In the days when retrievers were not purebred dogs, everyone who had anything to do with them had some idea about what the ideal “recipe” of which breeds to cross.
Most early retriever people used the “Newfoundland” dog at some point in the cross. This term could refer to the large Newfoundland that was a common pet dog in the nineteenth century, or it could refer to the rough working water cur of Newfoundland, the St. John’s water dog or “Labrador.” The water cur was a landrace, and tracing its exact origins and appearance is quite difficult. However, it does appear that the large Newfoundland was derived from this dog, probably through crossing with mastiffs. Many of these St. John’s water dogs that were imported to Britain were long-haired. The Newfoundlanders preferred smooth coated dogs to work in the water and to haul loads and hunt in the snow. The long-haired ones were sent to Britain, where they became the foundation for the giant Newfoundland. Those that were used as retrievers were called “wavy-coated retrievers,” and these dogs were often crossed with setters or collies.
But lots of different crosses were used. Not all retriever people used dogs from Newfoundland. Some used collies, pointers, and greyhounds. A few even tried bull terriers, beagles, and even small terriers.
So there was actually a lot of debate on how to create a retriever.
One of the real reasons why there was such a debate is that retrieving as a behavior was difficult to breed for. Even with retriever breeds closed registries, it is very hard to maintain strong retrieving behavior without rigorously selecting for it. Dave has sent me some of the discussions about breeding West Siberian laiki to retrieve birds, and it is very much hit or miss with these dogs, which are actually spitz-type dogs and have no relation to specialist retrieving breeds at all.
Retrieving behavior can be found in a wide variety of breeds, but it was just so difficult to get the behavior to breed true.
So in the early days of retrievers, one had to crossbreed.
One of the editions of Stonehenge’s Dogs of the British Islands is called Dogs of the British Islands: Being a Series of articles and letters by various contributors, reprinted from the “Field” newspaper (1872). This book is intentionally written to include treatises and debates from experts with a more specialized knowledge than Stonehenge (John Henry Walsh).
These perspectives are often in disagreement with each other, and in the nascent retriever breeding programs, there was plenty of disagreement to be found. At the end of the section on retrievers, there is an exchange in which three sportsmen disagree on which breeds to cross to make a good retriever. It also includes a discussion on the merits of dog shows and whether one should actually be breeding for solid black retrievers just to win prizes. This discussion is a pretty nice window into the nineteenth century dog fancy, including the role of dog dealers and what magical beliefs about the inheritance of working dog behavior are actually inherited.
The exchange is between a correspondent named “Retriever,” a Scottish sportsman named “W.C.,” and another retriever fancier named “W.X.”
Retriever begins with a discussion on how to select and buy a nice black retriever that one can shoot over and exhibit:
Sir,—Can any of your readers settle the question as to what the retriever really should be? If I am in error in supposing him to be bred from judicious crossing of the Irish water spaniel, setter, and Newfoundland, I should be most happy to be corrected by yourself or some experienced breeder.
Admitting the retriever to be bred as described, how are we reasonably to expect dogs with bull and terrier heads, small smooth ears, &c., such as are now being shown? Surely there is nothing sporting-like in this class of dog.
My own idea of the retriever is (grounding my opinion upon the above facts), first of all. a dark brown eye; the head setter-like in shape, length, and lip; the ear well feathered; legs ditto; tail carried on a level with the back: with the same character and quality of hair that you have on the whole body, from the occiput of the head to the extreme end of the tail.
These views may be somewhat in opposition to the leading characteristic sof the prize-winning dogs of the present day. Take, for instance, the Birmingham winner True. I was surprised on visiting the Manchester Show (not having seen this dog before, and going with the impression that I should see the true dog), that he was only placed fourth on the prize sheet, where he must have been more at home and better judged than when he won all before him at Birmingham. His head had decidedly something of the greyhound about it, being tight in the lip, pointed nose, small ear, without a particle of feather; and, could his pedigree be traced back, I dare venture to say it would prove him to have an infusion of that blood in his veins. I also noticed a peculiarity about the colour of his coat, which is well curled, and black enough at the top; but, upon close inspection, the roots of his hair will be found to be quite brown, intimating that he has been bred from a brown sire or dam—no disgrace in itself, but when a dog is shown for black he should be intensely black. He is at present changing his coat; but I fear, if he lives to have a hundred, they will all be a bad colour.
