Good reading in other places
By Gina Spadafori
December 28, 2007
I had to laugh with bitter humor last night when a online discussion of an e-mail puppy-buying scam turned into a discussion of placing dogs with an agency that trains dogs for people with disabilities.
One person wrote that she would never, ever place one of her flatcoated retrievers with even the most legitimate service dog group, because, among other things, they might decide to breed the dog with a non-flatcoat.
Insert bitter laughter here. See, flatcoated retrievers, to use the description of them offered by a veterinarian friend, are wonderful dogs except for three things:
- Cancer
- Cancer
- Cancer
So far, I’ve been lucky. I lost my wonderful old boy Ben to malignant histiocytosis (common in flatcoats and Bernese Mountain Dogs). He was 11, which is not exactly a grand old age, but a respectable one nonetheless. Heather is 11 and doing well (although her littermate is dying of cancer, another littermate died of cancer at 4, and her half-sister died of cancer last Friday, age 9). A lot of flatcoats die very early of cancer — 5, 6, 7, 8.
Yeah, so heaven forbid we outcross to solve some of these health problems! And what on earth are service dog groups thinking when they do things like cross Labradors and goldens to get a shorter coated, less bull-headed working dog? Or poodles with Labradors to get a more eager to please dog?
Sheesh. Utterly closed breed gene pools are the result of utterly closed minds and business models that are afraid of change even if change would be good for the dogs (and the people who love them). The flatcoated retriever is by no means the only breed that could use some well-chosen outcrosses to help with health problems. But it’s the breed I know best, so why not bring in some healthy field-bred Labs or other working retrievers? The physical signs of the outcrosses would quickly disappear and the dogs would soon look like flatcoats again – and if you doubt me, check out this European breeding project that sought to produce boxers with naturally short tails – by breeding them with Corgis!
And by the way, any of you who read this blog and think you want a flatcoat? Be warned: They’re bouncy, boisterous, active — and will break your heart eight ways to Sunday. Trust me on this.
All these musings were going on against the backdrop of my usual holiday blues and a rather nasty fight with my mother over how I spend my money. (Her key point: “You have too many pets and they eat better than you do.” My key point: “I’m a syndicated pet-care columnist. In a few days I’ll be 50 years old. It’s none of your damn business how many pets I have, or how much I spend on them.”). Within hours, this was a three-city mess with the entire family involved.
For just one day, I don’t want to be Italian. Everything’s a drama, I swear.
For relief, I wandered over to Terrierman and read his recent rant against dog shows and the American Kennel Club. (Christie’s previous rant was a good one, too.) I have to grant him his points and even plead guilty to some of them. I don’t like dog shows, and consider getting a championship a necessary evil to get out of the way so the dogs and I can do field work. I have no coordination, so I do write checks to a professional handler to get the “string ring thing” handled. Guilty as changed.
From Terrierman:
Anyone who knows anything about dogs or genetics knows there are serious problems withhin the Kennel Club.
Working dogs drawn into the Kennel Club lose their working abilities within 50 years or so — i.e. as fast as their working abilities can be washed out of the gene pool by a breeding program that places no value on those abilities.
Even as the working abilities of Kennel Club dogs evaporate, gene-based health problems tend to rise up due to concerted programs of inbreeding and the overuse of championship sires, which results in a “doubling down” on negative recessive genes.
Add in to the equation the fact that some breeds are specifically bred for their genetic defects — short faces that result in serious breathing problems, dwarfism that results in heart and joint problems, and coat color patterns that are tied to the genes for deafness — and you have all the health issues that prompt Mr Arman to suggest Kennel Club reform.
So why do I think Kennel Club reform is impossible? Simple: The Kennel Club is an economic system with economic assets. Change the rules of the game, and billions of dollars of canine breeding stock will be worth a great deal less overnight.
If that happens, a lot of people will quit the Kennel Club in rapid order, others will join any one of several dozen class-action lawsuits that are certain to be filed, while still others will run off to join free-standing non-affiliated breed clubs or competing kennel club registries.
Put it altogether, and you can see how major changes could easily result in the Kennel Club being pushed past the economic tipping point.
And don’t think the folks at the Kennel Club haven’t thought about this. You do not have to be a Wharton Business School graduate to know there are dangers in economic, social and institutional transitions.
The working thing isn’t entirely true. A rather high percentage of “show flatcoats” can still hunt. My guys are from “hunting lines that show” rather than “show lines that may (or may not) hunt.” In flatcoats, there’s a lot of overlap, and my friend Don hunts over his show champion dog all season long. But the flatcoat is a rare breed, and an exception to this rule. The flatcoat people are also pretty keen on keeping the breed from splitting into working/show lines.
Anyway, our Terrierman pal likes to stir the pot, and that’s always a good thing. So go read, and also his previous post on veterinary costs, also some very interesting pot-stirring I don’t entirely agree with (and don’t entirely disagree with) but read with great enthusiasm. Heck … it’s a slow day: Just go to the top of the blog and read backwards.
Then wander over to Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty Khuly’s Dolittler blog and read about bartering for veterinary services. In my starving writer days, I did some of this, writing newsletters and developing Web sites for my vets, bless their generous hearts.
