Discussions about dogs can get quite heated. Anyone who frequents this blog certainly would be aware of this fact.
On another blog, a post appeared about possible end of greyhound racing as a commercial gambling enterprise. In the comment section, a great debate erupted about whether racing greyhounds’ high incidence of osteosarcoma was the result of breeding practices or injuries the animals receive while being pushed to the limit as racing animals.
Inherent in this debate is whether performance registries are necessarily better than show registries. I believe that in some of the comments there was an implication that because these animals are bred for an actual use, their registry was still better than the American Kennel Club.
Of course, the problem is that there is no consensus about what causes osteosarcoma in dogs. We do know that bigger dogs with relatively long legs are susceptible to this form of bone cancer, but exactly why it develops is still being debated.
Within greyhounds, there are two basic hypotheses, neither of which make the racing greyhound industry or its registry look particularly good:
1. Greyhounds get osteosarcoma because of the injuries they regularly received when they are being run at such high levels of competition.
2. Breeding practices have ensured that the genes that predispose greyhounds to osteosarcoma are deeply ingrained in the racing greyhound gene pool.
If the first hypothesis is true, then it is the racing industry that is to blame for the high incidence of osteosarcoma in greyhounds. The animals are simply being run too hard and injured too often.
If the second hypothesis is true, then the registry system for the racing greyhound (the NGA) isn’t much better than the AKC system. Indeed, it would actually be a worse registry. The AKC greyhound is generally a healthier dog than the racing strain–it’s just not as fast!
The leading authority on osteosarcoma in the greyhound is Dr. Guillermo Couto. Dr. Couto’s research on ex-racing greyhounds found that the injury hypothesis probably isn’t correct. Because of how the dogs are run, most injuries are on the right side of the dog. You’d expect osteosarcoma to appear on the right side more if the injury hypothesis is correct. Osteosarcoma appears on both left and right sides of racing greyhounds. (Correspondence with Jen Krebs who had discussed this issue with Dr. Couto.)
That means that there are genetic issues at play here.
It has become somewhat mindless in some working dog circles to suggest that working registries are the magic cure to all the problems affecting dogs. Working dog registries often get a pass in some circles, simply because they are an alternative to the AKC. However, these registries must be scrutinized as much as we scrutinize the multi-breed Moloch.
In this case, I don’t think one could make the argument that breeding greyhounds for racing has made them healthier.
Although I’m not going to paint every racing greyhound enterprise with the same brush, the market forces that affect the breeding of greyhounds are really not ones that encourage a breeder to select for health.
The animals are almost always retired before they are two or three years of age. Mandatory retirement age is five years old. These breeders do not know what diseases they are selecting for or against in their lines. They are selecting for animals that can perform for that narrow window of years. They aren’t into breeding dogs that can live 15 years.
It’s the same way with the meat animal industry. The goal of a hog farmer is to produce an animal that matures quickly and has the right kind of flesh. The goal isn’t to produce a long-lived animal.
It has only been with in the past decade or so that adopting retired racing greyhounds has been promoted. When this happened, we got a firm understanding of what sorts of disorders exist within those strains.
They aren’t the most healthy animals.
And they really didn’t have to be.
They just had to perform for those years in which they could be profitable racers.
After that, they got retired.
Now that sounds like the dogs go to a nice home and sleep on the sofa. Luckily for many dogs, this sort retirement is a possibility.
But for many greyhounds that have outlived their racing usefulness, retirement has meant an early death– euthanasia for the lucky ones, a bullet in the head for the less fortunate.
These animals are the equivalent of pro-athletes in the canine world. Human pro-athletes get paid a lot, because they give a lot in terms of their health, their family, and their emotional health. They rightly receive the money they earn from their occupations. They generate high profits for their owners .
Greyhounds do all of these things. It’s just that they don’t get to retire to million dollar mansions.
Some of them dog get to live the good life once their racing days are over. In a just world, they all would.
***
I would like to thank greyhound advocate Jen Krebs and Jess Ruffner-Booth for providing me information on racing greyhounds.
Jess is a regular on the blog, and she told me that it was the injuries that cause the incidence of bone cancer in greyhounds. I hope she can forgive me for disagreeing with her.
Jess is a great source for information on sight hounds. I check out her blog regularly for information on something called a “Halfghan.”
I know this debate will probably rage on for a while, but the genetic basis of osteosarcoma is currently being explored as part of the Canine Hereditary Cancer Consortium.
I have lost a dog to this particular cancer. She was a golden retriever/boxer x. There was no incidence of this cancer on her golden line, but on the boxer line, it did exist.
So I am very interested to see what the results are.
***
I am leaning toward it being a genetic issue, but I am willing to entertain the injury hypothesis.
But I think this information should tell us to scrutinize all working registries.
Maybe greyhounds will disappear if racing disappears. When was the last time you saw an otterhound?
But they are such good pet animals that they could be retooled for dog sports.
Otterhounds never were retooled. I do worry that they will disappear, although they could be used as griffon-type pack hounds for other game species (except for the UK, of course.)
But it seems to me that enough people love greyhounds to be able to do this.
And there are enough of them right now to actually get something started.
***
The most famous greyhound in the world is Santa’s Little Helper.
It’s the one case of Homer Simpson doing something socially responsible (kinda).
Of course, just because it’s genetic doesn’t preclude the injury hypothesis; it could be that racing injuries exacerbate the genetic condition. The best study would be to randomly select populations from racing lines, raise them under similar conditions, but choose not to race them. You couldn’t do a case study off existing data because you’d have to assume that any Greyhounds that didn’t become racers were selectively removed from competition by the breeders.
It’s definitely a possibility.
Hardly an expert.
When I was volunteering for rescue, it was generally considered to be microinjuries, especially since the cancer usually shows up at the joints. Ours were two at the bottom of the femur, one at the top of the humerus, and one in the fetlock joint. All on the left side, come to think of it. Six dogs, five died of cancer, four of them osteosarcoma. When I got my Greys, I was never told, oh, BTW, high rate of cancer in these dogs. When our first dog Fred got cancer (fibrosarcoma of the spine), I started looking and found web page after web page dedicated to a Grey that had died of osteosarcoma. It was incredibly sad.
As I told you, I don’t consider racing Greys to be a ‘working’ breed. Their working life is very, very short compared to their after retirement life. I don’t believe the ‘breeding to a performance standard means generally healthy dogs’ really applies to racing Greys because they work for such a brief time. What you have to consider when contemplating the death of racing is that the way these dogs are raised is a huge contributor to what makes them great pets, their quiet demeanor, their laid back nature. A Greyhound raised another way may not be the same. Our ex-racers never got squirelly or horrible or unhappy when they couldn’t get out and run. Did they like to run? Oh, yes. Did they need to to stay on an even keel? No. Not like the dogs I keep now. I have no experience with AKC or coursing bred Greys or crosses so I don’t know if they can be as horrible as other sighthounds when they can’t get their ya-yas out.
I have lost dogs to cancer before. Several. But the osteosarcoma problem is the main reason why I don’t keep ex-racers any more. I also used to recommend them as a gateway sighthound for people who want a sighthound that isn’t too much of a pain in the ass, and I only do that now with the caveat that their will likely lose their dog to a very painful cancer. Osteosarcoma is incredibly, horribly painful. With our bitch Twist, it seemed like we had her pain under good control, she had a good appetite, still hobbled around the yard several times a day, just checking things out, and her general demeanor seemed good, then my husband woke me in the middle of the night because she had tried to chew her leg off. Every animal dies from something. But some deaths are better than others. No more Greys for me.
You know more than I do.
You know this might turn into a anti-live-coursing discussion.
heh.
I think most dog “work” that involves other animals, or that seems to be primarily about bloodlust and/or the owner’s ego rather than the dog’s capabilities are going to go the way of dogfighting and rat pits (bullbaiting pretty much still exists in the form of hoghunting). Fanciers of breeds that have been created for particular purposes will have to find more socially “acceptable” ways to maintain their breed’s unique qualities. How a society determines what is “acceptable” is never a simple matter. But somehow fanciers of individual breeds and their individual characteristics are going to have to suck it up and realize it’s not just a problem of PETA loons. Just saying “we have to accept “activity x” because otherwise AR (animal rights) wins” isn’t going to cut it. So yeah, no more dogfighting, thank goodness.. but probably no more racing or livecoursing either. It’s going to be hard enough to keep activities like carting as a sport (as opposed to dogs actually hauling our goods). The people objecting to the use of therapy dogs probably don’t really believe such dogs are slaves, but they know how to push the envelope of public discourse.
To my mind “Breeding to a performance standard means generally healthy dogs’” can only be true if these dogs are actually tested through OFA etc. to prove that they are healthy. How many breed clubs require such testing?
Okay, you got me curious. This is not all-inclusive, just the highlights:
The Lab club focuses on consumer education rather than top-down demands; however, from the breeders page of the LRC, “The LRC encourages breeders to screen all breeding stock for heritable diseases and to use only those dogs that have received the appropriate OFA and CERF clearances for hips, elbows and eyes in their breeding program.” A well-educated consumer should look for these tests and the LRC does a reasonable job of making dog owners aware of other health considerations.
The flat-coat club takes a stricter approach, as well as what I think is a far more comprehensive and specific education approach on health issues. No. 1 in the 10-point list of Requirements for Breeders in the Code of Ethics: “All dogs that are bred must have an OFA number (or board-certified veterinary equivalent) and CERF number (or board-certified ophthalmologist equivalent). Dogs outside the U.S. must have their country s equivalent of these two certifications.”
The GRCA focuses on education as well, and is very comprehensive and specific also. Additionally, from the Code of Ethics, “GRCA members who breed Golden Retrievers are encouraged to maintain the purpose of the breed and are expected to demonstrate honesty and fairness in dealing with other owners and breeders, purchasers of dogs and the general public. Owners of breeding animals shall provide appropriate documentation to all concerned regarding the health of dogs involved in a breeding or sale, including reports of examinations such as those applying to hips and eyes. If any such examinations have not been performed on adog, this should be stated.” Additionally, “GRCA members are expected to follow AKC requirements for record keeping, identification of animals, and registration procedures.
Animals selected for breeding should:
(i) be of temperament typical of the Golden Retriever breed; stable, friendly, trainable, and willing to work. Temperament is of utmost importance to the breed
and must never be neglected;
(ii) be in good health, including freedom from communicable disease;
(iii) possess the following examination reports in order to verify status concerning possible hip dysplasia, hereditary eye or cardiovascular disease, and elbow
dysplasia:
a. Hips – for U.S. dogs, a report from Orthopedic Foundation for Animals; or PennHIP at 24 months of age or older. For dogs outside the U.S., report from
a health registry approved by the Golden Retriever club of that country (e.g. Canada – Ontario Veterinary College; Great Britain – BVA/KC Hip Score) A
report from the accepted health registry of another country may be used for U.S. dogs that are 24 months of age or older when x-rayed.
b. Eyes – appropriate report from a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Ophthalmology (ACVO) or from a BVA/KC approved ophthalmologist
(Great Britain), or a report from the Canine Eye Registry Foundation. For dogs outside the U.S., a report from an ophthalmologist as recommended by
the Golden Retriever club of that country after 1 year of age. Examinations must be done within 12 months of a breeding..
c. Hearts – appropriate report from a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Medicine, Cardiology Specialty or a certification by the Orthopedic
Foundation for Animals by a cardiologist (the number will be followed by a C) at 12 months of age or older.
d. Elbows – for U.S. dogs, a report from Orthopedic Foundation for Animals at 24 months of age or older. For dogs outside the U.S., report from a health
registry approved by the Golden Retriever club of that country at 24 months of age or older. A report from the accepted health registry of another country” and it goes on, too.
From the American Chesapeake Club’s Code of Ethics, “II. Responsibilities of Breeders/Brood Bitch/Stud Dog (The American Chesapeake Club Board of Directors strongly recommends that only animals with OFA and current CERF clearances be used for breeding.)” Also, “Be aware of genetic defects which can be harmful to the breed. When breeding, endeavor to select animals that will reduce the incidence of genetic problems while enhancing the positive attributes and abilities of the breed. Be open with all persons interested in the welfare of the Chesapeake Bay Retriever and discuss possible physical or temperament defects in your own stock.”
Those are the “big four” in Retrievers. While the emphasis is usually on recommendations and education, I’m okay with that, frankly. Breed clubs shouldn’t have to bear the ENTIRE burden of making sure people research the health of a creature that they will be spending the next 10-14 or more years with.
I took on a flat-coat, well knowing that the risk of cancer in the breed is far higher than with other retriever breeds, but also knowing that the record of overall soundness and good health apart from the cancer is quite extraordinary, and also knowing the pedigree of my dog well and researching and discussing health issues with the breeder. It’s a personal decision, and should generally remain that way, though breed clubs certainly play a big part.
