It’s the DNA, stupid: Purebred dogs, closed studbooks, and genetic minefields
By Christie Keith
August 22, 2008
If I read one more blog post, comment, or Angry Article™ about the horrors of purebred dogs, using photos of oddly-coiffed Chinese Cresteds or struggling-to-breathe Pugs shown in the arms of a woman who exceeds the U.S. Government Approved Body Mass Index, my head will — yes, wait for it, readers; you know what’s coming — explode. Tiny bits of blobby gray stuff all over your monitors.
Setting aside the irony that the same people who think women not meeting the Vogue magazine standard of the ideal woman are the ones outraged about dog breeders being too obsessed with physical perfection, there’s a much bigger issue here. And before you go, “Yes, Christie, we know what it is, too. Because you’ve got purebred dogs and you used to breed and show them and you’re one of them, aren’t you?”, think again.
I’m actually a strong advocate of opening our studbooks, as well as of open genetic registries, and I think that the concept of “purebred” dogs has done both dogs and those who show and breed them a huge disservice.
But in all the hand-wringing and hair-tearing that’s been inspired by discussions of the recent BBC program “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” — and, for that matter, in the show itself — there’s an exaggerated emphasis on photo-op-ready images of extreme breed characteristics like bracycephalic faces and short legs and long, floppy ears that drag on the ground, at the expense of something that is both worse and far less visible.
“Pedigree Dogs Exposed” holds up the wolf as an example of what dogs should be, based on how they look. But wolves who look just like the ones they used in their video clip can be massively inbred. This is not about how dogs look. Because although those extreme traits might annoy you personally and can cause suffering for the dogs who have them, the problem with “purebred dogs” and the closed studbooks that define them is not something you can film and see and point to — or laugh at. The problem is something you can’t see, the genetic code of dogs who were never bred, who left no offspring: the genes we left behind.
Conformation traits that help dogs win in the show ring and give tabloid reporters and bloggers fodder for the outrage du jour are the product of selection on the part of breeders. Those observable problems that everyone is so eager to ridicule could conceivably be fixed by education and increased awareness. Lost genetic diversity causes far less fixable problems, like reduced litter sizes, reproductive failure, genetic disease, shorter life expectancies, lowered disease resistance, and greater rates of immune-mediated disease.
To put it another way, if your dogs can’t reproduce because their heads are too big and their pelvises are too narrow, that can be fixed if you pluck your own head out of your own hindquarters, but fixing a problem of inbreeding depression in an entire species is a task that daunts the most ardent conservationists and scientists. It’s the problem they warn us about as human development, pollution, and climate change send thousands upon thousands of species to the brink of extinction, and beyond, every year: genetic bottlenecks, inbreeding depression, loss of genetic diversity in a species and an ecology.
Genes, once lost, can’t ever be recovered. Dogs who died without passing on their genetic heritage are gone forever, barring a few stray tubes of semen hanging out in a canine sperm bank somewhere. And by selecting from a small number of popular sires and focusing breeding programs on extreme conformation traits at the expense of preserving genetic diversity and health, genes are exactly what are being lost. Permanently.
So, is the canine species doomed? No. But many of our individual breeds may be “doomed,” at least in the terms we in the United States and most of Europe understand the word “breed” today, breeds defined by closed studbooks.
Closed studbooks mean a registry, such as the AKC or its British equivalent, the Kennel Club, will only register dogs whose parents were registered by them as being members of that breed. It means breeders are deliberately limiting the genetic pool from which they’ll select when they breed two dogs together.
Breeders do this to perpetuate the traits they desire. The best breeders do it with a thorough knowledge of a dozen or more generations of the dogs who come before the dogs they’re breeding, with the assistance of whatever genetic testing is available to them, while most do it by “breeding the best to the best and hoping for the best.”
The worst breeders just throw two dogs of the same breed (or with papers that claim they are) together and ship the pups off for sale before any possible negative traits can turn up, washing their hands of any suffering they’re causing in those dogs or for their future owners, and then doing it all over again, all to make a few bucks.
The problem with even the “good” breeders is that the choice of dogs from which they can select in a closed studbook program is frequently so artificially constrained that they’re reduced to choosing among the lesser of many evils. Few breeds, in this day of artificial insemination, overnight courier service, and jet planes, can obtain an influx of new genes from dogs in the breed’s country of origin, or anywhere else. This is exacerbated by the fact that World War II created a genetic bottleneck for hundreds of breeds of dogs, as European populations dwindled or were shipped to the United States, where their lines died out or were intermingled with American dogs.
For other breeds, the situation isn’t really hopeless. The “investigator” for “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” said in dire tones, “Being very inbred in and of itself has a catastrophic effect on the immune system,” but that’s not true. There’s no magical threshold of inbreeding that in and of itself causes health problems or impaired vigor in an individual dog. Unless the dog has inherited genes for a detrimental trait, there won’t be any negative effects.
But if there is a dog breed out there, of any size gene pool, that is free of negative genetic traits, I have never heard of it. Most breeds are plagued with all kinds of specific genetic diseases, and many are suffering the more generalized problems of inbreeding depression (lack of resistance to disease, reproductive problems, immune system problems, etc.). And for these breeds, nothing but new genes can save them. In the absence of an only distantly-related population somewhere else in the world, that means outcrossing.
This is something close to heresy, although it does happen. The AKC, to my surprise, just re-opened the Basenji studbook to unregistered Basenji-like dogs from certain parts of Africa. And years ago, they approved the registration of Dalmatian/Pointer crosses, as part of a project developed by the parent club to eliminate a widespread health problem in the breed. Although the parent club ended up changing its mind and asking AKC to rescind those registrations, and it’s been bogged down in club politics for years, the Dalmatian Backcross Project still continues.
There are also breeds that have within them two or more pools of dogs that rarely mingle their genes, such as breeds with a strong field/show split like the Labrador Retriever, or breeds with a strong show/pet split like the Golden Retriever, or breeds with a performance/show split like the Greyhound.
If these populations of dogs within the same breed have genes that the others lack, then it’s possible to dip into those genetic pools and increase genetic diversity in your lines. You might not win in the show ring with those dogs, but you can do a lot to overcome inbreeding depression.
Unfortunately, mixing distinct gene pools within the same breed brings with it another set of problems, too. One, if you outcross among unrelated lines of the same breed, you risk eliminating the very pool of genetic diversity you were trying to preserve. Where will the dogs not descended from Ch. Popular Sire come from, if all his offspring got bred to those “unrelated” dogs in previous generations?
You also risk introducing undesired traits. Some of those are trivial and threaten nothing more than the dog’s ability to win at dog shows. But some of them are far more problematic. Take the AKC greyhound.
AKC recognizes the National Greyhound Association, the racing registry, which means AKC greyhound breeders can, any time they wish, dip into that very diverse gene pool. But AKC greyhounds have a very low incidence of osteosarcoma, while NGA greyhounds have a very high incidence. While the exact role genetics play in this difference isn’t known, osteo definitely has a genetic component. If you go out to NGA greys, will you increase the risk of your AKC greys developing bone cancer? Good question.
So while show breeders getting over their aversion to breeding to non-show lines within their breed might help in the short run, it’s not a longterm solution.
I also don’t think the solution is the extinction of the domestic dog, as PETA would like to see, nor is it returning to the days of feral dog packs and the development of a genetically diverse pariah dog population from which we can pluck alleles at will.
No, the fix for this problem is a drastic one, and it’s to stop breeding within limited gene pools, stop wasting genetic diversity, support open genetic registries, and adopt the practice of pedigree cat registries and many working dog registries by allowing breeding out to foundation stock, unregistered dogs of similar type and purpose, and other breeds.
And, you know, breathing underwater and flying like a bird. Because of course, none of that will happen, at least, not anytime soon.
But we as individuals can remove our craniums from our posteriors and stop perpetuating a broken system. The world of the purebred dog based on closed studbook breeding is not the only dog world. There are dogs out there bred to a work standard — many stockdogs, lurchers and longdogs, lots of hunting dogs, and many sled dogs, too. Of course some people doing this type of breeding are stupid and careless, as is the case with show breeders, too, but selecting for ability — herding, hunting, hauling — automatically eliminates a great deal of genetic disease and freakish conformation.
And guess what? It doesn’t destroy the very things we love about our heritage breeds, not their looks nor their temperaments, nor, if we begin or continue to select for performance, their abilities. The working Border Collie was developed with only a performance standard; do you ever have any doubt what the breed is when you see one? Isn’t that the very definition of “breed type”?
I don’t hate the show world, but I recognize its limitations and its harmful influence in ways some of my fellow dog fanciers don’t. And I’m hopeful sometimes, as I see more and more breeders moving to less extreme types of dog, trying to implement and utilize genetic banking, counseling, and testing programs — some clubs, such as the International Silken Windhound Society, require such participation for any dog they register — and taking a new look at outcrossing.
But I’m pessimistic, too. The chase for show wins goes on, and I’ve seen a world of ugliness among breeders who have a lot of ego — and money — invested in their dogs. People keep buying and fetishizing dogs with the worst of extremes of size and conformation. And as new breeds are developed, even with the goal of fixing some of the problems inherent in limited gene pools, they almost invariably go down the same doomed path as all the rest, closing their studbooks and pursuing AKC recognition.
So I suppose for now I’ll settle for suggesting we try something simple and achievable. Stop whining about doggie hair-dos and conformation extremes, and focus on the scientific and medical problems caused by closed studbooks. Stop perpetuating junk science about ‘poo dogs and their “hybrid vigor”… excuse me, “hybred” vigor… and try digging into the real science of inbreeding depression, genetic bottlenecks, and popular sire syndrome.
Junk science is like junk food: it goes down easy, but it’s not good for you. “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” plays on our love of dogs to whip up outrage over micro-tiny dogs with bulging eyes, titillates us with gasps of horror at brother-sister and father-daughter breedings, and uses images and descriptions of snooty elitist 19th century British upper class dog shows to imply that the people who get up at 4 AM every weekend to drive a hundred miles in their mini-van to trot a dog around the ring and then go through the drive-thru and eat a burger while driving home are the close relatives of Her Majesty the Queen.
Take this exchange between our intrepid “investigator” and a representative of Britain’s Kennel Club, where she asks him whether he thinks mother-son breedings cause health problems in their offspring. He, quite correctly, replies that it depends on the mother and son.
Her response? “Do you have children? Do you have a daughter? Would you have a baby with her?”
He replies, with irritation far milder than mine, “That’s a totally different issue.”
“It’s the same issue,” she insists.
Of course it’s not the same issue. The issue is degree of inbreeding, not human incest taboos. You can mate two dogs who aren’t siblings, parent-offspring, or even first cousins and have a greater degree of inbreeding than in some full-sib matings. But that’s not going to make all your viewers go, “Gross!” is it?
That’s not even junk science, it’s just tabloid sensationalism. So is using a photo of a Komondor — a wolf-sized working dog who is among the healthiest of breeds — in a segment on extremes of conformation that lead to health problems. Why? I guess because they’re shown in a corded coat that the producers of the show found mockable. Well, newsflash: the hair-do isn’t a genetic trait.
Breeders use junk science to justify their actions, too, of course. A few who were interviewed expressed outrage at the idea that a dog might be banned from the show ring for having a genetic health defect, but then they turn around and fight like the devil to preserve their right to disqualify dogs from showing for possessing a cosmetic genetic defect, like a ridgeless Ridgeback. The problem is, genetic traits are genetic traits, and having one set of rules for cosmetic traits and another for health traits is indefensible scientifically.
So, stop already. Both sides, break your junk science habit.
And oh yeah: open the studbooks. It won’t hurt half as much as you think it will.
Komondor photo used under terms of Creative Commons licensing, found here. Black and white photos are the author’s screen captures from “Pedigree Dogs Exposed.”
To what extent could the mapping of the dog genome help with this? I mean, let’s imagine for a moment that the breeders actually all got serious and started learning this stuff, and determined amongst themselves to improve the genetic diversity and genetic health of their respective breeds while maintaining breed type. Couldn’t the Canine Genome be a very real and useful tool in this endeavor?
One link I found:
http://www.dogmap.ch/
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 22, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
The mapping of the canine genome has been invaluable in the development of genetic tests. The existence of tightly bred dogs has also, ironically, helped narrow down such searches. And there are dozens of tests in the wings, all based on the map of the canine genome and the hard work of breed clubs and fanciers many of whom, contrary to the impression given by the BBC show, care very deeply about the genetic health of their breeds.
But the genome map doesn’t directly help with this. It’s just a map. We have to use it to go somewhere.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 22, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Ive posted on this before. While I dont consider myself an extremist and certainly dont accept the idea that Im using “junk science”, genetics is as genetics does.
Certainly we select all the animals around us for certain traits. Scout and Trigger being my first real “purebred” dogs (I suspect Trig has a little coon hound in him somewhere) I can and do appreciate the very special skills they display in the field and their kind, gentle and playful nature that I have now come to know as Setters.
But Scoutie and Trig are easily recognized as DOGS and not some transporter accident on the Enterprise. While some breeds do better at running after rabbits or finding a duck in a cold pond or herding sheep these guys have birds on the brain and that is fine and just what I wanted.
Any time you deliberately select for a particular trait to the exclusion of all else you invite trouble either by loosing a good gene or enhancing a bad one. The more focused the selection becomes the more virulent the results can be.
Many of these traits themselves are decidedly revolting in and of themselves and serve no purpose (that I can see) other than developing a creator complex in the breeder.
I once saw a very positive documentary I think on PBS about man’s relationship to dogs and it pointed out something very similar to the wolf phenotype clains here. It pointed to the dogs of India which are allowed to roam and breed freely. It went on to state that no matter where this happens the dogs always come back to the same general set of characteristics, short but floppy ears, a pointed nose and a colored body.
Both these dogs and the wolf is shaped not by inbreeding but by their environment for maximal survival. Wovles are dark with white bellies because it helps them go undetected and they are extremely wary. The Indian dogs however, are colored and less suspicious of man because they have found their niche in our close proximity.
Domesticated breeds have found smaller niches on farms and as guard dogs or as hunters or maybe just companions. But these traits, these ugly traits are a curse to the animals that possess them. They do not help them hunt, or fight or hear or herd. They are there for the visual gratification of those who care not for the animal but for themselves and their own vanity. The illness and pain and short life these dogs suffer for it is no less a cruelty than daily beatings or experimental surgery.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — August 22, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
FYI, the BBC show Pedigreed Dogs Exposed is available in segments thru YouTube.
http://tinyurl.com/6or4eb
I wouldn’t be shocked to learn AR activists were behind the making of this ‘documentary’. I doubt if the motives were purely in the best interests of purebred dogs, since the emphasis is mostly on how “flawed” pure bred dog breeding is.
Thank you Christie for your well articulated response.
Comment by Anne T — August 22, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
One dog club that is requiring dogs to pass health tests before registering them is the Havana Silk Dog Association of America. It’s a group of Havanese breeders who have formed their own registry in an attempt to improve the breed’s health. I didn’t see any of the letters, but there were screams of angry protest from the Havanese Club of America when I included mention of the HSDAA in a recent Havanese breed profile.
Comment by Kim Campbell Thornton — August 22, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Great post, Christie.
Both the American Border Collie Association and its parent registry, the ISDS in the UK, will register on merit a dog of unknown breeding, provided the dog can demonstrate the ability to work consistantly to an Open standard. Our mantra: the only standard is working ability.
By remarkable coincidence, the finest stockdog on earth [and the top agility dog, and obedience dog, not to mention the cover creature of NatGeo’s issue on animal intelligence] is the working border collie.
Comment by Luisa — August 22, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Certainly there is inbreeding in nature but there is also a tendency for defective animals to die off w/out contributing to the gene pool. So the defects are self-limiting in nature. In purebred dogs, we regularly choose for breeding those dogs which would never pass on their genes “in the wild” because, for example, they would never have been born (w/out a C-section). It was human intervention which created the many wonderful breeds we have today and it is human intervention which is on the path to grinding some of them into the ground. Breed clubs who follow AKC rules be damned - I’ll do what I think is best unless and until PETA succeeds in making pet breeding/ownership illegal.
Comment by slt — August 22, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
slt, me too. But here’s a question for you:
Would you breed to an unregistered dog, or a registered dog of another breed, if you thought that was “best” for your breed?
Comment by Christie Keith — August 22, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Well, Luisa… I gave a shout-out to the Border Collie for a reason. And that was it. ;)
Comment by Christie Keith — August 22, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
I absolutely would. The problem is finding that “best interest” dog AND an owner willing to go along. I dropped out of my national club years ago for the very reason that I didn’t want to be held to their extreme limitations and did not agree with their pursuit of stated goals. So my name is already mud. Just have to find someone else willing to meet me in H-E-double-hockey-sticks, which is not all that popular of a meeting place for dog breeders. I don’t know why, hehehe.
Comment by slt — August 22, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
“Would you breed to an unregistered dog, or a registered dog of another breed, if you thought that was “best” for your breed?”
I’ll jump in here with a qualified answer of yes. Qualified because there would be not point in doing so unless it would actually benefit the breed as a whole. And it won’t do that unless other breeders come on board and do the same or use the resulting offspring. And they won’t do that unless the puppies can be registered at some point.
So yes, open registries are needed. At the very least, any dog from any well established foreign or domestic registry should be OKAY. But they are not. It would be easy to blame AKC for that but in truth the individual parent clubs dictate alot about the stud books for their breed. The Toy Fox Club for instance, asked that the stud book be closed soon after they became AKC registerable. That left a ton of UKC only registered dogs out there. The stud book did not need to close. It never needs to close to UKC dogs. The only hope in the short term to get those genes into AKC dogs is for UKC dogs to be exported to a country that recognizes the breegd and then have they or their puppies returned to the States.
Hopefully in a few years, the club”elders” will be persuaded to ask AKC to open the book again.
As for not letting first or second or what have you generations compete in shows or whatever events, as has been the case with some of AKC’s outcross or open book registries, why?
If more breeds get the opportunity to breed out then let the results compete, if they have the talent or needed qualities, they’ll win. If not, well then maybe next generation. But I think getting past the idea that the very act of being hybridized makes the dog and the 10 generations somehow inferior is going to take some getting used to.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 22, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
And now I’m going to really stick my foot in it. :-)
I’m actually quite hesitant to do so. However I do love dogs and my two breeds especially so here it goes.
The bulldog pictured above is a great example of a really incorrect head. That short, pug type, round head is why alot of bulldogs have obstructive airways. And short heads crowd the eyes with skin folds to All breed judges love that head. And most people think that IS the bulldog head. It’s not.
Dyed in the wool, hardcore bulldoggers want length, yes length of skull. We want a LONG head. Not a nosy head but a long head. The nose should NOT be up between the eyes, the distance from the nose to the stop should be one half the distance from the nose to the tip of the lower jaw. And the distance from the stop to the lower jaw tip should be close to half the total length of the skull.
Pugs have a downward oriented face, like a human, Bulldogs should have an “up” face. Think alligator.
It’s important because long correct skulls don’t crowd airways, don’t force soft palates back into the throat, don’t crimp and twist nasal passages. And in my experience, they generally have larger tracheal diameters too.
Big huge exaggerated round wrinkly heads and big bowed deformed looking front ends with skinny narrow hindquarters became all the rage in the 60-80s. Dogs which showed did not do other disciplines because they couldn’t.
Things are better now. While you’ll still see some extreme dogs doing alot of winning, more balance is returning. Crooked legs are less common, we want STRAIGHT legs in front and decent angles in the rear and dogs doing conformation are also starting to do well in agility again. They live longer too.
Dogs bred this way compare in appearance and proportion to most breeds at birth. They do not have the extreme blocky look as puppies everyone is used to in bulldogs. And yet I’ve done my fair share of winning with them.
Another benefit of LONG heads is my dogs don’t snore.
Oh and neck, no short stumpy necks allowed in any breeding program of mine
It is possible to breed even some brachycephalics to be healthy and athletic but it requires breaking away from the mentality that it is just “in the breed”. While we wait for open stud books, getting breeders to accept that at least some of the problems in their dogs are not excusable as “breed problems” would go a long way towards improving the overall health of their breeds.
Not rewarding puppies for being overly mature for their age would be good too. many countries do not give championships to dogs under a year old. Puppies that look like adults often become over done caricatures later in life. In bulldogs slow maturing dogs usually live a lot longer and suffer fewer orthopedic issues.
As for judging the genetic health of an animal from it’s appearance, Christie is absolutely right. It’s hogwash. I have seen dogs with almost identical conformation be night and day when it comes to health. One with a stenotic trachea, bad knees, no stamina, poor muscle tone etc… The other with a large, normal airway, and the ability to run leap and play and tolerate the heat as if no one ever told him he was a bulldog.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 22, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
Sorry for the typos. And this is wrong
“It is possible to breed even some brachycephalic to be healthy…”
Take out the some, it should say
“It is possible to breed even brachycephalics to be healthy”
Comment by JenniferJ — August 22, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
using photos of oddly-coiffed Chinese Cresteds or struggling-to-breathe pugs shown in the arms of a woman who exceeds the U.S. Government Approved Body Mass Index,
Amusingly enough, the Chinese Crested is a)a generally healthy breed, and b)healthier than it was thirty years ago.
Powerpuffs (the fully coated version) are now fully accepted, to the extent of taking Best in Show at CC specialty shows. In the hairless variety, there are degrees of hairlessness, and devotees of extreme hairlessness have been complaining for years that that extreme doesn’t win in shows. It’s the moderately hairless that win. True Hairless devotees claim it’s because a shameful love of “flashy” furnishings; others say that the extreme hairless dogs rarely have good conformation, and point to True Hairless dogs with excellent conformation who do win.
In other words, there’s a bias toward healthy, well-made dogs, and against the poorer bone structure and poorer dentition of the extreme varieties.
There are two distinct body types, both still recognizable as Cresteds but easily distinguished from each other, a cause of Scandal for some, but people persist in breeding and showing both body types. There’s a “scandalous” degree of variation in size, too. And in the 1990s, the standard was rewritten to allow more variation, in that and some other traits.
It’s an open secret that there was a lot of outcrossing with poodles, Westies, and papillons in the 20s and 30s, when the breed was being seriously established as part of the dog fancy, rather than just a weird-looking shipboard ratter. (And, to touch on another point made, that’s where the version of the PRA gene that can be tested for came from. Oh, well, ya win some ya lose some.:( )
As appalling as Bernie and others may find the existence of my dog, the relative healthiness and diversity of her breed is one of the reasons I chose Cresteds rather than another breed, that Bernie might find more “dog-like” in appearance, and therefore obviously better—even though they are more inbred, and have both more numerous and more serious genetic health problems.
Comment by Lis — August 22, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
The BBC also produces most of Animal Planet,an undisputed AR Show, the ARs are nearly all from England. Most of the shows re wild animals feature English people in foreign countries. The ISAR calls the AKC “The Plague of Purebreds” and Bob Barker is or was an ISAR spokesperson. Don’t think that they really care about proper breeding, because they don’t; in fact ISAR advocates shutting down AKC as puppymill enablers. And ISAR loves to publish its model mandatory altering program or whatever they call it. The bottom line is they want to end breeding of all animals, in particular dogs/cats. Ths is just another red herring to make it look like they care. Another misleading piece of crap.
Comment by s kennedy — August 22, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
What a good crtique of the Program.
I’m glad you qualified the fact the the Wolves shown CAN be inbred. In breeding in wolves is usually confined to contained packes(ie captive artifical packs & those who range is contained by man & not nature-inbreeding in truly wild packs is not the morm)
I have BCs & Cavliers & have had GSDs(German Bloodlines)Yes all my Cavaliers have/had Syringomyelia & yes the breeders were not concerned by in breeding to a known carrier-who ironically was 16 when he died from cancer & still had a clear heart. However I have found a breeder(well two actually)who only breeds from MRI scanned clear dogs & this is where our next puppy will be coming from(fingers crossed0
My BC’s have had all the DNA tests currently available & have bloods stored for future tests as they arise. my dogs are all normal/clear except one who is a CEA carrier & is from 30 + years of breeding only clinically clear dogs together-he will never have the condition & if(a big if) bred to my bitch(who is clear)will never produce an affected puppy. They are due also to have all the clinical tests done(HD/ED & PRA)before I even consider breeding from any of them
The fact that one Beverley Cuddy was on the program rang alarm bells with me, she is an ex KC member of staff a breeder of Beardie Collies(all with a huge degree of inbreeding)as well as a KC championship judge. She is now so anti KC it is astounding that she now started showing a bearded collie again & still judging the breed. She champions the “Poo”breeders in her magazine &castigates pedigree dog breeders. in her magazine there are advisors for each breed, some of whom are puppy farmers who have always got puppies of their breed(s)available for sale & who do sell puppies via their inclusion in the magazine !!
Comment by Dee Jay — August 23, 2008 @ 1:34 am
I have been breeding and showing dogs all my life and i am afraid too much of what was shown in the BBC program is only too right.
Judge of the GSD claiming that those pathgetic creatures with their hindquarters buckling under them, to be correct anatomically, while the working dogs are not, is just typical. The sad thing is that beauty should equal soundness and health. But it does not. Dogs are bred more and more exaggerated, that is a simple fact. The photos of how the breeds used to look, comparing what they look now was excellent way to show people who were not aware. The incredible changes of skulls of bulldog and bull terrier in only 100 years are also frightening.
The only criticism I would have was saying that crossbreeds are healthier than purebreds. Some may be some will have all the problems of the breeds they have in their genes. Some, if bred in puppy farms, may even be more inbred than most purebreds.
Comment by trs — August 23, 2008 @ 2:00 am
The BBC also produces most of Animal Planet,an undisputed AR Show, the ARs are nearly all from England. Most of the shows re wild animals feature English people in foreign countries.
Oh, my.
Oh, my, oh, my.
Animal Planet is a cable channel,not a show. Like most non-news cable channels, they buy an awful lot of their programming.
Animal Planet is so relentlessly opposed to the knowledgable breeding of purebred dogs taht I’m sitting here, as I type this, watching a repeat of the AKS national championship show in Houston.
Yes, a lot of the wild animal shows are in foreign countries, and, yes, shockingly, feature English naturalists—because, you know, lions and tigers and meerkats and chimpanzees and elephants are not found in the wild in the US. Many of the countries are former Biritish colonies; the naturalists working there are just as likely to be British as to be American. And many of the shows are produced by the BBC. What a shocker!
You may have no interest in animals outside the confines of the US, but that’s not true of everyone.
A lot of their programmng, though, is American programming. In particular, the shows (other than ones featuring British naturalists) that I suspect are ticking you off the most, the Animals Cops shows, are American shows. They’re animal welfare show, not animal rights shows. They rarely even distantly touch on the subject of breeding; when they do, yes, they’re down on the kind of breeding that features in their work day: puppy millers and people breeding their pets for profit with zero understanding of the kind of care moms and pups need. I don’t recall that I’ve ever heard more responsaible breeding discussed on the Animal Cops shows. The producers, or some or all of the on-air individuals may be opposed to all breeding, and bent on the extinction of domestic animals, but you can’t determine that from the fact that they occasionally shut down the most egregious of puppy millers or pet stores.
I do not believe it makes sense to tar and feather Animal Planet for buying some of their programming from BBC, because the BBC also produces other stuff that’s hysterical idiocy. And if you followed the link Christie provided, you know that people aren’t seeing this particular BBC “documentary” on Animal Planet; they’re seeing it on Youtube.
Comment by Lis — August 23, 2008 @ 4:15 am
The problem is something you can’t see, the genetic code of dogs who were never bred, who left no offspring: the genes we left behind.
It was a documentary made for a mass audience. For that you need compelling images to keep people from changing the channel. The loss of genetic diversity was, however, brought up at least once.
Comment by icr — August 23, 2008 @ 7:34 am
>It was a documentary made for a mass audience. For that you need compelling images to keep people from changing the channel. The loss of genetic diversity was, however, brought up at least once.<
Is that supposed to be a defense of shoddy reporting? “Mass audience” = “too stoopid to understand the issues”?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 23, 2008 @ 7:36 am
The “investigator” for “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” said in dire tones, “Being very inbred in and of itself has a catastrophic effect on the immune system,” but that’s not true. There’s no magical threshold of inbreeding that in and of itself causes health problems or impaired vigor. Even if there is no genetic diversity in a breed pool — in other words, if every member of the breed has the same genes — unless those genes include those for a detrimental trait, there won’t be any negative effects.
The filmmaker’s quote overstates the point but your correction isn’t accurate either. You also conflate two different issues.
Inbreeding causes increased genetic homozygosity within the individual animal. Genetic diversity refers the number of unique genes within whole populations, not the individual. Populations can be genetically diverse even while the individuals within it are highly inbred. Modern show dog populations tend to be both inbred AND lacking in genetic diversity.
All individuals have genes that can cause detrimental traits. The mistaken notion that all bad genes can be purged out by inbreeding is part of what got us into this mess.
Even in the hypothetical case of an individual with no detrimental genes, the increased homozygosity of the MHC genes caused by inbreeding leads to a loss of immune system function. A high degree of heterozygosity of the MHC genes correlates positively with optimal immune system function.
Loss of genetic diversity within a population causes a loss of function within the population. Working dog genepools, even those much smaller in numbers than show dog populations, tend to be genetically diverse as this diversity is required to maintain high performance in these populations. This diversity is reflected on the surface by a wide variety of physical “type” in working dog populations that show dog fanciers deplore. Show dog fanciers don’t understand that this diversity is a strength, not a fault, of working dog populations.
Loss of population genetic diversity also undermines the long term survival of the population. The population becomes more vulnerable to a range of novel threats when the genes required to fight off those threats are no longer present in the population. This is a cause of species extinction.
Comment by LauraS — August 23, 2008 @ 8:26 am
Hi
Good post, but factually incorrect in one point. Reducing genetic diversity does increase the incidence of immune system defects. It’s a horribly complex area, but in effect, diverse genes allow a diversity of both cellular and humoral immunity. Reducing genetic diversity crushes this so that in the end, you have the laboratory rodent, which is probably as in-bred as it’s possible to get, which has to be kept in isolation and fed specific foods because it’s unable to cope with the normal environment.
In absolute terms, if you want something to google-search for, the reduction in Major Histocompatibility Complexes (MHCs) is well researched.
So reducing genetic diversity, in and of itself, will eventually lead to a whole host of immune-mediated and auto-immune diseases.
Comment by Manda Scott — August 23, 2008 @ 8:28 am
Hi, Laura and Manda. Hmmm, I see what you mean. At that point, I was actually speaking of individual dogs, and my reference to an imaginary dog breed in which all dogs were homozygous for all gene pairs (by the way, if that’s not imaginary, please don’t tell me!) was just intended to convey that in a dramatic way. I’ve reworded it in a way that I think says what I wanted to say more concisely… thanks!
This is what I was getting at, just so it’s here in the comments for anyone who wants the cite:
Again, thanks!
Comment by Christie Keith — August 23, 2008 @ 8:59 am
“Dogs are bred more and more exaggerated, that is a simple fact. The photos of how the breeds used to look, comparing what they look now was excellent way to show people who were not aware. The incredible changes of skulls of bulldog and bull terrier in only 100 years are also frightening.”
True in some cases, but please also remember that the film makers chose the specific pictures and examples used and were free to pick extremes on either end.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 23, 2008 @ 9:11 am
“”This diversity is reflected on the surface by a wide variety of physical “type” in working dog populations that show dog fanciers deplore. Show dog fanciers don’t understand that this diversity is a strength, not a fault, of working dog populations.”“
To be fair, I, a “show fancier” do not deplore variation in physical type.
Breed “type” generally mirrors function and job (even if the job and function vanished long ago) . Even if there is considerable variation of type in a breed, the majority are still recognizable as the breed they are, or the combination of breeds that they are.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 23, 2008 @ 9:19 am
Not speaking for the original commenter but perhaps what was meant by show people deploring variations in type might be illustrated by a field Setter being brought into the conformation ring. Or perhaps a “mismarked” coat on another breed - something like that. They are recognizable as the breed they are yes, but generally frowned upon by show breeders as unusable stock, regardless of health or temperament.
Comment by slt — August 23, 2008 @ 9:29 am
Actually, many of dedicated breeders who primarily compete in the show ring use mismarked, over/under sized etc… dogs in breedng programs even if they never can be shown. This used to be more common in the days of large kennels. Now with many people limited to only a few dogs or lacking in experience or decent mentoring, many sound and wonderful dogs in all breeds are culled by being S/N and placed with no consideration that they might have a useful place in the future of a breed even if they themselves cannot be shown. That may be good for those individual dogs, but bad news for the bred as a whole.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 23, 2008 @ 9:36 am
Agreed, for a large kennel who can breed a high number of litters each year to establish/maintain desired lines, breeding to a mismarked dog who possesses other desirable qualities is an option. But for your average show breeder who produces say, a litter a year, that breeder is unlikely to go to that dog. Furthermore, if that breeder did use some dog with a disqualifying aesthetic fault, he risks being branded all sorts of unpleasant names and depending on the breed club, having action taken against him for behavior “not in the best interest of the breed”. Which is one of the reasons breeders sell most/all their pups on S/N contracts - they can’t keep dogs intact in pet homes for possible future use in someone’s breeding program for fear of being labeled “irresponsible” or violating someone’s idea of “ethics”.
Comment by slt — August 23, 2008 @ 9:52 am
The thing I found most telling was how the show breeders either could not see or would not admit how unsound and unhealthy their champion show dogs were, something that was obvious to everyone else. It’s obvious to everyone that the floppy-hocked cripples in the GSD show ring are useless compared to the working dog and the old fashioned GSD. Obvious to everyone but the Crufts show judge.
A friend has entered her working line GSD bitch in GSDCA specialty shows, just for grins. She finishes dead last, but the non-show-GSD public thinks she is the best looking dog in the ring. The show breeders and judges may think their extreme dogs are the perfect specimens of breed type, but everyone else knows the emperor has no clothes. The show breeders are just fooling themselves. And hurting the dogs.
The Dalmation Backcross Project may be continuing, but because of show breeders, it has no impact on the health of AKC Dalmations. Dogs are suffering because the Dalmation show breeders value mythical “breed purity” over the dogs’ health and well-being.
Comment by Grahund — August 23, 2008 @ 10:09 am
breed clubs which disqualify for using a dog with a cosmetic fault in a considered breeding program need to re-examine that. And pigs will fly too. I know how high school a lot of the organizations can be!
I also know a few folks who quit their local or national club for that reason. It has not stopped them from being very successful breeder/exhibitors. My own club is not to concerned with such things. If you bring a sound and attractive dog to the party, that is the primary concern.
That does not stop individual members from going on witch hunts. But in my case I’ve
A: made it clear that I don’t care, and it’s no fun to try to get a rise out of someone who ignores you
B:Developed skin like a rhino, so sling away folks
C: succeeded in breeding health tested and cleared top winning dogs so now I get copied by some of the people who were previously (or currently) snarking, which is funny.
The best way to expand breeding programs is to cultivate good pet homes willing to co-own and maintain intact dogs. It takes work and you are always on call for calls and issues and vat bills too but it can be worth. Developing partnerships with other breeders helps too.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 23, 2008 @ 10:10 am
I found the BBC program to be very good overall, and disagree with the assertion that it is tabloid journalism or junk science. The film maker who produced the program is a contributing member of the canine-genetics discussion list, and is versed on the science and subject matter covered in the program.
The portion of the BBC program about one of my breeds, German Shepherd Dogs, was entirely accurate in portraying the extreme split within the breed between working and show dogs, as well as the delusions that cloud the judgment of show dog fanciers about what constitutes “correct”. They cannot see what is plainly obvious to almost anyone, that show GSDs are structurally unsound by design. A similar form of blindness seems to affect show dog fanciers of many other breeds.
Open studbooks would have an insignificant impact in terms of correcting the problems highlighted in the BBC program. In their pursuit of “correct type”, modern show dog breeding practices have eliminated the vast majority of genetic diversity that once existed WITHIN closed studbook dog populations. Most show dog fanciers view the more diverse appearing dogs within their own closed studbook population as having “incorrect type”, so they won’t breed to them. Show dog breeders breed heavily to a relatively small number of popular show dogs, and in doing so throw out most of the genetic diversity of their own breed That is, unless working dog breeders and/or the oft-criticized pet dog breeders maintain that genetic diversity.
A breeder of GSD show dogs who would never even consider breeding to a working line GSD sure as heck isn’t going to breed to a Malinois if the GSD studbook was opened up. This is true of nearly all show dog breeding.
The veterinarian on the BBC program summed it up perfectly when he said that competitive show dog breeding is the problem.
I fully understand that the vast majority of show dog breeders are good, dedicated people with only the best of intentions for their breed. I am also acutely aware, now more than ever, that without them we could not defeat draconian measures like AB 1634. But the long term future of dogs looks grim to me if we do not find some way to eliminate beauty pageants for dogs and return to breeding dogs for function. As a first step, I hope the BBC stops televising Crufts as they’ve indicated might happen.
Comment by LauraS — August 23, 2008 @ 10:33 am
I wouldn’t be shocked to learn AR activists were behind the making of this ‘documentary’. I doubt if the motives were purely in the best interests of purebred dogs, since the emphasis is mostly on how “flawed” pure bred dog breeding is.
