After all the controversy over Alexander Dauber’s heretical cross between a Nova Scotia duck-tolling retriever and an Australian shepherd, Dauber has decided to do another outcross.
Dauber is doing these outcrosses to save Nova Scotia duck-tolling retrievers, which are a quite inbred breed that has some issues with MHC diversity and heterozygosity, which tends to show up in severe autoimmune diseases.
As a breed, they have no obvious exaggerations, so they should be living well into their teens.
Depending upon whom one consults, the average lifespan of this breed is in the 7 to 10 year range.
Which is pathetic.
Dauber has caught all sorts of hell from the pure blood brigade cultists, and even received very harsh criticism from Dr. Bruce Cattanach, who did a similar outcross program for nothing more than cosmetic reasons. (Cattanch is a good man and great scientist, but he’s dead wrong here.)
Tollers need greater MHC diversity as a population, and within the dogs, they also need greater heterozygosity.
Toller fanciers regularly troll any posts on these dogs, claiming they live to be 14, 16, or 25 years old, usually with anecdotal evidence.
They really don’t understand what shape this breed is in, and they really don’t care.
I’m sure to catch hell from these people, but Mr. Dauber’s work is important, regardless of what the nattering cultists say.
On a separate but somewhat related note, in my neighbourhood, I sometimes see Goldens who are short on legs and too hairy. They look very cute. Otoh, I have always known Goldens who are short coated and leggy, if you will, who have been used for field trials or even accompanying their humans on long distance hikes. What is going on here? Are these two different varieties of the same dog that I have admired since my childhood or is someone experimenting on this beautiful breed as well? Btw, I grew up with Goldens who were purely working dogs and if I remember correctly they looked to be designed for more function than form.
The trend to short legs and excessive coat is largely a result of the success of such dogs in the show ring — encouraged by people with no real understanding of what the Golden was intended to be. These people (both judges and exhibitors/breeders) liked the appearance, the shorter legs that can move more quickly, the wealth of hair that can be sculpted and groomed into whatever shape is desired. So they select for that. And the pet people adore the “teddy bear” look. All of this really drives the “purists” in the breed crazy — they know what a Golden should be, have some knowledge of its history and all the functions a worthy dog should be able to fulfill. The field folks, of course, mostly just go by what a dog can do, but at least that demands some degree of appropriate physical qualities and athleticism.
Such a shame that the “purists” are so small in number. …very sad.
The purists are the minority in every breed that’s been absorbed by the show ring. The majority just wants wins and easy prestige by pandering to whatever’s popular.
Kynologische Zuchtgemeinschaft ProCross eV; http://procross.net/
Not sure if the Toller folks have seen this site already or not.
Pienso que todo lo que se haga en beneficio de una raza es poco, y para eso está el hombre, si ya conocemos la formula mágica de la pólvora, ¿Por qué no reinventamos la pólvora?.
Se conoce que en la formación de Toller hay a saber: Collie , Lab, Spaniel.
Después será cuestión de seleccionar y seleccionar en pruebas de trabajo.
Un saludo.
We know that breeds which don’t increase from being uncommon are most likely eventually to become genetically unviable. In the case of some such breeds their at least temporary salvation can come from the existence of small populations in various countries being mixed and I cite as one example the soft coated wheaten terrier, of which I am familiar and where there were populations present in Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia and America when coperration was needed. This helped the breed to widen its gene pool in all those countries sufficient for its healthy survival, well arguably, since it has also been contended that this coperation also may have also caused the spread of some genetic problems. Catch 22!
But conversely to give the example of a breed which is very popular on a world scale yet is nevertheless in serious trouble – and that breed is the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel where reportedly 70% of the breed carry the gene for mitral valve disease. In my opinion this breed should be scrapped and a similar concept recreated from other sources, if possible.
The problem is that too many people involved with this canine disaster, the cavalier, are in denial – and I haven’t even mentioned its other major problem, syringomyelia, where the brain tries to get out of the poor animal’s skull. What are the cavalier enthusiasts thinking of keeping this doomed creature in painful and expensive existence? Isn’t it essentially a major act of cruelty by them for which I would suggest they should be deeply ashamed?
