We CAN have healthy breeds, but not without change
By Gina Spadafori
February 10, 2009
Safe to say the bloggers here at the PetConnection enjoy watching the Westminster Kennel Club dog show. Yesterday was Christie’s day, and she was delighted to see a Deerhound from dual work and show lines win first the breed and then whole Hound Group. Today, Kim and I will pay just a little extra attention to results from the Toy and Sporting groups — and maybe even Phyllis will be doing so, too, since her shelter boy Dodger is a setter. One of my “dog-in-laws” is there with her dog Casino, but really, I just enjoy it all.
Of course, that enjoyment is always tinged with sadness over the state of our heritage breeds and the desire for change. Every breed — and Kim’s Cavaliers and my flatcoated retrievers are among the worst effected — has a breed-related health problem, or maybe several. Some breeds are flawed by design, their “breed standards” calling for an appearance that’s not compatible with normal canine activity (short faces causing breathing difficulties, long backs causing injuries that lead to paralysis, etc.). Other breeds look and act athletic and normal, but secret dangers lurk, such as the cancers that take wonderful dogs of many breeds in their most youthful, active years.
We know what caused these problems, and we know how to fix them.
For the dogs who are flawed by design, changes in the breed standards need to reverse the years of extreme selection for traits such as flat faces. And for all breeds, the closed gene pools systems of registrations that dictate mating within a breed only must be changed to allow for planned outcrosses to elminate health problems while continuing to preserve breed type.
The voices for these reforms are getting louder, and few are more constant in the call for change than Patrick Burns, a/k/a Terrierman. Patrick was given a copy of an independent veterinary-authored report commissioned by the RSPCA in the United Kingdom. The 76-page report explains how we got to this point, what the problems are, and possible solutions.
The report needs to be read by anyone who cares about the future of our heritage breeds. Check it out over on Terrierman.
I’m trying to understand how it would work without reading a genetics text book. So you’d take a dog of a different breed with a gene pool with certain characteristics…and in the first cross, that wouldn’t be a..say…flat-coated retriever anymore, it would be 1/2 fcr. But what then, you’d take one of the healthier pups and breed that to a healthy line of the original breed an those puppies would be a bit closer to the original breed but with the hardy characteristics of the other breed then and so on? In layman’s terms for my former English major brain…
Comment by Lori — February 10, 2009 @ 8:36 am
Yes, exactly.
Check these out:
http://www.dalmatianheritage.com/about/index.htm
http://www.boxerunderground.co.....obtail.htm
Outcrosses to fix health problems (in Dals) and see if short tails could be “natural” (in boxers). In just a handful of generations, the dogs looked liek Dals and boxers again.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 10, 2009 @ 8:42 am
How many generations would it take before you could know you were seeing health improvements? Is it a matter of seeing how long the “new and improved” dogs live or is there enough known about the canine genome in those breeds that you could tell through some kind of genetic testing that these dogs were less likely to suffer X disease?
Comment by Kim Thornton — February 10, 2009 @ 9:03 am
For conformationally control problems, it only takes a generation or two to see real and significant improvement.
Issues such as eye problems caused by excess skin, too much wrinkle etc.. are fixed by simply breeding away from the cosmetic trait causing it.
For the bracycephalics, it’s a matter of degree on head length. Breeding for an overall longer skull and even just a bit longer muzzle can produce vastly improved airways and exercise tolerance. Selecting for breeding only dogs with naturally open unobstructed airways and nares will modify the phenotype and get thse dogs
Comment by Jenniferj — February 10, 2009 @ 9:39 am
If we were just trying to fix a single, straightforward genetic problem with a well-understood mode of inheritance, it would actually be pretty simple to outcross to eliminate it, and then go back to your closed studbook breeding with your new stock.
And I think most breed clubs would accept that.
But that’s not really a longterm solution. The real change we need is that we must open not so much our studbooks as our minds, and envision purpose-bred dogs in a different way.
It would actually make showing dogs in conformation much, much more exciting, if you think about it — to see how close you could come to the breed standard with a dog who isn’t relentlessly linebred and inbred, and who even had to meet a standard not just of conformation but of health and function. What a challenge for breeders, instead of chasing that oh-so-perfect ear set or tail carriage, to be rebuilding the very institution of breeding and showing dogs to meet a modern standard of performance, beauty, type, temperament, and health.
I’ll be over here feeding my pet unicorn while you all talk about it.
Comment by Christie Keith — February 10, 2009 @ 10:00 am
Judging just from available graphic documentation, in the form of illustrations, paintings and photographs, my personal guess is that it took about 30-40 years to turn bulldogs (that sometimes had a slightly undershot jaw) into the grotesque monstrosity that is the dog we see today, which predominates photographs by the 1920’s.
What dogs would you breed into the English bulldog to return it to something that resembles an actual functional animal? Perhaps the American Pit Bull Terrier! Certainly some strains of this breed are more bulldoggy than terrier-ish (though the people who claim there is little/no terrier are simply wrong, as the documentation behind the creation of the bulldog and terrier mixes is quite rich). Though the APBT certainly has its own physical issues…
Why do I think the English bulldog people would not be interested in this…
Comment by EmilyS — February 10, 2009 @ 10:01 am
Whoops.
to continue….
…and get these dogs back to a state of being more active athletic companions. If screening for airway, eye and joint issues becomes the norm or become required, and dogs are selected for such, then these breed’s pheneotypes will self adjust, eliminating many issues in only a few generations, depending on the overall genetic diversity of the breed in question.