As far as the following:
“Fanciers of breeds that have been created for particular purposes will have to find more socially “acceptable” ways to maintain their breed’s unique qualities. How a society determines what is “acceptable” is never a simple matter. But somehow fanciers of individual breeds and their individual characteristics are going to have to suck it up and realize it’s not just a problem of PETA loons. ”
My dogs have been bred to find and retrieve birds in order to aid a hunter in finding game and ensuring that game is conserved once shot. I will rigorously defend anyone with dogs bred for similar purposes, including live coursing etc..
I AM society; I DO determine what is acceptable. I DO NOT have to suck it up and accept less for myself and my animals than what I find acceptable regarding these matters.
Why anyone would think that in these matters one member or group needs to accept less than what they feel is right is beyond my comprehension of what it means to live in a free and open society. Which I think we still have.
yes, of course you are society. Each one of us individually is society. And each one of us advocates for what we personally believe
But somehow society coalesces into notions of what is “acceptable”, which are of course not what every individual believes.
Dogfighting is not acceptable. Dog racing seems to becoming not acceptable. How will society does what other activities are not acceptable? I don’t know. Live coursing is acceptable.. but I suspect largely because most people don’t know it exists. Like dogfighting, it will continue to exist whether or not society decides (through laws outlawing it) it is not acceptable.
I mean it’s illegal to hunt otters with otterhounds in England.
The Eurasian otter is endangered, and hunting with hounds is illegal (although the Conservative leader, David Cameron, has promised to change that if his party forms the next government.)
I don’t think live coursing will ever be made illegal. They tried in California, and it went down.
Live coursing coyotes may be made illegal, simply because a coyote is a doggish animal.
But I don’t see it happening with jackrabbits or other hares.
This threading sucks.
It sure does.
For a while, as we’ve probably all seen on AP , UK Otterhounds were
used to hunt invasive mink populations resulting from AR
terrorist activity.
If they couldn’t ban lure-coursing in Stalinist CA, it’s likely not possible anywhere.
Let’s hope Dixie resists hog-hunting bans.
Write wordpress.
This is the most expansive threading they have!
you’re probably right. Doggish coyotes have a lobby. Wild bunnies do not. Groundhogs, possums, raccoons and other prey of “working” terriers do not; they’re just vermin. So why not have rat pits? Or groundhog pits.. terrierman says they’re ferocious.
Wild birds are lucky they have advocates given the feral cat people
The hard thing is that while they may have a higher rate, I’m not sure how MUCH higher it is, overall- the studies vary from “OMG ALL OF THEM GET IT” to “Yeah, it’s up there, but it’s not THAT much higher than Rotties and IWs.” Obviously, it’s still higher than ideal- but I’m not sure how MUCH so.
Of all my friends with greyhounds- and that’s quite a few- osteosarcoma is way low on the things they’ve lost them too- 2 out of 15+. Diabetes, mammery tumors on a dog who had been a breeding dog and came into rescue at 8 or 9, sheer old age, kidney failure (4- 1 of those was in the 2007 recalls though), bloat, and impaction from eating a bed.
I do have an online acquaintence who has purchased and raced a few dogs and I’ve been very impressed with the care and selection- and second-hand, with the way the breeders made the decision they did. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that all breeders are looking JUST for that big winner. There are TB breeders that breed for a fast horse who can go on to a sound career as something else- they’re small but they ARE out there and they’re not THAT rare. I’m not sure racing greyhounds- or TBs- is worth saving but I think that to argue that it’s inherently impossible to have more than one goal in breeding an animal and to assume that all people who breed for a purpose are corrupt because they are apparently putting that purpose above health is also problematic.
We as the caretaker/owner of our pets need to be willing to step up to the plate when our pet’s physical health is impaired with daily pain, regardless of being dosed with pain medication. It is a blessing, in my opinion, that we have the option to have our pet put to sleep painlessly (or nearly so) by a veterinarian’s injection when daily life is too painful and there is no good prognosis for the future. We need to always keep in mind that it is our responsibility to make decisions for the welfare of our pet and not keep the impaired life going because our emotions interfere and make us unable to make the right decision — to euthanize to end that pain.
Jess? Would the higher incidence of osteosarcoma in the racers be attributed to those lines of dogs that are favored for racing? How much inbreeding and linebreeding occurs? Is it possible that the racing lines are just very specific lines where these traits can be traced back for generations where there is a pattern seen? As the lines become less genetically diverse is it possible that the incidences of the disease became more prevalent?
Hi Jess – I’m really sorry about the loss of your Twist to osteosarcoma. We lost my first adopted ex-racer, Condor, to it a little over a year ago now. She was 10, a young and spry 10, and it was in her pelvis. It was misdiagnosed, when she started to limp, as pain in the knee – and when the x-ray of the leg looked good, it was assumed to be a soft tissue injury. When it continued for several more weeks, a specialist confirmed the OSA in the pelvis. Her pain advanced very quickly after that appointment, and we let her go about 10 days later.
We also lost our Rottweiler, Katie, to osteosarcoma.
I’ve known many greyhound acquaintances losing their ex-racers to bone cancer. I’ve known of a 4 year old, 6 y.o., 7 y.o., and lots of 9, 10 and 11 year olds. I’ve known of a few people who didn’t even know their greys had it, until the limb broke at the site of the bone tumor.
We adore our ex-racers -we’ve adopted 6 since February 2003. But I contend they are not always the healthy dogs, long-lived for a large breed, that the racing industry will have the greyhound adoption community believe. A number of posts I made to that effect on the other blog referenced in the article is what started the ball rolling toward the heated debate it became.
In addition to a high rate of various cancers (the most common of which is OSA), other health issues that NGA (racing) greyhounds have include bleeding disorders, strokes and corns. Females can have urinary problems, such as UTI’s, believed by Dr. Couto (per his comments during a seminar I attended in November ’09) to be caused in part by the hormones they are administered while racing.
We lost a 3-year-old greyhound, our Clutterbug, to a massive stroke 7 months ago.
All breeds have health issues. But I believe that many of the health issues that affect ex-racers are caused by a lack of attention to the overall health of the breed, and little (or no) effort being made to select against diseases in breeding. Couple that with dog racing industry standard practices: injecting females with hormones, the feeding of raw 4-D meat, the stress of extensive confinement and the moving of racing dogs from track to track as they ‘grade off’… it’s a hard life, albeit brief.
Four of my six died of osteosarcoma. Bad odds, to me. Twist lived eleven months, Ace, Baron and Alex only two or three.
Very bad odds. I’m sorry.
We lost our Condor to osteo at 10, and Clutter to a stroke at 3. Bounty, who we adopted at 12, passed at 13.
We now have Taylor (7), Flex (4) and Maddox (3).
All I can say is that we try hard not to take a single day for granted.
I’m really curious, to be honest, if there’s regional or bloodline differences for the vastly different ancedotal numbers. Are there any groups doing longevity surveys for greys?
Not to my knowledge, but that’s not saying much.
I’m a rank amateur on most fronts but I am trained in cell biology with a passing knowledge of cancer causes. I don’t know of any other examples of exercise or exertion-caused cancer in any other animal. Doesn’t mean there aren’t any. But if there are, they are extremely rare, so if overuse/microinjuries does turn out to be a cause it would be extremely interesting. My money would be against it, but I’m not saying it is impossible.
That’s what I thought, but this view is prevalent in the racing greyhound groups.
The following abstract from
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.231.7.1076?cookieSet=1&select23=Choose&journalCode=javma
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
October 1, 2007, Vol. 231, No. 7, Pages 1076-1080
doi: 10.2460/javma.231.7.1076
“Prevalence of and intrinsic risk factors for appendicular osteosarcoma in dogs: 179 cases (1996–2005)
Julie A. Rosenberger, DVM; Norma V. Pablo, DVM; P. Cynda Crawford, DVM, PhD
Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610. (Rosenberger, Pablo, Crawford)
Presented in part at the Veterinary Cancer Society Mid-Year Symposium on Canine Osteosarcoma, Sedona, Ariz, March 2006.
Supported in part by a grant from the Merck-Merial Veterinary Scholars Program.
Address correspondence to Dr. Crawford.
Objective—To determine the prevalence of appendicular osteosarcoma (OSA) in Greyhounds compared with other breeds and identify potential intrinsic risk factors associated with development of OSA.
Design—Retrospective case series.
Animals—179 dogs with primary appendicular OSA.
Procedures—Medical records of dogs in which primary appendicular OSA had been diagnosed between 1996 and 2005 were reviewed. Prevalence and crude odds ratios for OSA were calculated for various breeds by comparison with a reference population of mixedbreed dogs. Age and sex were examined as potential risk factors for the 3 breeds with highest prevalence.
Results—Breed period prevalence of OSA was highest for Greyhounds (21/339 [6.2%]), followed by Rottweilers (51/969 [5.3%]) and Great Danes (13/297 [4.4%]); all 21 Greyhounds with OSA were identified as having retired from racing. Sex was not identified as a risk factor for OSA in these breeds, but in all 3 breeds, risk of OSA increased with age. Greyhounds were significantly older at the time of OSA diagnosis (mean, 9.9 years) than were Rottweilers (8.3 years) and Great Danes (7.8 years). Rottweilers and Great Danes were more likely to have OSA involving the forelimbs than the hind limbs. The most frequent lesion sites for all 3 breeds were the proximal end of the humerus and distal end of the radius. The proximal end of the femur was also a common site for the Greyhounds.”
So racing greyhounds apparently get it more often than Rotties, but at an older age. The article at
J Vet Intern Med 2007;21:1243–1250 Results of a Web-Based Health Survey of Retired Racing Greyhounds
Linda K. Lord, Jill E. Yaissle, Liliana Marin, and C. Guillermo Couto has a similar percent (6%). I could only find one text that addressed genetics on this:
Influence of genetic background on tumor karyotypes: Evidence for breed-associated cytogenetic aberrations in canine appendicular osteosarcoma
Journal Chromosome Research
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0967-3849 (Print) 1573-6849 (Online)
Issue Volume 17, Number 3 / April, 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10577-009-9028-z
Pages 365-377
Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences
SpringerLink Date Wednesday, April 01, 2009 –Rachael Thomas, Huixia J. Wang, Pei-Chien Tsai, Cordelia F. Langford, Susan P. Fosmire, Cristan M. Jubala, David M. Getzy, Gary R. Cutter, Jaime F. Modiano, and Matthew Breen. Abstract Recurrent chromosomal aberrations in solid tumors can reveal the genetic pathways involved in the evolution of a malignancy and in some cases predict biological behavior. However, the role of individual genetic backgrounds in shaping karyotypes of sporadic tumors is unknown. The genetic structure of purebred dog breeds, coupled with their susceptibility to spontaneous cancers, provides a robust model with which to address this question. We tested the hypothesis that there is an association between breed and the distribution of genomic copy number imbalances in naturally occurring canine tumors through assessment of a cohort of Golden Retrievers and Rottweilers diagnosed with spontaneous appendicular osteosarcoma. Our findings reveal significant correlations between breed and tumor karyotypes that are independent of gender, age at diagnosis, and histological classification. These data indicate for the first time that individual genetic backgrounds, as defined by breed in dogs, influence tumor karyotypes in a cancer with extensive genomic instability.
which would indicate that yes, there’s a genetic predisposition (but you have that with human groups too). What I did not see was a study following greyhounds -
1. retired racing dogs 3+ years
2. AKC “non racing” dogs 3+ years
3. non retired racing dogs 3+ years
4. “racing bloodline” dogs that are not raced 3+ years (these would be those dogs that never do race training. A litter raised as pets).
5. “live coursing” greyhounds 3+ years
until there’s this kind of comparison — taking an “AKC” type dog and exposing it to racing environment, taking a racing litter and raising them as pets, etc, the issue of environment/genetics won’t be resolved.
It could be a toxin that’s common at racing sites (lymphosarcoma is linked to herbicides. There’s a higher prevalance of lymphosarcoma than the average population in farmers — and herding dogs on farms.). It could be genetics + environment. Or a genetic “founder effect” .
Vr, Peggy Richter
i like your posting
Thank you, Peggy. Very interesting.
Although we often spar on other issues, I think EmilyS has this one right.
Some dogs are going to go extinct because they should. If we want to have a “greyhound” in 20 years it will be a different dog than the one today. Probably not substantially, but it will be bred to a different standard. And I, for one, am fine with that.
I’m also fine with breeding my Border Collies to a different standard than most everyone else who is passionate about the breed (Trialers, Conformation)… but I’m not so sentimental that I want my flavor to predominate, my flavor to be the only flavor, or my flavor to live on long after my death.
I believe in free markets to determine good outcomes. If a small group of racing enthusiasts wish to continue running races on their own dime on their own time to test their dogs, then they will do so.
But EmilyS has it right. All this “work” talk is really about EGO.