I simply quote this dog as a sample of a great many of a like stamp of head (which is my chief point of objection), and because he is the winner of the Birmingham prizes; and, of course, one does expect something more than ordinary when a dog has been so successful.
I am sure it must have been very perplexing to any person who takes an interest in this breed of dogs to have seen the eccentricity in judging at Manchester, as there were as many different sorts of dogs as prizes awarded, the predominant feature being size.
However, I will not trespass further upon your space, but conclude by saying I am not a disappointed exhibitor, but one who seeks information through your columns to enable me some day to be a successful exhibitor.
–Retriever (pg. 92- 93).
Retriever is much more concerned about what a dog should look like. Bull-and-terrier type heads might have been common in St. John’s water dog, which often had smaller ears than modern retrievers. He takes exception to a winning dog at Manchester show because it has some greyhound-type characteristics. These dogs might even had some greyhound ancestry, or the St. John’s water dogs at the time may have had these characteristics. The dog he is discussing sounds like a curly-coated retriever, a breed that many early retriever exhibitors didn’t really like, except for its unusual coat. Curlies tended to be kept by poachers and gamekeepers. Poachers used the dogs to collect poached game, but keepers often used the dogs to collect game that had been overlooked from a day’s shooting. Wavies tended to be owned by the shooting gentry, and thus, their looks were much more important. Shoots were social events, and the dogs had to look a certain way. And when one starts breeding for appearance for that reason, it is not a major leap to start breeding them for show.
Retriever wants a dog that looks something like a black golden retriever, which could have been produced through crossing with setters. He wants a dog that has no brown tinge, which is something my black golden retriever/boxer cross exhibited when shedding out. This tinge could have meant that this dog was carrying liver or red/yellow, but it could also be indicative of the seal coloration. It doesn’t occur in modern retrievers, but seal is thought to be an incomplete dominant black. When retrievers were often derived from crosses, they could have had a lot more potential colors than they currently posses.
But the most important thing for Retriever is how the dog looks and how the dog might be exhibited.
W.C. responds to Retriever. W.C. is writing from Scotland, and he has very little use for dog shows. He also has a unique recipe for producing a fine retriever:
Sir–, Your correspondent “Retriever” “seeks information through your columns to enable him some day to be a successful exhibitor” of retrievers at dog shows. I know of only one way to accomplish his object with much chance of success. To succeed at dog shows you must purchase a dog from some dog dealer at an enormous price, and, entering the dog in your name, you may not unlikely get in a measure reimbursed for the extravagant sum you have given for a useless brute, or at least stand a good chance to see your name figure in The Field as the owner of an admired animal. Dog shows are the greatest humbug in the world, and are ruining our breeds of dogs. But if your correspondent wishes to know how to insure a first-class retriever, I can tell him how to set about that; but it takes both time and judgment to accomplish it. It took me about three years. In a retriever you require nose, docility, a disposition to fetch and carry, little disposition to hunt, and great perseverance on a track. How are these requisites to be combined? Only by careful crossing. For nose and perseverance there is no dog better than the foxhound. Begin with him. Select a really good setter bitch of some size, and put her to an approved foxhound. By means of money you may always command the services of one of the leading hounds in any pack for such a purpose if you go properly to work; but take care to select a dog with a good temper as well as nose. The progeny of this cross will of course not be retrievers. Keep one of the most likely-looking of the bitch puppies, and, when old enough, put her to a really good St. John’s Newfoundland. This may probably bring the breed up to the mark; but if there should be anything to correct, another judicious cross (not necessarily Newfoundland) will without fail give you an A-1 retriever. Grede experto. But you must give up all the nonsense about black dogs without a white hair, and, I may add, the ambition of being “a successful exhibitor.”
–W. C. (pg. 93-94)
W.C. commentary about dog shows sounds very modern. Dog shows had only been in existence since 1859, but already by 1872, there were people offering very harsh criticism about the shows and what they are doing to working breeds.
W.C.’s recipe involves using a different permutation on the St. John’s water dog and setter cross. Instead of using a pure setter, he uses the progeny of a setter bitch and a foxhound dog and then breeds it to the St. John’s water dog to make the retriever. The foxhound gives the dog more docility, nose, and stamina. Stamina would have been very useful for a Scottish retriever, which might have to run very long and hard around the grousing moors just to track the wounded game. Some of the early imports of St. John’s water dogs were a bit surly in temperament and could be nasty fighters.
