new dogs –AND one of the reasons they don’t ask it of the existing dogs. Cancer that kills a 10 year old dog isn’t as big an issue since most dogs at 10 are “retired” – they’ve had their impact on trials. It’s a myth that the field dogs are “healthier”. They are healthier in SOME areas, the same or worse in those that are visible.
There’s another group that has an “open registry” system – KNPV protection work dogs are often combinations of Malinois, GSD, Dutch Shepherd and even Dane, pit bull and Beauceron. In the Malinois/Dutch system, pretty much, if it’s brindle, it’s registered as a Dutchie, if it’s fawn (sable) it’s registered as a Malinois. Are these dogs healthier? They tend to have a higher % of dogs that make it in police & military venues, but they also tend to have a higher % of dogs that are just way too hyper, neurotic, aggressive (or a combination thereof) for even a sport /obedience owner.
And therein lies an issue. Retrieverman mentioned “mitochondrial genome was analyzed, the variance between populations was very great– 15 percent, which is as much as one would see in an entire family of fish.” – ok, but how much variance is “correct”? Are we artificially determining “it’s a species” when in fact, it is merely that the female line isn’t constricted? How much is “too much”? How much is “too little”? One of the things that’s interesting in reading the Dinosaur mailing list is the intense debate on the “ceratops” type horned dinosaurs. Are they a vast number of subspecies? Are they merely population variants? Or simply changed as they matured? Are they vastly diverse or very constricted? Clearly humans had nothing to do with it one way or the other. Natural selection, one way or the other did it all. But just as in the Galapagos – a SMALL population can diversify (but at what instant in time did two populations become seperate species) or you can have a widely spread species like the puma – is it one continent-wide species or several?
In my own “breed” the issue is a hot one. Belgians are “one breed” in most of the world – but there are restrictions against say, breeding a Groenendael to a Malinois in Belgium, Finland, and elsewhere. It’s not a single breed in the normal sense of a common breeding pool. In US, the dogs are separate breeds. Yet in BOTH systems, mostly the dogs are closely related. For example, try finding a dog that doesn’t have Yako de la Pouroffe LOSH 343525 from the 1970s in the pedigree in Europe OR the US. So the “openness” doesn’t prevent “most popular sire” syndrome. And maybe we need to recognize that even in Nature, things can be less than the most healthy, etc. The difference is that in nature, mostly those that aren’t perfect die. On the other hand, what’s with that itty bitty third finger on the T rex?
Peggy Richter.
“Plenty of BCs had HD – it is, in fact, one of the reasons why the registry is now asking for hip status of new dogs –AND one of the reasons they don’t ask it of the existing dogs. ”
I wrote about the ROM guidelines a while back and JUST saw that they updated the requirements. I was appalled. It’s such a pointless measure I can’t even begin to express how ineffective it is going to be.
If the ABCA was serious about providing hip health information, they’d pay for the top 10 winning dogs each year to get a hip score for free.
Or they could limit a non-scored dog to siring X litters per year.
If the goal is to have greater data on hips, demanding it of ROM dogs is not the way to do. There simply aren’t that many every year when it was “easier” to get done. And it’s been decades and decades since a ROM’d dog sired a significant number of puppies (there are a depressing few ROM’d dogs in either of my BCs history).
At the end of the day it’s all hardly worth worrying about the dogs are going to become what they are going to become.
Almost no breeder and no dog buyers are going to act outside their self interest. Can you imagine, as a perspective buyer, asking a working dog breeder why she did a particular breeding, and her answer being “for the genetic diversity of the breed.”? Ha! You’d congratulate them and run.
Working dog buyers want the best, smartest, healthiest dog they can find, and don’t often care about COIs. When the dogs start dropping dead at 5 en masse, new hybrid breeds will meet the demand, and pointers and GSPs will be the flatcoats and cesky fouseks of tomorrow.
I’ve gotten nothing but positive feedback when I respond “for genetic diversity” when talking about my dogs to buyers.
somehow, christopher, that doesn’t surprise me…
it’s yer fellow-breeders, and the trial competitors and show contenders, who want to stab a shiv thru yer back and into yer ee-eeevull heart, LOL.
i’d avoid dark alleys and lonely parking lots –
puppy-buyers may love U, but what do they know!?
[ ;--) i'm kidding -
breeding is a science, but the result is like art:
we can't exactly define it, but we know it when we see it - and i think Ur prospective and actual buyers are seeing something that rings true, even if they are ignorant - heck, *especially* if they are ignorant.
we all know that chime we hear when something just makes sense, visually, intellectually or sheer gut-hunch.]
don’t quit, chris. criticism hurts, but there are things that need doing, not only despite but because of critics.
all my best,
– terry
It’s funny, just the other day I was on the phone with a lady who wants to put down a deposit on Mercury’s next litter, and she has a lifetime of experience with Goldens. One of her comments was “I love back yard breeders, where else are you supposed to breed them?” and “I think some of these dogs are just so over-bred and it’s ruining the breed.”
Buyers are more savvy than the elitists give them credit for, they are getting the message and seeing the bigger picture (yeah cliches!).
She said she called because it was “obvious you love the dogs from the videos, most other breeders just have pictures of the sire and dam, but you really care about the puppies they produce.”
That’s a whole different value set than elite mentality in the breed.
Pet people who have bothered to do much research are very generally interested in genetic diversity.
People who are heavily invested in the mythology of the breed where the blood of the founders is holy are not interested in diversity.
I have never had a person interested in Salukis as dogs with lots of genetic, geographic and phenotypic variation, slam me for cross-breeding. People who are very invested in the Saluki (or the Afghan) as the ‘oldest purebred dog’ send me hate mail.
“….never…slam me for crossbreeding…” then the question that arises is, “Crossbreeding with what?” A saluki of different origns? Another gazehound of similar roots? OK, either of those seems reasonable, if done with purpose.
Cross a saluki with a mastiff, or a spaniel– what would be the point? It would introduce more different genes, but at what cost?
Golden retrievers already have a wide range of diversity within the breed as a whole. Dogs from different countries and from different disciplines vary considerably in appearance, in ancestry, and in other qualities. One does not have to go to another breed in order to acquire new genes. It does, however, require a broader outlook and the willingness to search for what is needed– and to be able to recognize that quality when it is found.
Quality is where you find it, regardless of pedigree or “wins”.
You have no idea. There are people in Salukis who actually believe that the breed has been verifiably purebred for 9000 years. 7000 BC was quoted at me more than once. Then there are those that believe the Saluki only exists as ‘pure’ in the west. Or that believe any dogs in the COOs after the 80s are not ‘pure.’ Or that brindles are not pure. Or dogs from the Gulf are not pure.
Afghan people are no better. The denial or out right ignoring of the existence of Saluki types in that area justifies the extinction of all but the heavily coated types in the west.
The concept of using Salukis to improve the western Afghan through addition of speed and drastic reduction of coat is anathema. Even mentioning such a thing will get you into trouble.
That’s so unfortunate, because from what I know, the Saluki is a wonderful example of a thriving LANDRACE as well as breed, going back a long long way and having pockets of sustained and local blood across several countries.
The “purity” idea is sickening. I’d contend that part of the reason we have ad hoc crosses like the Lurhcer is due to the landrace ethic from the sighthounds, like the Saluki, combined with the same ideas in the collies (we have several examples of purpose built collies: the McNab, the Aussie, the English Shep… and that’s just the Western USA).
Of note, Wikipedia uses the Border Collie and Saluki as the examples of landraces in dogs. Funny.
I’m not surprised, really. Most humans like things all neatly packaged into little boxes. hence we get “fundamentalists” with narrow outooks and basic inflexibility.
Large example currently in AKC matters is the so-called “crossbred” Dalamatian. ONE cross to the Pointer more than 30 years ago to eliminate the gene responsible for high uric acid (which causes multiple problems). The present-day LUA (low uric acid) Dals are indistinguishable from other Dals, except they are free from those problems. Yet the parent club for the breed will still not approve opening the books to register them with AKC. In spite of the fact that AKC even grants conditional registration to certain (other) dogs with some unknown ancestors within far fewer generations.
AKC may broaden its outlook — but the Dal people are still wearing blinkers.
that is THE classic example of emotion over-riding logic in genetics; particularly as they had the permission of the Dal-breed club before they began the outcross, and the club later changed their collective [narrow] minds and decided that permitting them to be registered would ‘ruin the breed’ somehow.
the LUA-Dals are more popular in Britain than they are in the USA; go figure – we hang-onto the purine-intolerant, and export the specifically ‘gout’-free Dals… the ones who **don’t** secrete crystals in their urine, damage their kidneys, suffer painful bladder or kidney stones, co$t megabucks at the vet’s, etc.
my nominee for genetic-illogic, 1990-2000, is the Dalmatian Club of America.
– terry
Terry, the Boxer club in Germany changed their standard (which is also the FCI standard, btw) to DQ dogs with ‘naturally stumpy’ tails. Specifically to exclude dogs that bear the visual evidence of Corgi blood.
I have been watching the brindle controversy unfold in Salukis now for a while. Logic is not something I expect from dog breeders.
>> Logic is not something I expect from dog breeders. <
that’s good – U won’t be disappointed,
if it does not manifest. ;-)
I’d be much more likely to buy from a breeder that said ‘for genetic diversity’. (If I ever actually bought from a breeder, which isn’t that likely). I might buy one of Christopher’s, though…
R-man quotes critics of *Christopher Landauer*:
>> “He’s a Republican– ewwww!” <> “His dogs have never seen a sheep.” <<
even if that were true – it doesn't mean they wouldn't know what to do with sheep, or ducks, or cattle, or…
if they DID see them; behavioral genetics is a powerful force.
– t
that can be bred out in as few as 2 generations. And, I have a feeling that this statement:
“His dogs have never seen a sheep.”
meant that, in the immediate presence of stock, he did. not. see. them.
R-man quotes critics of *Christopher Landauer*:
>> “He’s a Republican– ewwww!” —
for the record, BCs register Independent and vote for whoever most appeals to them; appeals to party loyalty don’t sway them.
another *landauer* stone flung:
>> “His dogs have never seen a sheep.” —
even if that were true – it doesn’t mean they wouldn’t know what to do with sheep, or ducks, or cattle, or…
if they DID see them; behavioral genetics is a powerful force.
– t
> He’s a Republican
> His dogs have never seen sheep
Sadly both are false. I’m a Libertarian and despite the distance and cost, all of my dogs have been exposed and partially trained on sheep. I’d have continued and would probably be at a point to start trialing had not my life been turned upside down with my father’s stroke. I just can’t justify the time and expense at the moment.
There’s a reason almost all the trialists are over the hill, or at least empty nesters. It’s very expensive and very time consuming. Even more so if you aren’t living on a ranch or farm or near one.
I’ll point out that none of my positions require you to trust my experience with sheep. I never ask you to appeal to my expertise. I use logic and observations. I don’t give tips on how to best train a BC on sheep or how to win at a trial or anything else that would require some expertise.
I think I need to respond to some critiques.
You people need to get your heads out of your asses for ten seconds.
Stop reading each other in mutual intellectual masturbation.
Stop the romance.
Romance is going to kill these dogs.
I’m telling you right now.
And I don’t like Patrick Burns.
BTW, I cannot wait for Christopher’s post to come out!
Kick me off your blogrolls.
I don’t care.
I get enough hits doing what I do.
I’ll repeat what I’ve always said:
Dog culture is rotten.
Dog shows are an easy target.
But the more you look at other aspects of it, the more rot I see.
I agree, the systems that organize dogs is ruining the future of dogs.
Let me throw this idea out to the dog people: You know how to judge dogs don’t you? You know what you want in a dog – be it show type, working type, pet type. So what do you need a dog judge for?
Sure, the judge hands out a ribbon, but so what? Why have judges at the shows or the trails?
It is the fact that shows have a judge, to do your thinking for you, which causes the problems.
Too many dog breeders aren’t using their own minds – they breed to whatever the judge chooses. Judges are just people. Just people in a system that few people can buck.
How would you feel about not having judges anymore? The shows would be exhibitions, where breeders would evaluate the entries themselves.
You would pick up a blank score card, fill it out, and keep it for future use. You could show your card to others or not. There would be no ribbons or awards.
That way, there would not be a rush to breed to winning sires, or to buy puppies from winning bitches. You know what you like, you would breed to what you like.
People who want to buy a puppy would ask you: What do you look for when choosing a stud?
If a person can’t figure out what they want in a stud dog, and judge the dogs for themself, maybe they shouldn’t breed dogs for awhile?
The idea would slow the rush to winning sires better than any other idea that I can think of – short of ending all shows and trails.
Sounds like a great idea.
Thanks for coming by, Utah Neff.
“How would you feel about not having judges anymore? The shows would be exhibitions, where breeders would evaluate the entries themselves.
You would pick up a blank score card, fill it out, and keep it for future use. You could show your card to others or not. There would be no ribbons or awards.”
A lot of dog people do this, both breeder and buyer, show and field.
I have many hunt test catalogs where I have marked dogs I liked the looks and performance of, for when I buy a puppy in 5 or 10 or however many years, or if I have to make a breeding decision someday (unlikely, but interesting to consider), or if someone asks if I’ve seen a dog and I need something to jog my memory.
A. That presupposes an amount of knowledge that the majority of short-term participants probably don’t have. Judges are *supposed* to be more knowledgeable, and to place dogs in an order of merit based not on personal preference, but the “ideal” of the breed. Theoretically. As is well known, it often doesn’t work that way.
B. As to “judging the dogs for themselves”, well, that’s the primary reason that serious, knowledgeable breeders attend shows, particularly specialty shows and the “nationals”. To SEE the dogs, to assess them for their own uses, to learn more about them. And they exhibit here not merely for the possibility of a “win”, but so that others can SEE their dogs. For those folks, the opinion of a (formal) judge is often of no consequence whatever.
Hi again, M.R.S.
1. Perhaps “short-term participants” who cannot judge even their own dogs, are not the best of dog breeders?
Maybe they should wait until they understand better, before breeding litters of ‘show dogs’ that won’t win?
Maybe they wouldn’t be into dogs for a “short-term” if they waited until they understood before getting overwhelmed?
2. Exactly my point: Dog breeders who can judge dogs for themselves don’t need a judge, just like you don’t need a weatherman to tell you if it is raining outside now.
I would like the AKC, and other clubs, to make an effort to replace the emphasis back on the dogs, where it use to be, instead of on the competition itself, and the feel of winning.
It can be done, maybe not in time to save some important parts of dogdom, but nobody can return to 1945, and say, “This is the direction we need to go now”.
All we can do now, is to make a course correction from where we are now – the past is gone, it can not be changed.
Dog clubs can start to make improvements. The British are doing somethings to improve their system – thanks to Pedigree Dogs Exposed.
They don’t have to go belly up, and quit trying.
1. As to short-term participants (i.e, the often-quoted 3-to-5 year ones) I certainly agree. They should not be breeding until they’ve gained sufficient knowledge….but…people being what they are, it will happen…
2. As to non-competitive “conformation” events, the GRCA has such a program in effect. It is the CCA program (Certificate of Conformation Assessment). Details on the GRCA website (grca.org). In brief, each dog is evaluated by three people with background and experience, and their written assessments given to the owner, as well as discussion of findings and opinion. There are no placements and no announcements of scores. The events are proving quite popular for people who truly wish to learn more about their dogs.
>> 1. Perhaps “short-term participants” who cannot judge even their own dogs, are not the best of dog breeders? —
>
according to the AKC, the average “lifespan” of non-commercial dog-breeders who are not long-term [handlers, groomers, Jr-handlers now adult, etc] AKC-devotees with past experience – just not as breeders –
and arrive as adults with one dog to start, is only FIVE YEARS – then they are out.
that’s just 2 dog-generations – quite a pathetic length of duration.
OTOH there are commercial large-scale breeders AKA puppy-mills who have been “in the biz” for several generations – parents to children to G-kids.
anybody wanna celebrate their longevity and the “quality product” they’ve been producing for 30 or 40 years or more?
i knew the couple whose Mastiffs produced Gargoyle; he was furious over the way he was treated by his competitors at Westminster, how rude, judgmental and critical they were, and returned vowing that he would NEVER, ever go to another ##@%! bloody $%&*#! dog-show —
he was a Vietnam-veteran, and his opinion was anatomically impossible, obscene, vivid, and deeply angry.
is that the reception we want to see “young” breeders who are apparently doing a good job, receive from their more-experienced peers?
well-done, guys –
pi**-off the new blood, with luck no-one will be left to take the torch, and purebreds will soon be commercial-breeders and moneyed buyers with one-fourth or one-tenth of a dog, like shares in Thoroughbreds at the track.
shoot yerselves in the foot, and then bitch that nobody is ETHICAL or DEVOTED to their breed – well, he was, and what did it get him?
rude remarks from twits looking down their noses at his good dog, and himself.
go rub those elevated noses in yer own BS, and perhaps grow a little humility and try welcoming people – for a change.
maybe new-breeders might stay for SIX years, not five.