AR activists didn’t make the BBC documentary. Jemima Harrison who is is a contributing member of the canine-genetics discussion list made the documentary. It was made to highlight some of the serious problems that modern dog breeding practices have created, not to support the AR agenda. If the ARs exploit this issue, that is the fault of the dog fancy. Dog shoot the messenger.
Comment by LauraS — August 23, 2008 @ 10:42 am
Well, Laura, I have to disagree about this show. I watched it and as a journalist, I thought it was terrible. The juxtaposition of images with commentary, the use of loaded language, the manipulative nature of the commentary, all DETRACTED from an investigation into the very real problems of purebred dogs, the show world, and the institutions that “govern” it.
It shed heat but very little light. It was sensationalistic rather than thought-provoking. It invoked HITLER, for the love of everything! I mean, you go violating Godwin’s Law, and you’ve really crossed a line that journalists should never cross.
I’m aware that there’s a knee-jerk response to it that is all about the AR agenda and this type of objection, but I raised none of that.
You can say, “I know the filmmaker and she knows all about genetics and she’s not a bad person and she’s intelligent and thoughtful,” and all that might be true, but most of us who watch the show don’t know her, don’t know that, don’t have that context and background. All we have is the final product, its images and its words, and I think that final product did a disservice to the subject and was, yes, tabloid journalism.
I share your concern about the condition of today’s dog breeds, the effect of dog shows, and trends like purse puppies. I frankly think things are WORSE than this program made them out to be, because it focused on sound-bite, photo-op issues rather than the more critical underlying problems, and that’s what irritated me.
Other people may have other objections. I stand by mine.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 23, 2008 @ 10:55 am
Furthermore, if that breeder did use some dog with a disqualifying aesthetic fault, he risks being branded all sorts of unpleasant names and depending on the breed club, having action taken against him for behavior “not in the best interest of the breed”. Which is one of the reasons breeders sell most/all their pups on S/N contracts - they can’t keep dogs intact in pet homes for possible future use in someone’s breeding program for fear of being labeled “irresponsible” or violating someone’s idea of “ethics”.
Not all ethical dog breeders are show dog breeders. S/N contracts are very unusual in the working dog world. Among working dog breeders, it’s more common to have contracts that forbid or restrict S/N.
It’s in the best interests of the breed to have a large pool of potential breeding dogs to choose from. There’s no way to tell whether an 8 week old puppy or 6 month old puppy can do the work the breed was created to do. In order to maintain working abilities in dog populations, many (ideally nearly all) working bred dogs need to be kept intact until they are several years old and proven for work and health. Failure to do this will cause a gradual deterioration of population working abilities and health in future generations.
Comment by LauraS — August 23, 2008 @ 11:06 am
I wrote: Dog shoot the messenger.
That’s an interesting Freudian slip. It should have read “don’t shoot the messenger”
Actually, maybe I prefer it the other way ;-)
Comment by LauraS — August 23, 2008 @ 11:10 am
“So I suppose for now I’ll settle for suggesting we try something simple and achievable. Stop whining about doggie hair-dos and conformation extremes, and focus on the scientific and medical problems caused by closed studbooks. Stop perpetuating junk science about ‘poo dogs and their “hybrid vigor”… excuse me, “hybred” vigor… and try digging into the real science of inbreeding depression, genetic bottlenecks, and popular sire syndrome.”
How to accomplish this? Perhaps because my experience with pedigree dogs has been limited to pet ownership—and has included some amazingly bad experiences with individual dogs, individual breeders, and a breed club—my response to Jemima Harrison’s “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” was somewhat different. For starters, Carol Fowler, a pet Cavalier owner and breed health activist featured in the film, really rang a bell for me. My brief career as a breed health activist, although not as successful as Carol’s seems to have been, has many similarities to hers. In addition, although I agree that parts of the documentary are of the “60 Mintues” gottcha variety, I really am not sure how else to capture the public’s attention than with visual images, some—perhaps all—of which are intended to have both illustrative and symbolic value. I have tried on more than one occasion to engage the Scottish Terrier community in discussion of a research study published a few years ago (Frequency and distribution of alleles of canine MHC-II DLA-DQB1, DLA-DQA1 and DLA-DRB1 in 25 representative American Kennel Club breeds, Tissue Antigens. 2005 Sep;66(3):173-84), which demonstrates how inbreeding has harmed the major histocompatibility complex in our breed. No dice. I don’t say that people are stupid or incapable of considering hard science—I find it difficult—only that most are genetically predisposed to understand images better than abstract concepts. As to the complaint that the images chosen are too selective, I can only answer that it was a series of judges at Crufts who chose as best in show that exaggerated Peke—the one who had his soft palate surgically altered so that he could breathe, yet was still obliged to sit on an ice pack while his win was recorded for posterity in photographs.
Comment by Lisa — August 23, 2008 @ 11:37 am
As to the complaint that the images chosen are too selective
You may be referring to something in the comments, but since you opened your comment with a quote from my post, I wanted to clarify: I didn’t suggest or say the images were “too selective.”
My problem with them is that they were given in a context I felt was unhelpful and inaccurate, and diverted people from a more productive consideration of the underlying issues. It isn’t that things aren’t as bad as suggested by the show; they are. In fact, they’re worse. But it’s also that they’re OTHER. Which is my problem with it.
As to your bigger question, of what the hell to DO about all of this, well, all I can say is, good question! I’ve bashed my head against many brick walls in my time in purebred dogs, in my breed club, at AKC, and among other fanciers.
But I’ve also met a lot of people who wanted to do things in a different way, people who’ve tried to operate outside the conventional wisdom, people who have made me see that the emperor has no clothes at times when I thought he was wearing a really nice outfit. ;)
So I’m hoping that those of us who might disagree on the details but still agree on the overall issues will keep pushing at our clubs, at other fanciers and at the general public and see if we can’t knock a few sections of those brick walls down, and let in some light.
Sometimes a really aggressive attack can make a great start at that, but often it has the opposite effect, of making people retreat to their well-defended fortresses and rattle their sabers at each other. My personal approach is to try to reason things out, and that’s why this show, and the discourse it prompted, has aggravated me so much. Because I think there was a way to put this information out there in a more effective and accurate way — and still be just as hard-hitting, without being quite so divisive.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 23, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Because I think there was a way to put this information out there in a more effective and accurate way — and still be just as hard-hitting, without being quite so divisive.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 23, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Make your own documentary! Only broadcast yours on US television so I can watch it. : )
Comment by slt — August 23, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
LOL… I write. This is my “documenatary.” ;)
I watched the show on YouTube… it’s all there!
Comment by Christie Keith — August 23, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
Really interesting article Christie. I loved the comments from people who all know their breeds so well. Knowing Border Collies a fair amount, I had to chime in to say that I have to disagree that you could tell a BC by looks. As a long time member of a BC rescue, We never know which dogs are pure bred because their looks can be so diverse. Recently one of our volunteers had her dog genetically tested and Sally was proven to have not one stitch of BC in her and while she didn’t act all BC we all thought she was 50 % or better. The mix was quite interesting to boot. Just last week I contacted a local shelter to let them know that the stray husky mix in kennel 7 with the ice blue eyes was most likely a pure bred smooth coat BC.
Check out Diversity is the Key Word at the on line BC Museum, and ask yourself how many of those different colored BC’s you would have picked out as PB.
http://www.gis.net/~shepdog/BC.....ealth.html
BC’s come in every color and lots of people don’t know that, including the majority of shelter workers who mislabel the dogs. They come is all colors, ear shapes, and sizes petite (25) to large (65+), and several coat types.
The way they work is of course what counts.
Comment by nancy freedman-smith — August 23, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Nancy, I see all those dogs as being of the same “type,” at least as far as I can judge from looking the photos.
Overall, looking at working Border Collies (note that I qualified my mention of the breed that way), they all “look like” Border Collies. Things like coat and color are not an issue in this breed. It’s that thing called “breed type” I’m talking about, and I’ve never seen a working Border Collie who didn’t have it, no matter what color she was, or what kind of coat she had. Things like expression, movement, tail carriage, how they react… those things are all part of how they “look” too.
Which in a way is what makes this whole argument kind of circular. You’re saying, a dog who doesn’t “look like” a Border Collie is still a Border Collie if… what? If she can do the work? I’d agree, as working Border Collies are defined by their ability to do the work, and as Donald McCaig once commented, if a Rottweiler could do the work, she could be registered as a Border Collie.
If her parents were registered as Border Collies with a given registry? Yes, but this is where the circular thing comes in, because that’s the very issue I’m looking at here.
I’m not saying there is no gray area in this discussion, but I can bring out a thousand Golden Retrievers who look as little alike as those dogs whose photos you showed me, and while most of us might not be sure if every single one of them was purebred, we’d still be able to separate the BCs from the GRs.
Some of us could do it even if you brought out Aussies instead of Goldens. ;)
There’s something about a Border Collie. And it has nothing to do with the stuff written in their AKC-approved breed standard.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 23, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
A circular discussion, I like the sound of that. We are not exactly disagreeing, but coming from two different places.
For instance, the dogs on this page…
http://www.gis.net/~shepdog/BC.....icked.html -
if I was sent to a shelter for an eval…how many of these dogs would I pick out as PB’s even when nearly all of them are in fact PB? Only a few. Even the 5 from the BC Ranch would have me scratching my head wondering if and or what they were mixed with. Even if I watched them play and herd other dogs in the yard..they could be Kelpie, Aussie, or Mcnab, or GSD’s mixes or who knows what. All I meant was it is not the easy to tell. BUT the Barbie Collies, hands down we would guess right every time,because they have breed standards that thankfully most of the universe does not confirm to.
My BC mix Charlee who came from a BC rescue was thought to (maybe) be a PB until she turned about 1 1/2 and then looked more cattle dog. But the way she works…you can’t tell .
As an aside about another breed, my other dog is a smooth collie (collie-collie). You could pick out a PB collie a mile away. Collies heads are very important in the breed ring and some say they current breeding practices don’t leave room for the brains….
Comment by nancy freedman-smith — August 23, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
Knowing Border Collies a fair amount, I had to chime in to say that I have to disagree that you could tell a BC by looks. As a long time member of a BC rescue, We never know which dogs are pure bred because their looks can be so diverse.
Likewise, those of us with English Shepherds frequently have our dogs confused for Border Collies. These breeds both descend from the same UK collie/shepherd landrace, and neither has been selected by the show ring to have a unique cookie cutter “type”. So there’s a lot of overlap in the outward appearance of these breeds.
Here’s some photos of my English Shepherd, taken during a SAR mission last year in the Sierra Mountains.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12275305@N04/
I have seen Border Collies that look like they could be littermates of my English Shepherd. Indeed, they look more like him than some of his actual littermates do.
I couldn’t care less if my dog is confused for another breed. It doesn’t matter.
Comment by LauraS — August 23, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
Overall, looking at working Border Collies (note that I qualified my mention of the breed that way), they all “look like” Border Collies. Things like coat and color are not an issue in this breed. It’s that thing called “breed type” I’m talking about, and I’ve never seen a working Border Collie who didn’t have it, no matter what color she was, or what kind of coat she had. Things like expression, movement, tail carriage, how they react… those things are all part of how they “look” too.
Donald McCaig has said that he’s seen a number of dogs at sheepdog trials that weren’t recognizable by appearance as Border Collies, yet that’s what they were.
Comment by LauraS — August 23, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
I’m not saying there is no gray area in this discussion, but I can bring out a thousand Golden Retrievers who look as little alike as those dogs whose photos you showed me
Golden Retrievers with as much diversity of appearance as Border Collies? You’re on, let’s see them.
I’ve seen lots of field/hunt bred, pet bred, and show bred GRs. They didn’t all look exactly alike, but they were much more similar in appearance than the very diverse Border Collie breed.
Comment by LauraS — August 23, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Interesting. Any one of the blue merle border collies on the above website look remarkably like my blue merle aussie. (Except for the tail.) My last dog was an Aussie/border cross. This was the late 70’s and she came off a working ranch. I think the rancher simply put two very good working dogs together because he wanted to see what he would get. (She was an amazing dog!) I’m relieved that the ability to work wins out over “show” appearance in the border collie crowd. I was dismayed to see “Miniature” and “Toy” Australian Shepherds advertised. What the &%## good is that? A perfectly good working breed is going to go down the tubes.
Comment by C.L.H. — August 23, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Comment by LauraS — August 23, 2008 @ 11:06 am
“S/N contracts are very unusual in the working dog world. Among working dog breeders, it’s more common to have contracts that forbid or restrict S/N.”
“It’s in the best interests of the breed to have a large pool of potential breeding dogs to choose from. There’s no way to tell whether an 8 week old puppy or 6 month old puppy can do the work the breed was created to do. In order to maintain working abilities in dog populations, many (ideally nearly all) working bred dogs need to be kept intact until they are several years old and proven for work and health.”
(end quote)
My concern here is very simple - what safeguards are taken to ensure that all the dogs produced in the service of ensuring this “large pool of potential breeding dogs to choose from” all have good lives in good homes?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 23, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
But this is the whole point of my argument, and why it’s circular.
What makes a “breed” a “breed” if the “breed” definition isn’t limited to the closed studbook breeding of two dogs of the same “breed”?
In addition to my mixed assortment of purebred Goldens, I can bring you a purebred Scottish Deerhound who should be an Irish Wolfhound, and a coursing champion Irish Wolfhound bitch that looks just like a deerhound. Those dogs are defined exclusively by pedigree, and still can fall outside the limits of “breed type.”
What I’m getting at is that breeding for ability doesn’t mean you automatically lose breed type, and my example is that working BCs virtually all look like BCs. As a group, they have as much “breed type” — or more — as many breeds bred solely around conformation and pedigree.
If you want to bring me some outlier working Border Collies to “prove me wrong,” fine. If you want to pull up photos of “purebred” BCs (here comes the circular argument thing again) to show that they all don’t look like that, fine also — although I was never thinking of simply how a dog looks in a still photo when I raised this point. There is much more to “looks” than a photograph can show.
But none of that changes my view that we don’t have to lose what we love about our dogs by breeding them for something more than their conformation. The vast majority of them will still be recognizable as their breed if we stop worshipping at the altar of conformation and include working and performance ability, and even temperament and genetic health, in our “standard of perfection” and breeding programs.
AND they’re not all easily recognizable as their breed even now… as the person who told me I was the only one who had ever known her unbelievably Great Dane-esque ridgeless Ridgeback was a RR told me! Hence my point about the Goldens… at least five types of which I saw at my dog park this morning.
This whole “breed type” as defined by conformation thing is, IMO, a false god. We breed obsessively for conformation to preserve “breed type,” then ignore the fact that we don’t always get “breed type” any better that way than other breeds have done by breeding for performance.
Now, are some breeds much more uniform in appearance than others? Sure, although that’s often just about coat and not really about conformation. All deerhounds are some shade of gray, but when I briefly showed my Borzoi, I found the variety of coats to be confusing my eye at first. It took a while to see through the flashy colors and the greater and lesser amounts of coat to the dog underneath, something I’m grateful I didn’t have to do in deerhounds.
And I have a lot of friends with greyhounds, and seeing a dog conformed like my own breed, but without the coat, is another kind of eye-opener… as is seeing AKC and NGA greys together — talk about divergence of “breed type”!
Personally, I had a deerhound once with flop ears like a RR. I didn’t like them, and it really bugged me to see them. They were “wrong,” but it was a stupid cosmetic detail. Ditto a bitch I had once with a ring tail. A cosmetic fault only, that had no bearing on her health, her fitness, or her lifespan — in fact, she was very healthy and long-lived, and produced a very long-lived litter of both conformation and field champions. I suppose all things being equal, I’d prefer a proper ear and tail, but all things are never, ever equal, and I hope the day never comes I would worry about ears and tails when there are so many serious genetic problems afflicting the Scottish Deerhound.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 23, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Comment by Christie Keith — August 23, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
“What makes a ‘breed’ a ‘breed’ if the ‘breed’ definition isn’t limited to the closed studbook breeding of two dogs of the same ‘breed’?
“What I’m getting at is that breeding for ability doesn’t mean you automatically lose breed type”
“we don’t have to lose what we love about our dogs by breeding them for something more than their conformation.”
“include working and performance ability, and even temperament and genetic health, in our ‘standard of perfection’ and breeding programs.”
A lot of this is what I was sort of trying to get at with my question about the canine genotype. I mean, here we even have DNA testing available now that can (presumably) tell you the breed heritage of a given dog, regardless of appearance. So if this is treated as a kind of tool, it seems to me it could be really useful in a program designed to utilize open studbooks and/or outcrossing to improve genetic health and diversity.
Percentage wise, how pure does my purebred have to be to still be considered “pure”? Obviously this question had to be considered before programs such as opening the Basenji studbook or the Dalmatian/Pointer program could be finalized. The somewhat arbitrary notion of “10 generations and then you’re pure” (or whatever it was) could even be useful in looking at what happened to successive generations of that genotype while that was going on.
With the genetic map and the DNA testing, it just seems to me like this no longer needs to be guesswork. You could quantify the genetic health (heterozygosity or whatever) of an individual or of a population, and could keep real, running tabs on preserving breed identity (perhaps a better term than “type?) while bringing in fresh blood to ensure ongoing vigor.
These are all “off the top of my head” kinds of trains of thought. But it just seems like we have the TOOLS now to do this right, and in an informed way. So that the health and diversity of breeds can be improved upon, without anyone needing to fear the loss of the breeds we love.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 23, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
My concern here is very simple - what safeguards are taken to ensure that all the dogs produced in the service of ensuring this “large pool of potential breeding dogs to choose from” all have good lives in good homes?
Careful screening to ensure the pups go into homes where the dog’s mental and physical demands will be met. These are not typical pet homes. A person who wants a typical pet dog is sent elsewhere.
Working bred GSDs go into homes where the dog will be trained in schutzhund, SAR, police patrol, scent detection, tracking, competitive obedience, flyball, agility, or some other activity beyond just pet manners. On the occasion that there is a bad placement, usually the breeder takes the dog back, sometimes the owner rehomes the dog to a better home. It’s very rare that these dogs end up in shelters.
The fear that a population of inferior dogs will be bred if a breeder doesn’t maintain control over the reproductive capabilities of the dogs she produces doesn’t seem to be a significant problem among the working dog breeders I’m familiar with. Does it ever happen? Probably. But the alternative of placing nearly every pup with a s/n contract would cause the certain destructive of our working breeds.
Comment by LauraS — August 23, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Dogs were originally selectively bred to do a particular job. They just wound up looking a certain way and having a certain coat and body build so they could (take your pick): chase rodents, fetch fowl, herd livestock, run down predators, guard the homestead. Don’t you think when we became more interested in how they looked, that’s where the problems started? A dog that was bred to do a job that couldn’t do it because of illness and deformity was not bred again!
Comment by C.L.H. — August 23, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Don’t you think when we became more interested in how they looked, that’s where the problems started?
Yes, I do.
It does seem to me that some of the specifics in some of our standards, particularly the older ones, arose, however, due to the association of certain points of how a dog looked with how a dog performed. “The gray dogs are faster,” whatever. It wasn’t that being gray made a dog faster, but just that some gray dog in the pedigree had passed on the genes for his color AND his speed.
And the next thing you know, tan dogs disappear because they’re slow. Even if they’re not.
Of course, the only reason this had any longterm effect on breeds is because we had conformation standards and dog shows.
Okay, I’m heading out soon to see a play, and so I won’t be here. I can’t believe this thread is still going like this!
Comment by Christie Keith — August 23, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
I can’t believe this thread is still going like this!
Comment by Christie Keith — August 23, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
But it’s good! I love intelligent discussion with differing views. It makes my brain waddle back into ON mode, hehe.
Comment by slt — August 23, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Christie, I am really puzzled about what your problem is with this documentary. Did we watch the same program? It seems that you want the very same things that the producers of the program do — it really does.
Yes, it is more simplistic — or simpler, perhaps — than one would wish — if one is a pet care columnist with a longtime interest in health and genetics, or, say, an Ivy-over-educated SAR dog handler and conservation breeder of a heritage working breed that has been the target of an attempted hostile takeover by show-fanciers looking for easy championships and puppy revenue. Just ferexample. But the program was not made for the choir, much less the choir director.
Were the images sensational? Well, it was certainly difficult to watch the Cavalier screaming, the boxer seizing, the “GSD” attempting to stand and walk, the Peke — whatever it was that Peke was trying to do — move enough oxygen to perfuse, I guess. That is not the same thing as being sensationalist, or lacking substance. Because those images were being contrasted with the bland faces of apparently normal human beings who stated again and again, in so many ways, that they COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG with the policies and practices that created those dogs’ pain, and their owners’ pain.
You can’t bring home the wrongness of the “La la la, all is well” attitude without showing the consequences. I think the show did what it had to do to bring this home to average, dog-ignorant-but-pet-loving humans. And it made the connection that an INSTITUTION had set POLICIES that CAUSE that pain, and the institution and the people who run it are dead-set on maintaining those policies. It’s not just “one of those things, what canyado?”
Show fanciers (as a group, not every single one of them) are so walled-in by their institutions and the culture that has been created by them over the past hundred years that they cannot see what is right under their noses, much less throw off those institutions and their mythologies and start employing sensible and ethical breeding practices that are the only thing that will save their breeds.
I’ll give an example. LauraS may remember this. On the OLD Cangen list, back in the day of Dr. Armstrong and the Ottawa server, there was a list member who owned a breed that was not too long ago a well-regarded working breed of recent (historically well-documented) origin. That origin was via engineered cross-breeding for a purpose. The breed is now not only rarely suitable for its traditional work, but beset with neurological, immune, orthopedic, cardiac, and other health problems, and is notably short-lived. This breed-fancier was well-educated about genetic disease, selective breeding, and many other topics, well-spoken (well-written?), and seemed generally sensible. She was also involved in a project to maintain a longevity hall of fame for the breed.
But a thread began about open registries, and selective crossing into breeds that are in trouble, in order to increase heterosis in general, and introduce the genetics for healthy alleles in specific areas. Much good discussion about the best way to do that and preserve breed type, however defined.
This otherwise apparently sensible woman was aghast at the the thought. The dogs would not be PUREBRED. But, others noted, look at the Cattentach boxers (corgi blood for natural bobtail), look at the normal-kidney Dalmatians (pointer cross) — in a few generations, there is NO WAY you can tell by looks or behavior that there was any crossing.
Nope — SHE WOULD KNOW that the dog was a MONGREL.
But, ma’am, your breed IS a mongrel. It’s less than 100 years old, and was created out of a wide assortment of unrelated breeds.
Nope. Didn’t matter. She would not want one. She’d rather have a PUREBRED example that was sickly, in pain, and died at seven than a healthy, long-lived, vigorous animal that *she would know* had some other blood in it, even if no one else on the planet did, and she herself would never suspect if she wasn’t told.
Does the DSM have a name for that level of Levitican lunacy?
With fortress walls that thick and blank, I don’t hold much hope for reform from within “The Fancy.” It’s going to take a lot of big catapults from out here to knock some holes for the light to get through.
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 23, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
On the subthread about being able to ID “breed type” — LauraS presented her English shepherd as resembling a border collie.
Ha! Try this one:
http://picasaweb.google.com/HHoulahan/Pip
I have had to INSIST that she is not a border collie when she’s come to open sheepdog trials with me (as a spectator, I hasten to add). To sheepdog handlers with decades in the breed. And they look at her and say “How the hell do you like that?”
This is not just appearance, but behavior, because aside from eye/crouch on stock (and she even does a bit of that, though less than when she was young), she fits in with the trial BCs perfectly — they share a dialect, it seems.
You can noodle around my other Picasa albums and see about ten of her offspring; most people would ID them as either border collies or generic mutts. Fine by me. The breed is on a Need To Know basis.
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 23, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
It’s a great thread.I learn a lot reading comments and information brought up regarding working dogs. I don’t have working dogs and I find the perspective interesting and refreshing.
Some breeds do not have a regular arena of competition beyond the show ring. they do not have specific jobs they are used for any longer. Nor do they have a place such as coursing or ground work to test out bred specific skills or abilities.
So for these companion only breeds, should we simply abandon the show ring? Personally I do not think so.
What I DO believe is that to be a good companion, dogs must be healthy and sound. That is a point that needs to be stressed. Health registries are an excellent start but that philosophy needs to become the predominant minimum standard for breed club standards. In some european countries dogs must pass a veterinary exam before they achieve championship. That would be a good start too.
I have one breed that is so much healthier overall, in terms of dogs being shown and bred today, than they were when I started two decades ago it is hard to convey. We are in a recovery phase from the dogs getting too exaggerated. But they are also HEAVILY exploited by puppymills and BYBs and the dogs from those sources are a physical and genetic nightmare so the public and the veterinary community does not get a clear view of the progress being made.
And then I have another breed that is extremely healthy but has a small gene pool and will need great diligence to keep it that way (and hopefully a re-opened stud book in a few years).
So please do not paint all show folks with same brush. There are many of us well aware of the challenges. We are open to new ideas and open to new testing, to changing standards to de-emphasize exaggeration and cosmetic faults. We want to produce beautiful dogs but put health of the dog and health of the breed as the priority.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 23, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
With fortress walls that thick and blank, I don’t hold much hope for reform from within “The Fancy.” It’s going to take a lot of big catapults from out here to knock some holes for the light to get through.
I totally agree. And yes, I recall the discussion involving the defender of her pure breed, which she readily admitted had serious widespread health problems. The thing that distinguished her wasn’t her stubbornness on this point, but rather the depth and breadth of her knowledge about genetics, heritable diseases, breeding, training, etc. She apparently preferred to see her breed go extinct rather than saved through cross breeding, even if it involved crosses to one or more of the original breeds that formed her (mongrel) pure breed 100 years ago.
My fear is that “The Fancy” will not initiate any significant reform until government comes breathing down their necks to “do something!” about the mess through legislation. What a shame. Because only government is capable of making this mess much much worse.
Comment by LauraS — August 23, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
Some breeds do not have a regular arena of competition beyond the show ring. they do not have specific jobs they are used for any longer. Nor do they have a place such as coursing or ground work to test out bred specific skills or abilities.
So for these companion only breeds, should we simply abandon the show ring? Personally I do not think so.
IMO, since conformation dog shows are the root cause of most of the problems, the answer is yes.
There is an enormous variety of organized activities that dogs can be involved in today. In addition to traditional work, and recently developed types of work, there are dog sports such as agility, flyball, rally, obedience, tracking, schutzhund, hunt tests, herding, dock diving, field trials, weight pulls, endurance tests, and many others.
Need some metric to help screen breeding stock for pet dog breeding programs? How about something like the ATTS temperament test, therapy dog tests, health screens, and waiting until the dog is several years old (at least) before breeding in order to screen out late onset diseases? Also add one or more of the above dog sports. Is there a breed of dog incapable of tracking for sport? If so, I’m not aware of one, since this is at the very core of what dogs are.
A lot can be learned about dogs by working them in either “real work” or sport, including info about the traits that make them better companions.
Comment by LauraS — August 23, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
I don’t have much to add, except that: 1) I ASKED Christie to write about this, knowing she would have a lot of thoughtful things to say; and 2) I’m enjoying every comment immensely.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 23, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Well. I have met some of the most ethical and wonderful people through dog clubs. Some idiots and scumballs too.
There may be problems with show culture, but there are benefits too. I was introduced to rescue through my first mentor. Our NorCal rescue is made up primarily of people who breed and show. I was introduced to the tenant that every dog you breed is your responsibility for it’s life time.
And I have seen the breeder/exhibitors in my first breed shift from indifference about health screening to embracing it. We launched two new studies with OFA last year that will hopefully develop into full fledged registries, all the funding for which has come from exhibitors via the parent club.
I enjoy showing my dogs. Whether a particular dog wins or not does not determine for me that they are of a quality that they get to breed. Some “winners” of mine went to pet homes after being altered. My best producer never set foot in the ring.
I am finding that the new blood, people that is, are very concerned with the health and soundness of their dogs, and that many of the old guard are doing a 180 on their attitudes as well. as for the old fogies who shove their heads in the sand and treat health problems as par for the course, well they cannot live forever!
And in addition to the show ring, my dogs have to screen out for health tests at one year then again at two and by then most have completed basic obedience and maybe CGC or ATTS.
Most of the people I associate with don’t breed before two to four years of age depending on what they are screening for. And they do ATTS or weight pulls or? Being pretty does not cut it as the only qualification for breeding. I am preparing to breed my bulldog bitch for the first time at four. She’s close to her championship but more importantly she has had NO health problems and just passed all her screening tests, including getting a very high score on her OFA trachea study results.
There are people who show who thumb their noses at all of this and just chase points and ribbons, but there are a lot who use a dogs success in the ring as only one of many criteria when choosing breeding stock. And frankly I like the challenge of marrying beauty, brains and health. But you have to be willing to take of the rose colored blinders and cull dogs by altering and lacing, sometimes even after you have put years and a lot of time and money into them if they fail in terms of temperament and health.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 23, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
Christie, this is one of the best articles I’ve read on this subject, if not THE best.
This line:
“Genes, once lost, can’t ever be recovered. Dogs who died without passing on their genetic heritage are gone forever”
is exactly why I mourn for what I’m stealing from a dog when I have him neutered - it’s his future and ultimately, the future of dogdom.
I have two Brussels Griffons right now, acquired past the puppy stage from a friend. They are small brachyocephs yet the breed has few health problems other than the species-wide vulnerability to hip dysplasia. My friend has been breeding them for over 40 years and they are very healthy, sturdy little dogs. They have wonderful temperaments due to the way he handles them as well. They are quite a rare breed over here, yet popular in Europe. He won’t even talk to people without a personal reference from someone he trusts and he doesn’t advertise.
Inbreeding is a word that’s thrown around a lot but when you think about it, isolated populations are basically inbred naturally. The difference, I think, is that in wild canids survival is the test for suitability.
In the human world, an ability to survive is rarely on the table.
Show breeding is a bit of a perversion of the original selective breeding. It’s totally about physical appearance (despite claims to the contrary at shows), whereas in earlier times, it about health and suitability for a task with appearance a nice-to-have but far from essential. Huge difference there as well.
Comment by Caveat — August 24, 2008 @ 7:32 am
So for these companion only breeds, should we simply abandon the show ring? Personally I do not think so.
What I DO believe is that to be a good companion, dogs must be healthy and sound. That is a point that needs to be stressed. Health registries are an excellent start but that philosophy needs to become the predominant minimum standard for breed club standards. In some european countries dogs must pass a veterinary exam before they achieve championship. That would be a good start too.
Well, one can certainly compete with companion breeds (let’s say pugs, miniature poodles, Cavaliers) in obedience, rally, agility, some of the dog-sporting-based rather than real-working-based events. If the dog is too delicate for ANY competition, even rally obedience, then there’s your sign, yes?
Why shouldn’t individual breed clubs run non-competitive breed surveys in which dogs are graded and there is a detailed and public educational critique? (As is done in several other species and also in some dog breeds in some European countries.) Wouldn’t a truly thoughtful breeder rather have a two-page critique of his or her dog’s good and bad points, along with suggestions for whether and with whom to breed the animal in order to maximize the good and minimize the bad, over a blue ribbon and an inscrutable, never-explained WIN?
Oh, I absolutely know that for some people, there is no point to putting in any effort or expense unless there is the opportunity to crush the competition or squeeze out sour grapes when they lose. Without a trophy room, why have the dogs? Good riddance to ‘em.
As for health prerequisites for a championship, I don’t see any momentum among the AKC breed clubs or the kennel clubs to mandate any.
OFA has been around for decades. There are simple genetic tests for some defects. Phenotypic tests for others. Which ones are required for championships in any breed?
Here’s a fun exercise. Get a list of this year’s AKC champion GSDs and English bulldogs. Get on the OFA website and start entering names. Not a lot of overlap, is there? (Oh, and if you see an animal listed as having normal elbows but the dB is silent about hips — that means that the owner is refusing to let OFA publish the fact that his dog is dysplastic. Nobody radiographs just elbows.)
About six years ago, when the English Shepherd Club was vigorously protesting Wayne Cavanaugh’s UKC’s move to put ES in the show ring, we asked that the UKC *at least* refuse to convey a “championship” on an ES unless it had an OFA clearance or PennHIP above the 50th percentile. Flat refusal. How dare the breed club suggest that we knew what was good for our working dogs!
I can now show you a “GRAND Champion” ES that is widely known to have rotten hips (though his owner refuses to publish how rotten), is still used at stud on anything, and can be seen in red letters in the pedigrees published on a notorious internet puppymiller’s site.
We told them at the time that this exact scenario would play out within ten years. It took three. Do you think they care?
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 24, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Most bulldog breeders doing hips use PennHip and they will do elbows for OFA without submitting hips for that reason.
Currently, the parent club recommends OFA patella and cardiac and thyroid. I expect CERF to be added soon. We are hoping to have eyelid anomolies take more scrutiny in CERF exams and once that is worked out the screening should get added to our CHIC reqs.
I also expect OFA elbows, stifles, spine and trachea to be added, the latter tests are only for studies being conducted currently, hopefully they will become full fledged registries soon.
As I said in an earlier post, bulldogs have many more dogs competing in both the show ring and also in agility, obedience and rally. Rally and obedience are becoming increasingly popular at bulldog breed specialties as well.
Beyond testing, I expect my dogs to be able to play hard, live comfortably and tolerate our triple digit summers without much more difficult (or any) as non-bracy breeds. Those who can’t get the snip and move on to a nice couch somewhere. And yes that includes some big show ring winners who did not make the grade when all their test results came back. The priorities here are Health, Temperament, Conformation, in that order.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 24, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
I don’t think breeders need more policing, more hoops to jump through, more ways to cheat on tests and/or more false standards to determine if stock is worthy to be bred from. Rather, a dialogue needs to be opened about 86ing all the “rules” we were taught by the AKC breed clubs and start fresh. Step outside the box, forget what you thought was right and take a fresh look to see if it really *is* right.
Comment by slt — August 24, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Christie, I am really puzzled about what your problem is with this documentary. Did we watch the same program? It seems that you want the very same things that the producers of the program do — it really does.
I agree with some of what they said, obviously. But I despise manipulativeness. The manipulativeness in this rose to the level of propaganda. It doesn’t matter that we share some beliefs, I share beliefs with many people whose methods of promoting those beliefs I deplore.
Gina and I have had this discussion many times about health issues — vaccination decisions, herd immunity, public health, nutrition, spay/neuter… I’m a remarkably consistent person.
I also didn’t care for — and this is the main point of my blog post, the stuff about the tone of the documentary is mostly here in the comments — the over-emphasis on conformation details because they are “sound-bitey and photo-oppish” when I see a much more serious problem being the real issue.
If a BBC documentary can’t take the time and care to really explain some of these genetic issues, and has to be all OMG FATHER-DAUGHTER BREEDINGS EEEUUUWWW, then yeah, sorry, I have a problem, even if we agree on a hundred other things.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 24, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
Most bulldog breeders doing hips use PennHip and they will do elbows for OFA without submitting hips for that reason.
*********
I call bullshit.
I use PennHIP too. Expensive and troublesome process. It costs an extra $25 or $35 to have a radiograph sent to OFA, and it costs me *nothing* to check the box that puts all results (including prelims for animals 12 months and older) into the open database.
So that is exactly what I do, and what I require my puppy buyers to do. But the breeders of an expensive luxury breed like the English bulldog find this too spendy?
PennHIP’s attraction for those who want to conceal and weasel about their dogs’ results is well-known to discerning owners of my own breed. No open database at all, no way for anyone but the owner to verify a dog’s results, and paperwork that is dead-easy to counterfeit.
It’s funny how we can know what the median is, and yet, the publicly released scores are almost all above it.
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 24, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
JenniferJ, the good things you attribute to the show dog culture — education about health screening and breeder responsibility, support for breed rescue, meeting lots of good people who love the breed — all of that is possible without having conformation shows. That’s what breed clubs do. The English Shepherd Club does all of those things and much more, without having anything to do with conformation shows.
Comment by LauraS — August 24, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
I never said that dog shows were necessary for any of the above.:-)
I am sorry that there is so much disdain for shows. Please don’t jump all over me, I have read all of the above comments and understand the arguments. As I use them in part as a gauge and enjoy many of the participants who are my friends and also good folks (I neither suffer nor socialize with anyone who is not ethical in behavior and practice), I’m not going to give up going.
But that was my initial exposure. And it is doubtful that the clubs for my two breeds would exist if not for the competition at shows. They were formed for that purpose originally. Could they survive the demise of conformation showing? Maybe, it would certainly be interesting.
And please, I have not said anything which I meant to offend. I am not trying to bullshit anyone. PennHip is the test for hip joint laxity used most by bulldoggers. And as it requires general anesthesia, which my veterinarian does not use for OFA hips, it is actually considerably MORE expensive than X-rays done for OFA. I am aware that it is not viewed with favor in some breeds. I have no desire to debate one test over another, I am just grateful that something is being utilized.