Foxhounds are not particularly biddable, but the setter and St. John’s water dogs certainly were. W.C. also states that if the initially cross between the St. John’s water dog and setter/foxhound then one should cross it with another dog, either a St. John’s or another breed.
W.C. also offers a criticism of something not often discussed in breed histories or the history of kennel clubs. The nineteenth century dog fancy was largely reliant upon dog dealers. Very wealthy individuals could have big kennels to produce their stock, but middle class dog fanciers had to go to dealers to get their dogs. Esoteric standards created a sort of monopoly for certain dealers. The only dogs who could win in a show were those that came from those that a certain dealer either bred or was able to procure.
W.C.’s denunciation of dog shows doesn’t go unanswered, and his claim that a foxhound cross could be a good retriever is attacked under the assumption that a foxhound’s desire to chase foxes is somehow genetic. This attack comes from a letter from a person with the improbable initials of W.X. It includes a defense of show retrievers that points to top winning show dogs that still readily do their work:
Sir,—W. C, in his letter of advice on the breeding of retrievers, hits, as his wont is, our show pets very hard. I know the magnitude of my adversary, but still wish to take the slightest possible objection to his remarks, and to give him the gentlest possible hint that his dictum must not be accepted absolutely. A few facts will, I think, show him that there are some exceptions to his rule. Mr. Hull’s black wavy-coated bitch Old Bounce is now eleven years old; she has been shot over nine seasons; she will trail a wounded hare as well as any foxhound will a fox; but, instead of eating her game when she catches it, brings it tenderly back to her master. Amongst other prizes, she won first Birmingham, 1869; first and cup at Crystal Palace, 1870.
Her daughter, Young Bounce, is by Mr. Chattock’s Cato, A 1 in the field. She has been shot to six seasons, and is good enough to find runners for perhaps the best kennel of pointers in England. Her prizes include first Birmingham, 1871; first and cup, Hanley; second to her mother at Birmingham and Crystal Palace. Copson, her son, was shot before he had time to work much, but not before he won six first prizes right off the reel. His father, Mr. Meyrick’s Wyndham, is worked regularly, and has thrice been a winner at Birmingham. A later litter by Wyndham included Monarch, Midnight, and Mr. Armstrong’s Belle; Midnight won twice at Birmingham, and is quite as good in the field as a bitch of her age can be expected to be. Monarch, broken by Bishop, won second prize at Vaynol in the field when only eighteen months old.
Mr. T. Smith’s Jet has been shown three times, winning on each occasion. She is by Copson, and belongs to a gentleman who would not keep a bad worker in his kennels. At Birmingham last year all the wavy bitches, prize winners, were Hull’s breed—mother, daughter, granddaughter, niece, all good workers, all show dogs. Mr. Shirley’s Paris, shown three times, twice first, is an excellent worker. The first prize wavy dog at Birmingham last year, claimed for his looks at 50£., is a grand field dog, as are all Mr. Curry’s strain. Well, I could go on <ul infinitum; but enough has been said, I think, to prove to W. C. that all show retrievers are not as useless as he would make out.
The foxhound cross may be good—it certainly gives a disposition to hunt; but is that what we require? Why should we run the risk of suddenly losing our foxhound retrieved for the day when, by following the instinct he has inherited from his parent, he takes up the trail of a fox? I admit he will ” go a great pace in his quest,” and quest too with a vengeance; he may “road” his game, but will he retrieve it? May I give W. C. the gentlest possible hint, that he will only retrieve such portion of it as he can comfortably digest? He may lie by it all night.
Why should we commence to breed a tender-mouthed race of dogs from one for generations accustomed to kill their game, and, as a reward for their perseverance, allowed to eat it too? If W. C. wants a really good retriever, irrespective of looks, let him begin early with a smooth-coated colley pup—we cannot get them here; there are plenty in his district—and let us Southerners alone. If we prefer to shoot to good-looking dogs, it is our business; if they are good-looking enough to pay for their cake and milk out of season, that is our business also. I cannot see why it should detract from their field value to sit a few days now and then to be looked at.
–W.X. (pg. 94-95).
W.X. mentions two very important wavy-coated retrievers, Young and Old Bounce. These two dogs were very influential in producing the early standard wavy-coat. They appear at the foundation of modern flat-coated retriever (and golden retriever) pedigrees.
However, W.X. is letting his nineteenth century Britishness peek out when he claims that a foxhound cross would automatically produce a dog that would chase a fox and that even the addition of the St. John’s water dog blood would produce a dog with no retrieving behavior.
