No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.
–Albert Einstein
With the discussion that has happened on this blog, Border Wars, and DesertWindHounds about inbreeding, dog health, and closed registries,. some have asked me what we should do about it.
Yes. The problems with dogs in this regard are mostly systemic, and systemic problems have certain issues associated with them.
One of these is that systemic problems are often hard to observe. If something has been accepted as virtuous for a very long, then it may be difficult for anyone but total outsiders to see anything wrong with them. I am certain that this is the case with most dog issues, because the Western dog fancy has been around for about 150 years. No can remember when the values of the fancy were established, and very few question whether these values are good. If you do, another aspect of systemic problems comes to the fore.
Systemic problems exist because systems have ways of reinforcing themselves. It is more like the indoctrination system of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. People are simply conditioned to accept certain negative things as good. The best example of this is blood purity for blood purity’s sake it. It is one religious tenant that cannot be touched. It even supplants reason.
And that’s another problem: reason often doesn’t matter when dealing with systemic problems. The values that maintain the system are very much against those who question. Even harsher measures are used against those who actually do something about the problems they see.
These problems are big. They are almost impossible for the average dog owner to see anyway of combating them.
That’s why so many people get involved in rescue. Dog rescue does have some inherent problems, but in general, it is nothing quite like the issues surrounding the closed registry problem.
And there is nothing wrong with getting involved in rescue. Each person should participate where one feels most comfortable.
However, the dog owning public can do lots of things to help bring about reform.
One thing should always be understood: The closed registry system is moribund. The AKC has declining registrations year after year. It is on its way out, unless it begins to reform. (Which is unlikely.)
There are other registries, but some of them are nothing more than paper mills. I know of a few that if you breed a jaguar to a dog, I bet they’d register the hybrids. Those registries are not inherently good. They are nothing more than paper mills, and they are part and parcel of the mass production industry. They are not the solution to this problem.
So now that we know that the big institutions that exist to promote the fancy are in trouble, I don’t think we need to waste much more breath criticizing them. Jess does particularly good job at exposing some of the weird belief system that exist within her chosen breeds, and the more those get exposed, the less likely new dog owners are going to pay attention to them.
Logic and reason are your friends in dealing with this mess. Follow this advice from Daria Morgendorffer (I’m dating myself, I know):
Stand firm for what you believe in, until and unless logic and experience prove you wrong. Remember, when the emperor looks naked, the emperor is naked.
Now, use logic and reason when you enter the marketplace in search of a new dog. Look for breeders who understand issues related to genetic diversity and the long-term health of their breeds or types. You will find that this is a bit harder than using logic and reason, but they do exist. That is because even breeders of working breeds often have a poor understing of population genetics.
That is how the market will sort some of this out.
But the market alone won’t save it. Markets can only work so long as people are informed. My suggestion is that everyone try to get as many people as possible to read the posts Jess and Christopher have put up about inbreeding and closed registries. Those are all very readable. I would also suggest that everyone take a look at The Canine Diversity Project. Some of the links don’t work, but it still a great source for information.
Truth does not set us free. But it is a good first step.
If one has the resources and time, it is probably a good idea for one to consider participating as a breeder. Now, to be a breeder who intentionally produces for genetic diversity is to be really a “man (or woman) in the arena.” But we need more people breeding dogs. I know that sounds counterintuitive and is against almost all the things we hear from various welfare organizations and breed clubs. However, the only way to increase genetic diversity for the long term health of dogs is to have more dogs breeding– and more people need to be breeders.
Unfortunately, many dog people are simply unaware for the problems that can result from a paucity of genetic diversity. The various cultures do not reward diversity. They reward conformity. They reward top producing sires, and when a male dog excels in some area, everyone wants to breed from him.
If the cultures at large don’t reward diversity, then it is up to consumers to solve the problem. Many people are uncomfortable with this solution, but because the issues with each individual dog population are different and because different breeders have different approaches to solving these problems, we cannot ethically legislate them away.