***
Over on Border Wars, Christopher finds a gem from PETA suggesting that having sex with people is a good way to convert them to your beliefs. Hmmmm, well, maybe if the sex is good. … Diana L. Guerrero, an animal trainer with big cat experience, writes about the tragedy at the San Francisco zoo.
More? Send me links to good stuff and I’ll add on.
“Yeah, so heaven forbid we outcross to solve some of these health problems! And what on earth are service dog groups thinking when they do things like cross Labradors and goldens to get a shorter coated, less bull-headed working dog? Or poodles with Labradors to get a more eager to please dog?
Sheesh. Utterly closed breed gene pools are the result of utterly closed minds and business models that are afraid of change even if change would be good for the dogs (and the people who love them).”
It sounds like an idea with some merit, but here’s the thing - what makes this any different than cockapoos and all the “Designer Dogs” who have followed? It’s easy to say “But THIS would be done by breed fanciers with a lot of care to be sure it’s done right”.
Maybe. Still, though, it’s a slippery slope, and there would have to be a LOT of attention paid to defining the limits (e.g. how do we know when we “got there”) to be sure the project was ended when the objectives were met. That’s not always easy to do when a lot of strong egos are involved (No! Dog people with strong egos and equally strong opinions? Horrors!)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 28, 2007 @ 10:55 am
why does a service dog have to a purebred anyway?
Isn’t the important thing the dog’s temperament, intelligence and trainability?
We all know that 1000’s of dogs that fit this description are killed in shelters every year.
I believe in purebred dogs.. but what am I missing here?
Comment by EmilyS — December 28, 2007 @ 10:56 am
I don’t worry about “slippery slopes.” I want working dogs with jobs and pet dogs well-suited for good homes … and people who care that they’re doing well by their animals!
A working dog doesn’t have to be a purebred by any measure. If a golden-Lab purpose bred cross will git ‘er done as a service dog, yeah, that’s fine by me. After all, most “breeds” aren’t that old and are the result of someone (or a group of someones) vision of a dog for a particular job.
I guess for me, there has to be a purpose (aside from making $$ or building egos) whenever a dog is bred. Problem is, too many dogs are bred for the wrong reasons … with very bad results.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 28, 2007 @ 11:19 am
The amount of pets dying of cancer seems to be an epidemic. Non-purebreds are afflicted with this dread disease in appalling numbers too. Would love to see some investigative work on this subject next year.
There are many service organizations that get their dogs from shelters. Certain breeds are more adaptable to their purposes than others. Not only do these dogs serve a wonderful purpose, they get wonderful homes in return.
Here’s to a New Year where pets are given the attention they truly deserve.
Comment by Carol — December 28, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Here is some information about the two breeds I’m most familiar with- Dalmatians and Shiba Inus.
For those interested in dog genetics and outcrossing, here is the link to the Dalmatian Heritage Project:
http://www.dalmatianheritage.com/index.htm
Recognizing the limited gene pool in the US, American Shiba Inu breeders have begun carefully importing Shibas from Japan. I say carefully because of recent history:
World War II nearly spelled disaster for the Shiba, and most of the dogs that did not perish in bombing raids succumbed to distemper during the post-war years. While the Mino and Sanin Shibas became practically extinct, more of the Shinshu Shibas survived. After the war, Shibas were brought from the remote countryside, and breeding programs were established. The remnants of the various bloodlines were combined to produce the breed as it is known today. (source:Jacey Holden, National Shiba Club of America website)
Dalmatian and Shiba Inu breeders that I’ve known have tried to retain the “working” traits of these breeds.
From the Dalmatian standard: The Dalmatian is a distinctively spotted dog; poised and alert; strong, muscular and active; free of shyness; intelligent in expression; symmetrical in outline; and without exaggeration or coarseness. The Dalmatian is capable of great endurance, combined with fair amount of speed.
In other words, a dog capable of completing road trials, hunting, guarding, etc.
Shiba Inus have traditionally been used for hunting and as guard dogs. In Japan, the NIPPO association will test Shibas against boars. http://www.shibas.org/judgesed/seminar/index.htm
(Can’t quite see the AKC doing this.)
My Shiba will alert me when she sees wild turkeys, deer,etc. I became convinced of her hunting ability after the following incident.
About a year ago, my Shiba and I went out for a walk along one of the park areas along the American River. When we got to the park edge, she sat down and sniffed the air for a very long time. Normally, she would walk out into this particular area without any hesitation. I started forward and she remained planted in a sit. So I decided we wouldn’t go out there after all. A week later, we received a “cougar alert” and reports of dead deer carcasses in the area.
Comment by glock — December 28, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Cross-breeding could easily be controlled by the parent clubs if they wanted to do so. Guidelines could be set and followed to achieve registration of pups from cross-bred dogs. There is a Chinook cross-breeding project in conjunction with UKC that is very interesting and a good example for others to follow. There are also livestock registries that allow cross-breds to be registered as whatever percentage they are; no reason this could not be done in dogs. Also of interest: Google the Dalmatian Pointer project.
