Do you like this story?
Best in Show: A defense of the really big show — and the little ones, too
By Christie Keith
February 3, 2009
I really can’t believe I’m going to start another breeder thread over here. The last one got over 150 comments, and I figure I can either ignite a flame war or get so many fewer I’ll feel neglected. I can’t win.
And yet… here I plant both feet firmly on the third rail of American dogdom yet again.
This time it’s over on SFGate.com, in my semi-weekly pet column, where I take a look at whether dog shows like Westminster are good or bad for dogs.
First, the bad:
Dog shows and purebred dogs in general haven’t had the best press in the last year or so.
It began in August with the airing of the BBC documentary “Pedigree Dogs Exposed,” which contended that purebred dogs are prone to being sickly, weak and riddled with genetic diseases, mostly because of the tyranny of the show ring, and breeders are selecting their dogs for specific and often freakish traits that win at dog shows but leave them unfit for living the life of a normal dog.
[....]
In response to the BBC documentary, Britain’s Kennel Club undertook some aggressive housekeeping, warning breed clubs that the most extreme traits wouldn’t be tolerated any more. It was too little, too late, however; the BBC decided they were going to stop airing Crufts, and the show lost the support of its longtime pet food sponsor as well.
That was chum in the water for the sharks at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), who demanded that the USA Network stop airing the Westminster Kennel Club, the counterpart of Crufts here in the United States. The animal rights group was rebuffed, however, and the show will go on as usual. It airs Monday and Tuesday, February 9-10, from 8-11 p.m.
But should it? Are purebred dogs really in that much trouble? And if so, are dog shows behind the genetic and other health problems that plague our pets?
I do think purebred dogs are in serious trouble, something I’ve made no secret of here. But I also think there’s a lot of good in the world of dog shows and show breeders, and that there are things there worth preserving.
It’s easy to fixate on things like silly poodle hairdos and other easily “sound-biteable” cosmetic features of some show dogs. The truth is, most dogs in the show ring are perfectly average in their looks; the genetic problems most dogs suffer are invisible to the eye. You can’t see or take a photograph the loss of genetic diversity, and deliberate or careless poor breeding decisions are made by all kinds of breeders, not just ribbon-hungry show breeders.
I interviewed the “Voice of Westminster,” David Frei, who is just about to do his 20th commentary on the telecast from the Garden, for the article. I wanted to talk a little bit about Uno, the Beagle who won at Westminster last year, and compared him to another dog who has been getting a lot of mention in this discussion recently, the 2003 Crufts-winning Pekingese who had to be photographed lying on an icepack because he couldn’t cool his own over-heated body:
Uno doesn’t need to sleep on a cooling pad. He can catch 40 winks just about anywhere, including airport waiting areas or even in front of reporters’ flashing lights and cameras. He likes kids, howling on cue and parades. In short, he gives all appearances of being exactly what supporters of purebred dogs strive for: happy, healthy and a good example of his breed. And clearly, he wins in the show ring.
Frei has spent a year traveling the country with Uno. He told me the little dog has thrown out the pitch at baseball games (okay, chased the pitch), met with the President of the United States and the Mayor of New York City and visited children with cancer and other life-threatening diseases as part of the Westminster Kennel Club’s “Angel on a Leash” therapy dog program.
“He’s been a great ambassador for dogs in general,” Frei said. “And he never misses a beat; he’s the same every day. He’s happy, the tail’s wagging…”
If the same dog show system resulting in animals that can’t even regulate their body temperature after taking a short turn around the show ring also produces an unflappable, cheerful little dog like Uno, it’s not the system that’s at fault. It’s that the system is in need of reform.
You can find out what I’d like to see by way of “reform,” as well as what I’d like to preserve, by reading the rest of the column here.
You can read a transcript of my interview with David Frei here.
Photo of Uno courtesy of the Westminster Kennel Club.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
I just gotts say … Uno rocks.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 3, 2009 @ 9:56 am
Oh Christie, are you allowed to take a reasonable moderate position on this subject? ;-)
There’s a “third way” on purebreds just as there is on sheltering and animal “rights”. I think you and Gina are really doing a great job trying to find these paths with this forum.