In the end, all of these problems will be solved. The information continues to flow freely on the internet. People are openly questioning things. The response that these genetic diversity posts have been getting from all three blogs shows that the dog-loving public is deeply concerned.
I don’t think anyone wants to harm dogs, but that which has existed before has been harmful. To think that we can solve these problems without making big systemic changes is a delusion, and it is why I included the Einstein quote at the top of this post. I don’t think we can solve these problems with the current registry systems we have, whether it be the AKC or the ABCA.
And that’s a hard thing to say.
And even harder thing to change.
But people want something better. We just have to work together to find ways of getting there. We have to use what we can to disseminate information and push for reform. If we all keep pushing a little bit, we will get there.
In the past months, I think I can safely say that a large enough percentage of the dog loving public is questioning these issues that we can begin to see things change. People are looking for answers. I don’t have all of them. No one does.
We have to work together to find those answers.
I’m confident that we’ll do it.
I know as a customer, I want a dog that is hardy, solid, long-lived and is unlikely to succumbs to genetic retinal issues. If I was to pursue the dogs of my dreams, I would end with the opposite.
I used to think breeders would smarten up if people don’t buy the breeds they are interested in, and the breeders would get stuck with puppies unable to find a home; instead, they just head in the other direction: breed less. Completely backward to me, but what do I know… I am more interested in availability, not self-decieved perfectionism.
Either way, the problematic breeds are on their way to Hell in a basket; it’s blogs like yours, Jess’s and Chris’s are ensuring that we keep our desired breeds around longer in better health by raising awareness. Will they solve the ongoing issues? Probably, not but they are crucial for the time when everything goes to Hell, and the people who are smart enough to stand by and do their own things will step in to save the day. However people won’t be smart enough to reject conformity if no one speaks up.
Hopefully the “genetic diversity” mentality adopted by the younger generations won’t be passed off as a fad like the “locavore” movement, if you will allow me to make a comparison. Sadly, the locavore movement is not enough to feed the world, but it is enough to ensure heirloom varieties are around to contribute when monoculture begins to show weaknesses. Unfortunately corporates and directors of government assistance programs don’t see it that way, but a few savvy customers, however small that market is, are smart enough to buck the system; despite the fact they were written off as “rich snobby yuppies.”
Now that being said, I do enjoy kennel pedigrees, show or working, but I do know when too much of one thing can be hazardeous and we need to dip into the heirlooms from time to time. And really, the (responsible) advocates of open-registry and crossbreeding are analogous to the “savvy locavore customers” of the nineties which led to the ongoing fad of late 00s. Hope you don’t mind me making a comparison between the two ideologies.
Hardy is a good word. As a puppy buyer, I want a dog that is hardy, doesn’t require special foods due to allergy or digestive issues, doesn’t require special skills to maintain (extensive grooming), won’t have chronic health issues, doesn’t die of a major disease while young, and has a temperament suitable to the breed.
I don’t know ‘what can be done.’ I just talk talk talk, hopefully someone is listening. I think what we will end up with is either forced change, ala what is going on in the UK right now, or a split between old school and new.
http://dogdimension.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=start
I always forget that dokuwiki site. Some of the FAQ are incomplete, but this piece is a gem for what dog breeders should be doing:
http://dogdimension.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=shared:populationgeneticspractice
That is my favorite one. Everybody should read that. And it’s why I am perfectly okay with doing an Azawakh breeding that has a 7.87 COI, with 25% of the ancestry coming from a desert bred dog (the grandmother of the bitch) with presumably different genetics than the rest of the pedigree. And for that I get called a hypocrite.
I went there and just read it. It was good. It might work within his breed.
But for his path to work, you have to use it BEFORE a breed is as far gone as many of them seem to be. There is a difference between healing the sick and raising the dead – and that difference is in do-ability.
His method prevents the loss of genetic diversity, but it can’t bring back what is already lost. If his method had been implemented at the end of WW2 – or at least prior to about 1960-something, then it would have been great.