Bulldog puppies do fetch a high price, too high in my opinion. Luxury breed? Well I suppose. As i have stated, their only real job is as a companion. If the dog has not been bred with care they can be like an exotic car to own as well. Interesting to look at but often in the shop. Mine rarely see the vet and the average age at time of death for the dogs I have bred is 121/2, well beyond the 8-10 years quoted in most books and texts. And unfortunately that shorter life span is what most dogs purchased by people from puppymills and BYBs experience.
I’m not trying to convert anyone here. Dogs bring out strong emotions. I enjoy showing my dogs. I am not hung up on or blinded by ribbons. I’ve met fabulous people and had some fantastic companions as well. I am aware that some of the breed clubs are dreadful in terms of treatment of anyone with different ideas and that some of the people involved are awful. I am glad that that is by and large not the case with the bulldog clubs and I can only say that the change in attitude towards health and breeder responsibility in that breed over the past two decades is remarkable. Things can change. The new generation of bulldog breeders are a very different cut than the “old guard” Maybe we’ll see open stud books or outcrosses to other breeds at some point, I’d love to get normal tails in the breed once again and that will not happen without reaching outside the breed.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 24, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
Re-read my last post. I certainly don’t require a lecture on what PennHIP is or what it costs or entails. As I clearly stated, I use both. If the dog is knocked out for a PennHIP, and elbow radiographs (presumably done at the same time) are being sent to OFA, why would a breeder not send a hip film to OFA?
I did make an error on cost though. If one is having both hips and elbows evaluated by OFA, the additional cost is only $5.
So English bulldog breeders are so frugal they can’t countenance sending that film to OFA as well as UPenn? Oh yeah, sure. It would have *nothing* to do with the breed’s 73% dysplasia rate.
So either these breeders who are so highly hip-conscious that they are incurring the expense of PennHIP, and putting brachycephalic dogs under general anesthesia for a diagnostic test, are short the five simoleons, or … is it possible they *are* sending those films in, but refusing to release the results to the public dB, just hoping on the one-in-four chance that they’ll get a pass and another “clearance” to brag on? In all of 2007, the owners of exactly *eight* English bulldogs won that lottery. (And three brave souls released negative results to the open dB — Hurrah!) In the same year, there are 18 dogs of my rare working breed with numbers (and one open dB rated mild). In 2007, the ESCR registered 41 litters. In 2006 the AKC registered 8,967 litters of “bulldogs.” (AKC stopped releasing actual registration numbers in 2007, as they are attempting to camouflage their precipitous drop in registration numbers.)
I use the ES as a counterpoint not because we are doing everything right — but because it is a breed that has been free of selection for show wins throughout its history, and because numbers are available to me through our online registry dB, which is free to Club members.
SIX English bulldogs got passing scores on elbows from OFA in 2007. Two ES got them. Given that, AFAIK, no ES has ever been diagnosed with elbow dysplasia, it’s extraordinary that anyone ever checks. (I’m guessing it’s all, or mostly, top agility competitors performing due diligence.)
Only 66 English bulldogs had an entry for ANYTHING in the OFA dB for 2007. That’s hips, elbows, cardiac, CERF eyes, patellas, thyroid, sebacious adenitis, shoulder, DNA databank (what a lot of things to check for!) And it includes those three non-normal hip scores. The number of dogs evaluated and in the dB for 2005 (let’s say, for the sake of discussion, the potential parents of those nearly 9,000 litters in 2006) is 23. An AKC-registered English bulldog puppy born in 2006 had MAYBE a .0026% chance of having one elite parent with ANY kind of genetic health clearance recorded with OFA. (MAYBE because, hey, bunch of them dogs may never have been bred.) Thirty of the parents of the 41 litters registered by the ESCR in 2007 have passing OFA scores, or PennHIP scores, recorded in the ESCR open dB. (Which does not show prelims in the simple view I used for a quick look.) Three studs sired two litters, and one stud had three that year; no bitch had two litters registered. So that makes 77 unique individuals as parents, with over a third having a published clearance for the one genetic disease of concern breedwide. We can, and must, do better. Is anyone else?
So explain how the AKC, the breed club, and the institution of dog shows has served an educational function that encourages breeders to perform due diligence and use the tools available to assess the genetic health of their breeding stock?
And we are to believe that these same institutions should be trusted to perform quality assurance on the individual dogs’ temperament and general health, or on the breed population’s genetic health in general?
How does THAT kind of reform-from-within-with-just-a-tweak happen? I’ve been hearing that it’s just around the corner for over 25 years.
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 24, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
When I got my first show puppy, I was told straight out by someone in my breed who was trying to be helpful: “NEVER tell ANYONE anything negative about your dog”. At the time, I was surprised at this advice and it didn’t make sense to me. I didn’t follow it. Later, I learned the hard way that being honest about faults, health problems, etc was only providing fodder for the rumor mill and the ugly people who twist, exaggerate and smear in an effort to - I don’t know what it is - make themselves feel better about their own dogs?
At any rate, it was only after my name got ground into the dirt that I came full circle to realize:
1. I couldn’t do anything more to HARM my reputation so - may as well do as I please and officially “go rogue”.
2. The hypocrites who were hell bent on smearing me all had skeletons in their closets which they guarded like fool’s gold and so doing pedigree research was of limited usefulness.
3. Rather than effect real change, the AKC breed club’s “solution” to everything was to make more rules and punishments, which often the rulemakers themselves did not follow, and give the appearance of caring about the breed while they helped steer it head on toward early death.
So, I can understand how the Bulldog health stats might have come to look like what they do now. Or there may be other explanations. But certainly my own experience isn’t one in a million.
Comment by slt — August 25, 2008 @ 5:37 am
SLT, your story is one I’ve heard many times.
It’s almost impossible, when in the thick of it, not to “blame” individual personalities for the repeated behavior of a group. And I sure don’t let anyone off the hook for meanness, pettiness, pig-ignorance, viciousness towards other human beings, blind indifference towards the animals.
Buuuuttt …. I can’t help myself, I was educated as a social scientist, so I always want to look at structures and institutions, and see how they encourage different outcomes — how they reward of punish different human behaviors. I don’t believe in social engineering — except when I do.
If you see an institution in which meanness, secrecy and self-delusion flourish, and the open, honest, and thoughtful are noteworthy enough to comment on, or appear to be absent, then … well, there’s your sign, right?
Does the system of closed studbook + selection for “winning” + rewards for secrecy just attract petty, ill-natured people, or does it take regular people and make them so? I dunno. Probably some of both.
What I am sure about, though, is that the wicked triad above will continue to harm the dogs upon which its forces act.
I no longer believe it can be fixed from within, because I see the *basic* underlying premise on which the system is built as what it is: a collective delusion with no tendrils hanging on to reality.
So I try to engage in a community of people who love dogs, need them, and to as great an extent as possible, do not partake in that collective delusion. That community can be seen as a Venn diagram that includes my breed club, some of my training colleagues, rescue personnel, and ordinary dog owners, some of them my clients and students. One way I engage is by keeping an eye on structures and institutions in my beloved breed — the Club, the events it offers, its registry, the “breed standard,” and the rules that reward or punish different behavior, sometimes as an unintended consequence.
Think of the long term effects of two structural decisions that would have been otherwise over the cold, dead body of the person responsible for our registry database:
1) No “show” titles or championships would be listed in the dB. (Any and all sport and working titles are.)
2) All claims of health clearances or failure to clear entered in the dB require documentation sent to the Registrar and kept on file. (Or must appear on the OFA/CERF public websites.) Hip data appears, or is represented by a blank, on a dog’s main page, right under his name, and is automatically printed on pedigrees. (Hips are the genetic health issue of concern in this breed.)
Project these two institutional practices forward twenty years. What are the likely effects? If we’d made the opposite decision — a slot for championships, none for hip health, and we accepted “My vet sez Laddie’s hips look great” as “data” — what would the likely effects be?
Now, like the dog-show institutions, the Club and the registry and the registry dB are voluntary opt-ins.
But there is strong community support for all of the above (enormous growth since the UKC hostile takeover). So people are choosing a system that has decided NOT to reward show wins, and to support honesty about health issues.
Looking at the information I provided to the dB about my oldest bitch, there are at least three “negatives” about her health, plus negatives recorded about the health of some of her progeny and one littermate. Oh you betcha her virtues are sung there, too. But the dB is not a marketing vehicle, it’s a genetic record for the ages.
Are there people who don’t see it that way? Of course. They hide the bad. Some of it will never come to light. But they aren’t rewarded for hiding the bad with ribbons and trophies — not by the Club, anyway.
The important thing is that I have never felt “punished” for being straight about my dogs, for the full disclosure. I was turning away a lot of qualified people who wanted my pups last time.
When someone is hiding something about a dog, it tends to come out. Maybe the rumors are worse than the reality. That’s not punishment for a dog being “imperfect.” That’s the fallout of being in the closet. If it is a secret, it must be shameful? Keeping it a secret is the truly shameful thing. So if a puppy buyer asks me about some particular breeders (I breed a litter maybe every three years - 95% of the inquiries I get I punt to other breeders), they will hear: “Make sure you SEE the PennHIP report on that stud, and get a copy of it, before you put down a deposit,” or “Meet the dam yourself, and spend at least a half hour with her.”
I’ve noted over the past few years that the people who hide their dogs’ “bad” are the same ones complaining that they can’t sell their pups, while the people who are the most proactive about getting information out there are complaining about how hard it is to choose the right homes from the applicants.
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 25, 2008 @ 7:51 am
The discussion on this thread has been so incredible that it has me thinking of starting a “Huffington Post” type of pet blog, with lots and lots of bloggers contributing.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 25, 2008 @ 8:12 am
I’m in! *Provided* that when Larry King calls, I get the nod. I want to sit next to Bob Woodward and suck in my cheeks.
Comment by slt — August 25, 2008 @ 8:19 am
Which cheeks? :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 25, 2008 @ 8:24 am
I will say that it was incredibly frustrating - while I was actively participating in my Parent Club - to have all my input dismissed because I wasn’t a breeder, hadn’t “paid my dues”, etc. In a nutshell, I was a disrespectful upstart who didn’t know what I was talking about and didn’t know enough to let my “elders” tell me the way things ought to be. And believe me, asking the “hard questions” didn’t win me any friends.
This is one way the organizations institutionalize against change. You can’t be listened to until and unless you’re one of the “in crowd”. But you don’t get to be one of the “in crowd” until and unless you buy into the “group-think” and demonstrate it with your actions.
It really is an unfortunate and vicious cycle, and one I’ve pondered repeatedly in the years since I ended my association with my Parent Club.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 25, 2008 @ 8:28 am
Wow, long discussion…
In looking at selective breeding of any animal I think you have to sum up by asking yourself this question: What does it do for the dog? (or any animal).
Does it make them live longer? Better able to perform a task? Survive in difficult conditions?
Or, is a trait of vanity gratifying only the owner?
C.L.H commented that animals with deformities were not promoted into the gene pool. If only that were the case. He/she was describing natural selection and not commercial selection - which is the actual topic here.
We all know all to well the deformities and diseases that were ushered in by the selection for entirely cosmetic traits of no real value to the dog or its purpose in life (unless you consider dog as fashion a purpose).
You can make all the excuses for commercial cosmetic trait selection, but I will listen to none of it unless you can state in unambiguous terms - what it does for the dog.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — August 25, 2008 @ 10:40 am
Hairlessness makes the Hairless Chinese Crested much less susceptible to fleas—and this was an advantage especially prized on the Chinese trading ships where they served as ratters.
(Just to take one trait that you regard as pure human vanity, and in fact have described as a “twisted abomination of nature.)
Comment by Lis — August 25, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Bernie, if I’m not mistaken, you have two Brittanys. Or in any event, two dogs which - visually - are quite similar to one another.
If cosmetic traits are of absolutely no importance to you, why do you suppose you have the dogs you have?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 25, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Actually, the point I was trying to make was that when dogs were bred for a PURPOSE, that dogs wound up looking a certain way according to their purpose. A dog who couldn’t do a job wouldn’t be bred again. When we concentrate on the looks over ability, then we don’t seem to care as much about overbites, obstructed airways, dysplasia, etc.
Comment by C.L.H. — August 25, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
H. Houlahan wrote:
I was educated as a social scientist, so I always
want to look at structures and institutions, and see
how they encourage different outcomes — how they
reward of punish different human behaviors.
I would follow this notion a little further. The problem with dog shows is not individual breeders, judges or competitors who are nasty or secretive. The problem with dog shows is that the dog show system necessarily creates and rewards problem breeders, judges, and competitors.
Yes, individual breeders breed unhealthy, unstable, extreme dogs. Yes, individual judges ignore obvious problems and put up unhealthy, unstable, extreme dogs. Yes, individual competitors campaign unhealthy, unstable, extreme dogs. But if by some magic we could remove all of the problem breeders, judges, and competitors from competitive dog showing, it wouldn’t make much difference. In just a few years we’d have a new crop of nasty secretive breeders, judges, and competitors destroying the dogs just as surely as the current crop.
Competitive dog shows reward those who are most passionate about them, who dedicate their lives to them. These fanatics live and breathe dog shows. And they become judges and breed club officers because they are willing to dedicate more time and effort than anyone else. They form an isolated group and primarily interact only with each other. Their focus is on winning, so any trait that gives their dog a little MORE, that makes their dog stand out, is a good thing. Once this clique focuses on a trait, they will push it to the extreme until another trait comes along that gives that dog a little MORE and then they will focus on that trait. There is nothing in the nature of dog shows that checks this.
This is not unique to competitive showing. The same thing can happen in performance events as well. But there is a check in performance events. In general, performance events require a more rounded dog. A performance dog has to be able to do something. A show dog hardly even has to trot around the ring, as we saw with Danny the Peke. The requirement to do something doesn’t stop individuals from breeding extreme dogs, but it tends to be self limiting. In order to do something a dog must be physically sound, reasonably healthy. If the event requires substantial training, the dog must be sound and healthy for several years. Most performance dogs cannot demonstrate their breeding value until they are several years of age, which gives more time for health problems to show up. I’m not saying that performance breeding is perfect, but the system requires more of the dog. Nature and physics limit the extent that breeders can take dogs to unsound, unhealthy extremes. There are no such limits in competitive dog showing, or at least the limits are very, very low. Breed worthy show dogs are frequently identified and bred before a year of age. They are shown to their championship at an equally early age. There is no natural limit to the extremes of conformation, only the judgment of fanatical judges.
Every show breed has problems. The extent of the problems is strongly correlated with how long the breed has been shown and how popular the breed is in the show ring. It is unlikely that every breed would have fallen victim to fanatics just by chance. This is conclusive evidence that the problem is not the individuals, but the system itself. Competitive dog shows by their nature reward and encourage fanatics that breed, put up, and campaign unsound, unhealthy, extreme dogs.
Mandatory health screening and even performance requirements for show dogs does not really help. We all know that there are fanatics that will lie and cheat their way around any such requirements and the other fanatics will let it go with a wink and a nod. It’s not the rules that provide some protection for performance bred dogs. It is Mother Nature and Father Physics. You cannot lie and cheat your way around the Law of Gravity. So long as the only unavoidable selection test is trotting around a ring for a few minutes and looking pretty, no rules, no organization can prevent the descent into fanaticism, to the detriment of the dogs.
Comment by Grahund — August 25, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
This is a terrific discussion… and exactly the kind of debate the film was intended to provoke.
Christie, I know the film’s a sledgehammer. But there’s a very big nut to crack. There’s no doubt we milked every second of it to get the message across and while not as subtle as some would have liked, it was done because we felt this was the way to make change happen. Having immersed myself in this world for two years, I still quiver with anger at the stupidity and all the unncessary suffering that it inflicts on too many dogs. It really has got to change.
Having raised my head above the parapet, I am of course, happy to answer any questions…
Jemima Harrison
Director/Pedigree Dogs Exposed
Comment by Jemima Harrison — August 25, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Jemima, how exactly do you think simplistic, manipulative progpaganda helps?
People who know enough to recognize how you’re oversimplifying and manipulating, are not going to react well. They may be, as some here are, pisssed off because you could have done a more effective job with a more intellectually honest piece, and they know that the situation really is dire. Or, if they don’t already know that, and they recognize the manipulation, they may conclude you’re lying, either an hysterical crazy yourself, or someone cynically trying to make money and a reputation off of the hysterical crazies.
The condition of the Cavalier King Charles spaniel is dire enough that a totally dispassionate explanation of it is heartbreaking and scary. Modern show-bred GSDs don’t look like well-made working dogs. Breeds where soft palate resection and delivery by C-section are routine are clearly not healthy.
No borrowed squick over father-daughter breedings is necessary, and we’re assured that yes, you do know that that’s not the real problem.
Having contempt for your audience is rarely a winning strategy in the long run.
Comment by Lis — August 25, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Here is a brief history of my experience with my breed and breed club. In the wake of “Pedigree Dogs Exposed,” I posted a version of what follows to the Canine Genetics list Jemima and I both belong to. I post it here as a parable:
My interest in Jemima’s film is that like so many owners of purebred dog, I have known my share of sorrows because of my love for my breed. Like Carol Fowler, I have gone public in an attempt to bring attention to health problems in my breed and, as a result, experienced the kind of frustration illustrated at the end of “Pedigree Dogs Exposed.”
My problems began 9 ½ years ago, when I purchased my first purebred dog, a Scottish Terrier, from breeders who owned
both champion parents and who at the time had been breeding Scotties for more than three decades. My puppy was sold to me without benefit of contract, and when I inquired as to his breeders’ return policy, I was told that none of the puppies this couple had bred
had ever had any problems.
The night after I brought my dog home, he began to exhibit the
kind of ataxia I thought to be an affliction known as Scottie cramp. I wasn’t terribly concerned, because I had read information on the breed club website indicating that this condition was not painful to the dog and would not prevent him from living a full life. But
when, before he was a year old, my puppy began experiencing numerous other health problems—most notably, profound gastrointestinal problems manifesting as chronic, violent vomiting—I was alarmed. I did not immediately ask for his breeders’ help, as
I had been turned away when my puppy developed a urinary tract infection shortly after I brought him home. After a year and many thousands of dollars spent on vain attempts to help my Scottie, I did ask his breeders for help, only to be told that they had never
had such problems in their line and that the answer probably lay in our own environment. By that point I knew both responses to be misleading, in no small part because I had, not long after we got our first dog, purchased another Scottie bred from imported lines
who was free of significant health problems. I persisted, and when my first dog’s breeders ignored my inquiries as to the whereabouts of my dog’s littermates, I asked the same question of an online Scottie chat list.
I had broken the code of silence. To make matters worse, I published an account of my experiences in a magazine devoted to pet Scotties, which shortly thereafter began a campaign to improve breeding practices in Scottish Terriers. Although neither the editor nor I named names, we had both rendered ourselves outcast. I also began writing a bimonthly health column for the magazine, and a few years later, a health activist within the breed club, feeling that I had something to contribute to the breed, suggested that I join the Scottish Terrier Club of America. I was reluctant, but I hoped that things were beginning to change within the STCA, and I wanted to help.
My application met with an opposition campaign organized by my first Scottie’s breeders. A number of individuals who had never met me or my dog wrote to the club to complain of my unsuitableness, citing works published by others (my own columns were ignored) as
evidence of my hostility to the club and the breed. One of the most powerful breeders in the club wrote in to say that no one who writes for “that magazine” was welcome in the STCA, which, she added, was intended for breeders only. Most astonishingly, my first Scottie’s breeder suggested that my dog’s problems could not be attributed to their breeding, but to me: They indicated that I might be suffering from Munchausen’s-by-proxy syndrome and had therefore caused or exaggerated my dog’s problems. Although I provided the breed club with over 200 pages of evidence supporting
my case—including copies of my first dog’s health records—my application for membership was rejected.
After what I have witnessed and experienced in my relatively short time in the world of pedigree dogs, I do not find the purblindness, paranoia, and stubborn clinging to status quo shown in Jemima’s film at all surprising or exaggerated.
Comment by Lisa — August 25, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
I am very sad at many of the experiences people have had in their national breed clubs. I have my gripes with SDCA, and there are breeders as foolish, secretive, and vindictive in our breed as in any, but by and large, my policy of total openness and disclosure at all times has never been met with anything but respect, including from breeders whose dogs are in the pedigrees I posted belonging to my hounds who had genetic problems.
One person did call me in tears saying her breeder had “threatened” her if she went public with her dog’s condition, and I laughed. “THREATENED YOU? With what? They’re DEERHOUND BREEDERS, not organized crime bosses!”
“You don’t know,” she said.
Well, I do know. No one is going to beat you up or torch your house. They’re just going to refuse to sit with you at recess.
I never got shut out of SDCA for my openness; to the contrary, I’ve been asked to judge fun matches and been nominated and elected to two terms on our board of directors.
And I still open my big mouth whenever I damn well feel like it. They seem to like me anyway… although I’m quite sure there are exceptions.
Some clubs are undoubtely worse than others, but sometimes we just have to grow spines.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 25, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
I did not find the video contemptuous. Video is a visual medium and Ms Harrison chose some strong visuals for some of the narrative rather than going with more talking heads. It is a matter of judgment whether those visuals were over the top, but it did not rise to the level of contempt, at least not IMHO.
The charge that Ms Harrison picked the most visually appalling examples is specious. Again, video is a visual medium and there is nothing wrong with making the strongest possible case. Others have tried to bring about changes in the past: Mark Derr’s March 1990 Atlantic Monthly article “The Truth about Dogs” or Time magazine’s “A Terrible Beauty: The Ugly Side of Show Dogs”. Nothing has changed. If anything it has gotten worse. I can only hope that Ms Harrison’s vivid depiction of the depths to which the show fancy has descended can succeed in turning things around where previous attempts have failed.
Comment by Grahund — August 25, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
The charge that Ms Harrison picked the most visually appalling examples is specious.
I want to point out that was never my charge. I objected that certain visuals did not demonstrate the audio, but were instead inappropriate “horror factor” photos. I gave two examples in my post: The video of the Komondor, which is a wolf-sized breed that is not especially notable for health problems and certainly has no freakish points of conformation, but does have that “photo op” hair-do, and the confounding of looks vs genetic soundness and diversity in wolves.
I mean, would a breed that looked remarkably like the wolf — of which there are a large number — but the members of which had almost no genetic diversity whatsoever be more laudable and healthy than a breed with a lot of genetic diversity but very un-wolflike comformation?
Sure, film is a visual medium, but that doesn’t change the rules of education, raising awareness, and journalism. The words should be accurate, and the images should reflect them.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 25, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
Not sure if you are responding to my post or not, Christie, but I must say, I consider libel just a bit more serious than being shunned at recess. I don’t really care about being shunned, but I do care about my dog and others like him, many of them produced by individuals who seem to feel that the rules—of nature, of law, of decency—do not apply to them.
Comment by Lisa — August 25, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
Christine, you wrote in your post, “…there’s an exaggerated emphasis on photo-op-ready images of extreme breed characteristics like bracycephalic faces and short legs and long, floppy ears that drag on the ground…” It was this that I was responding to.
Comment by Grahund — August 25, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
WOW! The article was fascinating - but the comments are an even better read!
I’ve had a grand total of one AKC registered dog in more than 30 years of dog ownership (and this in a home where we always have at least two dogs at a time, usually more). For the last dozen years or so this was by choice, not accident.
IMO individual breed registries are the best, long-term hope for our dogs. Individual registries can make wise allowances for out-crossing. They can REQUIRE (not recommend) health, temperament and genetic tests of breeding stock (as the Leonberger Club of American did until it was hijacked by a pack of greeders lusting for AKC recognition). They can require or recommend measureable standards of performance in working stock. They can do far more to develop and encourage open health registries. Their goal can be to nurture breeds instead to earn revenue.
The problem is, that once a breed becomes well known some subgroup will realize that there is money to be made in breeding these dogs - but - not if they are required to do health, genetic or performance testing. So.. they go off and petition AKC, or UKC or ContKC or any other money-hungry large registry who is more than willing to accept the revenue stream for a “new breed.” And then you’re mostly screwed.
My kelpie is nuts. Even though she’s polite and quite well behaved, the fact that she is wound tighter than a watchmaker’s a$$ is obvious enough to scare off even the dullest average pet owner. She is not (thank doG) the poster pup for kelpies as pets.
But… my other dog is stunningly pretty. Photogenic. Bright and biddable. Sweet natured. Polite and well behaved. Endlessly charming and outrageously flirtatious. And you will find it very hard to get me to admit publicly that he is anything other than a mutt. I’m afraid the Leonbergers I had did too much to popularize their breed - and I’d hate to see his breed go the same route that they have.
Comment by Perhaps anonymous today — August 25, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Grahund: Well, if that direct quote from me is what you were responding to, I certainly wasn’t charging the film with “using the most visually apalling examples” in it. I was saying the same thing I repeated in my comment: That the images neither demonstrated what was being said, nor the actual problem. I never said, nor was my objection, that they were “the most visually apalling” images.
Others may be objecting that the film depicts things as worse than they really are, but I never said that.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 25, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
Lisa, I didn’t see any mention of libel in your comment… what happened?
Comment by Christie Keith — August 25, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
Christie, Lisa said, They indicated that I might be suffering from Munchausen’s-by-proxy syndrome and had therefore caused or exaggerated my dog’s problems. That certainly sounds like libel.
Comment by Lis — August 25, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
Ms. Harrison,
I haven’t yet been able to see your film so I can only comment from what I have been told by my friends in the UK who have seen it but I did see the internet solicitations for input in the pre-production stages of your film which were totally skewed toward getting information about genetic problems, not genetic successes, in the breeding of pure bred dogs which made me very wary about the intent of the film.
I also know that you filmed Dr. John Burchard, a noted biologist and expert on working hunting dogs, about the genetic success of a breed (salukis) who are a remarkably healthy breed despite over 6,000 years of being “pure bred”. Salukis can still perform their original function AND succeed in the show ring at the same time. (I’ve got one of those sitting at my feet right now.) From what I’ve heard about your film, there were a few seconds of beautiful footage of salukis running but none of the commentary about how many millennia of “pure” breeding can produce those very healthy animals who can still be competitive show dogs.
Now, being a film-maker myself, I know how good footage cannot always be integrated into an hour format but, from what I have heard about your film, the extremes of pure-bred breeding were emphasized to the detriment of the successes.
Yes, animals who are not healthy and cannot breed naturally are not animals that I can defend but from the reactions I’ve seen to your film, it has seemed to provoke the “Pure breds are bad. Mutts are good.” response that PETA and the other “animal rights” fanatics love to promote. Well, the only animal I have in my house that has a verifiable genetic problem is the mixed breed rescue I adopted from a shelter. The genetically passed bad traits are endemic in mixed breeds, too.
Geraldine Clarke
Balabar Salukis
Comment by Geraldine Clarke — August 25, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Only if it were published somewhere… if someone says something untrue and harmful about you, and it meets certain other legal criteria, it’s slander… but that’s a pretty tough standard to meet. This sounds like nasty, vicious lying, certainly. But at least from what was said here, I don’t think it sounds like libel.
Of course, there are probably a lot of facts that aren’t here, since clearly it was a very messy, ugly situation, legalities aside. And of course it hurts like hell and is infuriating to be lied about, especially vicious lies that would suggest you’d hurt your own dog.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 25, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
“Christie, Lisa said, They indicated that I might be suffering from Munchausen’s-by-proxy syndrome and had therefore caused or exaggerated my dog’s problems. That certainly sounds like libel.”
I’m a retired attorney—trust me, that’s libel. In Jemima’s film, pet Cavalier owner and health activist Carol Fowler had a similar charge leveled at her: that her response to her dogs’ health problems was “owner over-reaction,” or some such. My dog’s breeders just put matters more crudely, apparently because they felt they could get away with it. It still stuns me that they did. But then, I recall reading a piece written for the New York Times around the time the U.S.S.R. was coming apart in which the author observed that in the bad old days Soviet authorities really *did* believe that dissenters—those who not only disagreed with the status quo, but were willing to say so— were mentally ill and deserved to be locked away. Perhaps the same logic applies here. Sign me gobsmacked.
Comment by Lisa — August 25, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
Lisa, I don’t know if this is the proper forum for a legal discussion, but ummm, how can you say, “trust me, that’s libel”? Do you know exactly what was said, and was it published in any way? What were the exact words? Was it really libel? Slander? Some other category of defamation? Or just a free speech metaphorical opinion?
I’m not saying it’s good, but I’m questioning that it’s libel. And if it is, and you’re an attorney, why didn’t you sue?
Comment by Christie Keith — August 25, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
I don’t see how the BBC program can be called propaganda or contempt for dog owners. It is hard hitting but factual. No, it didn’t give equal time to purebred dog breeding that isn’t so screwed up. Why should it? When one is trying to get people to wake up by exposing a serious long-standing problem, it’s the worst aspects of problem that one must focus on.
Propaganda and contempt for dog owners would be the usual BS that one can find in breed descriptions disseminated by breed clubs and kennel clubs, such Cocker Spaniels that are alleged to be “great with kids” (yeah, in what century was that generally true?)
When I watched the Westminster broadcast and saw the structurally unsound show German Shepherd Dogs in the ring juxtaposed with video of a working bred GSD search-and-rescue dog, and Barbie Collies in the show ring juxtaposed with real working bred Border Collies in a field herding sheep, it was all I could do to keep from throwing the remote at the teevee. THAT was propaganda, folks, as well as contempt for the dogs.
Comment by LauraS — August 25, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
“Lisa, I don’t know if this is the proper forum for a legal discussion, but ummm, how can you say, ‘trust me, that’s libel?’”
I don’t want to belabor the point, either. Let me just say that in defamation law, distinctions between written and spoken libel aren’t what matters most. Spoken defamation is most commonly referred to as slander and written defamation as libel. In my case, the claim was committed to writing and read aloud before an audience. Does that constitute publication? A court would have to decide. I did not sue for a variety of reasons, including the fact that I used to be a litigator, and I know only too well the toll libel litigation can take.
Let me just say once more that I intended my tale as parable. I think it says a lot about what’s wrong with the pedigee picture.
Comment by Lisa — August 25, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
“… suspect it wasn’t serious, I welcome Gina’s idea of a blog/forum/whatever …” — Anne T
Actually, I made it kind of in jest, but now I’m thinking of it seriously. What an amazing place this would be to have a wide array of voices intelligently discussing issues and not just yelling at each other with their fingers in their ears.
Barkington Post? Nah, I’m sure Ariana would sue us for trademark violation.
But we have some major upgrades in the works for the entire site (not really affecting the blog), so maybe the PetConnection team ought to think about more group/guest blogging.
Christie’s post here, and the discussion following, shows how remarkable that would be if it could be successfully pulled off.
Must think …
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 25, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
I don’t see how the BBC program can be called propaganda or contempt for dog owners.
I never said it was “contempt for dog owners,” so whoever did will have to defend that.
I did say, in a comment to this post, that it was manipulative rising to the level of propaganda. Let me give you the definition of “propaganda” from Wikipedia:
What part of that do you feel this film didn’t do? I’d say that sums up my problems with it pretty well.
It is hard hitting but factual.
I’ve already outlined several things I had problems with on a factual basis; no point in belaboring them. That doesn’t mean there weren’t a lot of factual things in it, but one of the problems with mixing good stuff with bad is that it damages your crediblity even when you’re right on the money.
No, it didn’t give equal time to purebred dog breeding that isn’t so screwed up. Why should it?
Indeed, and I never said it should have, nor have I defended such breeding.
When one is trying to get people to wake up by exposing a serious long-standing problem, it’s the worst aspects of problem that one must focus on.
But the film in fact glosses over the worst aspects of the problem in favor of the most manipulative, the photo-oppy and the soundbite-ish.
Propaganda and contempt for dog owners would be the usual BS that one can find in breed descriptions [….]it was all I could do to keep from throwing the remote at the teevee. THAT was propaganda, folks, as well as contempt for the dogs.
But that doesn’t really change the analysis of this particular report in any way. The more off-point and outrageous your opponent is, isn’t that even more a motivation to correct those problems with a rational dispute? I completely agree that showing photos of working GSDs and show GSDs and implying they are the same is propaganda. I’m also saying that’s exactly what I saw in “Pedigree Dogs Exposed,” such as showing a photo of a Komondor when speaking about genetic and health problems.
I don’t understand why my objections to this film’s methods rather than its message is so disturbing to anyone. Have I said I think dogs who can’t breed, whelp, breathe, or run a mile are okay with me? Did I advocate, or do I own, dogs whose ears drag on the ground or whose faces are flat as a pancake, or who fit in my purse? Didn’t I say I’m in favor of breeding for ability, health, and temperament, of open studbooks, of open genetic registries, of outcrossing, of preserving genetic diversity?
But I have a problem with the methods this film used to make its point, and I think the end result of some of those choices is going to be the opposite of what I’d like it to be. I suspect that’s true for many people reading this discussion as well.
I guess we’ll see soon enough.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 25, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
Oh pleeze do. but no explosions! This place gets messy enough with grey matter over the screen and keyboard on a regular basis. lol
The biggest problem would be in making sure there was no yelling at each other with fingers stuck into ears. But if Cathy can do it with FHoTD,and manage a pretty diverse, opinionated bunch, why not you guys?
I am not saying a Blog like FHoTD where the stupid are outed, and we are all aghasted by their antics, I am talking about a place where those of us can discuss all the issues raised about breeding, breed clubs, health testing, and all those concerns of those of us whose hearts are invested in purebred dogs, and don’t seem to have any other outlet for our concerns, frustrations, experiences etc.
And we would need a certain amount of anonymity, as with FHoTD, the real purpose would be to educate, yet we, speaking for myself, would like to be able to say what I think without repercussion. As has been pointed out but several experiences, those with big mouths pay a heavy price within their breed.
Comment by Anne T — August 25, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
Personally, I’m deeply opposed to anonymous blogging, unless you’re a political dissident in China, or a whistleblower, or a lesbian in Saudi Arabia or something along those lines, where being known for your views would be genuninely harmful to your ability to stay alive or earn a living…. if a view has crediblity, it has to be signed and sourced.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 25, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
102 comments?????
Comment by Christie Keith — August 25, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
What, are you complaining? Only 102?!
I’m with you, Christie. I know whatever we do, it will be with real names.
After all, folks, how are you ever going to get to enjoy being contacted by PETA’s lawyers if they don’t know who you are?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 25, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
I completely agree that showing photos of working GSDs and show GSDs and implying they are the same is propaganda.
That was one of many Big Lies told during the Westminster Kennel Club Show. Most dog breeds used for work today have such deep splits between show and working factions that they have become different breeds in all but name. Yet kennel clubs and breed clubs maintain the fiction that these show dogs are still working breeds.
And on this blog, the WKC show got a ton of reporting, but wasn’t called out for their massive propaganda campaign. http://www.petconnection.com/b.....ing-group/
http://www.petconnection.com/b.....und-group/
http://www.petconnection.com/b.....ier-group/
http://www.petconnection.com/b.....ing-group/
http://www.petconnection.com/b.....cavaliers/
http://www.petconnection.com/b.....one-upset/
Meanwhile, the BBC program’s smaller errors get trounced upon.
Comment by LauraS — August 25, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
Christie, I am happy to debate “angle” but please know we have been very careful about the factual content of our film and would ask that you are as careful re your accusations of factual/scientific innacuracy.
The picture of a Komondor was used in a section illustrating the very great variety of pedigree dogs, not dogs with genetic problems. And you’ve already been corrected re the impact on the immune system of inbreeding.
You are also confused re the wolf section which wasn’t to say wolves are inbred (although given a choice they most certainly do practice inbreeding avoidance); it was to point out that every single breed today, from a teacup yorkie to a wolfhound, descended from the wolf - that the phenotypes are something we, rather than nature, have foisted on them.
I am not sure, either, why you are claiming that we did not focus on the very important issue of genetic impoverishment. It was something stressed several times - both by geneticist Steve Jones and by two significant references to the recent Imperial study.
I find it hard to understand your concern over the comparing and contrasting of breeds then-and-now. If they are “sensational” it’s because, well, they ARE.
Finally, I feel no shame in focusing on inbreeding as a major issue and highlighting that many dog breeders think there’s nothing wrong with the mating of first-degree relatives is of course a strong way to get the point over to the general public. This might be simplistic and it’s certainly not the whole story, but while breeders continue to believe that inbreeding is OK, generations of dogs will continue to suffer.
Comment by Jemima Harrison — August 26, 2008 @ 12:56 am
I don’t see how the BBC program can be called propaganda or contempt for dog owners.
The use of propaganda techniques that try to manipulate with emotional shock and bypass the rational, is contempt for the audience.
Comment by Lis — August 26, 2008 @ 3:51 am
There were three main claims made in the film:
1. That current breeding practices (particularly inbreeding andpopular sires) has resulted in a catastrophic loss of genetic variation and an unacceptable level of genetic disease
2. That the showring encourages phenotypes that cause welfare problems for some breeds
3. That the Kennel Club is not doing enough to tackle the problems
If everyone is essentially agreed on these three facts, perhaps the debate here could now turn to how, practically, these problems could be tackled.