Anyone who has trained scent hounds knows that they don’t have an instinct to hunt any particular game. Beagles don’t automatically chase rabbits over deer. Most will run deer if given the opportunity, and many will choose deer over rabbits. Foxhounds are very similar. My grandpa used to trial foxhounds in rural West Virginia. The foxhound club would release 60 hounds, and the dogs would get points for baying first and for running the fox more closely than other hounds. A huge percentage of these hounds would get off on a deer and they would be gone for days at a time. Even trained foxhounds could be led astray if just one hound near them took off after a deer.
If a dog of this particularly three-way cross had the aptitude for retrieving and had been trained as a retriever, the chances of it going off after a fox or eating the game would have been next to nothing.
But in the nineteenth century Britain, it was believed that all of these behaviors were inherited– and many dog people think this way today.
It is amazing how modern these arguments sound, even if the topic is quite different. Most retrievers bred today are not intentional crossbreeds. Most retriever people wouldn’t know what to do with a cross, even if the cross was between a golden retriever and a Labrador.
However, it is very clear that with the exception of people like W.X., the nineteenth century retriever culture was very much concerned with producing a dog that looked a certain way– which would have been hard to do with dogs that derived from a diverse ancestry. The retriever was the gentleman’s lurcher, a purpose-bred mongrel that could have lots of the blood of different breeds coursing through its veins.
But because it was bred by status seeking gentlemen, there was a desire to standardize these “mongrels.” W.C. is much more concerned with function and utility. There is a strong anti-establishment tone to his letter, a desire that a dog be good for its purpose regardless of what it looks like. That attitude wouldn’t have won him many plaudits among the status seekers, but in his letter, he exposes what this whole thing was actually about.
The retriever may have had to have been derived from a crossbred dogs, but it was inevitable that they would become standardized breeds.
The sociology of the retriever and its people almost ordained it.
As you know, I have a lively flat-coated retriever. My first ever dog. He retrieves only in class and does not like ball chasing on walks. People often say his nutty personality derives from setter breeding but, having read your article, who knows if this is true. Anyway, the breed was almost extinct in the Uak after WW II Abd I am not sure what they did to reconstitute the breed.
Anyhow, my friend also gas a flattie, who is as different in temperament from my beloved fog as it is possible to be. Both are “pure-bred” pedigree flatcoats
This is what puts the lie to ‘we must keep the breed pure or we will lose the breed characteristics.’ Even a breed that has been closely bred and in a closed registry for a very long time will NOT produce completely consistent dogs. There is a study out there that I can never remember the name of that compared breed temperament and concluded that there is a much variation between individuals in a breed as their is between individuals of different breeds.
I see a huge variation between individuals, temperamentally and behaviorally, in my Afghans and Salukis.
Breeding for behaviors NEVER produces a litter of dogs that is perfect across the board. Breeding two hot shit coursing hounds together does not guarantee that you will get a whole litter of hot shit coursing hounds. Dog fighting literature will talk about ‘cold’ dogs, that have no instinct to fight. I used to own a ‘retired’ racing Greyhound that never raced, because he had no chase instinct.
Although we breeders would love to be able to predict, absolutely, what we will get in a litter, it is not possible.
This is not to say, of course, that careful selective breeding can’t improve the both over-all quality and success rate markedly over time. Some of the guide dog schools that now breed their own stock, for instance, have improved percentage of graduates from some 30% or so to now well over 90%. One tool they use is Estimated Breeding Values,, based on a number of criteria.
Unfortunately, the ordinary dog breeder rarely has any real plan, and may only do one or two breedings at all. Even those with more committment very seldom will plan three generations ahead; seems they expect to accomplish everything with one breeding, and if they don’t get what they want, they try something else. In contrast to the truly outstanding breeders, who have foresight, patience, and understanding of what’s required.
Jess, if you ever find that study I would LOVE a copy if you don’t mind. If you paid for it, I’ll send you a check or something.
I like to have such things on hand for when people talk about losing breed characteristics. If I say such things on kelpie groups for example, one defense is usually “ARe YOU a farmer or rancher? Have YOU ever bred a dog or looked for traits.”
To which I have to say no, but how does that change population genetics? And for that matter, if your way works, why do I hear people complaining it’s hard to find a “good” kelpie or one that’s the way “they used to be?” And how do you even know if you are capturing the right genes when you select breeders? Has the gene or genes, for being, say, the perfect header, been indisputably indentified?