From a retriever perspective: No. Really. It’s not. Anyone who’s in retriever games for ego is either deluded to the point of insanity (okay, there’s a few of these, but they all train together, and the vast majority avoid them because they tear each other apart) or willing to take a regular eg0-check as nothing puts you into place more than a dog doing what dogs do.
Seriously. Training a retriever is a fun and challenging (and humbling) way to work with your dog. Really. Get a Lab and let it humble you. Then get a flat-coat, and have the Lab people humble you for a while.
Maybe for the sake of my ego I should get OUT of this….
What do you think of the retriever angle? Will there really someday be no “working” retrievers–as in dogs that pick up ducks, or work upland? No dogs that work in simulated hunting situations because it’s interesting to supplement hunting with that activity (for me, it’s more vice versa, but anyway, I still work my dogs…), and as a way to evaluate potential breeding stock?
I don’t think I’m fine with that… just me.
I don’t think racing Greyhounds *should* go extinct. I think it’s likely that they will, with the demise of racing, except for a few people who breed to supply the pet market. However, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the people who moan and cry about the extinction of the racing Greyhounds. The Greyhound was developed as a coursing dog, and there are still people who course Greys and various mixes thereof. The breed’s original purpose is being preserved, in a small way. Racers are simply a subset of the Greyhound, like AKC conformation dogs. Maybe the racing subset will get a new primary purpose, as a pet. IMO, being a pet is no less noble an occupation than coursing or racing. The dogs will change some, but even a breed being used for it’s original purpose is not necessarily static.
Moving this because that threading thing is not doing it for me.
icr – the California thing was a ban on open field coursing. I was not online at the time and missed the whole thing, but there is a good deal of commentary on Steve Bodio’s blog:
http://stephenbodio.blogspot.com/search?q=coursing+ban
I don’t want to be a non-Retriever person lecturing a Retriever person on Retriever culture, but let me make an observation.
Work is a broad term and what some breeds consider work, the elitists in another breed would consider a game. Or a sport.
Question: How many people participate in retriever trials vs. participate in hunting?
Question: Is the breed controlled more by trial winners or a lose network of hunters?
Question: Do the trialers claim that the future of the hunters is dependent on them to select the best dogs through trials?
In my breed, much of the “work” rhetoric is tied into history (like almost all the “work” arguments) but also a healthy dose or modern relevance. Very few working dogs have a claim to absolute necessity for real work, having yet to be completely obsoleted.
When we talk about ethics in such breeds, it’s not just about individuals having the dogs they want, but the weight of the entire survival of the industry.
In Greys, we have live coursing, racing, and lure coursing.
In Retrievers we have live hunting, trials, and then a series of dog sports like dock diving, tracking, etc.
In Border Collies we have the sheep industry, sheep trials, the cattle industry, cattle trials, dog sport.
I don’t think that live coursing or live hunting are nearly as cohesive and culture bound as the sheep trialers are. I think that coursers and hunters know that it’s a sport, a past time, a hobby. The sheep people do not readily admit this.
What happens in your breed with the trialing people? Do they declare that they are beyond sport? Are they superior to the people who just take their own dogs and hunt in the wild and breed to those standards? Is there a split between the hunters and the trialers?
I think people in other breeds are drawn into the BC debate on the side of the sheep trialers because the rhetoric is the same, but they don’t appreciate the irony.
Like why the hell do Gina and Patrick find Donald McCaig so inspirational? To my knowledge Gina doesn’t herd with her sheltie and doesn’t hunt with her flattie, so she’s not on the side of the good and righteous in McCaig’s world. She should sympathize with my view of city people evolving the gene pool of “heritage” breeds to meet newer standards while not intentionally raping the breed’s history.
Within retrievers, the breeds have diversified. The big complaint I’m hearing is whether these various systems of field trials and tests actually allow people to choose the best hunting dog. If you want to see this debate again, go to the latest e-collar post http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/wales-bans-e-collars/
I think one of the reasons why the Lab dominates all retriever events is because it has evolved with the e-collar.
Of course, the other breeds evolved with a different system, so of course, they are going to think they are inferior.
The curly breed never made it in any trial system, but they are still functional retrievers.
“Work is a broad term and what some breeds consider work, the elitists in another breed would consider a game. Or a sport.
Question: How many people participate in retriever trials vs. participate in hunting?
Question: Is the breed controlled more by trial winners or a lose network of hunters?
Question: Do the trialers claim that the future of the hunters is dependent on them to select the best dogs through trials?”
Interesting post overall–I can’t respond to everything at the moment, but I’ll go for a bit:
*Overall hunters FAR, FAR outnumber trialers, even in Ohio, where the hunting is somewhat sparse; trialing is sparse, too, but trialers are used to traveling wherever it takes, so I don’t think it’s quite equivalent. There isn’t a huge amount of overlap between the committed hunter and the committed trialer, because of the time it takes to keep the dog in training and competition moreso than because of lack of interest; I’ve met a number of testers and trialers who have their own personal hunting or “meat” dog (usually a dog that has an injury, is retired, or has a training quirk that precludes trialing, but that is an excellent dog nonetheless). In the various hunt tests–AKC, but also HRC and I’m told in some places NAHRA–there’s a good deal of dual participation.
*The breed, if you’re talking about Labs, is not “controlled” by trialers. It IS heavily influenced. When you go to hunt tests and look at the sires and dams, they more often than not have an FC or MH in front of the names, but certainly not always. I think people are VERY open (some are eager) to breeding a stud to a proven hunter despite titles, though generally they won’t do that sight unseen or without really good word of mouth from a known source (which I agree with).
*Trialers want to win. I think they believe they play an important role, but mostly they want to win. Hunt testers want to play and pass. Both want puppies to go to competition or working homes of some sort or another, and most (not all, but most) want to produce dogs that will make acceptable pets if something precludes their competition or hunting careers, and in the off-season for hunting dogs. But mostly trialers preserve their mental energy (and egos) for trialing, I think.
I mostly do hunt tests, though I LOVE field-trial training, for a number of reasons, and I’ve been fortunate enough to do a little bit here and there and have dogs that allow me participate without shame.
People seem to come to hunt tests from a couple different angles–with the Labs, more often, they hunt and someone introduces them to the AKC or HRC tests because they have a nice dog and think it would be fun for them. The hunt tests then are good for off-season work if the owner ends up really enjoying it, and sometimes the testing and maybe trialing take over, but the hunting remains a baseline interest. I came at it from the other direction–I had a pet Lab, and thought I’d enjoy training it
woops.
training it to do what it was meant to do, and read and explored, but I was young and busy and broke and not ready for that kind of hobby yet. Now I’ve taken my own dog out with other hunters, and I own the shotgun, but I haven’t had a great deal of success in putting the two together yet–it’s on the list! My Lab LOVES to hunt; he loves birds, so much so that it’s difficult to train with bumpers sometimes. It would be unfair not to try to give him the opportunity, and I think I owe it to the sport to learn it and not just play the games.
The flat-coat people come at it from a variety of angles, too. Many are dedicated hunters; others are not, but believe in the dual purpose of the breed, and get the titles to evaluate breeding stock. There is a lot of overlap between those two camps, at least among the breeders/kennels I know and pay attention to. It’s a small enough breed that you CAN pay attention like that–in Labs, it’s a bit more of an undertaking b/c of the sheer numbers.
Interesting, interesting.
Ok, so the next question is:
* What’s the registry situation like? What registries own what % of the dogs?
* How exclusive are the most serious breeders (trial or hunters) from wanting to close off their gene pool to dogs like show dogs or sport dogs that aren’t in their sport?
For comparison, in BCs, the ABCA which has 90% of the BC business does not register AKC dogs. It’s a one way street out of the ABCA.
Dogs that start in the ABCA and get a show championship are kicked out, along with their offspring.
This is going to be harder to find.
We have several working retriever registries. None is a monolith like the ABCA.
And they are very schism prone.
You must remember that the most common Western breed dog on the continent (perhaps the world) is a retriever.
In goldens, I would say that the answer to your second question was that they were interested in keeping them distinct. Now, there is a move toward genetic diversity.
I cannot speak for Labs, but Labs don’t have genetic diversity issues (yet). However, there are field lines of Labrador that really have quite narrow gene pools. I would say that in Labs, the BC issue exists.
In goldens it did exist, until it’s pretty obvious what the breed’s problems are.
I would say 75% of Labs are in the AKC. The other registries claim the rest.
I would say that 95% of goldens are in the AKC. And I would put 85 % of Chessies. I would say that 99% of flat-coats are AKC, as are all the other retrievers that can be registered with that registry.
Dual registry is not frowned upon, as it is in border collies, but everyone knows which lines are good at producing what.
Goldens also have a dog sport line. Those dogs are physically similar to border collies, although they behave more like field line goldens. There is an overlap between these two types.
And we have people who breed dual purpose dogs that can be shown or worked, but as a general rule, specialization has been the hallmark of the breed. It costs too much to get a bunch of different titles on the dogs.
“* What’s the registry situation like? What registries own what % of the dogs?”
–I have no clue… In terms of test and trial dogs, I’d imagine 100 percent are AKC registered, but a good portion (just a guess–25 percent??? A bit more??? At least in my area) are also registered for HRC events, esp. hunt test dogs. I intend to register both of mine with HRC one of these days–I’d like to play those more hunt-y games for variety and challenge. I’m told it’s a great deal of fun, and I know my dogs would love it, esp. the Lab.
“* How exclusive are the most serious breeders (trial or hunters) from wanting to close off their gene pool to dogs like show dogs or sport dogs that aren’t in their sport?”
Show dogs? Depends. In Labs, I think most owners of field studs would be willing to go ahead with an experiment without too much argument at all, as long as it’s not a dog with, say, limited frozen semen or something. I think some would say that the outcross wouldn’t be productive or would lead to a very inconsistent litter or risk a worst-of-both-worlds scenario, and they might be right, I suppose. Bitches would be different–not sure how many that aren’t actually going for a dual-purpose dog would agree to this–but there ARE some dual purpose kennels. Other dog sports–I don’t think there’s any pressure to cut off lines. I think it’s more a matter of breeders really, really want to find field-bred puppies field homes, and after that, are happy to see dogs go to homes where they will be mentally challenged and physically active, whatever the sport.
Most hunting flat-coats are explicitly dual purpose field/show, and very often also obedience and agility. The breeders of my dog did a breeding that was intended as field/obedience, and actively sought out competitive obedience homes in the hopes of seeing an OTCH or two from the breeding (and both are on their way–and one is also a stunning show specimen).
“For comparison, in BCs, the ABCA which has 90% of the BC business does not register AKC dogs. It’s a one way street out of the ABCA.”
I can see the logic they’ve applied, but I don’t know…
“Dogs that start in the ABCA and get a show championship are kicked out, along with their offspring.”
Wow.
Contra Christopher: I DONT think breeds whose work has become obsolete should disappear. The world would be a poorer place with less variety of dogs. In my breed, only the gamedog freaks think that about the APBT/AST
For a breed whose “courage is proverbial”, who will do anything to please its owner, who has physical strength and determination, who is bizarrely loving of people however much we abuse them, there are a number of “jobs” it has proven to perform brilliantly in the SAR/detection realm.
I think a working breed’s work should evolve into something socially acceptable (however society defines that). But most dogs will always be primarily pets whose “work” will be companionship.
And breeders and breed clubs of “working” dogs will do no more than “recommend” or “encourage” health testing of dogs. There will be no sanctions for failing to do these tests, or for breeding unhealthy dogs. So the variety of genetic problems that plague purebred dogs can only persist and increase.
EmilyS – I think it’s semantics. I don’t think we’re disagreeing on substance.
Let me see if this makes more sense. When the demands and opportunities of a breed are not static, the breed standard should not be static either.
When the work is obsolete, the breed standard written to that work should become obsolete as well. When the work is rare, the breed standard written to that work should be rare. If new work presents itself to the breed, some breeders should embrace that in their calculus on what makes a good dog.
For example: The Greyhound bred with only race victory in mind. When racing ends, it would be silly and irresponsible for us to try and guess which dogs would make the best racers but not race them.
We are left with having to either artificially reconstruct the entire racing industry (not going to happen) or we find new measurements.
Some of them might be similar (lure coursing) some of them might have more historical cred (live coursing) and some might be brand new (dog sport, modern work like therapy dogs, goose patrol, termite finders, etc).
** I am not saying that a breed that was once defined by a single activity that is now extinct, rare, or marginal should go extinct… I believe that the dogs bred to that standard will go extinct, because you can’t maintain a standard that no one participates in. **
If you then breed to an approximation, you are not breeding to the original standard, and you do have shift.
Chris. While looking up another subject, I came across your comment. I think many people believe this too – but maybe not the people still playing the doggie games.
But you said it so very well: “When the demands and opportunities of a breed are not static, the breed standard should not be static either.”
And you then explained it very well.