Good to see treatment of health problems in breeds that don’t look like freaks . . . the Bernese mountain dog is another healthy-looking breed with low lifespan and a generally high COI’s. I’m sure there are others. While I think PDE and assoc. are great, there’s a lot of important stuff going on that isn’t photogenic.
there’s no indication on the website if he is attempting to do any testing or selecting for use of the dogs as gundogs of any kind, either the traditional flushing “springer” or the “tolling” type. This is, IMO, unfortunate. Saving a breed just because it “looks” decent and can be a great companion is not really a reason to preserve that breed — most dogs can function just fine as a pet and the “look” isn’t all that rare either. If the only point is to have a vague “springer size” liver/gold/red and white companion dog, these dogs are pretty much the same thing as a dozen other “designer crosses”. Nothing wrong with that, but not much point to preserving the toller to do it either. If on the other hand, some effort is being made to keep and perpetuate some kind of functional “tolling” retriever, then some type of testing and selection for that role ought to be present. Else, what’s the difference between this litter and just selecting for liver & white medium size companion dogs using whatever comes to hand?
Germany is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. It’s very hard to find a place to hunt, and to get a hunting license in Germany, one must undergo extensive training.
http://www.wiesbaden.army.mil/hunion/Archive/webOct2308/Huntingclass.htm
My hunter’s ed class wasn’t anything like this.
Most Tollers are not working dogs either in North America. What is your point? There are several Toller kennels I know of, but only one actually breed them for work.
It is something we have to ask ourselves. If in their native country, there are very few people working toward conserving the breed’s ability, why should foreigners be expected to?
And the working kennel isn’t selecting for biddability either since the family is using electric collars.
My point was that “saving” the Toller — saving it for what? As what? Just a label on a particular sized and colored dog? It’s neither a unique size nor a unique color. If all one wants is a nice friendly liver & white companion dog, what’s wrong with the welsh springer spaniel? (or several other breeds). Germany may be densely populated and there may be many rules regarding hunting, but the breeder doesn’t seem to be doing anything ELSE with the dogs either (retriever type tests or even scent skill tests). So the only point here seems to be to call them Tollers, just so one can say one has them.
As for the “native country” not working toward conserving the breed’s ability — I disagree. EVERY breeder, where ever they are, shouldn’t be just slapping two dogs together and asserting that one has done something worthwhile. Someone else not exercising due dilligence is no excuse for oneself not doing so. (So if they allowed merle/merle breeding in the home country it is thereby “ok” for oneself?) — a point of origin does NOT mean that thereby all responsibility or authority is retained there. The only point of breeds (or landraces. The “studbook” isn’t the definer here) is that a given group of dogs have certain unique characteristics that are desirable. That would include, in a gun dog, the characteristics to perform as a gun dog. Otherwise, what’s the point? They are just conformation criteria — and on that basis, anything that “looked like a toller” could be called one. I certainly don’t think that the performance characteristics are the only thing one should consider — health and soundness, etc are essential. But without the performance characteristics, it’s just a shell with no substance.
So if a dog breed is meant to be a working breed, why people are not using them? What is the point of preserving something for work that is not being used? Individual dog breeds are not special. They are merely a byproduct of our consumerist lifestyle.
The Tollers is not a working dog anymore. It is a small dog, which happens to look like a Golden, that is being bred for being playful and biddability.
How many subsistence hunters use Tollers? For that matter, how many subsistence hunters of any kind use purebred dogs of any kind?
No answer needed, just a rhetorical question, something to think about.
In fact, if no one is using a breed for work, how can you even measure the quality? Are there trials for tolling ducks? There are none. Oh, there are trials for retrieving? Why the only participants at those events are Labradors?
What makes a Toller different from a defunct breed like a Pembroke Corgi or a Rough Collie? None of these dogs are being tested for performance, and they are not being kept by the working-class either. Only the social elites bother going to sheep trials with these breeds.
An additional question: how many subsistence hunters compete in trials?
Actually, the parent club for Tollers does include tolling in their Working Certificate program. And Chesapeakes, Goldens, and a few Flat-Coats do participate in formal field trials– in fact, Chessies have the best record of Dual Champion retrievers.