– terry
Terry LeashedForLife, Hi
Money. The answer is so often “money” – to so many different questions.
Why 5 years? I have been told that it has to do with income tax. About writing off expenses and loses.
I am told that the IRS blah blah blah … – it is about claiming that you are a dog-farmer or a dog-rancher.
I am NOT a lawyer, and I don’t work for the IRS – I am only repeting what I have been told about this – but different people have all said the same thing:
You build a fence – for the dogs, you build a kennel building for the dogs, you buy a RV for the dogs, you claim to not feed your dogs anything but the best steak and cheese – these are business expenses – then when your dog-farming business goes broke, you now have a new fence, a big building, and a big car or RV. Get a lawyer before you do any of this.
It is said to be legal – except the steak and cheese part, because buying fine human food ‘for the dogs’ then feeding them dog food, eating the steak, cheese, vitimins etc yourself, then claiming the human food was deductable because it was FOR THE DOGS, is a lie, and it is illegal.
But there is plenty of nod-nod-wink-wink “My DOGS like only the best meat. My DOGS will only eat the white meat of the chicken, my DOGS like ice cream, but my sister’s DOGS never would eat ice cream – they only eat Cherry yogurt …
There was even a dog breeding book that mentioned how to get a ‘free’ car by raising dogs. Of course the car is not free! Not as working class people think of ‘free’, but free in the sense that, if you have much money, your dog-farming business saves you from paying as much income tax.
This is not illegal. Nothing to be ashamed of. People talk about it all the time, right out in the open. Not so much at dog shows now that they are more fast paced, but it not a secret at all – as I said, it is in books.
But we can’t ignore the impact it has on dog shows, dog breeding, and fads – like feeding only human food to dogs, because I wouldn’t feed that to my children – I meant to say DOGS.
It is there, and it is both very sad, and somewhat funny to hear young people spewing the things that they have learned are “right” or “proper” to do when raising dogs, but which are really only about income tax.
To Terry LeashedForLife,
I don’t understand what you didn’t like about my post. I said that beginners often aren’t the best breeders. Do you disagree?
I never said they didn’t have a right to do it their way. Most everyone should have that right, with some limits. Not dog fighters, but MOST people.
But we should all be honest about where there are mistakes in breeding – how else can we change?
I was talking about not having ribbons, and maybe not having judges. My comment was a reply to someone who felt beginners needed to be judged.
oh, not at all!
i was not disagreeing in any way –
i took that one tidbit about short-term lifespan of breeders, the novices who buy a dog or 2, come in all excited, breed 2 or 3 or 4 litters, and vanish – they QUIT.
i think novices need mentors; they also need some welcome, if we want our supposedly much-loved breeds to live past our own lifespans – which theoretically, we do – Right?
new-breeders, just like any other novices, won’t stay if they’re treated like intruders and made to feel like pariahs.
minimal civility would be an amazing improvement, for some AKC-veterans toward newbies; being genuinely welcoming is IMO beyond them, at least for the present.
and i KNOW their mothers did not teach them such poor manners – they grew them on their own.
– terry
Thanks Terry LeashedForLife for the clarification. My problem was NOT that there were no mentors, but that the mentors were often manipulative, like telling me that I needed to breed to their dogs, or they were pocessed with different goals than what I had. I love dogs, they love SHOWING dogs.
Speaking just for myself–in hunt tests, I like to see that my dog and I can handle tasks that someone else puts together. I’ve been doing this for only a fraction of the time many have been, and my own creativity and that of those I train with and the grounds on which I train are limited. If someone else sets a test up and gives a thumbs up or down on the performance of the tasks, it helps keep me honest and gives me insight about my dog’s abilities and my training, and perhaps most importantly and interestingly, our relationship in scenarios that I couldn’t have made up.
For the show side–not my thing, and I’m glad for it, as it doesn’t seem like my kind of fun (though others enjoy it). But I have one dog that will probably go in the ring at some point. Though I certainly trust my co-owner/her breeder, outside validation that she meets the standards of the breed would mean something to me–and it would be kind of fun, as I think she’s pretty cute. ;)
Hi labmix, I have read some of your comments, and you sound like a smart person, so I think that if you go down the path that you are contemplating, you will find the same things along that path that others have found.
Let me save you the trip – the same thing which keeps you honest, is what makes other types of people dishonest.
Who do you think decides which judge to hire to judge your breed at a dog show? A judge can’t fight that – they please the clique that chooses the judge, or they don’t work – it’s that simple.
There are so many problems that you can see there, if you just don’t fall into denial and group-thinking.
Eh. I like trips. ;)
In flat-coats (the breed with the dog that may enter the ring one day), there are so few of them anyway and there are not a whole lot of flat-coat-crony judges that shows seem to do what they’re supposed to–judge whether a dog meets the standard, not whether it’s a caricature of the standard.
But I have her because she was a dog that needed training to be happy, and I loved the sire and wanted to try my hand at training a flat-coat. It was an unusual situation, part kismet and part dare!
If the breed ring thing doesn’t happen or leaves me disappointed, it’s no big deal. I’ll be interested in the journey anyway.
Perhaps I did not explain my idea well? Everything in your dog trails and dog shows could remain the same, except for a few important updates.
You are not one of those people who rants for weeks everytime a search engine gets a new home page, right?, so why worry about a few updates of the dog club systems?
I like to try to find ways to help the system improve. How can dog breeders do better if the system that ‘leads’ them, falls behind?
All that I am trying to find the words to say is: Too many people are using the system for their own reasons, not for the good of the dogs, or the good of the public.
The system can be changed, in a manner which will reward people for helping, not hurting.
One way to do this, would be to simply stop handing out ribbons and awards.
That won’t cure the problems, but it will: Save money, Save the effort of people in organizing the shows, Save loads of the judges’ time, Make the show more about dogs than about winning, and gradually change the system into a web of people, instead of layers of authoritarian overlords.
No more “Big daddy will give you a new ribbon if your dog pleases him”. Dog breeders should be either: treated like they can think for themselves, or helped to understand so that they can make informed breeding choices.
Of course if a person’s cousin’s company makes ribbons, or their stepmom loves playing an overlord in the ‘real’ world – then, maybe, any update won’t please them.
The ribbons are worth about three bucks. The recent ones that mean something to me are hanging on a mirror; the older ones and the ones that don’t have sentimental value of some sort are in a drawer, or on the floor of the car.
My deal is generally hunt tests.
The point of participating in a hunt test is having an objective, experienced set of eyes create a unique scenario, usually on foreign grounds (but not always), and judge the dog-handler’s team performance to a written standard; then the judges provide feedback as to how well that standard is met. The most basic judges’ feedback is pass/fail, as indicated by the ribbon and the recording of the pass with AKC; the more detailed feedback can be solicited from the judge by consulting with him or her and looking at the score sheets.
Additional feedback is provided by the gallery–the gallery on any given day consists of a few fools and blowhards; experienced hunters, testers, and trialers; breeders, including the breeder of your dog, or a breeder who is seeking to use your dog, or your dog’s siblings or sire or dam; professional handlers; training partners; and fellow afficionados.
This less official form of feedback is highly sought after, as much or more so than the ribbon. In senior and master tests, the pass rate can be anywhere from 20-60 percent–the unofficial feedback is more important to those attending than the pass or fail. If a great dog goes out on a tough water blind for some fluky reason, or breaks in the final series, anyone with any sense knows they’ve seen a great dog and makes note of it, and generally speaking, the failure be damned.
The system you propose ALREADY EXISTS. You simply don’t know it, because it is not recorded.
But an experienced, objective, critical pair of judges also give valuable feedback, and the AKC records the most basic form of that feedback.
What people do with it is what people do with it.
I urge folks who criticize hunt tests and field trials to spend a few weekends learning what goes into them and comes out of them.
In the end–my dogs enjoy the work, and I enjoy the sport, and both the informal AND formal evaluation are important to me as a trainer and handler.
Not just the cost of the ribbon itself, but the cost of the judges’ time. And lets not forget the cost of unique genes which are being lost to popular sires.
My way would not have any official judges at all, but scorecards – in a way, everybody would be a judge, they would “like” various parts of your dog in standing and moving conformation.
You could ask people to rate your dog. You might even get a dozen people to e-mail their opinions.
But the club would not seem to endorse any dogs, no seal of approval, no ribbons, no scores.
You’d learn to judge dogs like you would learn to understand judging football or any other sport. If not, then you would really be entering just for the fun of it.
I am not comfortable commenting on anything having to do with conformation judging, except to say that everyone I know with dogs they might breed is ALWAYS judging other dogs, and sharing their comments liberally.
I know most people find my flat-coat lovely quite finishable eventually, but the bit of a gay tail is a bit of a shame–though not something that keeps her outside the potential breeding pool, just something to consider. Hard to say if it’s heritable, one would have to take one’s chances on that. Her front is strong. She has good angulation in the rear, but needs to learn how to “use it” for show purposes. She could use a bit more length of loin–or not–that’s not a universal comment. She has a “lovely headpiece”–but most would not want to see it any more exaggerated–it’s at the attractive limit of ideal. But not to everyone. Again, some debate. Her eyes are too light–not a disqualification for anything, but an observation. Blah blah blah blah. I only go on because I want to emphasize that the scorecards are out and the comments are made–all the time. I don’t know what you propose would add anything–just take away the experienced eye. Many breeders would use a flavor-of-the-year(s) sire anyway, from what I can tell of human nature.
As for hunt tests–the judges give their time, and they enjoy it. I am a pointed AKC judge at all three hunt test levels (still rather new–not a lot of points). I do it because I want to give back to the sport, and more selfishly, because I think it will make me a far better trainer and handler in the long run. It’s VERY enlightening to set up a test and watch 20, 30, 40, 60 dogs run your test.
As for learning to judge dogs like learning to judge football–I’ll listen to someone who has played and coached for 30 years before I’ll listen to the yahoo who played JV for four years and now has a son in the advanced pee-wee league. Sure–yahoo may be very insightful–but former player or coach is the better bet most days.
Hi blckgldn-n-labmix, The whole point of the idea of not having ribbons or judges, is to NOT have any one winner.
The entire point of that is to NOT have popular sires. And it would do that. You have to admit that people rush to breed to a winner.
It might also make shows more inviting to more regular dog people – maybe that is good, maybe it is not.
It would accomplish the goal of saving dog genes and genetic diversity without shutting down dog shows or sports.
Of course, it would have to have the events set up in a fun way! Hopefull more of a web of people, not a heirarchy.
I think some types of people would like it better than others. It is like blog readers.
Some people never read any of the comments. Other people care only for the comments, and seldom read the post – they skip what the blogger wrote, to get to the part they like (the comments) that’s why so many bloggers ask “Did you read my post?”
No they didn’t.
I like this guy. ;-)
I have Bull Terriers and I breed them because I am head-over-heels crazy about them, and have been since the 1960′s. I honestly don’t know if I would want the work of properly owning a dog if I couldn’t have my BTs. I do as much health testing as possible on my breeding dogs, but yes, there are genetic problems that are hiding there that we have no DNA testing for. (The Miniature Bull Terrier just this year had the marker found for PLL and they can test puppies way before they are sold, much less bred.) There are a lot of politics in the breed rings and the all-breed rings. I go to shows because I enjoy showing my dogs, I enjoy the camaraderie of my friends. I understand that is not always possible in some breeds, and showing and winning in them can be awfully cutthroat. I do enough winning and get enough compliments on my dogs to keep it fun. All Bull Terriers are related, the breed is only about 150 years old, but I’ve not done a lot of close inbreeding. I can tell you why I used which stud dog for my bitches….and temperament is a number one priority. I don’t see where or why I should cross-breed anything to my dogs. If it is opened up where would we go, to Amstaffs or Staffy Bulls? Anything we’d crossbreed to would create a “pit bull” and we’d lose what makes a BT a BT. There is way too much “pit bull” hysteria (and Bull Terriers ARE named in some places) and too many of that type of dogs, I don’t need to create more. I do not need dog shows for my ego or more laughably, for money. I love my breed and I enjoy raising puppies and I enjoy dog shows.
Hi Paula G, I can understand why you love your bull terriers – I like the minis myself, but I have only seen them at dog shows, never owned one.
I don’t believe that any club or group wants to stop your pleasure with your dogs – just to change everybody’s direction a small fraction. This could be an improvement for your breed, your dogs, and you.
Just by changing how dog shows are structured, we could keep inbreeding from getting worse, start selecting for health and temperament, make the dog shows more fun and meaningful for both the dogs and their people, and bring the old structure into this century.
And it would cost much money. All we need is for enough people to push for change.
Like most changes some people would instantly love it, others would grumble for a few weeks just because it was something new they had to get use to (like when the layout of e-mail gets changed),
and there would be some who really didn’t like it – but those would be offset by people who would not attend before, but who would come in to the new system.
The new system could be the old system with changes, or a total new system, or both.
I left out the word “not”, it should read:
“It wouldn’t cost much money”.
I was thinking 2 things at the time I wrote it:
1. a new system would earn much money, (if we went with a new system), and
2. it wouldn’t cost much to modify the old system.
Reply to Paula G, Hi, you mentioned crossing to another breed? Like in hybrids? You were maybe asking what a person would cross a bull terrier with – something NOT a pit bull?
Try to think of these 3 things:
1. Sometime when you have a quite moment, maybe with a cup of coffee, sit down and write what it is that makes your breed so special to you. Why you love that breed.
2. Think, BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF, about the things in your dogs that you might like to change. What traits about your breed are annoying? Are they too active, too large, too short-haired?
3. Then think of other breeds of dogs that you like. What is it that you like about those breeds. That they are sweet tempered? That they are cute?
Knowing these things will help you start to form a dream of what you might be able to create. From there you might, someday, form the nuts and bolt of a plan.
At first, I made the mistake of assuming that hybrids had to between 2 brees that were similar, like a Labrador Retriever and a Golden retriever. This makes sense in many breeds.
But it is the counter intuitive crosses that have often turned out well. Who would have thought of crossing a Labrador Retriever guide dog with a poodle? Or a pug with a beagle?
These crosses worked because they were complementary to each other.
Have you read about the Welsh Corgi X Boxer crosses?
I think they look cute, for some reason half boxer makes a nice looking dog, in every cross that I have seen.
In this case, the goal was to make boxers with naturally short tails. The 7/8 boxers looked pure, but had a short tails. But the photo of the half & half boxer corgi looked very adoptable.
There is a site with photos of crossbred dogs, I will look for it later for you.
Bull terriers are good dogs.
In my later teens, they were my dream dog, because I loved Alby Mangels’s World Safari Series.
What happened to the Bull terrier happened so long ago that I don’t think there is any practical solution.
Although the colored bull terriers are the result of adding Staffie blood– one of the staffies was a bulldog/Manchester cross, which is where those really pretty tricolor and tricolors with brindling in the tan points come from.
A lot of the early coloreds have a more Staffie look to them. I have a very good breed book on bull terriers.
I wanted one bad enough that I went that far to read as much on them as I could.
Thanks for the answer Utah! I don’t think crossbreeding creates hybrids. Correct me if I am wrong Retrieverman, aren’t hybrids like breeding donkeys and horses to create mules? Anyway, I was referring to crossbreeding to try and remove genetic defects, I don’t really want to change anything else about bullies. I am totally against crossbreeding just to make “designer dogs” and charge more money for them. I would go to a shelter and pick out a cute dog first. I wonder even with crossbreeding if you wouldn’t be swapping one set of problems for another. It definitely would be a fresher gene pool. It won’t happen in my lifetime, but if they ever find DNA markers for the problems, it sure would be easier to eliminate them. Again, though, you’ll have the breeders who won’t want to test or tell the truth about tests. Changing dog shows? ha! That won’t happen in my lifetime either. People can breed healthier now but some won’t do it, and those in charge will never change the structure. From what I understand UKC shows are not much like AKC shows. I may have to sample them with this newest litter we are showing.
Hi again Paula G. About DNA testing finding all the bad genes? No. Probably never. New mutations occur all the time.
Most mutations are not exactly something new in the DNA – they are where a small piece of the DNA is inserted backwards.
.daer ot drah ti sekam hcihW
When the DNA from the mother dog and from the father dog, are very similar, this tends to make for more coping errors – more mutations.
So inbreeding doesn’t just bring out recessive mutations – it causes them to happen in the first place.
“Hi again Paula G. About DNA testing finding all the bad genes? No. Probably never. New mutations occur all the time.”