Comment by Jessica — December 28, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
Glock/Jessica, i was just about to post the Dalmatian Heritage Project and Dalmatian Pointer info :) Stone free Dals would be nice . . .
Comment by straybaby — December 28, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Slightly off topic with the other comments, but I hear ya when it comes to the “you have too many pets” issue.
I have 13 pets. Just adopted a senior rabbit with some as yet mysterious health issue. I’m an adult. I can pay my bills. My animals are in fine health and happy. What does anyone care where my or your money goes?
Comment by cheshire — December 28, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
It sounds like an idea with some merit, but here’s the thing – what makes this any different than cockapoos and all the “Designer Dogs” who have followed? It’s easy to say “But THIS would be done by breed fanciers with a lot of care to be sure it’s done right”.
What’s different is this: the “designer dog” breeders are not breeding for any purpose except producing puppies for sale. They take a dog of one breed, mate it to a dog of another breed, and sell all the puppies as “designer dogs.”
What the original labradoodle and goldendoodle breeders were trying to do, and the UK boxer breeders crossing their dogs with Pembroke corgies did, is what every group of people producing a new or improved breed did before the days of the kennel clubs and closed stud books: breeding selectively, keeping the puppies that were closest to the desired goal, breeding the next generation, keeping the puppies closest to the desired goal, wash, rinse, repeat, until you’re consistently producing puppies that grow up to be dogs close enough to the standard you’re working for to be called dogs of breed X.
Controlled outcrossing to improve the health of the existing breed is perfectly doable, if the AKC, UKC, CKC, KC wanted to do it. They don’t.
Comment by Lis — December 28, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
This message is for straybaby and addresses one of the consequences of uric acid imbalance in Dalmatians. Not only does this lead to stones, but it can also cause blockage of the urethra in male Dalmatians. (What I jokingly refer to as the “Plugged Peter Syndrome”— which is anything but a joke.)
About thirty years ago, I watched Two Star, my first male Dalmatian, lift his leg at least three times to urinate— and nothing came out. I went over to him to check his groin area and it seemed inlarged. So I hauled him off to the vet. The vets sedated him and reamed out the urethra to remove the uric acid crystal blockage.(Ouch!) If I had not noticed his problem with urination, he would have died. Thereafter, he got antacid pills (the medication at the time) and I diligently monitored his urination.
This is one reason why Holly Nelson, DVM, member of the Dalmatian Club of Northern California,and others were so focused on the “Dalmatian outcross project’. (Holly passed away in the late 1980’s and is fondly remembered by DCNC members as a dedicated vet and Dalmatian lover.)
Comment by glock — December 28, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Again, off the main topic, but ah yes, family gatherings - the time when we all become 8 years old again. Gina - my mom does the same thing. Not as much as she used to, but she’s an expert at spending other people’s money.
The good news, I have a very nice, but very financially inept sibling. Nothing I buy for my pets, could come close to his spendaholic issues - hey my cat food costs $1.49 a can, but I do not drive a $50k car (OK, I don’t even have a car)or have a house that I won’t live long enough to pay off.
Absent another family member to divert attention, I recommend you agree with her and then tell her your going to be spending your money on something she would find even more objectionable (skydiving lessons, joining a swingers club, moving to Zimbabwe). No it won’t change anything, but at least you’ll get a laugh out of it.
Comment by 2CatMom — December 28, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Those interested in preserving purebred dogs while improving their genetic health couldn’t do much better than join the Canine Genetics discussion group ( http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/g.....-Genetics/ ), where many knowledgeable people such as Bruce Cattanach (developer of the “Bobtail Boxer”) have a great deal of wisdom to impart.
Comment by Lisa — December 28, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
A note about “slippery slope” defense arguments: Their basic premise is that humans are not rational and are incapable of cutting steps into a slippey slope.
“Slippery slope arguments” are generally reached for when one side or another is incapable of defending their defenseless position any other way, whether that position is held by an NRA extremist arguing that everyone has a “right” to a shoulder-fired bazooka, or a radical ACLU member who claims that one of the biggest threats to civil liberties in this country are Baby Jesus creche scenes at the Mall. Nonsense to both, but “slippery slope” is the answer you will
get back.
In the world of working dogs we know what works to make good dogs because: 1) our dogs actually work, and; 2) the Kennel Club routinely “raids” the world of working dogs to “get” the quality working breeds that the Kennel Club itself has never managed to create.
This is an important point: The KC has never created a working dog — they have only managed to destroyed them. And it’s not a few breeds — its dozens and dozens of them.
Breeds, for the record, are entirely man-made. The cock-a-poo is not less legitimate a “breed” than a Yorkie, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, or a Bichon. Lap dogs are lap dogs. There are unhealthy ones and healthy ones, and they come in a variety of colors, but aside from health issues, one is not demonstrably “better” at its job (or non-job) than another. That is not true in the world of working dogs, where the “judge” is not some wide-load in a blazer, but a duck, a pheasant, a fox, or a criminal. In the world of true work, there is no judging up the leash.