I can’t answer as to the NSDTR, those who are involved with these dogs or with gun dogs in general have to answer that question. But I can say that you are wrong about “no” rough collies doing herding and wrong about “no” pems doing herding. as for “social elite” I’ve no idea what your criteria is for that, but the vast majority of those involved with herding are not rich or famous. They are “middle class”. Most do herding as a hobby, but gun dogs were created for a “sport” and I don’t see “sport herding” being a crime. While neither the rough collie nor the Pem is “my” breed, I’ve certainly seen individuals of those breeds who are a true credit. If it isn’t the majority, again, lack of due diligence by others is not an excuse for abrogation by oneself.
“It is a small dog, which happens to look like a Golden, that is being bred for being playful and biddability.” — and which a bunch of other breeds or mixes would fill perfectly adequately. but why call them NSDTR? if that’s all the dogs are to be, give them a new name. They will have little or no relationship to the original dogs, other than a superfical resemblance.
What’s wrong with people breeding a certain type of dog for no other reason than they personally really like it? Why do they have to give anyone a ‘good reason’ and justify what they choose to invest their time and effort into?
I agree.. The notion of the intrinsic superiority of the hunting or pastoral breeds is as great a myth as the intrinsic nobility of the wolf. A breed which fulfills neither of these functions can still have a very valid function and importance in people`s lives.
Elizabeth
if I recall, only about 10% to 30% of corgis can pass a cattle herding test with a grade of ‘sufficient’, ‘good’, ‘excellent’ and so on.
Yet, despite that there are a few good individuals, there are no cattle-owners who are buying them. It is quite ridiculous to demand performance results in scenarios like that. Those tests are nothing more than masturbatory aids for dog-owners to feel more superior over other people and their canines; and to feed into the delusion that they are maintaining an antique typewriter in a world which no longer need them.
There has been an ongoing discussion recently on Saluki l about the ‘preservation’ of the Saluki in the West (you know my personal thoughts on that matter. The concept of genetic preservation is bullshit; genes are never static.) In North America, the activity analog for the Saluki is coursing Jacks and Coyotes. Very few people who are hardcore about this activity use purebred dogs of any kind. Why? Because dogs are tools. As tool users, if a ready made tool is not available, a human will make one. This is precisely why there are, and have been historically, so many type of dogs.
Not that I didn’t say ‘breeds.’
‘Makes a nice pet’, ‘looks attractive’, and ‘is pleasant to be around’ are all just as legitimate reasons for breeding a dog or maintaining a type as ‘work’ in a society where ‘work’ is not necessary for the existence of the human.
Pai wrote: What’s wrong with people breeding a certain type of dog for no other reason than they personally really like it — absolutely nothing. But I tend to believe in “truth in advertising” and object to it being called a NSDTR if it isn’t any such thing.
Dave wrote: if I recall, only about 10% to 30% of corgis can pass a cattle herding test with a grade of ‘sufficient’, ‘good’, ‘excellent’ and so on— Wouldn’t know where you get your stats. I’m using American Herding Breed Assn. stats. 30% isn’t bad — even the BC didn’t get more than 50% pass on sheep on first exposures (and most were from herding lines) over the 10 year study AHBA did. And of course it depends on what one’s test is, who the person running the test is, how much exposure the dog gets, etc. But you said “none” and that’s not true. And again, your comment about no cattle people buying them is also not true. It’s not common by any means, mostly because corgis are not physically what they were and where they need to go to be really effective, but there are a few cattle people who do use corgis — mostly feedlot/small farm situations as they clearly aren’t a dog designed for large areas. I’ve seen a corgi put cattle thru a chute that several good BCs and ACDs couldn’t get done.
I’ve no issue with “makes a nice pet” “looks attractive” or “is pleasant to be around” being the criteria for a “breed” or “type of dog” or “landrace”. I just think that it shouldn’t be called a retriever if it isn’t one. Pete’s pet dogs or “the Chicago comfort dog are just fine as names and at least tell a person what they are getting. If it isn’t necessary for a Golden Retriever to be gold colored, why care if it’s white or that red gold is a now rare color? Why care if the dogs are too blocky or long coated to work if they needn’t do that? Why care if the dogs have ANY characteristic of any kind of retriever? Why concern oneself it that Saluki is 19”? After all, it’s just as good as a pet, isn’t it? The issue with the “minature Australian shepherd” name wasn’t that the minis couldn’t herd — or that longhaired whippets couldn’t run, it was truth in advertising. “Miniature American Shepherd” and “silken windhounds” at least are more accurate names.