This is true. A better argument, if you will, is what happens when you DO find THE gene, assuming there is only one (not polygenetic), and the breed is riddled with it? Where do you go to get some non-carriers?
The Big One, I think, is going to be analysis of the MHC, the immune system, the dog leukocyte antigen genes. There are already studies implicating certain genes, especially when they are homozygous, in specific health conditions. These kinds of studies are very difficult to do in humans, which have a very diverse MHC, but in purebred dogs they are easy, because each breed has a limited selection of dla genes, and it is easy to find such genes, compare them to the genes of dogs with diseases, then compare to control dogs without disease.
Dogs, as a species, have a diverse MHC. As breeds, no. Some breeds have very little variation in the MHC, and some are dominated by certain haplotypes. Say you’ve got a gene that is a risk factor for a disease, and the breed is not only loaded with it, it’s super common, but the breed as a whole doesn’t have a diverse set of dla genes. Where do you go to find other genes, ones that might even be protective against developing the condition even if the dog has the ‘bad’ gene?
The answer wouldn’t be ‘to another breed,’ would it?
I find this stuff fascinating. I flat out can’t see why other breeders do not.
Hi Jess. I can’t answer your questions, but I think you would have better luck finding what you need in a dog pound than in a dog show.
Perhaps in a Mexican street dog puppy?
People comment about dogs for shows, field, and pet – the sad truth is the purebreds are becoming guinea pigs, laboratory rats, and other experimented upon creatures.
Intended or not, that is rapidly becoming their role. It is NOT just a tide of change – it is a tsunami. We mere dog lovers can’t stop it.
The best we can do is try to save our own dogs, even if their breed sinks with the ship.
My plan, if dogs collaspe with genetic problems, is to switch to pet foxes, or barn cats.
Most dog breeders do NOT find this fasinating – they hide from it.
That’s why Scotty mentioned “denial”.
They-don’t-WANT-to-know!
I understand that the immune system is one of the first system to suffer from incestuous breeding.
I can’t remember if it was a veterinarian or a teacher who said: Sex is just nature’s way of getting puppies with a varied immune system.
When dogs ran loose and chose their partners, they made healthier puppies than what the dog breeders have.
Different white blood cells are said to each have their own scent. Your natural scent is partially due to which types of white blood cells that you have.
I have read that women who are ovulating are more sexually attracted to men who have different immune system elements than their own.
But this attraction for a man different from herself only last for a few days each month when she is ovulating. Then she goes back to not noticing this scent.
Hybrid is a relative term, we don’t have to use just the formal capital H definition meaning an inter-species animal like a Donkey.
In the lax sense hybridization can be used to describe outcrossing to unrelated or at least less related blood.
And you don’t cross breed to REMOVE genetic defects. You cross breed to dilute them. The removal process is just as fraught with removing genetic diversity as heaving inbreeding is.
The goal isn’t to remove all disease, IMO, it’s to create more genetic diversity.
Nor do you swap one set of problems for another. You dilute both. A dog that is a carrier for twice as many diseases is 100% more healthy than a dog that has either one, or both.
Again, it’s not wise to destructively eliminate any and all diseases. Breeding sexually just isn’t a fine enough scalpel to cut out one gene. That process will have to be done with future technology like gene therapies.
Until then, we’re better off improving the overall level of health than trying to make disease free dogs. The tools we have now are simply too crude to accomplish that.
It’s not possible to “dilute” a defective gene within any individual animal. It’s either there or it’s not.
Crossbreeding might lessen the relative incidence of any particular gene within a population– that could be called “diluting” its occurrence. That could also be called “covering it up”, if carefully selective breeding does not follow.
Defective genes can be eliminated, and/or desirable genes introduced, by intelligent crossbreeding and subsequent selection. Viz, the LUA Dalmatians, the Steynmere boxers.
Defective genes can also be eliminated in individual dogs by intelligent inbreeding (test-breeding) and selection, as with was done years ago with PRA in Irish Setters. Much more time-consuming and expensive than the currently available DNA tests for PRA, but all that was available at the time.
Yes it IS possible to dilute a defective gene. While there are several ways in which diseases hurt our dogs, let’s talk about RECESSIVE diseases, because for many reasons they are the problematic ones.
All genes have two copies. A recessive trait is one that requires both copies to be the same for that quality to be expressed. If both copies are not the same, than the recessive trait is carried by the animal but not expressed.
For example, the chocolate coat color in BCs is recessive to black. So a black dog might be Black-Brown or Black-Black on this gene. This means that the black dog can pass on Brown to its offspring, but it won’t be brown itself.
Well, we might have a population where 70% are black-black, 20% are black-brown, and 10% are brown-brown. When we LOOKED at these dogs, 90% would look black.
If brown were a harmful recessive disease, 90% would be healthy.
If we were careful in the next generation and avoided many brown to brown matings, we could shit those numbers to 70% black-black, 25% black-brown, and 5% brown-brown. Now, only 5% would be effected by the disease even though more are now carriers.
This is a healthier gene pool with half the expression of disease.
Nothing you have stated here contradicts what I said. While the incidence of the undesirable (brown) gene may have been lessened in the population, it still remains as it was in the individual dogs that carry it. The question here is population as opposed to individual.
Yes, the overall gene pool may be healthier. But the effect on *individuals* remains the same.
If a gene is a simple recessive, such as the gene for brown coat color in Labradors, or the gene for prcd-PRA in Goldens and some other breed, where the heterozygous form does not express the disease (or color), then may be possible to breed so as to prevent production of any homozyous (affected) individuals. Even though the gene itself has not been eliminated, the population may have no affected individuals and be healthier.
Sometimes that’s the best we can do, at least at this time.
But many undesirable conditions are polygenetic, and so more complicated to handle.
I should have said, “may have no or fewer affected individuals”.
don’t know what you mean about trying to distance yourself from the AST: when the BT looked like a working dog, 60-80 years ago, its relationship to the APBT was extremely close. So much so that colored APBTs were shown in the BT ring before the AKC recognized an AST. I’m sure you know this. The APBT people wanted the AKC to accept the name “American Bull Terrier”.
95% of the BT’s I’ve seen in the USA could USE some new blood to take them back to their roots. Or maybe the importation of some UK dogs.
The site with the hybrid information, and photos of hybrids (you can look up what some hybrids of your breed might look like.) is:
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com
Dear Retrieverman,
I do wish you’d seen a sheepdog trial before you decided their merits.
Let me begin with some simple concessions. Most Conformation showers and breeders love their dogs and care for them well. Crossbred companion dogs can be as vital to their owners as any purebred. Some “working tests” test the owner’s ability to fill in the entry form.
Sheepdog trials are a sport. Of the 17 Finalist dogs at this years National Finals Sheepdog Trials only 7, perhaps 8 (a handler I don’t know) work a commercial sheep farm or ranch. The others work “training sheep” a much smaller flock which may produce some income but are kept primarily to train dogs.
But it is an impure sport originally promoted to “improve the shepherd’s dog” and when judging questions arise, they are resolved by reference to “practical shepherding” not what “rule litigation” might decide.
The practical result of these trials has been profound if not always fortunate. Border Collies from trial stock are the stockdog of choice in the UK, North America, South Africa, the Falklands, increasingly in europe. Only the Australian Kelpie and New Zealand Huntaway are also significant livestock managers.
The down side of this success has been the extinction (and inclusion in the Border Collie gene pool) of many regional collies which may have been better suited for work that isn’t tested by the sheepdog trial. The English Shepherd whose guarding abilities the Border Collie does not possess has survived thanks to the intelligent efforts of some dedicated practical breeders. The Australian Shepherd, alas, is being marginalized as a working stockdog.
I’ve heard the complaint that Border Collies aren’t any healthier than other purebred dogs, that pedigrees w/o Wiston Cap (d 1979) are rare. True about Cap. And intensive breeding to a single sire was, genetically, a risky idea. As it happens, the community dodged the bullet: Wiston Cap didn’t have anything wrong with him. And there hasn’t been another Wiston Cap – the community is “flavor of the month” and what I want in a dog aren’t necessarily the same combination of virtues and vices another equally qualified handler might want.
As a consequence of this, and Registry on merit the Border Collie COI is among the lowest recorded.
Health? I’ve been at this for a quarter century. Last week I spent more money than I should on a 4 year old bitch whose pedigree I didn’t ask, nor did I inquire about any genetic testing. I’d seen her work and the breed is so healthy buying without tests is usual.
Sheepdog trials have produced healthy farm and ranch dogs on four continents. There are no trials in West Virginia – yet – but they are numerous in neighboring Virginia. I hope you’ll take the opportunity to see one and, of course, the Finals webcast is available “pay-per-views” at http://www.nationalsheepdogfinals.com/.
Donald McCaig
Donald,
Perhaps you can clarify some questions about Wiston Cap.
- When did he die?
He was born in 1963, and I’ve seen both 1979 and 1972 as the date of his death.
I suspect that 1979 is correct as he’s still listed as the number 1 sire for 1974 (but I don’t know if this is dogs registered that year or born that year. Since not all puppies of a litter are registered with the ISDS, perhaps if it’s 1972 then his progeny were registered at 2yrs).
http://www.palado.demon.nl/bcdb/popdogs.htm
If he did live to 1979, why was he no longer producing sizeable offspring in 1975 on? He was in the top 10, if not #1 sires from 1965 through 1974. He sired between 180 and 250 registered dogs per year, and in 1975, he doesn’t appear on the chart having something less than 42 puppies.
What caused the major decline / ended his stud career?
And as for your assertion that there’s never been another Wiston Cap, perhaps none as prolific, but that same chart is filled with would be’s who have certainly given it a shot.
The “flavor of the month” dogs still appear to be producing 100-200 registered puppies per year. And when this year’s flavor is simply a mix up of the hot flavor from the generation before, pretty soon it all starts to taste the same, no?
Christopher Landauer
> “seen a sheepdog trial before you decided their merits”
No one is contending that a sheepdog trial doesn’t select a dog superior at pushing sheep around the landscape with skill and precision unmatched in the dog world, and close partnership with their handler using only whistled commands.
But that isn’t what’s being challenged here.
The amazing skill out on the field is NOT a justification for the breeding culture that has grown around the sport. Would you take breeding advice from Genghis Khan, Elton John, or Tom Cruise?
> “Border Collies aren’t any healthier than other purebred dogs”
Well, even on metrics which are well documented and which you suspect a trial might select for/against, Border Collies don’t measure well against their shepherd cousins which don’t have nearly the same trial pressure.
http://www.offa.org/hipstatbreed.html
Border Collies come in ranked 89th out of 157 breeds [higher is better] regarding Hip Dysplasia. Not a stellar showing.
Anatolian Shepherd, Miniature Australian Shepherd, Australian Kelpie, Dutch Shepherd, Bearded Collie, Australian Shepherd, North American Shepherd, Shetland Sheepdog, Belgian Tervuren, Belgian Sheepdog, and Collie all score better than the Border Collie.
> “As a consequence of this, and Registry on merit the Border Collie COI is among the lowest recorded.”
Do you really stand behind the ROM program? Do you really think it has made a significant impact on the breed?
From the records of the ABCA, it seems that very few dogs are ROM’d each year. Very few.
Do you approve of the ABCA making their ROM program even more expensive and complicated to get through requiring not only the vote of the board, the trial success, the working video, but now having both parent dogs hip scored?
It seems to me that the ABCA is investing a lot of effort writing rules for a program that very very few people use anyway, and which has little effect on the gene pool.
When was the last time a someone used the ROM program to bring a non-border collie into the gene pool? ROM’ing a dog that is 100% border collie blood but without papers isn’t really capturing new blood.
Hi Donald McDaig,
You work sheep, what do you think of the idea of people who breed border collies, but don’t own any sheep?
And what would you say about the idea of a new sport for such people, where their dogs ‘herd’ balls – like maybe soccer balls (at least they are white like sheep)?
Would many of the dogs do it? Would people like the idea – soccer balls are much easier to take care of than sheep, and easier to take to the trail!
I understand that this wouldn’t help with sheep herding instincts, but this would just be for those people who don’t have any sheep anyway. Just as a sport.
Emily, I absolutely did not try to sound disparaging about APBT and I apologize if I offended anyone. I am all FOR bully breeds. I don’t know about APBTs, but Amstaffs and Staffy bulls are much easier dogs to live with than BTs. I don’t know how closely related all the breeds are and if a cross would have enough effect. Absolutely the BT was a totally different dog. I have a terrycloth dog coat from an old kennel from the 20′s. The place for the head to go through is a hole, not wrap around the neck. I can’t get a modern dog’s head through it. We have done extensive importing from the UK, that’s where the heads have come from. All of our pedigrees from the entire planet originate from the UK. One change for the better nowadays since I started in the breed is that there aren’t nearly as many white/white breedings as there once was. There were those who bred only whites for generations with no colored dogs. I’ve had several color/color litters and only one white/white.
for a look at just one representative of the
1940s Bull Terrier, go to Google images and look for General Patton – his pet BT went with him many places, and there are numerous photos of him.
his head is nothing like a modern egghead-BT,
and he looks very much like a white pit-type.
— terry
The first modern bull terrier was Lord Gladiator, born in 1917.
Before that they were much more of the staffie type, although racier.
Always riveting reading here. I lament having been absent for so long.
just stopped by to see what’s happening and have not beed disappointed.
Always the raconteur, Retrieverman.
Dammit, that should read been.
“I know next to nothing about actual herding trials, but I do know that they are competitions that are based upon a series of esoteric rules.”
This is the only statement in your post that is close to accurate pertaining to trials. Close, but not quite, and the proof is in everything else that you wrote about trialing.
There is nothing cryptic about the rules. They are delineated plainly on the ISDS and USBCHA websites, and have been relatively unchanged for years. Further, they are wholly based on farm and ranch work completed around our country and the world by shepherds on a daily basis. Sheepdog trials are to farm work what rodeo is to ranch work, a compilation, an example. And trust me, a halter-horse (one bred for looks) could not carry a heel horse’s skid boots.
Speaking for myself, I do not breed puppies at all. I buy them, raise and train them, and either keep and work/trial them, or sell them on. No matter what I do with them, my decision to purchase is ALWAYS based on working merits of the parents/g-parents. Never on trial results. Trialing is a hobby. Quality, working Border Collies is a passion.
What I know about trialing, and what you (and many others) clearly do not, is that what you see on a trial field, and the dog behind that performance are often completely at odds with one another. Poor quality dogs can win the day when conditions suit them, so I do my homework. People who don’t understand this, breed/buy inferior dogs.
In a perfect world, only Border Collies of sound mind and body with great stamina, working instinct, courage, power, biddability and intelligence would be bred. Our world is far from perfect, and yet Border Collies remain the only breed of dog capable of completing a trial course (and the farm work behind it) to the level of difficulty you see at the Int’l Supreme, our National Finals, and other difficult trials held around the world. Well, not you, of course, because you’ve never seen one. So, we must be doing something right, and it definitely has nothing to do with coat type, or the way the ears hang on the the head.
Someone please enlighten me. In a perfect world, what would the ideal criteria be for breeding a show-dog? Let’s contrast and compare, shall we?
I hate to say this, but I think border collies are smarter than their owners.
I mean is there something you people drink that makes you argue in nothing but non sequiturs?
You guys are actually worse than the AKC.
Because you are in denial.
When did the AKC swim out of denial? I thought they were still swimmin with de crocs.
The AKC isn’t in denial. It’s okay with its vices.
From what I’m seeing here, though, there is some denial that trialling could have this effect on the population.
I hadn’t thought of that. They can’t be cured with knowledge, they need a ‘heart’ transplant?
There was once a book “How to work for a jerk” or something like that.
It wasn’t my book, and I only had time to read part of it. But the author said something like that. You think your boss is stupid, but he could just be smart in a different way.
He knows that he causes errors and big mistakes – he does these things, he plans these errors, for social/ political reasons that technical people don’t notice.
He isn’t truely stupid, just manipulative, and self-centered.
You can’t teach him because: doing the work the right way, is NOT his goal.
You do understand that this post is not actually about Border Collies or herding trials, yes?
Jess,
I’m I guess reading comprehension isn’t a big thing among the trial circuit.
Either that or they are putting this on a list serve somewhere and someone has said “Attack!”
It’s happened to me before!
LOL
I’m getting hits from you people.
If you don’t like it, you can just ignore me!
I’m telling you Christopher Landauer is loaded for bear on this one.
More to come.
I got a lot of those “let someone else tell me what the article was about and vented my righteous anger” comments on my When Fanciers Attack post.
I did a post that linked to this one a long time ago:
http://demonpuppy.blogspot.com/2009/07/husbandry-and-hypocrisy-or-when.html
I got attacks for even linking to this one.
