I came across a very interesting piece of dialogue in Jim Kjelgaard’s Big Red, which was later made into a Disney film (that was quite different from the book!). The dog in the book is more like a solid red large Münsterländer, who hunts birds, fights a wolverine, scares off a lynx, and bays up a cow- and hog-killing black bear. The dog is a purebred Irish setter that is from conformation bloodlines, so perhaps it’s a bit fanciful. The truth is Kjelgaard based the character of Big Red on a black Irish setter cross he had while growing up in North Central Pennsylvania. I confess readily that this book was one of my favorites when I was growing up.
In the book, a backwoods boy named Danny becomes the apprentice at a wealthy landowner’s kennel, which contains a very special–and very valuable– Irish setter. In this scene, the landowner–Mr. Haggin– explains the importance of dog shows. He asks Danny what he thinks about dog shows. Danny doesn’t think much of them. He is, after all, a working class kid whose family lives off the land. Trapping and hunting are very important to his family’s livelihood, and they value really good hunting dogs. His perspective has not yet accepted the validity of dog shows, but Mr. Haggin sets him straight. This text is very indicative of the main perspective in dog shows and, if we are to be honest, also runs right through the various trial cultures.
The sentiments of this lecture were best described at this post by Christopher Landauer at the Border Wars blog.
He contends that much of showing and trialing and breeding from elite sires nothing more than a desire for “Virtual Immortality.”
No one owns “the breed” and altruism doesn’t exist, so individual ego, self aggrandizement, and desire for immortality through fame trumps the greater good. People whose greatest accomplishment in life is in their dogs do exist and asking them to take their last bow before they have to be dragged kicking and screaming, or in most cases whimpering, from the spotlight, is unseemly. We don’t criticize these people, we put their dogs on our logos and name awards after them. We give them glowing obituaries and make sure that any mention of the breed includes at least one or two homages to their dog. Everyone seems to know that Wiston Cap carried the gene for a red coat color, but no one seems to know that he also carried CEA.
Those sentiments run deep within Mr. Haggin’s commentary, but unlike Christopher’s analysis, Big Red’s owner romanticizes much of it.
The notion that breeding a top show Irish setter is somehow a tribute to those Irish hunters who bred strains of red and white “setting spaniels” is a bit baffling. After all, most North American Irish setters that are from show lines are not widely used as gun dogs. They are more or less novelties, which is not to say that there are no working Irish setters. There are. They just have significantly diverged from the show lines.
The game, whether it is showing or trialing, is to put your mark somewhere so that someone might see that you make a contribution to your chosen breed. The problem with that being accepted as a virtue is that the best and perhaps only way is to do that is to have a particularly prepotent sire and have him produce a lot of puppies.
In a closed registry system, nothing narrows the gene pools as quickly as breeding from elite sires, but that is the way one gets to become immortal.
The ego subsumes good sense.
Christopher says: “…altruism doesn’t exist…” It seems obvious that he has very little depth of knowledge of those who are deeply involved with breeding and showing purebred dogs. Yes, there are those who may be as he described; and perhaps it varies depending upon breed or other factors, but there are also numbers of knowledgeable, capable, sincere dog-folk whose primary interest is truly in furthering good dogs, healthy dogs, dogs of proper temperament and soundness and functional capability. I rarely breed anymore, but still have people call asking about a replacement for a dog they bought from me many years ago; dogs that were all they hoped for in every way.
As for showing, for most of us, it’s just fun — a chance to participate in a recreation with friends both canine and human. “Winning” is just frosting on the cake. Showing our own dogs and seeing how they may compare to others, or to a standard of performance, is fun, and often is also be a learning experience. In my breed (and some others), “show dogs” also produce service dogs, guide dogs, scenting specialists, hunting dogs, SAR dogs, dogs capable in many areas of activity.
It’s easy to point out “bad examples”, and, humans being what they are, there will always be some. But it would be nice to focus on the better parts once in a while.
The quote “altruism doesn’t exist” is probably more a reflection of his philosophy as a libertarian, rather than what people think about of dog culture. Just something to consider.
And frankly, I am inclined to agree with him since for a large proportion of my life, even seemingly selfless people seems to be getting something out of the deal.
What he’s saying about altruism is really in the Objectivist philosophy. I probably should have made that clear.
Objectivism argues that altruism doesn’t exist and that attempts to force altruism are inherently immoral:
I don’t entirely agree, but that’s his perspective.
That is a fascinating clip. I hope I can one day be as certain I my beliefs as she seems.
M.R.S. you’re basically advocating group think. If I only knew you better, logic and data would just crumble and I’d appreciate the koolaid you want me to drink. If I only put big wig breeders on a pedestal and didn’t question them, all will be ok.