I also frequently offer myself up to be trained by such people or observe, if only I could get to them. Honestly, I wouldn’t mind the experience of trying it, for fun.
People who disagree with the science of population genetics with “are you a breeder?” or “do you do x,y, and z?” are engaging in appeal to authority arguments that are designed to shut people up.
I actually don’t let them end the conversation there. This is usually when I get banned somewhere.
…sorry, I pressed wrong button. Was goIng to say that it gives the lie somewhat to having a consistent temperament of breed. I think each dog has its own personality, like humans, but quite happy to be corrected on this.
I have been wondering about the mechanics of opening breed registries… There are so many “designer dogs” that are a combination of breeds that really seem to have no business being put together. From the historical readings, this is a subjective matter.
Does opening the registires loosen up the descriptions of the existing breeds to make way for attempting to breed a like dog that is healthier and serves it’s “purpose” well? Does it allow for new dog breeds that may result from a tremendous mixture?
Is this something that is overseen from the registry standpoint by a committee comprised of “expert” opinions?
The breeds are needing some sort of infusion to improve health and purpose. Where does one begin? It seems such a daunting task.
This links may be of interest to you:
http://pawpeds.com/pawacademy/general/purebreddog/newstructures.html
(You should read that whole article, btw, links to the other sections are at the bottom.)
Chinook cross-breeding program:
http://www.chinook.org/faq-cross.html
Sphynx cat outcrossing:
http://www.gobblesgobblins.com/OUTCROSS_HYBRID.php
LaPerm cat outcrossing:
http://www.laperm.info/outcrossing.htm
This is not rocket science.
Rocket Science may be much simpler since it involves scientists working together with numbers and equations. Many people tend to be complacent… a fire needs to be lit some how and I mean that figuratively speaking. There has been a big movement as far as requiring health clearances… Someone has got to get through to breeders that inbreeding is wrong… Also, that purpose is important. (Well, my guess is that many breeders say they are filling supply for the pet dog demand…)You told me you think that charts and graphs and lectures won’t help… what resources are there to get things moving? The first document you cite lists the goals as far as registry club structure… a real big question is how to get through to people to make change happen?
Jan, I own two breeds where there are country of origin populations, Salukis and Azawakh. In both breeds there are people who insist the COO dogs are not pure (or not pure any more, or not pure because they are a color that is not common or accepted in the West, etc. etc. etc.)
The Society for the Perpetuation of Desert Bred Salukis was accepted (there was a vote) by the Saluki Club of America as an approved domestic registry in 2002. You have to remember that this is a type of dog that has existed in one form or another for thousands of years, so with definite country of origin populations there is strong incentive to recognize those dogs and get them into the AKC population. Desert bred dogs can also be registered in some countries in Europe, and thus make their way into the AKC population.
And still, just this morning, I saw an AKC judge denigrate a Saluki bitch on a publicly viewable FB group, calling her a ‘lurcher.’ This bitch goes back to two COO dogs from Iran, four generations back (great-great-grandparents.) This shows an appalling lack of knowledge about genetics (and an appalling lack of tact, as well.) I have seen in the last few years calls for ceasing the registration of COO dogs until a DNA test is developed (this is not a possibility.) Most of these attitudes are coming out of the US and UK, the Europeans seem to be much more open to outcrossing and more interested in genetics in general.
The fact that these people don’t understand that you could cross a DACHSHUND with a Saluki and still end up with a ‘purebred’ dog in five generations or so is at the basis of most resistance to opening studbooks. You can find this same conversation over and over again on this very blog (but it just wouldn’t be pure.)
It still takes time to get people to agree that an outcross is in the breed’s best interest, even in Europe:
http://www.rozebottels.nl/WP/?p=717
Based on my own experience with breeders in the US, both regarding Salukis and other breeds, I hold out absolutely NO hope that ‘things will change’ within the next few years. Like I said, these breeders are interested in science and genetics as long as it backs up their own practices. Since the breed clubs control these things (they have to vote and then petition AKC to open their studbooks), M.R.S’s cat herding analogy holds.
This is not complacency, it is sheer stubbornness and devotion to mythology. You would think that high rates of disease would change minds, but no.
Well, I hear your agony in trying to work with this… I’m not a sheep.. Never have been, never hope to be. I guess one could say that is a contradiction since I love the Golden Retriever breed but I am totally smitten for whatever reason. I know many breeders and I admire their dedication. I do not agree with most breeding programs and I do agree with you as far as most breeders supporting what allows them to back up their practices.