That’s cuz I’m evil. I not only think it’s okay to raise pups outside the home, I’m a cross-breeder. And I don’t show. And I think brindle Salukis are fine. You should avoid me at all costs.
You’ll get the evil cooties, and they don’t wash off.
Amelia,
I think you’re missing the point. The title and the content talk about the effect of trials on the breeding culture, not the efficacy of trials in choosing talented dog and handler combinations.
Think popular sire effect, inbreeding, kennel blindness, a near-closed gene pool; not precision outruns, lifts and sheds.
That trials are a very effective tool to produce dogs good at trials and the associated work, is not at question. Just like dog shows have been very successful in creating dogs with coat and bone and ornamental ears.
The *larger* question which needs to be asked to both groups is how are breeders using those tests.
“The *larger* question which needs to be asked to both groups is how are breeders using those tests.”
Ah! At last something interesting here.
I wouldn’t dare speak for the herding world, but for the retriever world: Good breeders use them as one measure of many that they weigh in order to produce healthy working dogs with the temperament and looks of the breed; bad breeders use them to make and sell puppies.
Buyers should do the same. It’s unfortunate that many people see the title or championship as a validation of a dog and any breedings that come from it.
Rather than “looks,” I wish I’d said “conformation,” as that’s what I actually meant but had a “moment” of some sort.
blckgldn, you must know nice breeders – or good liars.
In the show world, there are people who switched from one non-dog sport or show to dog shows – for the show itself, for The Game.
They bought dogs so that they could enter the dog shows.
Aren’t field trails becoming the same? Didn’t someone comment right here about the number of people in sheep trails that are NOT ranchers, but people who just keep sheep so that they can enter their dogs in the sport of sheep herding trails?
Aren’t retriever trails the same? Instead of duck hunters who also enter their dogs in retriever trails, aren’t there people who bought a retriever which would be good at trails, and who hunt the dog only as practise for the trails?
Not that this is wrong, or bad. Just calling it as we all know it really is.
“Aren’t field trails [sic] becoming the same? … Aren’t retriever trails the same?”
Come to a few tests and trials and judge for yourself. Seriously. It’s a flawed world–but… well, the world is flawed. Study a little so you know what you’re looking at, come and observe, ask some honest questions, and you will get a whole bunch of very interesting answers. Some will support you, some will contradict you, and some will surprise you. But it is one of the few venues where people talk about working dogs and put their money–and time–and reputation–and heart–and experience–where their mouth is.
“Instead of duck hunters who also enter their dogs in retriever trails, aren’t there people who bought a retriever which would be good at trails, and who hunt the dog only as practise for the trails?”
Confession time–though I’ve been out in the field with my dog, I have yet to actually hit a bird under natural circumstances. That said, testing and trialing has opened up a world of experiences with the natural world and traditional living that have changed who I am for the better.
It is a world I wanted to be a part of–my father was a hunter, but I grew up in the suburbs of New York and it became a distant but intriguing piece of history.
For the typical participant who loves dogs and the outdoors with the typical dog that loves retrieving and birds, hunting supports testing and trialing, and trialing supports testing and hunting. The two venues usually serve as conduits to each other for the uninitiated.
Indeed, some of the training contradicts; and most people that love to see good dog work, and most good dogs, figure out the difference PDQ and work in context successfully, from what I can tell.
Please read this before commenting. Look at the stats and what my exact position on trialling is. (Hint: Trialling isn’t evil, but letting it truncate genetic diversity is.)
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/landauer-strikes-again/
Donald didn’t address one point in your post. I don’t think he even read it. He simply wrote a nice post as if you were attacking trails for being bad at selecting talented herding dogs.
WHAT? No one is suggesting that a sheep dog trial is impotent at displaying the ability of a handler and a dog.
We are saying that the competitive and covetous culture that has developed around shows, LIKE MANY OTHER SPORTS, is to over use popular sires creating genetic problems in the breed that are unintended but very real and not simple to fix.
That so many dogs are successful on the field does not equate to the culture as a whole being successful at shepherding their gene pool.
I also should point out that although BC’s are apparently healthy.
It’s not a good idea to rock back on your heels and say, “Well, they are healthy, but they don’t have much genetic diversity.”
It could happen that you allow another sire to dominate the bloodlines and you have a disaster in the making.
All organisms have deleterious recessives. You are very lucky that this hasn’t swamped your gene pools yet.
In my breed, very tight breeding around a few sires has made things infinitely worse.
“It’s not a good idea to rock back on your heels and say, “Well, they are healthy, but they don’t have much genetic diversity.”
Inbreeding depression is extremely well documented, in both animals and people. It will eventually come back to bite you in the ass. It might be sooner, it might be later, it probably won’t be breed wide, but it will find some juicy little spot to bite you. Better to do something about it now, than wait for it to sneak up and get you when you’re not looking and thinking everything is fine.
Considering the state of the science at this time (gene studies for specific disease, MHC studies, etc.), and where it seems to be going, there is no reason not to be proactive about it.
This is not just a health issue. It is an issue related to public perception of dog breeding. I was not impressed by Pedigree Dogs Exposed, I thought the US version, at least, was poorly done. However, it reached the public with a very unpleasant message about purebred dog breeders, regardless of whether it was representative of the breeding community as a whole (it wasn’t.) The market for so called hybrids went through the roof in the UK after PDE. If breeders do not want their breeding decisions to be dictated by people who know nothing about dog breeding (like legislators and the general public, and yes, there are both real laws proposed and model legislation that dictates when and how often dogs are bred), they are going to have to be proactive, and at least look like they are making an effort towards reforming the way dog breeding is done, closed registries and all.
[...] Donald McCaig recently said: I’ve heard the complaint that Border Collies aren’t any healthier than other purebred dogs, [...]
Through this whole conversation, I’ve sort of swung to, “So what?”
I seriously don’t care what kinds of dogs people want. They are a domesticated animal. When they are purposely bred to serve our purposes, a good purposeful breeding aims to create dogs that serve the purpose and help to ensure that the dogs of the future can serve that purpose as well. Some choose to do that by creating breeds; others by creating hybrids; others by perpetuating landraces; whatever, who cares.
Some purposeful breedings are intentionally successful, others accidentally unsuccessful, others accidentally more successful…
The dogs that breed because they are mammals that seek to procreate, in spite of human intervention or care, are often just fine, too–dogs are a resilient species.
I want retrievers; I like the differences in the breeds of retrievers, as subtle and quirky as those may be. I will always do my best to own dogs that have been bred for health and for the things about the breeds that I love. Someone else wants to breed or own hybrids for the same reason; someone wants to breed or own a landrace for the same reason; someone else wants a good mongrel for the same reason.
Can’t we just all get along?
There’s certainly no shortage of dogs–support the breeding program (or accidental program) that you believe benefits you and your interest in dogs and the kinds of dogs that you love and think are important, learn from others’ interests and goals and results, and leave the rancor and elitism and righteousness for politics and religion?
*chirp*
*chirp*
*chirp*
Very funny.
Tell you what. When I stop getting harassed by total strangers for my breeding decisions, we’ll all get along. When people stop making false reports to animal control as a way to intimidate and harass breeders they don’t like, we’ll all get along. When small purebred breeders stop supporting legislation that would make it illegal for me to own an intact mixed breed dog, we’ll all get along. When breeders stop ganging up and plotting to get a man’s dogs away from him for no good reason, we’ll all get along.
When people stop denying that the science does, yes indeed, show that inbreeding, close breeding, and not breeding enough individuals in the population is bad for the population as a whole, we’ll all get along. When purebred breeders stop denying that statistically, mixed breed dogs are healthier, we’ll all get along. When breeders stop denying there’s something wrong with using popular sires, we’ll all get along.
When breeders stop acting like total idiots (looking at you, Dal club), we’ll all get along. When breeders stop insisting that a crossbreeding would definitely bring in ‘new diseases’ (gosh, can’t you buy healthy, tested stock in other breeds?), we’ll all get along. When breeders stop confusing genetics involving THEIR dogs as opposed to POPULATION genetics, we’ll all get along.
I give not a shit that Border Collies or certain lines of dogs or Pink Spotted Hooter hounds can be inbred up the wazoo and still be ‘healthy.’ (Funny how the show breeders always say, “If you don’t test, you don’t know.” Guess those working breeders are exempt.) The fact that Wiston Cap didn’t ruin the breed was a simple accident of fate, because BCs are NOT free of inherited disease. A different roll of the dice and they might have been the working equivalent of the CKCS.
Denying that just because NOW a high COI doesn’t mean bad things is stupid and short-sighted. It reeks of head in the sand, willful ignorance, and complacency. Repeated reduction of the variation in the total gene pool does the exact same thing as is done when an inbred strain of mice is created, it’s just slower. When breeders can admit that inbreeding is problem for a breed as a WHOLE, even if their OWN dogs are okay, then maybe we’ll all get along.
Until then, I see a bunch of insecure, gotta be better than somebody else, cliquey high school girl denialists.
It is too bad you are being harassed. I am continually amazed to (or beyond) the point of disbelief at the conspiracy and drama that is reported here, from all sorts of folks. You might consider prosecution.
Owning an intact dog is a responsibility that is increasingly misunderstood and burdensome in our culture, where animal husbandry is something that happens “somewhere else” and animals magically appear as products as the result of virgin births. The issues of being penalized for owning intact dogs of any kind are an issue that has increasingly pushed me to the right of center into the Mind Your Own Damn Business category.
As for the rest–I see you are determined to make sure everyone believes what you do. Thanks for clarifying.
Jess gets a lot of shit.
A lot.
If you don’t believe me, check out her blog (Desert Windhounds and Demonpuppy.)
I can tell you that when I do post about something she has done or written about, I catch a lot of hell.
I had to delete my brindle Saluki post, just because of the e-mails I was getting.
That is indeed too bad.
My comments still stand, though. People should be able to do what they want with their dogs, provided the dogs are cared for, whether people disapprove or not.
It also takes two people to argue with each other, though. I believe in taking responsibility for strong beliefs.
I’m often 50 percent. :)
Yes. I have been granted the power to ruin Salukis, according to an old hand in the breed. Not quite sure how I’m going to manage to ruin the whole breed, though. I don’t have that kind of money.
Dog people, in general, are petty little bitches.
Dog people are so very dogmatic, that is why we argue here about so many things.
best comment ever.
[fancy] dog people are generally petty little bitches.
That sounds like a steep uphill fight. Maybe do like with the white German Shepherd dogs?
When a brindle puppy is born to Saluki parents, put him in a new breed The American Brindle Sandhound.
saluki breeders really should bother about what happens in The American Brindle Sandhound breed.
It won’t stop the attacks, but the reasonable people will quit attacking.
No. You miss the point. These are country of origin dogs, for the most part. They come from Iran. Other Salukis from Iran (not brindle) have been accepted, and registered, as Salukis. (Two of my dogs have Iranian background, one of those quite a lot of Iranian blood.) There is no evidence that these are cross-breds, or the result of cross-breeding in the past.
Separating them into a separate breed due to color would be arbitrary. If Salukis worked like that, they would not have written the first standard (UK) specifically to encompass all the different physical types of Saluki. Brindle is simply another type. Historically, there have been brindles in the west, and in other areas of the Middle East, they just have never been very numerous.
Brindles in the west are so few that designating them a separate breed would consign them to oblivion. Some of the anti-brindle contingent has certainly suggested it. It is helpful to remind oneself, that in the history of the breed in the west, that black and tans and smooth dogs were, at one time, considered impure.
There are not a whole lot of reasonable people in Salukis.
Not a whole lot of reasonable dog people period.
Jess, I didn’t miss the point, I laughted and skipped over it. Sorry, for you this is serious, and for me too, but right now, I am in a funny mood.
The comparison I tried to make too subtly is that maybe it would be like in German Shepherd dogs – the mainstream breeders rejected one color. (white in GSD, brindle in Salukis).
In German Shepherd the rejected color stayed true to form and function, while the mainstream dogs – well have you watched show shepherds walk?
Who would have the last laugh if brindle Salukis were rejected, and they, the outcast, were in the end, the ones most preserved?
Oh, someone complained that “not” was too hard for her to translate, so I tried to switch to “n’t” which she recognised easier – it messed up my automatic typing, now I keep leaving off both of them!
Saluki breeders shoud NOT care about what happens in the breed American Brindle Sandhound.
And yes, I understand that you want them as part of your gene pool, just like some people wanted the white GSD in the main GSD gene pool.
“As for the rest–I see you are determined to make sure everyone believes what you do. Thanks for clarifying.”
Nonsense. It’s not a matter of belief. Science is not religion. There is NO ‘belief’ involved. There are only facts, no belief or faith required. Regardless of how much anyone wants to believe that dogs are somehow magically different from all other species and can remain in the closed registry system indefinitely, it’s not true. It’s never going to be true. Refusing to admit that the science is there, and it’s right, makes the dog fancy look stupid and superstitious.
I know people that believe, fervently, that the ONLY ‘responsible’ breeder is show breeder. That is religion. I know people that believe that Salukis have been maintained as a pure breed for 9000 years. They get incredibly upset when you point out that there is no evidence for that, because it messes with their religion, their mythology involving their dogs.
There are breeds with limited dla genes in their MHC. They are homozygous for genes that are high risk factors for certain diseases. THESE ARE FACTS. It’s not a question of believing, because the fact is there whether you want to believe or not. The CKCS is riddled with the gene for syringomyelia. This is a fact. The gene will be there whether people ‘believe’ it’s there or not.
The livestock people are way, way ahead of the dog people in regards to science.
I understand what science is.
But people make dogma of what they believe others should do with that science. That is what I am referring to in my comments re. belief.
Further, I think it’s pretty clear that the science is incomplete and ever-evolving. There is more than one instance of a little bit of knowledge about dog genetics leading people down destructive paths.
I have no problem with what you are doing. Go for it. Not my thing–but sighthounds aren’t my thing either, so our paths will only cross on the internet.
My interest is in the distinct breeds of retrievers. Those who choose to breed within those gene pools are where my future with dogs is.
I am fairly certain I’m not ruining all of dogdom in supporting breeds, particularly these breeds, just as you are not ruining salukis by working outside your own breed’s box.
“But people make dogma of what they believe others should do with that science. That is what I am referring to in my comments re. belief.”
Show, then, where I said that others should do as I say, live by MY dogma? Hmmm? Can’t find any instances, can you? I have even supported the rights of show breeders to keep on breeding their overangulated, non-functional hair beasts. Whatever blows your hair back. Keep and breed whatever kind of dogs you want. Scottie will back that one up.
Dog breeders aren’t just ‘doing things with (or not) the science.’ They are denying it utterly. Refusing to acknowledge that it is exists. Don’t want to use that information? Fine. Don’t. But don’t deny that it exists.
I could give a shit whether you or anyone else inbreeds their dogs up the wazoo. Go right ahead. But do not tell me that gene loss due to inbreeding doesn’t happen. Do not tell me it’s not detrimental to the breed just because YOUR dogs don’t show any signs of problems.
If someone shows me their dog’s inbred pedigree and boasts how THEIR dogs don’t show any signs of all these problems, so concerns about gene loss just cannot be valid for dogs, I can show them the science that says that is not true. I can show them that statistically, continued inbreeding will come back and bite them in the ass. (I have just seen this happen with someone who has pedigrees that are up in the 40% COI range. Tight breeding finally turned around and bit that person in the ass, despite a really brutal selection process that produced generations of healthy dogs with huge litters.) Whether they choose to listen to the science is up to them. If they are wrong, the dogs will be the ones who suffer.
Perhaps our communication difficulties are exacerbated by your rhetoric–you are using hyperbolic and overly-extrapolated (though I’m not saying untrue) examples, which indicate a genuine passion on your part.
However, with all due respect, I think that perhaps you are making a whole bunch of assumptions regarding what I consider to be a good, balanced breeding program for retriever breeds. Nowhere do I advocate dumb, unbalanced breeding programs that deny or distort science.
But perhaps you believe that trying to preserve the distinctive characteristics of a breed is inherently dumb and unbalanced? ‘
If so, there’s no point even discussing, as there is no middle ground.
From what I can gather from your responses, my comments still stand. For my part, your comments have been respectfully processed on my end.
Let’s take this down a notch, shall we?
Did I actually mention retrievers? No? Any specific breeds of dogs except as examples of frequency of disease? No? I didn’t think so. Did I talk about any breeding program except an example of a very tightly bred group of dogs (not retrievers, btw)? Did I talk about your breeding program at all? No? Didn’t think so. I haven’t the faintest idea whose breeding program you are talking about. I certainly made no mention of yours.