As to the Flat Coats, I claim to know nothing, but I do know that if you go to the Flat-coated Retriever Society of America, the AKC breed club, they will tell you everything you need to know about the Kennel Club program for this dog. Go ahead and try to find anything meaningful about working dogs >> http://www.fcrsainc.org/ The Capitol (DC/VA/MD) Region Flat-coated Retriever Club in my area tells much the same story even though we are in middle of one of the biggest duck and goose corridors on the planet. See for yourself >> http://www.crfcrc.org/
So do some of these dogs hunt? Of course! But not many, and it’s not valued by the Kennel Club. My understanding of the history of the dog is that it was pulled into the KC in 1915 or so, almost died out as a breed by the mid-1960s, and was revitalized as a pet and show dog at that point. The double genetic bottleneck has resulted in a pretty high average COI within the breed, and a lot of cancer as Gina describes. I would be interested to know if there is a real HUNTING Flat-coated retriever web site or publication site that represents more than a single breeder trying for market advantage.
The notion that a breed club determines the rules under which its dog is bred in the Kennel Club is nonsense. The Kennel Club breed club is NOT free to open up its registry. This is Kennel Club 101. In any case, it’s not like a Kennel Club breed club actually represents anyone but breeders and top-show people, is it? Why would these folks want to devalue their breed stock by removing the “exclusivity” of a closed registry? A closed registry is what they are selling.
Yes, it’s a sadness that cancer is also what you are too often buying with a Flat-coated retriever, but “that’s the breaks” as far as the Kennel Club is concerned. Opening up the registry is NOT going to be considered. My God, if they did that, then they would have nothing but (sniff-sniff) MONGRELS …. dogs like the Flat-coated Retriever was the year *before* it was pulled into the Kennel Club. Go back to *that*? What horror!
P.
Comment by PBurns — December 29, 2007 @ 8:02 am
“The physical signs of the outcrosses would quickly disappear and the dogs would soon look like flatcoats again – and if you doubt me, check out this European breeding project that sought to produce boxers with naturally short tails – by breeding them with Corgis!”
From the link: “The Corgi bob-tail gene was selected for this project in view of its possible use in the event of a docking ban. It effectively gives a docked tail image but has the disadvantage that it will not breed true.”
http://www.cdb.org/index.htm
Comment by trucorgi — December 29, 2007 @ 8:05 am
Of course, Patrick, most people in flatcoats (to continue with the example) have them as pets, fewer as pets/show dogs and fewer still as pets/hunting dogs.
But that probably more reflects the relative numbers of people who are interested in those pursuits. And we do have a breed that hasn’t split into show/obedience/agility/field lines as others have, most notably golden retrievers.
However, you can’t have a hall of fame flatcoat without the dog being able to retrieve a bird. Our top show dog in recent years (many best in shows and a group win at Westminster) was also a hunt titled dog.
But … I’ll grant you that breeding primarily for working ability is not the emphasis. There are far more dogs in the show ring than in the field.
***
trucorgi: That quote does not alter my point that outcrossing can and does introduce the traits we deem “desirable” in a breed, for whatever reason.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 29, 2007 @ 8:21 am
To PBurns:
I haven’t yet waded through your entire post. But I hope you noticed I was not outright rejecting Gina’s thoughts on the matter - simply pointing out that such a venture should only be undertaken with thought AHEAD OF TIME to definitions of when the objectives were met and the project complete. Otherwise, such a practice could continue indefinitely, with each person deciding for themselves whether their actions were or were not still within the scope of the project. And as is well known with - say - the phenomenon of “kennel blindness” - letting people make these kinds of judgements without also weighing objective outside input doesn’t always lead to the best decision-making.
Sheesh.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 29, 2007 @ 8:37 am
Also - as Gina points out - most dogs in this country (not just Flatcoats) function as *pets* rather than as *working dogs*. That’s just the way it is. An interesting argument I’ve seen among dog folks over the years has to do with to what degree it’s even wise to try to retain working traits (please note here that I’m not coming down on either side of this discussion - merely recounting it). This is because working traits in a lot of breeds of dogs don’t always co-exist compatibly with what makes a dog a good companion in most pet homes. A dog with well-expressed working traits for whatever his/her breed is may be hyper-vigilant, or in need of constant activity (far beyond what can be provided by a person with a fulltime job) or just generally “sharp”.
So - the argument goes - do you “soften” those traits to make the dog more acceptable as a companion, since “pet” homes are far and away the overwhelming majority of homes available? Or do you keep the working breed traits sharpened, even if it severely limits the homes that would be available and qualified to work with dogs possessing such traits?
I don’t think this is a particularly easy question to answer.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 29, 2007 @ 8:52 am
>I don’t think this is a particularly easy question to answer.
I was just thinking the same thing. MOST homes want an easy-going companion. And many working dogs — especially if not kept well-exercised in body and brain — are not easy going companions.
My dogs sure aren’t. They are ill-suited to a “normal” home with people gone a lot and kids’ soccer games to attend while the dogs hang out bored and lonely in the yard.
But then, their brains and drive is what I love about them. (That, and they make ME exercise more to keep up with them!)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 29, 2007 @ 9:02 am
And here’s the thing - to maintain breed traits - whether based on appearance, behaviors, or some combination thereof - you need to breed some number of individuals to keep a decent gene pool and to have animals to select from. In other words, you can’t just literally breed “as many as you need” - you have to breed more than that. So you keep the ones who meet the criteria, and then have to do something with the rest.
