Closed registry breeding practices slammed on ‘Nightline’
By Gina Spadafori
March 12, 2009
The ABC New show “Nightline” took page from the BBC’s “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” and looked at the problems of quality-of-life issues in exaggerated breed features and the high rates of cancer and other deadly serious health issues in purebred dogs.
It was a good, fair look at some serious issues, although I doubt the AKC and its acolytes feel the same. As in the U.K., they will surely lash out (and did even before it aired) at the report as an attack on all breeding by the animal-rights loons who want all domestic animals extinct. It’s the old “if you’re not with us you’re agin’ us” crap that keeps a bad situation entrenched.
The PETA loons have nothing to do with this — and even if, yes, they have more than shown they would gladly bury the AKC and all purebred dogs along with the 90 percent of pets they kill in their own shop. But this fight is coming from those of us who are sick of burying great dogs dead of cancer at 3, 6 and 8 instead of 12, 14 and even 16. And at looking at dogs who can’t breathe, walk or reproduce normally. (More on this from Terrierman, who is featured in the piece. Heaven knows he’s a sekrit PETA operative!)
It’s time to open these registries and get some fresh genetic material into the business of purebred dogs. And into the dogs as well. Open the registries to well-planned, scientifically sound outcrosses. You will still have your breeds as you like them, just healthier.
Open your mind, and open the registries. Get on board with managed outcrosses and save your dogs.
Watch the clip, here:
Gina, I’d like to think it’s as simple as ‘just open the registries’, but I’m not sure any more that it is.
Working with a rescue that sees all KINDS of first generation Frenchie/whatever crosses, I’ve got to say that a great many of them are horribly ill. We’ve got breathing issues (still), degenerative myelopathy, spinal degenerative disease, thyroid issues, skin conditions and loads of dental issues.
We don’t have the sort of simple inherited conditions that can be fixed with a one out cross, as the Dalmatians could be.
In our case, as a breed in which almost all of our health problems are structural, rather than genetic, I think it’s going to take a concerted effort towards less exaggerated breed type, and away from the show ring extremes showing up more and more frequently.
My hopes that the parent clubs will encourage this? Next to none. So, it will be up to those of us who care about our breed to pioneer it alone.
I honestly don’t know if we can do this, and have our show ring cake as well. This bothers me only in that the mantra “Good breeders are SHOW breeders” has been pounded into our heads for so long, that I’m frankly worried about what turning my back on it will mean for me.
Comment by FrogDogz — March 12, 2009 @ 8:38 am
All you say is very true. There are two issues, and all breeds don’t have them both.
Your breed has structural issues. Mine has cancer.
The structural issues may well be more difficult to address from a purely practical issue of how difficult it is to change “groupthink,” as you note.
I would like to think (hope) that in breeds where you can outcross (as in the Dalmatian Project),address health problems and in just a handful of generations again have a dog who would fit the physical breed standard, look and act “pure,” well, maybe that’s an easier sell.
But getting people who think structural problems actually define the breed to change? Tough. But it has to be done.
My breed e-mail list postings are mostly brags and obits. And the obits are too commonly for dogs who are very young.
McKenzie is due in three weeks. We have done everything we currently define as what good breeders do — she’s a champion, and she’ll finish her field title after the litter (one successful run left to go). She has had all the health testing recommended and more, as has the sire, who is the Champion and will-be field-titled nephew of my own Heather, who had five siblings make it to 11 and three still alive at 12, plus three of the seven CH/OTCH/MH hall of fame dogs.
This is the best I can do now to “protect and preserve” the breed for the future. But it’s not enough, and I’ll be fighting for more in the years to come. We can do better by the dogs we love, and we must.
I have known you a long time, and I know you, too, want what’s best for our dogs. We will get there.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 12, 2009 @ 9:00 am
It’s more than opening the registries. We also need limits on how often a stud can be used in his lifetime.
With your breed and mine, which are very closely related to each other, we could do some intelligent, controlled outcrosses and gradually breed back to type through several generations. Maybe in a new registry system, some breeds cannot be registered until they become mature and are deemed free of genetic diseases. This means that small dogs can’t be registered until they are one year of age, our breeds not until two or two and half, or the giant breeds until three or four.
We need reforms, and we have scientific papers that suggest how we can best do this.
We don’t need a system of total anarchy in breeding dogs. I’m not suggesting that. We just need a better system.
Comment by retrieverman — March 12, 2009 @ 9:07 am
People like to refer to the Dal outcross because it was limited in scope. I would guess that many breeds with far more complicated and only partially understood issues would require more outcrossing than the Dal. Getting everyone to agree upon what that plan should be and pledging to follow it with the blessing of the AKC and breed parent clubs I think is hopeless. I would love to be proven wrong on that. So what are the present choices? Keep breeding defective dogs and digging holes in the backyard for them while “hoping for the best”? Anarchy? I don’t know.
Comment by YesBiscuit! — March 12, 2009 @ 9:25 am
Getting everyone to agree upon what that plan should be and pledging to follow it with the blessing of the AKC and breed parent clubs I think is hopeless.
Comment by YesBiscuit! — March 12, 2009
Nothing is hopeless. I walked precincts in Colorado in 2004 and thought the day after I was looking at a permanent Rovian government. Four years later …. President Obama.
Nothing is hopeless. No one used to believe it was worthwhile to evaluate fight-bust dogs as individuals, must less adopt them out. Now, the HSUS is rapidly re-evaluating long-standing policies in response to blistering public outcry.
Nothing is hopeless. Trap-neuter-release is slowly becoming the standard for the management of feral cat colonies, instead of extermination.
Many things are hard, but nothing is hopeless. If I didn’t believe that, I couldn’t get out of bed every day.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 12, 2009 @ 9:36 am
Maybe it would sometimes be possible to identify “sibling” breeds which could sensibly be combined? Some of the breed snobbery is simply daft anyway - prime example being the English Shepherd which anyone actually living in England looks at and says, “Ah, a collie cross; i.e. a mongrel whose parentage is probably mainly Border Collie.”
And blow me down - quick google search reveals that some enterprising folks have just imported the first breeding pair into England!
http://www.englishshepherd.co.uk/index.html
Comment by Rosemary Rodd — March 12, 2009 @ 10:02 am
the English Shepherd which anyone actually living in England looks at and says, “Ah, a collie cross; i.e. a mongrel whose parentage is probably mainly Border Collie.”
The above assertion would be the typical post-Victorian ignorance that has carved into stone tablets that “dog breed” is defined mostly by a unique cookie-cutter appearance and a walled-off Kennel Club pedigree. And anything that doesn’t fit this narrow definition must be mongrel.
Actually, breeds existed for thousands of years before the kennel clubs of the world even existed, and before kennel clubs hijacked breeds and altered the very perception of what a breed is.
Breeds were not historically walled off from one another. Appearance could not define them because individuals in different breeds could look very similar, sometimes indistinguishable from one another, and yet behave quite differently. It is what dogs were bred to DO, not what they LOOK LIKE, that historically defined breeds.
And so it is today with English Shepherds and Border Collies. Two breeds not yet wrecked by kennel clubs. I have seen Border Collies standing in front of me that look more like my male English Shepherd than some of his littermates do. Sometimes the best way to tell these breeds apart is to put them on sheep. There, the difference in these breeds becomes apparent. Raise and use them for multipurpose farm work, or for working large flocks of dispersed semi-wild sheep, and the differences will become even more apparent.
The pre-Victorian definition of a dog breed is a population that was selectively bred to perform some needed function. Breed populations were not walled off from “impure” genes. On the contrary, occasional outcrossing was done in order to bring in desired traits and to prevent inbreeding depression. Kennel clubs and breed clubs id not manage these breed populations. In the absence of modern health tests, dog shows, pedigrees, and other hallmarks of “responsible breeding”, rigorous selection for function historically managed breed populations a lot better than kennel clubs and breed clubs have been able to do.
“Purity” in the traditional sense meant dogs descended from generations that produced a high percentage of dogs that could perform the desired function of the breed. Using this traditional definition, most of today’s “purebred dogs” would not be considered pure, because few are bred for or can perform their breed’s function. And modern populations such as the KNPV crosses of Malinois, GSD, Dutch Shepherd, etc. in the Netherlands — which probably produces the highest percentage of police service dogs in the world — would be considered “pure”.
For example: “Shepherd dog breeding is working dog breeding, or it is not shepherd dog breeding”. That’s a quote from the founder of the GSD breed. The founder of the GSD breed would not consider pet or show bred registered GSDs to be GSDs.
Some twenty five years after he founded the registered GSD breed, the breed founder also wrote “The dogs that are bred by our shepherds are indeed a fountain of rejuvenation for our [breed], from which it must satisfy its needs again and again in order to remain vigorous”. Throughout his 36 year tenure in charge of the GSD breed club of Germany, the breed founder brought unregistered working shepherd dogs of undocumented heritage into the registered GSD breed population.
The English Shepherd — like its very close cousin the Australian Shepherd — is an American breed. We know of a few English Shepherds that were imported from America to England, and one litter bred there. There’s also a few ES that were imported from America to Germany and a couple of ES litters born there.
The English Shepherd shares a common ancestry with the Border Collie, but is not derived from the Border Collie breed.
The English Shepherd breed descends from the North American shepherd/collie landrace. This landrace breed, which is now extinct, was some 100-150 years ago the most common “breed” in North America. The Australian Shepherd breed also descends from this landrace.
The North American shepherd/collie landrace in turn descends mostly (but not entirely) from the UK collie/shepherd landrace. The Border Collie, Rough & Smooth Collies, and other UK herding breeds descend from the UK collie/shepherd landrace.