Comment by Jemima Harrison — August 26, 2008 @ 4:57 am
Propaganda techniques? Well, maybe. But although the creaking soundtrack that accompanied the footage illustrating changes in the skulls of bull terriers and bulldogs might be expendable, I do have to wonder how one would illustrate, for example, the implications of the findings of that study I cited earlier (Frequency and distribution of alleles of canine MHC-II DLA-DQB1, DLA-DQA1 and DLA-DRB1 in 25 representative American Kennel Club breeds, Tissue Antigens. 2005 Sep:66(3):173-84) concerning the dire effects of inbreeding on the immune system of pedigree dogs other than with an approach like that Jemima took. Talking heads? Well, Jemima’s film has that. Criticism that their footage, too, has been manipulated (something Ronnie Irving seems to be complaining of now), or that they have been selected as carefully as images of extreme dogs were seems to me misguided. As Michael Moore responded to similar charges aimed at “Bowling for Columbine,” he didn’t make Charlton Heston say those things. All documentaries, even those of the Frederick Wiseman school, have a point of view. And speaking of Michael Moore, if he’d made a film about “purebred” dogs, it might have been called—here comes Godwin’s Law again!—“Springtime for Hitler.”
Comment by Lisa — August 26, 2008 @ 5:11 am
Because I think there was a way to put this information out there in a more effective and accurate way — and still be just as hard-hitting, without being quite so divisive.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 23, 2008 @ 11:56 am
And what is this way? Please be more precise in your criticism.
Comment by Dorothea Penizek — August 26, 2008 @ 5:29 am
Comment by Jemima Harrison — August 26, 2008 @ 4:57 am
“If everyone is essentially agreed on these three facts”
“1. That current breeding practices (particularly inbreeding andpopular sires) has resulted in a catastrophic loss of genetic variation and an unacceptable level of genetic disease”
It is my understanding that if linebreeding/inbreeding is judiciously balanced with outcrosses, it can successfully serve its intended purpose - to fix breed traits without exaggerating breed faults.
So I would modify the statement above to read “over-reliance on linebreeding/inbreeding”. I don’t believe it’s a problem until it gets to a point where breeders lose their perspective and it’s being used to excess.
“3. That the Kennel Club is not doing enough to tackle the problems”
My impression here is that folks would like to see each of the respective *Parent Clubs* step up to the plate more as they are the ones who - as individual organizations - need to start showing stronger integrity in their approach to the well-being of the breed for which they are the gatekeepers.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 26, 2008 @ 5:45 am
And what is this way? Please be more precise in your criticism.
I’ll say to you what I said to the person from PETA who used the same debate tactic:
Would you have asked Woodward and Bernstein not to report on Watergate until they had a blueprint for how to reform the US government?
And another one: Do you suggest I not report on policies and practices of the American Kennel Club until I have a blueprint for THEIR reform? (Personally, I’d rather tackle the US government.)
And here’s another one: Do you think television critics should only publish positive reviews, unless they’re ready to submit a script and production proposal for a show that they’d like better than one they panned?
Comment by Christie Keith — August 26, 2008 @ 7:33 am
“Christie, I am happy to debate “angle” but please know we have been very careful about the factual content of our film and would ask that you are as careful re your accusations of factual/scientific innacuracy.”
Comment by Jemima Harrison — August 26, 2008 @ 4:57 am
Oh puh-lease. You come in here to contribute to the discussion in the interests of getting the problems solved and then make a veiled threat? You really need to get a little tougher hide, Ms. Harrison.
The folks who make comments here are responsible for their own words — we don’t censor them — but Christie hasn’t questioned anything but your presentation and how it helps dogs. And in fact, you’ve shown that you’re not “happy to debate ‘angle’ ” at all.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 26, 2008 @ 7:39 am
Lisa, I thought the bull terrier skull footage was fine… and some of the interview segments were good, as well. Other than discussing the “incest taboo” soundbite, I don’t see any criticism in this post about the interviews. I can’t defend what I didn’t say, nor what I don’t believe.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 26, 2008 @ 8:00 am
“I can’t defend what I didn’t say, nor what I don’t believe.”
Sorry, Christie, I meant to address the subject in general, not to respond directly—or at least not exclusively—to your posts or comments. I think someone else mentioned the “skull” soundtrack. Some of the other things I touched on come from my own ether. I guess I should have been clearer.
Comment by Lisa — August 26, 2008 @ 8:47 am
Thanks, Lisa… a couple of times I commented without identifying to whom I was replying, because it was the last comment, but by the time my post went up, three comments had appeared in between, LOL. It can be very confusing!
Comment by Christie Keith — August 26, 2008 @ 8:52 am
“Oh puh-lease. You come in here to contribute to the discussion in the interests of getting the problems solved and then make a veiled threat? You really need to get a little tougher hide, Ms. Harrison.”
Gina, I might ahve been a little snappy as it’s irritating when people factually misprepresent the film. But what makes you think I was threatening Christie? Christie made several factually incorrect claims about the film. I merely asked her to be as rigorous as we have been in backing up every claim made in the film.
Not unreasonable.
Everyone is entitled to their views re the film and what it will and won’t achieve for dogs and of course I am happy to debate these. I feel passionately that the film will provoke change and that was the whole raison d’etre for it.
We have heard today that the UK MRI centres have been overwhelmed with cavalier owners wanting to have their dogs scanned. This is terrific news and the key researchers are delighted.
I’d be very interested to hear of other repercussions - good or bad.
Jemima
Comment by Jemima Harrison — August 26, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
“We have heard today that the UK MRI centres have been overwhelmed with cavalier owners wanting to have their dogs scanned.”
Jemima, that’s about the best news I’ve heard in years. Congratulations. May this sort of response continue. If you have succeeded in educating the pet buying public, I’d say you’ve accomplished a great deal. Now, if only there were bodies collecting and collating data on a continuing basis . . .
Comment by Lisa — August 26, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
It is my understanding that if linebreeding/inbreeding is judiciously balanced with outcrosses, it can successfully serve its intended purpose - to fix breed traits without exaggerating breed faults.
In the working breed populations I’ve studied, or seen comprehensive pedigree database analyses for, inbreeding is rare. The very close father/daughter, brother/sister stuff is basically unheard of. 2-2 linebreedings (a common grandparent among both dam and sire) are rare. 2-3 or 3-2 linebreedings are uncommon. These are all very common in show dog populations, but rare in the working breed populations I’ve actually seen comprehensive data for.
In these working dog breeds, typically one doesn’t see common ancestors until one is out in the 4th or 5th generation. Linebreedings that far back to not create much genetic homozygosity.
The incest taboo in humans derives from the harm genetic homozygosity causes.
Inbreeding and close linebreeding that create significant homozygosity likewise tends to be harmful in dogs. Research has found that 10 generation COIs (coefficient of inbreeding) higher than 6.25% correlate with significantly reduced longevity in dogs. A single 2-2 linebreeding will exceed that threshold. Probably all show dog populations exceed it. A large majority of working GSDs and working Border Collies are below that threshold.
Many more studies have been done on livestock species, and similar trends are shown — increased inbreeding correlates with reduced egg production in chickens, reduced milk production in dairy cattle, reduced meat production in beef cattle and pigs, as well as increased incidence of disease.
Dog breeders who continue to defend inbreeding and close linebreeding are ignoring what science teaches us.
Comment by LauraS — August 26, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Data collection is clearly vital. There’s a really neat, and cheap, solution offered by Paul McGreevy (University of Sydney) which utilises a software patch integrated into existing veterinary databases which would silently mine pertinent data (breed. age, gender, intact/neutered, diagnosis, symptoms, etc). It would require little effort on the vets’ behalf and could prove a fantastically useful sentinel system. We suggested it earlier this year to both the KC and the British Veterinary Association but met little enthusiasm. Perhaps now it will be explored.
Comment by Jemima Harrison — August 26, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Christie made several factually incorrect claims about the film.
Jemima: I did not.
In fact, this post is barely about the film at all, despite the disproportionate amount of space it’s taking up in the comments section.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 26, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
I am concerned about genetic diversity in both the breeds I’m involved in. However, I’m significantly MORE worried with my rare breed (German Spitz) that opening up the stud book, at least here in the US, will result in oversized (poorly bred!) Pomeranians and assorted Keeshonden and Eskies being lumped in together with them.
The German Spitz is, despite it’s tiny gene pool outside of Germany, a really healthy breed. We need some diversity, yes, definitely. We DON’T need to bring in any of the problems that we’ve dodged the bullet on- Keeshonden parathyroid issues, higher incidence of PRA in Eskies (plus the Eskie temperament is significantly different)- I don’t even know where to START with Poms.
Now, I could see kleinspitz being a good potential outcross for Poms- but the reverse isn’t necessarily true. Genetic diversity just for the sake of diversity is no good. I worry about where it would stop, if it started. I can SEE controlled, carefully done outcrosses (like the Dal Backcross project, like Dr. Cattanach’s bobtail boxers) being done with care and planning. What *I* worry about is wholesale “Well, it looks like a Mongolian Fluff-herder, so we’ll allow you to register it as one.” being done on a larger scale with no checks and balances to ensure that the dog is not bringing in scary health problems from other breeds. Especially since once you get into the companion/toy breeds, there *aren’t* vast populations of unregistered working dosg. There probably aren’t ANY unregistered dogs that don’t trace back fairly recently to registered stock whose papers were pulled or lost for some reason or another.
I also really, really worry about this show being used to justify BYBs who don’t show (or DO anything with their dogs other than just having them as pets)’s pathetic breeding practices. It’s one thing to breed an unregistered working BC. It’s quite another to breed an unregistered toy Poodle who doesn’t at LEAST compete in obedience, or rally, or agility, or heck, at least do therapy work (or, in the case of the minis and standards, hunt, but I think a toy’d have trouble even with retrieving quail, let alone ducks). Good breeders DO things with their dogs. They don’t depend solely on their own eyes (and the eyes of their friends) to judge their dogs’ strengths and weaknesses.
The third issue I have is that this just feels like one more attack on breeders- responsible or otherwise (and the otherwise are either oblivious to it or used to it.) in a climate that’s already really hostile to them. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If you show, you’re chasing ribbons and ignoring soundness. If you don’t show, you have no objectivity. if you use your own stud dog, no one would breed to your bitch. If you use someone else’s, you have no confidence in your own stock (or you’re hiding a health problem.) If you linebreed, you’re inbreeding and losing diversity. If you outcross, you’re breeding without any overall plan. It just feels very hopeless.
I’m planning to breed my first litter in the next 2 years or so- and it’s scary as hell. Lizzie has been eye tested and will be getting her patellas done and hips and elbows prelim’d. (the latter two aren’t problems in the breed, but I feel like I need to stack the deck. other people in the breed have told me that I am being paranoid- people I trust, but I just feel like I need to do everything I can. There will not, however, be the same tests on the stud dog- no oen else sees the point in all the tests. (He’ll have eyes and patellas, depending on who it is, maybe thyroid- but those probably will just be vet paperowrk, not evne sent into OFA.)
It all just feels very hopeless and overwhelming.
Comment by Cait — August 26, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
What *I* worry about is wholesale “Well, it looks like a Mongolian Fluff-herder, so we’ll allow you to register it as one.” being done on a larger scale with no checks and balances to ensure that the dog is not bringing in scary health problems from other breeds.
Honestly, I know that fear isn’t unjustified, and I’m not saying you don’t need to worry about what you’re bringing in, but the problem is… there ARE no checks and balances on the closed studbook breedings. The people in your breed can perpetuate any negative traits they want to, and no one can stop them.
Breeding carefully is breeding carefully, and there’s no reason to be less careful with an outcross than a, er… what IS the opposite of an outcross, LOL… incross?
But we talk about this in deerhounds, of course.I remember a long discussion about something entirely trivial, the loss of coat colors other than gray in our breed. No one is actually worrying about that, but as an intellectual exercise, we tried to figure out where we could go to get our coat colors back WITHOUT bringing in all kinds of problems and losing the functionality of our breed.
Personally, I ended up saying I’d go to the Saluki. The things we’d risk would be temperament… deerhounds are “aloof” compared to, say, Gina’s retrievers, but they’re very friendly, affectionate, people-oriented dogs compared to a
catSaluki. But it’s not like Salukis are vicious, just more aloof then the deerhound. They’re also incredibly healthy, have lots of dogs in the breed who can still do the work, and they have a very diverse gene pool. They’re fast, too, which is good for the deerhound, and IMO, the deerhound has gotten way, way too big, so while some objected the Saluki would downsize our dogs, I didn’t see that as a negative.I think worrying about losing the wonderful temperament in deerhounds is very valid, but we’ll lose it anyway if we don’t do something about the genetic problems in our breed that have NOTHING to do with cosmetics like coat, and everything to do with bloat, cystinuria, osteosarcoma, and heart disease. There are compromises everywhere when you breed; what’s one more, in a good cause?
I’m not seriously proposing outcrossing to Salukis will save the deerhound. I don’t know enough about them to say that. But I think we should be able to discuss it as a possibility.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 26, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
The bull terrier footage was not fine.. What did it prove? It proved nothing.. but was a pathetic attmept to show that something is “wrong” with the bull terrier today because it does not look like the “bull and terrier” outcross that was shown in the beginning.. actually that was an English White Terrier.. now extinct with a bit of bull thrown in. a very early version of what is now a stocky healthier dog than then.. less deafness.. more bone.. better temperment.. all plusses.. but because the head is distinctive it was shown as something negative.. .. not to mentoin that the newest KC person is a very good Bull Terrier breeder and has been for years.. could that have been the reason for the choice of background and breed during the pre show interview? and on the “show”.
The “National Enquirer” segment where Irving was pressured to talk about “breeding to his own daughter” was enough to make me stop watching. What, as the Brits say, twaddle..and sensationalism. Not to mention the human/animal PETA connection..
Jemina needs to take a quick trip to Darfur. PEOPLE THERE COULD USE A DOCUMENTARY.
I hate to say it because people refuse to see the “dark” at the end of the tunnel .. but this is an attempt to push the “no animals at all ” agenda.. If people can’t see that.. then they are not looking long range enough.. First the pure breds.laws and rigorous testing to make them impossible to breed to type made by people other than the people who actually OWN the dogs.like clubs .. and registries…… then the mutts .who will then be the next “genetic disasters” called out by people like Jemina.. only it will be those who are against breeding AT ALL. then the dogs, cats..mandatory spay/neuter.government intervention . etc.. open your eyes folks..it is all there to see.. the trip may be longer .. but the end result is the same.. NO MORE DOMESTIC PETS…
Comment by bestuvall — August 26, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
Cait says:The third issue I have is that this just feels like one more attack on breeders- responsible or otherwise (and the otherwise are either oblivious to it or used to it.) in a climate that’s already really hostile to them. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If you show, you’re chasing ribbons and ignoring soundness. If you don’t show, you have no objectivity. if you use your own stud dog, no one would breed to your bitch. If you use someone else’s, you have no confidence in your own stock (or you’re hiding a health problem.) If you linebreed, you’re inbreeding and losing diversity. If you outcross, you’re breeding without any overall plan. It just feels very hopeless.
I’m planning to breed my first litter in the next 2 years or so- and it’s scary as hell. Lizzie has been eye tested and will be getting her patellas done and hips and elbows prelim’d. (the latter two aren’t problems in the breed, but I feel like I need to stack the deck. other people in the breed have told me that I am being paranoid- people I trust, but I just feel like I need to do everything I can.
It all just feels very hopeless and overwhelming.”
YES and that is exactly what “they” want you to feel like.. instead of encouraging people to bred dogs.. the anti breeders are making excellent potential breeders like yourself feel.. like you are NOT DOING ENOUGH…don’t worry Cait.. do your testing.. and BRRED your bitch.. we need MORE like you..looks like you are damned either way.LOL. so do what you want.. you sound educated about your breed and knowledgable…go for it…
Comment by bestuvall — August 26, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
You know, “bestuvall,” well, let’s pick two things:
1) If you can see absolutely nothing wrong with the skull morphology of the bull terrier, and believe that the breed has been “improved” into its current form — well, then there isn’t much room for discussion.
2) Cait is clearly vexed about the pressure put on her by other “fanciers” and their sniping. You see PeTA under every mattress. In the “fancy,” it appears that accusing anyone who criticizes anything of being an AR plant intent on elimination dogs in our lifetime has become the magic charm meant to halt all discussion. Might work in the most gormless of “fancier” circles, but it won’t play here.
To me, one of the most important moments in this documentary is when the interviewer asks the question “What will be lost?” if the Cavalier goes extinct under the weight of its genetic load of disease. And the lady answers, and talks about their sweetness, and how wonderful they are as pets.
I can justify my working dogs and my breeding program on utilitarian grounds that almost anyone — dog haters included — can get behind. And I hate to do so, because I think the justification “These make wonderful healthy pets” is also highly valid — if it is TRUE. And that’s one of the things that the show ring doesn’t reward, and the snobbish hard-core of the “fancy” could give a rat’s ass about.
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 26, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
“It’s quite another to breed an unregistered toy Poodle who doesn’t at LEAST compete in obedience, or rally, or agility, or heck, at least do therapy work (or, in the case of the minis and standards, hunt, but I think a toy’d have trouble even with retrieving quail, let alone ducks).”
Just to let you know that there is an oversized Toy Poodle in Canada who has his WC and at least one qualifying score for his WCI. The Poodle Club of Canada fought to get Minis and Toys added to the Standards eligible for these field titles. Minis and Toys are not eligible for Hunting titles-yet.
I’ve read the whole comments list just now. I am interested in that software programme that mines vet’s databases. One of the real problems I have had as Health Officer of the PCC is that we have no real hard data about how prevalent certain diseases are in the breed, nor can we quickly locate affected dogs for researchers when asked. To counter that problem, we are in the process of setting up an online health survey - to go on from where the KC (UK) survey left off.( There is already an open Health registry for the breed - the Poodle Health Registry - but only a small number of owners submit documented info to it - breeders can’t submit for legal reasons.) So ours will be confidential, to pick up as many of the rest as possible and give us some statistical basis for making decisions.
The suggestion of setting up a continuing blog on this topic is also interesting. I belong to the CanGen list, but my emails do not appear or appear too late to be of any use. What I would like to access is a source which collects all the efforts which are being taken in the various breeds worldwide. For example, I was talking to an officer from the German Shepherd Dog Club of Canada; they tried to add a pre-condition of hip testing for entries to their Specialty (I’m not sure whether for all classes or only Specials) but were turned down flat by the Canadian Kennel club. We do have Field Trial Conformation shows for Championship points, which require that an entered dog achieve a qualifying score in the previous official Field trial before the entry can go into the ring. That effort was passed by a previous CKC Board, but AFIK, only the Sighthound clubs are putting these shows on.
As for educational efforts having any effect - Dr. John Armstrong’s pioneering study on inbreeding depression in the Standard Poodle has been out for over a decade, and I think that most Standard show breeders in North America now have accepted that breeding for a lower COI is desireable, and the Poodle Health Registry has been set up, and we have a Standard Poodle Database of 115,000 pedigrees which can be purchased and which calculates the COI, % Wycliffe (for the genetic bottleneck) and gives Relationship Coefficients, and we will have that online health survey - BUT we still, in a framework of individual rights, have a great many breeders who rush to breed to the latest popular stud, and stud owners who refuse to withdraw dogs from public stud which have produced multiple major diseases, etc. It takes a great deal of time to change a culture which has lasted for over 100 years.
Comment by Mary Jane T. Weir — August 26, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
H. says:
If you can see absolutely nothing wrong with the skull morphology of the bull terrier, and believe that the breed has been “improved” into its current form — well, then there isn’t much room for discussion.
Well there is room for an answer to my question .. What is wrong with the bull terrier skull? Can you name a problem that is casued by the skull morphology as it is today?And why do YOU believe the breed has not improved from its old fashioned roots of the fighting pit dog?
Comment by bestuvall — August 26, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
I see AR’s under every mattress because that is where they are sleeping.. they could give a “rat’s ass” as you so eloquently put it.. about your working dog.. or your breeding program or the toy dog as a pet and they cetainly would not “get behind” your breeding program in any fashion as AR’s do not believe dogs should be made to work.. it is slavery to them to put a dog to “work”.
I am part of the “fancy” and I am anything but snobbish..and I know NO ONE who does not give e HUGE “rat’s ass” about their puppies that they sell ( yes SELL.. not adopt.. or place.. SELL)
it is nice that you can read Caits mind.. I was seeing her as worrying about breeding her dog.. plain and simple.. nothing “fancy”
Where I see a an AR.. you see a “sniper”
Comment by bestuvall — August 26, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
Mary Jane T. Weir - AWESOME on the Toy Poo with the WC. :P I know they’re PLENTY smart enough to do it, I am just imagining Leo (a toy poodle we were in rally class with) holding onto a duck as it tows him across the lake and out of site. He’s BITTY. :P He’s working on his CDX, I think, may be in utility by now. :P)
Bestuvall - it’s not JUST pressure from the AR/rescue (at least locally, those two have gotten pretty well conflated). And it’s not really pressure from breeders in my breed NOT to- they jsut really DON’T see the need. People I *do* trust to be honest with me, who have been in the breed for a long time, who do agility, and x-ray (if not test) for checking growth plates, etc- have told me that they’ve never seen OR heard of a problem and that it just isn’t an issue in the breed. Certainly there ARE breeds where this seems to be the case. It’s pretty darn hard, for example, to find a Papillon or Shih Tzu with parents who’ve had hips and elbows done. (Patellas, on the other hand, and eyes? No problem!) I can’t blame people for saying “I am NOT spending several hundred dollars to test something that I really don’t think- and my vet and all the current research AGREES- is not a problem.” But people who AREN’T in my breed- heck, aren’t even involved in the kind of learning that I think it TAKES to become a responsible breeder -seem to feel perfectly at ease bashing my desire to breed a dog who probably WON’T be titled when I breed her. It’s absolutely HATEFUL, the kind of things that people say. If you are a breeder, or bought your dogs from a breeder, you’re a snob, an elitist, you don’t care about shelter dogs, etc - on and on! And of course shelter dogs are the perfect choice for anyone on the boards and groups who comes on asking about how to find a puppy, or choose a breed, or just about anything like that, because your experience has shown that the well-bred dogs of a breed are SO different, temperamentally, than the poorly bred ones that you’ve met through rescue.
It just doesn’t end.
Comment by Cait — August 27, 2008 @ 1:29 am
Cait, there is a category of individuals you have left out: people like me who love purebred dogs, who find them no more an elitist luxury than, say, a garden. People like me want desperately for these breeds to survive, and that desire explains why we have a dog in this fight. We need breeders dedicated to perpetuating these dogs, not the status quo, which is moving at a fast clip towards oblivion And, I would argue, you need us. Every responsible breeder I know claims they make no money with their breeding programs, and I believe them (although I think that some of the money involved in this endeavor would be better spent on setting up and maintaining health registries than on professional handlers). My point is that breeders cannot afford to pursue this activity without pet buyers, and I would like to think that at least some of what they do is for people like me. I think it only fair that if I am willing to spend several thousands buying a dog from a breeder, she will live up to her part of the bargain and stand behind her dogs. I think it only fair that breed clubs, which profess high-mindedness, actually stand behind their codes of ethics. I do not see this happening much. As things stand now, I find the whole system as perverted as Danny the Peke—and that’s why, friends, Jemima’s film makes a powerful statement to me and people like me who want always to have these dogs in our lives.
Comment by Lisa — August 27, 2008 @ 5:08 am
Every responsible breeder I know claims they make no money with their breeding programs, and I believe them (although I think that some of the money involved in this endeavor would be better spent on setting up and maintaining health registries than on professional handlers).
Comment by Lisa — August 27, 2008 @ 5:08 am
Do you know how many pounds of meat a dozen pups eat per day? cha-ching!
Comment by slt — August 27, 2008 @ 6:15 am
I think that some of the money involved in this endeavor would be better spent on setting up and maintaining health registries than on professional handlers …
Comment by Lisa — August 27, 2008 @ 5:08 am
Hey Lisa,
Couple points.
First … I’m not thinking it’s an either-or situation. One can have health registries and still have handlers. In fact, we do.
My entire bill for a professional handler in 2008 will be $639, for finishing McKenzie’s championship. My annual food bill, as slt suggests, makes that number look like chump change. And that little check-out yesterday for Queen Heather, with diagnostics and a few minutes just with the radiologist going over those precious, lovely X-rays? About the same as my entire annual pro handler bill. (And no, I’m not complaining about the vet bill … BELIEVE ME!)
I have two champions — Woody and McKenzie. I used pros on both of them (although a big chunk of Woody’s points were put on him by my friend Mary, who co-owns him). McKenzie was finished by a nice young couple who are owner-breeder-handlers (the wife is a former junior handler). McKenzie loves the husband so much that she jumps into his arms when she sees him.
As for health registries … check them out. Zebulons Windy Tigertee and Windfall’s McKenzie. Both in the OFA database. Hips, elbows, patellas, etc. Heather’s probably in there, too, and my late boy Ben, even though their testings were all done AFTER they were spayed-neutered (because it’s important to know about ALL dogs, not just those who may be bred, which Heather and Ben never were). Ben also contributed to three health studies in the minutes before his death, with blood and tissue samples taken at my own expense. (By the way, the reason Woody has no relatives in the OFA database — unlike McKenzie, who can be linked up, down and sideways — is because he’s Swedish. You can pick up the health registry/inbreeding trail on him here.)
The Flat-Coated Retriever Society of America also maintains an open health registry.
Yeah, sure, there are people dropping thousands of dollars to have pros campaigning dogs, but a lot of us — if not most — don’t campaign at all. After the Ch., it’s over. (And by the way, I do know a couple people who campaign their dogs, and those dogs you can also find in the OFA database, as well as in other areas of canine endeavor. In my breed, that dog can hunt. And run agility. And sleep on a kid’s bed.)
You might also want to remember that people get to choose what to spend their hard-earned money on, and I choose to pay someone to handle my dogs because I’m not good at it and I have absolutely no interest in getting better. I’m an overweight asthmatic with two left feet. AND, I spend my weekends working. (Although I do my own training/competing in other canine endeavors, which I really enjoy.)
I don’t care for dog shows much … and they’re a big time suck from a schedule with little time from which to suck. So I pick mostly nearby shows I can get to and back in an hour or so, and let Jean and Josh do the grooming and the showing. Ribbon-chasing? Sure. But really, for me it’s just a check-off. Championship. Done, and on to better things, like training or swimming at the river!
And since I’ve never bred a litter or sold a puppy … well, if this is a business, I’m sure bad at it!
Why do I do it? As written many times before here: I want to help preserve one of our heritage breeds. (Although like Christie, I think opening the stud book will need to be part of that equation.)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 27, 2008 @ 6:57 am
“Why do I do it … as written many times before here: I want to help preserve one of our heritage breeds. (Although like Christie, I think opening the stud book will need to be part of that equation.)”
Gina—
I have every confidence that both you and Christie are doing things right. I usually agree with you, and that is why I hold this blog in such high esteem! I don’t really understand the need for the show ring—at least in its current incarnation—but I can accept that the way you approach it seems sensible. I also didn’t mean to say that I think matters are either/or, and I apologize if I gave that impression.
Do me a favor, though, take at look at how many Scotties are registered on CHIC databases. Damn few—and the bulk of these only within the last two years in the wake of a scandal involving discovery of cerebellar abiotrophy in the breed (discovered, and pursued, by a pet owner, I hasten to add). It is also worth noting that the majority of Scotties registered in *any* health database are those produced by—yes—a commercial breeder, one who apparently takes these matters seriously. I also feel strongly that our breed needs a wholesale open health registry, and I’ve been fighting for that, but so far prospects are dim.
In any event, I meant the burden of my previous post to be about the symbiosis between breeders and pet owners; the handler/registry parenthetical was meant as an aside. Probably because I am who I am, I feel that all too often pet owners—who so often carry the emotional and financial burden of the unintended consequences of inbreeding—are left out of the equation when they should not be.
Comment by Lisa — August 27, 2008 @ 8:03 am
I feel that all too often pet owners—who so often carry the emotional and financial burden of the unintended consequences of inbreeding—are left out of the equation when they should not be.
Comment by Lisa — August 27, 2008 @ 8:03 am
Truer words never spoken. MOST dogs (show dogs included) will be companions … and like everyone here, I want them to be happy and healthy in their forever homes!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 27, 2008 @ 8:42 am
” AWESOME on the Toy Poo with the WC. :P I know they’re PLENTY smart enough to do it, I am just imagining Leo (a toy poodle we were in rally class with) holding onto a duck as it tows him across the lake and out of site. He’s BITTY.” (sorry, I can’t do italics with this browser)
I haven’t seen him, but I’m told Simon is substantial in bone. However, the purpose of the WC is to test instinct, so there is some leeway for modifying the test; I believe that one entrance into water was changed because the judges were afraid he couldn’t climb out - but he swims the full distance and brings in a regular bird. They use humanely-killed birds. As for “bitty” - one 8.5” toy of ours in the ‘60’s retrieved a live starling from the bushes to hand - we were afraid he’d peck her eyes out. Tinki-Pu (I didn’t name her!) was a Group winner and definitely “Bitty” - but the instinct was there.
Much of the work of collecting pedigrees for the late Dr. Armstrong’s initial research was done by non or small breeders. We have been blessed with their contributions - the pedigree database, the open Health registry, the documented breed history (Poodle History Project) - all are the work of non-breeders. I think afer a few mis-communications, we have been able to set up a situation where the big breeders in the Poodle club and the pet owners listen to each other - but it took work. And it takes work to maintain that sense of mutual respect. Currently, the Poodle Club has issued a survey asking for direction re health testing and the Code of ethics.
In Canada, both the breed clubs and the national CKC are member-driven, unlike the KC or AKC. We are probably the most democratic registry around - but that has its drawbacks when you want to change things, because any change to Codes of Ethics or breed standards must get a minimum of 66% approval or higher in some cases. For years, the CKC could not add new breeds because they simply could not get that majority in their referendums. Finally, the breed clubs in question mounted a telephone campaign and got their vote. And once the change has passed the vote, it must be approved by the Federal Dept of Agriculture, under whom the breed registries are governed (federal Animal Pedigrees Act) - and if you want to change such things as opening a stud book, you have to change federal law. Not easy! Our pedigrees are legal documents - a p.i.a. if you make an error on an application, and any change in registry practices I believe has to get the support of the breed registries of other species, but I may be in error there. There may be work-arounds, but they are difficult for an established club to use.
So the 19th century concept of the closed studbook is enshrined in Canadian federal law, and there is very little wriggle room for the CKC. Change requires a massive public education effort, because it must reach nearly 20,000 CKC members (and I’m afraid Jemima’s documentary will put up their backs) and a majority of the members of Parliament’s two Houses. Right now, the CKC is focused on BSL legislation; possibly Jemima’s documentary will attract their attention, but I doubt it. What I think will work is the influence of the Cangen list and other breed lists in spreading understanding of the concepts of population genetics among breeders - because they can put pressure on the national breed clubs and can change breeding practices from the ground up. The laws will be the last to change.
Comment by Mary Jane T. Weir — August 27, 2008 @ 10:41 am
“Unfortunately, mixing distinct gene pools within the same breed brings with it another set of problems, too. One, if you outcross among unrelated lines of the same breed, you risk eliminating the very pool of genetic diversity you were trying to preserve.”
No, not if you don’t overuse particular sires.
Comment by Well — August 27, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
Cait..when I had my first litter of Bull Terriers.. oh so many years ago.. there were two out of eight with cleft palates. They had to be put to sleep right away. My vet lived as he called it “up the mountain” about 25 mins away.. I called .. I cried.. I begged.. he came “down the mountain” and took the day old pups.. he was very tender with them.. as tears streamed down my face he patted me on my back and said “Jan, if you are to be a real breeder you have to learn the two most important words in breeding dogs”.. I looked at him through mascasra blackened eyes ( I never go anywhere without mascasca) and said “What are those two words” thinking it would be something like be nice.. or be kind.. nope He looked me strihg in those black rimmed orbs and said loud and clear “TOUGHEN UP” Good advice.. has held me in good stead through some pretty tough times. So toughen up.. but still be knd.. you will be OK
Comment by bestuvall — August 27, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
Christie quoted in one of her comments:
“There is no specific level or percentage of inbreeding that causes impaired health or vigor. If there is no diversity (non-variable gene pairs for a breed) but the homozygote is not detrimental, there is no effect on breed health. The characteristics that make a breed reproduce true to its standard are based on non-variable gene pairs. There are pure-bred populations where smaller litter sizes, shorter life expectancies, increased immune-mediated disease, and breed-related genetic disease are plaguing the population. In these instances, prolific ancestors have passed on detrimental recessive genes that have increased in frequency and homozygosity. With this type of documented inbreeding depression, it is possible that an outbreeding scheme could stabilize the population. However, it is also probable that the breed will not thrive without an influx of new genes; either from a distantly related (imported) population, a natural landrace population, or crossbreeding. (“Pedigree Analysis, and How Breeding Decisions Affect Genes;” Tufts’ Canine and Feline Breeding and Genetics Conference, 2003; Jerold S. Bell, DVM)”
I must respectfully disagree with Dr. Bell. If you parse the above statement carefully, you will see it is even to some extent self-contradictory. The first difficulty is that there is no such thing as a population (or individual) with no “genetic load”. Individuals vary greatly in their “load” of “defective” genes, but none is entirely free of them. The late Dr. John Armstrong, genetics professor at the University of Ottawa and founder of what is now the Canine Diversity Project and the Canine-Genetics list, collected data on his favorite breed (the Standard Poodle) showing unequivocally that increased inbreeding coefficients (Wright’s coefficient) were associated with reduced litter size, reduced longevity, and other signs of loss of what the old-timers simply called “vigor”. High homozygosity is by itself already disadvantageous, regardless of the “merits” of the genes concerned. It means fewer biochemical options, and is more or less incompatible with the “genetic buffering” which stabilizes both development and the resulting phenotype against vagaries of the environment - or of other genes. That is, indeed, one of the main reasons sexual reproduction, with exchange and recombination of genes, was invented early in the evolution of complex (eukaryotic) organisms.
As others have already pointed out here, homozygosity of MHC haplotypes is particularly problematic. The MHC “superlocus” codes the proteins which enable an animal (or human) to distinguish “self” from “non-self” and so to mount an immune response to antigens presented by invading pathogens. This is a complex system and each MHC haplotype (a series of adjacent alleles, which - because recombination *within* the MHC region is practically nonexistent - is transmitted as a unit to the next generation) produces a whole range of such proteins. Specific haplotypes are, nevertheless, associated with resistances to or predilections for specific diseases. Most genes exist in only a small number of allelic forms; MHC haplotypes are (in a natural population) by contrast very numerous. Thus MHC heterozygosity is the rule rather than the exception. It is not much exaggerated to say that a MHC homozygote has only half the immune-system options of a heterozygote. MHC heterozygosity seems, furthermore, to be maintained by a preference for mating with partners of differing MHC haplotype … that has been experimentally demonstrated for some species, including humans . There has recently come to my attention the example of a breed - one not known for genetic diseases or aberrant conformation, but rather a picture of unsullied functional vigor - in which a remarkable variety of MHC haplotypes is found - but nearly all the individuals in that breed, in the subpopulation confined within the Western closed-studbook system, are homozygous for one particular haplotype; all the other haplotypes are extremely rare. In animals from the native lands of the breed, that appears not to be the case, and a wide range of haplotypes is well represented. So - without anyone’s intending anything of the sort - something funny happened on the way to the dog show, something which does not bode well for the future immunological health of the “registered” population.
I think there’s some question about Dr. Bell’s assumption that “The characteristics that make a breed reproduce true to its standard are based on non-variable gene pairs.” That’s probably true for certain very basic breed-distinctive traits - the long-hair gene comes to mind - but for the rest it may be a considerable oversimplification. Many typical features of breed conformation arise from differential growth rates. Those are usually not controlled by single genes of large effect, but rather by the cumulative action of several to many genes controlling rate processes. The ease with which a dog’s shape can be changed by selection - so sadly visible in the histories of many modern breeds, as various people have noted here - also speaks for the involvement of multiple “quantitative” gene loci.
I must here make a disclaimer. I was involved, if fairly marginally, in the production of the film. It is, I think, intended as a wake-up call. To do that in an hour’s TV presentation, a certain level of “shock tactics” is hardly avoidable. The reactions of the KC, both before and after the appearance of the film, are IMHO revealing. There’s a saying in German “Der getroffene Hund bellt!” I’ll leave that to someone else to translate .
Comment by John Burchard — August 28, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
I am a Dalmatian breeder and exhibitor, and I can certainly attest to the extremely nasty nature of the political goings on about the “backcross” Dals without the High Uric Acid defect. In case you don’t know the issue - all Dalmatians have a gene for High Uric Acid which causes urate stone formation. You can identify Dal HUA urine at a glance - if chilled a little it becomes cloudy. The gene for HUA is present in individuals in some other breeds, but Dals are the only breed where it is endemic. A recent ultrasound survey revealed that 65% of 700 inspected Dals (at the National) have urate sludge in their bladder. This is rare in other breeds.