In this day and age, the “something” that you do with the rest usually entails placing them in a pet home. But that wasn’t always the case.
It’s not something dog lovers like to think about, but the fact is that historically, in working breeds, the selection was via culling. That is, the dogs who met the criteria and became good working dogs survived to do their designated tasks. And the dogs who could not fulfill this role generally didn’t survive - either because they couldn’t make it out in the environment where they were expected to work, or because they were simply culled (killed) by the owners who couldn’t afford to keep a non-working dog around.
For performance-based criteria, this is a ruthlessly effective way to maintain working traits. And there’s no denying it was a SUCCESSFUL way to maintain working traits for a long, long time.
But again, that was then, this is now. These days, if you have a working breed, and decide you want to select for working traits, what do you do with the ones who don’t “measure up”. Because frankly, even a lot of those dogs will still be too much for the average companion home.
These are hard questions.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 29, 2007 @ 9:19 am
PBurns: “Kennel Club” is the name of THIS English organization:
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/
“American Kennel Club is the name of THIS American organization.
https://www.akc.org/
Your points may be true of both organizations but you should properly refer to the one you mean.
IF (“if”) breeds mean anything, then it is simply not true that “The cock-a-poo is not less legitimate a “breed” than a Yorkie, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, or a Bichon”.. unless you want to add “Jack Russell Terrier” to that list. All breeds are artificial creations, but “breed” does mean something more than putting 2 dogs of different breeds together for a few generations. As I’m sure you know. Lapdogs are (or were…) as carefully created as so called working dogs.
But perhaps your point is that there are NO legitimate breeds?
Except the few JRTs that still kill groundhogs (primarily) for our sport?
Comment by EmilyS — December 29, 2007 @ 10:05 am
I don’t like dog shows, and consider getting a championship a necessary evil to get out of the way so the dogs and I can do field work
I consider showing dogs to be the evil I have to put up to keep from being labeled a ‘puppy mill’. I hate showing. I think it’s silly, pointless, and does nothing to improve the health and welfare of my breed. I am outraged when I hear people tout showing as the way to best choose the most suitable dogs for breeding - it’s like assuming that Miss America contestants are best suited for having babies.
I tried my hardest to have mandatory health testing included in our National Breed Club’s constitution, only to be shot down by both the CKC and the general membership. Until the show rings puts equal worth on the inner qualities of the dog, along with the outer qualities (something I’m not holding my breath for), dog shows will remain pointless beauty pageants.
Carol
Comment by Carol — December 29, 2007 @ 10:11 am
To PBurns:
Here is the FCRSA field site you asked about —
http://www.fcrsafield.com/index.html
And a quick glance through the most recent FCRSA newsletter (Fall 2007) shows that the parent club does put a great deal of emphasis on hunt tests and hunting…
Page 1, the club president mentions his own upcoming hunting plans, discusses a recent WC & WCX test, and field committee work.
Board minutes mention insurance approval for three field events
The FCRSA Specialty Veteran Sweeps comments show that of the ten veteran dogs with placements, five had hunt titles, eight had performance titles. Of the twelve bitches with placements, ten had hunt titles, eleven had performance titles.
There is a full page ad for a FCRSA field trial
The regional club reports all discussed their WC/WCX and field training events.
The field committee had a report on new events and contacts.
There was a three page field training article
There was a one page article on hunting
There was a two page article on teaching dogs to line for hunt tests
The following new hunt titles were listed for April - August 2007 — 41 Junior Hunters, 13 Senior Hunters, 5 Master Hunters.
Seven field trial placements & jams were listed
And there was a two page list of producers of dogs with 2006 field accomplishments (sires and dams.)
The Fall 2007 newsletter is 72 pages long, and about one quarter of the newsletter includes mention of or is completely devoted to hunting or hunt training or field events.
There are also email lists specifically geared to fcrs in the field.
Comment by Patti — December 29, 2007 @ 10:32 am
“trucorgi: That quote does not alter my point that outcrossing can and does introduce the traits we deem “desirable” in a breed, for whatever reason”
It can, but it can also introduce traits we deem undesirable as well. In the study the bob tail trait was selected for in response to the animal rights movement move to ban tail docking, not to eradicate a health issue in the boxer. As we already know it is much easier to introduce a cosmetic trait than to address a health problem like cancer. But my points in posting that was that without the ability to have the gene breed true, you will always have corgis and boxers with tails, no matter how much cross breeding you do, and regardless of even bob to bob breedings. Let’s face it the reason we have outcrosses of poos and doodle dogs is because there is a public demand for them as pets. If there weren’t a market for them I doubt they would be given a fancy name and we would still refer to them as a poodle mix. If these crosses could provide a cure for cancer I think you would see a lot of interest from the AKC and parent clubs, not to mention the NIH. Corgi breeders have not traditionally selected for the bob tail trait because docking was an option, and we hope it will continue to be in the US. Our standard says “docked”. Other traits have been traditionally selected for through the years, but the gene does still exist. The 4th generation of these boxers were registered as purebred and shown in the UK. A similar study is going on with the Australian Shepherd. http://www.imgnr.com/nbt_study.htm
Comment by trucorgi — December 29, 2007 @ 11:11 am
trucorgi wrote: “If these crosses could provide a cure for cancer I think you would see a lot of interest from the AKC and parent clubs, not to mention the NIH.”