Just saying that I agree and like the way you said it.
But there are some people who disagree – many dog breeders think the standards are written in stone, or should be. Like the Pekingese: “How can you improve on perfection”. Hmm.
Why sanction for failing to do health tests? Why not let people use their brains?
For example: Dog is injured as a pup; cannot have its hips certified because of one hip being reconstructed. Lines behind are good and excellent. Excellent pedigree. Great hunter, maybe a great competitor. Fantastic temperament. Should the breeder be sanctioned for choosing to breed that dog? I think not. Same scenario could happen with eyes or elbows.
Another example: Dog is a carrier of Exercise Induced Collapse. It’s a simple recessive. It won’t produce affected dogs if bred to a clear dog, but the gene would survive to appear again, perhaps. It’s a serious condition. Should the breed club make the decision to cut that dog off from breeding? What about breeding an affected dog to a clear? Well… how valuable is that line? If you cut out this disease at the breed club level through rules and sanctions, what other disease might crop up?
And sanctions for breeding an unhealthy dog? My goodness–who then would want to breed? People have powerful ability to reason, and a brave new world of science–but we’re not God and can’t see the future. Good grief.
I’m a smart gal. I’m going to find smart breeders. I don’t want either of us to be second-guessed by a breed club. After that, it’s luck.
It seems to me that sanctioning for not testing is okay.
Even if the dog has a non-passing result, they’re still tested- and you ahve the pedigree of passing results to refer to.
I wouldn’t object to that. But I don’t think that’s what Emily was suggesting. Perhaps I’m mistaken.
“I’ve met a number of testers and trialers who have their own personal hunting or “meat” dog (usually a dog that has an injury, is retired, or has a training quirk that precludes trialing, but that is an excellent dog nonetheless)”
If I’m I reading this right, it sounds kind of perverse: isn’t the point of testing a retriever to see if it’s a good hunter? Wouldn’t a dog proven in a real hunt be a BETTER dog than one that gets high scores in a trial? Isn’t an excellent hunter better than an excellent trialer?
Do you ever see dogs that get high scores in trials FAIL in an actual hunt?
Lots of people who do hunt tests with their Irish Water Spaniels never hunt. (My family is not in that number — we do both.)
Maybe these folks want the experience of hunting without actually going out and doing it. Or maybe they want someone else to shoot the bird. Or maybe their dog really, really loves the retrieving, and this is a way to give the dog that opportunit without actually hunting (this is one reason we do hunt tests). Or maybe they like getting the titles (I will admit, I do like titles).
The IWSCA had a fund raiser last year, selling T-shirts. The text said “Life is too short to hunt with an ugly dog” — no problem with that. The problem came with what picture to show. Eventually, they picked a picture of an IWS with a Dokken in it’s mouth so as not to offend the non-hunters.
I sort of see the point, but I thought it was too bad.
That shirt thing is quite hilarious. Regardless of whether the owner/breeder is offended by a dog with a dead bird, that is part of the breed’s heritage. It is important, IMO, to know and understand the culture and conditions the breed was developed under, even if you choose not perform those particular activities with your dog.
I have breeds that still exist, relatively unspoiled, in their countries of origin. I am not kidding into thinking I can raise dogs just like the ones in the COO; removing the dog from the COO takes it away from those selective pressures that developed it and that simply cannot be replicated in the west. However, I can look to the environment and conditions under which such dogs are raised, and use that information to produce dogs that are as true to their COO type as I can make them, if I choose to do so.
This issue actually DOES exist in Border Collies, but it’s overshadowed by the anti-conformation debate.
It gets lost in the attitude of us vs. them. If you do any activity with the AKC you are a traitor to the breed because you are directly or indirectly supporting an organization that supports conformation shows.
On the other side, by definition of the loudest, is thus the working sheep and cattle (and some other) farmers and ranchers, the sheep trialers, and the cattle trialers. These people do not always see eye-to-eye.
Then, there’s also the element of the UK vs. the USA. From what I hear the show vs. working debate isn’t nearly as mean in the UK, but even more pronounced is the lack of success of the US sheep trialers on the international stage.
You might say it’s home field advantage, but UK trialers do very well over here.
There’s also a rivalry between the East Coast sheep and the Western sheep.
There’s also an arrogance of the sheep trialers over the cattle trialers. A resentment that the sheep trials bring in more money than the cattle trials do, but neither really brings in a lot, so some sheep people would be find dropping the sponsorship of the cattle trials altogether.
It’s my estimation that the more people care about ego in sport, the more they care about pedigree and purity. You’ll be hard pressed to find me a champion sheep trialing dog that has a ROM’d dog in the near pedigree. Mix-bred farm and ranch and even cattle trial dogs are not uncommon.
I think part of it is the desire to become “royalty.” And you only become royalty if your dog’s name (and yours) are all over the pedigrees of hundreds of dogs.
One of the greatest field trial dogs ever, and one of the most prolific field trial dog sires, couldn’t be shot over. He was gunshy at near distances. In trials, the guns are far away, so it wasn’t an issue. Didn’t even come to anyone’s attention until they tried to run him at an event that required shooting at the line. To be fair to him, a dog’s first introduction to close range gun fire isn’t usually directly over his head. Had it been introduced properly, he may not have had such a problem.
Retriever field trials are an Extreme Sport. Elite athletes. Their job is to win. It takes a whole lot more than desire to fetch a bird. One can’t even begin to comprehend how many pieces there are to this puzzle until one tries it with a dog. It’s a whole separate world from hunting. I know some dogs who do both. And I know quite a few who can do one but not another. For example, trials tolerate a certain amount of vocalizing and creeping. You can’t have that in a hunting blind. Field trial dogs come to the line, do their thing, and go back to the truck. Huntine companions sit in the blind for hours on end. Hunting companions aren’t usually required to make triple 300+ yard retrieves. They can sure be good hunting dogs without that kind of talent.
From an overall breed perspective: The work of the labrador retriever is to be a non-slip retriever and a hunting compaion. The qualities needed to successfully do that – quiet, patience, soft mouth, non-aggression toward humans and other dogs, physical and mental resiliency, among others – are the same qualities that enable the dog to succeed as a family companion, which is more and more becoming the job that the majority of dogs are asked to do.
Trial and show breeders have both impacted the breed, but it is from the hunters it came and to the hunters we have to look to continue it.
Eleanor, I think it may be a matter of degree and personal experience that colors our different perspectives. I’m sure there are trial dogs that can’t be hunted–I haven’t met one, but I don’t spend months on the trial circuit, either. Perhaps you’ve had more exposure, or live in a different part of the country, or run with a different crowd, or haven’t been in the sport for a while. I can only speak of my own experience, and I trust that you’re speaking from yours.
“Retriever field trials are an Extreme Sport. Elite athletes. Their job is to win. It takes a whole lot more than desire to fetch a bird. One can’t even begin to comprehend how many pieces there are to this puzzle until one tries it with a dog.” Agreed!
“It’s a whole separate world from hunting.” Not in my experience, but see caveat above.
“I know some dogs who do both.” Me too.
“And I know quite a few who can do one but not another. ” I don’t. I do know dogs that haven’t had the opportunity to do one or the other, and I don’t know how they’d fare and what amount of that would be a training/exposure issue.
“For example, trials tolerate a certain amount of vocalizing and creeping. You can’t have that in a hunting blind. Field trial dogs come to the line, do their thing, and go back to the truck. Huntine companions sit in the blind for hours on end.” Interesting example, and in your experience I’m sure valid or you wouldn’t mention it. HOWEVER, here’s where the world of trialing v. hunting being different can work in another way. I know at least 2 dogs (common ancestors) who are extremely vocal at tests and trials–they are so loud and obnoxious, they can’t pass. That’s pretty loud. But they are quiet and patient in the duck blind, and make excellent hunting companions. The behavior in competition is irrelevant to their behavior in a real hunting situation. Should these dogs be bred as hunting companions? They haven’t been–but I don’t see why not, so long as everyone’s up front about what they expect from such a breeding.
A dog that has a chronic injury may still enjoy a morning’s hunt, but may not be able to train to the rigors of a competitive athlete. If the chronic injury is genetically based, it also isn’t worth it to prove it as a potential stud or dam–it is removed from the gene pool. That doesn’t mean that it can’t enjoy what it was bred to do, and that someone can’t enjoy that with the dog as a member of a hunting team.
A dog that is retired is retired. That doesn’t mean it’s dead! It may even be a worthy contributor to the breed, one that proves itself in the sport now that it’s proven itself in competition.
A dog that has a training quirk may not be competitive, but that doesn’t mean it can’t hunt! Training quirks come about for many reasons. Maybe it was in a home that didn’t work out, maybe the personality of another professional didn’t mesh with it while it was being taught basic skills, maybe somebody didn’t know what they were doing, and this is where the dog ended up. Again–might be a worthy contributor to the breed. A friend has a dog with a chronic shoulder injury from a freak accident as a puppy, but it’s her hunting companion AND stud dog.
I don’t see what’s perverse about any of that.
Do I see dogs that do well in trials fail in an actual hunt? Well, I don’t hunt a WHOLE lot, it’s more of a goal than a hobby at this point–but IME (just a little), dogs WORK when they hunt–it’s not pass/fail, it’s persevere and adjust. I have yet to see a highly trained dog fail at following its instincts to find and retrieve birds; but, I wouldn’t go out if I didn’t think it was going to be fun and successful in some way, so my small sample is stacked.
With greyhounds retirement very often means death.
That is absolutely true.
And racing itself means death for some, be it during the race or afterwards, when a ‘career-ending’ injury is sustained.
“Some dogs are going to go extinct because they should”–Christopher; were you referring specifically to Greyhounds? I should hate to think Greyhounds would go extinct(or any functional, useful breed–”use” being aesthetic as well as for real work/survival purposes)–there ARE “cold bloods”(the 3rd type of Greyhound) that are used(mostly out West) to course, and are bred for the purpose of HUNTING–not racing or showing–THAT is the best future for healthy, functional Greyhound types! If commercial racing eventually does dissapear, I could still see sighthound enthusiasts keeping/breeding/running their greyhounds if only recreationally(as so many sled dog enthusiasts do), and still be breeding very healthy and functioning dogs–remember, the dogs themselves certainly don’t perform any less enthusiastically because you are coursing for sport or the pot!(although I think it is more ethical if you eat what you kill). Something of the ancient lineage and skills will be preserved, regardless of modern alterations, and if(or perhaps I should say “when”) the REAL need for such skills arises again, then there will be a ready gene pool to select from–as opposed to starting from scratch, much as I like wolves!(take it from someone who has been fed by his dogs in lean times!). Part of preserving any breed goes far beyond “what good is it now?”, and preserving ANY form of historical heritage is worthwhile, in my opinion…..
On the note of breed extinction, bear in mind that race blood whippets are still abundant in number but there is no professional racing industry for that breed. If professional greyhound racing goes extinct it will not necessarily mean the end of the breed just a transition to “hobby” racers, coursing or lure chasing.
That’s what I’m thinking.
A sport racing dog.
Of course, sport racing whippets sometimes throw puppies that look like this: http://media.canada.com/133a26b3-7939-4ba4-b93e-0c570ecf1751/wendy-1.jpg
They are the only sight hounds that produce them.
Right, but that is a simple mutation that is well understood. If you look at pedigrees for race blood whippets all the parents should have been tested for that gene.
it’s perverse because I assumed retrievers were bred to help hunters by retrieving downed birds, not to compete in trials. So I would have thought the authentic measure of performance would involve hunting (or a situation as close to hunting as possible) not trialling. I would have thought that gunfire would be part of that. And real bird corpses, too
Let’s just get it out there, Emily. You don’t like hunting. You don’t find it socially acceptable; you may find it cruel, or gross, or uncivilized. Certainly your prerogative. But let’s not waste time pretending any more.
Your objection to evaluating dogs in trials is specious. You would rather that retrievers be evaluated with frisbees on a well-manicured campus green, or jumping off docks, or maybe running free with daisies pinned behind their ears, or whatever.
For the record, there are many measures of a retriever that responsible working breeders and buyers consider, some measures more “authentic” than others for sure, some more specialized than others, some more extreme than others.
Almost all of them involve gunfire and live birds–the ones with the fake birds are looked down on by most of us as fake evaluations, and I–frankly–find them rather silly. If my dogs don’t get to retrieve a “real bird corpse”–preferably one shot with a gun before its very eyes–I don’t think it’s worth the entry fee and I don’t think it evaluates a damn thing that a tennis ball couldn’t evaluate just as well.
My master dog has been shot over countless times in training and competition. My senior dog will some day be a master dog, and may encounter a shot over her head at the senior level as well, so at the appropriate point in her training she was introduced to gunfire over her head, and she is confident and steady.
ALL HRC tests require the dog to be shot over–I haven’t participated in one yet, but most likely will one day.