The subject has been banned from any official club discussion by a vote in 1984 still considered binding. The AKC recently changed their rules so that opening a studbook requires a super-majority of the club - specifically to support the Dal backcross opponents who include prominent AKC officials who come from the world of Dalmatians. (If you know AKC management, it is obvious who came from the world of Dals.)
There was a recent effort to simply allow discussion, and the argument of those opposed ware incredible and incredibly irrational in my humble opinion. One prominent and erudite club member, who was “person of the year” a few years ago said there is no evidence that High Uric Acid leads to stone formation, misquoting from obtuse scholarly works. He even said that unless we understand the mechanism that triggers precipitation of stone material from uric acid, it doesn’t make sense to try and reduce uric acid. Huh? This would dismissed as be the ramblings of a fool, except many jumped on this mantra saying “there is no proof” - in spite of repeated explanations and demonstrations of inaccuracy by several geneticists and PhD’s. Over 60 prominent club members, including several AKC judges and people in authority in the club signed a petition expressing opposition to the initiative to simply undo the prohibition against discussion.
My impassioned please for sanity were met with . . . . I’ll just let it go at that so as to not express the pejorative nature of my own opinions.
It has now been 12 generations since the original pointer outcross, and the descendants continue to carry the gene for Low Uric Acid - like other breeds. Several called these dogs mutts, or equivalent to “cutsy crossbreeds”.
I will do another post here explaining my assessment of the psychological underpinnings.
Comment by Ron — August 31, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
P.S. You can see statements from those favoring the Dalmatian Uric Acid proposition at this link: http://www.voteyesforlua.com/
Comment by Ron — August 31, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
I must here make a disclaimer. I was involved, if fairly marginally, in the production of the film. It is, I think, intended as a wake-up call. To do that in an hour’s TV presentation, a certain level of “shock tactics” is hardly avoidable. The reactions of the KC, both before and after the appearance of the film, are IMHO revealing. There’s a saying in German “Der getroffene Hund bellt!” I’ll leave that to someone else to translate .
I don’t respond well to shock tactics—and I’m fairly sympathetic to the basic point. There are a lot of breeds in trouble due to bad choices enshrined in the standards and the closed stud book. And my reaction to this show is still to be !@#$% off rather than an eager advocate of everyone watching it.
Comment by Lis — August 31, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
I will do another post here explaining my assessment of the psychological underpinnings.
Comment by Ron — August 31, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Looking forward to it!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 31, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
Topic - Psychological Underpinnings - for the common resistance to progressive health-related initiatives in all breeds.
The BBC documentary cited the Eugenics movement, racism, etc., presumably to explain people’s obsession with breed purity. Not that this is historically inaccurate or completely unrelated, but in mis-assessing or failing to understand very well what’s really going on it fails to get at and expose the root of the problem, which I believe is important. And the footage about Eugenics has largely been dismissed as a cheap shot or worse.
Let’s start with asking - why do people show? I think we can dismiss anything about showing to improve the breed, etc. This is noble and what I myself have often said, but has nothing to do with basic psychological realities and the nature of human motivation.
Face it - people show dogs because they are starved for recognition. People want to feel superior. I know I do. People, us humans, yearn and long for just a smidgen of acknowledgment and appreciation for our very existence. And our culture does everything it can to make us feel like just a consumer, just a social security number. I saw a post this morning where a dog lady said she was carrying around a big rock to keep her grounded after her latest win, to keep her from floating away. It feels wonderful to win, like an acknowledgment that our life means something, and there is a lot of bragging and prestige involved.
Combine that with the understanding that in the closed group of a breed club, or any group of people showing the same breed, everyone is competing against everyone else.
So if a health-related initiative is introduced (generally by a rebellious “upstart” in the club), the almost inevitable outcome of investigation and research will be a recommendation to breed away from affected individuals and those closely related. Thus some lines will be disfavored.
It really doesn’t matter who’s line will be thus discriminated against. Everyone is afraid the pride of their life might just be reduced in stature, possibly ignored, and maybe he or she isn’t even the one affected with the disease.
In my opinion, this discussion has nothing at all to do with a real concern for breed purity. No one truly gives a flip about that. Purity, exclusion is rather a disingenuous argument to cover the real less-than-honorable motivation or dynamics. I said this to the Dal community, to great effrontery, but I was far from dissuaded.
In Dalmatians, before the backcross effort was “revived”, there was an initiative to see what distinguished Dals who formed stones and blocked from those who didn’t. This met with very little enthusiasm. The mantra then was “all Dals are equally at risk”. There was a sudden interest in investigating nutritional correlations and hydration.
So if all are equally exposed to risk of overt expression, then manifestation must be random, with the implication that genes don’t matter. No point in doing research, we know the answer. No harm in breeding affected individuals. Indeed this was even said. Many prominent breeders continue to assert that stones had never been a problem in their line. It always seemed odd that the small breeders were much more likely to have personal experience, often more than once.
Subsequently, when the issue became incorporating the backcross Dals, the proponents figured that since no one’s line was disparaged, that breeders’ concern for the fallout effect on their own line should be erased. Guess what - the same people who resisted research into differentiation suddenly said - well before we do anything so drastic as introducing a Dal with a pointer 12 generations back, we should do what we can to see if there isn’t a solution within the breed.
So we have a catch-22. If anyone is interested, I can provide quotes that I think are simply appalling and very revealing.
The Basenji experiment was mentioned. It is interesting to note that the Basenji club, and the members to whom I have spoken insist that it was not done out of a concern for Fanconi disease, but rather to improve genetic diversity. I suspect it was important for them to phrase it this way to avoid procedural problems associated with making advances against disease. After all, if the issue is a disease, then puppy buyers will want the ones with the disease-free genes. But you can’t switch over the entire breed at once. Which leads into up the second relevant issue - if a genetic improvement is made, then those with the traditional gene suddenly have to compete against a “new and improved” variety, are thus relegated to second-class status. Fear of this is not insubstantial.
It was clear to me in the Dalmatian discussion a lot of this was going on.
All in all, I think you’ll now agree with me it’s best to just avoid anything related to improving canine health.
P.S. If you have ever had a dog block by stones (males are much more prone), you will never again watch one of your dogs pee without twinging and looking closely to see that there is really a stream there. And of course, you’re constantly looking for blood in the urine.
Comment by Ron — September 1, 2008 @ 12:20 am
I’ve often wondered whether the many cranky, hair-trigger, “uptight” male Dals I’ve known and trained were just not chronically blocked. You’d be crabby, too.
Anyway …
I do think that the 19th-century eugenics connection is relevant. Just because a show-dog-fancier is unaware that there is a specific ideology underlying all her unexamined assumptions doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Indeed, the prejudice that is invisible to its inarticulate holder is the most powerful. (How many Americans — most of the way across our tiny political spectrum — have any idea who John Locke was, or how their notions of politics are entirely defined by his frameworks? How many “animal rights” activists know about Jeremy Bentham and radical utilitarianism?)
Many years ago I tossed off a pop-psychology profile of a “SAR poobah,” with a list of a dozen or so of the unlovable personality traits these characters hold in common. I got a lot of email from folks who were sure I had used their own troublesome local poobah as a model. Thing was, I didn’t know any of these characters, never met ‘em, never heard of ‘em. But I’d met enough like them. And now, sad to say, I know one when I see one, pretty damned quickly.
I think breed club politics is the same. The names are different, but otherwise, the story replicates itself. Yes, the opportunity for ribbons and titles and social recognition for an “accomplishment” that one did not accomplish oneself certainly attracts certain personality types. It also fosters aspects of people’s personalities that may not have been dominant without those rewards (and punishments).
So again, I am always thinking about ways to structure institutions to reward the actions that are good for dogs, and punish, or refrain from rewarding, those that damage gene pools and foster pain and uselessness.
I think we’ve got a pretty good chance in the breed club for my own breed; the threats to the breed and its genetic future are largely from the outside of the club, and are recognized by most club members for what they are.
I don’t see hope any longer of reforming AKC or its breed clubs from within. Doesn’t matter if there are lots of nice, well-meaning, even knowledgeable people within those clubs. Doesn’t even matter if they are the numerical majority. The system is stacked against them — it is institutionally designed to protect itself and its unexamined prejudices. Knock the damned thing down.
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 1, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
Much as I would like to see the damned thing knocked down, I don’t see it happening soon enough to help many of the dogs. The only thing that could knock it down is legislation and the only thing that could make the current situation worse is government involvement.
What we can and must do is marginalize the dog show system. Everytime one of us puts a dog in a show or even attends a show we add a little more legitimacy to the show system. Those of us who care about the future of dogs must stop supporting this disastrous system.
If we can educate the public that those two little letters “Ch” indicate unhealthy, unsound dogs, we will create a demand for dogs that are not part of the show system. This will increase the number of dogs bred with health and temperament as the primary goals and will in time save the breeds from the predations of the show system.
I think everyone here knows that you get a real Jack Russell Terrier from a JRTCA breeder, not an AKC breeder. Only slightly less well known are the ABCA Border Collie breeders and the ASCA Australian Shepherd breeders. We need to make the backcross Dalmations the source of choice. There is a lot of awareness German bred German Shepherd Dogs. These are the breeds with strong alternative breed organizations. I think even within the AKC it would be possible for a subset of the breeders to break away from the show system, IF we can raise the pet buying public’s awareness.
But the public will not become aware of the dangers of the show system so long as we are fellow travelers, supporting the show system with our entries, our admissions, and our breeding choices. It is my opinion that good and caring breeders must shun the show system. To do otherwise only perpetuates its influence.
Comment by Grahund — September 1, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Not everyone is looking for a working dog with a hard temperament. Where do those of us who are looking for healthy, well-adjusted, easy-temperament PETS go, in your opinion, Grahund?
I’ve never believed that conformation championships were all you needed in the parents to produce a good puppy. But, sorry, a dog that only has schutzhund or field titles, is not likely to produce puppies that will be the dogs I want in my home, rather than yours.
Comment by Lis — September 2, 2008 @ 4:15 am
There’s an old saying: “A well-balanced dog has a title at both ends”. Somewhere else in this thread, someone promoted the idea that performance events of one kind or another are available to ALL breeds, from Toys to Giants, and certainly that presents an opportunity. Not to REPLACE the conformation Championship with something else. But rather, to create a cultural expectation that a conformation Championship is not fully realized until and unless the dog demonstrates performance along with it - whether in Field Trials, Herding, Obedience, Agility, Tracking, or - well, the list goes on.
Because a TRULY well-balanced dog (at least, one who’s expected to demonstrate their worthiness to be added to a breeding program) really SHOULD have a title at both ends.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 2, 2008 @ 5:27 am
If we can educate the public that those two little letters “Ch” indicate unhealthy, unsound dogs, we will create a demand for dogs that are not part of the show system.
Comment by Grahund — September 1, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
I would prefer not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and reform the system by opening the stud books. And your statement re: champion dogs isn’t remotely true. I have dogs here who are champions, quite healthy and quite sound, thank you very much, and quite competent at doing the job the breed was developed for, with great noses, great marking ability and lots of drive.
Sure, anecdotal, and sure, there are health problems in the breed. But my near-12-year-old flatcoat girl has been everything you could ask for in a dog, an outstanding companion with brains, biddability, work ethic and proven ability and, yes, some show ribbons. She had also been remarkably healthy her entire life, and utterly sound until recent injury … but she IS almost 12!
My dogs are wonderful family members. And that’s the point: Most dogs AREN’T working dogs.
Fix the system. Don’t toss it.
Despite all the trashing of show breeders on this thread — much justifiable — I would still rather send a person looking for a family companion to a reputable ethical breeders who puts titles on her dogs than to a backyard breeder or a puppy-mill outlet.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 5:39 am
Lis wrote:
Where do those of us who are looking for healthy,
well-adjusted, easy-temperament PETS go, in your
opinion, Grahund?
Ideally you get pets from breeds that are bred to be pets, not from working breeds like JRTs, BC, AS, GSDs, etc. That’s my ideal world. The reality is that you would buy a dog from lines that were bred to be companions.
The show ring does not select for pets. It selects for dogs that judges put up. The temperament of Cockers has gone to hell from show ring selection. If breeders select for temperament and health rather than fashion, perhaps the Cocker can once again be the outstanding pet it used to be. The show ring adds nothing to a pet dog.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 7:10 am
The OTHER Pat wrote:
Because a TRULY well-balanced dog (at least, one who’s expected to demonstrate their worthiness to be added to a breeding program) really SHOULD have a title at both ends.
I disagree. Show judges have demonstrated beyond question that their judgment not only does not add to a breed, it actively destroys breeds. As John Burchard described, just because you cannot (yet) see the damage doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Surely you will agree that the show ring has done tremendous damage to many breeds. H. Houlahan has made a convincing case that it is not bad individuals that are the problem, but rather a bad system. So long as you support the system, you—The OTHER Pat, Lis, Gina, et al—are contributing to the genetic destruction of dogs. The system is the problem.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Gina,
Closed stud books are a problem, but not the problem. The problem is selecting dogs for looks. Opening the stud book will not stop the selection pressure to produce freaks.
As to the _value_ of “Ch”, my point is that the show system is deadly and that we must marginalize it. The way to do so is to make show dogs an anathema to the public. Let the show people talk to themselves. By making “Ch” the mark of Cain, we can create a vibrant breeding population that is only slightly impacted by the depredations of the show ring. So long as one defends the value of those two letters, one is supporting the genetic death of dogs.
Gina wrote:
Fix the system. Don’t toss it.
That’s not possible. The system is intrinsically flawed. H. Houlahan clearly explains why. We can’t eliminate the show system (without legislation which would be worse). What we can do is marginalize it by shunning it. Every entry, every admission, every use of a Ch stud, every referral, every post on Westminster dooms more dogs to disease, deformity, bad temperament, and an early death. If you truly care about dogs as more than fashion accessories, you must shun the show system.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 7:34 am
If you truly care about dogs as more than fashion accessories, you must shun the show system.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 7:34 am
Oh puh-leeze. Thanks for my laugh for the day. If you know anything about me at all — and it’s apparent you don’t, despite the, oh, 1,500-odd posts I’ve written on this blog, you know that “fashion accessories” have nothing to do with me in any way, and certainly not with what I’m looking for in my dogs.
My dogs are from world-renowned working field lines that “happen” to get bench titles as well. Getting sound, healthy, temperamentally solid and happy working dogs is the primary goal of the person who bred them and co-owns them, and believe me, I spend far more time training than showing. (And I’ll guarantdamntee-ya the breeder spends 5,000 hours in the field for every one at a show.)
Flatcoats folks have just never tolerated a show-field split, nor have they tolerated bad temperaments. Cancer we have tolerated, and that needs to be changed, not just with genetic testing and funding of studies but with opening the stud book.
The situation for each breed is not the same, and although I would agree with you that breeding only for show championships is bad news, I still think reform is possible.
One key fix: No championships without a basic proving of working ability, in working breeds. And no championships without temperament testing and health certs, for all breeds.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 7:55 am
Gina,
I made no assumptions about your support for working dogs. What I said was that every act in support of the show system contributes to the power of that system to inflict damage on dogs. You show your dogs. That supports the show system that will ruin your breed.
SV show GSDs are required to have working titles. The result is midnight trials, 50 euro titles, and the dumbing down of the working test. The show breeders control the SV. When their show dogs have deteriorated to the point that many can no longer earn a Schutzhund title, they change the rules and make it easier to get a title, or they find judges that will look the other way. I’ve watched both happen. If you require working titles to get a Ch, then the show system will infect the working titles and destroy them as well.
Health certs are nice, but they only check for specific things, things we know about, know how to check for, and choose to check for. In some case we choose wrongly and create selection pressure for something that doesn’t matter.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 8:20 am
Grahund, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one, sorry. And you can stop coming at us like a Schutzhund dog now. Aus! Platz!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 8:24 am
As you wish.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 8:32 am
Great, now that you’re lying down — :) — come back to the discussion. Bring the light, not the heat.
Do you see a way out that doesn’t lead to boom times for puppy-millers? With regards to people who want a good companion, not a high-drive working dog?
We all want to fix this … but some alternatives are worse, and I think pushing people away from those who do breed for championships, yes, but also are VERY interested in health and temperament will push people TOWARDS “U.S.D.A certified” breeders, a/k/a puppy mills. That’s my fear, and my worst-case scenario.
Ideas?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 8:41 am
As I said in my post last night, we must marginalize the show system. That will open a space for careful breeders who do not show. In that space careful breeders will find a way to distinguish themselves. For some breeds natural birth, CGC, TT, and a long life may be the marks of distinction. In other breeds, more demanding working titles may be appropriate. Even getting a CGC and a TT would eat into the profit of the USDA breeders. Demanding that a dog be four years old before being bred would further diminish the profit and add selection pressure for long healthy lives. The demands on each breed are different. The marks of distinction for each breed will be different as well. But this will work so long as we create a space for it by marginalizing the show system that currently dominates purebred dogs.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 9:01 am
Just thinking aloud … I wonder if decentralization will help, with more autonomy and oversight taken by breed clubs, as with some of the more notable breeds with non-AKC registries/clubs, such as Aussies?
Or would that depend on the clubs, and the people running them, as per earlier discussion of the problems with the Dalmatian backcross efforts?
Performance-only standards, by the way, have their problems, too. Depends on what the performance you’re breeding for is. For example, look at the outcry over the increased weakness of the Thoroughbred racehorse, which has been increasingly bred for winning at early ages. (Simplification of the problem, by the way.)
THAT sort of performance-based breeding has NOT done jack for the overall soundness of racehorses, which are much worse off than they were in the time of Seabiscuit.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 9:24 am
I am a strong advocate of single breed registries. I think all-breed registries contribute to the problem. But a single breed registry that encouraged showing would be no better than what we have now.
Mostly though, I don’t think rules are the answer. I think that a culture that expects dogs to be healthy and sound is the way forward.
We are experts on dogs. Our friends and family come to us for advice. Some of us have national visibility. If we advocate for healthy, sound dogs that avoid the depredations of the show system, we can create a public demand for such dogs. Currently the show system dominates the pet buying public mind share. If we marginalize the show system we can take back that mind share and create a huge demand for good dogs. That demand will be more effective than any rules.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 9:34 am
You don’t have to go to horses to see the limitations of performance breeding. Check the underbite on racing greyhounds. It’s scary.
Performance breeding does tend to be self limiting. Maybe the limits aren’t as stringent as we’d like, but performance does set limits. The demands of racing have taken race horses up to the ragged edge of fragility, but the demands of racing also prevent them from going any further. Danny the Peke showed that there are no such limits in the show system.
Racing tests a more limited aspect of the horse or dog. A performance test that tests more aspects of the dog will be more effective at avoiding health and temperament problems. One thing I have noticed in my work with search and rescue dogs is how effective Schutzhund is in creating dogs that are stable around people, even autistic kids screaming and flapping their arms. The Schutzhund test isn’t perfect, but it is good, at least for SAR dogs.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 9:47 am
One thing I have noticed in my work with search and rescue dogs is how effective Schutzhund is in creating dogs that are stable around people, even autistic kids screaming and flapping their arms. The Schutzhund test isn’t perfect, but it is good, at least for SAR dogs.
The #1 most numerous breed used in wilderness search-and-rescue in California is the German Shepherd Dog. Almost all of these SAR GSDs come from lines bred to excel in schutzhund, while none of them come from AKC showlines. Not my opinion, those are the survey stats.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 11:00 am
Grahund, LauraS—I don’t doubt it for a minute.
But not everyone is looking for a SAR dog.
You’ve offered zero guidance on where someone should go to find a responsible breeder of a dog whose purpose is to be a household companion, if show breeders are absolutely ruled out on ground of our being guilty of the destruction of the breeds if we go to them.
Start with a show breeder, and you can find the ones who really do health screening for the known problems of the breed, and can produce the proof. Who screen for temperament. Who make sure their dogs title or get certified in something other than the show ring—CGC, Therapy Dog, Obedience.
But if you avoid the AKC shows, there is no way for someone who is not already a privileged insider to find these people.
And your theory that it’s impossible for the show system to do anything but destroy breeds is, um, interesting. I mean, in light of the history of the Chinese Crested.
The breed standard says that poor dentition, even toothlessness, is acceptable in the Hairless Cresteds. Good breeders today say you should not be able to tell the difference between a Hairless and a shaved-down Puff by looking in its mouth—because every dog should have good dentition. Thirty years ago, powderpuffs were rejects and hairless dogs had almost no hair (even where allowed) and poor bone structure.
Today, the moderately hairy Hairless is what most often wins in the ring. Devotees of the True Hairless say it’s because of the “showy” furnishings, but nearly everyone else says, look at the bone structure. They’re healthier, better-made dogs. The CC of today is healthier, longer-lived, and does agility.
And it’s because, about thirty years ago, a small number of CC breeders decided that changes needed to happen, not in the rules, but in how CC breeders selected their show dogs and breeding dogs, and in how they nurtured and trained those dogs.
It happened in the despised AKC show system. It could hardly have happened anywhere else, because Chinese Cresteds are “just pets.” They don’t have another job, no alternative standard by which one CC can be judged against another CC, and found to be a better or worse example of the breed.
But it’s quite clear that you’re interested only in “performance dogs” and don’t have any real interest in whether or not those of us who are interested in pets have anywhere to go except the puppy mill outlets, once you’ve killed of the AKC show system.
Comment by Lis — September 2, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Lis,
All I can do is point you to my previous response to your question. The show ring adds nothing to pet dogs. If we marginalize the show system it creates a space for careful breeders to fill. I can’t begin to outline a plan for every breed; the careful breeders will do that. But so long as the show system occupies the pet buying public’s mind share, those two letters will dominate breeding leaving little room for breeders who want to produce good pets rather than show specimens.
We can’t kill the show system. The show people dominate and will continue to dominate the breed clubs and the AKC. What we can do is ignore them and let them sell pups to each other. If we create a culture that demands healthy stable dogs rather than show specimens we can create a pool of genetically healthy dogs that are largely isolated from the show system. If educated consumers demand something better, the breeders will fill that demand.
I don’t understand why you think the only choices are the show system and USDA. As I said in one of my replies to Gina, for some breeds, natural birth, CGC, TT, and a long healthy life may be the right test. I strongly believe that no dog should be bred before four years old. Not because of the impact on the individual dog, but because of the population selection pressure that creates for dogs that remain healthy longer. I also think no dog should be bred more than once a year before 6 or even 8, for the same reason. There are lots of creative breeders. They will figure out how to select for good pets and demonstrate to the pet buyers that they have done so.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
My own move away from outcrosses has resulted in reduced litter size, loss of ability to free whelp and increased fetal mortality, and this in spite of the fact that I test rigorously, breed only to tested dogs, and utilize the most advanced reproductive techniques available to me.
I have made a conscious decision to move away from line breeding, and to seek out breedings that will lower my COI.
I’ve become increasingly disillusioned with the show ring. I’ve seen judges reward dogs that were blatantly unhealthy. I’ve seen the show winners grow increasingly shorter in back, smaller in stature and flatter in face.
Our breed standard has been interpreted in such a way as to make me it impossible for me to say “Showing is a way to improve our breed” with a straight face.
Yet, what can I do? I can’t NOT show — down that path leads to accusations of “She’s a puppy mill!”, in spite of my one litter every other year or so average. Everyone knows that if you don’t show you’re a baaaad breeder - even if you do compete in obedience and agility. The show ring has become synonymous with ‘ethical’, and now we’re more or less stuck with it.
I love my breed with the sort of single tracked passion that gets you labeled a ‘crazy dog lady’. Frenchies were only ever bred for one thing - to be companions, and part of being a good quality companion dog is a stable temperament, a healthy constitution, and a long life.
I would love to see Frenchies here held to the same standards they are in some of the Northern European countries, where free whelping is the norm and life spans are longer. In the meantime, I’m not holding my breath, and I’m out of ideas as to how I can breed to improve health, and yet still be able to show (and thus avoid the “BAD breeder! OMG! BYB! Doesn’t SHOW!” label I’d otherwise end up with).
Comment by Carol — September 2, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Please re-read the posts here, because we did provide suggestions for breeding tests for pet dogs.
Your example of a breed as yet un-ruined by the show system reminds me of those who point out their grandfather who was a chain smoker all his life and lived to be 90. Yeah, so what? Think that’s a good bet? It’s about probabilities and risks brought on by our behaviors, not absolute guarantees.
There are two fundamental problems with the show system:
1) breeding for extremes. The BBC program highlighted these examples because they are easy to visually identify with.
2) dangerously narrowing genepools. This happens even in breeds where extremes are not selected for. This stems from overly narrow founder bases, popular sire syndrome, breeding to a narrowly defined “type” laid out in a breed standard and further narrowed by what wins in the breed ring. With this on-going loss of genetic diversity, health and function deteriorate within breed populations.
It is the show ring, not performance breeding or pet dog breeding, that is the root cause of both of these problems.
Opening up studbooks cannot fix this since show breeders won’t even breed to “incorrect” dogs of their own breed.
Adding some performance requirements on show dogs has already been done for a number of breeds, especially in Europe. Experience shows that it only slows the damage brought on by the show ring, it doesn’t stop it or reverse it.
These are worldwide problems, and widespread across many breeds. They are institutional, because they are what the system selects for.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
Carol wrote:
Yet, what can I do? I can’t NOT show — down that path leads to accusations of “She’s a puppy mill!”
I think you can. It will be hard and you will hear some cries of “puppy mill”, but so what. You test your dogs in appropriate ways. Smart buyers will see that. They will easily recognize that you are a careful breeder. If opinion leaders create a culture that shuns the show ring, searches out healthy, sound dogs, and educates the pet buying public, you’ll have no trouble finding buyers.
Much of the pet buying public is aware of the problems with the AKC GSD. I have seen an increasing number of German style GSDs in pet homes, a fair number of them working lines. (These are people I meet casually, not through dog events.) The cumulative impact of media exposes like Ms Harrisons, Mr. Derr’s, and others and the increasingly obvious flaws of the show dogs are having an impact on the pet buyers. We can create a space for careful breeders, if we choose to do so.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
LauraS,you need to reread my post. I did not provide an example of a breed “as yet un-ruined by the show system”; I described a breed which has improved, significantly, in health, temperament, and longevity, and which has been, over the protests of some breeders, bred away from its former extreme.
And it happened in the AKC show system, because there’s noplace else for Cresteds to compete, as Cresteds.
If you want me to be moved by your arguments, you’re going to have to deal with the fact of the improvement of the Crested breed.
I am well aware that there are too many breeds which have gone the other way. That’s a bad thing. There is at least one breed which I would otherwise have seriously considered as a pet, which I suspect is simply doomed. The gene pool is too small, and the health problems too serious and too pervasive. It probably can’t be saved and remain the same breed.
(It is not, however, in any way an “extreme” breed, or whose problems lie in any conformational foolishness.)
But most breeds aren’t at that extremity, just as not all breeds are in the position of Chinese Cresteds, of having actually improved. CCs improved, because it was still possible, and because a small but significant number of influential breeders decided they were going to.
There are other tests for companion dogs, more directly useful in judging suitability as companions—but how is the average person to find the breeders using those tests? There are field trials for hunting breeds, herding trials for herding breeds—but there are no Therapy Dog trials for companion breeds. Yes, there are Obedience Trials, but a competition obedience dog, yes, it’s better than a schutzhund title, but it’s still not a perfect match for the personality one wants in a pet. Competitive obedience is very competitive, and pretty physical, too, as you move up in the rankings.
The prospective pet owner has to start somewhere, in order to start sorting out breeders to find the ones who are really good-to-excellent, for the pet buyer’s purposes. And you want to rule out from all consideration, to make “the mark of Cain,” the one starting point that pet buyers really have.
Schutzhund trials, field trials, herding trials—these will not find them the dogs they want, or the kind of dogs they want, or the breeders who breed the dogs they want.
There are no Therapy Dog competitions to attend. No CGC competitions. No place for the pet buyer to go, see dogs, meet breeders, talk to people, ask questions, listen to answers, listen to what isn’t said, listen to the gossip, start the process of becoming a known face that good breeders can start to get a feel for, even while the pet buyer is getting a feel for the breeders.
Those things, we have to do at the conformation shows you hate so much.
I’ve told people, time and time again, that depending what they’re looking for in a dog, they may not care about conformation titles. They may be better off going to field trials, obedience trials, agility trials.
But if you want “just a pet” (as if that were unimportant!), you can’t go to the people who look down on the dogs who are “just pets” and the people who want “just pets.” And people who aren’t competing their dogs at anything, are generally not the kind of people you want to buy your pet from. If they’re not involved and active in their breed somehow, they won’t be health screening, they won’t be temperament screening, and no one other than they themselves will be passing judgment on whether or not they truly have a nice little Crested, or Yorkie, or Chihuahua there.
Tell me where you think I should have started my search for my new pet dog, taking into account the counter-productiveness of attending field trials, and the lack of gatherings centered around the kinds of certifications that do matter for “just pets.”
If you don’t have some kind of at least minimally useful suggestion, and still say that “Ch” should be treated as the Mark of Cain and pet buyers must be taught to regard it as the sign of an unhealthy, unsound dog, then you are, at best, blowing smoke.
Comment by Lis — September 2, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
How do people who want a certain kind of pet find those non-affiliated breeders? Suggestions?
I can tell you from YEARS … no, make that DECADES … of dealing with pet-lovers as a syndicated pet-care columnist that it’s very difficult even to steer them away from puppy-mill outlets. Sometimes the best I can do for people who want a certain breed for a pet is to give them a lists of tough questions to ask and send them to a show.
Perfect system? No, but it can get pretty close if you game it right.
Yes, *I* know how to find the dog I want. After years of either very active or at least peripheral involvement in a breed, so do many of the people who comment here.
But what about the average person who isn’t going to do the research? My brother, for example, whose first Lab (bought from the wife of another firefighter, who raised and sold dogs for extra income, no tests, no trials, no shows) had crippling HD, bad skin allergies/chronic ear infections and died of cancer at 6. No, he wouldn’t listen to my advice, even though I’m a syndicated pet-care columnist.
The second Lab? He decided to ask my advice. I found him a reputable, ethical breeder, and the dog has been a healthy, sound family pet for a decade. That dog’s breeder shows … but she also tests for defects and breeds for soundness, health and good temperament. And her dogs hunt, too.
I just don’t think you’re giving breeders who do show enough credit. They don’t HAVE to consider genetic testing, temperament testing, performance events and more to finish a dog’s championship … but a great many of them do.
They’re not all the ribbon-chasing idiots you working-dog folks make them out to be. Many, like me, like Christie, like Carol, look at the Ch. as something to check off the list, not to build a breeding program around. It’s a PIECE of the picture, not the ENTIRE picture.
You also have some funny ideas about breeders with top dogs. One of the potentially best working sires in the country is snoring next to me right now. His mama represented Sweden at the European field trials, and his relatives are all top field dogs. His co-owner has pissed off half the world saying “no” to people who want to breed to him. He’s a champion, big deal, but in the field his abilities turn heads.
On the other side of me, not snoring, is another dog whose daddy was one also one of the top working dogs in Europe, and whose mama is a stunning Texas beauty who can hunt all damn day long. Full littermate is the fastest agility dog in the world — not in the breed, not in the country, but in the world — and every one of her sibling hunts with style, instinct and drive.
But my girl will probably be spayed, because she’s not what her co-owner is looking for in the next generations. To date, she’s the only champion in her litter. So much for the value of THAT ribbon to her breeder/co-owner.
It may seem I’m being defensive, but really, I’m not. I want to fix these problems, too. But I’m saying the situation is a LOT more complex, and the unintended consequences of “shunning shows” presents a lot more of a problem than many are seeing here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
It is not individual breeders who are the problem. It is the system. And so long as individual breeders support the show system, the show system will dominate the mind share of pet buyers.
I think sending pet buyers to performance events is the right thing. Few performance breeders want to place a high performance dog in an inappropriate home. If you came to my Schutzhund club or SAR training group I could help you find a GSD, even if you were looking for a pet rather than a working dog. And seeing the dogs doing what they were bred to do might give the pet buyer a little more knowledge about what they are getting into.
Lis pointed out that there are no venues for testing and exhibiting pet dogs. She raises a good point. I am sure that the show ring is NOT the answer. If it were, then what happened to Cocker Spaniels? Perhaps events like Bark In The Park are the answer. Dog fairs provide a venue for the public to see working dogs work and companion dogs be companionable. Perhaps the San Jose Frenchie club could set up a “Meet the Frenchie” booth.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
Lis, I’m not going to try to explain one single success when there are dozens of breeds that have been damaged, often severely, by the show ring. You don’t seem to understand the concepts of probabilities and risk. An objective review of the situation paints a clear picture. The problem is pervasive across breeds, and across continents, when dog breeds are involved in conformation showing. It is institutional.
We’ve repeatedly posted suggestions here for breeding better pets that don’t involve the conformation show ring. Those who wish to buy a pet from a breeder have many venues besides field trials and conformation shows, as already discussed here.
It’s up to breed clubs and breeders to make their breed accessible to the pet “market”. IMO breeders and breed clubs need to adopt venues other than the conformation show system. If they don’t try, then they can’t blame the public for buying pups from pet stores.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
I should probably clarify something here. It’s not that I want to shun shows — it’s just that I wonder about the point of trying to do the best I can to breed dogs which I know are healthy, if the best those dogs can ever achieve in the conformation ring is a last place ribbon.
Unlike some other less ‘extreme’ breeds, so much of what we need to achieve health is actually *shunned* in the ring — longer backs, better breathing (read: longer noses, more open nares), less extreme heads, functional tails.
How do we fight this? Is there any point? Shows are expensive, as is attending them. I could put that money to better use by investing in testing and importing a stud from obscure European lines. How long can I haul non winning dogs around the ring, waiting for the standard to catch up with logic?
I’m in Canada, so am lucky in a way. European dogs are more common here, and extremes less the norm. I suppose for now all I can do is concentrate on the ring north of the border, and keep breeding dogs that are as healthy as I can possibly make them.
Comment by Carol — September 2, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
All odd numbers are prime.
1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error, 11 is prime, 13 is prime, 15 is experimental error, 17 is prime…
Comment by Lis — September 2, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
I just don’t think you’re giving breeders who do show enough credit. They don’t HAVE to consider genetic testing, temperament testing, performance events and more to finish a dog’s championship … but a great many of them do.
They’re not all the ribbon-chasing idiots you working-dog folks make them out to be. Many, like me, like Christie, like Carol, look at the Ch. as something to check off the list, not to build a breeding program around. It’s a PIECE of the picture, not the ENTIRE picture.
That’s not the point. I don’t give a rat’s ass whether someone is chasing ribbons. Likewise, this isn’t about whether people are idiots or geniuses, criminals or Mother Teresa. We are not criticizing YOU, we are criticizing an institution that you are a part of.
The problem is selection by the conformation show ring for unsoundness and extremes, and even when those don’t happen, selection for an increasingly narrow genepool.
Even those responsible, ethical show dog breeders who do genetic testing, temperament tests, and performance tests are a contributing part of an institution that is narrowing the genetic diversity of their breed. By being a part of this, despite their best efforts, they are unwittingly contributing to the gradual destruction of their breed.
As long as the show ring has ANY part of the picture, this will continue.
By their very design, the show ring narrows genetic diversity in breed populations. This loss of genetic diversity eventually causes more and more harm, something that all the health tests, temperament tests, and performance tests cannot stop.
We wouldn’t have such a great need for genetic tests right now if not for the fact that conformation breeding practices of the past 100 years severely narrowed genetic diversity and therefore increased the prevalence of deleterious recessives.
We wouldn’t have such a great need for radiographic orthopedic health checks right now if conformation breeding practices of the past 100 years hadn’t selected for the appearance of functional structure rather than for ACTUAL functional structure through a demanding test of function. Form follows function, not the other way around as the show ring assumes.
BTW, many working dog handlers also have a check off box for that Ch. title. If a Ch. title is in the first few generations of a pedigree, they look elsewhere for a pup. YMMV.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
BTW, many working dog handlers also have a check off box for that Ch. title. If a Ch. title is in the first few generations of a pedigree, they look elsewhere for a pup. YMMV.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Laura, we get the point. Working dogs rock. People who have working dogs are morally superior. We get it. We get it. We get it.
But 99.999999999 percent of dogs do not work in any way, shape or form. If you kill — not reform, kill — the AKC/KC, etc., how are you going to prevent “USDA licensed” puppy mills from being the only game in town? I cannot tell you how many people NOW believe — and, as California’s experience has shown, lawmakers believe — that if a kennel is “USDA licensed,” well, it MUST be a great place!
Puppy mill? Oh no! It’s USDA licensed. That sounds OFFICIAL, and GOOD!
Believe me, while many breeders who do show want to see things fixed, not any puppy millers — um, sorry, USDA licensed breeders — will care. Hell, they don’t care now, and in far higher numbers than show breeders.
I guess we’re just not going to resolve this discussion. Given my druthers, I’d rather send a pet buyer looking for a dog from a pet breed to a reputable, ethical show breeder than to a pet store.
