Posts Tagged ‘Open registry’

I find these every once in a while.  Here is a pedigree of a golden named Lady Betty. I know nothing of her golden retriever ancestors, and they aren’t mentioned in her pedigree either. However her black ancestors are known to every flat-coat historian.  Ch’s Black Drake, Darenth, and Black Queen all appear in the pedigree. When I go back through Black Drake, I find that he had Ch. Moonstone as a great grandsire. Moonstone carried the gene for yellow or red, because when he was bred to his dam, that breeding produced one red puppy named Foxcote. This might explain why a breeding between a descendant of Moonstone might be bred to a golden to produce a golden puppy. Moonstone’s litter brother, Tracer, was bred into the line kept at Guisachan– for obvious reasons!


Ch. Black Drake



Ch. Black Queen

Ch. Moonstone, an influential black flat-coat champion who produced at least one red puppy named Foxcote, when bred to his mother.


All of these dogs were black, but they did play a role in founding the golden retriever. They didn’t have closed registries back then, and even though there was a lot of line-breeding and inbreeding, they didn’t have the two breeds separate as they are today.

Goldens have black dogs in their pedigrees. These were some of the elite in flat-coated retriever history.

And some of their descendants were blonds and red-heads– and became a separate breed.

Read Full Post »

The post with the thread that never ends spilled over onto Querencia, where Stephen Bodio quotes Jess’s commentary on that post and the same sort of debate ensued. The debate also moved onto discussing whether we need stricter breeder regulation. It seems that various breeder regulations are being used by the various self-appointed mandarins to harass those who deviate.

Jess recently experienced how far these mandarins will go to cause trouble when the Saluki or Gazelle Hound Club (of the UK) published quotes from her blogs and online commentary in an article  in their publication, The Saluki. They didn’t ask her for her views, but they did manage to publish her e-mail address!

Why can’t we all just get along?

If we can’t have a rational discussion about genetic diversity within the various contrived genetic bottlenecks we call breeds and if all people who deviate from the norms get this sort of treatment, then I don’t think we’re going to get along.

And we shouldn’t.

I don’t care what people do with their lines.

I do care when various pseudo-scientific bromides are used to justify practices and to pillory those who are using science to ensure that their beloved animals remain viable and healthy.

It should be up to consumers to decide which dogs they want, and as consumers, they should be privy to all the knowledge about genetic diversity issues.

But they very often aren’t, and on the ‘net and as a meme within the dog culture, inbreeding is often defended.

And it can be defended, provided one has access to new blood.

Which is exactly what is being denied in the closed registry system.

And now we’re back to where we were.

No way we can get along.


Oh and here’s a brindle saluki:

Brindle, for some weird reasons, is controversial in salukis.

Read Full Post »


Earlier this month, ABC’s Nightline featured a story about the problems in purebred dogs. I covered it here.

Unlike their British counterpart, the American dog fancy spammed the heck out of the comments section on the ABC New article.

Now, I’m in political science (at least partially. If anyone would like a Democratic campaign consultant– I can be of some use. )

Whenever you see lots of the same comments in a letters to the editor section of a newsaper or lots of the same comments on a youtube video or blogpost, you know there is a concerted effort at PR.  It is very instructive that many of the people placing these comments are using the same logic and invective against the reporter, ABC news, and everyone featured in that piece.  This similarity in their comments means that the fancy’s main people have given the breeders some sort of talking points.

The Kennel Club (of the United Kingdom) did not have good PR professionals working for its interests. I can’t believe the president of that particular club actually agreed to be interviewed in Pedigree Dogs Exposed. The  journalists who worked that program not only interviewed the KC’s upper echelon, they had extensive interviews. And as a result, the KC people could not effectively manage the crisis. That’s why this program has been so successful in building the outcry for kennel club reform in that country.

The AKC refused to appear in the ABC segment. That was a smart move from a PR perspective. The AKC can stay out of it. It can call the report biased.  Just more animal rights extremism.

And then, in wave two, they get their legions of loyal breeders to spam and troll any blog post that features this story, although they have not frequented this blog.

Remember, the mainstream media in this country is a wonderful political football for partisans of all stripes. And here I’m not just talking about the politics as we typically talk about it. Dogs are political. Dogs have lots of money tied up in them, and there are strong institutions that work within the world of dogs.  We all know that institutions are mostly about credibility, and these institutions will do anything to protect themselves from losing credibility. With credibility comes power. Reduction in credibility reduces powers. Having no credibility means you’ll cease to exist.

And that’s the war that all PR professionals fight.  The PR people working for the AKC are doing quite well at preserving the institutional legitimacy of that institution.

They are not falling into same trap that the KC fell for.

However, good PR works only so long as a spin can be made, and in twenty years, it is likely the number of dog breeds severely damaged by such practices will reach a level that far more people will be demanding reforms. After all, PR can only spin facts. It cannot change them.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: