You wouldn't marry your sibling...Neither should your dog...
Aug 23 '00
I’m gonna be blunt on this. Possibly rude. This breaks my own rules regarding my ‘epinions behavior’ but sometimes one can be too civilized. An incredible amount of damage continues to be done while everyone ‘talks nice’.
What exactly is a ‘good breeder’? Uhmmm…I’ve come to believe that they are a mythical entity lost to the mists of a fabled past. If they are still extant they are damnably rare. There is the conventional wisdom that good breeders are working diligently to improve the breed(s) they’re involved in. We are assured they are striving for perfection. Read any ad or article from esteemed breeders and you will always see it claimed that the most important consideration is temperament followed by health and then conformation. Either this is bull or these breeders have the collective intelligence of a brain damaged gnat.
Temperament? I believe almost all ‘good breeders’ continue to breed for sound temperament. Dogs from ‘good breeders’ are carefully placed in homes deemed appropriate to both the breed and the individual dog. Training and socialization are recommended (often required). Good breeders follow through to ascertain the match is successful and that the dog, its humans and the other pets are happy and adjusting well. Good breeders live with their dogs and consider mental health and personality to be essential. Contrary to popular myth, dogs shown at AKC events are friendly or at least tolerant. They are not nervous , high-strung, surly or threatening. These dogs are pros, accustomed to hordes of yammering strangers, grasping hands, curious toddlers. Consideration and common sense dictate that you get the handler’s permission before approaching the dogs but I’ve seen only one breed that is often represented by unapproachable dogs.
Health? Unfortunately this is the area neglected by the much vaunted ‘good breeders’.Dog lovers out there think hard…Tell me (please) which breeds have been improved in the last few decades. Hips? Elbows? Eyes? Allergies? Seizure disorders? Cancers? Immune mediated disorders? Thyroid imbalance? Diabetes? Hematopoietic disorders. Heart disease? Kidney / liver dysfunction? Almost all breeds are beset by a growing list of disorders, minor and serious, that affect increasing numbers of individuals within the breed. Disorders that were previously rare are distressingly commonplace. The complacency of the ‘good breeders’ is criminal. When discussing the large and recent increases in these disorders I hear vague concerns regarding diet or environmental pollution. No one wants to face that the ‘good breeders’ are the problem not the solution.
Longevity is decreasing in most medium to giant breeds. In many breeds it has decreased sharply. Only the toys and small dogs continue to be consistently long lived. Despite continued longevity these dogs are also plagued by increasing health problems. Several years ago an article in Dog Fancy or Dog World noted that the average life span of dogs has steadily declined in the past twenty years even as it has increased in cats! This, despite the fact that cats are more sensitive to toxins and chemical pollutants. It’s tough to believe environmental hazards are exacting a relentless toll on our companion dogs but not our cats. It’s especially tough to believe when any mention of genetics is either politely acknowledged and quickly passed on OR I’m given a look that suggests I suddenly sprouted two heads, both uncouth.
CONFORMATION ? Understand, in ‘real life’ I curse with the passion of a sailor and the devotion of a saint. In epinions I don’t. Seems like a matter of taste and judgment (of which I have little in ‘real life’). NOW were this real life, the simple word CONFORMATION starts me to muttering darkly, moving onto a full blown rant, liberally interspersed with the usual boring expletives and vulgarisms. Look at contemporary show dogs versus the same breeds several decades past! Many breeds have become increasingly silly looking, exaggerated heads that are rounder (or narrower or shorter), ears set so low they’ll soon drop off, coats so profuse the dogs are buried alive in their own fur. Some breeds are so uniform in appearance there is no real discernible difference between most of them. The judges should admit it, award 90% of ‘em blue ribbons and send everyone home. I questioned myself closely on this. Is it that I don’t have the ‘eye’ for these breeds? And I passed the Rotties even as I questioned myself. Quite distinctive, even within the breed, yet there is only one color, one coat type. And it’s never been ‘my breed’. I’ve never followed them, studied them, or been smitten by them. I usually pay them little mind at the shows but I could readily distinguish the individual dogs. They DID NOT look like they’d been stamped out with a cookie cutter.
I like a pretty dog. Why not? But the Curse of Conformation is way beyond ‘a pretty face’. There is this madness in the Conformation Contests (which is what AKC dog shows really are) that would be hilarious if dogs weren’t being robbed of health and longevity to satisfy this maniacal pursuit. This is what ‘good breeding’ is ALL about. Repeatedly, a ‘certain look’ is the determining factor in breeding and known health problems in sibs and parents are IGNORED (sometimes present even in the one being bred)! Under any and all circumstances THIS would be bad. What compounds the crime in dog breeding is the prevalence of incest, more commonly called inbreeding. This is an area of denial for many breeders who prefer to call it ‘line breeding’ (dogs are related, but not as closely). Rarely a good idea, it’s a particularly bad idea in a species beset with health problems like our beloved domestic dogs.