And honestly, I really do think those are your choices when it comes to pets, not working dogs. Now, and in the forseeable future.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
Gina, are you talking about Flatcoats? So you’ve still got some dogs in the breed who can “do it all”, eh? And yet as discussed in earlier blog posts on this forum, Flatcoats are, on average, significantly short lived compared to their cousin breed, Labradors. Something has to give when conformation breeding reduces genetic diversity and/or results in high COIs. Longevity is often the first thing to go.
Set the clock back 40 years, and I could point to many GSDs who could “do it all”. Not anymore. For 60 years the breed was a combined working/show breed. Genetic diversity had been severely narrowed due to conformation selection, athleticism was reduced, and health problems became common.
Forty years ago, GSD show breeders starting breeding for extreme, so the GSD breed split into separate working and show populations. Problem is, even the working subset of the GSD breed still suffers from the narrowing of the genepool due to those 60 years of being a combined working/show breed. Health problems are more common than in breeds that never had show ring selection.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
No Gina, you really don’t get what we’re saying. Not at all. You are still acting like this is some sort of moral indictment of you and others involved in showing, when it is not. It’s about institutions, and the harm that institutions cause.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Finally, I think we are in the same chapter, if not on the same page. You cannot recover the genes that have been lost, which was Christie’s original point in the first place.
My points remain:
1) The show system AS IS isn’t helping, but could be reformed. (I know: You disagree.)
2) There’s no good substitute currently to help people who “just” want a pet from a pet-not-working breed get to good breeders without the show system. (And we both agree: We’d love to see one.)
OK?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
But 99.999999999 percent of dogs do not work in any way, shape or form.
Uh, not even close. If you add up all the dogs involved in police service work, scent detection, SAR, service work, guide work, livestock, hunting, field trials, protection sports, hunt tests, agility, flyball, dock diving, competitive obedience, coursing, weight pulls, guard work, and other activities that utilize their working abilities they number a lot more than 0.06% of one dog in America.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Institutions don’t DO anything. People do things. I do blame people for all these problems. Blaming an institution is pointless.
I can’t change an institution’s mind, because it doesn’t have one. I can’t make an institution feel compassion, because it has no heart.
As a writer, as an advocate, I have to focus on people, on individuals, because that’s all there is.
If a system is unfixable, people should stop participating in and supporting it if it is harmful to the things they believe in. We’ll always have areas where two intelligent, well-meaning people don’t agree as to whether or not a situation is fixable, but outside that gray area there clearly are institutions that can benefit from new leadership and better policies, and those where we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater because the baby drowned two years ago.
Is the show system itself fixable? Sure. In an ideal world, you could have conformation shows that were just a small part of how we tested our dogs, and even required performance and health evaluation before letting a dog compete in conformation. The concept of conformation showing isn’t, in and of itself, unfixable.
Is the American Kennel Club fixable? I believe it’s not. Others may disagree.
I like dog shows. I’d just like them a lot more if there was more to them than there is.
Comment by Christie Keith — September 2, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Laura, you do not get that you and Grahund have not suggested a reasonable alternative for people looking for pets. You are just pointing fingers and crying, EVIL EVIL EVIL, without acknowledging the practical point that a)for the general public that Just. Wants. A. Pet., not a working dog, this is the best current alternative, and b)your theory that the system is universally bad (rather than merely very significantly bad, and in dire need of some major changes), is actually contradicted by the breeds that have improved over the last few decades. Yes, they’re few in number, and no, they’re not the working breeds that you so clearly believe are the only dogs that really count, but they’re real breeds, real dogs, and they really matter to those of us that love them.
You also clearly don’t see that you can’t say things like “Ch” before a dog’s name should be the Mark of Cain, and not be personally insulting people who show their dogs.
And Grahund said, in all apparent seriousness:
I think sending pet buyers to performance events is the right thing. Few performance breeders want to place a high performance dog in an inappropriate home. If you came to my Schutzhund club or SAR training group I could help you find a GSD, even if you were looking for a pet rather than a working dog. And seeing the dogs doing what they were bred to do might give the pet buyer a little more knowledge about what they are getting into.
Breeding for Schutzhund or SAR is going to produce relatively few and steadily decreasing numbers of dogs suitable to be Just Pets. Seeing them do “what they were bred to do” would make it clear to the average pet buyer that they need to look elsewhere for a pet.
You’re not going to find the strictly-companion breeds at Schutzhund trials and SAR training. You won’t even find Cresteds at lure coursing, even though they’d love it, because they’re Not Sighthounds and they can’t be allowed to sully the Purity of the sighthound events. You won’t find pugs doing field trials, or herding.
Yes, the breed clubs could go to fairs, and should be encouraged to do so. And I’d love to see events that truly test the pet qualities of the members of companion breeds. But in the meantime, it’s the show breeders who think it’s not a disgrace to want a dog as “just a pet,” who are willing to talk to prospective puppy buyers who want “just a pet,” who will take the time to educate prospective buyers about health issues and what questions to ask—who do not try to make us feel unworthy because we want Just Pets, not Noble High-Drive Working Dogs.
Truly, after you eliminate puppy mill outlets from consideration, it’s hard to imagine a less suitable place for me to find the right dog for me than at a Schutzhund trial. Or people in the dog world whom I’d have a more unpleasant time trying to explain and justify my real needs to.
Comment by Lis — September 2, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Gina,
I don’t know how to say it any more clearly. The problem is not people. The problem is the selection pressure built into the show dog system. Good people can resist the selection pressure for a time, maybe a long time, but in the end the system will overcome.
I believe alternatives to the show system and USDA can be found/created. If we fail to do so, it is our lack of imagination and lack of will, not the impossibility of the task.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
I think being a companion is one of the most important things a dog can do. It certainly is the most important thing my dog does.
Actually you will find the occasional pet GSD at a Schutzhund trial; people bring their dogs there to socialize. What you will always find are people who are hooked into the breed and would know where to look for a companion dog. We know Schuthund dogs and we know dogs that are not Schutzhund dogs. We know that not everyone wants a Schutzhund dog and we’d be happy to help you find one that would be a good companion. Your concern that we would not understand or accept your real needs is unfounded.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Laura … how many dogs would you say are working dogs? Would you say half a million is generous?
Because there are an estimated 72 million dogs in the U.S., per AVMA estimates. That means I was off by less than a percentage point. Only 99.31 percent of dogs are “just pets.” That’s still a pretty overwhelming majority. Even if there are a MILLION working dogs, that’s 98.62 percent of all dogs without a job.
Listen, I’ll even let you toss in all the dogs with part-time jobs — agility dogs, field-trial dogs, flyball dogs, etc., etc. You’re still not going to fall below 90 percent of all dogs being, basically, born retired.
As for the round-and-round we go …
People make up institutions. People decide how they run, collectively. And if people decide to run shows in a way that rewards more than pure conformation and encourages genetic diversity by opening the stud books, then the institution will change.
Grahund, you don’t have to make it any more clear. I understand what you’re saying. completely. But I disagree with it.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
You won’t even find Cresteds at lure coursing, even though they’d love it, because they’re Not Sighthounds and they can’t be allowed to sully the Purity of the sighthound events.
You won’t find non-sighthounds competing at coursing events because non-sighthounds don’t course, they run. They chase. But they aren’t COURSING. Coursing is what makes them sighthounds.
I have no issue with non-sighthounds chasing the lure for fun, but it’s really not the same thing as what sighthounds do.
Comment by Christie Keith — September 2, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Selection pressure is built into ANY system that involves competition. To quote you (Grahund) from a previous entry, “The show breeders control the SV. When their show dogs have deteriorated to the point that many can no longer earn a Schutzhund title, they change the rules and make it easier to get a title”. So even Schutzhund is not immune from the effects of selection pressure. You said it yourself.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 2, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Indeed, The OTHER Pat, I did. And the dogs, working and show, suffer as a result. And I said it is a result of forcing performance titles on the show breeders. The show system has corrupted Schutzhund to an extent.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
Christie,
I’d love to understand the difference between “coursing” and “running”.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
“And I said it is a result of forcing performance titles on the show breeders. The show system has corrupted Schutzhund to an extent.”
You left out one word - evil.
As in, “it is a result of forcing performance titles on the evil show breeders”.
Forgive me if I’m becoming just a tad weary of all the fullscale demonizing . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 2, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
The difference between the selection pressure of the show system and the selection pressure of performance breeding is that performance breeding tests more of the dog. The show system test only those things that a human judge can see and chooses to reward. Any performance venue, even one as limited as racing, tests more of the dog than a show judge can see. Mother Nature will punish a performance breeder who strays too far from genetic health. There seems to be no limit to how far from genetic health many show judges are willing to go.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
It’s the system, not the individuals. The canonical example of good people in a bad system is The Stanford Prison Experiment. These were not evil people. It was a bad system. Show breeders and show judges are not bad people. They are good people trapped by a bad system. Performance breeders are trapped in a similar system, but they have Mother Nature to keep them in line.
[I’m not going to flog this horse any more. For all future assertions that I think show breeders, show judges, etc. are evil, please see the above.]
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
The OTHER Pat, schutzhund has been watered down to some extent to accomodate the weaker and less athletically fit showline GSDs that in Germany are required to get schutzhund titles. It’s a simple fact, which you would know if you were involved in this sport.
Schutzhund used to have a vertical wall, just like all the other European protection dog sports (French Ring, Belgian Ring, KNPV, etc.) have always had. The vertical wall was replaced in schutzhund with an A frame because the show ring selected for GSD structure that could no longer safely clear the vertical wall without a high risk of injury.
Likewise, some of the protection exercises in schutzhund were altered to reduce some of the pressure, because showline GSDs are less likely to be able to withstand the pressure.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
So I guess ANY human-designed institution based on competition can fall prey to selection pressure. Even {gasp!} performance events such as schutzhund!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 2, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
o I guess ANY human-designed institution based on competition can fall prey to selection pressure. Even {gasp!} performance events such as schutzhund!
Indeed, but this wouldn’t have happened to schutzhund if the show ring hadn’t altered the GSD breed.
If you are curious what GSD athleticism was like before the show ring changed the breed, take a look at this cool video of GSDs at schutzhund training in 1936.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsBi0PehfAM
There are some other breeds pictured as well.
GSDs were already changed by 1936 compared to the breed’s founding nearly 40 years earlier, but not as much as what came later.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
The OTHER Pat, schutzhund has been watered down to some extent to accomodate the weaker and less athletically fit showline GSDs that in Germany are required to get schutzhund titles. It’s a simple fact, which you would know if you were involved in this sport.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008
Which she isn’t, because … Laura, please pay attention here: What happens in the sport of schutzhund is of little concern to the 90-99 percent of people who do not own and are not interested in owning a working dog. And who will not find a dog they wish to own even if they go to a schutzhund event and talk to all the incredibly warm and welcoming people they find there. (Which, having covered all manner of events as a journalist for almost 30 years, I doubt any person walking in off the street will find at ANY gathering of intense hobbyists, by the way.)
THOSE people, the people who want “just a nice little poodle” or whatever are the ones I’m interested in helping find a dog, whether it’s through a reputable, ethical breeder, a breed rescue or a shelter. The working dog people know where to go to get what THEY are looking for; it’s the general public who need help, to find that “just a pet.” I want a way for THEM to find a healthy, well-socialized and long-lived dog who will be a wonderful companion.
You working-dog fanatics STILL have come up with no answers on this, on how to help people find the “just a pet” they are looking for, especially if they want a little dog of the purely companion variety.
The best you can offer — and yes, I do find it a tad morally superior on your part to say so — is that my two field-bred retriever “champions” are worthless sacks of shit no “real” dog person would look twice at because of two little letters. And that because I bothered to put bench titles on them in addition to the decades of experience, research and expense that went into breeding them (by their breeder, not me), I have personally been complicit in the ruination of their entire breed by stepping foot on a show grounds with them. (But not, I guess, on the grounds of a hunt test, which they also go to. Or possibly to an agility trial, or does that not measure up to “real dog” standards either?)
I’m sorry, but that “CH.” neither validates nor negates all the work that went into the two dogs I’m looking at right now.
Man, and folks say dog-show people are snobs …
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Since I’m on the board of the local dog park, I get asked where to find a pet dog all the time.
Here is Southeastern PA, I’ve found that either going to an “open house” for an all-breed rescue or to an event that welcomes a broad range of breed-specific rescue (this weekend’s Scot-Irish Festival in Green Lane, PA is famous for all the rescue groups that come — orginally, it was only supposed to be for rescue dogs of Celtic extraction, but everyone had so much fun and the event is so dog- and family-friendly that every breed recue you can think of comes).
While both of these options allow you to talk with knowledgeable people about the types of dogs being offered, it’s a HORRIBLY imperfect system. Someone who is looking for a dog may have to wait weeks for an event (which, if you’re lonely, may be difficult) and if you pick the “wrong” rescue on PetFinder, you could find yourself with huge forms to fill out and people who pretty much consider you “guilty until proven innocent” which is extremely frustrating.
My personal experience with dog breeders has been terrible — my suspicion is that Philadephia has done some significant outreach to breeders who really love their breed and so the ethical, friendly ones are all working in the city and here in the suburbs, all we’re left with is the snobs. This is good for the dogs in Philly (who need the help), but hard for those of us who are trying to set up people who “just want a companion” with someone who will not only be nice to them, but help them find a healthy “friend for life.”
There needs to be a better way. It seems every 10 year old girl in Southeastern PA wants a Cavailer King Charles Spaniel — and considering the problems that breed has, I really can’t recommend the breed to these parents who just want a nice dog to add to the family. But, besides taking the luck of the draw with local rescues, I really don’t know what to tell these parents — and there should be some type of outreach that helps the “pet” family figure out the best — and healthiest — dog for their family.
Comment by Dorene — September 2, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
Actually you will find the occasional pet GSD at a Schutzhund trial; people bring their dogs there to socialize. What you will always find are people who are hooked into the breed and would know where to look for a companion dog. We know Schuthund dogs and we know dogs that are not Schutzhund dogs. We know that not everyone wants a Schutzhund dog and we’d be happy to help you find one that would be a good companion. Your concern that we would not understand or accept your real needs is unfounded.
Um. Sure.
But it’d still be a GSD, right? Or another breed that routinely competes in Schutzhund?
Meaning that a drive, an intensity, a hardness of temperament too low to be suitable for Schutzhund, is still not likely to be what I’m looking for in my pet.
Part of the problem here is that you truly do not get what it is that people who have small companion-breed dogs are looking for in a dog. You are absolutely certain that we must just want working-breed dogs who aren’t quite intense enough to be competition dogs.
But that’s not the case.
I haven’t always had toy breed dogs. My first dog, when I was a kid, was a border collie. She was, let me assure you, the Perfect Dog, and no dog you have ever owned is fit to fetch her ball, I promise you. Then we got a cocker spaniel—an absolute sweetie from a long line of sweeties, no matter what you think of the breed.
Then we got our first Lab, and my sister, who is ten years younger than me and a runner, has had a Lab ever since.
But I have a bad knee, asthma, and haven’t been able to run more than very short distances in many years. I live in a small house with no yard. I have two cats.
I don’t need a large, energetic dog with a strong, independent personality. I need a small dog with a gentle, easy-going personality, able to get enough exercise in the walking—walking—that I need to and am able to do. A dog with whom I can have a vigorous game of fetch in the livng room. A dog for whom my cats look like reasonable-sized companions and playmates, not prey or stuffy toys. A dog I can pamper and play with.
A dog you’d sneer at as not a “real dog.”
Comment by Lis — September 2, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Gina, are you and I reading the same blog posts? Wow, where to start?
Laura, please pay attention here: What happens in the sport of schutzhund is of little concern to the 90-99 percent of people who do not own and are not interested in owning a working dog.
Gina, please pay attention here, because this is one of my breeds.
GSDs in the breed’s home country of Germany are required to be schutzhund titled in order to be bred. If both parents aren’t schutzhund titled, the pups will not be registered as GSDs. (A HGH large flock sheep herding title is an acceptable alternative, but that is rarely done.) This includes the 3% of the GSD breed from working lines, and the 97% of the GSD breed that are bred to be pets and showdogs. Yup, schutzhund titles on all of ‘em — GSDs for work, GSDs for pet and show.
This isn’t working dog snobbery, it’s a requirement of the GSD breed club, and ratified by the national kennel club.
German bloodline GSDs, from schutzhund lines, are the most numerous population in the world of one of the most popular breeds in the world. They are not rare, Gina, or confined to working dog “snobs”. Schutzhund line GSDs are extremely common as pets. They are common as pets in America, as well.
And who will not find a dog they wish to own even if they go to a schutzhund event and talk to all the incredibly warm and welcoming people they find there.
Why not? The German bloodline GSD is the world’s most popular GSD for the pet market, and they can be found in schutzhund events. You won’t find many GSDs bred for pet/show at schutzhund championships, because almost none of them are good enough to compete at that level. But at club level schutzhund trials, there’s lots of them.
The best you can offer is that my two retriever “champions” are worthless sacks of shit no “real” dog person would look twice at.
That’s absolute nonsense, Gina. Nobody here wrote or implied anything remotely like that.
I have no idea how a ‘“real” dog person’ in the Flatcoat breed perceive Ch. titles.
Working dog people in the GSD breed avoid getting pups that have dogs with Ch. titles up close in their pedigrees. A GSD with a Ch. title signifies AKC showlines, and 40 years of no selection for working abilities means almost no breed working abilities remain in AKC GSD showlines. AKC showline GSDs are a different breed from working GSDs, in everything but name.
For much the same reason, working dog people in the Border Collie breed also tend to avoid getting pups out of dogs with Ch. titles. Showline BCs get Ch. titles, and showline BCs are a different breed from working BCs, in everything but name.
This isn’t snobbery, Gina. It’s being careful and responsible about selecting the right dog to meet one’s needs.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
You are absolutely certain that we must just want working-breed dogs who aren’t quite intense enough to be competition dogs.
Some pet dog owners want that, most don’t.
I believe that if breed fanciers want to save their breeds over the long run, they will need to get creative and figure out what works for their breed that doesn’t involve conformation shows.
Dogsports can be part of selection for pet dogs, and there are more opportunities for pet dogs to be involved in dogsports with each passing year. There are dogsports that do not require the high activity levels that many working dogs require.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
The best you can offer is that my two retriever “champions” are worthless sacks of shit no “real” dog person would look twice at.
That’s absolute nonsense, Gina. Nobody here wrote or implied anything remotely like that.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
Huh, not even by writing, as you did:
BTW, many working dog handlers also have a check off box for that Ch. title. If a Ch. title is in the first few generations of a pedigree, they look elsewhere for a pup. YMMV.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Or
Show judges have demonstrated beyond question that their judgment not only does not add to a breed, it actively destroys breeds. As John Burchard described, just because you cannot (yet) see the damage doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Surely you will agree that the show ring has done tremendous damage to many breeds. H. Houlahan has made a convincing case that it is not bad individuals that are the problem, but rather a bad system. So long as you support the system, you—The OTHER Pat, Lis, Gina, et al—are contributing to the genetic destruction of dogs. The system is the problem.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Or
Every entry, every admission, every use of a Ch stud, every referral, every post on Westminster dooms more dogs to disease, deformity, bad temperament, and an early death. If you truly care about dogs as more than fashion accessories, you must shun the show system.
Comment by Grahund — September 2, 2008 @ 7:34 am
—-
The problem is, we ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WORKING DOGS. We are talking about pets, especially pets of breeds that were never intended to be anything but a companion.
My points remain:
1) The show system AS IS isn’t helping to produce healthy, temperamentally sound pets, but could be reformed. (I know: You disagree. On this point, so does Christie.)
2) There’s no good substitute currently to help people who “just” want a pet from a pet-not-working breed get to good breeders without the show system. (And we both agree: We’d love to see one.)
If you cannot advance this discussion beyond the extremely narrow focus of working GSDs to the issues of the vast majority of dogs who will be “just pets” from breeds with no working background, then let’s save the bandwidth and end it here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
And who will not find a dog they wish to own even if they go to a schutzhund event and talk to all the incredibly warm and welcoming people they find there.
Why not? The German bloodline GSD is the world’s most popular GSD for the pet market, and they can be found in schutzhund events. You won’t find many GSDs bred for pet/show at schutzhund championships, because almost none of them are good enough to compete at that level. But at club level schutzhund trials, there’s lots of them.
Laura, I hope you’re sitting down, and if you’ve got a drink of any kind nearby, put it down well away from the computer.
You’ve done that? Good!
Here’s the shocker: Many people who want a dog for “just a pet,” do not want German Shepherds at all. Or any other breed likely to be competing in Schutzhund.
Many of us really do want—as hard as you’ll find this to believer—the small, companion-breed dogs. And in between the two extremes, there are an awful lot of people who do want larger dogs, higher-energy dogs—but don’t want that working-dog personality. They want some of the hunting and herding breeds that are generally “softer” in temperament.
This isn’t snobbery, Gina. It’s being careful and responsible about selecting the right dog to meet one’s needs.
The snobbery is in the fact that you clearly can’t imagine that anyone who loves dogs and is responsible, could possibly want anything different in a dog than what you want in a dog. Despite repeated references to Chinese Cresteds and small poodles, you were apparently honestly puzzled about why people looking for “just a pet” would not be interested in what happens at schutzhund trials, or why they would not want German-line GSDs with schutzhund titles.
It’s really that unimaginable to you that someone could love “dogs” and yet have zero interest in acquiring a GSD or other schutzhund-suitable working breed dog.
Comment by Lis — September 2, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
One more thing: I’m absolutely, completely and utterly delighted that there are people who are spending their lives preserving the working ability of our heritage breeds.
And I work to be one of them.
That’s me, personally, the person with three field-bred flat-coated retrievers. My PERSONAL life. Believe me, if I didn’t care about working ability, you would NEVER in a million, billion years see me slogging through bogs in bad weather in field training. I’m simply not an outdoorsy person, but I do it anyway because preserving working ability in my personal breed is important to me.
But there’s also me, the syndicated pet-care columnist and author of “Dogs For Dummies” and other books. And THAT PERSON has a professional responsibility to help people who want a family companion find one, with advice that works and that there’s a reasonable chance they will follow. And I want it to be GOOD advice, which is why I also advocate for reform of what I personally believe is reformable.
People with family pets are my constituency, and my job is to give them the best advice I can.
Working dog folks are quite capable of getting along without me.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
Gina, nothing posted here, including what you reposted, can reasonably be interpreted to mean that anyone here has called your dogs “worthless sacks of shit”. That is complete nonsense. You misinterpreted what I wrote. So I explained what I meant. You remain determined to twist what I wrote into something I never wrote, implied, or even thought.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
Laura, you asy repeatedly and in a variety of ways, and quite explicitly, that we’re contributing to the desctruction of our breeds and that good dogs can’t come out of this awful system—and you think you’re not insulting our dogs, or us.
You are deeply confused.
Comment by Lis — September 2, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
Laura, I write for a living. The reader is not to blame for a writer’s difficulty in making a point.
Interestingly enough, several readers took the statements here the same way. That my dogs were not worthy of the respect of “real” dog people because of two little letters.
The only person who didn’t interpret it that way was you. So I will accept that wasn’t what you meant to suggest in your writing, since you were the one trying to get a point across.
That’s a total side issue. My points remain the same, and have remained the same since the first moment I came into this thread.
I’m done.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 2, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
The problem is, we ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WORKING DOGS. We are talking about pets
Got it. Already replied to that point, see above. That’s why I gave an example of the use of a dogsport to breed dogs for the pet market.
First, schutzhund was dismissed here on the false assumption that it is only about working dogs. This was corrected to point out that it’s also about popular pet dog breed. So then it is dismissed it because only one popular pet dog breed was mentioned. Oh, the horror!
Good grief, it’s a real example of what people here were asking for, where to send pet dog buyers. In this case, those inquiring about one of the popular breeds.
No, I don’t have a detailed blueprint for every single one of the hundreds of pet dog breeds that allows a clean break from the conformation show world. As I said, I believe it’s up to breed fanciers to figure out what works for their breed.
The snobbery is in the fact that you clearly can’t imagine that anyone who loves dogs and is responsible, could possibly want anything different in a dog than what you want in a dog.
No, that’s not even remotely true. Nor did I imply anything of the sort. That claim is baseless nonsense.
I understand and respect that different people desire quite different things in their dogs.
I don’t have all the answers for how to fix the system. I’m sure I’ll be damned for not having all the answers, and alternatively damned if I claimed I did.
I am asserting, as others have, that purebred dog breeding needs to be drastically reformed, or dogs breeds will increasingly suffer.
I am asserting, as others have, that the conformation show system is the root cause of the problems, and that there is no way to fix this system because the problems it causes are inevitable, if only to varying degrees and on varying timelines.
We can have many different breeds of wonderful dogs without conformation shows. Different breeds of dogs have existed for thousands of years, while conformation shows didn’t exist before 150 years ago.
As I said, it’s up to breed fanciers to find what works for their breed. Lots of food for thought has already been provided here, for those who are interested.
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
Interestingly enough, several readers took the statements here the same way. That my dogs were not worthy of the respect of “real” dog people because of two little letters.
Gina, the phrase ‘“real” dog people’ is yours, not mine.
The notion that anyone implied your dogs are not entitled to “respect” because of two little letters is your erroneous conclusion.
I’ve explained this already Gina. Some people looking for a pup for work will avoid lines with Ch. titled dogs up close in the pedigree. As I said, I have no idea if this is true of your breed. I mentioned breeds where I know it to be the case. I explained why it is true — because those two little letters signify what is essentially a dog of a different breed, in everything but name. For THOSE breeds. Nothing said or implied about YOUR breed, or YOUR dogs. Got it?
Comment by LauraS — September 2, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
I’ve been away from the discussion for a few days. While I attempt to climb back up on my hobbyhorse, I want to comment on the following:
“In my opinion, this discussion has nothing at all to do with a real concern for breed purity. No one truly gives a flip about that.”
Comment by Ron — September 1, 2008 @ 12:20 am
In general, I don’t disagree with your analysis of why people get involved in competing through canines. But I do disagree with the above statement. If true, how to explain the importance of “pedigrees”? If true, how to explain the continued emphasis on titles—even those gained in nonconformation competition. I just don’t think there’s any getting away from the fact that the notion of the “purebred” dog was born in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution, when a certain segment of the new British middle class, newly possessed of excess time and money and—perhaps unwittingly—excited by “scientific” notions of eugenics that saturated their environment, turned its attention to aping the aristocracy. While these folks might not be heirs to titles, they could gain titles for themselves through selective breeding of their dogs. Dogs judged the purest representatives of their breeds were rewarded with Ch. and so on, and their breeders could take pride in something that was not just an artistic or scientific creation, but a creature that was a surrogate self—in effect, a child. The glory was reflected glory, to be sure, but by keeping firm control of his line, a given breeder could stake a claim to having founded canine royalty, to be a progenitor of kings. We all enjoy recognition, but I think the impulse that keeps these dogs trotting around the show ring is of another order.
Comment by Lisa — September 2, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
I don’t understand why the working dog handlers here are being shaken down for an “acceptable substitute” for sending a wannabe-pet-owner to a show breeder. Substitute for what?
Because Gina, you preface “show breeder” with “ethical, reputable.” And implied in that is “show breeder who does health tests (none mandatory, none required by the institutions) and won’t reproduce a total POS temperament just because it wins in the ring, and has some ability to be critical of her own animals, and raises puppies with attention to their development, and places every pup with care, and offers a RTB clause in the contract, and…”
And pretty soon we are getting into an awful lot of qualifiers, to the point where “show breeder” is so thoroughly modified that those two words become irrelevant. We can all agree on the health tests, temperament evaluation, good critical judgment about the overall quality of the dog, puppy raising and placement, etc. If that’s all there, why does it matter to the pet owner that the breeder is selling parti-poodles, or long-coated JRTs, schnoodles, instead of “Ch. line” pups that Meet The Standard?
Where do I, a working dog handler and breeder, send wannabe pet owners?
To the shelter, first. And I’ll go with them and help choose.
But if they absolutely, positively insist that they must have a Danish Diving Terrier, and a puppy, not one from breed rescue, I’ll help them find a breeder who, in addition to putting her money where her mouth is re: health and temperament, competes in obedience, agility, does pet therapy, ATTS, has CGCs on all her dogs — seeks external validation of her dogs’ suitability as companions, while at the same time, actually living with them as such in a way that is recognizable to a normal pet owner. The dog activities do not have to be COMPETITIVE. Why should anyone think that? There’s a difference between testing and assessing and competing. The first two do not imply the third. (Only one of my five SAR partners ever competed in anything. Every one of them has been, and will continue to be, assessed, examined, tested, vetted, scrutinized, qualified, certified and inspected out the wazoo.)
Whether three judges think her dogs have the perfect half-prick ears and black butt-spot of a superior Danish Diving Terrier is completely irrelevant, and if the breeder demonstrates that she puts a whole lot of stock in those things, I’m going to advise walking on by.
In some companion breeds this is relatively easy — papillon and poodles come to mind. In others, one meets with so many excuses, often that the dogs are far too delicate and “special” for the rigors of simple obedience training. Or too “stubborn,” or a variety of euphemisms for “too stupid” — coming from their own breeders. Well … there’s your sign, right? While I tend to suspect that the “stubborn” and “stupid” dogs are more likely afflicted with lazy or unskilled owners, I’m not sure what “too dumb to get a rally title” or “too uncooperative to run in agility” is supposed to say about the dog’s potential for producing outstanding companion offspring. Or acceptable companion offspring.
You speak as if “show breeder” is a useful shibboleth for pet seekers, as if there’s a website they can go to that will direct them to all the great breeders who care about health and temperament and pet suitability. When was this ever true?
And btw, LauraS is spot-on about “Ch” in the pedigree of GSDs. I don’t know any knowledgeable working dog handler who would take a GSD pup with “Ch” in the pedigree — and fewer and fewer who would take one with a European VA rating in there. Not for free. Not on a dare. Training time is too valuable to waste, and life is too short to mess with a dog who has no fire in the belly or steel in the back. It’s cruel to the dog.
In some other breeds it may be merely irrelevant, but in GSDs — is anyone surprised that it serves as a flashing red Keep Out sign for those who need a sound dog?
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 2, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
You know, I completely forgot about my friend Dave, who asked me to help him find a sound, healthy, PET rottweiler pup with an outstanding temperament. This is, nowadays, a tall order.
With some help from my contacts, Dave had me drive with him to visit a breeder, look at parents and a litter on the ground with one little bitch left.
I told him to take her. Little Nikki is a teenage pup now.
She’s an outstanding example of the breed, and wonderful companion. Not only the best rottweiler pup I’ve ever seen, but one of the best pups of any breed I’ve ever seen. Stable, unflappable, laid-back, happy to please, easy with other dogs, confident, deliberate, bright enough to be interesting, training up like butter. Fits in beautifully in an urban environment with a moderately active owner.
Nikki’s parents are both imported, and are both schutzhund-titled and competitive in that venue. They could never win in the show ring in this country, nor could Nikki. Not only do they have moderate structure, like a rottweiler from the 1960’s, but …. horrors … They have tails. Gorgeous,long, thick, coffee-table-clearing tails, just like God gave them. In fact, the very same ones God gave them.
And somehow these two overly “intense” competition dogs produced a pup with an ideal (for Dave) “pet” temperament.
But the testing that is specifically designed to separate stable, confident, sound dogs from twitchy, fear-biting, crippled ones could not have had a thing to do with it.
Six (arguably seven, depending on what you consider poodles to be) of the breeds in the top ten of AKC registrations have hunting or working tests or titling events that can be used to assess breeding stock. If performance testing or titling was required for the registration of progeny, maybe there would be more Nikkis out there for pet owners who want a real representative of a breed, not just something that looks like some be-tuxed dude’s idea of what that breed ought to “be.”
Because some pet owners really do want a rottweiler, and know what to do with one when they get it.
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 3, 2008 @ 12:51 am
Where to start? Oh, yeah, here:
I don’t understand why the working dog handlers here are being shaken down for an “acceptable substitute” for sending a wannabe-pet-owner to a show breeder. Substitute for what?
Because it’s the working dog handlers here who are insisting that “Ch” is the Mark of Cain, that anyone who participates in the show system in any way, including buying a puppy from Ch parents, is guilty of destroying the breed (whatever breed the pup is), and that under no circumstances should people looking for a pet of a strictly-companion breed go to shows and talk to show breeders to learn more about the breeds and find the right puppy.
Currently, for companion breeds, if you want a puppy, the available alternative to starting with the conformation shows is to go to a puppy mill outlet. If you want to ban us from the shows on pain of being judged responsible for the destruction of the breeds, yes, you have an obligation to suggest a realistic alternative—one that actually leads to the breeds that people looking for a small companion-breed dog are looking for.
And no, showing by itself is not sufficient. It’s just rhe first cut, getting the puppy buyer to a place where they will be able to find or be directed to the breeders who are truly breeding responsibly.
Where do I, a working dog handler and breeder, send wannabe pet owners?
To the shelter, first. And I’ll go with them and help choose.
Go the shelter, and settle for what’s there, whether or not it’s really suitable? Rely on the advice of a working-dog handler, who thinks everyone really wants a working-breed dog (which you demonstrate below)?
You believe you’re entitled to get a healthy, well-bred puppy of your breed of choice. Why am I, as a pet owner, not entitled to get a healthy, well-bred puppy of my breed of choice?
And, H., I don’t know what part of the country you’re in, but in New England, generally, mini poodles and Papillons and Chinese Cresteds and Maltese and dogs like them are not languishing in shelters or rescue begging for homes—certainly not relatively young and healthy ones. Poodle rescue is extremely selective—because they can be.
We can all agree on the health tests, temperament evaluation, good critical judgment about the overall quality of the dog, puppy raising and placement, etc. If that’s all there, why does it matter to the pet owner that the breeder is selling parti-poodles, or long-coated JRTs, schnoodles, instead of “Ch. line” pups that Meet The Standard?
Because, not an absolute truth but a pretty reliable rule of thumb, people breeding dogs who don’t meet some kind of standard (not necessarily a conformation standard, but some standard) which is judged in some way by third parties, is not doing that health testing, temperament evaluation, etc.
I’ve got a few examples of breeder groups that are not part of the AKC, who are breeding to a standard, in some cases including a performance component, and who have a competition/evaluation structure that means that the individual breeders are the sole judge of the quality of their dogs. I often refer to them, with links, when someone is going on too fulsomely about the AKC being The One True Way.
But performace events aren’t The One True Way, either, not when you’re talking about companion breeds for whom there are no breed-specific performance events.
But if they absolutely, positively insist that they must have a Danish Diving Terrier, and a puppy, not one from breed rescue,
Oh, great. Finally a working-dog handler who can imagine someone not wanting a GSD, and she thinks we want terriers instead. Yeah, I know this is a made-up breed name, but anything legitimately described as a “diving terrier” has a really low probability of being of the temperament I’m looking for.
In some companion breeds this is relatively easy — papillon and poodles come to mind. In others, one meets with so many excuses, often that the dogs are far too delicate and “special” for the rigors of simple obedience training. Or too “stubborn,” or a variety of euphemisms for “too stupid” — coming from their own breeders. Well … there’s your sign, right?
Um, yeah, it is.
Not sure why you’d think I’d be interested in that kind of breeder, rather than regarding such nonsense as a clear sign to move on.
Although, elsewhere on the web, recently a working dog handler was waxing on rhapsodically about how Pekingese “shouldn’t be biddable,” and a Peke being “biddable” was a sign of a bad breeder…
You speak as if “show breeder” is a useful shibboleth for pet seekers, as if there’s a website they can go to that will direct them to all the great breeders who care about health and temperament and pet suitability. When was this ever true?
Where are you reading this nonsense? Not here! Both Gina and I have been talking about going to shows and talking to show breeders as a first step in finding a responsible breeder. If there were a website to send people to, that would be much easier!
And btw, LauraS is spot-on about “Ch” in the pedigree of GSDs. I don’t know any knowledgeable working dog handler who would take a GSD pup with “Ch” in the pedigree — and fewer and fewer who would take one with a European VA rating in there. Not for free. Not on a dare. Training time is too valuable to waste, and life is too short to mess with a dog who has no fire in the belly or steel in the back. It’s cruel to the dog.
Again with the GSDs! What is this obsession with GSDs, when we’re talking about where to find good companion-only breed dogs?
In some other breeds it may be merely irrelevant, but in GSDs — is anyone surprised that it serves as a flashing red Keep Out sign for those who need a sound dog?
Yes, indeed, in some breeds, it is different. It’s hard even to look at show-bred American GSDs. And yet the show-bred Crested is a healthier, sounder, better-tempered, longer-lived dog than thirty years ago.
Shocking thought—maybe there’s not one, single, simple rule for how you find a “good dog” of wildly diffferent breed types and intended purposes? Maybe Schutzhund really isn’t the place to go for a companion-breed dog, just like the show ring isn’t the place to go for a good GSD?
You know, I completely forgot about my friend Dave, who asked me to help him find a sound, healthy, PET rottweiler pup with an outstanding temperament. This is, nowadays, a tall order.