I have been watching this happen. The breeders in bulldogs who do not tolerate bad knees or poor airways and eyes are now producing a dog with finer, smaller wrinkles, a longer overall skull and foreface and longer necks. They are not long legged, but have better balance, the legs are straight and the dogs cover more ground and the dogs have broader, heavier rears. They are not specifically breeding for this type, but keeping health as a priority is causing the changes.
To regain traits that have been lost such as long tails in bulldogs, an out cross to a related breed such as staffordshires would be needed.
Done properly it would give hip score improvement a real boost too. I don’t expect a back-cross to happen tomorrow, ten years ago I would have said never. But there has been a sea change in the attitudes of many people involved with the breed, all to the good.
Genetic disease is a much more challenging hurdle. You cannot breed away from an affected “type”. Eliminating all relatives of affected dogs would devastate already limited gene pools. Crossing back to another breed allows for more heterozygosity and will reduce the incidence of the expression of these traits and add needed genetic vigor and variety. The holy grail for many of these diseases is a genetic marker that can be used to screen for at least some of the genes responsible. That way, carriers can be identified and breeding between carriers avoided. Careful selection away from carrier offspring in each subsequent generation allows the gene to be reduced in incidence within the population, and in some cases eventually eliminated.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 10, 2009 @ 10:03 am
:::pulling up a comfy chair to enjoy the discussion:::
Somewhat related: McKenzie will be home very soon. We’re just working out the flights now. Mission, er, Accomplished … we hope, but in any case certainly not for lack of trying on the part of the parties involved.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 10, 2009 @ 10:09 am
That study is a wonderful compendium of the problems that plague our dogs.
I really like the practical solutions it offers to resolve some of these problems. My personal favorite is to limit the number of litters a stud dog can sire. This will end the phenomena of the “most-used sire effect,” which leads to lower genetic diversity.
Comment by retrieverman — February 10, 2009 @ 10:12 am
EmilyS,
you might want to read what I just posted. :-)
But you are right, the bulldog breeders would not want to breed them to look like APBT. There are already APBTs! But breeding a more active and athletic bulldog with a longer skull, good straight fronts and muscular rears? Oh yes, there are bulldog people who would certainly go for that and are working on it.
As I stated, set up screening regimes for airways, eyes etc… for brachycephalics and the breeds’ phenotypes will self adjust. This would also answer questions such as how short or long does the muzzle on a peke or bulldog or frenchie need to be for healthly breathing? Or how much wrinkle can a breed carry before it impacts eyelid health?
I have broached the subject of back-crossing to another breed to regain normal tails and add new genes to our gene pool with a few people. I expected outright hostility but was pleasantly surprised to find at least a few other breeders willing to discuss it. Hope for the future.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 10, 2009 @ 10:13 am
What this crossing would be like is how virtually all livestock are now bred. Most “black Angus” (Aberdeen Angus) cattle have Hereford in them, even if they are solid black. They have to be bred to black Angus lines for several generations before they can be registered as purebreds. The intermediate form is called a “black baldy”— a black cow with a white head. It does not breed true.
Comment by retrieverman — February 10, 2009 @ 10:15 am
Do breed clubs have geneticists? Or are they going on a wing and a prayer so to speak.
Christie—your unicorn’s horn is set a little far back to meet the current standard. Don’t think she’ll go very far in the ring. Hate to be bearer of bad news.
Comment by Lori — February 10, 2009 @ 10:27 am
On the topic of function, I think a good start would be for the judges to have an accompanying list of all the dog’s accomplishments instead of just picking pretty. Breed standard is whack. Personally I hate conformation dog shows and curse the days that Border Collies and other working dogs were accepted into the AKC.
Comment by nancy freedman-smith — February 10, 2009 @ 10:34 am
Just to throw another stick on the fire: I have a breeder friend, who shall remain nameless, who once said—probably 5 or 10 years ago—that in some respects she couldn’t condemn certain commercial breeders of Bulldogs because at least their dogs could free whelp.
Comment by Kim Thornton — February 10, 2009 @ 10:44 am
AKC and some other registries have geneticists that work with them. The services of a geneticist is outside the financial reach of many smaller clubs. However, as part of research studies, breed clubs are increasingly seeking out geneticists for consultation, to give seminars etc..
The BCA was approached by a geneticist working on her PHD at UC Davis last year. She was looking into high urate output in non-dalmation breeds and had identified bulldogs as a breed in which it was known to occur. Cooperative breeders came forward, samples were collected and a marker was found and an estimate of the occurrence of the gene in the population was established. UCD has now made a test available for carriers, a huge benefit to everyone involved. The team that did the work to discover the gene in this case is now very enthusiastic about working on other genetic disease with several breeds and have donated time to come to seminars and club functions to discuss the current state and future of genetic research and screening.
Id of the hyperuriscouria gene was relatively easy. It was a simple recessive. Unfortunately, some diseases such as heart disease, cancers, epilepsy and cystinuria are turning out to have much less straight forward modes of inheritance and transmission and will require much more expensive, exhaustive research.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 10, 2009 @ 10:44 am
Kim, it would actually be a good thing (for the dogs) if that was true. But there are vets in the midwest who specialize in cheap c-sections for commercially bred bulldogs. And all the poor puppymill rescue girls we get into rescue have horrendous section scars.