“But I tend to believe in “truth in advertising” and object to it being called a NSDTR if it isn’t any such thing.”
If you are going to consider dogs within the pedigreed, closed registry system, it doesn’t matter what they can or cannot do, as long as they have the right ancestors. I can breed a Saluki that can hardly see and cannot run and it is still a Saluki as long as it has the right papers. See also, Afghan hound.
If you want “truth in advertising” you’d better abolish the registry system entirely and go back to types that were defined by function. To embrace the concept of narrowly defined, standardized breeds and then decry the fact that those breeds are defined by appearance and ancestry rather than function is simply stupid. “Does not retrieve” is, strangely enough, not a DQ in the AKC Toller standard. Interesting.
“I just think that it shouldn’t be called a retriever if it isn’t one.”
You are at least a hundred years too late for performance criteria being a necessity in assigning ‘breed’, due specifically to the entire dog breeding system adopted by the Victorians. Like it or lump it.
The real truth is that ‘retriever’ doesn’t mean anything to people who don’t care whether their dog retrieves or not. It’s just a name. NSDTR is just a name. Afghan hound is just a name. Saluki is just a name. So, “I just think that it shouldn’t be called a retriever if it isn’t one,” is frankly crap, because what people who are selling these dogs are selling is not working ability at all, (the people who want a dog who will work know where to go to get one); what is being sold is a ‘brand,’ which, interestingly enough, fits right in with the closed registry system of ‘breeds’ and not types. I know some lurchers and longdogs and even some Salukis that will retrieve to hand quite nicely; shall we call them retrievers instead of luchers, longdogs, and Salukis?
I would not object to a 19″ Saluki bitch at all. There are bitches that are that small, though they would be considered outliers. The AKC standard states: “Dogs should average in height from 23 to 28 inches and bitches may be considerably smaller, this being very typical of the breed.” (Which is a bit of a lesson for you about researching before you pick your examples.) But then I understand the standard for what it is: a screed written by a bunch of Brits that brought a few dogs away from their countries of origin, to a new climate, new set of selection criteria, new variety of diseases, and a new purpose, and then deluded themselves into thinking that by applying the principles of toilet science to a few examples of a landrace they could ‘preserve’ it. They turned ‘Saluki’ into a brand, nothing more.
To add to that, if these crosses eventually get included in the registry system, (and you never know, they might, the UK KC has re-opened it’s B register) it won’t make any difference to your little truth in advertising rant, because for them to be accepted they will only need to *look* like Nova Scotia Duck Tolling retrievers, because for the big registries there are no performance criteria.
Really, if you want ‘truth in advertising’ you would have to put every dog through a performance test before registration. How about that?
Desertwindhounds said:If you are going to consider dogs within the pedigreed, closed registry system, it doesn’t matter what they can or cannot do, as long as they have the right ancestors — but what makes you think that this is my opinion? I’m very happy to have an open registry system or an appendix registry system as is the practice with most livestock.
Desertwindhounds said: Really, if you want ‘truth in advertising’ you would have to put every dog through a performance test before registration. How about that? — works for me. I have a lot of admiration for the one or two registries that actually do that. I’m reasonably happy to consider things like lure coursing to be adequate since lots of folk wouldn’t be able to do live coursing, but yes, if a sighthound can’t run, what kind of sighthound is it? And yes, I’ve long advocated that a herding dog ought to be able to herd.
You are presuming that I believe AKC (Or the KC or the UKC) is the arbitrator of what a dog ought to be. I don’t. The dogs existed before AKC and will exist if AKC folds. They still ought to be able to herd if you want to call them a “herding dog”.
Since you indicate a 19″ Saluki is fine, how about one that’s 5″? Mini salukis. Why bother to get COO dogs when you can find something that “looks like” lots of places?
Well, different strokes for different folks.
Definitely not a purist, I’m in fact a scientist and I whole-heartedly believe many breeds (including the toller) should be outcrossed every now and again. However, I do have to disagree with the average life span. While I can only tell from experience and knowledge of the many tollers I have known, they do tend to live to 12-13. Which I know is not what a certain toller survey says, but I have looked at their stats and they are VERY flawed. I have quizzed them on it and been fobbed off. Poor study and poor science. Otherwise, good article!