There might very well be such magnanimous people as you claim, but the evidence is against their being the diving force behind most breeds. Tell me, what breeds can be said to be improved? What breeds are healthier, live longer, have larger litters, have dogs with better temperaments?
What breed is MORE functional?
Find me a breed that has more genetic diversity now than 50 years ago. Find me one that does something amazing and important now that it didn’t do before.
I see plenty of dogs that are more extreme, with more hair, more bone, and more uniformity. More disease, less health, shorter lives, and much much less function.
And I’m sure that every single breeder for the last 100 years would say the same thing you do. I’m improving the breed. I really care. My intentions are good.
Heh.
The Field Spaniel for one. It was show breeders who first ruined the breed and it was show breeders who saved it and made it the healthy and functional breed that it is today.
I wouldn’t call a breed in decline, with only 50 dogs registered three years ago something worth praising show breeders for.
That’s a good example, actually.
They used to have very, very short legs which are a real problem for a gun dog.
Some of these dogs were only 10 inches tall and weighed 35-40 pounds.
So, these dogs do something that they didn’t do before or they do something better than other Spaniels? It seems to me they’re an utterly failed breed on the way out the door.
If they are the better mouse trap of dogs, who is beating a path to their door?
How can you say their gene pool is healthier now than it was in the past? Has it always been so small? 50 dogs a year is noting. I know SINGLE border collie breeders who breed that much and I wouldn’t pin the entire breed’s future on just that kennel.
It seems to me that such small breeds only hang on because breeders can be a “big dog” in a REALLY small pool…. nearly no competition.
The field spaniel was actually created for the ring. They wanted a black spaniel with short legs that could be shown and would look dashing on shoots.
That dog really developed extreme conformation, and they had to revise it almost entirely.
They did have to do some outcrosses to breed for better conformation, but this breed is still rare.
I think it’s rare only because of the old conformation.
The Sussex has held onto this conformation for some reason, and it really, really is failed.
I kind of hope the field spaniel doesn’t go.
The gene pool is really small. I think it’s just not that well-known. They don’t have the temperament issues that cockers and springers sometimes have, but there just aren’t a lot of them. They can do exactly the same things as cockers and springers, and they are sort of the in-between size.
Christopher, what I was trying to say was that there ARE good people, good breeders, who try to do best for the dogs. Yes, they vary in their success. And yes, there are some others who fit the discouraging picture you have put forth, and yes, some breeds have deteriorated– but they are NOT the entirety, and “winning” is not every person’s reason for being in purebred dogs.
It is the people with purebred dogs who have put forth the money and the effort to support the research that has, among other things, developed tests for a number of genetic diseases. Irish Setters in early years often went blind from PRA– the Irish Setter people worked first for a test-breeding program to identify carriers/clears, then the DNA test to do so. Golden Retriever people developed the forerunner to what eventually became the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals. (and even more than a hundred years ago, dogs were affected with eye, hip, seizure problems? Not exactly new stuff!) Numerous parent breed clubs have organized Foundations supporting a variety of dog-related research projects; their contributions, and those of individuals with purebred dogs, have been very substantial. Are there organizations for mixed-breed dogs funding such work?
I can’t hope to change your mind-set, but perhaps other readers may realize that there is also a great deal of good in purebred dogs, as well as aspects calling for change and improvement.
I like what M.R.S. has to say. I think that there are some really sincere dog breeders who listen and try to follow advice given by those who they see as knowledgable… that database of knowledge has been changing quite a bit in the past few years largely due to the incredible wealth of information that has become available including being able to discuss information on the web (here we are!) books on-line, blogs, pedigrees on-line, on-line magazines, breed websites, forums… It’s exciting! I do think that people are listening and not just talking… I think communication is happening and I wonder what 10 years will bring to the dog community (but then again I am an optimistic Saggitarian!)
Hopefully in the sporting breeds, the field people will be mindful of their dog’s conformation and not just the performance and the conformation people will be mindful of their dogs’ potential performance qualities. I see more and more “overlapping.” People who seriously enter dog events for titles spend enormous amounts of time and money on their pursuits. Titling a dog in multiple event types takes alot of effort. The AKC just added a grand champion to conformation but my feelings are that the conformation titles should be easier to achieve (this Grand Champion puts too much weight that direction) and that having titles in more than one event type should be the goal. These titles are rewards for those who enjoy dog competition but they are also benchmarks for breeding.
I have to add that I also was a big fan of the book “Big Red” and now that you have mentioned it here… I am putting it on my summer reading list to reread.
Heh, you might see overlapping Jan, and I argue passionately for this on my blog (find me another!)… and guess what? I’m vilified by show breeders and trialists alike for “sleeping with the enemy.”
That diversity and versatility exist in breeds is not in dispute…. that such concerns are significant enough to shape the breeds very much is. The people running the registries and breeding the most dogs are NOT hybrid thinkers, they are koolaid drinkers with very absolutist stances regarding what is or is not a [insert breed of choice].
