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.

“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.

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

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.

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?

“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.

A lie repeated often enough appears to be true. The comment attributed to PETA was out of context. Research it yourself.

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. . .