The biggest challenge in establishing “type and function” dogs rather than “purebred” dogs in the case of most breeds (including yours) is this ; how can you test and maintain for “type and function” when society will not accept the breed”s original function? Many breeds except the pure companions were created for some killing function and/or for some type of blood sport. Society won’t accept this (and in the case of “big game”, using dogs is illegal almost everywhere in the US, at least) The people who “get away” with using dogs to kill rodents and small game have been “lucky” (so to speak) but you can bet at some point they will hit the radar screens of PETA et al. Do you want to defend live rabbit coursing in order to maintain the “type and function” of the sight hounds, as some breed advocates do? (they don’t believe lurecoursing is a legitimate test). In a world where we can barely have drafting events for the carting breeds without accusations of cruelty, how can we find “work” for the “working” dogs?
I only ask; I have no answers
Comment by EmilyS — February 3, 2009 @ 11:17 am
I only ask; I have no answers
Comment by EmilyS — February 3, 2009
Oh Emily … I feel like that every day! :)
But if you don’t ask the questions …
Your question on working dogs is very on point. Finding work for breeds whose jobs some or most people don’t like is a very hot potato, politically speaking.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 3, 2009 @ 11:29 am
I do defend jackrabbit coursing, actually, Emily; I’m with Gina on hunting, which doesn’t mean I blanket-approve all forms of hunting any more than I blanket-approve all forms of dog breeding.
I agree, you raise a very good point, and one I don’t have hard and fast answers to, either. I have come to believe that many dog breeds have become companions first and foremost, and I think they can be bred for that work just like a herding dog can be bred for herding.
I still don’t want to see the traditional work of dogs lost, and would do my utmost to prevent that from happening, with the exception (if it has to be said) of the various breeds that were developed all or in part for dog fighting, bear baiting, or as food.
I think the answer to the morons who tell us CARTING is cruel is that we stop acting ashamed and letting ignorant critics with values very different from those we hold drive us into hiding. I’ve stopped being apologetic for my values, and I won’t let myself be defined by my enemies on either side of any issue.
In other words, we need to stand up, organize, and advocate.
Comment by Christie Keith — February 3, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Why wouldn’t lurecoursing be a legitimate test, I wonder?
Comment by Lori — February 3, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
Because most sighthounds were not bred to course plastic bags on a short, controlled course.
Most of them weren’t even developed to course jackrabbits at all, which is what lurecoursing is supposed to emulate.
I think it’s a so-so test for whippets, and really, not much more than fun and a slight hint at what your hound can do for the rest of the breeds.
Don’t get me wrong; I LIKE lure coursing and support it. But it’s no test of, say, a deerhound.
There are other forms of test for sighthounds, like straight racing and oval track. We do have a lot of performance events for sighthounds. But the real work of, say, the Scottish Deerhound is entirely anachronistic, so as Emily points out, there is no viable test of traditional ability for these dogs.
Comment by Christie Keith — February 3, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Christie, I read your article on SF Gate this morning after I saw it mentioned here and have to tell you that it very nearly brought tears to my eyes. You are so good at expressing what so many of the more moderate dog people believe! I am sending this one to everybody I know and hoping some of its sanity will rub off on them.
I also have to agree with EmilyS’ comment on the problem with testing and maintaining for type and function when the original function of the breed has long ago ceased to be acceptable or even necessary. We can hardly expect people with Bulldogs to start bullbaiting back up so they can try to take that breed back more than a few notches.
And while I agree with you in theory on the jackrabbit coursing as a practical method of taking care of nuisance animals (I’m thinking of how Australia became overrun with the little buggers), I decided long ago that I just don’t have the nerve — or maybe it’s the luck — for open field coursing, not since I saw a Whippet who had gone through a barbed wire fence and was held together by safety pins during the trip to the vet, or a littermate to my first Greyhound impaled on a grape stake, or one of my Afghans trying to run down three jackrabbits at once one spring, with two sprints across a normally busy road.