Comment by LauraS — March 12, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Thank you for that post Laura. My grandfather put his first litter of “collies” on the ground in 1917, in Alberta. He was a settler, a mixed farmer that ran a dairy herd. Descendents of those pups worked on my aunts farms through to the 1980s, some of them living 20+ years. My grandfather’s favorite was put down at the age of 18 after a serious injury while working horses . . . guess he was slowing down a bit.
When I read that comment about English Shepherds being Border Collie crosses I felt the heat rising.
Comment by Shirley — March 12, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Rosemary Rodd, talk about “breed snobbery.”
Because you have seen PICTURES of some dogs of a particular breed, you now think you know what they are and are not?
Precisely the kind of cognitive defect that has been nurtured by kennel clubs for the last century.
Believe me, you do not know my English shepherds.
And although there is one known border collie in the pedigrees of all of them, they are emphatically not border collies. They haven’t been *selected* to be border collies. They’ve been selected to be English shepherds, and that is what they are.
We recently had a long-time border collie purist and trialer visit for a few days. We’ve been friends for years, and my dogs have visited his farm with us, but it’s the first time he’s seen them in their natural habitat. (Though he’s seen my male’s sire working at his home on a large dairy farm.)
While we are in many ways very similar in how we live with our dogs (leash-free, informal, integrated pack, training taking precedence over management) he remarked on some striking differences, including my male’s dutiful patrolling of the grounds for predators — but especially what happened when our rooster decided to get cheeky and charge him as an intruder.
I set my young bitch on the rooster, telling her to “get on Henery” and she chased — and chastened — him for several minutes, ignoring the hens and making the point that he was not to do that again. She stayed ten inches off his tail feathers the whole time, while he got increasingly desperate and worried. When I’d seen he’d had enough, I called her back to heel. She was quite pleased with herself for having disciplined an errant member of the household. (And had a bit of sanctioned fun in the bargain.)
Later my friend told me that he could have never done such a thing with one of his border collies — that the closest thing to “success” would be a dead rooster.
But neither he nor I can tell some of my dogs from some of his dogs by looking at them sitting on the sofa, as far as “breed” goes.
Put them on stock and it is clear in thirty seconds. But only to someone who knows at least one of the breeds well.
Real knowledge. Not “Licensed to decide which one is a ‘champion’ at trotting in circles.”
AKC border collie judges think my male ES is an uncommonly handsome border collie.
Real border collie people don’t mistake him for a border collie at all.
A breed is so much more than what it looks like, what a stranger who has no knowledge or mastery can see.
It is as much a cultural entity as it is a genetic one. For some of us, it is not a cosmetic entity at all.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 12, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
The pictures of English Shepherds I’ve seen look a lot like what rough collies looked like in the 1840-1850s, before Queen Victoria “discovered” them after buying Balmoral Castle and then crossing them with Russian wolfhounds (apparently given to her as a gift by her cousin, the Czar of Russia), hence that elegant head.
Her “Royal Kennels” exhibited collies at the first Crufts Dog Show in 1891. Their popularity exploded in the 1870s. JP Morgan imported lots of them and was as responsible as anyone for their initial popularity here.
Before all that though, there was possibly a
::gasp::, cross with some kind of setter, so the farm/sheep guardian collies seem early on to have had a longer muzzle than the border collies.
“Purportedly today’s Collie was a product of the original British Sheepdogs or farm dogs, crossed over a period of time with several other breeds. Rumored crosses include the Irish Setter, Gordon Setter, Scottish Deerhound (hey, Christie!)and Borzoi. Because of the secrecy involved, the time frame in which the breedings occurred is sometimes vague and uncertain.” From The Collie in America by Gayle R. Kaye. Published in an edition of 500 less than a month ago, so I just got my copy last week.
I never knew there were ALL those sekrit crosses with that many other breeds. I may need to have a fit of the vapors.
So, H. Houlahan, I’ve wondered, is there a connection somewhere back in time between English Shepherds and the old original “colley dogs”? From what you describe about your girl and the rooster, the temperment seems very similar. That is exactly what I would have expected Niki, my tri-color rough collie, to do. The bird would have been in no danger whatsoever.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 12, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
The English shepherd IS, for all intents and purposes, the original old “colley dog.”
Of course, nothing in nature abides, so there obviously has been genetic change over time - due to variations in selection, the infusion of new genetic material, and random drift. But the pictures match, as many have pointed out, and so do the temperaments and working traits. Same basic dog.
I’ve accused Terhune of stealing his improbable stories about his silly show dogs from the True English Shepherd Files — which would be bad enough without his snooty-ass sniffing at “common” farm collies and “throwbacks.”
The borzoi cross is probably what gave the show collie its great hips, compared to other collie breeds. Of course, Queen Vickie and the others who made that cross had no idea. An object lesson that while selection is the *most important* determiner of overall health, sometimes you just gotta go somewhere else for the genes you need.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 12, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
What are you saying?!
Lad wasn’t the best dog ever? Wolf didn’t die throwing a worthless cur dog not worthy of his sacrifice off the railroad tracks? Bruce didn’t save the Allies in World War I? Grey Dawn really didn’t outwit the shopkeeper holding him for ransom?
After I recover from the shock, I’m putting all my first edition Terhunes on eBay. Damn you Houlahan!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 12, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
So, my eyes didn’t lie.
Don’t be too hard on Terhune and “show collies”. From everything I’m reading here and on Terrierman, rough/smooth collies may be one of the relatively few breeds in which a lot of the show dogs also do herding, tracking, agility and other activities.
Of course, their REAL job is to be “self-appointed guardians of all creatures great and small”, as one breeder put it and I can’t see that anyone has had much success breeding THAT out of them. My heart breaks when I read about rescue collies who can’t be re-homed with other dogs or cats for whatever reason. ‘Taint natural.
Interesting about the hips because when I was researching dog breeds, more than one source pointed out that rough/smooth collies were one of the few large/larger breeds that didn’t have hip problems and that “collie people” have worked hard to keep hip dysplasia out of the gene pool.
The genetic clunker for rough collies (other than Ivermectin sensitivity in some lines) is Collie Eye Anomaly (CEA), which spread through the gene pool in the 1960s, before genetic inheritance was widely understood, because so many people were breeding to the same super-duper stud dog (sound familiar?). It’s slowly being bred out and every responsible breeder tests all their dog’s eyes. Collies are also somewhat prone to PRA.
How do the ESL’s do with their eyes and hips? And is there a gene pool squeeze with them?
Comment by Susan Fox — March 12, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
Gina, I’ve got an anthology here somewhere that includes a nonfiction story written by James Thurber for New Yorker in 1938 about a family that goes to pay homage to the Great Writer, runs over one of his stupider collies when she makes a suicide dash under the wheels of the car — and how Terhune responded to this.
It’s on the New Yorker site now, but only available to subscribers or if you pay:
http://www.newyorker.com/archi....._000172016
Anyway, the story leaves no doubt as to which early 20th-century dog writer — Thurber or Terhune — I’d rather have at my Famous Dead People Dinner Party.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 12, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
HHoulahan: Thurber’s Rex would have kicked Terhune’s Lad’s a** from here to Sunday. (though it’s kind of mindblowing to read Terhune’s boasts about how dog-aggressive Lad is… not to mention the “Lady bites a child” episode)
Comment by EmilyS — March 12, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
That’s a great pointer, and great piece.
I kid about Terhune. He was a hack writer and a poseur — the former he knew, the second he didn’t.
That said, he turned many a young reader into a dog-lover, long after he and Sunnybank were gone. Me, included!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 13, 2009 @ 6:51 am
Susan Fox wrote:
Don’t be too hard on Terhune and “show collies”. From everything I’m reading here and on Terrierman, rough/smooth collies may be one of the relatively few breeds in which a lot of the show dogs also do herding, tracking, agility and other activities.
Meh. Agility, obedience, sure.
“Herding” as conceived by the AKC, perhaps.
Farm work, real stock work, notsomuch.
They are vanishingly rare in SAR. LauraS and I have scoured the planet for them, and there may be three or four legit AKC collies doing the work — and if I recall, they were all smooth coats. Their relatives, border collies and Aussies, are common as dirt in SAR, and the ES are grossly overrepresented compared to their population. Given their size, basic structure, and tendency to good hips, AKC collies would be very common in SAR if they were capable.
Ever try to get clump of burdock out of a show collie’s coat without resorting to scissors? I have. The operative word there is TRY.
My ES — even my male, whose coat is thicker and coarser than optimal — barely pick up such things, pick out most of it themselves when they do — and what I have to remove generally slides right out with a few swipes of a steel comb.
Even if the behavioral package had somehow survived a century in the absence of selection for it (it has not), that alone would render the rough collie helpless in the pasture. I don’t even want to think about places where they have @#%! foxtails.
Of course, their REAL job is to be “self-appointed guardians of all creatures great and small”, as one breeder put it and I can’t see that anyone has had much success breeding THAT out of them. My heart breaks when I read about rescue collies who can’t be re-homed with other dogs or cats for whatever reason. ‘Taint natural.
I don’t see a lot of dog aggression in AKC collies, though when kept in groups they can displace territorial hysteria onto one another. They can be (not always) very reactive and barky, prone to fence-running. I don’t see much guardian behavior either, though. I’m afraid that it HAS effectively been bred out of them for the most part.
I’ve had the opportunity to do side-by-side comparisons with my ES for the last nine years, as I’ve had quite a lot of AKC collies in for training, some here for board and train. Chalk to cheese. Most of the AKC collies have been good pets for their owners (aside from the significant burden of keeping them properly groomed), but I don’t see any of the coherent instincts of the “source” breed, and most alarmingly, their learning rate and general cognition can be most charitably described as “below average.” There’s just something missing there, a lack of affect and engagement that is notable even in comparison to to other show/pet breeds.
I mean, this is fine for people who want that kind of dog for a pet. They should have them. But these dogs do not resemble their close relatives in some fundamental ways.