It might still work for Golden Retrievers, working collies, and sighthounds as a whole, but for the little Pug whose photo starts this post, what of his kind?
For some breeds, I believe that it is too late for that method to be useful to create the change and genetic diversity which we are discussing here.
I can say “Puggles and PugPins” – but that is not what those breeders want to hear.
Many older breeders in various breeds, are set in their ways. I don’t know if they could change, IF they wanted to.
There are still many older breeders, even ones who acknowledge the harm which their breeding methods are doing to their dogs and their breed, who do NOT want change.
Some of them want to live out their own lives doing it the way they always have – even anticipating that their dogs’ breed will collapse from the current methods of breeding selection.
They seem to be okay with this because they believe that the system will continue until they themselves are dead, or until they themselves are too old to be dog breeders anymore,
– or, as two dog breeders have said “It was a good ride while it lasted”. In other words, like riding a horse full speed with blood spurting from his lungs and nostrils until he drops dead from the effort, instead of going at a slower pace for a longer ride, they are in it for a series of short terms, not a longer ride on the same horse. It is as if, when they are done with a pony, they see nothing wrong with running him to the ground in one last speed-filled ride.
What else can one compare it to, when dog breeders at a dog show, stand right there, and say right out loud, that they know that they are breeding a carrier bitch to an affected dog, and that half of the puppies will be affected with a late-onset lethal disease, but that they don’t care – all they are interested in is the thrill and competition of winning?
I might add, that except for one or two puppies considered most likely to succeed in dog shows, the other puppies from these two breeders are likely to be sold to the public as “pet quality”.
If I sound unhappy about how some of my ‘friends’ talk about breeding dogs, it is because I disagree very strongly. But I have often been the lone wolf in a sea of sea of conformers to an (to me) odd dog breeding lot, although, in truth, I was the odd-person out, who wasn’t fitting in with them, but who would want to fit in with that sort of show breeders, even if they are the old group in charge or the staus quo and the doggie social group?
Writting out a page on how to preserve gentic diversity, will not change the habits of that sort of show breeder, who is only interested in winning, and of talking about how well their line of dogs win.
(sorry about the rant – but I still stand by it)
For some breeds, it is back to square one, and a recreation to a new standard (perhaps with a new breed name) – which means outcrossing to another breed, hopefully with some guidence from a supportive club.
But many dog breeders just aren’t into learning new ways, and figuring out how to juggle all the variables.
I am not YET into the squabbles about WHAT changes to make, and how to do them, because, right now, (for many breeders) the issue is just getting started about WHY some sort of change is needed.
IF you present me with a group who are ready to acknowledge the need for changing the system itself, then we can talk about WHAT changes.
“But for his path to work, you have to use it BEFORE a breed is as far gone as many of them seem to be. There is a difference between healing the sick and raising the dead – and that difference is in do-ability.”
Read the last paragraph under ‘Consider Outcross Matings.’
Look at Anteresia. There’s some hope still for the breeds too far gone.
One of the tricky things about selecting a breeder on the genetic diversity criteria is that there are a lot of less-educated breeders who are breeding for token diversity but based on a “EWW INCEST” kneejerk response. Diversity may be preserved but you’ll still get unhealthy puppies if you’re breeding two widely divergent lines with the SAME FREAKING HEALTH PROBLEM.
The collie litter I’m planning is from an inbred (her breeder calls it linebred, I’m calling it what it is :P) bitch and a male who is not just an outcross, but he’s from an outcrossed pedigree with a lot of focus on phenotype to phenotype breeding rather than trying to line breed on a big-winning individual. It’ll be interesting to see what it produces.
Even the ones who are “ew incest” still don’t really understand diversity, especially if they obtained their dogs from a limited founding genetic pool.
A dog five generations removed from the founders with an unrelated dog equally as removed is still going to encounter some inbreeding issues depending on how badly those two dogs are linebred; albeit on separate paths.
hi Cait, Do you have a website? I am a collie breeder also, and I’d love to see your dogs! :)
This is one of my favorite dog topics, but this post so open-ended, and at such a mega over-all level, broadly taking in the whole of what is wrong, and what could be done, that it would take a whole book to address the issues, and I have not framed the issues into any sort of mental outline, because most people are still at the level of just acknowledging that a few simple problems exist.