I wouldn’t bet the farm on that.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 29, 2007 @ 11:19 am
The OTHER Pat raised an interesting point:
“So – the argument goes – do you “soften” those traits to make the dog more acceptable as a companion, since “pet” homes are far and away the overwhelming majority of homes available? Or do you keep the working breed traits sharpened, even if it severely limits the homes that would be available and qualified to work with dogs possessing such traits?”
Indeed, softened or watered down dogs from working breeds has created some very nice pets. Being a pet is a very useful and important role for dogs; the most common role dogs have today. There is a great need for well-bred pets.
What watering dog working breeds has also done is transformed breeds into utterly different breeds. Oh, they may still go by the name of German Shepherd Dog or Border Collie. But the very essence of what these and many other breeds are is lost when they are watered down. A watered-down German Shepherd Dog is NOT a GSD. The AKC calls it a GSD, the GSDCA calls it a GSD, but it most assuredly is not a GSD.
Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to perform useful functions for mankind. This was accomplished by breeding proven good working dogs to proven good working dogs. Working dog breeders know that the need for this selection never ceases. If it does cease, or even ceases to be the top priority, the odds of producing good working dogs declines over time. Fewer and fewer dogs will be produced who can do the work at a level that would satisfy a working dog handler.
Those with common goals for working dogs created working breeds. The breed is by definition the population of dogs bred for the job. If selection for the job ceases, the dogs that descend from working breeds gradually change into different breeds. Or it may happen more quickly, when the “keenness” or “drive” required in working dogs is actively selected out of show and pet dog populations, as it is contraindicated in their more sedentary dogs.
“Shepherd dog breeding is working dog breeding, or it is not shepherd dog breeding”. That’s a nearly 100 year old quote from Max von Stephanitz, the founder of the GSD breed. Change the words slightly and it could apply to any working breed. It defines traditional breeding of “pure breeds”.
“Pure breeding” was long understood to be breeding within a population of dogs purely selected for the work. This was long before the Fancy hijacked the notion of what a pure breed is and turned it into one where genepools are totally walled off from one another by an Act of God. By doing this and jotting down some attributes in a written breed standard, modern “pure breeds” are defined. This is not, however, the traditional definition of a pure breed.
This all seems radical today, even heresy, among those who ascribe to the failed 19th century model of eugenics that has been rejected almost everywhere except in the Dog Fancy. But for thousands of years, breeding for the work is how breeds were defined — healthy, intelligent, bright, and useful dogs.
Kennel clubs and breed clubs will argue otherwise. They claim that their dogs are “correct”, and the working dogs their watered down dogs descend from are “incorrect”. They claim they have “improved the breed” when what they have done is utterly transformed it into a different breed. They don’t understand that the very definition of a working breed isn’t what’s in a written breed standard, isn’t what a dog looks like, but rather what a population of dogs has been bred to DO. They don’t understand that the most important feature in determining what a breed can DO – and the most difficult attribute to maintain — isn’t front or rear angulation or bone length or “substance” or ear shape or pigment or tail carriage or markings, but rather the contents of a dog’s skull.
Since they don’t work dogs, fanciers have no idea how difficult it is to maintain working abilities in breeds, and what the ramifications are if working abilities are not ruthlessly selected for in every generation. They believe against all evidence that working abilities in breeds become “fixed” and that their dogs “breed true” by walling off breeds from genetic contamination.
Fanciers believe that if their Border Collie herds the kids, by golly that proves it retains “the herding instinct”. They have no idea that there isn’t a single yes/no instinct involved in a useful working stockdog. They believe that if their GSD growls at neutral strangers on neutral territory, it must be a good protection dog, even though this behavior suggests just the opposite. They believe that if their Siberian Husky pulls hard on a leash when taken for a walk, this proves it would make a good Arctic sled dog, even though it simply proves their dog is untrained to walk on a leash. I’m not making these examples up; all were provided by breed fanciers.
Fanciers point out examples of show-bred dogs who can attain a “working title”, without realizing that usually they are talking about a “working title” that is as watered down from real work as their dogs are.
Often fanciers will argue their dogs could do the work, if only their dogs were trained for it. Those of us involved in the work have seen examples of show bred dogs whose handlers attempt to work them, and see firsthand the watered down abilities of these dogs. We point this out, but we are ignored by those who have zero involvement with working dogs.
The unusual or rare throwback in showlines who really can do the work is held up by the Fancy as proof that working abilities aren’t severely damaged in their breed population, when it proves nothing of the sort. If they understood working dog breeding, they’d know that the odds of producing good workers declines when selection for work ceases. If they can point to a relative handful of show bred dogs who can do the work in a population that numbers in the thousands or tens of thousands, that is not demonstrating useful odds.