In my breed there is a huge riff as far as the standards as well. There are “field” and “confomation” people and their dogs do not look alike at all. They move differently, act differently, and one could say that other than their coat colors, they are different dogs. I think this happened because conformation breeders are breeding to please pet dog owners and field breeders are breeding hunting dogs. I have come to terms with this to a certain degree. However, I think that the conformation Goldens should call their dogs something like the “Golden Retriever, pet variety.” JMO They are the ones who are breeding away from the dog’s purpose.
The wonderful and exciting part about the retriever in the 1800’s is that it was all about the dog’s purpose. Style was considered but it was secondary. The conformation ring from the beginning was putting style before purpose and now it is that way to an extreme degree, dictating to all others how the breed should look and taking many times a very snobby and close minded attitude towards others. The Golden Retriever is a gun dog yet there are GR breeders who don’t allow their dogs to move beyond their yard. They are more concerned about their dogs’ coats and pigmentation than they are about their dog getting enough exercise and having a natural ability to retrieve. They are concerned about their dog having a blocky head and big bones, not about their dog’s ability to run through the field and sniff out any game that is lying in dense foliage. They would be worried that the overly long open coat that they bred on their dog might have to be cut or shaved or damaged some how running out in the woods or fields. They feed and keep their dogs considering only the dog’s appearance. They spend many dollars on supplements for the coat and the products that are used on the coat cost more than products found in many human beauty salons. The coats are clipped and blown out to hide structure faults. There even are products sold to dye a coat or color a brown nose black. …I wish these people would just relax that direction and put out a natural dog but I don’t see that happening. These beautifully coiffed dogs do have a place. Their place is in the living room of families as a couch ornament and as a back yard buddy to the kids. That is a legitimate purpose, but I really think that those dogs should have some special kind of difference to their name, like “Golden Retriever Home-style.” These dogs should be considered seperately from the “Golden Retriever Gun Dog.”
Y’all might be surprised as to how many exhibitors and breeders have never even read the breed standard! Or, if they have read it, even begin to understand what it means. I’m intimately familiar with the Standard for the Golden Retriever, know the people charged with writing it from the 1955 – 1982 revisions onwards. And it is very apparent that the majority of people (both “field” or “show”) put their own interpretation or perception upon that piece of writing. Or, they simply don’t care, and are willing to do whatever it takes to be “successful”.
There is another portion of Golden folks who do try to maintain and preserve the historical ideal of the breed. –because they understand what Jan has written about, what a Golden is really intended to be. These people seldom get the acknowledgement that they deserve, but they have done well for the breed.
Yes, I wish there were more breeders like the ones you are talking about.
The Pawpeds article was definitely of interest. One item that did give me pause was the suggestion that the (Parent) breed club should be in charge: that sounds appropriate, but . . . the breed club that basically controls German Shepherd Dogs in Germany has done this for years, with Breed Wardens, strict breeding rules, extensive published critiques, etc — and still, they have developed dogs with extremes of conformation and unsound movement. It would appear that even a Parent Club would need some sort of disinterested oversight, or the results could be even worse.
THank you for pointing these out. I told Scottie in a separate place that one Chinook breeder I was speaking to pretty much was avoiding direct answers to my questions about Chinook health and their small gene pool. I wasn’t even harassing the woman. I was polite and asked direct questions.
Answers were that Chinooks are fine compared to other breeds, and breeds with small gene pools do well. “Just look at clumber spaniels!” she said.
Then the lady asked me how you can LOSE genes? Oy!
I sent her the Institute for Canine Biology site and its Chinook program page.
I did see one or two other breeder sites that came out and spoke about outcrosses. Thank goodness for that!
Those links are good. Outcrossing is an acceptable practice in every domestic animal but dogs.
When I think about how Cattanach (sp) crossed a corgi with a boxer and got back to type in just a few generations, I think people could be far more relaxed about out crosses than they are. I think people should consider landrace and village dogs as being suitable as well, because one out cross to such a dog will increase the heterogeneity to the max, and known groups of generalized mutts have no odd mutations as a rule, so breed type could once again predominate in a few generations.
This is a thought in formation; I do not have much to point to in the way of links, but I think it is worth considering, because just using close breeds or foundation breeds will not increase heterogeneity enough, fast enough, because they are inbred too. I got that idea from reading Carol’s first assignment. That breed had the equivalent of 2.2 founders. The kind of breeding they are suggesting in the paper will only double the number of founders to 4 or so. This breed needs something far more drastic!