While some do free whelp, most don’t. The puppymillers won’t risk losing a 2000.00 puppy if they can get a 200.00 section done.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 10, 2009 @ 10:48 am
On the topic of function, I think a good start would be for the judges to have an accompanying list of all the dog’s accomplishments instead of just picking pretty.
I don’t agree. I think it’s fine for conformation judges to breed on conformation alone. We could accomplish the same thing by not awarding a championship, or points, or whatever awards are given, to dogs who don’t meet a certain standard in multiple arenas. Conformation can continue to be judged by conformation alone, but if all ya got’s the pretty, that isn’t enough to become a champion.
Comment by Christie Keith — February 10, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Thanks for the first-hand perspective, Jennifer.
Comment by Kim Thornton — February 10, 2009 @ 10:59 am
On the subject of cesarians, there is renewed interest in free-whelping bulldogs rather than simply scheduling surgery.
I have had mixed results personally. My dogs breed naturally, but whelping has been hit and miss. I’d take more chances with it if I had better local veterinary back up.
I think that it is important to note that until the early 1990s there were numerous free whelping show lines in the U.S. Most people stopped trying on the advice of their veterinarians. We were told that with improvements in anesthesia it was safer and more responsible to section.
It was an easy out (sections are faster and scheduled and no middle of night panic ) and a mistake. It is going to take some time to re-establish free whelping lines and get people back on board. And it is not easy to persuade people to try when they get little support from (some of) their veterinarians. The long time vet at the clinic I use is willing and in fact eager to offer advice and support to bulldog owners seeking to free whelp. But I went a few (friendly) rounds with his new, young, partner who insisted at first that it was not possible. When I told him about spending Labor Day on the phone with someone whose bitch decided to whelp a day or two early, he at least admitted that maybe some could. The bitch in question, a new champion in conformation and first time mother, free-whelped 5 live, one still born, puppies in about 8 hours, cleaned then up and was a great mom for her inexperienced breeder.
I think that general improvement in overall health and athleticism of high section incidence breeds will resolve much of their whelping difficulties.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 10, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Good to know. When I attended the CHF health conference in 2001, the vets who spoke on reproduction just accepted C-sections and seemed to think they were a good thing, sort of dismissing the concerns of a toy breeder who asked about free whelping versus C-sections. Unfortunately, I don’t still have my notes from it, so I can’t confirm whether my memory is correct.
Comment by Kim Thornton — February 10, 2009 @ 11:13 am
I agree that this could potentially make dog shows MUCH more interesting and relevant. I’ve thought for a long time now that getting those magical 15 points (w/ 2 majors) should be only PART of the requirement for a Championship. Some sort of proof that the dog is physically/mentally sound - like a performance title or working certification - should be required also, since those things are every bit as important to the selection of breeding stock as the way the dog is constructed.
Comment by Barb — February 10, 2009 @ 11:13 am
And Jenniferj is right about the genetic testing - we’ll HAVE to have tests for appropriate genetic markers before we can truly reduce the incidence of many diseases. Without just randomly “guessing” and needlessly reducing the gene pools.
But - hate on the AKC all you want - it’s the AKC breed clubs that are footing the bill for most of the genetic research currently in progress.
Comment by Barb — February 10, 2009 @ 11:16 am
I can live with that Christie. Makes sense.
Comment by nancy freedman-smith — February 10, 2009 @ 11:22 am
True that … and we’re not hating the AKC. They’re our best hope for reform.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 10, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Christie wrote
— to see how close you could come to the breed standard with a dog who isn’t relentlessly linebred and inbred, and who even had to meet a standard not just of conformation but of health and function.
The most fundamental problem remains — the establishment and imposition of an institutionally-endorsed Platonic ideal that everyone is supposed to “breed towards.” And systemic, extrinsic rewards for doing so.
I was a Platonist in my youth. No longer. I value diversity, balance and variety too much now.
I’m dubious of the very concept of “standard” as it applies to animals (not “standards” as in “having high standards” or “meeting the standards of this SAR organization” — standards as a threshold for inclusion.
I think we need to fundamentally redefine “breed,” and one of the first things that needs to fly out the window is the institution of the Platonic “standard” describing some nonexistent “ideal.”
Even if that ideal includes, say, good hips.
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 10, 2009 @ 11:25 am
Well, Heather, that’s pretty much what I mean by abandoning the silly focus on trivial details like ear set and tail carriage.
Comment by Christie Keith — February 10, 2009 @ 11:53 am
“… that’s pretty much what I mean by abandoning the silly focus on trivial details like ear set and tail carriage.”
I dunno — I agree that things like ear set and tail carriage aren’t everything, but some of these things help define different breeds, and I don’t think they should be abandoned. I think they should still be part of the overall picture.
Having been around lots and lots of racing greyhounds, I have seen some pretty freaky looking ears and tails that are the result of breeding for speed and completely ignoring appearance. I’ve also seen some gorgeous AKC greyhounds that couldn’t run from the sofa to their food dish if you paid them.
I don’t see why we can’t shoot for somewhere in between. I agree it’s better not to focus on individual details to the detriment of the entire breed, but I don’t want to see appearance being thrown out the door completely, particularly in breeds that have had so much aesthetic value for so long.
Comment by stellaluna — February 10, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
This is obviously a complicated problem. And it isn’t only the show breeders fault. Puppy mills don’t have standards for their dogs. They just breed two dogs together without any concerns for temperament or health.