Border Collies used to have a working registry and a trial registry. The more moderate working registry folded. The purist working registry with a greater focus on sheep trials (versus the much more popular cattle work and general farm dogs) prevailed.
Now in both the US and the UK and Australia, the twin Border Collie registries are always show dominated vs. trial dominated. There are no sporting dog registries of note, there are no hybrid registries, no pet dog registries, and there are very very few breeders making such dogs. And even then, they usually pick one registry or the other and are minor players with no authority.
If you visit the haunting grounds of the purist, they often revile such breeders as “sport mills” or other such put downs.
I think that it isn’t just the trialing and showing people. The “working class” people do it also. In herding, one sees ads for “best working cowdog” etc, even if that dog has never set foot in a trial. The urge to have something “better than the jones’ have” is apparently hardwired in H. Sapiens. One even sees similar behavior in chimps, so it’s of long standing. Any time, any place there’s a skill or quality that’s desired, people can and do start on the “i’ve got something better than you do” game — the biggest dog, ugliest, tallest, fastest, — you name it, there’s a competition for it. Even in “working class” dogs. We can make fun of this tendency, we can decry when it results in harmful excesses, but I don’t think we will eliminate it. What we might be able to do is direct that tendency so that the results are less harmful to animals or ourselves.
Peggy Richter
This blog is to bias.
Dog shows only select for the best dogs out there. They have to be healthy to win, so they are good for choosing the best dogs there is out there.
Nothing is worng for a breeder who only bred the best to the best It gives a firm foundation to build on and improve upon.
But your to bias to see it.
Just for readers of Retrieverman’s Weblog, here is a link to the original Jim Kjelgaard short story that became the basis for the novel Big Red. http://jimkjelgaard.com/Unmarred.mht
Big Red is based on the breeding kennels of decades ago, the ones run by rich families that have dozens and dozens of dogs in fancy kennels and help that lives on the property. Obviously people running kennels like that are largely in it for the ego boost. But you’re trying to group together a large amount of people, the majority have vastly different reasons for showing. Many do it simply because it’s fun. Some do it for the love of the breed – they do conformation, field trials, obedience, all sorts of things. Some do it for the pride in their dogs. Is it so hard to believe that not everyone is in it for themselves, without a care for the dogs?
In regard to Field Spaniels, take a look at some breeders’ sites. The majority of champions have titles on both ends and do other work, like visiting hospitals. The FS community is wonderful, filled with people who get along, have the same goals, and rarely bicker. More breeds need to be like the FS.
It would be interesting to see what the people at the redsetter blog have to say. http://redsetters.blogspot.com/
This is a performance oriented blog where conformation is important, if your dog is able to run trials. A few extra white hairs won’t affect it ability to work, but “incorrect” bone structure most likely will.
Those working red setters in America do have some English setter in them. I can’t remember, but I think they have an important outcross to an orange Belton Llewellin.
Working Irish setters from Ireland in New Brunswick:
http://www.miramichiinn.com/english/Dogs.htm
Little bit different from those working red setters.
This is a reference point:
http://redsetters.blogspot.com/2010/02/purebred-canine.html
Yeah.
But there was some cross-breeding with these dogs: http://nrsftc.com/?page_id=110
And there isn’t with working Irish setters that are in the AKC or the KC or the FCI. These dogs do exist but aren’t very common.
Nothing to add to the discussion except that this was easily one of my favorite books as a kid. And now I’m wondering…does anyone know of any great kid and dog books with a female protagonist?
Kjelgaard wrote a lot of “boy and his dog” type stories. His work also appeared in a lot of outdoor magazines.
Just trying to think.
I didn’t really read books that girls would read when I was a kid, so I really don’t know.
If you were reading Kjelgaard, then you were reading books that girls would read, at least I did. I read every Kjelgaard, every Terhune book I could get my hands on, along with the Silver Chief series and any other dog-related novel I could find. But to Mary’s point, books that have a young female protagonist involved with dogs are few and far between.
There are some semi-fluffy (as in light reads, not too serious) mystery series with female dog-loving protagonists, but I think the protagonists are all adults.
I thought about this and it came to me in the middle of the night.
When I was in the fifth or sixth grade, I read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_the_Blue_Dolphins
Rontu is a primitive, wolf-like dog, and it’s based upon a true story.
Julie of the Wolves. Not dogs, but close.
Um, ‘Abhorsen’ has a girl and her dog (more like a magical being in the shape of a dog). I don’t know if it’d count as a kid book, though. That trilogy is one of my favorites, either way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhorsen
The Disreputable Dog. In Lirael.
I would say YA.
Deerskin, Robin McKinley.
[…] The dog show lecture in Big Red (retrieverman.wordpress.com) […]