I don’t know where to start to reply? But, idiot that I might be, I will give it a try. I hope you didn’t open this topic lightly, because for me, it is not a light topic.
First, lets start with the question: Are you considering working on a grass roots movement to bring change, or trying to educate the clubs so that they will bring change, or educating dog breeders to start reforms within their own breeding programs? Trying all 3 fronts at the same time requires a large army.
Not only does it require a large army, they must be people who are united. And that hasn’t happened yet.
The in-fights are thick. To have a movement, you have to set goals, and narrow the topic, excluding anything else which divides people – all mention of religion, politics, pit bulls, rescue, cats, hunting, dog training – everything except the one thing about dog breeding which you aim to change. That way, people are united, not divided.
Not to say, that each member can’t have their own blog with all sorts of other topics, but that any blog which is to be a center for changing something, must stick to the subject of getting that one change. Focus.
To have such a focused group, you need a big group of people, because you need some little variation within that group to attract more members, to get enough critical mass to have a group voice that can get the attention of those who are in a position to make the change work.
Then you have to have the political knowledge to know who can make the change happen, how to get them on your side, and the desire to shift from writing, to people work – or at least a front person who communicates these ideas for the group. (not going to volunteer for that, never!)
See how easy it is to tick people off? Every little difference causes the ununited herd to spat with each other.
I don’t want to snow in your swimming pool, I’m 100% for the idea of reforming the old system or making a new one, but I am more comfortable talking just about the problems because, pretty much, that is all anyone does, and I am not comfortable in being the first in the avant guard.
The old kings of the dogdom are dying without any heirs. Instead of their being dozens of young upstarts vieing for the thrown, we have people saying “NOT me. Get someone else to fight that battle. I am going home to tend my own garden.”
Consider this to be the largest species survival plan ever implemented.
Species survival plan for domestic dogs.
That has a nice sound to it, has anyone written beyond the title page? Or is this the start? Perhaps we should come up with some sort of rough draft of the outline, and then work some of the good ideas into it, that sound okay?
First, Is it, all the dogs as if they were all in one big gene pool, or are we ‘preserving’ each breed as if they were each a seperate gene puddle? and if so, can there by a little splashing from one gene puddle into another gene puddle, if required for good health?
Second, Too many of the dog fans are passionate about their own views, and too hateful towards people of other views. There must be some divisions between different types of interests.
The umbrella can not just have a corral around it, there must also be several assorted exercise pens under it, with each type of dog breeder sorted into groups of their own type of view point.
Might I, as a starting point for discussion, suggest these divisions of dog breeders:
Producing puppies to sell:
1. …..as pets to the public.
2. ……as hunting dogs to sell to other hunters.
3. …….as useful or working dogs to sell to other people who will work the dog. (herding, sledding, guarding or sniffing, helpers, therapy, etc)
4. …..as competition animals to be entered in competitions (like racing, fighting, shows, or trials).
5. …..as laboritory animals, to test or study disease, to study genes, to test reactions or products, or for some other similar use.
I start with a discussion of the breeders themselves and the people who buy the puppies, not the dogs themselves, because the dog’s habitat is our homes and yards.
Our question, is how narrowly or broadly do we want to ensure the survial of dogs?
They aren’t like a wild animal, where you want to preserve the animal’s habitat and preserve the animal much as it is.
Dogs are always a work in progess, a canvas wich the master changes in some way with each generation. Dogs are what we make them to be. They are not preserved, they are planned.
If you are talking about keeping each breed more or less as they are, with little adjustments to the standards, but still having competitive events (like; dog shows) to use to select the ‘fittest’ for breeding the next generation, then you are just delaying the end. The whole system needs to change.