I know this is a sensitive subject in flat-coats, Gina, but what do you think about that hybrid breeding thing going on? I mean, I guess I would be more comfortable if I knew they were health and temperament testing their dogs. And if there weren’t making claims that flat-coats are calmer than goldens kind of things (and the certain legal things they have going on). I think they’re in it for the wrong reasons and the justification that they have given ends up contradicting itself (wanting to save our breed, but then wanting to make their own breed to register with the akc, ie closing the stud book, which will just end up giving the new breed similar problems down the road).
Some people don’t even acknowledge that yellow is a flat-coat color. Why isn’t yellow an accepted color in the standard? Why do people look upon them as some sort of monstrosity? And I don’t understand how some people justify it by “the color is recessive.” Liver is a recessive color. But it’s an accepted color. Perhaps we shouldn’t be trying to eliminate them from the flat-coat gene pool. Perhaps they themselves have healthy genes to contribute. Certainly limiting the pool anymore that it already has been can’t help. The color thing is definitely a great example about being trivial.
Don’t know what your take on all of this is. I do know that you care very much about our breed. And hopefully all of us in the breed can decide on more positive ways to help the breed such as back crossing, etc. Yes, we might as well go chase after the leprechaun with his pot of gold. Getting people to agree would be extremely hard. However, it has to be a group effort within each and every breed. If only one breeder tries to do something positive yet radical, they’re stuck with bad rumors and a tag of “irresponsible” etc.
Comment by Alex Verrastro — February 10, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
Having been around lots and lots of racing greyhounds, I have seen some pretty freaky looking ears and tails that are the result of breeding for speed and completely ignoring appearance.
Conformation breeders have become demented on the details that to them spell “breed type.” It blinds them. They genuinely look at a perfectly obvious greyhound and think if the ears aren’t just so and the tails aren’t just so and the topline and whatever aren’t “just so,” it doesn’t look like a greyhound.
But bring in someone from a very different breed, or a non-show person, and ask them, “What breed is this dog?” and they’ll tell you what it is.
Now, might they sometimes be wrong? Sure. But we can be fooled by those little details, too. When I met the little sighthound mix puppy at a Silken Windhound show recently, I assumed she was a deerhound puppy. I was wrong.
There was a litter of deerhounds that was shown as puppies and then never got to their full size as adults and it turned out they were actually sired by a Saluki. Their breeder and everyone who saw them in the ring, all wrong.
We had a deerhound in rescue who, when her owner was discovered, turned out to be a Borzoi-Wolfhound cross. Several knowledgeable deerhound people, all wrong.
The truth is, “breed type” is like “pornography” or “beauty.” It’s in the eye of the beholder, and I don’t see the value in defining it precisely.
If you’re telling me a greyhound who has been bred to run doesn’t “look like” a greyhound, then I guess my response is, yes, he does, but a greyhound doesn’t look like you think he does.
And I’d have a lot more sympathy for caring what kind of ears a racing greyhound had if they weren’t absolutely riddled with bone cancer. Our priorities are unjustifiable in the face of things like that.
Comment by Christie Keith — February 10, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
I know this is a sensitive subject in flat-coats, Gina, but what do you think about that hybrid breeding thing going on? [and what do you think of yellow flatcoats?]
Comment by Alex Verrastro — February 10, 2009
Backstory: There are some folks out there breeding flatcoats to another breed. Yah know, like a Labradoodle, etc.
I don’t really have much to say on that score. It’s legal, they don’t appear to be puppy-millers, I don’t know them, haven’t seen their set-up, etc., so it’s no different than my opinion re: any other intentional mix, which is that within the great scheme of things, it’s just fine as long as all the health checks are done on the parents, the puppies are raised in the house, properly socialized, etc. They’re not “creating a breed” — they’re cross-breeding and giving the result a cute name. In other words, those puppies aren’t flatcoats or even a mix of retrievers, apparently, so what’s going on isn’t related to what’s happening to save/preserve/improve this particular type of retriever or any type of retriever.
What I would like to see in breeds is for the people who care about that breed (for example, the national breed club) to get together and agree to a project like the pointer/Dalmatian backcross, to fix the genetic landmines. That’s not INSTEAD OF genetic testing for those problems we have tests for, but a planned breeding program working with geneticists and the very best of a particular breed to outcross for health.
As for not allowing yellow flatcoats and everyone going all kablooey when yellow is mentioned, why that’s just a bunch of horsecrap. A yellow flatcoat isn’t allowed because it isn’t allowed, because someone once decided it wouldn’t be allowed. Assumably because it once looked like a golden retriever, which used to be basically a yellow flatcoat.
In other words, it’s exactly the same as an over-emphasis on ear set, tail length, etc., that has nothing to do with what a dog is, what he does and how well he does it — and how healthy he remains for how long.
So, while I wait for everyone in every breed club to agree to fix their breeds’ problems by consider outcrossing to increase genetic diversity and to quit getting bent by such things as a perfectly healthy working dog of a non-favored color, I’m going to go pet Christie’s unicorn.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 10, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Christie,
I heard the whole argument that “show breeder” could not recognize some of the dogs in rescue as purebred last year from one of our rescuer coordinators. The truth was, the show breeders who rescue were actually giving more dogs the benefit of the doubt than some of the rescue only folks were. I can only speak for my breed and club, but a bad ear, snipey, nosey face, long skinny legs etc… don’t make me look at a dog and go “you’re not a bulldog!” I have seen, housed, fostered and even bred some fugly critters and some very interesting, cute and novel ones too. No doubt in my mind they were bulldogs.
