Natural History

Posted in dog breeding | 7 Comments

7 Responses

1. on December 21, 2009 at 11:24 pm Peggy Richter

   With all due respect, I have to disagree to some of this. The UK/AKC conformation emphasis and the “ever more extreme” requirements to earn championships have, indeed done a great deal of harm to dogs. And requirements for “purity” of pedigree have also closed the doors to reasonable, rational crossbreeding. However, there are some issues that are just “wrong”.

   PETA and other AR (herein after called just AR) would happily ban Terrierman’s terriers from varmit hunting, just as AR has done its best to ban fox hunting. They have made efforts to ban hunting in various locations. They were behind the California AB 1634 which initially would have drastically limited breeding of Donald’s favored breed, the Border Collie, becasue most working BCs are NOT registered with the “approved” registries. Los Angeles AR is behind a move to remove AKC’s ‘exemption from mandatory spay/neuter”– because AKC doesn’t have a code of ethics which the AR approve. Neither does any of the various BC registries, NSDR, ASCA or the Kelpie registry. The assertion that AKC is arguing they need to survive to fight AR — certainly they, of all the various dog organizations have the money and structure to do so, but they haven’t been in the forfront fighting AR (hunting organizations and groups like the California Woolgrowers Assn were more effective in CA).

   AKC is not alone with the “exaggeration to the point of problems”. Kelpies have a cronic problem — Cerebellah Abiotrophy (CA), or Ataxia. it is common in the working lines, apparently because trial -winning dogs that carried for this were much used for stud–
   http://www.australiankelpie.com/disorder_ca.htm — the problem is more a case where exaggeration (of any kind) is rewarded above and beyond impacts on other characteristics in the given breed. AKC and the UK may appear to be the worst offenders more because so many dogs are involved in conformation compared to most “field trial” dogs or because the one is more visible than the other. In race horses, a horse that can stand up to being raced beyond 4 or 5 is the exception — because in general, the “top rewards” are for the younger horse (triple crown being a case in point). It’s the very rare horse being raced at 10. The same applies in dogs. Depending on the criteria, health impacts can easily be disregarded in favor of the “win”.

   And AKC can’t be blamed for the “pet” Golden, Border Collie or GSD. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a dog being bred as a “companion only, doesn’t work” — other than truth in labeling. I’ve always felt that non working “lines” should be clearly identified as “Companion BC”. If all that AKC was doing was allowing for the loss of working ethic and ability because there was more demand for “pet Goldens” than “field Goldens” that might not be so criminal. It’s when they deny the Doberman Club the right to deny registration to albinos and use “integrity of the studbook” as the arguement. A dog with serious health issues isn’t a good companion. It’s the issue that “paperwork takes priority over everything” and “purity” with few exceptions that has caused the problem as much, if not more than the highly public, but relatively small percentage of those breeding for the “show” dog. Before ever there were “Barbie” Border Collies, there were “obedience BCs” whose breeders were selecting against stock instinct becasue it detracted from that OTCH +.
   VR Peggy Richter.

   
   
   • on December 22, 2009 at 3:24 am Pai

     Breeding just to win trials, etc. is just as much ‘breeding for exaggeration’, only the exaggeration is invisible… many dogs bred to excel in hunting trials are so wound up and obsessive-compulsive that they are completely inappropriate as pets to even a ‘casual’ hunting/working home. They are bred for competition above all else, just as dogs bred purely for conformation sometimes suffer temperamentally or in their long-term health.

     “If all that AKC was doing was allowing for the loss of working ethic and ability because there was more demand for “pet Goldens” than “field Goldens” that might not be so criminal. It’s when they deny the Doberman Club the right to deny registration to albinos and use “integrity of the studbook” as the arguement.”

     Another example of how the claim that the AKC is ‘just a file cabinet’ and the CLUBS have the final word on their breeds is a load of B.S. The sooner people break loose from the ridiculous cliques and moneygrubbing politics that make up the AKC and start standing up for their DOGS first and foremost, the better.

     
     
     • on December 24, 2009 at 11:44 pm retrieverman

       I agree with that assessment. Keep in mind that trial quality goldens are not necessarily the most genetically diverse creatures out there.

       
       
2. on December 22, 2009 at 3:45 am Jess

   I wear a tin foil hat and I keep a good lookout for those black helicopters. I am not ashamed of that. A look at any proposed mandatory spay neuter legislation will show that the easiest way to get an exemption is to have a ‘show dog.’ Mixed breed dogs (like mine), rare breed dogs that are registered with an organization other than AKC (like mine), are screwed. The Los Angeles ordinance Peggy mentioned not only requires a code of ethics for each ‘approved’ registry, but it will not approve a registry that holds events that may be ‘dangerous’ to the dogs or other animals. Off the top of my head, that excludes lure-coursing, earth dog trials, most other hunt trials, and any ‘real’ activity, like hunting. Even agility can be ‘dangerous.’