Did I speak of breeders in generalities? OH, YES. I’ve had more than one discussion with purebred breeders where their assertions were based on nothing more than tradition, notions of ‘purity’, and superstition. Religion. Belief, not facts. I used to think it was, oh, maybe just a few people. But no. I see the same conversation over and over and over again. The brindle controversy in Salukis has been a prime example. The situation with the LUA Dals is an even better one. I’ve had many a one on one discussion that has been…dismaying, to say the least. Some of them with friends.
“But perhaps you believe that trying to preserve the distinctive characteristics of a breed is inherently dumb and unbalanced?”
Ahhh, you make me laugh. My ‘breeds’ have lived as recognizable types for hundreds of years longer than your retrievers have even been in existence. I have Chinese illustrations of dogs of recognizable Saluki type that are almost a thousand years old. I’ve seen petroglyphs of Tazi type dogs that are even older. My beloved Afghans have been hopelessly distorted in the west. Don’t speak to me about preserving the distinctive characteristics of a breed.
I own, and breed, purebred Salukis. I had a litter last year, co-bred with a show breeder; one bitch earned her first conformation points at six months of age. I also keep Azawakh, another breed that has been terribly distorted by some breeders, and have a purebred litter planned for 2013, when the half desert-bred bitch is five years old. If I could be assured that the offspring wouldn’t have non-functional coats, I’d breed Afghan hounds, too, as they are my first love.
Interesting assumptions YOU have made about ME, when I’ve made none about you. I know from your comments that you aren’t stupid, beyond that, I am ignorant.
I thought we were talking in generalities, with your use of “breeder” and “you” in broad ways. I’m sorry I misunderstood.
So, you agree that there is a place for breeding purebred dogs within the existing breed system.
That was my whole point–there should be room, and those who choose should remain unjudged and unharassed to the same degree as those who choose different systems.
If we agree, why are you so determined to argue with me?
I am now completely confused.
Yes.
I don’t care what anyone does.
I still get crap from my inbred bull terrier post, because they think I’m insulting bull terriers.
I’m not at all.
I’m saying that the people who developed that breed were more than happy to let fads undulate within their gene pools and totally wreck their genetic diversity.
I should make this clear once again:
I’m not insulting breeders who live now and who want to do right.
I’m not against trials and tests to prevent kennel blindness.
I am against letting those things feed into the popular sire effect in the same way we have seen in dog shows.
Jess, well said.
OK, where ARE the statistics that show that mixed breeds are “healthier” than purebreds? This statement has been made so often…but so far, none have provided the real data. (as least, to my knowledge)
And my “mixed breed” I’m referring to random-bred dogs, not cross-breeds produced by careful breeders (such as one Labradoodle breeder I know of, who does all the health tests on their stock– the foundations of which were also from responsible breeders).
Well, the dog insurance companies seem to think so:
http://www.embracepetinsurance.com/Health/border-collie.aspx
It’s at the bottom. That same line appears on every breed I’ve sampled from that site.
You asked this same question on another post and I replied with over a dozen links to studies on various diseases where ‘mixed breed’ was found to be protective against development, IOW, being mixed breed lowered the risk factor.
The studies done by European pet insurance companies would also apply.
Sorry, I must have missed that one. Time constraints limit what I can get to.
Another factor to perhaps keep in mind as to those statistics…many dogs, especially dogs of unknown background (shelter dogs, etc) are often assigned to breeds rather artbitrarily. At the vet clinic, I’ve seen many “Labradors” that were obviously not purebred. Varying from 25 to 125 pounds, ears up or down, and so on. One beautiful Belgian Tervuren was identified as a “long-haired German Shepherd”. A “golden retriever” from a rescue group was obviously largely Chow Chow, by both appearance and behaviour..
So…there may well be a degree of uncertainty as to how accurate might be the designation of “breed” listed on the insurance application, or the veterinarians’ records.
Insurance companies’ stats may also be influenced by the fact that possibly a smaller percentage of people with mixed breeds apply for health insurance for their dogs, or for benefits, compared with owners of purebreds.
I think it’s really actuarial data that they are using.
They don’t charge more for Mercedes just because more of them are likely to seek higher levels of insurance protection.
“A common refrain in the blogosphere is that dog shows are bad for dogs.”
No, breeding to a whimsical, arbitrary, purposeless standard is bad for dogs.
“Working trials are totally different from dog shows because they select for behavior and working conformation.”
Trials don’t select anything, people do and those with real understanding don’t select on the basis of trials won. Among others considerations, they select on the way the dog won the trial. But how could you know that?
“The dogs can’t be inbred because working-bred dogs vary so much in appearance.”
I have never heard a sheepdog handler or commercial shepherd make this statement, and I’m around them all the time. You, not so much.
“In reality, trials aren’t really about work.
They are about competitions.
They are about winning.
I KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING ABOUT ACTUAL HERDING TRIALS, but I do know that they are competitions that are based upon a series of esoteric rules.
The border collie is a trial dog. It evolved in its current form to be run in sheepdog trials.”
You have made these claims while admitting that you know nothing about trials. (Emphasis added is mine.)
“We do have lots of small farms, and a loose-eyed dog that has a definite off-switch is a far more practical animal to have on these operations.”
It would be interesing to know how much hands on experience you have had farming, and the “off switch” comment only comes from the uninitiated. Always…
“Border collies are very useful in the West and in Scotland and Northern England, where there are really big holdings that have lots of sheep on them.”
While this misleading statement is true, the European, Welsh and Irish shepherds that I know would take exception to this comment as would small-holders with useful dogs everywhere.
“The claim often repeated is that because working border collie registry (The American Border Collie Association) is much better than the show registry, simply because it maintains a working registry. And in theory, it is open.”
Fitness and health predispose superior working ability. The dog fancy selects breeding stock based on appearance, which ignores/dilutes/eliminates it. Really…visit a sheep farm, or a dog trial before you critisize the health of our dogs.
“Border collies are not glorified mongrels as some of these people often proclaim.”
The first thing that popped into my head when I read this line; and you think I’m a moron? No surprise that you nothing about me either.
To me, the biggest difference between your beliefs and mine as they relate to dogs is the same that exists between the dog fancy and working dog owners; common sense. I haz it. You on the other hand have hyperbole…in a vacuum.
Amelia,
The show standard might be “whimsical, arbitrary, purposeless,” but the show winners and breeding stock from conformation shows doesn’t exhibit such random and diverse selection. Very few popular sires are picked and they dominate the gene pool.
You have to agree that the test and what people do with the results are TWO DIFFERENT things.
Likewise, Scotty and I are not criticizing what happens on the trial field. We are talking about the breeding culture that has sprung up using trial results as their core value.
Please, look at the list of the most popular sires in Border Collie history and tell me which one was chosen for a reason other than trial success.
Amelia…the statment that “The dog fancy selects breeding stock based on appearance, which ignores/dilutes/eliminates [working ability] is far too sweeping a statement. In the breed I’m most familiar with, the Golden Retriever, there are many dogs produced by “the fancy” who have proven successful as guide dogs, assistance dogs, scenting specialists of many sorts, SAR work, and much more. The breeding programs of CCI, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Leader Dogs, and other service dog organizations are based in very large part on dogs from member of “the fancy”. Not to mention the number of useful hunting dogs and long-lived, healthy, beloved companions.
At the GRCA National Specialty recently, we were privileged to meet K-9 Robin, a Golden Retriever who works with the Saranac (NY) police as a tracker, drug detector, cadaver dog, etc., for which he has received a number of awards. Oh, and by the way, Robin is also a show champion, from “show” breeding,– all entirely trained and handled by his police-officer owner.
No doubt there are portions of “the fancy” that do not hold to equivalent goals and standards; but that is true of any area of endeavor. And in any field of competition, greed, selfishness, and the “winning is everything” mindset can create havoc. But not everything in “the fancy” is as bad as some would say.
That’s actually the reason why I stopped doing nasty anti-AKC posts.
I have them on here, if you’d like to read how naive I once was.
Going into a rant on the AKC is very easy to do.
It solves no problems.
I am critical of things, but I’d be wrong if I didn’t also make a critique of this culture.
That’s what I meant by intellectual honesty.
“You have to agree that the test and what people do with the results are TWO DIFFERENT things.”
I did when I wrote this: Trials don’t select anything, people do and those with real understanding don’t select on the basis of trials won. Among others considerations, they select on the way the dog won the trial. Edited to add; The best dog on the day, the one selected for breeding is often not the winner. Additionally, and in many instances that I know of personally, dogs selected are talented stockdogs that aren’t trialed.
“Likewise, Scotty and I are not criticizing what happens on the trial field. We are talking about the breeding culture that has sprung up using trial results as their core value.”
There are intuitive stockdog owners, and there are not. When you stand among the intuitive, the conversation continues to revolve around talent and ability, not trials won. It’s not coincidence that they are usually in, or finishing close to the winner’s circle. If you were there, you would know that.
“Please, look at the list of the most popular sires in Border Collie history and tell me which one was chosen for a reason other than trial success.”
Unless I had a conversation with the decision makers, how would I know? And, more to the point, how would you? In the instances where I have been privy to the selection process, it always boils down to talent and ability. Period. Please read any interview of 2009 Int’l Supreme winner, Richard Millichap. In every single instance he cites his dogs as superior working farm dogs first. Trialing (and breeding selection) always takes a back seat to that, and yet his dogs (4 of them) reached the pinnacle of the sport.
“Amelia…the statment that “The dog fancy selects breeding stock based on appearance, which ignores/dilutes/eliminates [working ability] is far too sweeping a statement.”
You’re right, and even though I didn’t clarify, I was writing about working Border Collies only. From evidence I’ve seen, I believe that when you select just for appearance, you breed out something else, like good health. Bulldogs that can’t breathe, Daschunds with back problems, Cavalier King Charles with brains too big for their skulls, etc. In Border Collies, whenever you breed for anything except working ability, you are breeding it out. In a perfect world, only healthy Border Collies with superior working ability would be bred. I am not suggesting we are perfect.
“That’s what I meant by intellectual honesty.”
For me this would best be promoted by one first having it. To me, the original post is a contradiction.
Cheers all
Amelia,
Thanks for the response. But I’m not sure that we’re still on the same page about the popular sire effect.
While I’d love to be talking about what American breeders are doing and what the ABCA gene pool looks like, and what you and your friends who are at American Trials think about which dogs are the best despite the score and which should be bred…. NONE of that data is available because the ABCA (and no other American BC pedigree service) doesn’t publish their stud books.
If you are right and many dogs are bred for being great workers sans trial success, all the better. I hope that is true.
Thankfully the ISDS does publish and amen for Teun v/d Dool who ran the numbers. He is a saint.
So I won’t expect you to comment on what was going on in the thoughts and minds of the ISDS breeders because I suspect that you don’t have as much experience with them.
And I suspect that you’ll agree with me when I note that the one thing you WON’T find on the pedigree of an In Sup Ch, is an American bred dog. While it’s obvious that we have imported our best dogs AND trialers from the UK, I don’t see much evidence that the UK is very impressed with what we’ve done here with the Border Collie.
If I’m ignorant of an aggressive export business back to the UK, please do educate me.
But what I can tell objectively, without invoking personal anecdotes which are impossible to verify or quantify, is what the top 10 (I could go through the whole list, but give me some credit, it took me 10+ hours of entering data to run a COI on Dewi Tweed, I’m not a machine!) ISDS stud dogs did on the trial field (not comprehensive):
1) Wiston Cap = International Supreme Champion 1965
2) Spot = ScotNatCH 1965/66
3) Dryden Joe = ScotNatCH 1986
4) Wisp = IntSupCH 1989/92 twice!
5) Ben = ScotNatCH 1972
6) Bwlch Taff = WelshNatCH 1981, ResIntSupCH 1982 (3rd 1981)
7) Mirk = ScotNatCH 1984
8) Davy = IntSupCH 1987
9) Roy = ResIntSupCH 1989/85 ScotNatCH1985/83/82
10) Don = EngNatShepCH 1984
All these dogs have a #1. All are popular sires.
And really, does it matter if a given trial ranks them #1 or if they are, as you imply, otherwise impressive but not necessarily the dog that finishes first, if you then go and breed and breed and breed and breed that dog?
Not really. The criteria for a popular sire is irrelevant to the effect. This is a point which is alluding you. It’s not sufficient to say that your criteria are superior to a dog show, it’s that both the “working” community and the “show” community are picking a very very few dogs, too few, and they are breeding them way too much. And they are for the most part only evaluating dogs that are the product of the dogs they evaluated this way the last generation, so they are all related.
Very few people in the show world developed their own lines from scratch. Almost all of them simply use dogs that were bred by someone else over decades to look pretty in countries like Australia that have been doing it longer.
Aren’t the trialing folks doing the same thing? If you look at the ISDS breeding pool, you will find PAINFULLY few dogs that are ROMd, and really, most of those that are, are really from farm lines that are 100% border collie and just not registered.
But, I’ll give you a challenge which will expand your horizons about the ISDS gene pool. Find the last National or Int CH dog who was ROMd. How many years ago was that?
I have a candidate in mind, maybe you’ll find a younger one.
Now carry that same mindset to the lines you know here in America. Who is really doing something novel?
Thank you retrieverman for writing this post. I needed to read it. I was shocked when I first read it. Nobody says that.
It’s true that ALL popular competitions cause the popular sire effect, inbreeding, and eventually, the genetic decline of the breed.
I try. Perhaps sometimes I try too hard. Maybe I just like trying. What good is it to point out the problems, unless we try to come up with answers?
I can think of only a few way to stop the continuing problem of having a series of popular sires.
a. Have no competitions. With no winners to idolize, there will be fewer popular sires.
b. Make the shows and events into exhibitions without awards or winners – many good breeders go to the shows for this.
Does anyone else have any ideas? Hopefully ideas that don’t require unenforcable rules?
I have enjoyed reading every comment on this post.
Yeah, Goldies rock, and so do Border Collies.
Talking about the bad stuff in the breeds, and the bad stuff that COULD happen in the breeds, helps the breeds be better, even if it does upset the people.
to M.R.S. Re: “But not everything in “the fancy” is as bad as some would say.”
Sometimes true, but the point being made here is often things are so much worse than what some people say it is – they are in denial, or are not telling the truth.
Hey, I wanted to go see what Paddy Burns’ new favorite site said about the Border Collie:
http://www.embracepetinsurance.com/Health/border-collie.aspx
“Pet insurance for Border Collies costs more than for mixed breed dogs. This is because Border Collies are much more likely than mixed breed dogs to make claims for hereditary conditions that are expensive to treat.”
LOL. That one got stuck in my spam filter.
I think he has said this exact same quote for several breeds. I don’t know why a pet insurance company would be considered an expert. I am sure they doing all they can to not pay a claim. We registered ONE puppy with AKC/s “free” puppy insurance. They refused our claim because they said it was genetic. There is no definite test to prove what happened is or isn’t genetic. Needless to say we have never taken them up on their free insurance again.
That info is like a quote.
It’s not them refusing to make a payment.
All insurance companies have calculations for what they insure– pet insurance companies are no different.
If anyone thinks these companies are charging more for purebreds for no good reason, then I suggest reporting them to a better business bureau or bringing an actual suit.
My guess is there are actually very, very good reasons why mixed breeds are given lower premiums.
Insurance companies balance their risk versus their profit. It’s not worth it to charge more and thus drive away customers.
Only monopolies have the ability to price with such abandon. Insurance companies use actuarial data to assess risk. Thus, they are in a way, an impartial measure.
Yeah. In a quote there is a marketing-type aspect to it.
Amelia Smith wrote: “The dogs can’t be inbred because working-bred dogs vary so much in appearance.” I have never heard a sheepdog handler or commercial shepherd make this statement, and I’m around them all the time.
==heh. Plenty of people breeding for top trial dogs use inbreeding. Just because the criteria isn’t appearance doesn’t mean that specific genetic characteristics aren’t being selected for.
Another poster: I KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING ABOUT ACTUAL HERDING TRIALS, but I do know that they are competitions that are based upon a series of esoteric rules.
The border collie is a trial dog. It evolved in its current form to be run in sheepdog trials.”
==YEP. I’ve seen any number of trial BCs be completely unable to take stock out of a “take pen”. It isn’t tested for in the standard ISDS/USBCHA type trial. Are there a lot of BCs that trial and can do take pens? Yes. But a surprising number can’t, and at least a good % of them can’t because they are genetically hardwired to be less comfortable “up close” versus “wide out” with livestock. I do know something about actual herding trials, having been involved in them since 1982. There isn’t just one type of trial. AHBA, ASCA and yep, even AKC have some very different course/stock requirements than those of ISDS, not to mention trials like those of the North American Cowdog group or those of Catahoula folk.