I am saying both and. Get the diversity back in in one generation and use other purebred breeds for particular contributions.
My current two labs are temperamentally as different as chalk and cheese, and again when compared to a family members one and our passed one. Three out of the four are from working gun dog/sport stock, the fourth is an assistance dog, from a specific breeding program.
Only one ever displayed any real desire to retrieve anything.
Accept for the time one of my current boys decided to kill a bird in the garden, and then retrieve it to the other as a gift?
I just had to laugh, he seemed so pleased with himself as he trotted up to his mate and dropped it, right at his feet.
The response was something like; *prods with nose* and what the hell am I supposed to do with this?
Outcrossing is a great cocept but there are issues with W.C.’s methods in the modern context. He has two litters in there that are predominantly scrap (the setter X FH litter gives 1-2 useful bitches and then a potential need to double down on NFWD can give you adozen or more puppies for the scrap heap. What did W.C. do with these ??????? Retrieving is not as much a heritable trait as a combination of four heritable traits. 1) Carrying, which all dogs possess to a degree. 2) chasing a moving object. 3) Tracking/Scenting [high head & low head olfaction] and 4)Biddability (no dog was born wanting to bring you a perfectly edible bird but a biddable one will learn to). W.C. describes a plausible way to acheive this and you have to love his derision of dog shows. The reallity is that at the boat ramp I see labs, GSP’s, Chessies, Boykins, AWS’s, Small munsterlanders, GWP’s, goldens, wachtelhunds, and some random crosses suceeding at duck hunting. It is hard to say how we can get people out of the absolutely no outcross mindset, its deeply ingrained.
Scrap seems a little harsh… most breeders don’t keep all the pups from a litter. There are plenty of pet homes that would buy those pups. I met a man once in an obedience class who said they took the out takes out back and shot them… never went to his side of the ring or conversed with him again.
I’d change the reference to the seal color theory. It’s outdated,as dominant black is NOT on the A locus but on the K locus. (http://homepage.usask.ca/~schmutz/dogcolors.html). It may be that K dominant black has a reddish factor compared to a recessive black. The issue comes up all the time in Groenendael (who have both types of black).
As to “scrap”, I expect that is exactly what happened. Discarded dogs were drowned or sold (if useful in some form) to whomever. At that time, doing this was considered normal. It’s only in more modern times that reject dogs are sold as “pets”. I put pets in “” since being a good pet isn’t something that “just happens”. I used to hear all the time about “one out of 10 in a litter makes a good field dog and the rest get lead poisoning” — as a explanation of why Border collies were superior to other herding breeds (because most other breeds weren’t selected for so rigorously).
Achieving multiple characteristics (as noted by another poster – carry, find, biddability, etc) are difficult, just as herding involves combining multiple characteristics (grip location, if the dog grips at all, flanking wide or close, interest in the stock, etc). and sometimes mix/match works well. However, it should not be assumed that breed outcross is going to give an easy answer either. Lots of ranchers have tried aussie/BC combinations, pit or bull terrier (for grip) + this +ACD + etc combinations. Some work well. Some have a lot of “scrap” dogs in the process. And no, they don’t always end up as someone’s pet. The North American Cow dog (also called Hanging tree cow dogs) is a case in point. It was created by mix/match, but maintaining it is no easier than maintaining purebred working BCs.
It isn’t that outcrosses always “solve” an issue nor that closed stud books ensure quality. The trick is to keep healthy dogs and to allow judicious out crossing to maintain health in a small gene pool and to keep or introduce useful characteristics. Most of the modern outcross projects (the LUA Dalmation, NBT Boxer being the two best known) are one or two outcrosses, not a mix/match. In both horses and in sheep, crosses are often the most productive – but the purebreds have to be kept as a means of creating the crosses. The crosses aren’t self sustaining as a rule. When they are, you get a new breed (polypay sheep for example).
I also question the comment about fox hounds. I don’t do hunting, so maybe it is the case that hounds will hunt whatever. I do know that in herding, you DO get dogs (and entire lines) that will work “whatever” and those that are clearly “sheep” or clearly “cattle” and have no interest in anything else (goats, geese, ducks) and no interest in working the other stock (ie cattle or sheep). So I’d have to say that at least in herding dogs you do get some degree of “this animal and not those” orientations and this certainly appears to be at least in part, genetically driven.
