Posts Tagged ‘the dog fancy’


The Dowager Empress Cixi wrote  a standard for the breed.

The Chinese wanted to turn their dogs into lions.

Westerners then turned them into animate cushions.

This piece tells us the conditions that allowed the modern fancy to develop.

The Industrial Revolution and the subsequent democratization made it possible for people to have both wealth and leisure time to spend money on breeding dogs with very little real economic utility.

The Pekingese was the dog of the Chinese nobility. It was bred to look like a lion and to be so short-legged that it would never run off.

Sound similar to the old Chinese tradition of foot-binding?

Women had their feet bound so that they would never be able to work.

It was a perverse way for wealthy men to show their love for their daughters.

I’ll make sure you’re deformed, so you’ll never have to work. And that will show the world that I have enough money to keep a wife who can sit around the house all day and be pretty.

In a sexist culture that viewed women as baby-makers and as workhorses, causing deformity was seen as both a term of endearment and a symbol of one’s economic success and power.

Of course, we in the West are no different when it comes to these customs.

Why else do we breed dogs that are so horribly deformed that they cannot breathe, run, mate, or whelp properly?

They are symbols of our own wealth and power. They are also symbols of our technological advancement, for they show our prowess in things like AI and C-section techniques.

We are advanced enough and wealthy enough that we don’t have to have all of our dogs working. In fact, very few of our dogs actually work at anything.

So we can breed all sorts of dogs for symbolic purposes.

Why do we do this?

It all goes back to Veblen.


Read Full Post »

Photo by Jess Ruffner.

Most of the dog fancy exists in a kind of quasi-religious system in which different people become high priests  and priestesses and certain bromides and mythology become established dogma.

Dog culture is less concerned with evidence and objectivity than it is about conformity and obedience.

Those who question either the high priests or the dogma are either subjected to a severe inquisition or excommunicated.

In the case of Salukis, they print the heretic’s e-mail in one of their publications.

It is really nothing more than a petty vendetta. Someone who believes got into an internet war with a particularly ruthless (and well-informed and somewhat blunt) skeptic. The believer contacted another believer, and so they hatched a diabolical scheme to fix her wagon.

Print some quotes in our magazine.

And her e-mail.

Muhahahahahahahaha! Muhahahahahaha! Muhahaha! ( Magica De Spell style)

This is how the high church deals with heretics.

For Lollards soon turn into Luthers.

And the last thing these people want is some kind of Reformation in which things like “blood purity for blood purity’s sake” and the taboos against a certain striped coat pattern might be openly questioned using empirical methods.

Like all defenders of the faith, these high priestesses must defend the dogma.

But this is just pathetic.

All Jess is guilty of is asking these to questions:

“Why do we believe this? What is the evidence?”

And when they tried to answer using the dogma, the evidence was wanting in so many ways.

That’s what happens.

That’s the game that has been played ever since the registries were closed and the Great Schisms between fanciers led to the creation of a many Balkanized gene pools from what were once dynamic bloodlines that contained a wealth of genetic diversity.

But the values inherent in that game are being lost. Their currency doesn’t set will with a greater number of people every year. The institutions, the clergy, and the dogma no longer sound legitimate.

And at that level, change is coming.

It comes bit by bit.

Then there’s a great leap.

Then a setback.

And back to bit by bit.

But sooner or later, things will change.

These little games are but an amusing sign that these people are desperate.

Desperate for times in which what they said was accepted as the absolute truth.

For this is the system whose values they accepted and mature in. It is within that paradigm that their views of what is successful and what is correct are fundamentally shaped.

But what happens when that paradigm is fundamentally shaken?

The answer: Resort to cheap insults.

Maybe it will go away.

But it doesn’t change that the dogmas inherent in the various dog cultures are being openly questioned on so many levels.

New ideas are seeping into the belief systems. The internet allows all of us access to different perspectives on these issues.

We don’t have to believe because that’s the only thing out there.

We can question. We can innovate.

And that bugs the hell out of these people.

Here’s to more general Lollardy in the dog world!