I don’t think we scrap standards. Loosen them up, allow more variance maybe. Perhaps illustrate or describe a range of type that covers the range of what is generally recognized as a particular breed.
I do think that if health screening and a general well-being and fitness criteria became required before breeding and showing were permitted, then you will see much of the extremes fall out of fashion.
Opening the stud books would be my preference. An injection of new genes from another breed will be pretty quickly absorbed. It may introduce variables to the appearance of some breeds. The basenji club altered their standard to permit brindle when they brought new dogs in from the congo. Not so hard, or at least it shouldn’t be.
Also, man more breed clubs need to acknowledge other avenues of excellence and proving grounds for bloodstock than just the show ring and encourage, rather than actively discouraging, breeding of dogs who excel in performance sports and events in with the populations which are shown. While in some working, sporting herding and hound breeds that is already done, in others it is taboo in both directions. Anything which limits the gene pools further, however, needs to change.
In the breeds in which a yawning gulf exists between show and working/performance types, we need people on both sides to get over it. But If I bred a bitch who was a show dog to a less agility male, well I would see no reason that the more standard looking offspring should not be in the show ring and the more agile and athletic should go back into agility even though they were not “pure” versions of either type, ideally you would get at least one who could do both.
I am not not not suggesting that hunters, sportsmen, working dog breeders water down their lines working ability with show dog lines, but encouraging the show dog folks, who produce more dogs as family pets, to look outside of show only lines when considering a stud dog would certainly help the dogs who show and also the ones destined to be companions.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 10, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
yargg, typo city last post. Hopefully everyone gets the gist though.
Sorry
Comment by Jenniferj — February 10, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
I e-mailed 10 bulldog people who’s addresses I got off the AKC website while helping my sister find a “reputable” bulldog breeder. Of those I got about 6 responses of possibilities. Of those only two did any sort of health testing. One person actually said her husband was an AKC bulldog judge and that hers were from champion lines when I asked about health testing. (a bullsh** answer)
Do people not know the definition of health testing? We do finally have a lead on a litter from one of the breeders who told us what health testing they do. At this point I wouldn’t even care if a breeder didn’t breed for a purpose as long as they did all the health testing for their breed. (and produced good temperments too)
I went to pug rescue myself when I couldn’t find a breeder that did any health testing. Hell I couldn’t even find someone to answer my question on what testing the do for the breed!
Comment by Marie — February 10, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
As regards registered breeds, “Breed”.
What is a Breed today, if it isn’t a discreet gene pool frozen in evolution?
What is a Breed today, if it isn’t becoming known on the basis of the types doctor bills you are buying into?
Many Breeds were evolving until the day someone “rescued” a “dying breed” from being “lost to us forever” (Lundehund, for instance). Some Breeds were specifically designed (GSD), but again, the gene pool has been frozen in time.
Shouldn’t a Breed club _require_ controlled, periodic, outcrosses and the development of new, unrelated lines?
Wouldn’t _that_ be the definition of a Breeder? Controlled, documented, experienced Breeding programs resulting in genetic diversity and dog health?
The product being varied in general appearance (color, etc), distinguishable in functional characteristics (otter tail, coat,etc), capable of Breed specific function (field trials, etc)?
…and since the unicorn’s got plenty of company, I’ll go check on my pet dragon.
Comment by eli — February 10, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Jenniferj, thanks so much for your posts about bulldogs (I posted my comment apparently simultaneous to yours!). I am really glad to hear that there are some bulldog people who would like to restore the breed.
Comment by EmilyS — February 10, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Hi Emily,
Guess the real question is what to restore it too!
For me, that would be an interesting companion dog with it’s sense of fun and humor intact which only goes to the vet’s office for routine exams, and the occaisional illness or injury, just like any other healthy dog.
I am hoping that the current focus/scrutiny on health will light a fire under some of the holdouts and people in denial. While more club members are talking about screening and testing, in some cases it’s just lip service.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 10, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Jennifer I am not trying to offend you, just give more ammunition to what has happened to English bulldogs over the past 100 years. Their deformation probably started earlier during the Edwardian era than other breeds, looking at the skull history on line.
Here’s a link to a bulldog at the 2008 AKC Invitational. While it’s a clean run, and this is not a show dog, it’s hard to watch at least for me. While I believe any dog, regardless of breed or not, given the right training and inherent drive can be a successful AG competetor, I loook at this gallant, big hearted wonderful dog, and wonder why his teammate is making him do a sport he is so ill suited for???
http://www.boneclones.com/BC-128.htm
Then Click on Day One, Agility #3.
Rape racks to breed them, caesarians to deliver the puppies, something is so wrong here and so unfair to a wonderful breed.
Comment by Anne T — February 10, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
OOPS! Big apology! Wrong link. Here’s the AG. go to Day One, AG #3.
http://www.akc.org/events/agil...../video.cfm
Comment by Anne T — February 10, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
No offense taken Anne,
I have seen bullies in AG that should not be there, same with mastiffs and a number of other breeds.
I have also seen bulldogs banging joyfully around agility courses like a ball in a pin ball game with great big grins on their faces the whole time.