Have you been to a field trial? Have you been to a hunt test? What sponsoring organization? What levels? Have you seen a dog hunt and quarter in person? Have you seen a dog retrieve a “a real bird corpse”?
Hunting is at this point is just not a modern world necessity. it just isn’t. Possibly a third world necessity in some areas of the world or even for those who in modern times choose to unplug from the rest of the world. but no longer what we need in a modern society. Its nothing we NEED to do. Neither do we NEED our dogs to hunt. Is it a good social practice for some people with a very elitist mentality to bring their dogs to trials and see who can perform routines on a mock hunt so the owner can beat their chest and say “yup that’s mine” and somehow live a little bit vicariously through the actions of their new age pet. I’ve been on the sideline to witness some of these.. and quite honestly the only thing that me and several spouses of the dog owners competing could find any common ground on was the fact that the owners and handlers of the dogs themselves were for the most part heavy set and/or obese. There weren’t these huge crowds of onlookers interested in sorting through the dogs to find the one they want to breed their dog or bitch with. The people there who had dogs entered possibly had some of that in mind, but honestly its no different from the conformation matches where I’ve spoken to people who’s entered dog may have had hip surgery or some other ailment that was not noticed visually and still won the show. Dogs being what they are don’t readily show outward signs of some very serious disease. They will still perform because that’s what they were trained to do to please their master, and they will do it many times until they drop dead. Likewise they don’t don’t have labels on them stating I’ve fathered over 100 litters and contributed my genetics to the gene pool of my breed and should be dying of cancer or put down before my time due to some other crippling ailment. Tell my offspring all over the entire western demographic that their daddy says hello. Nope, even ifEmilyS went to a trial she would see none of that. BUt she might get an earful of religion about the dogs their from some very closed minded people who believe there is nothing wrong with the system and the methods of determining quality in a dog that they believe in
Do you need to see a dog retrieve a real dead bird or a toy to distinguish it from a real dog? Or a healthy dog, or even a dog worthy of being bred?
If that is your measure of your dog, then all we can do is respect that. It doesn’t mean we NEED to believe that is the final word. I’d rather accept that there could actually be someone on the sideline with a specimen that does not compete and is much healthier than the status quo in the field. And possibly this is more true than you may care to admit.
The only intelligent discussion of hunting that I’ve read in the past few decades is this by Erich Fromm:
http://books.google.com/books?id=lC3QtYt34HgC&lpg=PA156&ots=nxUoBKSLNj&dq=erich%20fromm%20hunting&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q=&f=false
I certainly don’t believe hunting is cruel. What I believe may be borderline is breeding for that purpose and lying to ourselves that what is represented in the field is truly a perfect specimen.
How this relate to the Greyhound….
Its clear that when breeding for a racer its just a short term goal in mind anyway. The first three years is all you need out of the dog in the first place so actually being wary of any genetic defects that may take years to manifest in the first place becomes moot since the ultimate goal is to get all the peak performance out of the dog in its prime years for that potential performance.
When the racer has proven itself in that period of time to be a winner, then they opt to breed it for more potential winners….that’s the crux of the situation. Its all about a return on the investment otherwise there would not be money at stake to bet and win or lose on the performance of an animal.
The cruelty is in the fact that its no longer a pet its a possession and gambling venture that will have its fate determined by its continued performance one way or another. The immediate concern is for the BIG win, the BIG money and the continued Breeding for more of that potential from the dogs that perform to the level of expectation of the owners….. Not so much which dogs live the longest and healthiest lives.
In some ways this applies to the trial dogs. Not all of course but the framework is the same because its about a competition where the only one who cares is the owner.
Do we NEED to hunt? Well, no, we don’t, if eating is our only goal. I truly hope my life never comes down to that being all that I value.
As said in a previous post, it’s the qualities that make a Lab a good hunting dog that also make it a good family companion, and those qualities have effects that aren’t immediately obvious – qualities that aren’t really tested in dogs who just live the lives of the average suburban canine companion. And as someone who has shown Labs in breed, and may again someday, they’re also qualities that aren’t tested trotting in a circle in a flat ring.
As to field trials, the first time I saw an Open stake, the dog work was so magnificient it literally brought tears to my eyes. Once I started training for it myself, I developed a true understanding and respect for what it takes to succeed at that level. Years of hard work and literally blood, sweat and tears. The highs are high, and the lows are very low. Much like the pursuit of anything of value.
I hope that I never “develop” to the point where my heart and soul is so far removed from dogs’ that I can’t appreciate the beauty of one doing what he’s bred to do. It’s something that brings me great joy.
So, yes, in that respect, I and others like me, NEED dogs to hunt.
Well-said, Eleanor. Thank you.
We clearly agree on a lot, with different flavors and degrees.
I wish the blog had a PM system. I’d love to know privately who you are and where you are, and if you have dogs right now. If you’re interested in sharing that, please ask Scottie to give you my e-mail.
Aw, heck, you can find me on google, and my profile is public on a lot of other blogs, so
hhlabradors@gmail.com
Would love to chat privately. I can never know enough retriever people :-)
I’m Sorry Eleanor, I’m sure you love the breed and I know it has a respectable history. But literally the only blood sweat and tears should be coming from the animal that is actually performing the test. Not for the owner blowing a whistle, giving instruction or pointing in a direction for the dog to retrieve. Many dogs just do those things because that’s what they do….not much training involved. Perhaps to get them to do it according to a field trial, but in reality….NOT.
Is it beautiful? Yes I agree that is is. The beauty is seeing the animal head out at full speed with an elegant profile and all the enthusiasm shown outward by that dog because it loves this part of the game. You can get the same feeling watching a pack of dogs run down a Frisbee a flyball or a shot bird and retrieve it for you. Or by just watching them running free on a farm or heading full gallop off a dock and leaping into a lake or joy and marvel over the site of a huge wake left behind a single dog or an entire pack as it take off into the lake to retrieve game or toy.
If you don’t have that luxury then I suppose creating a field trial for competition is a way to get it. But I wouldn’t hang my hat on the notion that thats where the best of the best representation of your breed may be hanging out. Neither are they in the conformation ring.
So in a nutshell you don’t really NEED to hunt. You WANT to see the dog being what it was intended to be as close to nature as possible. That for us humans is the escape and freedom we see see in a dog that is doing what it likes to do. Even if for some of us that’s just a lazy dog chewing on a slipper or a game dog running flat out.
Likewise… Let me just remind you…. the only value in it for the dog is the joy of that moment to be a dog.
The same dog sees no value in the ribbon, medal or trophy that the owner covets.
As hard as that is for many to believe….its what the reality of it is.
OK, just for what this may or may not be worth:
Occasionally, I talk to an animal communicator. She “talks” with my dog, who she says has “told” her that he loves getting his picture taken and he loves getting ribbons.
It does look to me like he does love getting his picture taken — when the camera comes out, he becomes very patient and attentive to it. I’ve always wondered what he thinks is happening.
I don’t know about the ribbons thing. I haven’t seen anything that I can interpret as his liking getting the ribbons, so I don’t know.
Please talk to my dogs Patrice. And teach them how to blog. ;-)
In my state, many people “need” to hunt in the sense that the animals they kill provide a great deal of meat for their family.
In those cases I don’t knock them. If its a necessity then by all means you do what you need to do. Those people make up a very small percentage of our modern world. And the number of dogs produced far outnumber the need for them to actually wear the responsibility of hunting dog.
The local A&P, Pathmark, Shoprite etc etc… Provide a great deal of meat for the rest of the population.
project much?
I don’t oppose hunting, and you cannot find any such statement, or implication, in any of my posts. I’m not impressed with canned hunts (which happen to be illegal in my hunting state, so maybe I’m allowed to think that, eh?) or with trophy hunting. Yes, I do question the use of dogs to kill other animals in ANY “sport”. BFD. Am I allowed to have a different opinion from yours?
I don’t object to trialling and can’t even imagine where you get that from. I’m asking questions precisely because I don’t know these kinds of details.
I understand that some people are so defensive about their activities that even being questioned makes them crazy. Asking questions.. and answering them.. has been a technique for learning since, well at least since Socrates. Heard of him?
Welcome to the world of the Dog Fancy and its religious dogma EmilyS.
Where the sane people of the world are seen as crazy.
Go figure.
I’d rather be IN the fancy where the stated agendas are up front, than on the fringes where the stated agendas are disingenuous, at best.
The fact remains that I love my dogs and I love working with them. That’s what much of it is about for people in the testing and trialing sport, and for most of those who hunt, as well. That’s one agenda, and the one closest to my own heart.
If you don’t understand the relationship of working in partnership with a dog and must insist it’s about the superficial or the concrete, then keep insisting. It simply demonstrates that you don’t “get it.”
Its all about doing what you love F&L. No argument there.
When there is a necessity then I completely understand the NEED for that partnership. There is no pretending here. What one witnesses ‘is what it is” when it comes to trials, sport or competition. The difference between needing it and wanting it are very clear and there is no gray area. Either you are real and genuine or you are pretending and truly disingenuous.
But, if you are not harming your pet then there is no foul. But honestly the reward is exercise for the dog and a trophy for the owner. That I get and so does the rest of the world.
For those where it is a necessity it means food on the table. That, the rest of the world gets too.
Competition is not driven by the dogs. Its driven by the owners at the dog’s expense.
“But honestly the reward is exercise for the dog and a trophy for the owner. That I get and so does the rest of the world. ”
Exercise and a trophy?
Good grief.
Well, maybe a dead duck, too.
Eleanor “And I know quite a few who can do one but not another. ” “For example, trials tolerate a certain amount of vocalizing and creeping. You can’t have that in a hunting blind.”
F ‘N L “I know at least 2 dogs (common ancestors) who are extremely vocal at tests and trials–they are so loud and obnoxious, they can’t pass. That’s pretty loud. But they are quiet and patient in the duck blind, and make excellent hunting companions. ”
Yes. But if they can’t tone down enough in trials to keep from getting dropped, that supports the idea that they can’t do both. I should have said “they can do one but not the other” instead of “another.” Would have made more sense.
I agree there there are a lot of dogs out there who can discriminate between tests/trials and actual hunting, but there are some who get so high when the guns and decoys come out that they’re just intolerable. I guess it’s not that they CAN’T hunt, it’s that they’re such a PITA that nobody wants to take them.
Sengimage–meet one of those in the minority–I lived on squirrels I shot for several weeks(which I would not have been able to do without the help of a great canine companion who shared the meat with me) when I lost my job, had no money and no prospects, would NOT accept a handout(not that anyone was offering)–so you never know when such ill-luck can descend(although at the time, living day-by-day on just what I could kill to eat, and getting away from the twisted, artificial, deceitful world of urban mankind was excellent therapy for my circumstances!). My own maternal side of the family survived the Great Depression with a great deal of help from trusted, dependable hunting dogs–such circumstances may very well re-occur one day(and heaven help the majority of overly civilized unrealistic idealists when it does!). Trials may not be the “real thing”, but I sure as heck would prefer a dog from such a background to a show only or pet only bred animal–chances are MUCH better you’ll be getting a functional animal! PRESERVING skills and abilities is part of the plan(or should be). Trials and competitions are like anything else–there are great ones, and poor ones! Some people attending shouldn’t be allowed to keep gerbils, other people will be the most devoted, knowledgable doggy lovers imaginable! You can’t fairly lump them all in one category! Many competitions of one sort or another(hunting, sled dogs) I have attended and/or participated in were with people that could really care less about the ribbons or trophies–it was about PARTICIPATION, and camaraderie with other canine fanatics like yourself! And it was ALL ABOUT the dogs having a good time! No training for instinctive behaviours? You couldn’t POSSIBLY have worked any kind of dog in any kind of trial or race or public function, with that notion! A heckuva lot of work and training and conditionning have to go into it–instinct alone ain’t about to cut it! Plus you have to live with those dogs the rest of the year! Any trial is going to produce better, more functionally trained/performing dogs than those trotting about a show ring alone, or just letting them run about as untrained pets(fun as that is in itself!)–even if the trial isn’t EXACTLY the same thing, or based on real survival. This is what dog hobbyists DO, who are interested in seeing their dogs do what they were historically bred to do, if only in approxiamation. What do other people do for interest or recreation? Get drunk at parties? Watch T. V.? Hang out at the mall? Cruise all over town in autos? How REAL are those activities? How necessary for survival? Sheesh!
I’m far from a stereotypical canine fanatic. Trust me on that one Lane Batot. And unfortunately I don’t know what its like to get drunk or do drugs. That was the way I was raised. And fortunately my thinking on the dogs… like our children our dogs are a product of the environment they are raised in. They are an example of the philosophies we believe in and they represent us. That said it is in the best interest of anyone who loves their dogs to do what they feel is best for that breed and produce what in the end is your picture of a well rounded companion. If there’s one thing I say wholeheartedly its the fact that these participants do love their dogs.