On the other hand, my brother in Santa Rosa has four very well-adjusted Pembroke Corgis who have shown they are capable of herding sheep, in addition to competing in both the show and conformation rings. I’ve known people with Aucados who keep their own steers just to keep their dogs busy. There are breeds/types whose traditional purposes have already been synthesized, like lure coursing and earthdog trials, so maybe acceptable alternative jobs just need to be developed for other breeds.
This is all such great food for thought! I have a feeling this is going to be an interesting discussion.
Comment by stellaluna — February 3, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
After reading your article in full, I agree with you on many points. There does need to be reform. However, I think pedigrees should stay in place. Not to prove that they’re of the same breed, but to keep records of genetic testing, health issues, etc.
I own an intact male fcr. He has 4 points already. If he finishes his title, that’s it. I don’t really think there is a point in specialing him. I’d rather spend the time training him in performance events such as agility, hunting, tracking and obedience. If he’s ever calm enough, train him to be a therapy dog. When he turns 2, I’m going to have him tested for hip/elbow dysplasia, patellar luxation, and have his eyes checked again (he cleared normal on his CERF exam this year).
Do I plan on using him as a stud? If he continues to be healthy and sound, perhaps. It depends on if the bitch can meet the same standards (and have the same tests done as well). I want to be as well-informed as possible and know how my dog’s genes might affect his get.
Pedigrees are quite useful in the task I’ve recently taken up. I’m researching Loki’s lines. I’m trying to figure out how long the dogs have lived for, any health problems that they’ve had, if they died, how old were they and what caused the death, etc. etc. Sure, it’s not going to be easy. Luckily his breeder has kept pretty good records of her litters. The foundation bitch’s breeder has good records, and so has her foundation bitch’s breeder. I plan on going through the sire’s lines as well. It will be a constant project, always adding new information. But, it’s well worth it.
Anyone can keep a pedigree. It can be as simple as listing the call names of the dogs and adding the DOB to help identify them. These pedigrees should be used like people use their family trees. I mean, there’s a reason doctors want us to include our family’s medical histories. Use a pedigree as a family health history for animals. It could be a useful tool to help us ensure better health in the dogs we love so much.
Comment by Alex Verrastro — February 3, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
I think the aspect many people miss, is that each breed has it’s own Breed Club that has it’s own board, officials, and culture. Some breeds are more open to change, while others are deeply mired in ringside politics and resist any challenge to their status quo in response.
This is why many people are pushing for the kennel clubs to require higher standards or some kind of policing of their breed clubs, because without third party oversight, many will not willingly alter the way they’ve been doing things.
Comment by Pai — February 3, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Nothing I wrote would suggest we shouldn’t keep pedigrees… how can we make good genetic decisions without them?
And I agree with Pai that this situation varies hugely from breed to breed. Some are in pretty good shape, others are in dire straits. That was why I wanted to contrast the Peke at Crufts with Uno…
Comment by Christie Keith — February 3, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Luckily his breeder has kept pretty good records of her litters.
Comment by Alex Verrastro — February 3, 2009
Alex … that’s not LUCK, that’s RESPONSIBILITY.
All reputable ethical breeders track their dogs for life. How else can they know what they’re doing right and wrong in their breeding programs?
One of the things that most impressed me about the woman who co-owns all three of my retrievers — aside from the fact that working ability and health are higher priorities to her than championships — is that she knows everything that has happened to every dog she has brought into this world for 30-plus years.
Every dog. How they lived, when they died of and what caused it, their genetic testing (even of dogs who were destined to never be bred), etc.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 3, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
Pai —
Why should breed clubs — the people who actually own and allegedly love a specific kind of dog — need kennel clubs to force them to behave like adults?
Indeed, I agree with my friend Donald, that it is decades of ‘umbly accepting the arbitrary authority of the Lords of Dogshows that has caused breed clubs to be peopled by petulant junior high cheerleaders.