I could blame the sighthound genes. Maybe that has something to do with it, but I think the selection processes for the past century are responsible. The age of the giant collie show kennel, with hundreds of dogs warehoused in runs, trotted out for shows, pups sold in numbers that would make Hunte drool, is over. But it had its effect on the genetics of the breed. Clever, engaged, driven dogs with strong working temperaments and a powerful need to work in partnership with a human master do not thrive under such husbandry, and cause a lot of problems for their owners’ kennel help. They were culled. Left to breed were the compliant, incurious, and untroublesome, so long as they had perfect “coffin-shaped” skulls, “correct small eyes,” and big hair. This was the strongest selection paradigm for several decades early in the last century. It has left its mark.
The genetic clunker for rough collies (other than Ivermectin sensitivity in some lines) is Collie Eye Anomaly (CEA), which spread through the gene pool in the 1960s, before genetic inheritance was widely understood, because so many people were breeding to the same super-duper stud dog (sound familiar?). It’s slowly being bred out and every responsible breeder tests all their dog’s eyes. Collies are also somewhat prone to PRA.
How do the ESL’s do with their eyes and hips? And is there a gene pool squeeze with them?
Eyes are fine; a few of us CERF, no one has ever found anything, and I don’t expect anyone will.
Hips are the one big issue in terms of genetic disease. Much remains to be done there. Fifteen years ago, only the most radically modern breeders checked hips. There was a lot of resistance from the old farmer-breeders and from the low tier of rural dwellers who claim to be be farmer-breeders, but really don’t work their dogs.
Now I suspect that a larger proportion of ES breeders actually do OFA or PennHIP than in almost any other breed in the US that isn’t under a mandatory European-style system. But the hips are still dodgy — high incidence of dysplasia, but also a relatively high proportion of Excellents. PennHIP scores are all over the map, but the mean DI is high.
If every ES with borderline hip scores were neutered, we’d probably kill our breed. If we followed the ridiculous PennHIP recommendations (cull half the population every generation on one metric) we’d kill our breed in a decade or two.
It will take a savvy collective effort to go forward with conservation breeding that reduces the incidence of CHD, especially clinical CHD, while maintaining the large effective size of our gene pool and the desirable traits of the whole dog who swims in it.
We believe on available evidence that we have a large and diverse gene pool, though pedigree records are not complete enough to say this with confidence. We now have a member-owned Club registry with an online database that is the best serving any animal breed anywhere. We have a transparent process for bringing unregistered animals into the registered population.
Now, if we can stave off the show fancy for long enough that it implodes itself, the dogs will be fine.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 13, 2009 @ 7:27 am
Gina, Sunnybank has been preserved. It’s a park or private conservancy now, forget which.
Almost every year, the ESC has a Gathering (what we do instead of dog shows) at Sunnybank. I find this marvelously ironic. Terhune spins in the earth as his “Place” is overrun with “low-bred” collies and those who love them best.
I’ve never been free to attend. I’m told the grounds are beautiful. I would love to find the spot on the driveway where Sunnybank Jean performed her suicide dive, and drink a toast to the Norris family there.
EmilyS, I would abandon all scruples to watch a grudge match between Rex and Lad.
Did I just say that out loud?
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 13, 2009 @ 7:44 am
The restoration of the Sunnybank grounds happened AFTER I became a reader of his books (remember, I’m no pup). The house (excuse me, “The Place”) had already been torn down after some kids fell through the rotting roof screwing around on the property.
My weird Terhune trivia:
Although I haven’t been to Sunnybank, I have put my fingers on the keyboard of one of his typewriters and held in my hands the handgun he used to put down his old dogs. Both are (or were) in the possession of the AKC Museum of the Dog, and I was shown both on a behind the scenes tour in the ’80s when the museum was in NYC (on another floor in same building at the then-AKC offices) and was being run by William Secord.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 13, 2009 @ 8:04 am
I am new to the discussion of breeds and genes - but I am fascinated.
I have a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel - I adore the breed and live in fear of MVD and Syringomyelia. I attended my first AKC dog show last weekend and took my guy to a heart clinic and he is currently clear.
When looking for a puppy, I researched breeders and asked to see OFA heart, eye and hip certs. My dog’s parents are currently 5 and 7 - still heart clear and no Syringomyelia.
At the show, I asked the vet how many dogs he had seen who had MVD - he said the small percentage he saw were dogs whose guardians were already aware - but then he grumbled about how some were breeding their dogs anyway…
On the other hand, I spoke to some of the breeders who were showing in the veteran’s class - 9-12 year old dogs - and the breeders were telling me that they are still heart clear.
While I can’t comprehend putting beauty before health, it gives me a lot of hope to meet these older, healthy dogs.
Comment by Hilary — March 13, 2009 @ 8:23 am
Hi Heather - I don’t in the least dispute that English shepherds are an American landrace descended from the same kind of ancestors from which the Border Collie, British cattle herding dogs and Australian herding dogs developed. My point really was the sheer pottiness of the stamp collecting mentality that sub-divides dog breeds to a lunatic extent. THREE different sorts of Belgian Shepherds which aren’t permitted to exchange genes, for example.
It’s also worth pointing out that the “collie cross” reaction is mostly a sigh of relief that the dog in question is probably the landrace version and hence is going to be reasonably easy to home with an ordinary non-expert owner.
Comment by Rosemary Rodd — March 13, 2009 @ 9:24 am
Heather -
I think a LOT may have to do with the geographic distribution as far as collie brains. I meet very, very few collies that are dumb. I meet a LOT who are lazy, but most of them are smart enough dogs. I find a LOT of performance trainers (in any venue) who are really, really discouraging of people with collies “That’s not a REAL dog, get an ES/BC/Aussie/ACD (working herding breed of the trainer’s choice) if you want to really DO anything.” And the collie Folk don’t help this either, but having such an obnoxoiusly vocal population of people who think obedience is ‘too harsh’ for ‘sensitive’ collies. But I think the biggest problem with collies is not that the genes aren’t still there, it’s that most of two generations of performance people have been chased off into Aussies and BCs and ESes- and with them have gone potential breeding programs that would have selected for drive and been willing to do things like putting coat texture and moderation and structure and drive above a pretty head. I know what *I* want to do (fix eyes, more drive (particularly more ‘try’ and willingness to experiment- they seem to like being shown rather than having to figure it out, but once they understand the ‘rules’ of figuring it out, they’re fine at it) more fitted coat on the roughs, need more power in the rears and a nicer shoulder, get rid of ivermectin sensitivity- think that’s enough for one lifetime. :P) but it’s DAMN hard trying to find anyone who has the same goals I do AND a compatible boy who does NOT have the faults I don’t want to lock in (not a great front, CEA, only moderate drive). I also don’t know quite what I’ve got, drivewise- the bitch in question has only been mine for a few months and I strongly, strongly suspect that she would be a VERY different dog (much more like her two nieces that I adore, only one of which I own) if she’d been in a home that DID anything with her rather than a kennel where she got shown and groomed and loved but not much training.
Comment by Cait — March 13, 2009 @ 9:44 am
Well, since we’re diverging, let me say that I truly think Thurber is one of the best dog writers of all time, bar none. His only failing - too short stories.
Second to that would be John Taintor Foote, who wrote Bulldogs that I’d still want to own today (and also wrote some of the best horse stories ever).
Terhune is a hack compared to those guys. Even as a child, I found his stories full of class consciousness and condescension.
Comment by FrogDogz — March 13, 2009 @ 9:49 am
HH-
Although it’s undoubtedly the exception that proves the rule, the Dogs 101 episode with rough collies visited a farm that did use them as all-around workers. But, and this is a big but, they didn’t have the huge coats.
I really did write “ESL” last night, didn’t I? That would be “English Shepherd Lovers, right :)?
My guy does have a “bigger than average” coat and, yes, he picks up lots of stuff, most of which drops onto the floor after he comes into the house.
I don’t know about formal SAR, but he did help me find a neighbor’s puppy who had gotten loose and held her in place while I got a leash looped around his neck.
But he’s not low maintenance. The upside is that I think it protects the breed from being too popular in a time when people only want what’s “easy”. I’d say for at least 2 out of 5 people who meet him, the first thing they say is some variation like “He must be a lot of work”, like that is the most important criteria. I just smile and say “Oh, yes, lots of work, but he’s worth it.”
I totally agree with you about the breeding history. The coats are huge in comparison to what they were when the dogs did real farm/sheep guarding work. I am seeing (on Collies On-line) eyes that have gotten too small as the breeders go for an exaggerated almond shape.
I’m interested in your comments about what the ones you have been around have been like (many more than me) and how they got that way, because that’s not my guy at all. If anything, I’ve had to rein in his bossiness and desire to be in charge and know where everyone is.
It sounds like you and the other ES people r reely doin’ in rite. Now if you can fend off the AKC….
Comment by Susan Fox — March 13, 2009 @ 9:50 am
Generally speaking, it’s the kennel clubs and their stupid rules that have subdivided breeds for nonsensical reasons.
The Border Collie and English Shepherd breeds are separated for a very good reason — these breeds do quite different jobs. They were separated by the work long before kennel clubs “recognized” them.
The AKC divided 3 of the varieties of the FCI Belgian Shepherd breed into 3 different breeds. AKC does not recognize the 4th variety of the Belgian Shepherd breed at all.
In the breed’s home country of Belgium and almost every other country in the world, the Belgian Shepherd is ONE breed with FOUR varieties. Unfortunately, exchange between the 4 varieties is restricted.
If one wishes to obtain a Tervuren (one of the 4 varieties) that is capable of doing demanding breed-appropriate protection work, the best place to get one is from the occasional longcoats born out of working Malinois litters. That one gene is the difference between Tervuren and Malinois.