That said… My weapon of choice is a high end camera and an excellent piece of glass mounted on it. I take aim shoot the same game you do with your shotgun or high caliber rifle. I have similar tree hides and hiking paths that reveal the same game for my dogs to flush that yours do for you to hunt. The difference in the end is what we are hanging on the wall. For me it lives another day. For you its a reminder of what you killed the other day. In the end we both obtained what we set out for. For me its thats moment captured in a photo. For you its that meal you enjoyed. Its just what we do.
I actually admire people like you. You are the reason for a purpose bred dog. And quite frankly some of my clients require a purpose bred dog. Which from the advice from them and from others, some of which are followers of this blogspace I do in fact prepare the pups as best as possible to be socialized with people, children and other dogs and as desensitized to a gunshot as possible. And what effort you put into raising a puppy, generally shows in the output you witness from the pups in question.
I wish I had time to spend all day in a Mall. But if I can’t take my dogs…. then its probably not going to happen. I do enjoy running my dogs, training my dogs and living with my dogs. And well… I really do enjoy filming them, with an HD camcorder or a high end DSLR of which I have as big a collection as many hunters have guns. Either way its not cheap. I’ve seen the costs of many guns. About the same price for many cameras.
If I required my dogs to participate in a field trial to satisfy my feelings for what I find worthy of a great dog, then frankly my foot would be stuck in the past trying to cling onto something that is just not necessary anymore. I prefer the companion that follows me on the hiking trails and still knows how to run in the direction that I point to flush or to retrieve and doesn’t have anything to prove to tell itself its a dog or to convince me that its a good one.
So, a purpose bred dog is a niche item nowadays. Its not required to make it in modern times. And since the majority of the dogs in question wind up in the hands of suburban and urban society, well… the purpose bred dog really isn’t required. It then becomes relegated to a pet with a history of purpose. And really, thats not so bad. Considering the alternatives. Focus should be on a long living companion with long term good health. Thats what society as a majority requires now. Its a very niche minority thats hanging its hat on purpose.
Again considering racing dogs???? The purpose is not needed. Its wanted. And for most hunting dogs. the reality is the same thing still applies.
I don’t blindly rely on instinct. Thats just well… stupid. It requires training…. repetition, repetition and more repetition coupled with patience and understanding and knowing and setting limits and milestones. Just like being a good parent. And frankly….. I have a lot of experience there. Along with raising dogs.
a purpose bred dog is a niche item. But wasn’t that always the case? Retrievers were not developed by the poor for hunting; they were developed for a fairly rich class for “gentleman hunting of birds”. The dogs used for catching birds for food in the middle ages were “setter” types that allowed snaring of birds using nets. There’s some exceptions such as the commercial hunting of waterfowl, but mostly retrievers always were a “specialty” dog. Does anyone HAVE to farm? nope. Theoretically virtually any human could divorce themselves entirely from all of nature and live an entirely artifical life. The more technological we become, the more this is likely. I don’t think it’s much of a life, but it’s POSSIBLE. Herding dogs were never “everyone’s dog” either. In Europe, most villages had a “village shepherd” –THEY needed a herding dog. The village tailor didn’t, nor did the village shoemaker, candlestick maker or any monks, nuns, knights, etc. So the fact that only SOME people want a dog for a specific purpose isn’t “new”. I don’t have retrievers. I do have herding dogs that I do use to manage my livestock. I don’t expect that the majority of those who own Belgian Sheepdogs will ever NEED to have their dogs herd. However, a great deal of what makes a Belgian Sheepdog different from a retriever or even a German Shepherd or BC is that they WERE used for herding and were used in a style that was somewhat different from any other breed. Those characteristics are what makes them good (or bad) at other tasks. If all you want is a dog that “looks like” a Belgian but has none of those other unique characteristics, then that is Free choice, but I’d rather it not be called a Belgian. If you want those unique characteristics, then you have to breed/select for them and the best way to do that is some kind of testing to see if you’ve succeeded. In my experience, actual HERDING (trial or practical) is the easiest way to do that. I would think the same applies to a retriever. The things that make a Golden NOT a Bernese Mountain dog and NOT a Beagle are based on it’s FUNCTION. There are other things that make a Golden NOT a Labrador either. If you don’t select for them, they become lost. To select for them you have to have some kind of evaluation tool — be it real hunting or test/trial hunting. A gunshy retriever would be, IMO, missing an essential character, however well it did “dock diving” or collecting frisbees.
Vr, Peggy Richter
I certainly agree with all of this in retrievers and herding breeds.
However, racing greyhounds are something very different.
We really don’t have a dog that actually generates that kind of money for their owners, except for greyhounds.
We have the puppy mill dogs, which are similar.
But none of them are so carefully cultivated as racing greys.
They are like the pigs on factory farms. They have really been intensely selectively bred, and we really don’t know what disorders have been selected in their gene pools.
After all, their lives are even shorter than those of racing greyhounds.
You actually bring up a good point Peggy. And I have to correct myself. I really shouldn’t have lumped all purpose bred dogs into the same basket. There are obviously different levels of NEED for each purpose bred dog depending upon the purpose they were bred for.
Greyhounds are definitely in the worst if not one of the worst categories….. Track Betting.
Herding dogs have more of a need than a hunting dog. Where livestock is concerned to maintain the economical efficiency of the livestock owner who in turn has possibly an entire demographic that is affected by his success or failure. If the herding dog tips this in his favor then it is greatly appreciated by many.
However it is still a fact that there are more dogs bred than there are these situations that require them. Even if its so controlled with a very rigorous interview and screening process in place to place the dogs in the correct environment, you still have to contend with the eventual popularity. So I also have to bring up the puppy mill factor. If the dogs become so popular then the puppy mills eventually get their hands on them and the overbreeding will begin to supply more dogs at a bargain price.
And today although it may be dwindling or blurred there is still a wealthier class of people that doesn’t hunt and doesn’t keep herds of livestock. And don’t have the frame of mind or the time to want to take their purpose bred dog to a trial or show and really I don’t blame them. Most of them are not that inclined to do so. Perhaps for a walk or for a run or for a hike. For flyball for a frisbee or a swim. For them that is the fun and their measure of a dog.
However…
Try going to a frisbee competition and see how the same herding dogs dominate. And clearly… there is a crowd of the rest of the world outside of the Dog Fancy. And literally… that is the consumer base that drives the demand for more of the dogs you love. Look among them and really ask yourself how many of those people really NEED a purpose bred dog. Then ask yourself which one of those people will fall in love with your type of dog. Then ask again, How many of them are keeping livestock, How many are hunters? Then Consider how many dogs are produced. Hmmmm.
Senimage, I really must correct an assumption you seem to have made about me as a “hunter”–I virtually never kill animals “hunting” except in dire necessity for food–which such circumstances have only occurred a couple of times in my life. Hunting doesn’t have to involve killing–something the anti-hunters, in their great ignorance of the activity, don’t realize. My “hunting” rarely involves killing–sometimes a foolish animal gets nailed by the dogs(after which I see to it that somebody eats it–usually not a problem!), but, much to my dogs’ disgust, I don’t help them kill things–so the critters do live to run another day, again and again(one gets to know individual critters and their habits with such “hunting”, which I find fascinating). And I certainly do not hunt to hang trophies on my walls! The point I was making was, that despite our modern, high-tech, urbanized environment most of us in western society are brought up in, you just never know when such primitive skills can come in handy and save your butt one day. I certainly never saw it coming when it happened to me! And who knows but that such dogs will be VERY necessary to survival again in mankind’s future–I am not one of those doomsayers that THINKS they want society to collapse–I’ve been exposed to the reality of scraping for each meal too often to have too much of a romantic notion of the subject–but, if you look at history, and human politics and foolishness, and how we are destroying our basic environment, it really isn’t too far-fetched to see that one day again, a good squirrel(or rabbit, rat, or cat, or coon, or possum, or any kind of hunting dog!) might be the difference between eating and not eating! If there are still even barely functional dogs around if and when that happens, our descendants will be very thankful! Though no one breeding/trialing/sport hunting today are doing it with that in mind, they are still inadvertantly preserving what may be basic survival skills in our dogs. Though such projection is seen as silly by most people today, still, WHY woold anyone with the responsibility of “preserving” dog breeds NOT want to try and save and perpetuate those unique abilities that makes the individual breeds what they are? And some way other than conformation showing alone is necessary to do so. So I say, go ahead with those trials and lure coursing and recreational sledding/carting/herding–because you may be doing more than you as an individual know, and you will certainly produce healthier, more functional animals! As for Greyhound racing–I can’t say I think too highly of the commercial side of that–anytime lots of money becomes involved with ANYTHING, morals and basic decency seem to get kicked to the curb. I’d LOVE to see Greyhound racing eventually just evolve(devolve?) into recreational racing by true Greyhound afficiondos, who care more about their dogs having a great run and good, long, lives, than winning a lot of moolah……
Yes Lane Batot. I didn’t mean to stereotype you. I was just giving examples. We can’t live each day thinking there is a horrible tomorrow coming. And Hinging our survival on our dog’s abilities. For you it was a fortunate outcome after enduring harder times.
But that can’t apply to everyone. Its just not realistic. The reality is ….People want the dog they want to have. Whatever their reason does not matter, the odds that the vast majority of the purpose bred dogs actually get used for that purpose is just not the case anymore.
So all the more reason to go back to basics and rethink the whole process since the demand for the dogs is driven by a whole new world, as there is now a purpose to breed better than there is to breed for a purpose.
Again I’ll need to add.
Peggy, I represent the rest of the world that still wants a dog, but doesn’t need one. The same people who want to choose the dog that they want and not be told you can only get that dog. They want your dog or my dog and they want it to live in their world and with their family according to their lifestyle and they want it to be a healthy long lived one and would prefer less inbreeding, less line breeding and better selective breeding. And really, most of them don’t want to hear about the purpose. They want to know about the health and admire the history behind the breed. And in today’s world I believe that is the new cause to deliver upon out of respect for the breeds that have lived to see today.
Having read the last several posts, I have resolved the following:
1. To never volunteer the breed of my “black golden retriever mix” to a stranger not holding a shotgun.
It would be the ruin of the breed for too many who don’t appreciate its original function to own one. Nevermind they can be wonderful at other activities and companionship–failure to select for the original purpose changes a breed I love.
2. To respond in the following way to comments on my Lab: “He’s so small [78 pounds]–is he all Lab?” “Yes, he’s field bred [never mind that I think this is the correct conformation and that his sire weighed the same and had his CH]; I wouldn’t recommend it. Terrible dog. Stay away from field lines.”
The more the field dogs are owned exclusively by performance and working homes, the more likely it is a breed I love will be preserved in some true form, though the rest of the breed may become lazy giant pets bird-fearing pets.
3. To continue practicing my shooting, and to hunt enough next year to make all the stamps and fees and licenses worth it in terms of food and exercise [that's a lot of dead birds and long walks].
It is important for people to have some connection to at least some of the food we eat, in order to have respect for our environment, to respect for our very nature, to preserve the skill, to preserve the traditional purposeful relationship between man and dog as working partners, and basically to avoid living a plastic life with manufactured food.
I may need to change my handle… blkgoldenlabmix…
I saw a black golden retriever once.
Excellent. I will call her a black golden.
This would be a wonderful diversion! It would take them years to find one, thus effectively keeping them from the f!@##1e.
;-)
too funny.
You would still need to take on maintaining just a limited breeding stock and possibly begin culling or removing over 80% or more of the liters from the breeding population by altering them if not just killing them…. Then welcome in the limited gene pool and begin counting down on the demise of the genetic diversity once again. Otherwise where will all the offspring of those perfect specimens go??? There certainly are not enough hunters to meet that demand for proper homes fitting such a purpose.
At least labs have a chance to stay ahead of the game. it just requires being more accepting that there is some good coming from other lines and that the pet population will need to be maintained and catered to first…. not conformation or trial needs, which historically have not been based on longevity and long term health. Sad but true. Its just a recent ripple in history where the Dog Fancy started to re-evaluate the long term damage that was done. To reverse more than a century of closed stud books and registries….. Well. Hang onto that Black Golden. ;-)
I think with some breeder smarts and integrity both breeds will be just fine.
I’m off to train the mutts.
Well the recent decline in life expectancy averages for many breeds just indicates there’s a lot of damage to reverse. But, I remain hopeful. You can only change things one litter at a time.