I will think about it Retrieveman. I hate to sound so mundane, but I must go cook something to eat. I will return later tonight, and annoy the pure-blooder dog users some more.
“Stand firm for what you believe in, until and unless logic and experience prove you wrong. Remember, when the emperor looks naked, the emperor is naked.”
Be prepared to be attacked by the breed nazis where you declare the emperors nudity. I’m personally a bit stirred up about “purebreed-ism”, having been recently attacked on this very subject by breed elitists from, of all places, the farm collie community. The very people who ought to get this concept, as Christopher so eloquently put it “the elitism and arrogance and desire for purity is the exact same poison the doomed the old time farm shepherd”. But “blood purity for purity’s sake” is so deeply engrained in dog culture that it seeps into every breed community eventually, so that once a rare landrace starts getting some recognition, the next thing you know somebody starts pushing “purebreds” and putting down “crossbreds”. Hypocrites!
Sometimes, one must welcome their enmity.
Sometimes, you must say it like it is, even if they are being disagreeable and loud.
Maybe, but maybe most of the time it is better to look for more good sheep to join your flock, while chasing all the hyenas away.
You can’t argue with people who lie about WHY they think the way they are doing things is right.
For example: Say a person gets $1,200 a puppy (some people do) – they breed dogs to get this money. They breed purebreds because the market is there – having a standardised type provides ready customers. They have worked their way up far enough in line for the referrals that trickle down to them to be in the $1,200 range.
How many of them will say to a stranger: “I am sticking with this system, it is working for me” (they are making money) “I don’t care about breed health or type! I will breed whatever they want me to, to get that money. Without them, my puppies would sell for half of that! And I like being in the club – well now that I’m higher up in it than all of those younger people – now I like it”?
So what do this people say when they can’t say the truth?
You can’t argue sense into people when you are only argueing against lies, not real reasons.
Sometimes people do get led astray, by lies told by other people to cover up why they breed they way they do. These mimics can learn, but they have to be willing and able to stand up against or walk away from their mentors.
And quietly walking away, is what most people do. People wanting to buy a puppy don’t try to talk sense into dog breeders or clubs, they just find a friendlier place.
I have met many dog nazis, face to face, from both sides of the issues. I don’t bother with that anymore. Extremes are extremes at both ends, and the middle can be a bit weird too.
Sometimes people are just venting, but other people are simply pushy people who want to try to force other people to do things their way.
Just today, I find over at Jemima’s blog, people who post that Jemima should not favor the old style Bull Terrier over the current type, yet they fail to see that the whole concept of the their own dog’s type is based on favoring a new look.
And if one can accept favoring look “B” over look “A”, why is so hard to accept look “C”?
I could list some of the groups I have met:
People who went in person to dog shows as anti-dog-breeding trolls, but who turned out to be people who came from families of about 10 children and who wanted 10 children each for themselves and their siblings, and so formed a group to try to get rid of all pets, so that there would be enough food for them to become the grandparent of over 100 children.
When I pointed out that having 10 children each could not continue for many generations to come, the group’s mouth piece said she didn’t care what happened after she was dead, she wanted to be in the respected position which her grandmother now held. She didn’t care what happened to her children or grandchildren after she was gone.
When I pointed out that her grandmother’s position was due to her relative wealth – the grandmother owned a large ranch – and the fact that each of her 10 chilldren wanted to inherit it and therefore visited her often,
– while she (the mouth piece) lived in a rented apartment, and with the expense of raising 10 children with no job, would have no lure to get 10 families climbing over themselves to win her favor,
– she said maybe her father would be the one to inherit the ranch (but he wasn’t the oldest, the youngest, or the most favored), and maybe she might be the one to inherit from him.
So for her 1% chance of being the one to inherit the property, all of us should give up all pets, in the remote chance, that this would somehow magically delay world population numbers?
She agreed that I had summed up her thinking accurately, but then added that she liked going to dog shows to harrass people. She actually had a small following – maybe minus a few after they heard her explain her position to me.