Under international FCI rules, a longcoat Malinois is a Tervuren, and both are registered as Belgian Shepherds.
Under AKC rules, a longcoat Malinois is not a Tervuren — though that’s genetically what it is. Nope, AKC sez it’s a faulty Malinois.
I know a breeder of working Tervuren in America who wishes to obtain longcoats from AKC registered working Malinois for her breeding program. However, the AKC will not allow her to register these dogs as Tervuren. But AKC will allow her import from Europe longcoats born from FCI registered working Malinois, and register these dogs as Tervuren.
Comment by LauraS — March 13, 2009 @ 10:08 am
I do want to note that two of the things we have found very special about our collie is his emotional empathy, both to humans and other animals and his kindness.
These may be traits that wouldn’t show up, or be expected to, in a training environment, but we’ve found that all that “Lassie” stuff in real. He walks me the whole five feet to my studio door in the morning and is often waiting outside the door at quitting time.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 13, 2009 @ 10:15 am
The evolution of the now extinct working Scotch Collie into the modern rough/smooth Collie had already caused considerable changes as far back as 100 years ago.
For you dog breed history buffs, there’s some great reading about the demise of the working Scotch Collie in Linda Rorem’s article “Whatever Happened to Old Shep?”.
http://izebug.syr.edu/~gsbisco/artlr1.htm
More is found in a series of 1911-1912 articles in Country Life in America magazine, starting with an inquiry about the then increasing rarity of the old working Scotch Collie.
http://izebug.syr.edu/~gsbisco/clife/cla.htm
Some adamantly insist — in the absence of evidence — that criticisms of the impact of conformation shows on dogs must be a PETA pet extinction conspiracy. Email lists and blogosphere are currently lit up with such claims, fallout from the ABC Nightline piece. Much the same was true after last year’s BBC documentary “Pedigree Dogs Exposed.” Yet one of the articles linked to above includes this snippet “In our issue of February, 1908, we published a debate between Homer Davenport and James Watson on the topic “Is the Show Dog Degenerating?” “
Are we to believe that Ingrid Newkirk’s great-grandparents were already fomenting AR pet extinction plots in 1908?
The 1925 book “The German Shepherd Dog in Word and Picture” by GSD breed founder Max von Stephanitz includes some incendiary words about the transformation of the working Scotch Collie into the kennel club modern Collie. Most of the latter were said to already to be useless for work even by 1925.
Comment by LauraS — March 13, 2009 @ 11:03 am
Laura, you must be reading my hate mail.
Why, I’m so much a sekrit PETA operative with my criticism of closed-registry breeding practices that they’ve even threatened me with a lawsuit so as not to blow my cover. And then, there’s all that showing, hunt testing and (gasp) the fact that McKenzie is preggers.
We sekrit AR types will stop at nothing to maintain our terrorist cell status.
So much confusion, though. Kim tripped across a blog comment yesterday outing us all as AKC lobbyists on behalf of the “breeder industry.”
As Christie noted, we were not aware that being a lobbyist meant “having an opinion.”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 13, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Are we to believe that Ingrid Newkirk’s great-grandparents were already fomenting AR pet extinction plots in 1908?
Although I agree with your point, Laura, I unfortunately can’t share your benign view of the ancestors of Miss Newkirk. I find that a plausible scenario, all things considered. ;)
Comment by Christie Keith — March 13, 2009 @ 11:31 am
So, expressing concern about the health of purebred dogs = carrying out PeTA’s agenda?
Nice framing of the debate if you can get away with it. Let’s not let them.
——-
LauraS- There’s no doubt that collies were imported to this country for the sole purpose of winning ribbons at shows by the likes of JP Morgan. They were never bred in the USA to do traditional sheepdog work, as far as my research has shown. Family companion and dog shows have been their “jobs”.
We would be sooo the wrong home for a “real” border collie, aussie or ES. Thank goodness for the moderate energy, friendly rough/smooth collies.
What amazes me is the extent to which any of them still have any herding instinct at all after over 100 years (as per HH’s comments). But a surprising number do. Ask my cats.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 13, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Are we to believe that Ingrid Newkirk’s great-grandparents were already fomenting AR pet extinction plots in 1908?
Although I agree with your point, Laura, I unfortunately can’t share your benign view of the ancestors of Miss Newkirk. I find that a plausible scenario, all things considered. ;)
For some reason, this exchange made me think of the South Park Episode that features PeTA, and I’m thoroughly squicked. Thanks for that.
Comment by Christine H — March 13, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
I live to serve.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 13, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Laura, you must be reading my hate mail
Sort of. I read some of the hate mail sent to http://www.saveourdogs.net during the War Against AB 1634. I had some of the same directed at me on various blogs and discussion forums. It’s probably similar to some of what you’re getting, at least from the “you’re a greedy evil breeder!” nutjobs.
My husband had none other than Judie Mancuso and several of her minions surround him and hurl vile insults his way after he testified against AB 1634 at a legislative hearing. Ah, such wonderful “compassion”, that bunch.
One of the more extreme was the growling steely-eyed “I’d like to euthanize YOU!” comment directed in the face of a friend, immediately after one of the state Senate hearings. That unprovoked gem came from the Los Angeles Regional Coordinator of Mancuso’s California Healthy Pets coalition. Not a smart thing to say to a retired police officer.
Comment by LauraS — March 13, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
One of the more extreme was the growling steely-eyed “I’d like to euthanize YOU!” comment directed in the face of a friend, immediately after one of the state Senate hearings. That unprovoked gem came from the Los Angeles Regional Coordinator of Mancuso’s California Healthy Pets coalition. Not a smart thing to say to a retired police officer.
Comment by LauraS — March 13, 2009
Let me just say … there are people on the extremes of any issue who are committed because they should be … um, committed.
It has not been my experience as a journalist that the relative percentage of loons is larger in the area of animal issues than in any other topic area that gets people all worked up. Absent some data to the contrary, I would guess that the percentage of batshit-crazy/borderline dangerous loons is relatively constant in any social movement.
That said, there’s a reason why I have a shotgun, and a decent idea of how to use it.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 13, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
“Open outcrosses”, designer dogs, a rose by any other name is still a MUTT not a purebred dog with a specific purpose in life. This was the biggest piece of one sided, biased yellow ambush journalism I have seen since the BBC’s foray into unscientific, undereducated bashing. IF this piece had the least iota of a claim to journalistic integrity, it would have give EQUAL time to the other side. It would have covered the $22 million dollars the AKC donates to studying health disorders and talked about the progress being made by the Canine Health Foundation. Please tell me what is the least bit “fair” about denigrating over 120 years of breeding purebred dogs without even letting the other side be heard.
Comment by Elizabeth — March 13, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
Collies with drive are out there - I have two of them sacked out on the floor in the office right now. As with most things you have to do your research and find a breeder who values the things you do. Right now I have two young dogs but my late obedience dog was hampered only by his bad handler and his handler’s need to actually go out and make money. BTW collies are second only to border collies in the number of herding titles awarded. I guess you can quibble about the value of herding in different venues but the titles are being worked for and earned by folks in the collie breed.
As an aside - current genetic evidence is putting the brakes on the borzoi cross idea. Turns out there are some genetic similarities with a breed called the silken windhund - which may be the actual cross that was done.
Another thing about collies is the frequency of the MDR1 genetic mutation. This mutation has no harmful effects on the collie until it is mixed with modern medicine. So until you got the confluence of the gene and certain classes of chemical together there was no selection pressure against the gene. We have a test for this mutation but it will take some doing to breed away from it since apparently it is present in something like 60% of collies.
I stick with collies because I like living with them. I know if I wanted a REAL performance dog I would get a border collie but I like my lassie dogs. So far they have been willing to learn anything I have bothered to teach them so I don’t think I will cast them on the “dumb” pile just yet.
Comment by Kathy — March 13, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
After reading the intro to the ABC segment, I was really hoping to see something that would convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the argument of opening breed registries would be a no-brainer. (I will interject here that I do have AKC registered dogs, I participate in conformation, therapy dog work, am just starting out in agility, and want to try lure coursing one day, but that said, I DO have an open mind, especially if it comes to the health of my dogs.) What I saw was a poorly done “news” segment (and I use the word news loosely). George Stoney would not be pleased. To say I was disappointed is an understatement. I hate that all the “interviews” to prove his point appeared to be sound bites taken out of context. And why even include the “off camera” bit where a man is telling the unseen producer, that the woman has given up enough of her time answering questions? Could he not get her to say what he wanted? That was the only time she was seen. It was yellow journalism at its finest, er, worst, oh you know what mean… Did the “reporter” think to himself, “Let’s say the name ‘Hitler,’ so people become incensed without thinking logically about the rest of what I have to say”? I think that might have been the point that I lost all respect for what the “reporter” had to say, and perhaps that colored my opinion of what he was actually trying to say. Eugenics is basically animal husbandry for people. When practiced on animals, it is simply animal husbandry. To compare that to Hitler’s Eugenics is disgusting and ridiculous and it really made me angry (but not at the AKC, rather at him - the “reporter”).
I wish that instead of fluff and sensationalism, the “reporter” had actually answered some questions that I, and others like me who are on the fence about the issue, have. One person, the man (doctor?) who said that the AKC is doing some good by looking for genetic markers, also stated that an “easier solution” would be to open the registries. Now in my experience “easy” might be a quick fix, but what about the long term? No one ever mentions the long term. Easy is not always best. That person also said that if they had open registries, “genetic diseases wouldn’t be a problem.” Is that even true? I may not be a geneticist, but I do know that this argument doesn’t hold water in people. If it did, I should be the healthiest person on the planet. Each of my great-grandparents came to America from a different country, each with its own genetically diverse population, and yet I find that I am susceptible to all of the different diseases that they (my ancestors) were plagued with in life and eventually died from. WTF? Are animals different? If so, why are they different? Why would mixing the genes of different breeds prevent the second, third and forth generations from being susceptible to all of the possible problems of their ancestors? How does opening the registry solve all the problems that responsible breeders are trying to overcome by health testing and pedigree study? To me it doesn’t seem a sustainable fix. Maybe a combination? Won’t it, like in humans, eventually not matter the breed or the purity, all disease will be found everywhere? I think in the past survival of the fittest helped mother nature to weed out disease from being passed on. We are more fortunate (perhaps?) now in that we do not need to be fit to survive as our ancestors did. We don’t need to hunt for food or be hardy to survive the elements. We have supermarkets, houses and medicine if we are sick, and our animals have the same.