Oh and you do realize the mixes are far more popular nowadays, so that also may help take some of the burden off the pure breeds to meet a demand for more of them. Thus providing a chance to catch up on reversing all the bad
The problem with real, wired, working type dogs isn’t that there is no work or need for them, it is the foolishness of people who aquire a dog NOT DOING THEIR RESEARCH, and having unrealistic expectations of their animals, trying to fit it into a neutered, non-active(brain AND body) pet lifestyle(although many people are VERY active with their pets, but they ain’t the problem). And there is NO EXCUSE for this in this day and age with information about everything to do with dogs available at peoples’ fingertips! There are plenty of mutts bred for no special purpose who can wonderfully fulfill the need for a pet/companion(I usually have a few of these around myself–all they have to be is “just dogs”!), but even mutts get more understanding homes if study and consideration is utilized in their aquisition. Where do most mutts come from? Crossbreeding of purebreds! So understanding at least SOMETHING about the make-up of your mutt’s genetics by studying their ancestors is helpful(IF you can tell what they’re made of!). Anyway, it ain’t fair to say “most people don’t need such-and-such type of dog, therefore these characteristics are no longer important”(paraphrasing here)–THOSE PEOPLE just need to do their research and not aquire dogs unsuited for their lifestyle! And be realistic about their lifestyles!
Lane Batot, There just aren’t enough homes to call a perfect fit for these dogs to support the argument for continuing to breed them entirely for a specific purpose. Its just not possible. So the rest are just going to be relegated to the pet industry. Now there are certainly ways to control the amount of what breed goes to the majority of the public. But then, at what cost? Neutering and Spaying doesn’t help issues with diversity and the associated health issues that go with it. And even if you screen and place your puppies with a good home…. You then have to contend with the fact that once you sell it…its no longer yours. But a good ongoing relationship with the people who you do choose to to adopt one of those puppies to is something you do need to take ownership of.
Even with the best care taken to place your puppies, there are puppy mills looking to exploit the public demand for the type of dog in look and feel and even temperament. And they will continue to produce these dogs and provide no screening whatsoever, they will supply petshop inventory and full registration papers. And basically give the demanding and uneducated public exactly what they want.
I don’t like the idea of petshops and puppy mills, But apparently the Registries make a great deal of money off of their existence. So I’ve made it a point that instead of frustrating myself with those operations I will just do my best to build a relationship with interested parties and get to know them. And allow them to know me, my dogs and what we’re all about. And to really educate them. Not just just sell to whomever comes asking. Its the best we can do. And possibly all we can we can do. Bashing the next breeder down the line just isn’t going to make things better. BUt if they maintain a practice of careful screening and an ongoing relationship with their adoptive families, then thats a big step towards lowering the numbers of dogs that do go to shelters and eventually find their way into the puppy mill market.
Basically you’re looking at a consumer market with varying activity levels within it. As a breeder you have more control over the types of lifestyles that best match the dogs you’re producing. So interviews and background checks are just conducive to being responsible. And continued communication instead of a controlling atmosphere goes a long way towards keeping the dogs that don’t work out from getting sucked into the underground that exploits them for profit.
So its not just the responsibility of the public to do the research. If the screening, education and communication is done properly from the source of the breed in the first place, Then situations where the breed is not a match to the lifestyle becomes less prevalent. And the opportunity to snatch an unwanted or lost and unrecoverable dog to the puppy mills is avoided.
Also Lane Batot….
“Where do most mutts come from? Crossbreeding of purebreds!”
Just keep in mind…. The origin of the purebred you love came from a mix of other breeds before it. Essentially what you call a purebred is just a mutt with a registry and studbook.
Its just amazing how many purists lose sight of this very important fact. It not like these dogs just appeared through divine means one day. Or fell from the sky. People created them. And they did it in a time when there was more need for the purpose they were bred for.
Sengimage–you seem so out of touch with the actual functionning dog world–do you not realize that there are all manner of working hunting/herding/sledding enthuisiasts by the THOUSANDS???!!! That breed perfectly healthy functioning dogs, and create networks of like-minded people(BY THE THOUSANDS! ALL OVER THE WORLD!!!!) who continue to uphold working ethics and preserve these interesting, useful, and noble characteristics??? Apparently not–please do some BASIC research on working breeds–there are kuhzillions of clubs ALL OVER THE WORLD doing this!(and most have websites! They ain’t hard to research!) And who are you to say we all should settle for mediocrity in dogs because, well, most of the general public doesn’t get it? People like you apparently would have everyone just sitting around twiddling their fingers and little else, because, well, SOMEBODY might abuse the privelege! Why should people that don’t make stupid abusive or compulsive mistakes with their dogs be limited in their enjoyment/preservation of these unique and amazing animals because of all the IDIOTS out there? In that case, because SO MANY children are abused and not taken care of properly, people really need to be prevented from having kids! Or a million other such scenarios! The only FAIR way to eliminate puppy mills, bad pet shops(they are not ALL bad…), impulsive dog purchases, is EDUCATION, not just throwing up one’s hands and giving up and outlawing or otherwise preventing the aquisition of such dogs. Sure as the sun rises, if people like you get their way, someone else even more anal is going to come along(because sure as the sun rises, a large majority of idiots will screw up and abuse even the most mild, lethargic, mediocre mutts!) and just decide NO ONE should EVER have ANY dogs! Or is that your eventual agenda anyway? Do you WANT to see the amazing diversity and incredible abilities of dogs lost to inane mediocrity? Sheesh! And yes, I know most “purebreds” originated from crosses, but that doesn’t change the fact that crosses come from purebreds, too, nor does it change THE POINT I was making that knowing SOMETHING regarding one’s mutt’s background, can help a lot in understanding why it might be behaving like it is ……
Lane Batot, I hear you. I understand the frustration you’re describing. And I’m not sure you really understand the perspective I bring up here. I can see you’re, by your words that you’re certainly passionate about your dogs, just don’t mistake the thousands of breed clubs and millions of people who are in the network of like minded people as the final destination. Frankly the millions of people who don’t see eye to eye with the breed clubs and what has happened to the many breeds are so numerous they dwarf the clubs and the the network of like minded people you speak of. sort of like the needle in the haystack trying to move the entire stack. Its just not going to happen.
I’m not an advocate for the uneducated. And certainly don’t seek to place a high energy level companion in an apartment dwelling with a retired couple. Or a puppy in an environment where parent have no control over their over indulged children so, I just don’t get your rant at the moment. If its directed at me, well I’m literally quite the opposite of the stereotype your painting. And Education is key, how you go about educating people is either complacent or proactive. Complacent would rely on the public to know where to look for information where proactive would mean you bring it to the public when and where you have opportunity to do so. By screening and interviewing your client base you have a lot of say as to where your pups go.
Education is key to preventing puppy mills and petstores, but who’s educating the patrons who go there?
And sometimes that means you actually need to get out and give your dog some exposure among the public. In areas where the public does go. Unfortunately thats not what usually happens at the trials and the show. What you do see at trails and shows more often than not are the owners telling the few public spectators that do show up…..”please don’t touch my dog”. And Unfortunately for the dog owner, the perception often given to the few attending public spectators is the air of arrogance, pretentiousness and elitism that is the trademark of the Dog fancy. So, for the most part, at least in that venue the opportunity to educate instead of showing off has just been destroyed. And the taste in the mouth of the spectator is “what a bunch of assholes these dog people are”.
If you’re really into changing the mind of the public, their perception, their knowledge and really interested in what they do think ….. Well. A trip to the petsmart store with your dog in tow is probably the best place to do it. Inquiring minds ask question and you have a live audience. And people retain much of what you say, so coming up with quick short catch phrases in a positive manner is beneficial to getting the knowledge out there. And it spreads quickly. BUt, once it does…. you then need to start screening those interested even further.
The place where my family feels uncomfortable, other than the dogshows, is when we actually go to a puppy pet store. Its really sad how the pups are on display. Mixed breeds and Pure breeds. And how all the customers don’t ask a damn thing about the puppies’s history, temperament or associated health issues. We do go to these places and when we do its very interesting, we ask a store employee to take out a puppy for us to examine. We start to feel it for anomalies and check its teeth and all the while asking if it has papers and if there is any history on the parents. We’re very vocal in doing so.. And then the magic happens. The employees look and learn. The spectators watch and ask questions. And we give the examples of the right question and suggestions for the right sources to learn more about the cute puppy they were just about to make a stupid impulse purchase over. We tell them a bit about the breed in which we are examining and why we’re there, which is basically to see how stupid the employees are and how blind the public is. We do it while wearing the hats with our Kennel logo on it and inform the onlookers we would never put any of our pups in a petstore nor would we buy from one, but we are here to see what quality the store does sell and how much information they do provide. It reminds us that we are doing the right thing for our dogs.
And….
It gives us an opportunity to counter all the claims the petstore is making about breeders of pure breed dogs. Lots of it is negatives actually. Apparently all breeders from their attempts to educate are inbreeding their dogs. And overbreeding. Then they claim they get their stock from local responsible breeders…. Uh huh like a responsible breeders would give up their dog to consignment in a pet store????
Anyway. Lane Batot. We’re actually on the same side of the fence. So don’t throw me under a bus yet.
The Mutts you speak of also have registries and stud books. And many are on their way to becoming an acknowledged pure breed. Perhaps if you deconstruct a bit of what you see as a pure breed everytime you see one…. you can let go of some of what frustrates you? For example When I look at a golden Retriever I se a Tweed water spaniel and a Flatcoat mix. When I look at a Flat Coated Retriever I see a Setter, Collie, Pointer, St. Johns mix. Etc etc. I see what some aristocrat from over a century or more ago decided to try and breed for. I see what went into it and the thinking that was done to decide on that mix. Because ultimately that what it was…. A mix.
Yes, regardless its always best to know what you’re getting before you buy it. And fortunately for you and me…. we can can screen those interested parties to see that they meet our criteria beforehand.
You don’t need to harangue me( I just like the word “harangue”, and rarely get a chance to use it!..) about Pet Stores–my first “civilized” paying job was in the WORST–a MALL pet shop! I got fired within 3 months, because , as I was told, I thought I was working with “animals’, when in reality I was working with “merchandise” (actual boss’s words!)–the first time I cussed a boss out! Many more were to follow over the years of my varied(and usually short-termed) and infamous career….(sigh). This place had a small printing machine where they made up dog and cat pedigrees! And charged out the whazzoo for them! Crooked as wooden nickels–I did my part even then by taking customers aside whenever I got the chance and telling them the truth and HOW and WHERE they should ethically get a puppy or other critter(or supplies! God, what they charged for supplies!). Little wonder I wasn’t exactly popular with the management! But I HAVE seen little Mom-and-Pop pet shops that the owners REALLY did give a darn, and carefully educated and guided people, and continued to be a source of info and help to pet owners, so I have no problem with such businesses as that–too bad they are getting rarer and rarer….. MANY people DO know better now, than to buy from pet shops supplied by puppy mills, because of education. The same is finally occurring for overly inbred(and usually highly expensive!!!) show dog types, so change does occur, but it takes time. However, that doesn’t mean the people who really DO work the breed of their choice should be denied this privelege because of all the inept idiots out there, even if they ARE in the minority! Still, there are a LOT of people who LIVE to work their dogs–you need to check out(other than retriever trials) beaglers, foxhounds(jug hunters, horsebackers, and still hunters) coonhound hunters(and bear, and hog, and wild cats), pointing breeds, laikas, elkhounds, sighthound people that course their dogs, terriers that really go to ground, squirrel dogs(yes, there are quite a few bred specifically for this!) the many aspects of sled dogs and herders, and a little thing called “Schutzhund”–I can go on and on! ALL these people and their dogs unrealistic and having no right to do what they do? Loose all these amazing abilities? If you REALLY work dogs, you QUICKLY learn that sure, you CAN train some mutts or other breeds to do specific tasks, but (with the inevitable rare exceptions), if you want to herd, or trail or course game, or sled or cart, you just can’t do better than to aquire those breeds utilized for that purpose for generations(sometimes centuries!)–unless you just like kinda half-arse puttering about at those activities!(and there is nothing wrong with that either, of course). I’m sure eventually new breeds will arise selectively bred for service work, search-and-rescue perhaps, maybe bomb sniffing, or disease detectors–if so, then they will undoubtedly be better than previous mixes or breeds not specifically selected for generations for this! This is just basic domestic animal breeding practice! If you don’t want to do that fine, it’s a big world out there. But please have some respect for those who want and like preserving these breeds(and I ain’t talking conformation-alone showers here…). It makes about as much sense to me as saying that because a certain percentage of people wreck high performance cars, then these cars should just be allowed to disappear, since they are not practical for the general public! Yeah, the general public has a certain responsibility to do research; so many people nowadays want someone to hold their bloody hand no matter what they do, and not take responsibility for anything–it is ridiculous! Getting a dog(a living thing) which is a decade or more responsibility? Do people really need to be TOLD that SHOULD require a bit of reflection and research? Sad, but true that many do. And I harangue–(yippee! I got to use it again!) people about it constantly, every chance I get, and always will(kinda like right now!). But that doesn’t mean that those who DO show some sense and responsibility should pay the price for those that are screwing up, I don’t care how low a percentage they are! That just ain’t UHMAIRIKAN!