A fancier of show Belgian Shepherds claimed that Malinois (one of the 4 varieties of that breed) are faulty if they are bred and used for police or other protection work, that these dogs are supposed to have the temperament of a Border Collie, and that they must have been crossed with other breeds to enable them to do protection work. This is an astonishing example of a fancier utterly denying an essential part of their breed’s historic and current working role. To assert that Malinois had to be crossed with another breed to enable them to do police work is as ludicrous as asserting that greyhounds need to be crossed with another breed in order to run fast.
A fancier of show Labrador Retrievers claimed that field bred Labradors are “too skinny” to be able to handle extreme conditions such as diving into icy ponds to retrieve ducks. The argument seems to be that like whales, Labradors need a substantial layer of blubber in order to survive the cold. Her belief seems to be common in the Fancy, since show Labradors have got blubber in abundance. Meanwhile, it is those skinny field bred Labs who actually ARE happily diving into icy ponds. A colleague in search-and-rescue is up in the Sierras as I write this, training her “skinny” mission ready SAR Labrador Retriever from field lines in avalanche SAR. The dog is working, and digging, in large snowdrifts. Thoroughly enjoying himself, the dog manages to do this with no problems, with no layer of blubber.
Many of us involved in working dogs fully recognize the desire and need for a wide variety of different pet breeds. We recognize that dogs watered down from working breeds can make wonderful and cherished pets. We don’t deny pet owners these wonderful dogs. We just wish those who are breeding these dogs, their breed clubs, and their kennel clubs, would stop labeling their dogs by the names of the working breeds that their new breeds descend from.
Comment by LauraS — December 29, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
To PBurns and anyone else interested in Flatcoats…
In Finland the parent club of flatcoats is very active in maintaining the working abilities of flatcoats. There are also many dogs that have championships in hunting and shows.
There’s also a difference in attitudes in the Nordic kennels clubs when compared to the US at least since all retriever breeds require at least passing a tendency trial (a hunting test that many have described to me as more difficult than achieving a JH in the States) to become show champions.
The Swedish retriever club has also passed along the suggestion to their kennel club that CC’s (of which three are needed to become a show champion) could only be given in the utility class (and in order to enter a dog in the utility class the tendency trial must be passed).
I did a quick searh on the situation in Finland with flatcoats and of the 5071 flatcoats in our database (see http://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi ) over 1100 dogs have passed the trial. The number of dogs in the database includes all imports and pedigree listings of imports and doesn’t have any information on foreign test results (so the true number is much higher).
In comparison in the last five years about 200-300 flatcoats have been bred per year (this year is the record of 326 which is already too much and the breeders have noticed this).
Finland also has a strong (kennel club enforced) health program that means that certain health requirements are in place for breeding programs. However, the amount of control varies from breed to breed.
For example, in flatcoats the kennel club allows dogs with mild hip dysplasia to be used in breeding, but practically only healthy dogs are used. In golden retrievers the kennel club requirement is similar and dogs with mild hip dysplasia are actively used in breeding. Which is one reason why it took us almost a year to find a golden retriever litter from which we took a puppy.
I probably should write a longer posting on these issues from a Nordic perspective at some point since the differences I’ve seen between the Nordic countries and the US seem quite large.
P.S. We own three flatcoats and a golden. Two of the flatcoats have passed the tendency trial, the oldest hasn’t because of our training error. The two oldest have been hunting and have worked well. Three of our dogs are also show dogs (our youngest flatcoat is yellow and thus disqualified). All will get more hunting experience once (if ?) I start hunting myself…
Comment by ramin — December 29, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Okay, back to reading material -
In Saturday’s Philadelphia Inquirer
http://www.philly.com/inquirer....._hope.html
A nice story about how the PAWS (Philadelphia Animal Welfare Society) is opening an adoption storefront in a busy section of Old City (very trendy location) for older dogs and cats.
I haven’t read a word about “idealology” in the Philadelphia papers, but about every 6 weeks, another story about how animals are being helped in Philly seems to hit the Inquirer. I’m betting not only did someone read “Redemption”, but they are actually putting the blueprint in action.
Comment by Dorene — December 29, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
LauraS wrote:
Often fanciers will argue their dogs could do the work, if only their dogs were trained for it. Those of us involved in the work have seen examples of show bred dogs whose handlers attempt to work them, and see firsthand the watered down abilities of these dogs. We point this out, but we are ignored by those who have zero involvement with working dogs.
******
Funny thing is, I’ve never heard a working dog handler or breeder assert that his dog “Could win that there Westminster, if’n only I showed him.” We don’t care, and we know that the pageant ring is about politics, fashion, and whimsy, not the quality of the dog. No way would my sound, correct, and undeniably beautiful working GSD bitch win in the show ring. I should hope not!
***********
The Other Pat wrote:
But again, that was then, this is now. These days, if you have a working breed, and decide you want to select for working traits, what do you do with the ones who don’t “measure up”. Because frankly, even a lot of those dogs will still be too much for the average companion home.
*******
This is why I recommend that average pet owners select their pets from breeds and mixes that are intended to be pets, not from real working breeding or half-cocked breeding of the descendants of working dogs.