Some need to stay on the couch, others can go go go. My teenager entertained himself for half an hour yesterday jumping over, on and running along the top of a fallen tree. He may make an agility dog when he is mature and his growth plates are closed
BTW, no one I know uses a rape rack. The dogs are capable without. My foundation bitch was the result of an unplanned breeding wherein the sire broke out of a crate, through a door and they got everything needed done while the owner picked up her son from school. He was a smart old boy
As with whelping, sometimes they are not given enough of a chance. The cesarian issue I addressed above.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 10, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Ah, finally got the link to work.
I don’t know the dog, he looked like a bulldog doing something in his own time.
Compared to shelties, BCs etc.. not a great performance. But knowing bulldogs, if it was hard or painful for him, he would find a way not to do it. You may disagree with that but these guys won’t do stuff they don’t like just to please someone. It’s a personality trait to either love or loathe.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 10, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
This is really facinating, But how about the new designer breeds? Take the Bugg, a cross with a boston terrier and a pug. They look like a mini boxer but seem to inherit the problems that come with a short snout. I’d love to see healthier dogs that live longer, but people will still want dogs for thier look and image. Educating people about the health implications is a major factor, imo.
Comment by Almo Nature — February 10, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
I know that agility bulldog, Plummer. I’ve seen him compete many times. His owner/handler is a vet and has competed with several bulldogs.
There was a feature in USAToday:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/l.....N.htm?loc=
I don’t see any problems with Plummer doing agility. It’s just a shame that a dog with so much heart can’t be “competitive” because of his body structure.
There are MANY of the breeds routinely derided as freaks by the anti-AKC crowd doing agility and some at very high levels.. many many pugs and CKC Spaniels for example. Most agility handlers are supremely sensitive to their dog’s physical condition, so I really really doubt that these dogs are doing things that are detrimental to them.
So there is still a reservoir of evidently healthy dogs even of the “bad” breeds.
Comment by EmilyS — February 10, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
I’ve invited some of the Shiba folks to join this discussion. Don’t know if they will.
For those not familiar with Shibas, this breed was saved by committed Japanese breeders after WWII and a subsequent distemper outbreak. Three main lines of Shibas were combined to continue the Shiba of today. The Shiba is considered a “National Treasure of Japan”. American Shiba breeders have recently been importing Japanese champions to improve the breed here. But the interesting thing is that the much derided gaiting that occurs in the AKC ring is not done in Japan. Nor are health tests (OFA, etc.) routinely done. So, according to some of my Shiba contacts, reputable American Shiba breeders are in some ways ahead of some of their Japanese counterparts in terms of breeding for health and soundness.
I’ve also owned Dalmatians and had one that had uric acid blockage problems. So I’m for the outcross project.
Comment by glock — February 10, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
In the breeds in which a yawning gulf exists between show and working/performance types, we need people on both sides to get over it.
I sure hope that the breeders of working Malinois, GSDs, retrievers, border and farm collies, and other animals used for life-saving police and SAR functions, service dogs, etc., don’t “get over it.”
This is not “my dog’s better than your dog” jeering. One has a function in the real world. The other is an ornament in a hobbyists’ created reality. The fanciers and manufacturers of ornaments have nothing to offer the users of functional dogs.
If the functional gene pool needs something — correction for a genetic bogey, or just a shot of heterosis — it makes far more sense to bring that in from another functional gene pool. Using the nonfunctional gene pool that happens to bear the same name is pure foolishness.
The users of functional dogs just want the fanciers of ornaments to stop punishing those who choose to enhance or maintain function by crossing imaginary lines drawn by fanciers of ornaments.
That’s why so many of us have opted out of the fanciers’ quaint and monstrous institutions. Some of us by gravitating to a breed that has not yet been kidnapped for use as ornaments (and defending it from same), and some by utilizing judicious crossing. Some do both.
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 11, 2009 @ 9:17 am
This is not “my dog’s better than your dog” jeering. One has a function in the real world. The other is an ornament in a hobbyists’ created reality. The fanciers and manufacturers of ornaments have nothing to offer the users of functional dogs.
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 11, 2009
Heather … many, many, many more dogs will find “work” as companions than will ever have a traditional work function.
These dogs are not “ornaments.” They are family members.
And there’s nothing wrong with them being a “teddy bear” golden — assuming good health and temperament — rather than a field type golden.
The fanciers’ “quaint and montrous” instititions have produced some of the pets I have loved most, animals with good health and temperaments that slept on my bed, went for long walks and comforted me when I was sick or sad.
The fact that, say, my Sheltie couldn’t herd his dinner bowl doesn’t make him a worthless ornament to me. He is Drew, a product of a show breeder, stable, loving, bright and able to go anywhere, anytime. He is also beautiful, and that seems to make a lot of people happy.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 11, 2009 @ 10:05 am
I took the statement that “we need people on both sides to get over it” to mean that people on both sides should find a way to work together, not that either side should capitulate to the other.
It does neither side a whole lot of good when they argue over who is right or who is better — we are talking about the same breeds, after all. Just because people started going in different directions for different reasons doesn’t make either of them less valid than the other.
Referring to people’s beloved pets as “ornaments” is not the way to get a worthwhile dialog going, imho.
Comment by stellaluna — February 11, 2009 @ 11:00 am
The quaint and monstrous institutions don’t produce pets.
They produce show dogs — damned be the pet qualities. Show dogs is what they are designed to produce. So this is surprising?