Amelia posted: “We do have lots of small farms, and a loose-eyed dog that has a definite off-switch is a far more practical animal to have on these operations.” It would be interesing to know how much hands on experience you have had farming, and the “off switch” comment only comes from the uninitiated. Always…
==well I’ll say it. The last thing I want when I’m vaccinating, hoof trimming or shearing is a dog that thinks he needs to move the stock. I need the dog to HOLD them. Quietly. Calmly. Statically. And to move the instant I tell him to. One of my primary selection goals in a good herding dog is a good “on/off” switch. I’m willing to agree this may not apply to BCs, since I don’t breed them. But it sure seems to apply to Belgian Sheepdogs. And it appears to apply to a large number of dogs I’ve seen in herding (both trial and farm/ranch) over the years.
Politics seems to occur whenever there are two or more people. People seem to like to compete (in fact, so do close relatives like the chimpanzee). Trials, conformation shows, sports, you name it – if there is a way to create a system for “winner versus loser”, someone will come up with one. Conformation isn’t a major problem – no knowledgeable horse buyer gets a horse without looking at it and seeing it move. The problem comes in when conformation isn’t coupled with anything functional. OTOH, if one is looking for a FUNCTIONAL horse, then “what function?” in quarter horses, there are reining, roping, trail riding, racing, among others – each with differing bloodlines. And ISDS /USBCHA trials can do that just as much as any other trial system. One of the reasons Fortunate Fields had better success with their breeding program was SELECTION and testing. So you can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. It’s one thing to suggest breeding a Golden to a Flattie – one could reasonably expect a retrieving dog from that. It’s another to suggest breeding a Golden to a whippet and expecting a retrieving dog from that. Goldens and Flatties have a fair % of common genetics. So do BCs and say, Beardies. Belgians and Picardy Shepherds. But breed a BC to a Picardy and ? Or a Belgian and a corgi??? Breeding X to Y without purpose doesn’t improve anything.
Breeding to a criteria is what people do with dogs. It’s why they are NOT the same as a wild wolf. The problem is that with that breeding one often selects “bad” genes right along with the “good genes”. Breeding isn’t a Chinese menu affair. “popular sires” are a problem because they can carry for hidden bad genes that then become widespread in a breed. I doubt any Dalmatian person ever DELIBERATELY intended for their dogs to have a uric acid problem. It just “happened” – some dog had it, was used heavily for other reasons, and now it’s in the breed. The thing I fault Dalmatian folk about is refusing to accept this and use the reasonable method of removing the problem that the Pointer/Dal cross dogs provide. Ditto the Boxer/Corgi for those who want bob tails but “not” the influx of Corgi genes. The antipathy to “mixing” is the problem. Almost all livestock folk use some mixing of breeds – done carefully and with specific goals in mind, this is very beneficial. Why some seem stuck in a Victorian concept of purity is rather beyond me. Allowing a 3 or 5 generation “appendix” system would solve a whole lot of problems.
Peggy Richter.
I remember about someone who hunted jackrabbit with sighthounds. They said that their hunting pack consisted of different breeds of sighthounds, and how they liked to watch which types of dog were better at what. Like, one type of dog might be better at the start, a different one when the hare got tired. Some dogs better on hard turf, others on soft turf.
Is it this way for real working sheepmen? Do they like a pack of dogs with varied talents, so like using the right tool for the right job, they can send the dog best at bringing back a lost lamb, and send a different dog to chase the sheep out of a shack?
blckgldn-n-labmix-
(I think maybe Scottie needs a message board, because these long threads get difficult to read.)
“So, you agree that there is a place for breeding purebred dogs within the existing breed system.”
Sort of. The existing system of closed registries is broken, because there is no automatic recourse for when things go wrong. Some breeds are horribly impoverished, genetically, and there’s nowhere for these breeds to go without leaving the system entirely. Unless they are lucky, once they have stepped outside, they can’t get back in. Your definition of ‘impoverished’ may vary, I include dogs that have, for the most part, become non-functional in some in that definition. Yes, you certainly can breed, say, a Pug with a longer nose and less restricted windpipe, just by selectively breeding Pugs, but you are are also narrowing the gene pool by selecting for healthy traits, ironically enough. It would easier and faster to have an outcross program to bring in desired physical traits from other breeds. This is, after all, how all of the modern breeds were created.
“That was my whole point–there should be room, and those who choose should remain unjudged and unharassed to the same degree as those who choose different systems.”
My difficulty is the extreme level of denialism on the part of many breeders. Like the ones who deny hybrid vigor in cross-breds, because they don’t like the hybrid market. (It certainly does exist but many breeders do not have an accurate idea of what it is, and thus deny that it can exist in a cross-bred dog, which is the subject of another discussion.)
“If we agree, why are you so determined to argue with me?”
You started it.
“I am now completely confused.”
I suffer from frequent diarrhea of the keyboard. I make no excuses for it. At least I don’t do those one sentence paragraphs all the time like someone I know.
I’m over as about as far as I can go on the CSS.
I’ll think about the message board.
C’mon, Technorati-boy–you know you want it.
;)
;)
;)
You know I’m looking up where I can find a really good, free one as we speak.
I used to have a message board, it got spammed constantly. It was time consuming to police. Blogs are probably simpler.
I had no idea how many comments were on this post!
I moderate everything from the Dashboard, so I don’t physically see where everything is.
It’s still not broken my record, though.
Sorry Jess–I like to paragraph more often on a narrow (physically) thread. I also favor the semi-colon and the dash. Forgive me.
In any case–I still haven’t gotten the answer to my “So what?”
Some breeders stay within the gene pool and risk what you (and here I mean “you” but only as one example) define as useful or healthy, even if the problems haven’t yet manifested. And maybe at some point down the road–perhaps quite far, perhaps surprisingly close–the breed risks collapse. Some breeders need to leave the system (not the AKC’s fault, but the breed club’s) in order to continue their vision of the breed. Others stay within the system for fear of losing what they value in the breed, and these people attempt to breed around or breed out problems they face.
So what?
I’m not being a smart-ass–I’m looking for a serious answer from someone.
Jess, if you have an answer, I’ll read it with interest.
I don’t understand what you mean by wanting an answer to ‘so what?’ Does that mean you don’t care? That other people don’t care? That no one should care?
I fully expect legislation to be enacted in the UK regarding dog breeding, due to the immense public scrutiny that PDE caused, and the changes made by the KC there (changes, btw, that many people think are a sign of the KC admitting that they are in the wrong, signs of capitulation.) I really, really don’t want to have that kind of thing happen here, either nation-wide or in communities. The government has no business telling breeders how to breed. Mandatory spay neuter, beyond being an attempt to make dog breeding harder, is also an attempt to regulate dog breeding, by making it illegal to produce mixed breeds at all. So those breeders who would take advantage of the ability to cross breeds, like the Chinook people who have their cross-breeding program, would be SOL. People who want to use unregistered imports of COO populations would be SOL. I could go on and on about that.
Purebred dog breeding has a PR problem. Breeding practices are big part of that. That’s why I talk about the studies, talk about gene loss, talk about breeding outside the box, not because I care about other breeders, however they are breeding, but because I’d like to continue what I’m doing. It shows commitment to the welfare of the dogs, to keep up with the science, to be able to talk about it, instead of denying these things. To adamantly oppose any mixing of breeds, to deny that gene loss is a problem, these things look really bad to the general public. There are pet people who don’t breed, who read this blog. Ask them, who cares?
In all seriousness, the most dangerous kind of censorship is self-censorship. It begins with pre-emptive compromise, and eventually strangles the life out of whatever creative or intellectual process is at work.
If we want to keep the breeding of dogs free for one type of breeding program, we need to keep the breeding of dogs free for all types of breeding programs–even those you believe are irresponsible… and even if you are right.
We also have to stop pretending that the breeding of dogs is anything more than the breeding of domesticated animals for the purposes of our own service, sport, companionship, and other pleasures.
We can only protect the future generations that we are directly responsible for breeding or buying–if we try to protect other peoples’ future generations of animals… THAT is what will surely come back to bite–in the form of stricter and stricter self-censorship and eventually the intervention of greater powers.
> So what?
A breed split makes all the problems I’ve brought up worse. Breed health vis-a-vis diversity depends on having a wide and deep gene pool. Not only a lot of individuals, but also a lot of genetic diversity within those individuals.
Any political split among the humans leads to a genetic split within the dogs. It becomes much more difficult, or impossible, to breed the dogs you want to breed together.
There’s only so many times you can cleave your breed and never recombine it before you’re left with a muddy puddle.
How is this not obvious?
Let’s say that I impose upon your family and all their descendants that you can only find your spouses from within your own house. How long did you think that’d remain healthy and viable?
What if we gave you a little bit more space, you can only search within the 10 homes on your block. You might settle and make do with the weirdo next door, but what about your kids? How long before that goes south?
What if we’re really nice and say that you can search for love at the local university. NICE! But, you come to find out that the culture at the university is so intense that only the people on the swim team get any action…. and you are not on the swim team.
After you make a name for yourself on the football team, and get a little bit of interest, the swim team petitions the university and institute a rule that anyone who plays football can’t get any, and if they find you out, you’re banned and your descendants are banned.
Really, it should be obvious why institutional and cultural barriers to access to the full gene pool is hugely problematic.
Are you talking stereotypical West Virginia population genetics?
LOL
That was a joke. No hate mail on that one!
Very good, thank you.
My respectful response:
These are domestic animals, not people.
Why insist that those who want to work strictly within the breed have to accept that you do not wish to, and to sanction your breeding program by accepting dogs as part of the breed because you say they are?
Pack your duffel, leave the safety and politics and occasional hazing of the frat house, and make your own party sexy enough that others of like mind feel confident enough to come dance with you and your friends.
I think we could agree that the dispute here isn’t with the AKC or with trials, it’s with the breed clubs. But the mission of a breed club is to protect the breed. If the breed club decides that the best way to protect the breed is to breed within the breed… well, so what? If you disagree–and others agree with you–then make your own breed club. I’m serious.
Why does freedom have to mean that others are required to let you play in their gene pool?
This is animal husbandry–not civil rights.
Oh please, now you’re not even trying. If we adopt your philosophy, why should we entertain your opinion at all? If you don’t like what we’re saying, go start your own blog.
See what a stupid theory that is? Couples don’t get divorced after every fight. We don’t start countries from scratch every time we want one new law or the repeal of one old one.
The truth is that no one, no individual, and no organization owns a breed. They are a public good inherited from former generations. And one need not try to steal market share and start their own registry to enact change, especially when you’re advocating a more inclusive gene pool, not a more fractured one. Not every issue requires a bloody revolution.
Your position is “love it or leave it” … well gosh, if we followed that, half the country should run for the border after every election.
Okay…
Then work for change within the breed club. I am not a fan of either divorce or revolution, believe me. If you believe you can work within the system, than more power to you.
But you seem to be saying that working within the breed club system is impossible and grossly unfair to the dogs you love.
Should I not believe you? If I do believe you, why would my suggestion to venture out on your own and bring some who are like-minded along be a “stupid theory”?
As for me–if my breed clubs were to open the topic up for debate, I would be little more than an interested observer and online kvetcher, I’m not sure on which side. I have no influence, and next to no experience within the breeds compared to those who would be taking part in the debate. I would most likely follow the breed club’s lead. We can’t all be leaders, and I usually know my place.
“THEN more power to you.”
Sorry.
I don’t know how your clubs work, but I wouldn’t be able to get membership in either the SCOA or the AHCA, due to my pro-brindle, pro-landrace stance with the former, and my cross-breeding and lack of show cred with the latter. Hell, I’ve never even bred a litter of Afghans. I could try, but getting voted in would be a long shot at best, and an annoying waste of time at worst. I really don’t need a drastic increase in the hate mail I get.
I am a voting member of AZCA, one of two clubs recognized by AKC-FSS for Azawakh. Once the Azawakh gets ‘promoted’ from FSS, I don’t know which club will be picked as the single breed club.
If I had planned to work from the inside, I’d've kept my mouth shut, about a lot of things. I expect Christopher probably feels the same way.
You’re talking in circles. You’re saying “meh, I’m apathetic” or “revolution!” Did you read this article? Why are you giving us political advice? This is so far off topic and frankly uninteresting.
The truth is that the culture of the dog world is poisoned. It’s not JUST any single breed club. It’s not even just the AKC. It’s the larger philosophy of “purity,” and what constitutes a breed.
These are ideas that can only be conquered by other ideas. By changing minds, not just bylaws. And the minds that need to change are the public’s not the breed clubs or the registries.
The AKC or the ABCA won’t change without the public, the layman, leading the way first, because they have institutional inertia. We will do it this way because we have always done it this way. And so on.
You say you’d rather just be a follower and don’t care, so why are you interested in us convincing you? Then you give us advice??
This is like blubbering about semantics instead of dealing with the actual point.
I don’t use the word poisoned.
I use the term “rotten.”
I have a rough draft of a post that I won’t put up because it’s called “Dog Culture is Rotten.” Unfortunately, it is so negative that I can’t bear putting it up.
Some of these people are so rotten that they are just about to take me down with them.
And I don’t want that.
I’d like to read that. The whole barrel isn’t rotten though.
I agree, but there is enough rot to go around to make it impossible to do anything.
There are people in these systems who have extreme authoritarian personalities.
I am apathetic with regards to breeding programs that have nothing to do with what I want from a dog.
This is true.
What disturbs me is that there are some who seem to want me to shout “Genetic Diversity Uber Alles,” when I think there can be “pure” breeds and genetic diversity at the same time.
And to somehow bring this around to shows and trials–they are one way to attempt to discern how successful dogs are in one working venue or another and whether they conform to a breed standard.
I fail to see the horror, except as dumb breeders use the results–but there will always be dumb breeders using all sorts of means to breed silly dogs, many of those means far less objective than even these flawed and at least somewhat subjective venues.
I’m shouting for genetic diversity because the pendulum has swung too far away from it. It is not an absolute good. It is a relative good.
It is a balancing act, just like government is. We can find balance between anarchy and authoritarianism, no? If you found yourself suppressed in an authoritarian state, would you not demand more freedom? And would it not be RIGHT and GOOD to do so?
The concept of agricultural improvement has done great things, but it, like genetic diversity, is not an absolute good.
Nor do I agree that one has to see horror to be concerned or wait until you hit the tree before you swerve to avoid it. At some point it is too late, and that happens before the crash.
I don’t think it’s ethical to wait for any more genetic diversity that already exists to be lost before suggesting that we should take steps to change the culture, to be more open minded, and to eschew behaviors which don’t provide the benefits we ascribe to them.
Nor do I find your argument that simply because there will always be evil we should not strive to be good, convincing.
You’re expending a lot of effort to tell us multiple times that you don’t care. Ok, Pierre.
Ah, but I DO care!
I care about the dogs I have now and where they came from! I care about the dogs I will have in the future, and where they will have come from! I care about where the characteristics of these dogs I love so much will be in the future!
And I care about the rights of everyone to have the dogs they want to have, for the purposes they see fit.
How does this in any way affect you (for example), who wants something else?
Where is the science that says that by reserving some dogs for a narrower gene pool keeps the DNA of those dogs out of a larger gene pool? These “reserved” dogs have sires and dams and siblings and progeny that would be available, as well as progeny that would not be.
You seem to think I am taking this lightly and just smilingly insisting that only purebred dogs are worthy of procreation–far from it. I think the more types of breeding programs, the better.
But let me have my breeds, please.
I am one lone middle-aged woman with, at the outset, 25 or 30 years to enjoy a sport I love with a few generations of the kinds of dogs I love. And there are lots of “me.” Why should “we” have to worry about what you love in your dogs, except to defend your right to love what you love and perpetuate it, as well?
Your reasons are the same reasons I got into breeding. I didn’t like what I saw so I am doing it my own way.
That endeavor doesn’t mean I can’t criticize the crap I saw. If, as you propose, I need to go start my own army of like minded people, yelling from the rooftops is the means to do that.
You seem to imply that it’s those of us who are advocating genetic diversity that are somehow oppressing those who are not. The people who are not are in power. They run the registries. They run the breed clubs.
They are the authoritarians.
No one is demanding that you outcross, that you must breed to some other breed, or anything of the stort. What I am demanding, if you can even use that word, is to have the freedom to breed the border collies I want within the system and let them rise or fall on their own merits instead of being handicapped by political figures who want to enforce their singular vision on the entire gene pool.
It’s not science preventing the “reserved” dogs from breeding, it’s the registry which owns 90% of the dogs saying “a pox on that blood, never to return!”
Where did anyone here suggest that we should do away with the concept of a breed? I might be pro-diversity, pro-health, even pro-hybrid… pro-designer dog even. Pro-landrace, pro-outcross….
But that doesn’t mean I’m anti-breed.