Hi Peggy, that was a very interesting response. So, are you saying that you support out-crossing to other breeds or not? I was a little confused by what you wrote. Are you saying that out-crossing within the breed and outside the breed combined is an answer to improving the breeds?
It sounds like you work with bc’s that are somewhat specialized to herding a specific type of animal. That’s very intriguing.
I can understand the “scrap” theory in the 1800’s and earlier (although I hate to hear it.) I just think that is not necessary today in the US since we import 10’s of thousands of dogs to our pounds from overseas every year to fill our need to supply people with dogs to rescue. I am in the eastern US and we have dogs in our pounds from all over South America in particular. Allot of us would be fine with what someone else calls “scrap” for a companion (all dogs that I have known have been good at some kind of task or sporting event.)
In the case of the retriever, if the registries were opened, I suppose that crossing dogs from various breeds that are good retrievers would be the way to go to keep the purpose… Retrievers need to be biddable and good natured too so the “out-takes” would do well in pet homes I would think.
Hi, jan. sorry I didn’t respond earlier. Yes, I believe that crossing outside a breed can be very beneficial and is probably necessary in many breeds. But I also advocate caution in doing this — in herding dogs, one gets a lot of “well that cross didn’t work well” — where a F1 or even an F2, F3, doesn’t get the “right” combination for a working stock dog. While Jess brings up the issue of crossing a Dachshund with a Saluki working out in 3 generations, I rather doubt she would ever do such a thing — there are better choices out there for her dogs. The issue for me is that a “everyone do what you want” can end up with a lot of reject F1, F2 and even F3 dogs, at least in herding dogs, as it isn’t as easy as one might think to get the right combination of genes for a good stockdog. Yes, Aussie/BC combinations are common. And so are bad Aussie/BC combinations. You can’t just put any two dogs together and get something useful. To do combinations, you really have to know a fair amount about BOTH breeds (both good and bad) and even then, some characteristics are incompatible with others (like wide running and close running, which have different pluses and minuses regarding herding). And unfortunately, most herding characteristics (like grip & grip location) are of unknown genes although clearly genetic.
As for the breed I work, it’s Belgian Sheepdogs. I’ve been “in” herding since 1980 and am familiar with most of the more common (and a number of the less common) herding dogs and yes, there are specialist lines (ie, dogs that work sheep but not cattle or vice versa). This is because there are some different attributes to the livestock and the dog that works one “best” may not be good at the other at all. I’ve had more than one of my dogs look at me and more or less communicate “what part of sheepdog did you not understand?” — on the other hand, Belgians were not designed to work stock the same way BCs do. They are close running, upright “tending” types although they are generally willing to do whatever you train them to do, the tending style is clearly most natural.
As for companions/pets, yes, there is a high demand for good pets. I’m just pointing out that historically (and in some areas it remains true) that “scrap” means exactly what it implies. The dogs weren’t “placed”, they were shot or drowned or otherwise killed as rejects. And this is not to denegrate those that did this because times were different then. If one is a farmer who needs one or two good herding dogs to manage their flock, “Molly” having a litter of 10 only means that if 8 of them aren’t sold to someone else, they are unwanted and undesired. I suspect that the same applied to early retriever breeding.
I’ve had kelpie people complain to me that it’s hard these days to find 1 good kelpie in ten, and simultaneously complain that any outcrossing will risk losing the genes that make the kelpie what it is.
So it doesn’t sound to me as if the status quo of closed gene pools is doing that breed any good. Unless the idea that those other nine kelpies were not good, was some overreaction or drama, based on impossible demands, which I doubt.
So if you can get good OR bad from outcrossing, why not err on the side of diveristy? If you can get some good or bad in purity or outcrossing, that seems all the same.
And yeah, as you mentioned, the genes that express certain needed behaviors are not identified anyway.
The more specific the demands in behavior, the more rejects you are asking for, regardless. Much like becoming an olympian. Many have potential, few will make it there, the difference being we are not trying to purposefully breed olympic athletes…unless there’s some underground eugencis program for it I don’t know about? :)
[…] shooting nobleman bred retrievers by crossing different types of dog. As we’ve seen, this tradition heavily conflicted with the British dog fancy that came later, which demanded that every retriever be a black […]
[…] Debating retriever recipes and the merits of dog shows […]
[…] Scottish sportsman wrote into The Field magazine denouncing both dog shows and the desire for people to keep their […]