Pets are a byproduct of a system that does not value them, however much lip service is given by the Q&M in order to justify its existence and get the registration fees of those who buy what the Q&M considers “culls.” A show breeder can — and most do — indulge her hobby and still produce good pets. But at some point, she’s going to be faced with a selection decision that pits winning ribbons and points against a pet virtue — a temperament or health trait that makes the dog a better dog, or a better companion.
So often, that’s seen in the choice of stud: the top-winning young dog du jour whose health is at best “unknown,” and whose temperament gremlins are closely-guarded vs. the aged veteran who never did so well in the show ring, but has shown his good health and good nature for a decade or more of family life. The breeder knows that she’ll be bringing home ribbons and points with the get of the first dog by next year.
I am in great sympathy with those show-hobbyists who decide in favor of the pet virtue and against the characteristic that is more likely to win. I think it’s rotten that they are punished by the system that rewards those who say to Hell with those pet virtues that don’t help, and may hinder, the goal of winning.
It’s that system, those institutions, that rot. But they exist only on the willing backs of the people who choose to give them power — including the small-time show hobbyist who may indeed care about producing some great pets, but also really truly cares what the guy in the tux thinks of how her prize champion looks.
Do many pets exist that are the byproducts of the pageant system? Yes. Can the pageant system take credit for their virtues? Given that it doles out rewards and punishments based on entirely different and frequently antithetical criteria, it certainly cannot.
Could there be a better system for producing good pets? Almost any other sort of institution would do better. Including no system at all.
Does the show ring have a monopoly on “beautiful?” Untold legions of beautiful mongrels, beautiful working dogs, say otherwise. And there’s no reason that a breeder can’t aim for beauty in the eyes of herself and her buyers — say, producing a beautiful yellow flat-coated retriever. Except that right now, she will be “punished” for doing so because that natural, beautiful, harmless color is “non-standard.” As proclaimed by the Q&M.
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 11, 2009 @ 11:24 am
No one forces anyone who breeds to show.
I dread the day that laws are passed that require it and fought like hell all last year and the year before to prevent that occurring in California.
Only a small percentage of dogs in most breeds are ever bred for the show ring. Most are bred to be pets. Commercial and backyard breeders may not care about breeding for ribbons, but they also rarely test or give a whit about health screening or temperament either.
They are mainly breeding pets for money, either as a business or for some spending cash.
If I get a call from someone who has no interest in showing but has a nice, healthy well adjusted family pet. AND they are willing to be responsible, and screen her and place the puppies with care (that’ll all be in writing, thank you) Then I will help them to breed her. If her ears are funky or whatnot, not a big deal. We need more well bred pets coming from responsible breeders, show, working or otherwise.
Loke many show hobbyists, my dogs are my house pets and family members. They run and play and sleep with my kids and are expected to put up with their friends and mine coming over. I expect them to have rock solid temperaments, I breed and socialize them that way.
I breed with an eye towards health and good brains because that is what I want to have living in my home.
And so once every two years or so I have a few well socialized healthy pet puppies to place out carefully in selected homes.
I don’t consider them “culls”. All my puppies will ultimately be pets, in my home or elsewhere. PET is their main job description. Show, if they do, will only be for a few years.
Four years ago I had puppy develop septicemia, he survived, but suffered severe kidney damage. I did not foist him off on the public, as show breeders are so often accused of doing with “sickly” pets. He was my buddy and shadow for the two really good years he had and broke my heart when we let him go before he had a chance to really feel ill.
Are there some show breeders who put winning in front of everything? Yes. Are there breeders i other aspects of canine culture and activities who do the same? Yes.
I honestly don’t care what aspect of the canine world people dwell and work in, so long as they are responsible and give a crap about their dogs, their chosen breed, and the people they place dogs and puppies with.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 11, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
And so once every two years or so I have a few well socialized healthy pet puppies to place out carefully in selected homes.
I don’t consider them “culls”. All my puppies will ultimately be pets, in my home or elsewhere. PET is their main job description. Show, if they do, will only be for a few years.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 11, 2009
Heather, much as I respect you and your very strongly held opinions, I have to say I really am trying to figure out exactly who are all these horrible show people who consider their non-show puppies “culls.”
It’s sure not Jennifer … Christie … or others who post here regularly … or me. Fly to SF and say to Christie’s face that she has ever considered any dog she bred and placed a “cull” and you will need an ambulance. You will also be wrong.
You would also be wrong about my friend who co-owns and bred my McKenzie, who is coming home tonight, pregnant I hope. Her breeder and co-owner is a past president of the Flat-Coated Retriever Society of America (member AKC), and I assure you she doesn’t consider any of her dogs “culls,” even if they’re “just pets,” like my first flat-coat, the much loved and still missed Ben. Mary talked with me nearly every day through this “cull’s” final weeks at the age of almost 12, and she was the first person I cried with when he died.
In my dog McKenzie’s litter, the non-show “culls” are: Three senior hunters, all heading for the master hunter titles. The other “culls” will also be at least junior hunters. And one “cull” is a MACH-plus, the fastest agility dog in the world.
And ALL ARE PETS, beloved.
McKenzie is only CH so far, and since she’s one leg short of her junior hunter, maybe SHE’s the “cull.” I’ll tell her that after I pick her up at the airport and she’s back sleeping on my bed.
