The only thing he says that is of any merit here is that more studs should be used in any given breed, but he doesn’t mean that we should be doing things to control the popular sire effect.
He says that the shows are about selecting for dogs that are most physically sound, but if a blind dog can win BIS at Crufts…
What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to square that circle?
This fellow reminds me of Baghdad Bob.
And where does that Stephen Hawking analogy fit? What is he talking about?
In a nutshell: these problems will get worse until we stop rewarding dog owners for entering their dogs in competitive events.
It is like terrierman said about woodland problems, and species preservation, and the whole nature thing: we are hacking at the branches, not getting to the root of the problem: overpopulation of people globally.
In dog breeds, the root problem is the side effects of competitive events.
Maybe, some kennel clubs, might be able to adjust how the events and shows are set up, so that they wouldn’t have these side effect (and would be more fun!) but,
we would still have to drop the referral system. I haven’t checked the kennel club sites in ages, have any of them dropped the referal system, and now let each personn who registers a litter directly list their litters on their site?
Someone did mention some change to one of the sites, but I never go there, and I never heard more about it.
The roots of the problem isn’t competitive events. It’s deeper than that.
It’s the failure of people admitting their lifestyle has radically changed since the last functional breed.
souggy, you have a point there, but educating the entire public, and each new generation of people, before they get their first dog = but doable.
Easier to change the top. And just educating the public wont do it. I understand the problems, but that doesn’t always save me from getting a sick dog, or a dog who is so much less than what he could be.
It helps to educate the public, but that isn’t enough, change must happen at the top, or we will be stuck with the un-updated system as it is now, for many years to come.
Change the top? The top still hold onto the idea of having wolfhounds for hunting wolves, despite the fact wolves are extinct from Ireland; the top still hold onto corgis and vallhunds despite the fact people don’t use them as all-purpose small-scale cattle dogs even though blue heelers and kelpies are more frequently used by large-scale producers.
People own dogs because they want recognization (ie. shows, trials and so on.) They own dogs because they want a companion for their hobby or for their condo in New York, or a dog for their kids in a nice house in South Carolina. They own dogs as a status-raising symbol, or because they want an icebreaker.
Getting rid of competitions won’t stop problems from developing, it’s our own selfish needs and romantic ideals.
The Englishmen have a serious tendency to “breed beauty” – just think about their amateurish and enthuastic gardening -hobby. It is interesting. Compare that with the bonsai -culture of the Japanese.
I’m sad to compare those with the thing “we” Finnish like to develope – the high tech -culture such as mobile technology and a strongly nuclear power energy depended society.
Which one would you chose?
of those 3?
the amateur, enthusiastic gardening of the Brits.
:–D
AMATEUR does not mean ‘bad’, badly-done, inadequate, cheap substitute, etc – it means DONE FOR THE LOVE OF IT.
many breeders who breed FOR THE LOVE of their breed are highly ethical, knowledgeable, and screen for heritable problems – why?
because they are doing this to improve and continue their breed – NOT to make a killing selling pups to numpties with more $$ than knowledge.
– terry
souggy, you are right about the top not changing.
I said it needs to change, not that, in this country, it is making any moves that I know of, to change.
But changing shows to exhibitions, would slow the loss of unique genes, and allow for much more diversity. People exhibiting their dogs would hardly notice the change, if it were done right.
But you are totally right about breed histories enthralling people into a hazy dream of a grand dog from some past era. You could say that people need to wise up, but I believe they need to not be lead astray.
From the idea of “breeding better dogs”, there’s not really necessarily a very long way to go the crazy ideas of Dr. Frankenstein and the fanatic natzi race purity & super creature -obsessions. This man may be too loose-headed to be anything like that, when his associations give an odd image about the business. But he’s surely not the only of the kind there…
Also, the stigma of breeding a dog that’s only ‘just good enough’ is NOT considered acceptable by many, and the mantra of ‘breed to improve; if each litter is not better than the last you’re doing something wrong’.
Those two beliefs are what helped tighten the noose around most breeds — the over-aggressive culling and the shallow definition of ‘better’ that changes as competition fashions dictate. Breeding dogs shouldn’t be treated as a contest, that brings out the worst in people.
Pai I agree with you.
Which of these do you think would be an improvement:
A person who lets their best in show bitch (who is a known carrier for a fatal inherited disease, and whose hips score poor) breed to a healthy tested unaffected male dog whose hips score excellent, but whose tail lacks the required amount of curl, and whose muzzle is too long for showing, and so has never been shown.
or: a person who buys that same bitch and breeds her to another best in show dog, but one who also has poor hips, and is a known carrier for the same lethal disease?
Bridget, I believe dog shows here really need to change how they do things. They need to be more fun, and better for the dog breeds.
You are right about the strange ideas reguarding dog breeding. Breeding Frankenstein dogs is not improving the breed.
Under the German system all the dogs in the ring get a rating (excellent, very good, etc.) and a written critique. The excellent dogs go on to further competition. I can’t remember what it takes to get a championship. IMO this is a much better system than the AKC system where there is only one winner in each class. Someone who is less competitive can still get a rating and critique for their dog, more value for their entry fee.
he actually SAYS re Cav-KCS, that
“syringiomyelia doesn’t *Show*.”
is that all that bloody matters – if U cannot see it, it does not count?! SYRINGIOMYELIA does show: the dog cannot walk, falls frequently, spins helplessly, and cries in pain.
U cannot =see= the physical defect, but by DoG, U can see the symptoms.
similarly, i cannot SEE mitral-valve defects, but i definitely can see their effects: a blue tinge to the gums + tongue, exercise intolerance in young dogs, constant panting, accelerated heart-rate, etc.
sorry, but IMO this man is a bloody eejit; the Stephen Hawking thing was his [asinine] way of pointing out that he has made brilliant and highly-influential discoveries in physics, but due to his severe and progressive illness, he does not feel that Hawking should father the next generation;
FAIL.
human-males have limited broods; a matador-sire can sire hundreds of puppies in one 12-month period.
the impact is massively greater.
what a numpty.
– terry
terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#19827, CVA, TDF
All people start out uneducated about everything.
The problem isn’t the UNeducated, they can be cured of their ignorance just by having the truth explained to them a few times.
The problem is with the MISeducated. The people who have been taught lies, and now believe those lies.
How do you explain something to somebody who can not understand what you are saying, because some conflicting older thought prevents him from understanding?
If anyone could figure that out they’d be famous.
I do know this: it doesn’t do any good to hate people for their having been taught something which I disagree with, or what conflicts with reality.
We are what we are, but we didn’t choose what we wanted to become – any time a person works to become something, the chances are great that something in their past caused them to choose that goal.
Then, often, the misguided choose to become guides. Whole organizations form around weird ideas and unhelpful leaders – remember that Jim Jones thing in South America?
Many groups have a cultish streak. They ‘educate’ the people who join them into believe things that are harmful or wasteful.
The question is: How to look at what is really true (clean our own view first) and then how to educate others, then how to treat those who are inhibited from seeing the truth because metal garbage keeps the truth out.
I think that is why Jemima Harrison’s videos (on youtube now) Pedigree Dog Exposed shocked so many people – it wasn’t that people hadn’t seen the truth, but that they had seen the truth but failed to notice it – so the shock was when people looked within themselves and were surprised that they had seen and not seen – all at the same time.
Veterinarians are said to have been in this position, they deal with these problems, but never stepped back, saw the big picture, and put it into words – but once it was shown to them, there was that feeling of shock.
Some people deal with reality surprising them like that by denial, other with anger. It takes time for people to work through this. I think many people have cooled down a bit now, and can deal with the reality of the situation better.