Sorry it is late and I am rambling…I guess the main points of what I am trying to say are that 1) I would never hold up the Nightline segment as a real side of any argument, as it was SO poorly done. 2) please explain why opening the registry is the “cure” for genetic disease. To me HH’s answer to the question about English Shepherd eyes is more dangerous than a closed registry. (And maybe it wasn’t meant as it came off, if so I apologize). To me the response, “Eyes are fine; a few of us CERF, no one has ever found anything, and I don’t expect anyone will,” is too laid back. Maybe eyes are not a general concern in the breed, but to not check them is the first step in allowing it in. Am I wrong? Please, what are the real facts?
Comment by Jessie — March 13, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
I felt such anguish for those interviewed on this “program” as I watched this hatchet job on line. It was SO obvious that the ‘interviews’ were clipped, snipped and edited for the exact purpose of denigrating all breeders and dog lovers ( with the exception of terrierman) “Yellow’ is not the word. PUCE would be more like it. And the ‘blending” of the PDE program was so blantant as to be insulting. Enough already with “would you have a baby with your own daughter” and comparing that with animal breeding. talk about a relative percentage of loons….PDE and Nightline makes Mancuso look sane
Comment by bestuvall — March 13, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
Interesting comments all around.
First, collies. I love them. And because I have always loved them, I now have Aussies because to my mind they are what collies are supposed to be. Although, Heather, your English Shepherds sound wonderful. I had one in one of my beginner classes a while ago and she was a beautiful, intelligent dog. Unfortunately her owner was seriously over-dogged with the puppy, but I suspect as an adult she is a fine and understanding dog.
Next, open outcrosses. Is it not true that in other species (I know it is true for sheep and I think it is true for horses and cattle) that if a crossbred is bred back to the original breed for a certain number of generations the resulting animal is registerable? I have never understood why that is not also true for dogs.
Susan
Comment by Susan Beals — March 14, 2009 @ 4:25 am
It is bizarre to me that animal rights agendas can be reported as “news” with no real attempt to understand the activities of another. That’s not news, that’s opinion and I for one am sick of getting opinions from reporters.
Every living creature that lives on the earth carries 12 to 15 genetic defects. You do, I do, the squirrel running free in the tree does. It happens.
Breeders (those involved in animal agriculture) are on the front line of support for breed specific rescue efforts and support of genetic research for their animals of choice. They are the best source for good quality healthy individuals that are well socialized and well bred.
Saying that “all breeders are evil” because some breeders are not as good as others is like saying some people are bad parents so no one should be allowed to be a parent. It is wrong and it is illogical but it is the position of animal rights individuals and their unthinking robots. ARs have no problem lying, creating a problem using the vehicle of the media by twisting facts, stealing your animals, invading your home, or killing new born puppies because what ever they choose to do it ok. “By their fruit shall you know them”
I can tell you this, many individuals across the continental US are not amused by the antics of animal rights individuals and their followers. They are linking hands and growing in numbers. A storm is coming. We have buying power, we have numbers which equals votes, and we have passion as our homes and families are under attack.
Rescue groups that depend on the donations of pet lovers should take note and avoid biting the hand that feeds. Politicians can ignore us at their risk. Those that sell movies, magazines, dog food, or any other product we will boycott your efforts if you support our enemies. Farmers, hunters, dog breeders, cat breeders, animal agriculture gruops - we are all watching and we are all linking hands. Don’t tread on us.
Comment by maggie b — March 14, 2009 @ 5:46 am
Please tell me what is the least bit “fair” about denigrating over 120 years of breeding purebred dogs without even letting the other side be heard.
Ah, when the journalists are camped on the doorstep of the kajillion-dollar HQ of the “other side” THAT HAD AGREED TO AN INTERVIEW AND THEN PUSSIED OUT — what more are said journalists supposed to do?
I was just listening to a podcast of Fresh Air the other day. I can’t remember the journalists that Terry was interviewing — she had a couple on that day — but he made a point about “balance.”
He said that “balance” in journalism is often a cover for vacuousness — that his commitment is not to “balance,” but to the truth. And you don’t “balance” the truth — what do you balance it with, lies?
Do we balance journalistic coverage of the latest discovery in Olduvai Gorge with “But Our Lord says in the Holy Bible that we are all descended from Adam?”
Oh yeah — apparently nowadays “we” do.
But I don’t.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 14, 2009 @ 7:01 am
Nightline focused on Bulldogs, one of the more favorite “bad health” breeds. But they are also one of the most popular. There’s an easy solution: don’t like Bulldogs? Get a Pitbull instead. These don’t have the structural or health issues that Bulldogs do. As with cars — it doesn’t MATTER if the SUV has tipover issues if the public likes SUVs. It doesn’t MATTER if the VW is risky in a car crash compared to a truck if the owner wants high mileage. If the demand for Bulldogs that still looked like “dogs that can work bulls in a fight or can control them in a slaughteryard” was high, then Bulldogs would look more like pitbulls or American Bulldogs. Don’t like the flatcoat retriever cancer? Get a working Labrador.
Incidentally, there ARE canine registries (some FCI ones for Belgians, for example) that will allow “appendix” registration. The biggest issue is changing views of “what should win” (patch eared Dalmations have better chances of good hearing than the non patch eared types, for example). Bringing in a few select “outsiders” will help some breeds. For others, like the German Shepherd, there’s plenty of good dogs out there, if only the show appearance criteria changed to what it was when the dogs were first established as a breed. Maybe that’s the answer: for 10 years, use the original foundation dog’s appearance as the show criteria.
Comment by peggy R — March 14, 2009 @ 7:39 am
“Maybe that’s the answer: for 10 years, use the original foundation dog’s appearance as the show criteria.”
Chasing and trying to recreate a “replica” has been a disaster in many breeds. Better to establish parameters for a basic “type” which allows more variation, particularly with regards to strictly cosmetic feature such as markings. Set strict penalties for features incompatible with healthy function and have breed clubs insist that soundness goes far beyond gait and that evident eye problems, breathing problems, skin problems etc… should be heavily penalized or preferably dismissed form the ring.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 14, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Kathy, I’m interested in the genetic evidence against the borzoi cross (at the risk of losing a great story) and that it might be silken windhounds. When might that have happened? And, yes, it sure is nice to have a lassie dog laying around!
Jessie and Maggieb, you both need to get a grip.
Having serious concerns about the genetic train wrecks that many purebred dogs have become does not make me, or anyone else, an animal rights nut. And if you spent any time actually reading this blog and the comments you would know that.
I refuse to accept your framing of the issue as
it has no connection with reality.
As Gina has said in regards to pet food- it shouldn’t matter what you buy or how much you pay, you shouldn’t have to worry about it killing your pet.
As to purebred dogs- it shouldn’t matter what the breed, who you buy it from or what you pay, you shouldn’t have to worry about the dog suffering from AVOIDABLE, painful and expensive genetic problems.
Me thinks thou dost protect too much.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 14, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Silken Windhounds were created in the 1980s, so they could not have been involved in Rough Collie ancestry: http://www.silkenwindhounds.org/timeline.html
Comment by Pai — March 14, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Having serious concerns about the genetic train wrecks that many purebred dogs have become does not make me, or anyone else, an animal rights nut. And if you spent any time actually reading this blog and the comments you would know that.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 14, 2009
I think this blog must confuse the bloody heck out anyone who just follows a single link to a single post. To me, it’s all a fairly well-considered, comprehensive and cohesive world view that ties together a lot of different animal-related issues, but … if you’re just listening to one side of one debate on one single issue, it’s definitely going to be a hard slog to seeing what we’re about here.
We just don’t take ANYTHING on face value, and that’s very hard for many people.
Personally, I’m not about animal rights as defined by Ingrid Newkirk et al — and yet if you drop in on a topic discussing the problems with concentrated animal feeding operations (a/k/a “factory farms”) you probably think I was a PETA member. I’m not a supporter of the current breeding practices and dog-show emphasis of the AKC — and yet as a person with champion, hunt-titled and (one) currently pregnant dogs, you probably think I was. I loathe puppy-millers with a force that may well be not healthy for my blood pressure. I am hugely in support of the thousands of people who rescue and foster pets, manage feral cat colonies and work either for pay or as volunteers at animal shelters — and yet since I believe no-kill communities are the the way forward, and that the leadership of the shelter industry has failed to promote real change, you’d probably think I’d never worked to rescue, foster and place dogs myself.
Oh, and safe food … gah, don’t get me started.
I could go on, but y’all get the point, which is that we just don’t accept the special interest orthodoxies as the truth, we question everything, and we ask if there’s not a better way. And in the asking, we often start realizing there IS a better way.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 14, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
“As to purebred dogs- it shouldn’t matter what the breed, who you buy it from or what you pay, you shouldn’t have to worry about the dog suffering from AVOIDABLE, painful and expensive genetic problems.”
Are we residing on the same planet?
WHO YOU BUY IT FROM OR WHAT YOU PAY?
So, a puppy mill dog, a russian import shipped in a crate before 6 weeks old to a broker, and the companion quality dog from a respected breeder who has been carefully planning her breeding program to optimize the qualities of the offspring, performing health testing and working to improve her line for years — they are all the same to you?