Can’t be all that hard, considering the number of really nice Rotties I’ve met in the last few years. Including one who belongs to one of my neighbors, and is one of my little Crested’s friends. And this despite the fact that her owner has some gaps in his dog knowledge that you’d find shocking.
Because some pet owners really do want a rottweiler, and know what to do with one when they get it.
Yup. Because Rotties are really nice dogs.
Just not the breed I’m looking for. I would not be a good Rottie owner. I would not even be a good BC owner, anymore, even though my Perfect Dog of treasured memory was a BC.
I need something different now, and I won’t find it at your kind of performance event. I was able to find the right breed and get connected to the right breeder, through the show circuit.
See, here’s what I did, as a person looking for a pet dog:
1.I thought about what I was looking for in a dog.
2.I read a lot of breed descriptions, and made a short list of potential breeds. (This included a first-cut assessment of known health problems in the breeds, what questions to ask, etc.)
3.I went to some shows, and talked to people who owned/handled/bred those breeds.
4.Based on those conversations, I eliminated all but one of the breeds on my list (the mini poodle)—and added one that I’d not had on my list, the Chinese Crested.
5.Then I started talking to breeders of those breeds—not initially to people who had available dogs (I wasn’t looking for a puppy, but a young adult), learning more, meeting dogs of those two breeds, and finally, in the course of that process, one of the breeders I’d met called me to say that a friend of hers, one of the breeders that was highly recommended by multiple sources, had a year-old Puff girl that was being returned and needed a pet home.
She shows her dogs. Somne of her dogs do agility, and a lot of her dogs have Therapy Dog certification. They are Canine Good Citizens.
And they’re healthy, because there’s strong peer pressure in the Crested show community to place an emphasis on health and temperament.
But I don’t believe she takes them to Schutzhund trials to socialize them.:)
Comment by Lis — September 3, 2008 @ 5:16 am
I also have a lot of people who are looking for “just pets” ask me how to find a dog. Some are people I encounter in “real life”, while others are people I “meet” on the Internet. In both cases, the process I recommend to them is very close - almost point for point - to what Lis describes above.
And as I recommend to them this course of action, I always say “Don’t check your common sense at the dog show door”. Because that’s the one thing I can’t do FOR them - provide that feeling in the gut that says “There’s just SOMETHING about this breeder that doesn’t quite feel right”:
Occasionally, people take me up on my advice. More often than not, they want even MORE detail - literally a step-by-step guide on How To Find The Perfect Dog. They don’t want to think for themselves, or be asked to make critical decisions - they want a cookbook. And I can’t give it to them, because there is no list of “steps” that will always, invariably lead them to the Right Choice. A procedure such as what Lis outlined above - along with a reminder to keep the Common Sense Meter running - is all I can give them - short of personally accompanying each and every one of them on their journey in much the same way H. Houlahan describes doing. And I’m sorry - although I’ve done that for a few friends, I simply don’t have time to do it for everyone who asks me for advice.
So now we’ve got the performance dog proponents here advising that we should abandon providing the pet-dog-buying public even as general a guideline as Lis describes and instead do - what?
My experience is that they don’t want to be told to work even HARDER to find their next pet dog. So removing what is currently the most useful guideline to help them find the most breeders with the least amount of effort (again - remembering that Common Sense prohibition) would seem to me to be counterproductive and almost custom-designed to drive them to the nearest Your-Next-Puppy-And-All-You-Need-Is-The-Plastic outlet.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 3, 2008 @ 6:06 am
Hmmmm … what to do, what to do …
I think when Christie is off her deadline this morning I’m going to grab her, Dr. Becker, Kim, Kel and the Tripps and see if we can come up with a post that’ll be a good jumping off point for a discussion on how to find a dog.
Aside from that, it seems there is no middle ground between people who believe the AKC can be reformed and those who think it needs to shut down, now. I’m in the former group, for points made multiple times upstream here, so I am done on that particular point of discussion.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 3, 2008 @ 7:02 am
Go the shelter, and settle for what’s there, whether or not it’s really suitable? Rely on the advice of a working-dog handler, who thinks everyone really wants a working-breed dog (which you demonstrate below)?
What a willful misreading of everything I wrote.
FYI, I have been a working dog handler for 17 years.
I’ve been training dogs since the bicentennial.
And I’ve been doing so professionally for 14 years.
Pet dogs. I put kibble in the bowls around here training other people and their pet dogs. That gives one a pretty good idea of what people have, want, and think they want in a dog — and shows a pretty good cross-section of what they are actually getting, in terms of health and temperament.
The percentage of people who have, or want, or have and want, a dog from a breed or mixed type with a working or hunting heritage, as compared to those who want a Chinese crested?
You can google the registration stats same as anyone else.
Your contempt for the dogs who are languishing in shelters just oozes that compassion thing. I’m glad that fewer people are buying the “only a thoroughbred with papers will do” BS that the “fancy” has been feeding them for 70+ years. Maybe “fanciers” can come around to the reality that their hobby and obsession does not, and should not, define reality for regular people.
Most people really just want a nice pet. Most of their pet needs can be satisfied by a well-selected animal of no particular breed. I look forward to the day when there are practically no unwanted dogs in shelters, and people will have a wide choice of purpose-bred (and not necessarily “purebred”) animals from which to choose a suitable-for-them companion. That day has not arrived. So I advise shelter and rescue adoption first. I foster and consult for breed rescue. And I have never picked a dud or made a bad match for a client or friend or colleague; whether working dog or pet, every placement has worked well for dog and owners. It’s the most satisfying thing I do, and I don’t get to do it nearly often enough.
Just not the breed I’m looking for. I would not be a good Rottie owner. I would not even be a good BC owner, anymore, even though my Perfect Dog of treasured memory was a BC.
Yes, yes, we get that your breed of choice is tiny, hairless, etc. We heard you the first time. So? Suddenly all the working dog handlers are GSD-obsessed, but your fixation on your breed is a good thing to generalize to the pet-owning population?
I need something different now, and I won’t find it at your kind of performance event. I was able to find the right breed and get connected to the right breeder, through the show circuit.
“My kind of performance event?” Like the obedience, rally, agility competitions several of us have mentioned — which might, you know, reflect an external standard? Those? Last I checked, even the ACK events were open to all of “their” breeds, with size classes where appropriate. And events sponsored by sports organizations, rather than breed-purity organizations, are open-to-all.
If you can’t find a companion-only breed of dog there — or at a CGC, doing pet therapy, being temperament-tested — then maybe that breed of dog isn’t such a great companion any more.
Which begs the question: what is it?
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 3, 2008 @ 7:52 am
Again with the GSDs! What is this obsession with GSDs, when we’re talking about where to find good companion-only breed dogs?
Lis, we “get it” that YOU don’t like GSDs. But guess what, lots of people do. For pets. Not everybody who wants a dog for a pet wants a toy or small companion breed. LOTS more people want a GSD as a pet than want your breed of choice, Chinese Cresteds.
2007 AKC registration stats
German Shepherd Dogs 43,575
Chinese Crested 2,555
Most of the dogs in the AKC’s Top Ten most popular breeds have a working or hunting heritage, for which popular breed-appropriate working or hunting events exist. If someone inquired to me about getting a pup as a pet from a breed with a working or hunting heritage, I suggest going to those events.
For companion-only breeds, there’s rally, obedience, agility, flyball, CGC, ATT, and a host of other events. Some are sponsored by non-discriminatory dog organizations, and some are sponsored by breed clubs. Go there. Check out the dogs. Talk to their owners. See if they are what you really want. Ask where they got their dogs from.
Ask pet dog trainers for breeder referrals.
What “we’re talking about” in this blog thread has been the present state and future of DOGS, the harm that “modern” purebred breeding practices have caused dogs, and ideas to improve the situation. What “we’re talking about” here is not the very narrow focus question of where to send prospective puppy buyers who want a small/toy companion breed.
Comment by LauraS — September 3, 2008 @ 10:02 am
What “we’re talking about” here is not the very narrow focus question of where to send prospective puppy buyers who want a small/toy companion breed.
Comment by LauraS — September 3, 2008
How nice of you to clarify that. And how embarassing, as the owner of this blog, for me to have been talking about something we weren’t talking about. Thanks for correcting me.
The largest increases in registration in recent years, by the way, have been in small-breed dogs. But of course, that’s just the AKC, which should be, you know, shunned. So never mind.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 3, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Gina, my point was clear. This blog thread has a much WIDER focus and is not LIMITED to the NARROW one that Lis keeps trying to drag it back to, with her repeated willful misrepresentations of what others here have written.
Comment by LauraS — September 3, 2008 @ 10:26 am
My personal experience with discussion threads is that they meander. And that the areas they meander to are not only almost always at least peripherally related to the core of the original subject, but that sometimes pondering the nature of those peripheral relationships can also be helpful.
Such as Gina’s announced intention - resulting at least partially from the discussion in this thread - to more fully explore the question of how do we productively direct puppy buyers who don’t have a clue of how to get started.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 3, 2008 @ 10:56 am
My intention is to have Christie do it. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 3, 2008 @ 10:58 am
yes, I do find it a tad morally superior on your part to say so — is that my two field-bred retriever “champions” are worthless sacks of shit no “real” dog person would look twice at because of two little letters.
At least you have “Field Champion” to put there. Personally, I’m tired of being told that my dogs are pointless because they were never bred to hunt, herd, course, go to ground, or do anything else other than be companions.
In fact, I blogged on this very topic once, because I think that in today’s urbanized society, there isn’t a more common or more important role than that of being ‘just’ a companion, with all that this implies. I also assert that producing dogs who can be ‘just’ a companion isn’t as easy as it sounds, and has nothing to do with show ring wins.
Time and time again, though, we’re told that dogs who don’t have historical ‘jobs’ are pointless wastes of space. I don’t hunt, own sheep, or track down bad guys, and neither do most of the people I know. We’re just as deserving of owning small to mid sized companion dogs as anyone else — and there are more of us every day.
The argument that people should just ‘adopt’, in that case, is flawed.
A small to mid sized dog of calm temperament and minimal exercise needs is almost impossible to find at your local shelter, which at least in my area is over run with adolescent, larger sized shepherd and pit crosses. Sad, but true — and the people I know aren’t going to say “Well, in that case I’ll just take what’s there” - they’re either going to take nothing, or go looking for a dog that fits their needs, whether from a pet store or a breeder.
This leaves a niche — and it’s one that deserves well bred companion animals to fill out, irregardless of the fact that we can’t put working titles on most of those dogs.
Personally, I’ve attended a number of ‘pet fairs’, where I hand out literature on my breed, preach about the horrors of pet stores and mills, and educate about the downfalls of this breed even more heavily than I do the advantages. I hand out a list of breeders from across Canada, and links to websites with valuable information. I’ve reached more pet owners that way than I ever have at shows.
Comment by Carol — September 3, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Re dog shows (I’m a little late in posting)
From the standpoint of 3 generations of a dog breeding family which in my case goes back nearly to the foundation of dog shows in Canada, I can say that I do believe the deterioration in the dog show movement came from three developments - the end of the benched show, where people had a chance to talk across breeds and educate themselves and instead became primarily interested in getting there, getting the ribbon and leaving to do something else; the development of the Top dog points systems, which focussed on Show and Group rather than breed competition; and the advent of the professional handler which completed the divorce between the dog show, judges and the actual breeders, who mainly now stay home and work to pay the handler. As I recall it, before these developments, there was competition, but it was focused on the breed and “good sportsmanship” was the rule rather than the exception.
But here are developments which have happened in Canada, either at the national level or at club levels, and some areas I would like to investigate further, which could prove to be a counter-balance to the “dog show culture” as it now exists. (And might also be used as guides to potential pet owners in their search.)
50 years ago, a small group of forward-looking breeders, including a couple of geneticists, added the possibility of an Advanced Registry to the Aims of the CKC by referendum. As it has been developed, admission to this Registry would require both conformation and performance titles, breed-specific health testing,Record of Characteristics measuring and assessment, and a breed-specific temperament test. This proposal was passed by a Board in the late ‘90’s but then was derailed before implementation. Jeffry Bragg felt that the Registry would increase the pressure to inbreed, but I think it would be a relatively small matter to add a breed-specific upper limit COI to the admission requirements. Part of the proposal was recognition in the National magazine of breeders who had submitted 5 or more dogs to the registry, and a clause which would have removed the dog if it produced multiple, breed-specific diseases in its progeny.
One proposal which also passed at the same time and actually has been implemented is the Field Trial Conformation Show. These shows, for Conformation ch points, are held after a field trial. Dogs must be entered in both events, and each dog must achieve a qualifying score in the FT before it can step into the conformation ring. However, it is possible to make a dog’s Ch through this route. In practice, only the Sighthound FT groups have held these shows, but they are available to any breed with any type of FT, and I believe could be expanded to include other performance events such as Agility. The whole idea was to establish the dog’s ability to function before it stepped into the Conformation ring. I think it is a very good start.
Just last weekend, again for Sighthounds, was held the Great Canadian Triathlon, which is a competition - but dogs earn points in a minimum of 3 events- conformation, obedience, rally, lure-coursing and sometimes agility or racing. The venue is of course way out in the country, but events like this one would be an excellent way for a person looking for a dog to connect with a breeder. (the Triathlon is a Club event, but each individual competition is CKC or UKC sanctioned.)
In two weeks, there will be a non-competitive dog show - sponsored by IABCA, based on a German club, where entries are given critiques rather than placings, as I understand it. (There is competion, but only within yourself - there are multiple titles to earn).
In Spain, for some years was held the FIRA for all podenco breeds. Day 1 was actual pack hunting; day 2 is conformation and day 3 is assessment of the packs and introduction into the initial breed registry, by two judges and a working pack breeder.
The International Sled Dog Racing Assoc held something similar, where the teams were assessed by different drivers, measured (again an ROC, against a structural norm derived from working teams), taken into the conformation ring (primarily to educate the conformation judge, IMO)etc.
Finally, as a breeder, I have been intrigued by the Briard Rassemblement, one of which was held in Canada a decade or more ago. A breeder brings a representative group to be judged by an international panel, including working judges. Similar to the ISDRA and FIRA, there were both working and conformation events, as well as a symposium on the breed. I would like to see if I can import this idea to my breed(s).
I know that Dr. Burchard doesn’t think lure coursing tests hunting ability - and I agree, but one of my early introductions to the sport was the Harvest Run - a ladder-type of competition, on rough ground, with the lure going along and through a hedge gap etc. That competition certainly established which dogs were sound, had stamina and condition, and the brains to figure out where the lure had gone.
I agree, that if we put our minds to it, we can add much better tests to the current show and field trial competitions. Not all of us have the time, physical health or financial resources to hunt properly, and actual hunting, even in Canada is increasingly being restricted. (It is illegal to discharge a firearm in my township, even for training purposes, and using live game/birds or hunting game is also illegal in certain areas.) If we conduct ourselves courteously, actively listen (I understood you to say such-and-such - am I correct?) and refrain from ad hominums, we have the possibility of building a consensus between working and companion/pet/show camps, and our breeds will benefit.
Comment by Mary Jane T. Weir — September 3, 2008 @ 11:24 am
To the basic question of should we have dog shows, the larger question is - should we have dog breeds? If we assume or declare that we should have dog breeds, then some sort of show is necessary. How many times have I heard non-show breeders declare that they can assess the quality of their dogs as well as any corrupt dog show judge. Au contraire. The truth is that for the most part, breed clubs are doing NOTHING to address health issues in the various breeds, and clubs are gridlocked politically.
The first thing that desperately needs to happen is some kind of oversight with regard to breed standards, breed health issues, breed rules, etc. The clubs are the worst possible place to leave this power. AKC keeps saying “We are only a registry”. I think the whole idea of a closed registry began as a way to simplify paperwork and avoid anything subjective. AKC has abdicated any responsibility for breed health. Indeed AKC has done the opposite of promoting health - aligned with forces in clubs that want to keep things the way they are, maintain the status quo. Any change regarding these issues will invariably benefit those not currently in power in a club. Investigation into any health issue will invariably result in a recommendation to breed away from affected individuals and those closely related. And there are powerful forces in every breed club who do not want to hear that. Many club board members I know just want to avoid conflagration in the club. One such dispute “almost tore the club apart” and so members voted to not allow further discussion of it - for 25 years now - to maintain harmony in the club. And hardly anyone in breed clubs has any notion of the deleterious effects of closed gene pools, and hardly anyone has considered what non-closed gene pools would mean in this environment.
I am an avid supporter of dog shows and pure bred dogs, yet when I see the BBC documentary, part of me is angry and vindictive, and wants to see certain elements slammed and slammed hard.
Comment by Ron — September 3, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
To the basic question of should we have dog shows, the larger question is - should we have dog breeds? If we assume or declare that we should have dog breeds, then some sort of show is necessary.
Dog breeds were developed starting thousands of years ago, to perform certain useful functions for mankind. These functions initially included protection, hunting, and herding.
Dog shows were first invented about 150 years ago.
Around 95% of the history of dogs, and dog breeds, involved no dog shows.
Many breeds of dogs still exist that have nothing to do with dog shows.
History clearly demonstrates that there is no requirement to have dog shows in order to have healthy, functional, useful dog breeds.
Comment by LauraS — September 3, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
I would just like to make a comment about the article I just read along with the other comments. I am not of this group who are extremely invested in purebred and show dogs. I personally have always owned shelter dogs or dogs I saved straight from the side of the road. I somewhat understand your zeal about showing dogs but I also get the idea that the showing is not so much about the dog but the owner. It is like everybody is more concerned on one upping another or being the “best” that it seems the dogs happiness comes last. Dogs are meant to play and roughhouse, roll around in the dirt, play ball with their owners, lay on their backs and get their bellies rubbed and be a loving and loyal companion while receiving unconditional love from their owners. It seems these show dogs whole life revolves around training, being groomed, and traveling constantly to shows. I have to wonder when do they get to be just dogs!!!! Where do you possibly get the idea that PETA would like the extinction of the domestic dog? That is ridiculous and somewhat comical. Just because PETA may not agree with you on all of your beliefs does not give you the right to completely fabricate stories or lie about this organization. I don’t agree with all of their beliefs but I certainly know that they wish the best for dogs. Also, I really don’t think that the extinction of the domestic dog is even a slight possibility. Could you be letting your aggravation about something somewhat cloud your judgement? One final note, I have absolutely nothing against purebred dogs as all dogs are beautiful but it is a proven fact that mixed breeds are alot healthier because they do not inherit the abnormal genes. Thank you
Comment by Pam — September 3, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
The first thing that desperately needs to happen is some kind of oversight with regard to breed standards, breed health issues, breed rules, etc. The clubs are the worst possible place to leave this power.
What a sad, hopeless sentiment.
If the people who actually own these dogs, profess to love them, and are the ones breeding them can’t be trusted to act as competent stewards, then what could possibly qualify anyone else to do so?
After all, the virtues and problems of shar pei are not the virtues and problems of whippets. Intelligent, informed policy and institutional change needs to come from people who are fully engaged, have expertise and interest.
Perhaps the movers and shakers in the breed clubs you know behave like petulant infants because they have become accustomed to being treated as such? After all, someone else controls their studbook, rakes in the registration fees, doles out punishments and rewards, pronounces policy from on high, and generally plays the tyrant. And “we’ve always done it this way.”
It’s astonishing how much more like adults the stewards of an animal breed behave when they are actually accountable for all the major decisions about the breed and their individual animals.
If you have found your breed club to be unreformable, find a core of good folks and form a new one — and publicize what it stands for.
Ah, objects the complainer, but we won’t be the AKC parent club.
So?
Well, then we can’t hold AKC dog shows and control the specialty and change the standard (with the ACK blessing) and engineer which dogs become champions. And the poobahs of the old unreformable club will make sure our dogs never win and will say mean things about us and call us puppymillers.
Fine. Write your own standard. Hold your own shows if you must. Designate your own judges. Keep your own studbook. Ignore the mean kids. (They won’t go away, but what are they gonna do, firebomb you?)
Oh, but then the dogs won’t be real champions.
There you have it. It’s buy-in on the assumptions of the bankrupt institution that keeps breeds on this path to perdition. Owners have to acknowledge the emperor’s buck-nekkidness fully and whole-heartedly, especially dropping the curious belief that the opinion of someone who has never even owned a member of the breed is gospel.
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 4, 2008 @ 12:04 am
Pam, I’m going to let some others jump in here about where the idea that PETA is for the extinction of domestic animals came from.
You are, however, extremely ill-informed about the lives of show dogs. The “career” of even a top show dog is relatively brief, and then they’re pets just as loved and cared for as yours.
My three dogs who showed each attended less than a two dozen shows in their entire lives.
Here is a typical picture of the “normal” life of one such dog, mine.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 4, 2008 @ 12:34 am
Here’s another suffering show dog (retired after he finished his Championship):
http://img.villagephotos.com/p.....orable.jpg
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 4, 2008 @ 5:29 am
Pam, the feelings of Ingrid Newkirk (head of PETA) regarding the existence of domesticated companion animals are pretty well known. However, about 30 seconds of search time on Google yielded this:
http://www.activistcash.com/bi.....fm/bid/456
Here are a couple of choice quotes:
“I don’t use the word ‘pet.’ I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer ‘companion animal.’ For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.”
— The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223
“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”
— Newsday, Feb 1988
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 4, 2008 @ 5:37 am
Dear Pam:
“It is like everybody is more concerned on one upping another or being the “best” that it seems the dogs happiness comes last. Dogs are meant to play and roughhouse, roll around in the dirt, play ball with their owners, lay on their backs and get their bellies rubbed and be a loving and loyal companion while receiving unconditional love from their owners. It seems these show dogs whole life revolves around training, being groomed, and traveling constantly to shows. I have to wonder when do they get to be just dogs!!!!”
It’s a dog “show”; if a dog doesn’t like being at a show, enters the ring with his tail down and has to be dragged around the ring - he doesn’t win. It’s that simple.
(I haven’t shown since the 1980’s, preferring field trials but I still attend those I can and in this respect, they haven’t changed.)
Even in a handler’s kennel (North America), the moment the van/truck is taken out to pack, there is pandemonium in the dog runs. They *want* to go; they may enjoy different aspects, but the grooming (and I have Poodles) is individual attention. If a grooming seeion is missed, that dog is up on the table, often with a brush in his mouth. Some dogs who are campaigned know when they have won (probably from their handler’s reactions). It does neither the handler nor the breeder any good to force a dog who doesn’t like the shows to go, and there are a few of them. I’ve had 3: one had a traumatic experience at a show and never forgot, another was a hunting dog who didn’t like the show venue, and a third didn’t like having a lead on - for show, or walks or anything. So they stayed home.
The most unhappy dog is the veteran who has retired and doesn’t go. We had to sneak out, because one vet would do anything to get into that van to go to the show. One of the pleasures for owners, handlers and dogs is the veteran’s classes at Specialties, where these old campaigners get to strut their stuff again - there is no question that the enjoy their time in the ring.
Roughhouse? playtime? Well, I’m not going to send a dog in full showcoat out into a field of burdocks (it’s happened), but they certainly get to play and enjoy life, both with me and their fellow dogs. As for those being campaigned, wait around until after Best in Show, and you will see their “private” lives - the big dogs get to run madly around in a pack, and any who don’t get along usually go out by a bike - they have to stay in condition. Same for the Toys, but usually protected by a very large Xpen. Most of the handlers have Motorhomes, and the dogs are in these homes overnight. It is, quite frankly, one big vacation. Some dogs become so attached to their handlers that they wind up permanent guests and never go home.
Comment by Mary Jane T. Weir — September 4, 2008 @ 7:07 am
Comment by Mary Jane T. Weir — September 4, 2008 @ 7:07 am
“if a dog doesn’t like being at a show, enters the ring with his tail down and has to be dragged around the ring - he doesn’t win. It’s that simple.”
Or he might be able to make it through his Championship, but be unsuited to go any further. That’s how I got my dog - he really didn’t enjoy the dog show circuit, and my breeder was wise enough to understand that - for HIM - the best decision was letting him come to live with me as my beloved cuddleboy.
But even while he was still with her getting his Championship finished, his time away from the shows was spent living in his breeder’s house as a beloved part of his breeder’s family. That’s the reality of life for the vast majority of “show dogs”.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 4, 2008 @ 7:38 am
I feel like I should say that this whole conversation has been both fascinating and enlighting, as someone who’s always had adopted pet-pets.
Comment by Christine S — September 4, 2008 @ 7:41 am
Dog shows were first invented about 150 years ago. Around 95% of the history of dogs, and dog breeds, involved no dog shows.
That’s not really accurate. I think that as long as there have been breeds there has been some effort by those with the breed to evaluate and compare individuals’ performance and conformation with the purpose of identifying those best suited for breeding. Else it wouldn’t be called a breed - just someone’s dogs.
The question still isn’t should there be dog shows. The question is how can dog shows be an effective means of maintaining and improving breeds with respect to conformation, performance, health, and suitability for today’s environment. Certainly the way it’s done now is highly faulty. You cannot omit conformation from the equation or else you have no way of distinguishing breeds.
My personal well-informed impression is that breed clubs tend to loose sight of what their purpose is - to design a breed for a particular niche in today’s world. Yes they are in fact designing a breed, including the health of that breed, and yes they often forget that the purpose of the breed is to be a good pet (in most cases), and that their primary responsibility is to the pet owner.
Comment by Ron — September 4, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
Throughout more than 95% of their history, dogs were measured by their ability to get a job done.
If the dog could herd the sheep, it didn’t matter if it had prick ears, semi-prick ears, or drop ears. It didn’t matter if the dog had symmetric markings. There was no “incorrect” coat color. There was no “faulty front”, or “incorrect angulation”. There was only the rigors of the work.
The structure required to do the job developed out of need, not a written breed standard. Structure was tested by the work, not a judge in the ring. Form follows function.
Did the dog do his job as required to help keep his human family alive, over the years, or not? If not, the dog was culled. There was no food to spare for pets.
The “judge” was the work. The “standard” was the work. The work varied, so dogs developed differently. Different breeds arose because of variations in the jobs that dogs were tasked to do.
You cannot omit conformation from the equation or else you have no way of distinguishing breeds.
I disagree. We discussed this up thread, with the example of English Shepherds. Many of these dogs are indistinguishable in appearance from Border Collies, even by experts in these breeds. Yet the work these two breeds do is significantly different. These breeds are distinguished by how they work, not their “conformation”. There is no desire in either breed community to make their breed’s appearance more uniquely distinguishable. To do so would accomplish nothing useful, but it would reduce genetic diversity, with all the deterioration in health and function that would entail.
It’s never been necessary to distinguish breeds by a unique appearance. I don’t think most pet owners today care either.
Comment by LauraS — September 4, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
Comment by LauraS — September 4, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
“The structure required to do the job developed out of need, not a written breed standard. Structure was tested by the work, not a judge in the ring. Form follows function.”
“Did the dog do his job as required to help keep his human family alive, over the years, or not? If not, the dog was culled. There was no food to spare for pets.”
So once again, dogs that can do a “job” are worth keeping, and dogs that can’t should simply be culled?
I’m sorry, but in this day and age, there is DEFINITELY food to spare for pets. No matter HOW wonderful performance dogs may be.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 5, 2008 @ 6:09 am
The problem remains: In absence of working standards — which ARE absent for many if not most breeds — how does one evaluate a dog’s breeding potential in hopes of having healthy, sound family companions?
And even in those breeds with working standards, how does breeding dogs for performance produce dogs who will fit well in the role most dogs find themselves in, as family pets?
Laura, I’m not demanding that working dog people find the answers. I’m still looking for them myself, that’s all.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 5, 2008 @ 6:32 am
So once again, dogs that can do a “job” are worth keeping, and dogs that can’t should simply be culled?
That is not at all what I said. Please stop making these gross distortions of what I wrote.
I said that throughout most of the history of dogs, spanning thousands of years, this was the case. It was a discussion about how dogs were “judged” in the past. It’s a simple statement of fact.
Comment by LauraS — September 5, 2008 @ 7:45 am
LauraS, your posts read as if you had zero concern for the welfare of any dogs who are not working dogs. That may not be what you intend, but it’s what you’re conveying.
Comment by Lis — September 5, 2008 @ 8:11 am
The problem remains: In absence of working standards — which ARE absent for many if not most breeds — how does one evaluate a dog’s breeding potential in hopes of having healthy, sound family companions?
Ideas along these lines have been posted in this thread. Just because there’s no working standard for a breed doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of performance venues where dogs can be “tested” for useful companion dog traits. Dogsports like agility, flyball, obedience, tracking, etc. are open to all dogs. These things test athleticism, mental focus, trainability, etc. Basic traits that are useful in pet dogs. There are non-competitive events like CGC, ATT, therapy dog, etc. that test temperament. When selecting for health, there are breed appropriate health tests and also waiting until dogs are several years old before breeding, to allow time for late onset disease to express.
And even in those breeds with working standards, how does breeding dogs for performance produce dogs who will fit well in the role most dogs find themselves in, as family pets?
The most popular breed as a family pet is the Labrador Retriever. The traits required to be a good hunting retriever partner created the traits that also make these dogs excellent family companions in many homes.
Likewise with many other working/performance breeds. Schutzhund maintains the traits in the German population of GSDs that make THIS population of GSDs a popular companion breed worldwide.
It was once the case that Cocker Spaniels made excellent family companions. That was during an era when Cocker Spaniels were still close to that breed’s historic roots as a working hunting dog. Over time, (nearly all) Cockers became many generations disconnected from hunting breeding, so the temperament required to be a good family companion deteriorated in this breed. These dogs are now among the breeds that pet dog trainers and groomers say are most likely to bite, hardly a trait one wants in a family companion.
Comment by LauraS — September 5, 2008 @ 8:23 am
LauraS, your posts read as if you had zero concern for the welfare of any dogs who are not working dogs. That may not be what you intend, but it’s what you’re conveying.
Lis, your willful misrepresentations of what I and others have written are really getting old.
Comment by LauraS — September 5, 2008 @ 8:36 am
Laura … it’s not a “willful misrepresentation.” All you write about are performance dogs. You may be stating facts, but what do these facts mean in relation to the bigger picture? You’re leaving this completely open to interpretation, and readers can be completely forgiven for drawing their own conclusions.
As for those performance dogs, well, I gotta tell you that if a dog is GOOD at agility, flyball or field trials, that animal is probably WAY too intense to be a good family pet. (I mean, oh my GAWD, people have to wear ear protection at flyball practice.)
Your Labrador example is nonsense. A Lab who is a hunting dog-companion may be a good family companion as well. But a Lab from top field-trial lines is likely to be an intense ball of drive who’s not going to be the laid-back family dog people are hoping to find for their suburban home. A miserable match on both sides of the equation.
Performance tests exert their own selection goals on breeding programs. And those, understandably, produce better PERFORMANCE DOGS, not family pets. (With the very notable and not to be dismissed point that breeding for performance is more likely to preserve and improve soundness. Although not necessarily health, since I can’t see how selecting for performance would reduce the incidence of, say, cancer in working dog lines.)
And again, most people are looking for family pets.
This is what it keeps coming back to. It’s really wonderful Terrierman pitches a fit every time he sees a terrier with a chest too big to go down a hole after a groundhog. But it’s not an accurate or helpful prediction of a dog’s ability as a companion, any more than is a dog’s ability to remember where a duck lands and have the nose to find one in deep cover.
These skills are worthy of fighting to protect and preserve, but the truth is they aren’t in big demand in most homes.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 5, 2008 @ 8:45 am
“The structure required to do the job developed out of need, not a written breed standard. Structure was tested by the work, not a judge in the ring. Form follows function.”
Here is an example today:
I have given seminars to conformation judges on the Ibizan Hound. Much of my knowledge comes not only from film of working packs in the Islands, discussions with working pack owners, going out myself with a working pack of Podencos, but also lure-coursing my own dogs and slow motion film, as well as measuring their structure. I have well over 100 of this breed measured, from Spain Denmark, Finland, England and N America. Some are 1 or 2 generations from the working pack, others are many gens. It has been an intense study from the acquisition of my first Ibizan in the ‘70’s.
There are at least 3 functional “types” in the breed: a tall well-angulated dog from Majorca, a small agile moderately -angled dog from another island, and a very steep-shouldered , medium-sized fine-boned dog from Ibiza. Working packs may have one or all 3 of these types. My personal theory is that they have developed in response to differing terrain. I have seen the same effect in local working Podenco packs.
However, my measurements and observations from film have established to my personal satisfaction that all 3 types have structural features in common: all three are narrower across the point of shoulder than across the ilium; All 3 have forelimb assemblies lying on the 4th rib and the ability to cross their legs above the elbow; all 3 have their rear legs set under them, not because the pelvis is at a steep angle, but because the bone length of the F&T is shorter; all 3 have a longer lumbar than thoracic section of the spine - etc. There are some variations in spring of rib and relative bone lengths, which I have not yet been able to test in the field.
When the Canadian standard for the breed was written (1980-84), I spent a month with 6 measured dogs of these and other structural type, all willing lure-coursers. I had a 50 acre field of varied terrain, including cliffs. I ran braces of different types on differing courses, and at the end of the month, I had a pretty clear idea of which structures worked (agility, jumping power, etc) and which didn’t. Those ideas formed the basis for the written standard.
When I give my seminars to conformation judges, especially lately, I point out that these functional types exist in the breed, and that shoulder angulation is not nearly as important as the flexibility of the forelimb assembly; that all types have a “lift” to their gait, regardless of structure, etc. Possibly one or two in the audience “get it”; the rest ask which type is better or make the decision to go for a generic American showdog - which is *not* correct.
So my answer is that it is possible to define the working structure of a breed, without dwelling on cosmetic details. That definition may simply be the working structure of a trotting/galloping dog, but I suspect that it will include more features held in common by the majority of the working breed. And if I were to write that Ibizan standard today, I would give a range for the shoulder angulation rather than a specific figure.
(I have to point out that it took me 30 years of intense study to reach where I am; it requires a total change in concept, which I reached through study of the breed before I joined the internet lists. If I had trouble, judges who do not live with the breed can hardly be faulted for the difficulty they have in understanding this concept. As I have said before, it requires time for these ideas to percolate through the breeders first, then to the judges, then possibly to the system.)
Comment by Mary Jane T. Weir — September 5, 2008 @ 8:47 am
So I really, really think that certain performance events (such as obedience and agility) and examinations (genetic tests and phenotype tests of breeding stock, temperament tests, and BREED SURVEYS) can form a big part of this for all dogs. Not the silver bullet, but an important component.
Yet it seems that the breeders of “companion breeds” are the ones least likely to avail themselves of the gajillion opportunities for this kind of external validation.
Just one illustration:
I found a PDF on the AKC website that lists titles by breed — conformation championships and all the other events that ACK sponsors.
It hasn’t got any dates on it, anywhere, but I presume that it is total data from 2007?
I’ll just compare the ratio of championships to CD’s for clarity’s sake — because a dog can only be anointed champion once, but one dog could account for multiple progressive obedience titles in a year, and an apparently infinite amount of alphabet soup for ACK agility and rally.
I’m aware that not every dog can be “competitive” in obedience. But I’m not looking for a bullmastiff to score 199 in Utility. I’m just looking at the baseline — a dog that someone has taken the trouble to train enough so that it can qualify three times in a test of very basic obedience. (Though … lemme tell ya’ about this coonhound I know …)
There are very few “companion only” breeds that are getting obedience titles compared to championships. The three that stand out are, not coincidentally, the three that I most frequently recommend as pets for those who need or want a small dog: poodles, papillons, Cavaliers (which come with huge warning labels on health, of course). They don’t break down standard v. miniature poodles, so that’s an information gap.
Number of English toy spaniels, Pekingese and Lhasa apso that earned ANY obedience title in whatever time period is covered on this list?
Zero.
Number of conformation championships? 52, 154 and 173 respectively.
But it’s not much better in many other toy and “non-sporting” breeds.
Some of the numbers from populous toy/nonsporting breeds, and the ratios they represent:
Chihuahua: 391:15 (26:1)
Chinese crested: 256:6 (43:1)
pugs: 241:16 (15:1)
(English) bulldogs: 258:7 (37:1)
Dalmatians: 146:36 (4:1)
(French) bulldogs: 260:6 (43:1)
And for some popular working/sporting breeds:
golden retriever: 270:538 (1:2)
Shetland sheepdog: 258:259 (1:1)
Australian shepherd: 245:249 (1:1)
Rottweiler: 237:168 (1.4: 1)
Doberman: 271:154 (1.8:1)
Weimaraner: 207:52 (4:1)
Keep in mind that in populous breeds, the time and money required to get a dog anointed “champion” via “campaigning” is orders of magnitude greater than what is required to earn a CD.
In all breeds, conformation competition is a zero-sum game. You must crush the competition to win points. At an obedience trial, there are winners who get ribbons, but you earn legs regardless of placement. Every dog entered can qualify at a trial, and with the exception of the OTCh, beating the other guy has no part in earning the title.