All the hegemony of kennel clubs does is legitimize the headlock that their minion breed clubs have on who “succeeds” in a particular breed, while simultaneously stripping those who actually know and care about the animals of any effective authority over their gene pools.
While it is not universally the case, isn’t it interesting that independent breed clubs — those that operate their own registries and registration systems — are in general much more progressive and thoughtful about things such as open studbooks, inbreeding prohibitions, performance and health requirements, animal welfare and husbandry?
In no other species of domestic animal does some overarching authority presume to act as the gene police for ALL breeds in the species.
Those who object that “the breed club controls the standard” should try an experiment with the AKC, UKC, CKC and KC.
First, infiltrate and take over the board of a breed club. Let’s say, the Labrador Club.
Second, change the breed standard to require that every dog have a clear hip and elbow radiograph, CERF’d eyes, a working title (JH or CD at minimum), and be two years of age before its offspring are eligible for registration. And no dog could be declared a bench champion without all of the above.
Boy, that would really cut into those puppy registration revenues, wouldn’t it?
Report back on how that goes with “just a registry.”
As for dog shows — well, showing me one little girl who competes in beauty pageants who is not maladjusted, creepy, sad, and revving up for a lifetime with an eating disorder does not mean that the pageants are a good thing for little girls. It certainly doesn’t mean that beauty pageant winners are the best wife material or should have the most children. Or that a young woman who is pursuing a degree in mathematics should feel anything but pity for these girls, much less envy them or regard them as superior. A young woman pursuing a degree in mathematics who is also trolling for approval at beauty pageants is not “well balanced.”
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 3, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
I actually own one of Uno’s distant relatives. Her father is Uno’s great-grandfather. (Beagle genetics can be complicated).
She is 3, is doing agility but not well as she could as mommie can’t pop a treat in her mouth on every obstable and mommie is too slow to be more interersting than the smells in the dirt.
Macy has had zero health problems. She has only been to the vet for regular vet checks. She is also much smaller than Uno and much cuter (she is a 13” beagle and measures out at 11 3/4” inches for agility). She turned three in January, and I know we are not out of the woods yet for genetic problems but we do know she is structurally sound.
I am planning on getting another relative of Macy’s in a few years as she has been the best beagle ever, and has less health problems so far than my previous hunting beagles.
She has an extremely responsible breeder, her litter mate is much smaller, but even though she is finished (has her Championship), she has been spayed as she is too small to bred.
And to think I used to think conformation beagles were stupid.
Comment by Kathleen Weaver — February 3, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Heather, you make me want an English shepherd.
Will they do this?
And actually … I think the club to infiltrate would be a smaller one than Labradors … hmmm … flat-coated retrievers?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 3, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Today’s dog sports really don’t reflect the original purpose that dogs were bred for. Red and fallow deer don’t run in neat geometric designs for a minimum 600 yds and come to a stop, nor do they run for 200 yds in a straight line and stop. I suspect any dog regardless of breeding with sufficient drive can excel at these artificial constructs.In fact there is at least one all dog coursing club who offers any dog LC on a regular basis.
I don’t think agility or competitive obedience, fly ball, dock diving, herding tests, SAR, bomb or drug detection etc offer any more realistic choices either when it comes to preserving a breed’s original purpose. That dogs succeed at these tasks just shows their adaptability to whatever challenges we throw at them. I do believe though that these activities have a useful and important place in assessing a dog’s general soundness of mind and body and a breeder’s willingness to step outside of or in conjunction with the Breed Ring to prove his/her line’s worth. The roles of dogs in the 21st century are not the roles they had in the 15th century, any more than we humans pursue the same careers now as then. That’s what is so unique about dogs, that they can adjust to our changing perceptions of their role in our lives.
Comment by Anne T — February 3, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
I have no problem with breeding dogs to do the things they do NOW as opposed to the things they did a hundred or five hundred years ago — including be companions.
I’d also like to see traditional kinds of dogs be preserved when possible, too. They are part of our heritage, even if the world has changed.