Unless you were drunk when you wrote this, maybe you should switch to writing about celebrity dogs.
Comment by Susan — March 14, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
As I understand it, the AKC canceled the interview when ABC refused to give them any control over how the interview would be edited. In other words, ABC wanted the right to torture whatever was said into whatever they wanted it to be — which ABC did with several of the other interviews, including its interview with a breeder who posts on a listserv with me. AKC chose the lesser of two evils. That was a sad excuse for journalism. Was the topic a reasonable topic for discussion? Sure. But they were so eager for a sexy story that they couldn’t be bothered to go about it in a reputable way.
Comment by Susan — March 14, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
Silken windhounds have sheltie in their ancestry!!!! Not vice versa. They are descended from a breeder in MA who tried to convince the whippet community there was such a thing as a Long Haired Whippet that could be traced back through time. He bred both whippets and shelties. His shelties carry the gene for sensitivity to Ivermectin et al that can be traced back to a single popular collie sire in Victorian England. His LHWs were the foundation for the the Silken crosses. They carry the same sensitivity.
This is an example of unintended consequences. This man showed both shelties and whippets. At the time, heartworm had not invaded MA on the scale it exists now, and preventive medications were not part of good dog health management. Who knew such a genetic problem existed? Who knows what will happen down the pike with Open Registries? Just sayin’ no matter what one does, it’s still a crap shoot/luck of the draw. And even if we did know for sure all the genetic code, how would a breeder personally weigh PRA against hip dysplasia against sarcomas against whatever? If I bred to this dog, I am introducing A,b,F, w and y, but I know he doesn’t carry c,E,g or x. But my line does. So I have offspring that now may carry A,b,c,E,g,F,w,x and y depending on the mode of inheritance,if somewher someone introduces a dog thats Aa ,there is an ax combination that combined with y is lethal but won’t show up until after maturity. Gak!
I have no answers.
Comment by Anne T — March 14, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Unless you were drunk when you wrote this, maybe you should switch to writing about celebrity dogs.
Comment by Susan — March 14, 2009
Not acceptable. You can debate the issue intelligently and respectfully or you can go find an echo-chamber that suits you. Your choice.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 14, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
Susan
No, it’s just about time for a glass of wine, though. I favor a perky little Merlot, myself.
If it is true by definition, and I think it is, that a puppy mill dog or an underage Russian import shipped to a broker are quite unlikely to be healthy and behaviorally sound, then the puppy mill needs to be put out of business and we need more import controls over what animals are allowed into the country.
The problem with both is that the method of operating, per se, is detrimental to the dogs.
Just like high capacity feed lots are, per se, detrimental to the humane, sustainable production of decent steaks.
If a respected breeder, however you choose to define that term, produces puppies that are likely to have painful, life-shortening, wallet-emptying, heart-breaking genetic and structurally induced health problems, then they need to change their breeding practices or go into business manufacturing stuffed toy dogs instead.
Because…the way they are breeding dogs, per se, is detrimental to the humane, responsible creation of new candidates for man’s best friend.
What constitutes “quality” and “improvement” in purebred dogs is clearly open to debate these days, as well it should be.
No matter where one acquires a puppy, it should have been planned for, born and raised with its best interests in mind, not the profit or ego needs of the breeder, no matter whether they are in Rhode Island or Russia. That means genetic, physical and mental health come first.
That means bulldogs and pugs who can breath, GSDs who can move normally, cavaliers who don’t die young of heart disease…I could go on for quite a bit.
I really fail to understand what is so difficult about this.
And just so there’s no confusion- PeTA sucks.
———
Oh, celebrity dogs…I realized that the teacup dog as fashion accessory had really gone too far when I saw a young girl with a tiny puppy in the crook of her arm in the State Department Store in Ulaanbaatar, MONGOLIA, for crying out loud.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 14, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Then we do not actually disagree, because while I know only a small number of breeders — french bulldogs and bulldogs, but mostly french bulldogs — most of them are very serious about trying to breed for health and soundness. I apologize for my previous vehemence, but perhaps your thoughts also could have been stated more precisely. My breeder friends have taken quite a beating lately, and I hate to see them lumped in with the squalid trash of the BYBs, puppy millers and brokers. PeTA sucks. Peace?
Comment by Susan — March 14, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
You could you fix the English bulldog by crossing in some American Pit Bull Terrier, but you’d do better to use the American Bulldog (which unlike the APBT, has no terrier component).
The Boston terrier, on the other hand, would be easy to fix by crossing in some APBT. The Boston (bull) terrier is a very very close relative; indeed 80-100 years ago, it was just a small regional version of the APBT.
It’s too bad (though understandable) that AKC chose not to participate in the show.. but the one-sided intent of the producers was obvious from the get-go. They couldn’t find ANY AKC breeders willing to talk to defend breeding? EVERY breeder “obeyed” the AKC dictate not to talk to them?
I don’t think so. They didn’t want to present a balanced picture.
Comment by EmilyS — March 14, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
oh p.s. PETA sucks.. but so do non- PETA types who equate animal husbandry, and purebred dog breeding, to racist “eugenics”
Comment by EmilyS — March 14, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
As I understand it, the AKC canceled the interview when ABC refused to give them any control over how the interview would be edited.
No interview subject gets that control. Nobody.
Typical ACK imperial affectation.
Or more to the point, a transparent cop-out. The overpaid slicksters at the AKC PR office knew full well that they would be refused this unprecedented royal prerogative.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 14, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
I can’t help but notice that the small but ever-growing demand for reform of two long unquestioned and unchallenged “royal houses” seems to be moving in parallel: The world of animal shelters, and the world of purebred dogs.
Interesting, isn’t it?
Complicated issues are very hard for mass media to cover — which is why our economic system nearly collapsed before anyone said “boo” in the mainstream media. And why, until recently, pit bulls were almost universally considered “evil,” dog shows “glamorous” and shelters “good.”
The truth, of course, is a lot more nuanced.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 14, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Susan
You betcha ::extends hand::
Comment by Susan Fox — March 14, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
“Jessie and Maggieb, you both need to get a grip.”
Comment by Susan Fox — March 14, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
LOL…I need to get a grip? About what exactly? I never accused anyone here of being an AR nut or PeTA supporter, and yes I do read this blog often. I do think that outcrossing can be beneficial to breeds that cannot function as dogs (such as in breathing or walking), as I said I am open minded on the issue. However, that is a completely different issue from hereditary genetic disease. What I am not sold on is outcrossing being a cure-all for genetic disease. Umm, I am personally acquainted with mixed breed dogs that have hereditary diseases. I want to know why opening the registry is a better solution than finding genetic markers, testing breeding stock for them and studying pedigrees to prevent genetic disease from future generations. I am fortunate that my breed hasn’t be rendered incapable of being a functioning dog. Yes, those breeds do still exist. It makes me cringe to see dogs that can’t. So, selfish as it might be, my focus is instead on keeping my breed healthy. I do that the best way I know how. I test my dogs and register the results with CERF, OFA, etc. I pass along the info to my dogs’ breeders and owners of close relatives. I check the COI of potential offspring of planned breedings, and will pass on a breeding if it is too high. Rather than insulting me, show me studies, post links. I am asking to learn more! That is why I read this blog.
If you think I took the Hitler comment a bit to personally, sorry. Having family members killed in Nazi concentration camps will do that to a person.
I really was looking forward to liking this news segment based on the fact that Gina liked it. Sorry on that one too. I thought it was bad journalism, but hey I have high expectations.
Comment by Jessie — March 14, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
“As I understand it, the AKC canceled the interview when ABC refused to give them any control over how the interview would be edited.”
I think is was more likely the fact that they found out the segment’s working title was “Purebred Hell” and also the fact that some journalists use sound bites out of context to “prove” a point. After watching the segment, it was probably a wise move on their part.
Comment by Jessie — March 14, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
Gina, I believe that the whole food choice issue, as in opting out of industrial agriculture, is coming along at the same time as the two you’ve mentioned.
There seems to be a sea-change happening in regard to how we relate to animals in this country, not just our pets, but livestock also. (3 cheers for Prop. 2!)
Somewhere between “we can do anything with them we want” and “humans should have no contact with animals at all” is, well, ethical reality.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 14, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Yes, I think you’re right.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 14, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
It’s too bad (though understandable) that AKC chose not to participate in the show.. but the one-sided intent of the producers was obvious from the get-go. They couldn’t find ANY AKC breeders willing to talk to defend breeding? EVERY breeder “obeyed” the AKC dictate not to talk to them?
I don’t think so. They didn’t want to present a balanced picture.
Comment by EmilyS — March 14, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
The segment didn’t attack “breeding.” It attacked a certain approach to breeding, which values purity and increasingly extreme expressions of “the breed standard” over structural soundness, functionality, and genetic health.
No rational person can look at the GSDs that win in the American show ring and say that’s a structurally sound dog. Or that bulldogs, or Pekingese, or other breeds that frequently can’t breed naturally or deliver without caesarian sections or breathe normally are structurally sound, healthy dogs.
The breeders said what they said. The breeder who had bred one of her bitches to a dog who was deaf in one ear explained why she did it with enough context to understand her viewpoint.
Even Terrierman was remarkably temperate and reasonable.
It was a seven-minute segment in a half-hour show, not a full-blown documentary. And as someone else said, you don’t “balance” facts with “the other side.” You don’t give the interviewee control of the editing. Maybe in an hour-long documentary, you’d see more of the breeders expressing their viewpoint—but anyone attempting to explain that the Dal/Pointer cross project was Bad for the Breed, even though it produced in a few generations dogs who are indistinguishable from the “purebred” Dals except that they don’t have the same health problems, is not going to look sensible and rational on closer examination. To say the least, they won’t look sensible and rational.