That means, among other things, that the wise pet owner does not select a dog based on a “look” or a mystique that is inappropriate for his or her actual lifestyle and abilities.
I’ve never seen a correlation between selection for show wins and suitability as pets, either. In some breeds, it’s been pageant selection that has destroyed previously dandy pet temperaments (cocker spaniel anyone?)
In a well-considered working breeding, there will be few or no offspring that are useless as workers. There will be a range of talents; the GSD pup who doesn’t have quite the grip wanted by a police handler may have great talent for SAR; her sister may be fine service dog, and her softest brother may excel as an obedience competitor. Fortunately, it is rarely an all-or-nothing proposition, and the “average pet home” is not our only option for “culls.” Serious dog hobbyists provide good placements for pups from working breeding. And there are more serious dog hobbyists who want a dog with talent than there are handlers of real working dogs.
Comment by H. Houlahan — December 29, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
Isn’t Philadelphia one of the cities that’s actively working with Winograd? I’m pretty sure it is.
Comment by Sally — December 30, 2007 @ 6:16 am
Comment by H. Houlahan — December 29, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
“I’ve never seen a correlation between selection for show wins and suitability as pets, either.”
No . However, most hobby breeders I know of raise their dogs in their homes, and the puppies get lots of exposure and socialization as a consequence of simply being part of the breeder’s family. And most hobby breeders I know of WANT to be producing dogs who have the sound temperament to be good companions, so in addition to *training* for it, they also generally work on *selecting* for it.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 30, 2007 @ 6:44 am
ramin brings up the difference between how Flatcoat Retrievers are bred in parts of Europe vs. how it is done in America. As far as I know this is not unusual. There are other breeds in Europe where the breed club imposes working titles and health clearances as a pre-requisite for breeding.
Lest anyone think this is perfect answer to how to preserve both working ability and “type”, and that a combined working/show breed is ideal, I’ll give an example that suggests otherwise.
From the founding of the breed in 1899 and up into the 1970’s, the German Shepherd Dog breed was a combined show/working breed. The breed split into separate American showline, German (International) showline, and working line populations in the 1970’s because the show fanciers started to breed for an extreme, unsound cookie cutter type rather than maintain the less extreme structure and diverse appearance that had existed in the breed up to that point.
In the GSD’s home country of Germany, a conformation show rating of “good” or better, a working title, and a radiographic hip clearance are among the requirements for GSDs to be eligible for breeding. The pups will not be registered as GSDs if all the requirements are not met.
So what has been the result of this requirement?
It did not prevent a show/working split in the breed, though it may have delayed it.
It led to massive overuse of a few popular sires during the early years of the breed, mainly top showdogs. This reduced genetic diversity in the breed, which in turn probably led to increased morbidity and decreased longevity, and selected for structure that was unproven in and less suitable for work.
It did not prevent working abilities from deteriorating in the showline population. The odds are around 10x higher of finding a suitable working GSD in the working lines than in the German showlines, with the difference getting larger each year. Granted, at least there are still many German showline GSDs with working abilities. That cannot be said of the American showline GSD.
It did not prevent a bizarre, unnatural, and unsound structure from becoming the preferred structure in the German showline GSD. One only needs to watch these dogs while they are running to see the problem. It reminds one of a gangly puppy in his most clumsy and awkward stage of development.
It did not prevent even the working lines from losing some of their athleticism, since they too have been subject to the influence of the faulty notions of “correct” propagated by the show ring. Had the breed split into separate show/working lines sooner, this might not have happened.
The faulty notion of “correct” from the show ring altered the structure of the GSD breed from one that was not unlike modern Malinois to a more angulated, larger, heavier built, longer bodied dog. This probably caused the large increase in hip dysplasia in the breed. Even with 40 years of mandatory radiographic hip clearances for breeding, the rate of HD in GSDs in Germany is still higher than in Malinois, whose more athletic AND healthier structure was primarily maintained not by radiographs but by very demanding tests of physical agility.
All GSDs bred in Germany need to attain a breed club working title, which is almost always schutzhund. To accommodate the reduced athleticism brought on by the show ring, the tests of athleticism in schutzhund had to be watered down.
Bottom line, the GSD was created to be a working breed, is still a working breed, and as a working breed would have been better off if the conformation show influence had never appeared. Not just the extreme show ring influence that started in the 1970’s, but even from the beginning.
If one wants to preserve working abilities, a combined show/working breed is not preferred. Too many compromises have to be made. Too much genetic diversity is lost due to the priorities of the show ring for a specific “type”. Health suffers, as does athleticism.
Better to keep a working breed only a working breed. The next best alternative is to completely split them into separate show lines and working lines, which effectively creates separate breeds. At least then the working lines are protected against show ring influences.
I don’t doubt that the showdogs are better all around dogs (even as pets) when they have health and working title requirements imposed upon them. But don’t confuse this with ideal. Working abilities suffer, athleticism suffers, and health eventually suffers, when the conformation show ring has any influence in breeding dogs for work.
You cannot serve two masters who have radically different ideals of “correct”.
Comment by LauraS — December 30, 2007 @ 11:37 am