You’re jumping around a lot.
It’s like breeding black Angus cows.
Black baldies exist so that they can have a bit more genetic diversity.
Christopher, reply at end of threads.
Perhaps I am jumping around a lot because it is two in the morning, or perhaps because I really do think we can all have our cake and I’m arguing from a couple different angles without realizing how disjointed I’m becoming.
I think maybe the reason I am being protective of breeds to the point of having you think I am calling you anti-breed (not on purpose, but to your perception) is that I’m coming from retrievers, and you are coming from Border Collies in particular.
Border collies–forgive me if I’m generalizing too much–seem to me to be a very distinct breed from other collies and other herding dogs. The retrievers are not so distinct from each other. Flatties scent differently than Labs; goldens aim to please differently than Labs; flatties and goldens have different senses of humor (pardon the anthropomorphism); the drive of a Chessie is different in quality than the drive of a flattie. These are rather subtle things, but these are the things that make the retriever breeds different to work and live with. At the same time, they are certainly all retrievers, with tons of behavioral overlap. My flattie is really quite Lab-like in some ways–but the things that make her a flat-coat are undeniable.
I’m not opposed to someone wanting a working dog that is a “hybrid” of some sort of mix of retrievers. Sometimes I think it would be kind of fun–I’m very much intrigued by sled dogs, though I’m mostly ignorant as yet.
At the same time–the prospect of losing to future generations the subtleties that make flat-coats, flat-coats is really rather upsetting.
From the few I’ve known, a border collie will always be a border collie, even with a liberal seasoning of whatever exotic genetic spice one would dare to add!
Is this at all true?
In a closed system, once the genes are gone, they’re gone. You cannot get them back, and there is a tipping point. There are a few breeds that have reached the tipping point now.
The cat people do an interesting thing. They have accepted outcrosses for certain breeds. Adding diversity is actually built into the system. That way, they don’t reach the tipping point. There are some horse breeds like that, too. They even have percentage registries that go alongside the regular one, for people that prefer crosses.
Always pays to plan ahead.
Okay–but here’s where I’m going with this.
If there is an open system alongside the closed system, and the closed system reaches the tipping point, the genes aren’t actually lost.
You get your diversity; I get my breed without the risk of losing a nuance I want or gaining a nuance I don’t.
If I push my breed to the tipping point and catch it just in time, you are available (if you see worth in it) to add diversity back (perhaps I would have to beg); if you push your diversity to the point where you have inadvertently lost a nuance you had hoped to keep, I am available (if I see worth in it) to add some of the more finely-tuned (for lack of a better term) DNA back into your breeding program (you might have to beg, btw! If I couldn’t be swayed, there’s probably someone else willing, though).
If I push my breed beyond the tipping point–shame on me. If you push your diversity beyond your own goals–shame on you.
But in general, the species we know as the dog will be okay.
The species we know as dog has been divided and conquered. We don’t have a reservoir of wild dogs. We don’t even have that many unrefined landraces.
If you divide, divide, divide, and then inbreed, you really can’t back your way out. You can’t back out the wolf from the dog, you can’t back out the neanderthal from man.
Gone is gone.
I also don’t know why you’re so alarmist about ideas and systems which don’t even exist?
If you’re not on the dogs are in trouble bandwagon, why are you so easy to become alarmist about “too much diversity”?
Is diversity a problem in ANY breed right now? Has it ever been?
You might not be aware of the Border Collie registry situation, but I’m in a position where I have two 100% border collies, traced their pedigrees back all the way to the founding dogs, I know over 6,000 of their ancestors… and yet one registry tells me that I can’t breed them and include their blood in their pool.
I’m not asking to bring in a Poodle and demand that they recognize it and call it a Border Collie.
“There are some horse breeds like that, too. They even have percentage registries that go alongside the regular one, for people that prefer crosses.”
Seems reasonable to me.
Wouldn’t object to it.
Not holding my breath.
Not in a position to make it happen tonight, so I’ll probably go to bed.
Still don’t get it, do you? Any dog with a cross behind it could be designated by an extra letter added to the registration number. All subsequent descendants would have the letter, too. Nobody would be fooled into breeding a dog with a cross in the background. The livestock people have been doing this for a long time. Cats and rabbits, too. It’s not vodou.
This is how the AKC Dobe people designate dogs that carry the white gene. They get a Z. Don’t hear anybody complaining about it. It’s probably advantageous for people who want to breed white dogs.
Merle in Chihuahuas is frequently considered to have come from a cross-breeding. Some breeders maintain two lines of dogs in the kennels, one with merle, one merle free.
If you want to play in the international dog registration pool, you may not have a choice. The brindle controversy in Salukis is quite funny; even if it ends up a DQ in the AKC standard (as it is in Britain), even if SCOA rejects SPDBS as a registry because they’ve registered brindles, other registries under FCI allow brindle COO dogs in, and because AKC has the reciprocity deal with FCI, they must accept those dogs as well. If you do not want brindle cooties in your dogs, don’t feel those brindles are ‘pure’, don’t breed to a dog with brindle in the background. Some people won’t breed to a dog with desert bred Salukis in it’s background because they believe it’s not pure. Same with Azawakh. It’s really not so hard, assuming you can read a pedigree.
Europe is a little more progressive than the US in certain ways. If registries there open up a little bit (and there are couple that do have appendix registries, in certain breeds), AKC will have no choice but to recognize dogs with a cross in the background, just as the German KC has no choice but to recognize Boxers with Corgi blood registered by one of their accepted registries.
I would argue that the mission of breed clubs is to protect the breed. Some decisions I’ve seen lately have been far more about politics than protecting anything.
I get it just fine. I don’t even disagree with it.
But you seem to want it to happen because you want it to happen. If the standard-bearers of the breed don’t want it to happen–if the breed club does not want it to happen–what are you going to do about it? Stomp your feet on a blog?
Perhaps you are working to make it happen–I can barely keep up with my nieces’ and nephews’ birthdays, much less what you are doing with your breed club. If you’re working diligently within the system to argue your point, more power to you.
But if in the end they are intransigent and don’t want what you want, even if you are right, aren’t they entitled to not want what you want?
I want it to happen because it’s the best thing, long term, for the dogs.
Breed clubs, the way the AKC works, will not last forever. AKC is failing monetarily. If they go under or get bought out, it will be interesting to see what happens with the FCI. The CKC is failing financially as well.
You seem to be under the impression that the AKC cannot dictate to the breed clubs. They can. That is why you get splinter clubs that climb in bed with AKC, when the registry will not bow to terms from the club when recognizing a new breed.
The dog fancy is an anomaly, an artifact. Dogs are only domestic animals that live almost exclusively in a closed system. Times will change.
Stomp my feet on a blog? And here I thought I was having a discussion. Maybe you need to grow up a bit.
The reason why we have a closes system, I think, is not because of eugenics.
It’s because of club politics that became fractious very early on.
That and the fact that we like to delude ourselves that certain strains are truly unique, that certain breeds are truly unique, simply because they look a certain way.
The fact that dogs vary so much in appearance is an important aspect when it comes to deluding us into thinking they are almost all unique enough to be separate species.
If it’s all collapsing, just wait it out.
Perhaps the stomping the feet on the blog was a bit over the top on the rhetoric.
But I’m getting mixed messages here–the sky is falling… but the sky is destined to fall… but no one wants the sky to fall… but let the sky fall… but when it does fall the world will all be better…
I’m still in the “so what” corner, I’m afraid. People are going to do what they want, and dogs will thrive, whether the breeds do or not…
And some will, and some won’t–some because of protectionist methods, some because of open methods, and most of it we won’t understand until after all is said and done, no matter how hard we try, except for a few generations at a time, I suspect.
THE only domestic animals.
“I want it to happen because it’s the best thing, long term, for the dogs.”
Ah–I like your passion.
But I think there are others who believe that there are other things that are best, long term, for the dogs.
Some people believe that the best thing, long term, for dogs, is that none are born, so as not to be enslaved. They feel just as strongly.
Strong belief does not make one right.
And maybe your ARE right.
But that doesn’t mean that all must agree–particularly when breeding dogs for specific purposes. I am not willing to work with a retriever with less drive in order to have a next generation with greater diversity. Others would. But I would be willing to work with a retriever carrying a simple recessive devastating trait in order to have a dog with stable knees. Others would not.
I could tolerate a flat-coat with some Labby characteristics–others could not. I could not tolerate a Lab with some flattie characteristics–others could. Yet I love and appreciate the characteristics that are distinctive in the flat-coat–the Lab is rather plebeian by comparison. How is my desire to sacrifice your beliefs about genetic diversity any less important than your desire to ensure genetic diversity at the risk of muddying the characteristics of breeds people love?
EVERYONE can have what they want, if people are brave enough to mind their own business and tough enough to take it when others don’t.
From what I can tell, above all, GOOD breeders are brave.
And thus the Third World War began…
Just for clarification, which I would have never thought of before your post, Scottie: I was not implying anything about Jess’s breeding program, nor was I implying she is not brave (to the contrary) or tough (I really have no idea, but would suspect she is).
No. I’m done. You cannot argue science with a creationist.
I’m ill today, so I’m going to be short.
Stop being stupid. No one, NO ONE, is saying that ANY breeder MUST cross-breed, MUST breed to cross-bred dogs, MUST do ANYTHING, or CAN’T do anything.
What we are saying is that if you want to play in the international dog gene pool, via registration, you must play the AKC game. That game offers NO options. For the good of the dogs, we would like an open registry so that breeders WHO CHOOSE TO DO SO can take advantage of it.
There is a woman in the UK who is breeding her show Beardies to unregistered working Beardies, for both working instinct and a more correct coat. These dogs are a genetic dead end for everyone but her. Others who are afraid to leave the system cannot avail themselves of that resource, even if they wanted to. They do NOT HAVE THAT CHOICE. In an open registry, they would. That is what we are asking for, hoping for.
I know a man in Pakistan who has native Afghan hounds. He hunts with them. I would LOVE to have one. I know a couple of other Afghan people who would love to get some native blood into their dogs. THEY CAN’T. There is no provision for it, even if I import the pup, it’s progeny will be a genetic dead end.
There, in Salukis and Azawakh and Basenji, three breeds that have ‘open’ registration of sorts, there breeders who will not breed to dogs of COO origin. NO ONE FORCES THEM TO. It is very easy to read a pedigree and discover whether a dog has COO blood behind it, if you want to avoid that.
If I want a Saluki with desert blood, I can get one. If I want one that does NOT, I can get one. I really fail to see how this is so difficult to understand.
Even if AKC opened up the registry TOMORROW, if you are not ready to be unplugged, no one will force you. This argument of wanting to be able to get the kind of dog you want DOES NOT STAND AS VALID.
At the risk of sounding arrogant, not that I actually care, about the science, I AM RIGHT. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
1. There is always a choice. You want to dictate the conditions in which you want to make your choices. Go for it. But don’t bitch if it’s hard going.
2. You are right for your purposes, perhaps. By all means keep your convictions. You are not right for everyone with regards to the future of dogs. Science is not fact. Science is proposing a hypothesis; gathering evidence; proving or disproving a hypothesis; and determining the next hypothesis. Facts are evidence.
3. I’ve tried to be tolerant and even honestly complimentary. I don’t even disagree with much of what you do or say. I have grown weary of this futile effort to be civilized. If you think I am being stupid, it is only because you fail to understand my point, which is rather moderate given the company you claim to deal with on a regular basis. By all means, take the next post to have the last word–rant, provide fact, call me stupid again. I have nothing more to say, and my original observations–unfortunately–still stand.
>> Science is not fact.
Science [proposes] a hypothesis; [gathers] evidence; [proves or disproves] a hypothesis; and [determines] the next hypothesis. Facts are evidence. <
inbreeding depression is UNscientific?
it’s not hypothetical.
COI is a fact; it’s incontrovertible data.
that some breeds have thousands of dogs, with an EFFECTIVE breeding-popn of just 30 or 50 or 100, is not hypothetical, either.
gene-pruning via matador-sires is not a hypothesis; it’s a fact.
continuing to allow matador-breedings and ignore the value of many bitches entirely will result in severe gene-paucity; that’s not a hypothesis, it’s a very simple prediction.
– terry
Hi blckgldn-n–labmix, can I try to answer your question?
It reminds me of a conversation from one of the Star Trek movies – the one where they went and got the whales.
Kirk says to Spock: We are talking about the destrution of the whole planet Earth, your half human, don’t you have any feelings about that?
I might not have quoted it exactly, but that’s the idea – that it sounds like you might be down playing the terribleness of your breed colapsing, dog breeders being squeezed out of the AKC, and other dog breeders staying in the system out of fear that they lack the knowledge to go outside of the system.
What are your feelings about your breed colapsing?
Perhaps other people have an intense reaction to the idea of multiple breeds of dogs colapsing, just as many other breeders fear the colapse of dog shows as they know them, or changes in their sport.
In some dog registries, and certainly in a number of livestock registries, there’s an “appendix registry”. In an appendix registry, you can cross breed A to Breed B and then back to breed A. After 3 or so generations (most use 3. A few use 5), the resultant “back bred” animals are allowed on the FULL registry. No one is required to use such animals, but they are available for those who would like to do so. This allows, IMO, a controlled means by which total bottleneck is avoided.
I think these are probably the best method to allow for introduction of new blood without going “hog wild”. It requires enough dedication on the part of the breeder to complete 3 generations but it isn’t so restrictive as to preclude useful crossings.
Requiring a show standard based on the 1880s dogs and allowing an appendix breeding would, IMO, probably “fix” the bulldog pretty quickly. There would be those that insisted on keeping their bulldogs “as is”, but if the market dried up for such dogs, then, like many other breeds, they would become extinct. If the market REMAINED, despite the KC “recreating a correct bulldog”, then it isn’t the fault of the KC, or even the breeders. If there is a market, there will always be some providing for it.
Peggy Richter
This is how recognition of COO Salukis works. They are registered through SPDBS as a gen 0, with gen 3′s being AKC recognized. Other countries have similar systems. The three generations is based on the assumption that the gen 0 is ‘purebred.’ Interestingly, no new genetic diseases have been brought in. New colors, yes, and that’s been a bit of a problem.
I think the Chinook people are using five generations in outcross program. I’d have to look it up.
The color issue is amusing to me, for the simple reason that people care so much more about useless things they can see versus important things they cannot see.
Love the brindle, embrace the brindle.
You should see it play out, it’s hysterical. Lots of bile dripping. Brindle is a dominant and it’s going to take over the breed, you know, because evidently as soon as the first brindle hit the US all the breeders went blind and forgot how to read a pedigree.
I need to made a brindle badge for my blog: Brindle is Bona Fide. I don’t own any brindles but my Minna has a brindle grandsire.
Peggy,
Thanks for introducing me to a concept I had not heard of yet, the appendix registry. Sounds like a brilliant idea.
The Cat Fancier Association allows a similar thing — maintaining low COI in purebred cats is a much easier thing, since outcrossing to similar/related breeds is pretty much basically accepted as a healthy routine with cat folks.
Some cat breeds actually have other breeds designated as accepted outcrosses.
I know, when I started looking into how they do things in the cat fancy, I was simply gobsmacked at how reasonable they are over there about a lot of things. The more you compare the dog world with other domestic animal breeding, you realize just how strange the dog fancy’s attitudes towards breeds and ‘purity’ (and genetic science) really are.
I know in one of their registries you can show neutered animals, and they have a house cat or pet class, I can’t remember what it’s called.
Oh, my goodness. With apologies–I’m afraid I’ve lost track of what you said that you’re referring to!
Gah.
I should either grade papers or go to bed, rather than wasting my aging mind watching weeping Chilean miners and arguing with people I’ve never met who breed dogs that I’ll never own!
This post should have been above somewhere.
To all: Instead of having an appendix registry, or allowable outcross or all that extra paperwork, and “you have to study it to understand it” stuff, we could go back to sort-of like it use to be.
Make a breed. Say “Duck Retrievers”. Make Goldies, Labs, Flatties, and Chessie varieties. Many people will keep breeding their variety as they always have.
Some people will cross the varieties, these are still pure “Duck Retrievers”. Pick some name for their variety. I think they were once called “interbred” or something un-colorful like that. Maybe call them the American variety?
In dog shows, you would then have 5 varieties – the 4 original, and the interbred. Judging would be the same in the 4 traditional varieties.
In the interbreds, anything that the mating and crossing of these 4 former breeds could have produced is allowed. All colors found in any of these 4 breeds is not faulted. Allowed are any colors that could have come from crossing purebreds of these 4 breeds, or their descenants. Ditto everything else.
Interbreds are judged on soundness, normal gait, waterproof coat, and general Duck Retriever looks.