Comment by Lis — March 14, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
The Basenji project is a good example of this also, with the AKC refusing to register the offspring of these unions until many generations had passes even after provenance for the African dogs had been established and documented.
http://www.basenji.org/african/jone8908.htm
Comment by Linda Kaim — March 15, 2009 @ 6:10 am
“Maybe that’s the answer: for 10 years, use the original foundation dog’s appearance as the show criteria.”
Well, that rather screws us in Frenchies. You could, as I’ve said before in my own blog, literally bring the winner of the 1901 French Bulldog specialty into a ring today, and no one would blink an eye. He might not win, but no one would be surprised to a see a dog who looks like him in the ring.
This is by of saying that my breed, Frenchies, have changed almost not at all since their inception. Tails are short, and ears slightly more rounded, but that’s about it.
Here’s an example - it’s a side by side photo of Delilah, age 18 mnths, and Dimboola, 1st specialty winner -
Photo
So, as I said at the very beginning of the blog, there really are NO easy fixes, and certainly none that can happen over night. For some of us, breeding healthier dogs has been a life time’s work, and still one that is in progress.
Comment by FrogDogz — March 15, 2009 @ 6:59 am
I agree that outcrossing is not a cure-all.
I don’t think anyone who is actually IN IT and understands genetics believes that outcrossing is all that is needed.
No, along with outcrossing where it’s needed, there have to be social mechanisms for encouraging (carrot and/or stick) rigorous SELECTION for health and temperament.
That might mean requiring a concurrent spay for any bitch who needs a c-section to deliver. It may mean forbidding AI unless the dog has sired a litter naturally, bitch has conceived naturally. (And entirely disallowing extreme measures such as surgical insemination.)
It may mean breed surveys (not competitive shows) in which a breed expert and a qualified veterinarian examine each animal for soundness and pass or fail. Dogs that are unsound cannot engender registered offspring.
For working breeds, a working title for registration of offspring.
For companion breeds, events that showcase the dogs’ biddability and good temperament.
Insofar as good genetic health encompasses good temperament — which it does — hell, there’s only three things that are important:
Health, health, health.
Genetic and phenotype testing for the genetic disease concerns of each breed — with a breeding-value system that grades each animal integrating the data of progeny and relatives, and transparent and verified reporting of results.
A cultural change that defines a good breeder as one who is transparent, honest, and cooperative, replacing the current system of rewards for winning in the show ring and hiding the skeletons.
An educated community of breeders that understands both basic and population genetics, and gets that “eradicating” a defect comes at a cost — in many cases, one that is not reasonable.
All of this under the entire control of BREED CLUBS composed of the owners of the dogs in question, and not under the control of any larger entity.
The solution to any breed’s problems will be particular to that breed.
For some, outcrossing. For others, powerful changes in selection criteria, or genetic testing, or culling for soundness. For many breeds, all of the above and more.
All done without the force of law — relying on the power of leadership, peer pressure, and a properly educated marketplace.
This is not too much to ask. It is not an unreasonable set of goals. It just isn’t.
And any breed club, any breed community, can get started on it this afternoon. There is no need to ask permission. You just need to not care about what the “powers” will do to you. You need to not care that you won’t be bringing home championships, or registering “pure” puppies. You need to laugh at the slander that the Old Guard will spread about you. You need to be prepared for a lot of hard work and the painful process of reprogramming your thinking. You need to be sustained by your love of your breed, and the fierce protectiveness that that love should engender in you.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 15, 2009 @ 8:40 am
Heather writes:
“That might mean requiring a concurrent spay for any bitch who needs a c-section to deliver. It may mean forbidding AI unless the dog has sired a litter naturally, bitch has conceived naturally. (And entirely disallowing extreme measures such as surgical insemination.)”
The Jockey Club, with it’s own set of problems, to this day will not allow the artificial insemination of the horses so registered.
I think the ability to do a thing (AI’s and implants) is not a prerequisite to practice it as routine.
Extenuating circumstances aside (the value of collecting sires with real merit not “show dog” merit) it should be practiced as a means of conserving good genetics, not perpetuating all genetics.
Fertility in purebred dogs has suffered over many years along with hosts of other problems, but if the basic instinct of reproduction is lost, why perpetuate that?
Good mothers more often than not beget good mothers.
I see no benefit in breeding an animal that has to be interfered with in order to reproduce.
Comment by Linda Kaim — March 15, 2009 @ 10:25 am
I’d say you’ve come up with something that’s equal parts manifesto and “a cunning plan”.
What I like as much as anything is that there are no excuses, no off-loading blame onto the AKC or any other external authority. The buck stops with the breed clubs and lovers of a breed, along with the moral and ethical responsibility to produce healthy, tempermentally sound dogs.
“Start this afternoon…”. Indeed.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 15, 2009 @ 10:27 am
A lot of us started long long before this afternoon. For a long while it felt like swimming upstream and sometimes still does but at least we have a lot more company
But as frogdogz stated and re-stated, it’s not so simple.
If your absolutely opposed to dog shows and brachycephalic breeds etc.. that is your right to be so. You have every right to have your chosen breed and your opinion.
Those if us with bulldogs who are seeing real change in our breed clubs and the attitudes of dedicated breeders within towards health and longevity and progressive change in the right direction aren’t ready to give up yet. We’re not ready to give up on making a difference to the breed as a whole.
The idea that french bulldogs and bulldogs are uninterested in reproduction is a myth being perpetuated on line by people who do not live with these breeds. They have excellent libido, are capable of breeding naturally (I helped someone breed her two first timer this past weekend, my help was really not needed once the bitch bit chewed him out for his wrong ended initial approach) and I personally will attest that they make excellent mothers if they are selected with that in mind. My last bitch made it very clear that my help was neither needed nor appreciated. Yes, they can and do free whelp but not reliably and if someone has only limited access to competent veterinary care after hours or on weekends then I don’t blame them for hesitating to try.
My current priority for my breeding program is to produce dogs which breathe normally, move well and lead long active lives. Dogs which rarely visit the vet and are a pleasure to live with. I expect that as everything else falls into place in terms of health that the rate of free whelping success will also improve. But free whelping is no guarantee of overall health.
For the record, I won’t breed a toy fox terrier a second time (my second breed of which I have two) if she has required a section. They are a free whelping breed and need to stay that way. But I’m not going to cast aside twenty years of work eliminating airway problems, eliminating eye and joint and skin issues if my next bulldog litter is delivered by c-section or with other veterinary assistance.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 15, 2009 @ 11:44 am
“If your absolutely opposed to dog shows and brachycephalic breeds etc.. that is your right to be so. You have every right to have your chosen breed and your opinion.”
Which completely misses the point and is a red herring to boot.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 15, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
The Jockey Club, with its own set of problems, to this day will not allow the artificial insemination of the horses so registered.
Comment by Linda Kaim — March 15, 2009
Almost ALL Standardbreds (racing trotters/pacers) are bred AI. And I believe they’re consider much sturdier and healthier horses than Thoroughbreds.
Just saying that bringing AI into the blame game mix may not be valuable, in terms of priority.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 15, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
No, it does not miss the point. And it is useless to use that quote outside of the larger context of my post. My point is it is not as simple as Spay everything that needs a cesarian. Because being delivered without assistance is no guarantee of health. Because even natural breeds sometimes run into mechanical or secondary delivery issues and require a cesarian. And some bitches go on to free whelp after a cesarian, I’ve had them do so. To eliminate all dogs who fail one criteria on one occasion means the loss of other gains and genetic diversity.
Looking in from the outside and based on much of the popular misconceptions and broad generalizations about this breed or that, it does seem simple. Being in it and doing the work and helping with the research etc… it turns out it is not black and white or simple, not if we want healthy dogs and to preserve what brought us to the breed in the first place.
If one goes by the recommendations of most veterinary teaching hospitals, the way to manage hereditary disease in dogs is to cull not only those affected but also the parents and the siblings. That stretches from cancer to eye anomalies to hip dysplasia to airway obstruction. How many breeds would survive cuts that deep?
Now, outcrossing judiciously could no doubt be huge boon to many of our breeds. It’s not curative for everything however nor would it make up for the loss of genetic diversity due to culling too deep based on one criteria.
Each breed will need different management strategies to either preserve it or help it improve and recover. I look forward to the next ten or twenty years as being exciting and creating real improvement for all our dogs.
But there needs to be room for input in the discussion for the owners and breeders of those breeds, as they’re willingness to participate will be crucial. I seriously doubt there is anyone who posts here who does not make their decisions based on a true love and appreciation for their breed.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 15, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Looking in from the outside and based on much of the popular misconceptions and broad generalizations about this breed or that, it does seem simple.
[…]
[T]here needs to be room for input in the discussion for the owners and breeders of those breeds, as they’re willingness to participate will be crucial. I seriously doubt there is anyone who posts here who does not make their decisions based on a true love and appreciation for their breed.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 15, 2009
I think you’re right in that it’s not simple, and I would also say that the answers are not universally the same. Two things I see as bottom-line necessary, though:
1) The ability of people who are dedicated to a breed (however you define that) to admit problems, consider change and act on the considerations; and
2) Institutional change within the AKC to support change in addressing different problems with different breeds. (Yes, I know: Many of you are very anti-AKC. I’m just not there myself. I see them like the HSUS, a potentially powerful ally I’d rather see reformed than dead.)
As has been noted many times, some breeds have structural issues, some are more prone to cancer, etc. I do think the answer for the boxer isn’t going to be the answer for the golden isn’t going to be the answer for the Westie isn’t going to be the answer for the Yorkie.
And I absolutely do think we need to give credit to the people within a breed who are working for change. It’s not enough to say, “a bulldog needs to become a pit bull.” There’s a lot of cool things about bulldogs. Can we work towards a healthier future for that breed, starting now? And can we give credit to the people who do?