You may well want to blow up the breed clubs/registries. Fine. But others of us think there’s a possibility for reform. And part of the reason I personally believe in the possibility of reform is because I know MANY good, ethical and reputable breeders who do show their dogs … although many also compete in other dog sports, and all consider their dogs pets first and foremost.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 11, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Yeah, the dog shows make me sad for a couple reasons: (1) the poor, once healthy and now deformed dogs that have evolved into having no function (English Bulldogs being the standout there, though Bostons aren’t far behind) and the AKC’s stubborn refusal to admit that Am Staffs are Pit Bulls.
Sigh.
(Announcers also tend to make weird, defensive comments about the Am Staffs. If they’re seen on TV at all.)
I’m torn on breeds
Comment by buzzcowboy — February 11, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
OK, that comment submitted before I was able to finish it. Odd.
I’m torn on breeds (like pugs) that weren’t working dogs in the first place, but if we can make them healthier…
For actual functional breeds, the outcrossing argument makes a lot of good sense. Cavaliers and their hearts, GSD’s and dysplasia, rampant cancer through a variety of breeds… sigh.
There’s also the unfortunate fact that registries and breed clubs don’t have ethics committees, and that means that some breeders will propogate a line that does well in a beauty contest but is known to carry heart defects, cancer, etc.
I’d like to see ethics committees instituted at the Breed Club level. And (pipe dream) in the registries. That’s where valuable discussions of outcrossing can come into play, too.
Comment by buzzcowboy — February 11, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
“evolved into having no function”
Wrong.
Bulldogs, bostons etc… have a function. They are companion breeds and pets. Pet is an important job. So important that being physically and mentally sound is crucial to the job description.
Being healthy and having a good temperament keeps pet dogs in homes and gets pet dogs out of rescue situations and shelters. Millions more people seek out a dog to be “just a pet” than for any other reason.
But pets are often, unfairly, just expected to know their job straight from day one. Folks seeking out a dog for an additional job or purpose at least expect to need to do additional training to achieve any level of competence at the desired task.
I deal sad unhealthy dogs frequently. I deal with them because I am part of a regretfully busy breed rescue. A surprising number come in nowadays with paperwork and most are from Midwest or foreign puppy mills.
The few that come in that were bred by evil show breeders are usually
in pretty decent shape, less likely to need major fix ups and usually have better temperaments, in part because they were socialized and loved as puppies.
And yay, if a show breeder bred them, they don’t spend long with me because that breeder will take them back, immediately.
If not, by sundown, every club member from L.A. to Maine will know about it. Ditto for dogs sired by club members.
With some breeds burgeoning popularity, 90% or more were not bred for show, by people with no interest in such and the only qualifications needed for breeding were that they were more or less the same breed. Some of these dogs have been in commercial only lines for 5 or 6 generations, maybe more.
They were all bred only to be sold for money as pets, a job they are poorly suited to because of ill health or ill temperament. And the total lack of regard for their welfare or future displayed by their producers.
In the companion breeds, yes. you can do agility and obedience etc…, but they rarely excel at the top levels of these activities, so there is no real demand to breed them for it.
So the companion breeds, soon to be in the much more appropriately named Companion group, are either in general going to be bred by people interested in showing them, or people who want to make a buck.
And yep, there are breeders in the clubs with their heads either in the sand or up their ass who refuse to ackowledge that there are any problems, then there are those of us who are testing, screening, researching and changing so that our dogs can excel at their under- appreciated job of being damn good pets.
As I stated before, I don’t really care what aspect of canine activities a dog breeder is involved with, so long as they are responsible. Responsible to the dogs, the breed and to the families who will make their dogs part of their lives.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 11, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
“Ditto for dogs sired by club members.”
And how about dogs sired by *dogs* who *belong* to club members?
(Sorry. Couldn’t resist. I’ll go sit in the corner now . . . . )
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 11, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
buzzcowboy, AmStaffs are NOT “pit bulls”
They are the AKC version of the UKC “American Pit Bull Terrier”.
Some aficionados believe they are now separate breeds; some believe they are exactly the same breed and some believe they are different strains/types of the same breed.
The AKC has ALWAYS disassociated itself from the “pit” heritage of the APBT.. it was the biggest obstacle to accepting the breed. They will never change that, nor should they.. do you expect the announcers to say good things about dogfighting when they introduce the AST? They ‘re hardly the only ones denying what was the fire that forged the breed.
Comment by EmilyS — February 11, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
“And how about dogs sired by *dogs* who *belong* to club members?”
No corner for you… :-)
That’s one of the arguments I use to get reluctant club members involved in rescue!
(or at least write a donation check to get me off their back)
But anyone who does breed struggles with how far does your responsibility extend? I feel that all folks who breed should take part in rescue or support it in some manner. You may never know if the dog you take in is a relative, but it’s a better world if they all get treated as such. :-)
Comment by Jenniferj — February 11, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
That should say “but anyone who does breed responsibly struggles with how far responsibility should extend”
Comment by Jenniferj — February 11, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
Um . . . . Jennifer . . . . so you’ve got *club members* siring dogs????
Hmmmm . . . . just what kind of a club is this anyway . . . . ?
{{{giggle!}}}
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 11, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
Oh bother! I thought about correcting that but…
goes to figure someone on here would catch it!
Although we have been talking about outcrossing……
eww sorry, erase erase erase.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 11, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
Ewww is right!
And I thought *I* was being bad! LOL!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 11, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
To the doghouse…both of you ;-)
Comment by Susan Fox — February 11, 2009 @ 7:58 pm