   Under the first version of the ‘puppy mill’ legislation introduced in Texas (and backed by HSUS), I would have been a commercial breeder. I keep a lot of dogs, but in no way am I a commercial breeder. This law would have had local Animal Control in charge of ‘inspecting’ breeders (never mind what to do with areas that have no AC, like mine.) Legislation proposed in Missouri right now requires air-conditioning for dog housing. I don’t even have air-conditioning in MY HOUSE, if I lived in Missouri, I’d be pissed. In Illinois they tried to pass legislation for anyone owning three or more intact bitches, that included provisions against keeping breeding stock in the house, and not allowing pups under a certain age to be with dogs other than their mother. You want to try to have a breeding program with three intact bitches, go right ahead. I mean a program, not just breeding a litter ever five or six years so you can have replacement dogs. You can’t keep puppies to grow out, take back dogs that have lost their homes for whatever reason, even socialize pups properly, under those conditions.

   You want to poke fun at the tin foil hat wearers? Go right ahead. When HSUS’ Patrick Kwan has been quoted as stating that the whole purpose behind intact animal limit laws is to lower that limit in increments, yeah, I reserve the right to be paranoid. HSUS was behind the anti-coursing law in California, too, and that weasel Pacelle stood there and LIED HIS FACE OFF about open field coursing making dogs vicious, right to the state legislature. That’s right, OFC dogs, they’ll go after the neighborhood children.

   I had planned a move to New Mexico last year, nice area, very good for my dogs. I checked the dog ordinance and found three slightly different versions, so I called the Humane Society that is contracted with the county to enforce those laws. I figured they would know, right? They lied to me repeatedly about the dog limit. They lied about obtaining a kennel license for breeding or boarding. Dog breeding isn’t illegal in that county but ACs selective enforcement of parts of the law and totally ignoring other parts has made it that way. Imagine if these people were in charge of ‘breeder inspections.’

   I am not worried about PeTA. Fruitcakes do not scare me, and anyway, I live in a Castle state, in case they get personal. But HSUS scares the crap out of me because they have money, lobbyists, and they were behind every stupid breeder law that got proposed this past legislative season. People listen to them. Legislators that want to seem like they’re ‘doing something about those horrible puppy mills’ listen to them. HSUS’ ‘how to spot a good breeder’ notes that ‘good breeders’ don’t keep their dogs in kennels. How many hunting dog breeders aren’t ‘good’, then? Guess that makes me a ‘good’ breeder, because my dogs live in the house, but maybe not, since I don’t have air-conditioning, I keep a lot of dogs, and I have mixed breeds and pure breeds that aren’t registered with AKC. Sticking your head in the sand and giggling at the paranoids will not make these people go away. If you want to see the continuation of hunting dogs, working dogs, dogs that aren’t just ‘show’ dogs, you will have to take them seriously.

   
   
3. on December 22, 2009 at 1:36 pm Peggy Richter

   HSUS and PETA share resources and approach in CA. AKC hasn’t does as much as they should have (or as quickly) in fighting AR, but they’ve been there when some OTHER registries such as UKC and ASCA weren’t present and accounted for. USBCHA or some of the other national level BC orgs weren’t. And there’s been silence from them in fighting the Los Angeles MSN as well. The AR do consider herding “dangerous” (the dog “might bite the sheep”. Certainly the cattle could kick the dog).
   Pedigree dogs exposed and similar previous “exposures” like Atlantic Monthly may have valid claims about some of the results “winning is everything” competition in conformation can cause, but the fact is that even if they haven’t been in the front lines as much as we’d have liked, AKC has taken action against AR rules / laws that would happily destroy any dog ownership, especially some of the working / field dogs. The other groups have been notable for their absence. And if Douglas and Terrierman aren’t afraid of AR – well, they ought to be. They don’t have to like AKC, but they sure better start paying attention to proposed and passed laws that HAVE gone after working / field dogs.

   VR, Peggy Richter

   
   
4. on December 23, 2009 at 3:35 pm Christopher@BorderWars

   Pai nails it on the head. Border Collies have not been well served genetically by the trial community. It’s nice to hear McCaig call out the pageants, but he has yet to own up to the excessive inbreeding, chasing of popular sires, and dwindling gene pool that the “working” community has happily embraced.

   The truth is that the Border Collie IS NOT a “working dog.” It wasn’t segregated by work, it was segregated by trials, which is a sport. And this has introduced all the pitfalls that show breeding has, save breeding for one specific physical feature or extreme physical distortion. But the mechanics are the same: small number of human participants, small number of measured dogs, championships (albeit more objective) handed out to create super star studs which dominate the breed pool, incestuous human relationships where next year’s competitors are using last year’s winner’s offspring.

   The BC registry isn’t “closed” but find me anyone mixing in new blood. The current politics of those in charge isn’t even to add new blood or preserve existing blood, it’s specifically to alienate pure blooded Border Collies based on trialing vs. sport vs. show politics.

   
   
   • on December 24, 2009 at 11:47 pm retrieverman

     I agree with you entirely. I think trialling can be just as bad. Wiston Cap is what happened to the working border collie.

     If you want one that is entirely uneffed up, get an English shepherd. I know people who still breed their ES’s with foxhounds to make them better varmint dogs!

     
     

Comments are closed.