‘Rare recessives’… Breeders with any grasp of genetics are familiar with this term. ‘Rare recessives’ are often genes that are detrimental ONLY when inherited from both parents. A human example of this is sickle-cell anemia. Large gene pools help to ensure that these ‘rare recessives’ are in fact RARE. They become increasingly common with inbreeding (or line breeding). Parents with only one of these genes (homozygous for the gene) will not have the disorder though they will carry it. Mating two carriers of such a disorder means that each of the offspring has a one in four chance of having the disorder. Each of the offspring has a one in two chance of being a ‘carrier’. Breeding for ‘Beauty Contests’ has encouraged the excessive use of the detrimental line breeding practices. Line breeding should only be pursued for the most compelling reasons. Marginally ‘improving’ the set of the ears or tail or shape of the feet is a shabby tradeoff for the damage our beloved dogs suffer.
Beyond the simplicity of ‘rare recessives’ it only becomes more complex. It’s believed that many disorders are caused by multiple genes. Two examples in canines are cancer and hip dysplasia. Identifying and tracking the involved genes is far more complex than the straight forward scenario of disorders associated with a single gene. But the disadvantages of line breeding remain. It is imperative that these deleterious genes be minimized within the canine gene pools. Inbreeding usually increases their numbers.
A breeder suggested that inbreeding (and culling) is the only way to eliminate deleterious genes. There are several problems with this. First, it’s only practical with ‘single gene’ disorders. And while breeders pay lip service to this (occasionally) they in fact inbreed (or line breed) to ‘fix’ conformation. Further, while a conscientious breeder may be breeding out Von Willebrand’s disease, there is a considerable risk that genes for seizure disorders, allergies, heart condition, cancer, etc are increasing in these breedings! So as one ‘risk’ is being eliminated 3 or 4 (or more) risks could be accumulating. As ‘Spontaneous Mutations’ do arise, it’s fallacious to assume these disorders are so readily eliminated. Note that the hemophilia implicated in WWI Russian politics is believed to have arisen from a spontaneous mutation in the germ cell line of Queen Victoria. Spontaneous mutations are genetic fact, not arcane theory.
I believe ‘good breeders’ care for their dogs and their breed. But it is past time to care ENOUGH to breed constructively. A sensible approach could reverse much of the damage and let our dogs reclaim the health and longevity they’re entitled to. Essentially, good looking, sound (physically and mentally) dogs are bred to good looking, sound bitches. Appropriate genetic testing is performed. Family history is reviewed. Dogs are NOT bred with family health problems or less than excellent test results. One looks for long lived, healthy, happy animals. One fearlessly breeds out even though conformation will not be as uniform. Inbreeding (including line breeding) is done only for compelling reasons that serve canine welfare, not human vanity. Frankly, ‘good backyard breeders’ already practice this. (They do not PLACE with nearly the care or success of ‘good breeders’) A Golden Retriever with a perfect coat that lives eight years does not serve the breed as well as a Golden that is ‘less’ perfect to look at but has lived 14 healthy years.
The diverse and glorious All American Mutt is a phenomenon that has arisen (haphazardly) from purebred breeding programs. Consequently, these guys are not immune from the damage wrought on purebreds. The same deleterious genes that are concentrating within breeds will hit the canine ‘love matches’ as well, though it may take longer and wreak less devastation. Ultimately, ALL dogs and ALL dog lovers are at risk from these bad breeding practices. It should be established that to love dogs is to breed them with care and devotion.
I do not breed. I acquired my angels with care and forethought. As a responsible pet owner ALL are spayed or neutered. HOWEVER, when I look at the disaster much of the purebred breeding has become I'm thoroughly disgusted, even tempted. It simply isn't hard to do it BETTER than most of the show breeders. I want healthy, happy sane dogs that will live with us for as many years as possible. I don't want years cut from my time with them in the pursuit of 'a perfect topline'. 'Show quality' should have more to do with health and longevity than a picture perfect appearance. Committed pet owners feel very strongly about this. It's frankly HARD to counsel people against breeding so the 'professionals' can do it when those professionals have made such a mess of it.
It is time for these professionals to take their self-appointed responsibilities more seriously. Their dogs deserve it. The people who open their hearts and homes to their dogs deserve it. Most frightening, if the situation doesn't improve it will get worse. I wonder how much worse it will have to get before show breeders take serious notice. And will that finally translate into ACTION?
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
LaBruja
|
|
Member: Jacinta
Reviews written: 43
Trusted by: 18 members
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.