If you want to buy a traditional bred variety, like a purebred Flat Coated Retriever, then go ahead. If you want a first generation pup from a Fattie and a Goldie – fine then buy that pup. If you want a pup that has all 4 breeds in him – fine buy that one.
Same thing with Sheepdogs, Herdingdogs, Shepherds – whatever you name the new breed. Then just list all the breeds that are in that catagory, but change them to varieties of Herding dogs (or whatever). Then make an extra variety made of interbred herding dogs.
As to the details of showing: the details that the Duck Retrievers people decide on, can be different form those the Herding Dog people decide on.
For example: maybe Duck Retriever people want a show class within each traditional variety for interbreds, for interbreds who look to be 100% of one variety. Then interbreds could be competing for Best of Variety with purebreds.
Maybe the Herding Dog people want only purebreds to compete in the traditional varieties, so they have sub-varieties in the interbred variety: Competing as a Briard, etc, and also an open interbred class.
There’s a blog that list these new broad breeds made of varieties – but I fear that if I list it, Scotty might have to pull my comment. Eventially, I’ll find the link and put it on my blog – when I get around to doing the blogroll.
Um…. not a problem by me. Might be interesting, as long as those who are looking to preserve a breed without any outcrossing are as free to do as they want as those who are looking to accomplish their goals through outcrossing.
I don’t think you’ll find this an idea that could be actuated any time soon within the existing system–either the system would have to change, or this idea’s proponents would have to go it alone in a new system.
Someone’s going to say you are further dividing/fracturing by doing this.
Someone’s going to say it’s impossible to do within the system because of the authoritarian old maids that have a Victorian stranglehold on all of dogdom.
Someone is going to say it’s impossible to leave the system because you have to have all or most of a breed available, which is impossible to do because of the authoritarian old maids that have a Victorian stranglehold on all of dogdom.
Meh.
My only interest–I promise–is in wanting to make sure that if I want a particular breed of retriever, without the complications of wondering if the dog I am raising from a puppy is part of the generation when something (disease, behavior, quirk) from a previous outcross is going to crop up. Trying to find the perfect dog is, of course, impossible, as there is no such thing. With 5 or 6 dogs left in my lifetime to enjoy as my own, I’m a fan of breeds for the sake of narrowing the range of wonders and problems I’ll have to enjoy/overcome.
At the same time, I want future animals in the breed to be healthy as well.
I don’t think those two desires need to be at odds at all times. It seems that others do? So we’re at an impasse?
Hi blckgoldn-n-labmix. Wow, reading your comments has been rough for me this morning. Especially on a post entitled “intellectual honesty”.
Most importantly: Even in dog breeding, people don’t usually try to convert the opinions of people they believe to be stupid or mean – just those they believe to be worthy of the effort.
I am newish to this blog, and don’t yet have a good grasp of the characters of the commenters or their histories. Yet, my general impression is that we have enough overlap to get along, but there will be some disagreements.
I am not sure who you meant to ask “So we’re at an impasse?”, but I wanted to understand if there was one between you and I or not? So I started at the top of the comments, and re-read only yours, scrolling down from one to the next.
I found 2 comments, which when read seperately, have a different meaning than when read together, and I would like to be sure that I am reading them right?
(sorry, low signal, have to sometimes send longer comments as 2 comments).
To blckgldn-n-labmix:
Did you say, on your post of Oct 12, 2010 at 11:11 pm:
“I am a pointed AKC judge at all three hunt test levels…”
And did you also say on Oct 11, 2010 at 8:51 pm:
“Confession time-though I have been out in the field with my dog, I have yet to actually hit a bird under natural circumstances.”
I think I understand why you love trials – you don’t hunt?
I think that maybe I read some of your comments as if maybe you believe that people are attacking trails or breeding for trails? When they are really only questioning the in-breeding of the trail dog population as a whole.
It seems to me that this post has generated a great deal of comments by people who feel that their positions are being attacked by other commenters, when those criticism really come from some other previous source. So lots of people here are venting their feelings of having been criticized elsewhere.
Keep enjoying what you do. But please remember that the future of the trial dog population is in your hands, more so than in the hands of breeders.
What is worrying some people on this post is: If a judge develops a favorite clique of dogs, or of friends and their dogs, then those favored dogs will be the foundation of the next generation. Some of those dogs might be carriers, and their extreme popularity as studs may crash the health of the breed.
This, I believe it what someone else here is saying about sheepdog trails.
To blckgldn-n-labmix:
As far as impasses, I suppose I can create one just by not arguing any more!!! Tempting. May succumb.
“Did you say, on your post of Oct 12, 2010 at 11:11 pm:
“I am a pointed AKC judge at all three hunt test levels…””
Yes. I am a low-pointed judge. I can only judge with another judge with enough points to “carry” me.
“And did you also say on Oct 11, 2010 at 8:51 pm:
“Confession time-though I have been out in the field with my dog, I have yet to actually hit a bird under natural circumstances.””
I can’t shoot. I’ve been out without a gun numerous times. I grew up in the suburbs of New York. It simply was not a part of my upbringing. I’m observing and learning. There’s really nothing more to say.
“I think I understand why you love trials – you don’t hunt?”
See above.
“I think that maybe I read some of your comments as if maybe you believe that people are attacking trails or breeding for trails? When they are really only questioning the in-breeding of the trail dog population as a whole.”
But there are those who would eliminate trials, or the judging of trials, or change the structure of trials, or breeding decisions based on trials. I merely want to point out that trials have a place–it’s just how the results are used.
“It seems to me that this post has generated a great deal of comments by people who feel that their positions are being attacked by other commenters, when those criticism really come from some other previous source. So lots of people here are venting their feelings of having been criticized elsewhere.”
Yes.
“Keep enjoying what you do. But please remember that the future of the trial dog population is in your hands, more so than in the hands of breeders.”
As a judge, my job is to set up a fair test and evaluate the dogs’ work against a written standard. What others do with that information is far more important.
“What is worrying some people on this post is: If a judge develops a favorite clique of dogs, or of friends and their dogs, then those favored dogs will be the foundation of the next generation. Some of those dogs might be carriers, and their extreme popularity as studs may crash the health of the breed.”
Politics abound everywhere. I try to be honest, and evaluate whether others are honest. I try not to cast aspersions–but when something stinks, I don’t hide if my nose wrinkles. That’s about all I can do.
“This, I believe it what someone else here is saying about sheepdog trails.”
Someday I’ll understand sheepdog trials. Maybe.
Well, okay–probably not. Too busy with my own stuff. But I would be interested in observing a few.
Interstingly, AKC may well be on the road to something similar to appendix registry. They recently-instituted “conditional registration” (for breeds already fully recognized) and well as the Foundation Stock Service (FSS) for breeds not yet so recognized, both allow for dogs with some “unknown” ancestors.
Dogs with conditional registration can be easily identified because of a letter designation in their registration number (I think it is Q, but don’t quote me). Their progeny will also have that designation, until a certain number (3?) of generations to fully registered dogs of that breed.
Methinks this could be very useful for some knowledgeable and clever breeders.
As to interbred retrievers– for many years in the UK, “retriever” was the breed, and Labrador, Curly-Coat, etc were considered varieties. Crosses of any of the varieties were designated as Interbred, and could compete in field trials. The Haulstone kennel of Goldens bred to a yellow Labrador, FC Haylers Defender, in 1929, and descendants of that cross did quite well until the havoc of WWII caused cessation of virtually all activity for years.
Conditional registration would not work for such a purpose. It is for when their is a question of parentage because the DNA doesn’t match or is unavailable. The dog in question must be already registered, and the registration is then downgraded to conditional. Getting an unregistered dog in would involve fraudulently registering it in the first place, which, grant you, was done more than once regarding COO Salukis before SPDBS.
I would be thrilled to get a native Afghan hound registered through conditional registration, but it doesn’t work that way.
Once an FSS breed gains full recognition, the stud book closes. Unless the breed club chooses to institute a process whereby outside dogs may be registered. But generally, it closes.
Once the Azawakh gains full recognition, one club will be picked at the AKC breed club; one club will register desert breds, the other does not. This could have a profound effect on the breed.
As to the original reason for kennel clubs, registries, such as The Kennel Club and the AKC…it was primarily to organize what was already a growing activity, to establish records of such, institute uniform procedures, rules, etc. “Stud books” and registries were means of recording information and making it available to those interested. Without them….well….
Yes, this was done by people of wealth, largely because at that time it was only those people who could afford to do so. Ann Hier’s book about the history of dog shows (and other organized dog activities) is full of information as well as being a great read.
Utah Neff asked: Is it this way for real working sheepmen? Do they like a pack of dogs with varied talents, so like using the right tool for the right job, they can send the dog best at bringing back a lost lamb, and send a different dog to chase the sheep out of a shack?
=it’s certainly the case for many. I know a lot of professionals who use a BC to “gather” and a Aussie to “push” or drive the collected stock. This is why the vanishing of working Aussies is very sad. I’ve seen a few of these professionals switch to other looseyed herding dogs when they couldn’t find an Aussie. For myself, I don’t have access to safe pastures although I’m in an “open range” area. You have to keep your stock “in sight” if you don’t want them disappearing permanently. So I only need my Belgians.
Utah suggested: Instead of having an appendix registry, or allowable outcross or all that extra paperwork, and “you have to study it to understand it” stuff, we could go back to sort-of like it use to be. Make a breed. Say “Duck Retrievers”. Make Goldies, Labs, Flatties, and Chessie varieties. Many people will keep breeding their variety as they always have.
==They’ve tried that to some degree with Belgian Shepherds. First was what was in, versus out of the “big group”. Brindles, which were common, weren’t allowed – hence the very large number of Belgians who suddenly became Dutch Shepherds in the 1900-1920 period. The issue of fawn longhairs resulted in two clubs in Belgium for about 100 years. And then there was the issue of black shorthairs (Malinois/Groenendael crosses). Sometimes they were accepted into the registry, sometimes not (and in fact, it’s that way now. Canada allows such crosses. Finland doesn’t). And unfortunately, in the show ring, pretty much all the dogs rapidly became related via ‘most popular sire” syndrome. There’s only one line of Groenendael that doesn’t have Willy de guarde Noir (1949) or Yako de la Pouroffe LOSH 343525(1970) in the pedigree. There aren’t any Tervs. I’m still looking to find any Malinois. The Lakenonis lines still have major issues with HD and won’t cross to the longhairs because it might bring in “bad” colors and coat length. Unlike “Winston Cap”, both Yako and Willy are primary suspects as producers of epilepsy.
And keep in mind that the BC numbers are pretty large. There’s a truckload more BCs out there than Belgians, yet as Christopher showed, they still end up with high COI. Same for German Shepherds. Thousands of them. And even some very functional lines (HGH lines, Schutzhund lines, even dogs out of the various guide dog breeding programs). Yet most are pretty closely related. My friends who have herding GSDs seem to have as much trouble as I do finding a good breeding prospect – not too related, has the critical capabilities for herding, healthy, not known to carry for anything seriously bad.
People just seem to be into the “most popular sire” so much that even numbers don’t help. I advocate the appendix system because it allows those who do want to go elsewhere to find a dog or two to bring in. And anyone checking a pedigree can find if the dogs they are interested in do or don’t have an X back there. The alternative would be to ban use of a given dog after a set number of breedings. That’s hard for someone who has an outstanding dog, but it might be what’s best for the breed that dog belongs to. The idea has been suggested occasionally and in fact, I think some registries (Germany?) actually do that. Of course, then folk just go to that dog’s siblings or offspring, but at least it’s a little less “one dog”. I personally like the appendix system.
Peggy Richter
>> Brindles, which were common, weren’t allowed – hence the very large number of Belgians who suddenly became Dutch Shepherds in the 1900-1920 period. ——–
>
oh, fer pity’s sake… that’s ridiculous. THERE went a whole buncha genes.
>> The issue of fawn longhairs resulted in two clubs in Belgium for about 100 years. And then there was the issue of black shorthairs (Malinois/Groenendael crosses). Sometimes they were accepted into the registry, sometimes not (and in fact, it’s that way now. Canada allows such crosses. Finland doesn’t). ——–
>
more silliness.
>> …unfortunately, in the show ring, pretty much all the dogs rapidly became related via ‘most popular sire” syndrome. ———-
>
that’s very sad to hear; i was hoping that with 4 varieties, BSDs had a better chance of retaining more heterozygosity.
– terry
“At the same time–the prospect of losing to future generations the subtleties that make flat-coats, flat-coats is really rather upsetting.”
One more.
I’ve seen this argument multiple times, and it hinges on the evident belief that breeders now are too stupid to breed selectively or intelligently IF a little bit of different DNA is involved. Only if the dogs are ‘pure’, can the breeder then breed for the characteristics they want.
Back-crossing is NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF SELECTIVE BREEDING. You pick the characteristics you want, and go on from there. Sometimes you get what you were expecting, sometimes not. Dogs are very, very plastic because their characteristics, unlike humans, are controlled by relatively few genes. It is easy to make changes in only one generation.
I have seen many, many ‘Salukis’ that I know for damn sure they’ve got some Greyhound behind them. But they look, act, and hunt, like Salukis, and when bred, they produce young that look, act, and hunt, like Salukis. According to this argument, such a thing should not be possible.
It also discounts the LUA Dals.
Selective breeding, people. How do you think the breeds got here in the first place?
I have thought this multiple times in the past — either many in the modern dog fancy truly think other breeders are too stupid to actually figure out how to SELECTIVELY BREED without having strict guardrails forcing them to take the correct choices, or else they are under the impression that it’s impossible to keep a breed to it’s ‘standard’ if any foreign blood is ever introduced. Neither opinion is supported by science or reality, regardless.
It’s as if many dog breeders today do not know how to actually ‘breed dogs’ anymore. Breed mythology and the religion of ‘blood purity’ has replaced any foundation in actual animal husbandry knowledge for many of these people, it seems.
[...] of line-breeding, genetic disease, and the popular sire effect; trialing culture apologist Donald McCaig sings a different tune: I’ve heard the complaint that Border Collies aren’t any healthier than other purebred dogs, [...]
[...] Intellectual honesty on the effects of trials and shows (the legendary post!) [...]
Regarding COI (Coefficient of inbreeding): we were taught by Dr Padgett, geneticist at MSU, that the mathematical formula for COI was “an estimate of probability”. The more generations of ancestors are included, the more information may be gained– but it is still an estimate, not dead certainty.
Genes can be lost. Ch Whatzit may be one quarter of the male ancestors in the seventh generation, but his influence on any one in a litter of pups of that seventh generation descended, may be nil. Or it might be considerable.
Sires/dams that have a high degree of homozygosity are likely to ‘stamp’ their progeny more than are those are highly heterozygous. Thus, the “prepotent” sires/dams.
Please note that I’m talking about individuals, not populations. The larger the population being considered, the more likely that mathematical estimates will apply.
Sorry so late to the fight. As a long- time often frustrated outsider saluki breeder with (hunting, functional) COO dogs and brindles (and a background in populations biology) what can I say but that:
1)Jess is right. scientifically and even “morally”, and
2) You truly have no idea how low or crazy some “defenders of purity” will go. Unfortunately I do.
On the other hand…there are some more open-minded people in the “purebred” world. Some years ago, Canine Companions for Independence tried crossing Golden and Labrador, in order to get prospective service dogs with the Golden’s laid-back temperament, the Labrador’s short coat, and the willingness and trainability of both breeds. The GRCA, parent club for the Goldens, had always supported CCI, and this was brought to their attention. After some quite reasonable discussion among the Board of Directors (of which I was a member at the time) the GRCA had no objection to the cross-breeding. Specifically, because it was being done for a well-thought-out purpose and not for commercial exploitation.
We could also mention the Basenji club’s approval of bringing in African (Country of Origin) dogs to widen the breed’s genetic basis in this country, a program that appears to have been quite successful. ” Even though” it introduced the brindle coloration into the breed here.
hey, M-R-S! :–)
the Basenji Club of America was kinda trapped;
they were dealing with a fatal blood disorder, not mere inbreeding depression, immune dysfunction, hip-dysplasia at 4-YO or other things that could be ignored.
young dogs were dying, and in a rather nasty fashion; they were blackmailed by the urgency of the threat, and even so, argued long + hard about getting new genes from the COO.
had this been anything less than a highly-lethal gene in a large segment of the purebred-Basenji popn, i have no doubt that any appeal to the need for “new genes” would have died in utero – or committee.
just sayin,
– terry
[...] The post with the thread that never ends spilled over onto Querencia, where Stephen Bodio quotes Jess’s commentary on that post and the same sort of debate ensued. The debate also moved onto discussing whether we need stricter breeder regulation. It seems that various breeder regulations are being used by the various self-appointed mandarins to harass those who deviate. [...]