I mean, geez, I grew up with a dad who thought the the only dog in the world was a BOXER, by damn. Talk about a genetic train wreck, but every boxer my parents ever owned (and the ones my brother adopts now, from boxer rescue) are wonderful dogs. I don’t want to see them tossed, just fixed so they don’t die so damn young.
OK, I’m rambling a bit now. Bottom line: I think all questions are fine, no one should get defensive and we all need to give people who are trying to do the right thing some credit.
That last? From where I’m sitting, that would be all of us here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 15, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
I agree Gina, very well put, thanks. :-)
Comment by JenniferJ — March 15, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
Oh, and sorry if all the stupid grammatical errors I’ve made recently caused any pain or mental anguish. :-)
The two year old has a cold, the five year old has a stomach bug and my ten year old had a nightmare at 3:00AM.
Throw in a new rescue dog with serious emotional distress and I am rather sleep deprived!
Comment by JenniferJ — March 15, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Gina writes:
“Almost ALL Standardbreds (racing trotters/pacers) are bred AI. And I believe they’re consider much sturdier and healthier horses than Thoroughbreds.
Just saying that bringing AI into the blame game mix may not be valuable, in terms of priority.”
I prefaced what I wrote with the Jockey Club with “their own set of problems” like Popular Sire Syndrome, pedigree name recognition and breeding for speed as opposed to soundness. Breeding for length of stride as opposed to heart/lung capacity, so on and so forth. Fertility is less of a problem for them than it is for many other breeds or species, and they are none too eager to give that up.
I also suggested that the collection of worthy sires would be prudent for future generations if the selection was based on measurable contributions like health and performance attributes as opposed to having just been a popular stud dog or stallion.
I’m not arguing to dump AI, I am arguing to preserve it as a tool not to be used because we can, but as a resource for things we may lose.
I do argue that fertility is usually one of the first thing to go, lack of maternal instinct in bitches, lack of libido in dogs.
As has already been pointed out, if it can’t be done naturally, I ask, should it be done at all?
Just because the technology is available, I don’t agree that it should be used as freely as it currently is.
Before AI was possible, there was a popular German Shepherd Dog sire who was a producer of several influential champions. He could not be bred in the traditional sense. Girls just didn’t turn him on.
He had to be manipulated manually for each and every breeding, all outside ties and on the occasion of pregnancy, had a low ratio of surviving puppies. This was before hormone leutenizing and ovulation timing.
To this day, over 30 years later, his influence can still be felt in the breed. The paternal line of these dogs also suffer from low libido, low fertility and poor survivorship of neonates. But still they persist in perpetuating this line of dogs.
Shepherds are not the only breed with such stories.
My point is this: all else being equal, is this something that we should be perpetuating?
Comment by Linda Kaim — March 15, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
No Linda, I don’t think it’s something we should, and that winning in the Ring/Race track is not a good enough excuse to do so. It’s not the overall picture as the dog/horse’s life extends long after those early months or years. They are just a part, and often a small part of the lifespan of the animal. We need an approach to breeding animals that incorporates the principles of holism.
“ho⋅lism
–noun Philosophy.
1. the theory that whole entities, as fundamental components of reality, have an existence other than as the mere sum of their parts.” Random House Dictionary
Comment by Anne T — March 15, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Notice that I didn’t say “No AI.”
AI is a powerful tool, especially in rare breeds in which a particularly desirable mate may be on another continent. Or to bank the genetics of a particularly fine male for strategic later use. Or to bank the genetics of a promising male during his most fertile years, for use later if he proves to be especially good and long-lived, and his early natural litters are great dogs.
It is also, used in another way, a way to try to cheat Nature and perpetuate weakness. The weakness is not limited to poor reproduction; the offspring that are conceived and manage to survive are frequently unwell in other ways.
I said “No AI if the bitch hasn’t conceived, and the male hasn’t sired, naturally.”
IOW, no AI for a first litter. If the bitch will not stand or cannot conceive naturally, if the male is sexually incompetent or has such lazy or unpopulous sperm that he can’t engender puppies naturally — they need to get out of the gene pool.
It takes not very many generations of assisted reproduction before that assistance becomes mandatory. This *can be* independent of any obvious structural deformities that interfere with normal reproduction. That way lies madness.
I know a bitch line in a moderately structured hunting breed that is now on its fourth generation of technological reproduction. Each generation, the interventions get one step more extreme. The breeder is adamant that she get a litter out of each daughter she keeps. I don’t think she’s going to manage it one more time. At least in this case it’s contained and self-limiting.
I didn’t originate this idea. Before the AKC takeover, the Leonberger club had this exact rule — no AI for first litters. I imagine that many other European-system clubs do. This rule is most onerous in rare breeds — and it is most important when the gene pool is small. Just another difficulty of conservation breeding.
Oh, and I’d also, personally, spay a bitch who wasn’t a good mother, who got mastitis twice (maybe once), who had a very difficult delivery, or for any other reason had a hard time raising puppies. I’d do it because it’s unkind to make a bitch who suffers because of motherhood do it again. Bonus: selection for good mothers.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 15, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
By the way, the reason I know so much about horse breeding in the racing world is based on one really good read: “Stud: Adventures in Breeding,” by Kevin Conley, which is an extended version of an article he wrote for The New Yorker.
The book (and article) is mostly about Storm Cat, who until his retirement in 2008 at the age of 25 was the top Thoroughbred stud, at $500,000 a date.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 15, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Kathy wrote:
BTW collies are second only to border collies in the number of herding titles awarded. I guess you can quibble about the value of herding in different venues but the titles are being worked for and earned by folks in the collie breed.
I could find stats only for the year 2004 for AKC herding titles. ASCA and AHBA do not publish titles by breed (that I could find), and USBCHA does not award titles.
It’s hard to figure out how many individual dogs titled, because there are so many possible titles (NINETEEN, not counting instinct testing and something called “pre-trial.”)
With just the basic HSAS (herding started sheep), 103 border collies titled, 27 Shelties, 23 Tervs, 21 ACDs, 19 collies, 16 GSDs, 14 Aussies. The proportions stay roughly similar through all the many possible titles, but the HSAS is the most common title.
I was going to compare those numbers to the raw numbers of registrations by breed for the same year or a year just previous. But ACK has not only ceased publishing the actual numbers of registrations (to hide the swan dive in their registrations) — it has gone through and purged the lists of raw numbers from prior years from its website! I couldn’t find anything elsewhere on the web with actual numbers from any year.
If LauraS, or anyone else, has preserved any raw number lists that AKC published in the past and can send them to me, I’ll happily publish them on my blog so that future googlers will have better luck than I did. (No, a list of names and numbers is not copyrightable.)
So, in 04, collies were not the #2 breed to title in “herding” with the AKC. However, the 2003 list does show that collies were more popular than border collies (the AKC version), ACDs, and Tervs — all of which had more HSAS titles than collies. Per the collie club website, the number of started (sheep) titles in 2007 was 17 on the A and B course combined, so that actually went down a little. Not surprisingly (to me) the two kennel names that appear over and over in the club’s list of dogs who competed in herding trials specialize in smooth collies.
In any event — herding titles in the low double-digits in a population of many tens of thousands does not make for evidence of widespread breeding to preserve working abilities. Ten times the number of collies were entered in the *first day* of the 2007 conformation national specialty than earned herding titles all year in 2004
I applaud the owners and breeders who are making an effort to select for ability, and organizations such as the AWCA that support those efforts. But they are a tiny proportion. (If ACK hadn’t started obsessively hiding their facts and figures from the light, I could compute HOW tiny.)
Clearly, the incentive structure to demonstrate a collie’s soundness and usefulness is nowhere near competitive with the incentive structure that rewards a “correct head” (that’s this one: http://www.collieclubofamerica.....tudy.html) with ribbons and trophies, and disparages and penalizes this UGLY head: http://www.collieclubofamerica.....pherd.html
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 15, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
I am not arguing against AI either, much like Heather, I am arguing for more judicious use of it.
I am opposed to it’s use as a first alternative in any event BUT WOULD COMPROMISE if it were used in such a way that it is clearly demonstrated that natural covers, natural whelping and fertility were not questions in the lineage of the donor animal.
It is not being used that way currently and breeds are suffering as a result.
As Heather states: “It takes not very many generations of assisted reproduction before that assistance becomes mandatory. This *can be* independent of any obvious structural deformities that interfere with normal reproduction. That way lies madness.”
Comment by Linda Kaim — March 16, 2009 @ 8:06 am
HH, I found 2006 registration stats on the AKC website
http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats_2006.cfm
Comment by LauraS — March 16, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Thanks — I searched and searched, but didn’t find anything.
They’ve otherwise apparently done a good job of purging the evidence of their registrations modeling the Dow. I’ve copied this page to my hard drive.
There are not nearly as many collies registered as I’d thought. But still more than ten times as many as Tervs.
I had another thought about working titles, which is the need to control for titles earned by ILP dogs. Not only are they not part of the breeding population, they may not be the breed they are listed as. The PDF of titles I found did not indicate or tally ILP’d competitors. I have no idea if there were significant numbers of them in any of the breeds listed.
I’m going to try some tricks with the Wayback Machine and see if I find more.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 16, 2009 @ 10:51 am
Heather - I believe the statistic (that I’ve heard, which I think was quoted in an AWCA thing) is that collies have more dogs with herding titles AND conformation titles than any other herding breed except BCs. I’m trying to find the source now.
Comment by Cait — March 16, 2009 @ 10:59 am
Actually, Wolf DID die “saving the life of a worthless mongrel from an onrushing train”. Newspapers across the country carried the story of
the collies “Hero Death”. So there!
Comment by danielle — January 17, 2010 @ 7:46 pm