But the dog show people were no more reasonable. They gave unbelieveable reasons why dogs had to bred the way they did it, and were terrible to people who looked at the situation, and choose a better path in dog breeding. And getting the breeders together in clubs did not seem to mellow their intolerance at all.
And the rescues? I want to believe that some of them love animals and do what’s right for them – but “familiarity breeds contempt” seems to be the slogan which applies best. Too often the ones I got to know, were a front for greed or hoarding.
And just plain weirdness? Plenty of that.
Myself, at the rate things seem to be going here, I believe that it would be best for each breed to be their own club, that way some clubs could have health standards, some would have trials, some would have shows, etc. The public could choose what they wanted.
I have found no reason to have a big show club to produce pet puppies. Show clubs are fine for producing show puppies for the relatively few dog owners who want to enter their dog in shows.
But, unfortunately, this could mean a steeper slide towards each breed being the product of one puppy mill. The only way to stop that is to limit the number of unfixed dogs each person, and each property can have.
It is best to have a registry run by people who do not raise many dogs themselves, but who bring a close cluster of breeders of dogs of the same type together at the same website.
Pet puppies should be born into homes with people, and be raised around people and the noise and scents of the home. Pet puppies need to be produced from a network of pet people, or even, like it use to be, just regular people whose pet dog as a litter of puppies.
I find no reason to have big puppy mills produce puppies to be sold as pets, or for pet puppies to be produced by hunting dogs, trialers, show dogs, or anything other than pet homes.
For pet homes, breed type is not important, just a general type. For example: “cute littile dog with long hair” is a general type which could be bred – pet homes don’t need for the pet dog to be of pure linage which traces back, not bred outside of it’s own little group, for 90 years.
This is a link to a site which divides breeds into groups – the idea being that all breeds within these new groups would be varieties of the group, and could be interbred or kept pure as their owner chooses.
The problem here, is that if you start entering the interbreds in any competitions, you get right back to where we are now, with over-popular sires, many life long virgin female dogs who are never bred, but other female dogs who have litter after litter.
And again, you could have selection for genes that help a dog win a show, but puppies who are sold as pets to families who expect that the puppy they are buying was, of course, bred from dogs selected to be good pets – not good sled pullers, sheep herders, show winners, or milk producers. (milk producers, like in puppy mills where the best female is the one who raises the most puppies).
What we need is a better selection process than dog shows. We need to select the best house dogs for breeding – dogs of all sizes who are geared to fit into living in a house and being good pets and family members. How do you test for that?
We don’t need to look for the best house dogs, just very good ones who are healthy.
Of course, other people could still breed dogs for hunting, shows, or whatever, but they should sell their puppies to other people within their own sport/hobby.
Odd as it seems some crosses from less alike breeds have turned out well too.
http://publicdomainkennelclub.blogspot.com
Even “landraces” have some degree of “closed selection” since the intent of a landrace is that it be functional “for something”. It is silly to throw out selection because sometimes selection has been for the wrong things (exaggerated dogs that have poor health). The trick is to change what one is selecting FOR.
Moreover, while the “bench” pug may have all these negative characteristics, it’s unlikely that EVERY pug does so. Here’s a Heresy. Many of those dreaded “puppy mill” and “backyard breeder” dogs are in better shape than the “bench dogs”. You don’t see most of them because what’s shown are the bench dogs. But with most popular breeds, there’s probably enough diversity there to start with a “calling all dogs” and selecting for health rather than the exaggerated show characteristics. It’s my understanding that the UK kennel club is doing something along those lines. In the US, the biggest handicap to doing this is the promotion of spay/neuter for any dog deemed “a pet”. It actually reduces the choices to move away from the current “bench dog” faults.
And yes, the puggle and puggerke (pug/skipperke) or other crosses can, if used carefully, redress the more severe faults pretty quickly. Breeding away from the faults and rewarding them would be helpful. But as long as the conformation ring “runs” what is considered a correct specimen of a breed and that conformation ring is rewarding dogs with physical disabilities, there will be no progress in canine health in this area.