Comment by Christie Keith — February 3, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Just because we don’t plow much with oxen and draft horses these days doesn’t mean we want to lose the knowledge of how to do it.
Because … well, you never know. (I personally want my post-apocalyptic world to have a young Mel Gibson and a Queensland heeler in it. kthnx.)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 3, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
To H:
Then would an ideal world be where good breeders do not necessarily belong to a breed club, show, or have Champion dogs? Should a ‘good breeder’ be one that simply knows their lines, health tests them for their known genetic issues, and properly cares for their mental and physical needs? Because it seems to me that the term ‘show quality’ or close adherence to breed standards does not actually mean anything of substance, nor does the average pet buyer really care about it unless they’re told they’re supposed to. Most are just as happy with an oversized Papillon or longer-nosed Pug, as long as they are sound and healthy.
Even breeders in ‘at risk’ breeds who would dare do any individual outcrossing or other attempts to breed dogs who would not be ‘showable’ would get tarred and feathered by all the ‘respectable’ dog folks and labeled BYB scum. Then all the regular pet buyers who listen to what all the ‘do’s and don’ts and ‘know’ that a good breeder only breeds Champions, is AKC reg, and doesn’t market their pet pups, will also refuse to deal with them, thereby actually punishing their attempt at doing the right thing for their breed’s health. In other words, any non-herd mentality by a breeder gets shut down no matter if they’re in the Club or on their own. That just seems wrong to me, and frankly, I don’t know how to fix it unless people either ALLOW for another option for a dog breeder between ‘Show/Working Breeder’ and ‘BYB/PuppyMill’.
Comment by Pai — February 3, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
*The last part of that should be “Either allow a third option’ or else have some kind of third-party enforced regulation by the kennel clubs.
Because yes, it really appears that many breed clubs do not know how to act like responsible adults, and it’s just kennel-blind leading the blind.
Comment by Pai — February 3, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
Another addon: It is not out of line for a registration body to require adherence to certain standards of quality before allowing someone to participate in their shows or register with them. Will the AKC ever be such a body? Probably not — the Puppy Mill dollar is too vital to them in order to sustain the standard of living they’re accustomed to. Their history has been to tear down any breed club’s meaningful health restrictions or standards before allowing them to be recognized, because that would just limit the number of dogs the AKC could get registration money for.
But a registry that DID actually make their name a measurable mark of quality in the animals it registered would do a lot of good. And only buy requiring certain standards be met before allowing a breed club to register their dogs with them could such a thing be possible.
Comment by Pai — February 3, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
AnneT - I agree with your assessment. I’d also add that many of the “original” purposes were not serious, and were, in fact, sports themselves.
Even “working” trials, aka herding, is a sport, not real work. Hunting and coursing were for sport, and even most ratting was sport. Sure, all these things stem from natural behaviors that at some point were required, but the rules and the pomp and circumstance of it all is artifice for sport, not for practicality.
So yeah, modern sports are not the same as past sports, but those weren’t the same as some “real” work even in the day.
I believe in the free market, and if there is a consensus between breeders and buyers to keep making heritage breeds that don’t or can’t do their original function, out of pure nostalgia or enjoyment of the other aspects of those dogs, great.
And I’ve got nothing against people who want to keep breeding dogs for their “original” purpose, and who have the lifestyle which can support that activity.
Sadly, the anti-breeder heat isn’t coming just from dog hating AR/AW/Loonies it’s also coming from within.
The “working” people within Border Collies want to limit the gene pool even further. They are not content allowing individual breeders to make their own decisions on what they want to breed to, they want registry level control over what can be called a Border Collie.
This exclusivity mentality will do more harm to the breed than any external group could hope to do.
Comment by Christopher — February 3, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
how can you test and maintain for “type and function” when society will not accept the breed”s original function? Many breeds except the pure companions were created for some killing function and/or for some type of blood sport.
Good question. The short answer is that you cannot. But that doesn’t necessarily matter….
Dog breeds have typically not been static or uniform, so “original function” has often been a changing and debatable concept.