Lane, they printed up pedigrees and sold them with the puppies and kittens? Terrible, they should have taken the money, and the, mailed the pedigrees to the customer, so to get their address.
(joke)
Who’s denying them (you) the right to work them? When its your dog you do what you want. That’s part of the ownership. Being that its yours who’s to tell you what to do with it. Thus the only thing I claimed that as a breeder you NEED to take ownership of is the relationship you maintain with the buyers of your pups. You have no control over the pups from another breeder at all. And technically, you really have no control over the sold pups once they leave you. Possession being a big part of ownership its just the way it is. So maintaining the relationship is your responsibility and educating your client is your responsibility. If its not being abused or mistreated or exploited, then its really your business what you do with your dog. The argument was about the NEED for that purpose. Which clearly isn’t what it was when those, long dead and gone, aristocrats created the breed in the first place. Many of whom would probably turn in their graves if they saw what became of their ideas.
Our Ancestors did a good thing when they mixed breeds in the first place. It created diversity in a gene pool and they maintained it with outcrossing to improve again and again. Modernizing the process and closing the system was the ruin for our dogs. Awareness is changing that. FOR SOME. You’d be hard pressed too convince a breeder that thinks inbreeding and line breeding practices are acceptable. I’ve had those discussions with some of THOSE kind of breeders. It ain’t pretty.
Honestly the only thing you or I can do as individuals is remain on course with our ideals and keep close tabs on the whereabout of our pups. If you go the extra mile and alter the puppies beforehand…. it does control the population, but it also affects diversity. So that would be the individuals call to make before you part with that puppy.
Somewhere, somehow, you got that I’m telling you to not do what you love to do. That was way off point. Perhaps you think I came here looking for a fight and you want to give one? NOT. I merely stated that a purpose is not as needed in todays modern times. There are far too many puppies and not enough homes to maintain their intended purpose. Thats just common sense. However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t enough homes with a lifestyle to meet the demands of a purpose bred dog.
Thats where your point on education rings home loud and clear.
I wish it was true about your feelings on the pet stores not being so popular any more. Its just not the case. Even in a poor economy….. the pet stores are thriving and puppy mills are doing very well. And The mom and pop operations you speak of, which are more like pet brokers on the nicer end of the spectrum, are extremely rare finds. The pet stores in my area are booming. Regardless of what is politically correct in terms of where you should get your puppy….. the public is still frequenting these puppy outlets. Its a matter of convenience. I don’t buy into that.
Remember what it was like working for the pet store. And remember that the people you did address about what was right or wrong may have listened or they may have looked at you oddly since you did work there and are now disparaging your employer. Its a tough one to call. But, you knew what was wrong and addressed it as best as you could. Thats all you really could do. You had no control over where those pups went. However, as a breeder, now you do have control over where your pups are placed. And if the measure of your success is how many of those pups live a long happy life, full of exercise, training and love, without being abandoned, or given to a shelter then you did a great job.
If they wind up in a field trial or a conformation match or a frisbee competition, lure coursing or whatever, then thats good too. But, if they don’t wind up serving the purpose that those long dead and gone ancestors intended them for, well keeping in mind the era they lived in and the times we now live in…..oh well. Life goes on. And with it comes change.
For the romantic you will try to relive some of that glory from the past. Or for the true to life livestock farmers and subsistence hunters then you have an opportunity to maintain a purpose for your dogs. For the majority that makes up the rest of the world we get a companion that fits our lifestyles. At least in a perfect world that how it should be.
You can be as ethical and strict and screen people out the whazoo who buy/take pups you breed(and of course you SHOULD be), but there will still be cases where people lied or gave false impressions(or their circumstances change drastically) and your pups end up badly, and there’s nothing you can do about it–despite all your efforts(or may not ever even KNOW about it)–that’s just harsh reality. But if you were better informed(you are not giving me the impression that you are!), you’d realize that people seriously into working dogs usually have very few litters to begin with, have an entire network of like-souls that they sell/give pups to, having an excellent idea how they’ll be kept and treated, and very often DO keep in touch long term, because they work their dogs in the same contests/activities. Yea, are MUCH MORE likely to hear about the fate of theirv pups than most pet breeders!! Though there certainly are pet breeders who can become like family when you get a pup from them, most I’ve seen sell pups and that’s the end of the association. I think working people tend to stay in contact more, because they are also interested in how the progeny they turned out worked out. YOU were the one saying such working qualities are no longer practical and serve no purpose, therefore shouldn’t be bred for, then you say it is fine to work the dogs if one wants too. Huh? What’s the point of wanting to work them, and trying to work them if you are not going to try and select for the specific abilities? No, conformation show people who inbreed way too much, and only breed for a “look”, don’t breed very sensibly(in my opinion)–but most true working people DO NOT breed this way–the fact that you don’t seem to get that shows great lack of education on the subject. Take coonhounds, for example–basically if the dogs don’t perform(which requires vigorous physical and scenting abilities that will not tolerate poor breeding practices) they don’t breed–in fact, they rarely live long…..Such breeding practices are a form of selecting for the fittest, above and beyond what pet breeders or conformation-only breeders do(and in all fairness, SOME conformation breeders DO get involved in their breed’s actual work, and try to breed for both, which is certainly better than JUST conformation breeding, and they tend to “get it”)–if you don’t realize that, then feller, you needs tah git out in tha woods with yer dawgs more! That’ll teach you what constitutes a healthy dog, and what should be bred for!
Lane Batot. You’re still looking for scrap where there is none.
It is what it is. Even in the world you come from there are still far too many pups bred for the demand. I’m informed, just not functioning with blinders on. I know people with working dogs. Yes they do have few litters. As do I.
And, I know of breeders of working dogs. Some very popular working dogs. I know of many practices when it come to their selection process and as unethical as they may be…. They seem to think they are in the right. And really, like I’ve said before, I have no right to tell them otherwise.
The idea is to keep in touch with ALL your clients. Not just the ones who are like minded and into the same hobbies you’re into. Man, there go the blinders again.
Look I’m not here to read your pontifications and your lectures. Nor was I giving any. The only Harangue here would be your hangup with something I may have touched off. But I certainly wasn’t criticizing you. I even applauded you. So whatever bug it is you have for me at the moment I feel is a bit misdirected and possibly rooted in assumptions of someone you don’t know, never met and never really had a conversation with until now. And for some reason all you seem to get is …
1. I hate Trials
2. I hate Purpose Bred dogs
3. I believe there is no place for purpose bred dogs
4. I know nothing about the Dog Fancy
Apparently you read my posts with blinders on too?
My apologies for upsetting you. But, you really don’t know me and if all you get from what my perspective was above then you just don’t get it. Unfortunately however, you’re really living up to some stereotypes in your diatribes. I prefer to not judge you. I believe your heart is in the right place.
I read your posts very carefully, and no blinders were on. Also, I ain’t angry at you, we is just “discussing”. But the point you keep making about there not being as much of a “need” for specifically purpose-bred dogs(and yes, I get it that most people in the Western world do not depend on their dogs for basic survival needs), but yet you are breeding for pets (correct?) for the average citizen who is not a dog nerd(like me)–is there a “NEED” for pets more than a need for sporting dogs for those who wish to breed/train/keep them? People can survive just fine without pets, too(I sure don’t know how, but they can and do), and there’s nothing wrong with breeding for pets(personality, health, practical sizes and coats, etc.–quite a worthy endevour), but what I am haranguing about is that this isn’t better, nor should it supplant those who wish to go a step further and preserve the specific purpose-bred dogs either. I think outcrosses are a great idea–some purpose-bred-dog-people DO outcross–I have a Greyhound X Saluki X Staghound(and no-telling what else!) cross right now–a “coyote hound” bred specifically to course coyotes and jackrabbits out West. Marvelous dog!(for me, at least). I know of many trailhound people who constantly mix up scenthound breeds for vigor and ability–these kinds of dog people DO exist, could care less about the “Dog Fancy” as such, and breed what WORKS(and to do so, it has to be vigorous and healthy–ain’t no hip-dysplastic-retinal-atrophied dawg gonna be much use on a bear hunt!), and I am getting the impression you haven’t had much experience, or even know, that this segment of dogdom exists–don’t feel bad, hardly anyone unless they are personally involved do! But I know many a bear/fox/coon/cougar/bobcat/coyote/rabbit/squirrel(etc. etc.–and don’t fergit birds of all kinds–)hunter who would take great umbrage with the idea that we should only breed for super-tame pet qualities! Sled dog people also crossbreed right and left–very few functioning sled dogs are what the “Fancy” would consider “purebred”–they are bred for a PURPOSE–thousands of dogs! I’d hate to see all that swept away because it became politically incorrect to breed other than calm, unwired, lethargic pets(not that there’s anything wrong with that either…)
Actually, yes there is a need for pets because there is a demand for them. All kinds of pets. Big and small and those that people just want. Its not a necessity in terms that we require them to survive, but we want them as companions and to fill a void of being needed. And frankly the purpose bred dogs still fill the requirements for many active lifestyle families. And there are many more of those situations now than there are Subsistence farmers, livestock owners and hunters.
Basically, No one needs a dog….not even hunters or livestock owners or farmers. Dogs augment their lives. So do pets. Therefore its easy to find purpose as a pet. There you go ;-). Pets are in the same category as a home theatre in my world….You don’t need one, you just want one. And many of the working breeds actually provide a wonderful companion for an active lifestyle. Plain and simple. You don’t want to settle for the status quo. You want something interesting and that matches your energy. For many, that is a retriever or a collie or a shephard. And if it has a working drive and isn’t taken by any one who needs to work it…. then we need to place it somewhere that will meet that drive.
Some people have no need or want for pets. But many more do. And the numbers in many a metropolitan area for dogs alone numbers in the MILLIONS.
I understand about those people who mix breeds for purpose. They are doing what our ancestors did only they seek no acknowledgement of their creation. But when someone does witness their creation and wants one….the demand has started.
I breed for what will hopefully be a long lived healthier specimen. I match them to families with active lifestyles and many of them happen to be avid hunters. Not trial hoppers. But hunters. And what works for them is what they put into the pup when it leaves my home and joins theirs.
I don’t train the pups or my dogs for hunting, but its clear that the paces they are put through to satisfy my hobby for photography does suffice for the hunters. A dog doesn’t have to be a lumbering lazy specimen even when breeding for pets.
If the world was calm, unwired, lethargic then all the pets would be iguanas. Luckily for us, its just as diverse as the breeds of dogs that share the world with us. And for every breed with a purpose there is a household to match. I can’t speak for the ones that don’t have any of my dogs. But, mine were placed carefully. The owners interviewed in person and their background checks followed through on. Discussions with their veterinarian and access to speak with ours. And We have reclaimed a couple to re-home them. And we often welcome many back to pet sit them or open our doors for our clients to come back and pay us a visit.
You have a wonderful life if you can share it with a dog. And you have a wonderful dog if it completes you and brings joy into your life.
You can tell your… bear/fox/coon/cougar/bobcat/coyote/rabbit/squirrel(etc. etc.–and don’t fergit birds of all kinds–)hunters
that all the … bear/fox/coon/cougar/bobcat/coyote/rabbit/squirrel(etc. etc.–and don’t fergit birds of all kinds–)hunters
that I know are quite happy with my dogs. And they ain’t going to trials and shows with them either.
And …
they would take great umbrage with the idea that I ONLY breed for super-tame pet qualities!
Like I said, you don’t know me.
The point I was making….
“the demand for the dogs is driven by a whole new world, as there is now a PURPOSE TO BREED BETTER” more so “than there is a need to BREED FOR A PURPOSE.”
And
“the specimens we witness at trials and shows are not always the perfect examples of the breed” “What is seen outwardly doesn’t tell the whole story behind that specimen”
Therefore
“Its more than possible that many of the dogs on the sideline and not participating are actually healthier longer living specimens than what we witness in competition”
And very well could be someone’s pet.
Or a possible future working dog……
That too ;-)
I just stumbled across this, and would like to add two thoughts:
The second hypothesis (breeding) is IMO much more likely to be true. On top of Dr. Couto’s far more scientific research, I have some anecdotal evidence in that I have seen, through various greyhound communities, about the same percentage of dogs who never even raced and in many cases never even trained getting Osteo as retired racers.
As far as AKC being a healthier breed, I am not entirely sure about that. My understanding is that AKC greys still suffer from hip dysplasia. That has been bred out of the racing line.
[...] Check out the Ohio State University program and give it some thought and if it fits your budget, purchase a membership. A perfect amputation followed by chemotherapy will cost $7,000 (or more) in medical bills. We were fortunate to have pet insurance which helped. But due to Opa’s complications and extra long hospital stay, the cost was much higher. Even if you never have to use the services (and we hope you don’t), you will help continue their studies and your donation may help a may another hound in need.” More info about greyhounds and cancer. [...]