Also keep in mind that the dogs earning obedience titles and the dogs declared “champions” are often not the same dogs, or even related, from the same set of kennels and bloodlines. In golden retrievers, for example (because apparently if I mention GSDs again the internets will explode), there are hunting and show lines, and increasingly, “obedience lines.” While some show dogs compete in obedience, there’s not that much overlap. Anecdotally, this seems to hold true among Shelties, too, as the ones I see in obedience don’t look much like the hair-band shelties in the breed ring. And goldens bred by obedience trainers seem to make stellar pets!
I assume this is also true in the “companion only” breeds. IOW, those six Chinese crested that stepped into the obedience ring may be, for all I know, ILP’d nekkid neutered dogs that the owners of the 256 “champions” would earnestly explain just aren’t “correct.” Those seven bulldogs may have, you know, muzzles and legs and adequate O2 perfusion. There may be zero overlap between “Ch” and “CD.” The sample size of the latter is so tiny in some of these breeds, it’d be hard to generalize even if we had the vital stats on every one of them.
But even if there was total overlap — all the pugs with CDs were also champions — one is kind of forced to conclude that show dog “fanciers” aren’t very interested in performing the minimum due diligence to demonstrate something about the companion qualities of the animals they produce for their hobby of showing dogs.
In light of the figures on, say, bulldogs with the appropriate health examinations for their breed, it’s hard to see what they care about that does not involve winning Ch points and crushing the competition.
And here’s the main point: There is no institutional requirement, pressure, or suggestion that these qualities are relevant at all, much less the most important part of the dog. There are, however, tremendous social rewards attached to producing “top dogs,” as defined by “championships.”
Numbers from the horse’s mouth.
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 5, 2008 @ 8:58 am
Well said, Heather. And I sure wish performance events WERE the silver bullet. Alas, to again use flatcoats as an example, a lot of champion flatcoats have performance titles as well … but that doesn’t change the cancer rate, sigh.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 5, 2008 @ 9:11 am
Ideas along these lines have been posted in this thread. Just because there’s no working standard for a breed doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of performance venues where dogs can be “tested” for useful companion dog traits. Dogsports like agility, flyball, obedience, tracking, etc. are open to all dogs. These things test athleticism, mental focus, trainability, etc. Basic traits that are useful in pet dogs.
I do believe you are over-valuing athleticism in strictly-companion pet dogs. When I went looking for a dog this time, I was looking for a walking companion. A walking companion—not a dog who needed a good long-distance run every day. I told the breeders I talked to that it would be nice to have a dog who would enjoy agility if I were able to find a local class that I could afford, but not one who needed the kind of energy burning that serioius, competitive agility is, because I couldn’t provide that.
There are non-competitive events like CGC, ATT, therapy dog, etc. that test temperament. When selecting for health, there are breed appropriate health tests and also waiting until dogs are several years old before breeding, to allow time for late onset disease to express.
There are breeders who do all these things, but to a 99.99% certainty, they’re either doing conformation showing, or they’re doing performance events, or, much as you are loathe to admit it, they are doing both. Therapy Dog is not a spectator event, tests for CGC and therapy dog certification don’t happen as large, separate events that someone wanting to see a variety of different breeds of dogs and start to meet breeders and learn more about the breeds rather than about the individual dogs being tested (who mostly have homes already, thank you).
You want everyone to go to the performance events to meet breeders, but that’s really not a viable plan for someone who wants a dog as a family companion, not as an athletics teammate. As much as you hate the idea, shows are the best bet for that—the breeders there, at least, do not have that laser-focus on producing dogs too intense for the average family.
The most popular breed as a family pet is the Labrador Retriever. The traits required to be a good hunting retriever partner created the traits that also make these dogs excellent family companions in many homes.
And Labs and Lab mixes, and pits and pit mixes, with lovely temperaments, are crowding the shelters, because many people get these lovely, affectionate bundles of fur, and when they hit adolesence, the family discovers that they have made an awful mistake. Not that the dog isn’t still lovely and affectionate, but that it is too high-energy and high-intensity for them.
My sister’s Lsb is a lovely family pet—because my sister runs with her dog, burning off the energy that could otherwise make the dog a real problem to live with.
I can’t run.
It was once the case that Cocker Spaniels made excellent family companions. That was during an era when Cocker Spaniels were still close to that breed’s historic roots as a working hunting dog. Over time, (nearly all) Cockers became many generations disconnected from hunting breeding, so the temperament required to be a good family companion deteriorated in this breed. These dogs are now among the breeds that pet dog trainers and groomers say are most likely to bite, hardly a trait one wants in a family companion.
Every Cocker I know is a sweet, lovely, affectionate, playful dog. Even the one from a breeder whose standards are clearly on the way down.
But yes, getting a Cocker is a more fraught undertaking than it might once have been—but it’s not because they stopped hunting. It’s because they became so popular that anyone with an intact bitch and an intact stud could make money breeding them. It’s the puppy millers and the BYBs that are the problem, as usual.
But you’d rather diss the show breeders, who do care about temperament because they live with these dogs in their homes and families.
Comment by Lis — September 5, 2008 @ 9:20 am
All you write about are performance dogs.
Rubbish. I’ve also written in this thread about genetic diversity, inbreeding, conformation selection, temperament testing, health testing, companion only breeds, waiting until dogs are older in order to see if they are suitable for breeding, etc.
As for those performance dogs, well, I gotta tell you that if a dog is GOOD at agility, flyball or field trials, that animal is probably WAY too intense to be a good family pet.
Depends on the family, and what they want in a dog. Some want a more active pet than others want.
You selectively left off all the other activities I have repeatedly written about in this thread, such as tracking, obedience, CGC, ATT, therapy dogs — activities that DON’T require high energy dogs.
Your Labrador example is nonsense. A Lab who is a hunting dog-companion may be a good family companion as well. But a field-trial Lab is an intense ball of drive whose not going to be the laid-back family dog people are hoping to find for their suburban home.
My example might have been nonsense if I’d actually written what you claim I wrote, Gina. What I actually wrote is:
The most popular breed as a family pet is the Labrador Retriever. The traits required to be a good hunting retriever partner created the traits that also make these dogs excellent family companions in many homes.
Not one word about field trial dogs. You assumed field trial dogs, not me.
Comment by LauraS — September 5, 2008 @ 9:41 am
I do believe you are over-valuing athleticism in strictly-companion pet dogs.
It’s about selecting for healthy structure. Something that even pet dog owners would like to have.
Comment by LauraS — September 5, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Laura, I give up.
You seem completely unable to see that relatively few families in the age of two-job families with long commutes, video games, childhood obesity and little time for pets want or can care for an family pet with a high level of activity.
Not to mention all the non-tradition families without kids: the seniors, the middle-aged empty-nesters, the singles, the disabled, etc.
That’s why all those big young friendly dogs end up homeless, and that’s why small dogs rarely stay in shelters long enough to get their feet dirty.
You have consistently advocated for performance standards, something that I can’t see anyone disagreeing with on general principal, especially in conjunction with health screenings.
But substituting performance standards will still exert selection pressures that will end up favoring one sort of dog over another. And while dogs bred with performance standards in mind may well be “better” as far as soundness issues go, they STILL may not be a good fit for most people who want a dog.
Which is what we keep saying, and you keep disregarding.
I’m done trying.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 5, 2008 @ 9:54 am
I do believe you are over-valuing athleticism in strictly-companion pet dogs.
It’s about selecting for healthy structure. Something that even pet dog owners would like to have.
Performance events don’t just select for “healthy structure”; they select for energy level and drive, too.
Comment by Lis — September 5, 2008 @ 9:57 am
The earlier comment about obedience Goldens making good pets - not so much. During that period of time when Goldens were the dominant force in the Obedience ring, and people started breeding “Obedience Goldens” - lo and behold, we started seeing Goldens with aggression problems. A trait which the breed is sadly still struggling with.
Again, breeding for performance can all too easily tip the scale into breeding for sharp temperaments with a lot of drive. And that - unfortunately - is most certainly NOT what most average families are looking for in a pet dog.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 5, 2008 @ 10:56 am
You seem completely unable to see that relatively few families in the age of two-job families with long commutes, video games, childhood obesity and little time for pets want or can care for an family pet with a high level of activity.
No Gina, I really DO get that. That’s why I have repeatedly mentioned activities and tests that have absolutely nothing to do with high activity level dogs.
I and others have written over and over in this discussion thread that activities such as tracking, obedience, CGC, ATT, therapy dogs — activities that DON’T require or select for high energy dogs — can be useful breeding tests for the traits valued in pet dogs.
You are in no position to disagree with me about what I think or believe.
What seems to be happening here is that none of us are allowed to acknowledge that pet owners are not a uniform bunch who all want exactly same thing in their pets. To even mention that some pet owners (at least a million worldwide) want a GSD out of German schutzhund lines or that some pet owners want a nice Lab out of hunting lines, gets me falsely accused of advocating high energy top competition bred dogs for all pet owners. And yet I didn’t say this was the answer for all pet owners, nor did I specify (or imply) top competition bred high energy dogs.
Comment by LauraS — September 5, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Note to readers who have “just a pet” and find this thread a tad overwhelming:
People “in dogs” really do spend their entire lives arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No one can fault the passion we have for trying to make things better for dogs, even if we cannot agree on how, exactly, to get there.
Of course, the really funny thing is that my own retrievers compete successfully in performance events and in shows, pass their Canine Good Citizen and temperament tests with no problems, walk nicely on lead, turn on a dime when called off-leash, can find birds in deep cover or swim for a half-mile in freezing water to get one, will pick up my asthma inhaler without being asked and hand it to me when I drop it, have passed every imaginable health screening test (even one they had to pass as golden-Lab crosses, because there wasn’t a category for them), sleep on the bed, love children, ride nice in the car on in the cargo hold of an airplane, adapt beautifully to life in city, suburb, farm and hotel, aren’t barky, love absolutely everyone they meet, play nicely with other dogs, cats and even chickens …
… and …
… and …
… and …
are still too damn much dog to be a pet I’d recommend for most families. Hell, I had to pay an ultra-marathoning friend to exercise them while I was on book deadline to keep them from bouncing off the walls.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 5, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Note to readers who have “just a pet” and find this thread a tad overwhelming
Haha! That’s really what I meant when I said that I found it both fascinating and enlightening!
I’m only half-kidding.
I do wonder though, how much of a dog’s level of activity (for example/lack of a better word) is nature vs. nurture, especially when obtained as a puppy? While breeds would undoubtedly differ extremely, I’d also think that a dog would become adjusted to a certain level of activity in an (admittedly much) smaller scale, based on what he is used to.
Comment by Christine S — September 5, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
The patterns are established pretty early. There’s a reason why my McKenzie’s sister Sprint was chosen as a puppy to go to my friend Teresa.
Sprint is now one of the best agility dogs in the world, a dynamo of focus and speed.
McKenzie, on the other hand, can fart on command.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 5, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
Gina, I am one who like “just a pet”. The temperament I like is that of a gentle spaniel, and I have found it in the past in mixed rescue Cocker Spaniels. Currently I own a purchased Spaniel Mix, and - with trepidation - a purchased Cavalier Spaniel.
In all honesty if I could have found a second appealing Spaniel Mix, in a timely way from a breeder that I wanted to give money to, I would not have the purebred, although he IS wonderful.
I also always search for a rescue first, but I do not live in the USA, and I do live where the shelter situation is such that to get a small dog through rescue you have to sit on a waiting list for a great length of time, and then fight with many other applicants over the same dog. I gave up after a two year wait.
I agree with Laura when she says, “It’s never been necessary to distinguish breeds by a unique appearance. I don’t think most pet owners today care either.”
At least many I know don’t care past making sure their pup is within (suitable to them) a basic size range, basic temperament type, and basic coat type. Of course I do know some who like their breeds.
I’ve heard mention that the “best” venue to meet breeders of companion dogs is at a dog show. I have to say that if that is the best venue we are in a sad state of affairs. I have left the four shows I’ve been coerced into attending early, with a bad taste in my mouth. I find the focus of those viewing and competing at the shows nauseating, despite trying hard not to find it so. I wouldn’t post about this, but from reading occasional comments on line from others my guess is there are many who feel the same way.
It is NOT an appealing place to go for people who just want pets.
So, if we say that going to dog shows is “only the starting point” and instruct pet purchasers to start there, and then followup with a long list of questions to sort through the garbage breeders (I found many), would it not be just as good to say “start where you want” and then still follow up with the long list of questions?
I have done this and one of my pets came from a show breeder, with 9 females. For the other I used the ads and a very kind BYB who owned only a couple of girls. I won’t go into my list of demands of a breeder (they are extensive and many) but the BYB actually qualified better than the show breeder.
So, since companion pet buyers have to slug through a whole lot of garbage breeders no matter where they start to look, why the emphasis, it seems always, on pointing them toward purchasing from those who show?
Am I supposed to feel invested in helping “breeds” continue by purchasing only a purebred dog?
Comment by Sissee — September 5, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 5, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
“People ‘in dogs’ really do spend their entire lives arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
So funny, and so true!
Comment by Christine S — September 5, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
“I do wonder though, how much of a dog’s level of activity (for example/lack of a better word) is nature vs. nurture, especially when obtained as a puppy?”
While I do agree both are “players”, most behaviorists and dog trainers will tell you that all too often, when an owner brings a dog in for “behavioral problems”, a good share of it comes down to a dog who’s bouncing off the walls because he’s not being given enough activity to satisfy his needs for “action”.
This happens a LOT with Labs, who are actually pretty high-energy dogs. That’s one reason you see so many adolescent Labs and Lab mixes languishing in shelters - their owners weren’t prepared for their exercise needs, and the bored/underexercised dog took out his frustrations in unproductive ways that caused the family to feel they could no longer keep the dog.
One of the elements of the No-Kill Equation has a lot to do with preserving the human-animal bond, and in these kinds of cases, it would be nice if it happened more often that families were counseled through that crazy adolescent period in their young Lab’s life so that the dog would continue to stay in his home as he matured into a slightly less frenetic companion.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 5, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Am I supposed to feel invested in helping “breeds” continue by purchasing only a purebred dog?
Comment by Sissee — September 5, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Absolutely not.
But those of us who ARE trying to support people being able to get great family pets are defintely “invested” in helping that happen. At least, I know *I* am. I used to write a column for the American Kennel Club’s magazine imploring people at shows to be more friendly and helpful to the general public.
I don’t think it helped much.
And now, of course, we’ve also been writing a lot about shelters not brow-beating people who need help or are trying to adopt.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 5, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
Am I supposed to feel invested in helping “breeds” continue by purchasing only a purebred dog?
Comment by Sissee — September 5, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Sissee, most of us are speaking from the perspective of the US, Canada, or the UK. If you are someplace where the conditions are significantly different, no, our advice may not apply to you. Since you don’t say where you are, I can’t even begin to guess what the differences might be.
Rescue is a wonderful choice, if you can find the right dog in a rescue or shelter. If you can’t, not so much.
When purchasing from a breeder, obviously the most important thing is qualifying the breeder, in terms of how well they measure up to the standards you should expect of a truly responsible breeder. In the US, UK, and Canada, odds of finding someone who is a truly responsible breeder, who is breeding mixes and/or is not involved in either conformation or performance events, is so low as to to not be worth discussing.
And that’s why the argument here has been over which compettions, conformation or performance, are the better bet, with zero discussion of skipping those events altogether.
If things are different where you are, obviously you need to sort the wheat from the chaff by other means.
Comment by Lis — September 5, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Comment by Sissee — September 5, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
“Am I supposed to feel invested in helping ‘breeds’ continue by purchasing only a purebred dog?”
Not you, specifically. It is up to each individual as to how important having a purebred dog is to them.
If your choice is a purebred - great! If you ask me to help you find one, I’ll both direct you to Breed Rescue and also give you guidelines on how to have a GOOD experience in talking with breeders at a show.
If you don’t care about the origin of your dog - you just want a good companion - ALSO great! You’re slightly less limited in your options in that case, but your choice is neither more or less valid than a choice for a purebred.
Nothing in this discussion should be interpreted as thinking that those of us who support show breeders are thereby saying that everyone should only ever get themselves a purebred dog. They’re all dogs who deserve to live as loving and beloved companions.
But for a lot of us who love our breeds, we have a hard time envisioning how they would be preserved in this day and urban age without show breeders doing their part to preserve breed type. Regardless of all the other baggage which has been discussed in great detail in this thread.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 5, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
“McKenzie, on the other hand, can fart on command.”
That would be such a useful trick! I would love to able to add that activity to my “go potty” command while the dogs are outside since it should mean less accidental gas poisoning my air indoors.
I’d like to add Siberian huskies to the discussion. They are beautiful, good-tempered animals that make great family pets as long as you match up the energy levels properly. Even people who jog several miles a day would be challenged by the drive of a true racing Siberian especially during adolescence. They are also a very energetic and athletic breed. Serious mushers would be very disappointed with a Siberian that loves to run but only a couple miles each day. Obviously the mushing community has a way to meet breeders (performance events). While I do think there should be performance requirements for conformation with this breed, there is a need for lower energy (though still pretty active) pet Siberians that is currently served by show breeders. Getting rid of the show breeders would certainly increase the puppy mill business.
Comment by Shannon Watts — September 5, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
Purebreeds are fine but the way it is done in the US has in some cases created more problems for a breed. The Basenji for example had become a line with serious medical complications (including cancers) Several years ago a group went to Africia to the home of the Basenji and brought back several puppies that were used to widen the DNA of the breed. I personally choose to rescue dogs that often are headed for the long sleep. I have 6 3 beagle, 1 mixed beagle, a boston terrior mix and a lab/bassett/char pei mix. They all get along and we have no issues with them. One of the beagles is in fact a pure bred however he was being starved because he would no longer hunt. With us he can be a couch potato but when we walk he is beauty in action.
I was raised with nothing but purebreds but I have to say I much prefer the joys of the mixed breed. You are really missing out on the beauty and intelligence of the throw aways.
Comment by Patty Hubbard — September 5, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Do you know the nickname of the Pit Bull?
Well Do you?
It was commonly called the “Nanny dog”. Why?
Because unless the individual dog is abused into being a fighting dog, it is in fact a very loyal family dog and will protect his “family” from attack. Even if he dies trying.
It is the same with the Doberman. Raised in a loving home a Doby is just as good with children as a Golden - after all that was their purpose when the first Doby’s were breed.
I believe that the new catch-phrase is designer dogs. Using a dog for that which it was not intended.
If your dog is good at agility and YOU are good at agility fine. If your dog hunts and you do to great - but even Greyhounds given their druthers will hog a couch and snub the rabbit.
Homework and research are the key. Everyone assumes that in an apartment any small dog will do. Not true. Boston terriers can become slightly crazy with no rodents to pursue. On the other hand I do not think that a Maltese would be happy racing through woods.
A dog is not just a dog. It is a long term commitment and if you choose wrong they cannot just be thrown away. Education is good but the temperment of the dog is effected by its environment even as early as 8 - 10 weeks. So pick wisely - not all purebreds nor all mixed breds - are perfect.
I can tell you from my experience that it is challenging no matter which but the shelter or rescue dog can truly be a challenge. But it is very rewarding.
Comment by Patty Hubbard — September 5, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
But yes, getting a Cocker is a more fraught undertaking than it might once have been—but it’s not because they stopped hunting. It’s because they became so popular that anyone with an intact bitch and an intact stud could make money breeding them. It’s the puppy millers and the BYBs that are the problem, as usual.
What a crock.
I can name four cockers from top show breeders and champion parents (four of the last five purebreds I’ve trained or evaluated), one of which was a champion himself, all of which were pathological biters, vicious little so-and-so’s, child-haters, nasty little snots. (Oh, and in three out of four cases, the owners absolutely agreed with me, and in the fourth case, the owner is dead — and I barely dodged her willing the nasty little beast to me.)
The fifth was a nice little dog, but for her obsessive-compulsive circling behavior.
The “Oh, it’s all the fault of the BYBs and puppymills” will not fly. Yes, I check pedigrees. I’m just an inquisitive sort that way.
I have never seen a sound, fully sane American cocker. Never. The few who don’t bite have various neuroses. My mother was born in 1942, and reports that they were widely-known as biters by her teen years. I am told that one popular sire from the early 40’s, My Own Brucie, was behind all the bad temperaments in those years, and is now ubiquitous in the gene pool. Could be. I wasn’t there.
Similarly, you won’t pin bad temperament in goldens on the obedience competitors.
I’ve worked with multiple golden retriever biters and/or dogfighters that were 100% show lines. I’ve never seen a field-bred or “obedience line” golden with a bad temperament. Some of them very high-energy (not all), but not a bad one in the bunch.
At the same time the golden retriever was dominating the top echelons of competition obedience, its numbers in the show ring were mushrooming, and the breed was undergoing an epic split. Judges were putting up blond dogs that were “up on their toes,” stiff, tail high, chest out in the ring; what they may have been selecting were the dogs who were puffing up and posturing in the presence of dogs and people, because they were thinking about biting one or the other, or giving a dominance display. A good golden naturally wants to wiggle and perhaps crouch a bit in company, because he is so happy to see ya. Good training contains that urge, but doesn’t eliminate it.
The great Pyrenees impersonators in the show ring resemble the lithe copper working version — and the marvelous goldens I grew up with — in much the way I resemble a Yoruba princess. And many of them, the males in particular, have nothing resembling the golden temperament.
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 5, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
I have never seen a sound, fully sane American cocker. Never. The few who don’t bite have various neuroses. My mother was born in 1942, and reports that they were widely-known as biters by her teen years. I am told that one popular sire from the early 40’s, My Own Brucie, was behind all the bad temperaments in those years, and is now ubiquitous in the gene pool. Could be. I wasn’t there.
So, obviously I must be lying about the American Cockers I know. Can’t be any other explanation, obviously.
Comment by Lis — September 5, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
People “in dogs” really do spend their entire lives arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
We’ll also argue over just what kind of pin they can dance on, and whether or not pins back in the good old days could hold more angels because they were better constructed, and just why can’t you get good pins like that anymore, anyways? And how big are these angels, huh? Because in the old days, angels were smaller.
etc., until someone eventually invokes Godwin’s law.
Comment by Carol — September 5, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
even Greyhounds given their druthers will hog a couch and snub the rabbit.
The wonderful thing about greyhounds and deerhounds alike is that in the house they are quiet and peaceful. But in the field?
I’ve never known one not to give chase if something was running… at times like that, couches are the last thing on their mind.
I had a deerhound who turned out to have an undiagnosed tick borne disease, who was quite old at the time. We didn’t know what she had… spiking fevers and exteme lethargy and stiffness were her symptoms. I was getting to the point where I thought I might have to put her to sleep (this was long before TBDs were as commonly diagnosed as they are now… I’d never miss this today).
I had her out in the field by my house, off leash. My old, sick, feeble girl scared up a jackrabbit and ran so far and so fast I had to go look for her in the car.
Comment by Christie Keith — September 5, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 5, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
“I’ve never seen a field-bred or ‘obedience line’ golden with a bad temperament.”
I have.
But - like Lis - obviously, I must be lying.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 5, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
Comment by Carol — September 5, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
“until someone eventually invokes Godwin’s law.”
And here I thought that had already happened with all the “eugenics” accusations.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 5, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
It did, it happened in the film I mentioned in the original post.
Remember the POST? ;)
Comment by Christie Keith — September 5, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
Y’mean that thang W-A-A-A-A-A-A-Y up top there somewhere?
“Yoo-hoo!” (as fading echoes resound and rebound amongst the tangled warps and weaves of discussion threads . . . . . . . )
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 5, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
LOL… this is a non-pet food recall record. I’m very proud.
Comment by Christie Keith — September 5, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
No, no. I hold to the letter of it — no Hitler reference, no Godwin invoked. Someone has to accuse someone point blank of being Hitler-esque. We’ll also accept Nazi-esque, in lieu of.
This is what happens when I’m up at 5 am making sure puppies nurse — reckless blog comment posting.
Oh, and kudos on the record!
Comment by Carol — September 6, 2008 @ 3:04 am
I have to admit that I cannot follow some of your logic.
I am not a breeder, I am not a handler and I do not show my dogs in any form of competition. I have 3 purebred beagles. The sire is a Blue Tick Beagle and his son and daughter took after the mother. Bubba (yes our blue tick is called Bubba and he is just a good ol boy) is just as sweet as any of the other dogs that have been in my life. He was the one the vet suggested we put down. Beagles are supposedly notorious for “following their nose” however Bubba’s nose always brings him home. (Used to now he prefers to just stare at the open gate).
I have grown up with Yorkies (lots), scotties,
daschounds, a catahoula mix, irish setters, poodles and now beagles and rescues.
My husband and I have decided that if possible we will breed Bubba to a blue tick female and (hopefully) she will throw one pup with the same coloring. We will take that one. Otherwise no more elitist snobbery for me - rescues from the local shelters. Until we become too old, we will save shelter dogs and I get the feeling that my 4 children (all grown) will do the same.
So continue on with the 1 up manship. We will be waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces of lives thrown away because of “bad breeding”.
HAH!
Comment by Patty Hubbard — September 7, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
Patty, maybe I’m just slow this morning, but I honestly can’t tell who you’re disagreeing with. You seem to be arguing with a position no one in this discussion has taken.
Comment by Lis — September 8, 2008 @ 4:50 am
She has - however - offered up a lovely example of the “once only” breeding that AB1634 was prepared to give a pass to.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 8, 2008 @ 5:36 am
A late response. I am a onlooker in dogs (Volunteer, novice trainer, and have a degree in behavior both human and animal)and have found this blog & thread to showcase the best and the worst of the dog world. I’ll point out what I see. Many people want pet quality dogs of many different specifications, for many different reasons. Many of those people don’t care what their dog is breed wise. America is the land of keeping up with the Joneses. Everyone is trying to out do their peers. This extends into the purebred dog world. People who will only want the rare Bolivian Spotted Tree dog to flash their money and status. The guy living the street over in the slightly less expensive neighborhood wants one to to show he is just as good status wise as their “neighbor”. He is the type that blows a fuse when a good breeder gives him a price of $1000 for their dogs because they used to be able to pick up stray dogs for free “in the day” They then go to a breeder who is “just as good” (read true puppy miller) and picks up their dog. This drives the market for crappy breeders and the purbred industry. I hear from breeder friends often about the inquries on their dogs who want a girl puppy with a heart shaped spot over their left eye and a tail that curls to the left (not a real example, but have heard requests nearly as assinine). Sadly the public in general considers watching Lassie breed research. Many news blurb talking point reports talk about the ability to clone aninmals and the public thinks breeders have more control thatn they actually do in outcomes of breeding healthy dog on order from the public. The public wants something for nothing, and want the animal to come out of the box ready to save the little boy drowning in the well. Breeders are stuck between a rock and a hard place because they are juxtaposed with the reponsibility of breeding healthy dogs, for a reasonable price (for their good as well as the public) and a Animal Rights environment that wants to shut down any and all breeders under the guise of stopping puppy mills that are really just fronts for PETA’s agenda of ending all pet ownership.
I agree with the argument that it is a shame that the working ability of many purebred show ring dogs is lost in pursuit of conformation exaggeration. Look at the collie-They are the first interpretation of the Border Collie by the AKC. They needed to start from scratch and created a new breed. The statement about “breeds” being distuguished by working ability is a misnomer too though. This merely identified types of dogs, Spaniels, Terriers, Gun Dogs, Herders,etc. . .The show ring has become about politics and popularity these days (well maybe it never changed). I find when hanging out near the rings it is a lot like the High School Cafeteria and it social groups. Breed Groups unfortunately appear to be the same. I don’t believe we can get anywhere in getting back man’s best friend in its many forms and functions in one healthy piece. Dogs don’t do what they joined us for initally. Companionship, hunting partner, and garbage disposal. We have been shaping dog since the beginning of domestication. The first thing that happened was our sense of smell got worse (Their’s better) and the strange symbiotic relationship took off from there to be tweaked and changed to what it is now. There will be some lost breeds as time goes on. Really now who needs a dog that can pull drowning people from the water, or protect us and the flock from bears, or save us on our foot journey though the mountains. New breeds and types will pop up in their place. They will evolve with us and for us. Not a pleasant thought-but. . .
Comment by Kristy B — October 14, 2008 @ 10:57 am
” also don’t think the solution is the extinction of the domestic dog, as PETA would like to see”
A lie repeated often enough appears to be true. The comment attributed to PETA was out of context. Research it yourself.
Comment by Cazz — October 31, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
OK Cazz, I researched PeTA’s quotes on dog ownership.
“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us? Harper’s, August 1988, p. 50.
“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles—from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.
“In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive “free” in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing “pets,” thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive.” PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?
“I don’t use the word “pet.” I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer “companion animal.” For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship enjoyment at a distance.” Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.
“The cat, like the dog, must disappear… We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.
“As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves.” PeTA’s Statement on Companion Animals.
“In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme.” PeTA’s Statement on Companion Animals.
“You don’t have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them … One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild … they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV,” Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.
Comment by LauraS — October 31, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
Thanks, Laura! The task was daunting me, and I can’t thank you enough for doing this!
Comment by Christie Keith — October 31, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Ditto that. I just sighed when I saw it, and thought: Oh, I’m soooo tired. I’ll deal with this PETA crap in the morning. Thanks.
And I’ll add to it: In the ’80s I sat across a desk from Ingrid Newkirk and she told me much the same. That in her “ideal world” we would admire animals from afar as they lived their own natural lives. Since domestic animals are domesticated — they don’t have a place in the natural ecosystem — their only choice is extinction.
And by the way, given the amazing amount of factual information out there, and all the things PETA’s leaders have said themselves, repeatedly, and the kill rate for PETA’s “shelter” ….
Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 1, 2008 @ 3:47 am
Ron wrote “The Basenji experiment was mentioned. It is interesting to note that the Basenji club, and the members to whom I have spoken insist that it was not done out of a concern for Fanconi disease, but rather to improve genetic diversity.”
That is, in fact, the case. We reopened the stud book specifically to address concerns about genetic diversity and the long-term preservation of a historic gene pool with an adequate number of founders.
We have a DNA test for Fanconi. We still need new genes. We don’t need new genes right now to reduce Fanconi incidence, since at this time I am hard-pressed to think of anyone not following the mantra of “At least one parent tested clear” - which should result in zero affected produced.
We do need new genes for long-term breed health and survival. Two different issues.
Ron also said, “I suspect it was important for them to phrase it this way to avoid procedural problems associated with making advances against disease.”
Actually, no, Ron, we phrased it that way because it’s actually the truth. If we were specifically working against Fanconi in this effort, we would say so.
In fact, when we opened the stud book to unregistered dogs the first time, we specifically mentioned Fanconi incidence in our presentation, which is still available on the BCOA web site (this would be info circa 1990.) The 2008 opening is the second time we have opened our stud book to unpedigreed dogs.
“Which leads into up the second relevant issue - if a genetic improvement is made, then those with the traditional gene suddenly have to compete against a “new and improved” variety, are thus relegated to second-class status.”
Actually, this is a mistaken concern on two different levels.
First, with the Fanconi DNA test, no one should have to worry about buying a pup that will develop Fanconi, if they follow a few simple guidelines that the parent club does a good job of publicizing. “One parent tested clear” is pretty simple.
We are not encouraging “breed clears only” as we do not wish to reduce breed genetic diversity via an abrupt bottleneck.
Second of all, as a “diversity” breeder (I breed Avongara Basenjis as well as Avongara-domestic blends) there really is no overwhelming tidal wave of demand for the new stock pushing aside the old. There’s interest, and no resistance, but I don’t see the new dogs crowding out the old - or vice versa. There’s plenty of room for, need for, and interest in, both.
I’ll also comment that Basenji people are probably the LEAST politically correct people you’ll ever meet - probably self-selecting due to the personalities of the dogs.
Comment by Lisa Auerbach — November 18, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
This THREAD has been a fantastic read..
Thanks everyone for posting.
Seriously -and I don’t even LIKE the movie Princess Bride!
My all time favorite dog article is by Jeffrey Bragg,
It is, to my mind, a must read primer for the laymen who enjoys reading about dog-health:
http://www.netpets.org/dogs/healthspa/bragg.html
One thing that gives me pause - that seems to stand outside the main argument here - about the deleterious effects of conformation shows - is the problem with ANY selection system that eliminates too many individuals in any one generation from the gene pool.
Therefore, woudn’t making requirements for breeding MUCH MORE rigorous - in any particular venue - result (down the road) in narrowing the breed gene pools to an excessive degree?
As I read it a large part of the discussion concerned whether to follow one of the following 2 paths:
1- Keeping conformation competition as one of the tools of eliminating dogs from breeding pools
2- Not keeping conformation competition as one of the tools.
If I had to “choose” a path - my personality and temperament align me with Grahund, Laura, H. Houlahan rather than Gina S. and Liz and Carol - but - I’m concerned that BOTH concepts neglect to address the necessity of keeping MORE dogs in the breeding pool for each breed than we currently do - not finding better ways to eliminate more!
It seems that everyone is gung-ho about coming up with ways to eliminate more and more dogs from breeding by making working titles, temperament tests, show titles (for a some of you), health screens, etc…. mandatory.
Isn’t PART of the difficulty the ‘catch 22’ of preserving as much diversity as possible within a gene pool and ONLY creating uniformity as it relates to ESSENTIAL breed characteristics?
My proposal would be for breed clubs to codify into their standards as much DIVERSITY as possible - physically as well as temperamentally - leaving only essential charactistics as requirements. All breeds might consider, allowing all colors, a lot of variation in size, variation in back length, head length, speed of performance, style of working, etc….
Of course the difficulty would be getting people to even agree on what is essential. My guess is that everyone would have their pet “essential”. But since owning a purebred is BY DEFINITION being part of a community- shouldn’t people struggle more to come a consensus? At least about breed essentials.
This of course will piss off all peoople who love the idea of “great dogs” or “beautiful dogs” so, I don’t see it happening. Some people believe the goal of breeding is to try to move ALL members of a breed towards a single “standard” type. That standard would represent perfection. That is, imo, the crux of the problem - a concept of perfection.
Finally,
If every dog that was bred had to:
Have a hard-earned working title
Pass health screens
Be stable and safe around children
Be sound and lacking arthritis
Come from a long-lived set of ancestors
Be an easy keeper
Be a fast learner
Have a show title
…wouldn’t the breeds be left with too few breeding individuals to sustain a population?
If some say “purpose breeding” rather than “breed breeding” I think you might have part of the answer in mind - but that would necessitate people giving up the notion of “breed”.
(Hint this is one of my preferences).
regards
Comment by Richie Fortunato — December 1, 2008 @ 8:12 am
Flat-coats have remained dual purpose. To my knowledge, there really isn’t a split between show lines and performance lines.
Comment by Alex V. — December 27, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
Comment by Richie Fortunato — December 1, 2008 @ 8:12 am
“If some say ‘purpose breeding’ rather than ‘breed breeding’ I think you might have part of the answer in mind - but that would necessitate people giving up the notion of ‘breed’.”
Certainly that’s one of the “either/or” scenarios that a discussion like this has brought up. However, consider another, more essential “either/or”. That is the fact that breeding is either selective, or it’s random. Unless you have dogs out running free, mating with whoever happens they happen to find when “the mood strikes” - in other words - if you have established ANY kinds of constraints at all on which dog can breed with which dog - then you have crossed the line from random breeding to selective breeding. It really is either one or the other.
And the MOMENT you have selective breeding occurring, you now have breeding decisions being made based on some sort of criteria - no matter how tightly or how loosely those criteria may be getting defined. Which means the RESPONSIBILITY for setting (and following) those criteria rests with those who are selecting which animals are and are not allowed to procreate.
This basic “either/or” scenario is what eventually leads folks down the path to the development of breed types - whether they are primarily determined by appearance, primarily determined by function, or determined by some combination of the two. And the “either/or” scenario of “selective breeding v.s. truly random breeding” is simply a truth that cannot be avoided.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 27, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
A lot of breeders try to limit people who have no knowledge of breeding whatsoever by requiring spay/neuter in a contract. A lot of pet dogs aren’t used for breeding. Even “show quality” dogs end up in pet homes and get spayed. And, this is as you say, limiting the gene pool.
But honestly, breeding is hard work! Most pet parents can’t or don’t want to handle the responsibility of raising a litter. Does the show ring have anything to do with that? No. When you get a puppy from a shelter, they usually have it neutered before it goes to the new family. Is that the show ring’s fault? No. But, we’re still limiting the gene pool. I don’t think anybody wants to suggest banning spay/neuter because that would increase the rate of careless, unplanned (or even planned) breedings.
Getting rid of the show ring might help in some respects, but people will always want non-breeding animals. And by default, that limits the gene pool.
And while writing this, I appeared to have an epiphany. I thought about people who don’t want children, but donate their eggs and sperm to storage facilities for other people to use. Perhaps this mentality could be used for people who want non-breeding animals. Sure, it’s expensive and not everyone would want to do it, but sex cells could be harvested. Who knows if that might help, but it’s something veterinarians could look into. Perhaps even guide the parent clubs to adopt policies on.
Yes, people are very self-serving, but there are plenty more of us that want healthy dogs and will do a lot to try to help that cause.
Comment by Alex Verrastro — December 27, 2008 @ 6:42 pm