For example, is the German Shepherd Dog a herding breed? AKC sez so. But only a tiny number of GSDs are used as working sheep herding dogs today.
The GSD was actually created by its breed founder out of a landrace of protective sheep herding dogs in Germany to be a multi-purpose working breed. Sez so, in the breed founder’s book. Even when the GSD breed was founded in 1899, sheep herding had already been on the decline in Germany for decades, a trend that continued. The breed founder knew that his shepherd dog had to adapt to changing times.
GSDs are used in a wide range of working roles today: police service dog, several different search-and-rescue roles, many different scent detection roles, guide dog for the blind, service dog for the disabled, etc. Some of these roles were envisioned as part of the “original purpose” of the breed, but most were developed over the ensuing years. A friend of mine recently “invented” the role of vine mealybug detection dog in grape vineyards, using GSDs and Labrador Retrievers.
The GSD breed illustrates that dog populations have had to adapt to changes in human culture. Human culture is changing faster now than at anytime in the past. Dog breeds must adapt to these changes, or they will go extinct.
A breed may exist that is descended from and goes by the name of a traditional breed. But if they are not used and selectively bred to perform their “original function”, then breeds will change. It’s unavoidable. The complete array of complex character traits that originally defined a breed cannot stay fully intact in the absence of selection for the original function. Some original traits can be selected for and maintained by other functional tests. Traits that aren’t selected for gradually diminish in frequency and intensity in populations, on average (YMMV). Working dog breeders know this, even if many others with their grossly oversimplified understanding of working abilities do not (e.g. there is no one thing that constitutes “herding instinct”).
The working GSD population is maintained today for the most part using a competitive dog sport (schutzhund) that tests many of the traits required of modern working GSDs. Today’s working GSD population is not the same as it was in 1899. Today’s working GSD is probably less reactive and less prone to shyness. Most GSDs in 1899 were probably better suited for sheep herding.
Most breeds today are not used for any kind of work. Regardless of their original function, or which group AKC places them in, most modern breeds are pet dog breeds. Nothing wrong with that, being a pet is the most numerous role that occupies dogs today. It’s an important role that enriches and improves the lives of millions of people.
Breeders of pet dogs have an increasing number of opportunities to test their dogs’ mental and physical abilities: obedience, rally, agility, flyball, therapy dog, dock diving, lure coursing, tracking, temperament tests, protection dog sports, hobby herding, hunt tests, field trials, and many others.
Most of these will provide some test of physical abilities. A dog that overheats and needs to sit on an ice pack after being led around a ring inside an air conditioned building may not be able to do any of those activities.
One may not want to breed for excellence in a high octane dog sport if what one is doing is selecting for pets. But even these dog sports may offer useful insights into and selection for the traits desired in pet dogs.
The most popular GSDs in the global pet market are selected for their ability to obtain a schutzhund title (usually just barely). They are different dogs from the GSDs selected for outstanding performance in schutzhund — those are the higher activity, higher drive working line GSDs that are less suitable to be pets.
Figure out what works for your breed in today’s world. Find activities that will test the mental and physical traits that you wish to obtain, for today’s purpose for your breed.
Comment by LauraS — February 3, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
#
<i<Heather, you make me want an English shepherd.
Will they do this?
And actually … I think the club to infiltrate would be a smaller one than Labradors … hmmm … flat-coated retrievers?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 3, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Hmmm. I can make no guarantees.
But I playfully considered entering Pip in dock-diving when it was a new sport and she was a young squirt. It looked to me like her spare-time Lake Arthur dock-launches were competitive with what I was seeing on TV. She is and was one seriously driven little nut.
As the sport took off, that idea kind of died with the increased air time of the serious competitors. But I still enjoy seeing the odd border collie give the Labs a run for their money.
Her son Moe is one of the few dogs I’ve known who swims laps for the fun of it. Generally Figure 8’s. Before the Lyme started kicking his ass and made him so cold intolerant, he’d do it while breaking ice through main force.
Her littermate sister, Rozzie, OTOH, was made of spun sugar, and was in mortal danger of melting on contact with water. And her niece Friday will swim, but maintains a deep distrust of docks.