So it gets back to either persuading those who are “into conformation” to changing their selection criteria to include better health (and we are seeing that, if slowly) and rewarding less exaggerated dogs or finding a venue where those breeders who wish to breed less exaggerated dogs can find a way to get together (that was the original intent of shows to some degree – to allow breeders to see and evaluate the dogs of another breeder).
And drop the “winner takes all” philosophy. It promotes cutthroat competition and exaggeration as each breeder tries to have that “little bit more” that will gain them “the win”. Even just selecting the “top 10%” and rewarding them equally would be a vast improvement. Judges need to get some veterinary education – perhaps dogs should be subject to a veterinary inspection as to basic soundness before they can get that coveted “championship”. That also would help.
Basically, you have to penalize breeding unhealthy dogs (by withholding awards, etc) and reward those who do breed healthy animals. I wouldn’t worry so much about the COI. Currently there are more serious things to deal with and insisting that breeders “do it all” immediately is not reasonable. Just reward the sounder dogs. The average COI will drop as a result of the inherent problems with inbreeding in general. Once one has more sound dogs to choose among, then one can start concerning oneself with COI. For those who want to take the “short cut” then the 3 generation Appendix registration is the line of least resistance. And of course that would drop the average COI as well.
Peggy Richter.
Peggy, I agree with some of your thoughs on dog show reforms. Like less emphasis on the winner. One way to do this might be to give each dog one point for each dog he was better than – but then the judge has to rank each dog, not just pick four. But this could be done in obedience where exact scores are given. (You would have to not count dogs who disqualified).
Same problem with ranking the dogs A S D C F – it requires the judge to judge each dog, not just pick the winners. I guess your idea of picking a top ten could work.
Myself, I don’t find any reason to have dog shows as they are now. I believe that they cause people to choose to breed dogs that win dog shows, rather than dogs who are good pets or useful at something. And, I believe that shows foster inbreeding. To me, dog shows have no goal which applies to real life.
Not my thing – and I have had it with show breeders harassing me with “Only show dogs should be bred” and “People should NOT breed dogs to be pets”. I wont get into it here – but this has been going on for a long time, and although I no longer breed dogs, I still growl when I read it on the internet!
So, naturally, figuring out how to save dog shows – not going to be my priority, is it?
Peggy, your other point could be a whole blog, not just a post, or a comment. Odd that you should mention it, when it is one of the things which I have been thinking about recently.
I don’t know how old you are, or how long you have been interested in dogs (assuming that you are), but I am old enough to remember the past and see how different things are now. The heirloom dogs that you mention were simply called “purebreds” but the term didn’t mean quite what it does now.
Before my time, I understand that most people had unregistered dogs. They might have belonged to a landrace or not. By the time I was a kid, many people raised and sold “purebreds” who did have papers.
Where those dogs came from, and if the papers had been bought from one person, and the dogs from another, I don’t know, but I do remember the dogs.
Each breed was a type, they didn’t all look the same like today’s cookie cutter dog breeds. The Cocker Spaniels weren’t all the same, some were looser, some were more hairy than others, some lighter boned than others – they varied in type but were still easy to recognise as Cocker Spaniels.
The same could be said of German Shepherd dogs – some people’s GSD was light boned and agile, others were heavier, some had a big head – but not all of them, some were relaxed, some shorthaired – but some longer haired.
All of these were papered purebreds. But I could walk into a dog pound and notice when one of the purebred dogs there was a show dog. The show dogs within each of the popular breeds were like a different family.
As an example: If I said “the German people”, you would know that I meant a varied group of people, but where most of them share some traits. But if I said “The German family of my neighbor’s brother” – then you know that is a specific smaller group within the catagory “the German people”.
With dogs, it was like, as if the only people within the group “the German People” who continued to have children, were my neighbor’s brother’s family in Germany. As if what was once a small piece of a greater group, multiplied and the rest of that group just quit reproducing, until the group name and the family name meant the same thing.
Actually the GSD was not the right choice for that example because they were better at preserving their “purebred but not showbred” dogs. I think their breed came to mind because they are the ones who talk about breeding non-show types. The Cocker would be a better example.
I have seen a heirloom Cocker, purebred but not show bred, from an independant line from long ago – it had soft fine hair, but not long hair, and normal gundog ears not show ears.
But each line of heirloom Cockers would be different from each other – depending on which Cockers they bred from.
Terriers too, one might even say that the Jack Russell is almost an heirloom fox terrier – purebred but not show bred. Once part of the general breed “fox terriers”, but when the rest of the fox terriers went show dog, they were the ones who didn’t.
Tunderstand the idea of diversity, you could go to petfinders and look at the photos of the dogs there. All the dogs with the same label don’t look the same. At one time, purebreds varied like that. No not the purebreds the dog show people had, but the purebreds that regular people produced.
I always get asked from people who are more dog savvy…Why Cockers crossed to the FCR considering they have many health issues. …. Well, Duh…. That applies to any breed of dog, there are issues with all of them. For that matter there are a list of issues that are associated with different human races, yet no one is telling a Black dude with high cholesterol Not to marry an Irish girl with Asthma . But that still doesn’t mean that as a breeder I took the time to look for the one specimen from each breed I’m working with and purposefully sought out the worst example of it to add into a planned breeding. Perhaps if I was really into experimenting and seeing if the effects of cross breeding were that effective I would take the worst examples and see how many puppies came out better because of it. But I’m not into taking that risk. I know my dogs. I know their parents and their lines. And therefore I have healthy puppies from healthy parents.
Now if my parent dogs were aggressive bastards…. I wouldn’t use them. If they were sickly bastards I wouldn’t use them. If they were both carriers of a common disorder I wouldn’t use them for fear of doubling up on a recessive. But, when you have the ability to pick and choose and be selective in this process, you look for what fits your best interpretation of an excellent example. That criteria is for you to fill in and it can vary from dog to dog or from breed to breed. Either way, no one in their right mind looks for the worst representation of anything to add to their program.
It is really quick fodder for those who wish to discredit you for any given reason to immediately poke their noses into your decisions and without knowing all the details they make their own very closed minded and often stupid ASSumptions based on common stereotypes. Or often hearsay from others who for whatever reason have a bone to pick with you. And when you look more closely at their reasons for having this grudge, its often because you didn’t allow them to control you. Man that must sting when you try to force your ideologies down someone’s throat and they in turn look towards common sense and science to dispel all the common myths that have been tagged to each breed, often unfounded or often untrue for generations.
As humans we lead our decision for procreation and mating based off of our emotions, many build a relationship beforehand, other do it for the sheer joy of the act. But we consciously make these decisions without having to ask our partner for the multigenerational pedigree of their lineage. And further investigating their health. That information in our culture often comes after the decision has been made about who we choose to have children with. But when you’re the one holding the cards, when you’re deciding what two animals you own are going to mate. Then, when playing GOD you have to be more selective about where you call the starting point. And if you do start out on that journey, you need to have alternatives mapped out.
You have the advantage of not having dogs with their own say in these matters. Otherwise you’re stuck watching a cycle of close line breeding forever if they don’t have an opportunity to roam. The sad part is that even with human intervention…. you still see a cycle of continual line breeding for generations because humans seem to think this is the right thing to do. Hmmm.
I need to call my cousins and Aunts now…. I feel like making babies. Okay that’s a bit extreme. But the point is the same. Eventually something bad will come of it and the ones to carry that torch will be the offspring from such pairings. If the Kings and Queens of England taught us anything, it was that Hemophilia didn’t magically appear because you were given a crown and called the King and Queen of England. It was because for the sake of being pure blooded they were often line bred and inbred. So the fate of our pure blooded dogs took the lessons learned from this mistake in our history and amplified it. Then condoned it and now put a value on it. Then formed a registry to promote it and now after decades of doing the purist thing…we’re all scratching our heads. DOH.