Let me know how your plans for World Retriever Domination come along.
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 3, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
LauraS has it right, and I’d add that most breeds that were supposedly bred for some other original purpose, weren’t. The breed history says so, but it’s not really true.
The histories are just like product differentiation today… a means to stand out and justify being different when the real reason is different simply for the sake of being different.
In this respect, dogs are like cars. Many Jeeps have never been off paved roads, and while it’s true that jeeps of old were built to “work” … those Jeeps are not today’s Jeeps. Even the most capable off-road Jeep today comes with amenities, upgrades, and pleasantries. Some of those make them less able off-road.
Does this matter? Not really. Those who need the ability and are willing to sacrifice the amenities, can find those cars and those who like the brand for the image and the notion of off road ruggedness can find their choice too.
And I appreciate that the soccer-mom wagons make the line profitable enough to support the development of the more rugged lines of cars. They in turn, add credibility to the brand name.
I feel the same way about dogs. Dogs that are good pets make for a popular enough market to allow more active breeders like the sport and working people to make their more limited appeal dogs and still have financial incentive and homes for the extras.
I, for one, don’t believe that the GSD was ever a serious herding dog. Genetics indicate that it’s more mastiff than shepherd too.
Even in working dogs, the name is more about image than about destiny. The Australian Shepherd is supposed to be a more rugged, Western flavored dog. The Aussie part of the name is trying to evoke the Australian spirit which had more of an Old West flavor long after the real Old West was gentrified.
Same with the English Shepherd. Trying to evoke a pastoral quaintness from overseas. Both dogs have little to do with their names. And, as amalgam breeds, there is no one “original” purpose that you could point to. A bit of droving, a bit of sheep tending, a bit of cattle work, a bit of other tasks, and a whole lot of nice pet.
Comment by Christopher — February 3, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
I, for one, don’t believe that the GSD was ever a serious herding dog. Genetics indicate that it’s more mastiff than shepherd too.
We know that the GSD breed descends from protective everyday working sheep herding dogs. The historical record is clear and well-documented. Many GSDs were used as practical working herding dogs at the time of the breed’s founding, and in subsequent years. Regardless of what work they are used for today, the behavioral traits that working GSDs have are clear derivatives of herding breed behaviors and not mastiff-type behaviors.
The genetic tests that lumped GSDs with mastiff-type breeds and not other herding breeds are interesting but don’t change the historical facts. They are also evidence that these genetic tests are in their infancy, and need more development.
Comment by LauraS — February 3, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Lemme rephrase: I’m lucky I found a breeder with good practices, etc. I knew what puppy mills were. Other than that, I was pretty ignorant about things in the dog world. I’m pretty good friends with my dog’s breeder now. Any question I’ve had she’s been there to answer. Well, especially the “this thing just ate through dry wall! is there any hope in sight?!”
Although dog sports might not represent the work originally intended for the dog, it certainly provides them with exercise and mental stimulation. If I ever do any field work with the Lokster, I would love to take him on a real hunt. Although, I might just go along with people who hunt, and I would handle him. My mom doesn’t really want to me own a gun, and I don’t know if I could shoot an animal myself. Then again, Loki is just as happy running down the shores of Lake Erie swimming and chasing after his Wubba.
Christie, my apologies. I completely misread that part about pedigrees. I was doing my calc homework at the same time.
Comment by Alex Verrastro — February 3, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
GSDs are mastiffs?
Well: According to one of those genetic breed tests, an AST owned by an acquaintance (a dog that is a pure a purebred AST as it is possible to be) is primarily a Border collie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....annel_page
Well, the AST IS black and white.
Comment by EmilyS — February 3, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
The comments are NUMBERED now?????
Sheesh, Christie! You’re just bound and determined to punish yourself, aren’t you! LOL!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 5, 2009 @ 5:45 am
I hadn’t noticed the numbering of comments until you pointed it out. Must have been part of the latest WordPress release.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 5, 2009 @ 7:21 am