John Wycliffe speaking to his fellow Lollards. Good thing they weren't in Salukis or their e-mail addresses would be published!

Read Full Post »

If one looks at the basenji, one sees what should be a tough little dog, free of exaggeration in conformation or type. It looks like it had been entirely selected by the processes of natural selection.

Although capable of barking, it very rarely does so, and when it does, it is just a short little woof. In this regard, it is very much like the wolf or the dingo.  The bitches have one heat cycle per year.

It is almost like a wild animal, so one would think that there wouldn’t have been a healthier breed to own.

Unfortunately, all that you have just read is nothing more than an appeal to nature fallacy. All the natural appearances are superficial.

Basenjis in the West are just like any other breed of dog. They have a limited number of foundational sires, and when one gets involved in producing quality dogs for the show ring, the tendency is to use just a few members of the population to produce offspring. With a closed studbook, all sorts of new hereditary problems began to surface.

But unlike other breeds of dog, the basenji started out with a very small population in the West.  Just 18 or 19 dogs founded the original basenji population. That is a pathetically small number on which to found an entire breed.

By the late 1980’s, basenjis were in a lot of trouble. In 1989, Dr. Russell Brown of Virginia Commonwealth University sent a letter to the AKC Board explaining why the basenji needed to have its studbook reopened.

The AKC eventually opened the studbook to allow new blood to be imported from the Congo. This is actually where the brindle coloration that has popped up in the basenji came from.

It is often mentioned that basenjis are quite common in Africa. One must be careful with such assertions, because basenjis have peculiar traits that are actually not that common in the African pariah dog population. This needs to be repeated, for there are assumptions that just about African village dog with prick ears and a curled tail is a basenji.

It ain’t so.

This is not a contrived breed. It’s not like the West Highland white terrier, the golden retriever, and the Norfolk terrier, which have all been separated from their closest relatives on what amounts to little more than superficial reasons.

This is an actual landrace that is native to Central Africa. It may superficially resemble other pariah dogs that are found in other parts of Africa.

But those dogs bark a lot and the bitches have two heat cycles per year. From what I’ve seen, most of these dogs really don’t have the curled tails of the show basenji or even loosely curled tails that one sometimes sees on African basenjis.

Any population of dogs that rarely barks and has but one heat cycle per year is clearly different from other dogs, no matter how one looks at it. These dogs are physically and behaviorally unique.

To rejuvenate the bloodline, African dogs indeed were allowed in. These dogs had the same traits that we associate with dogs of this type, and some of the health problems are indeed being mitigated.

But what the basenji story actually tells us is what happens when we allow just a tiny population of dogs to found a breed and then close off the studbook.

Basenjis were nearly ruined through such an extreme genetic bottleneck. They may yet be redeemed through these African imports. I certainly hope so, for the basenji is such a unique dog that I think it is very much worth preserving.

Its unique characteristics give us insight into what the early dogs might have been like. The inheritance of its barklessness was actually tested by Fuller and Scott, when they crossed basenjis with cocker spaniels. It turned out that barking was a dominant trait, but the number of barks that a basenji/cocker will give is still somewhat lower than that of a pure cocker. That study suggested that the constant barking trait that so characterizes other dogs could have easily been transmitted through the populations of domestic dogs very early on.

And all of these genetic disorders certainly do give us something else to examine.

The African dogs lived very well for thousands of years. They evolved to fit a particular task and a particular climate. But when our dog culture picked them up, things just didn’t turn out that well.

Maybe the future will be better for these African “barkless dogs.” But we have to be very careful about these registries. We don’t need to ensure the genetic viability and general health of all of these dogs. We have to start thinking in such a way for all of these dog breeds.

If we don’t, the potential exists for even more problems like the basenji was facing in the 1980’s. In fact, this potential is almost a certainty if we don’t starting thinking differently.

Dogs are organisms, but our cultural backage winds up having major effects upon them, whether we like it or not. Our inability to understand them as organism with need for sustainable gene pools is a major problem for the long term viability of the domesticated form of C. lupus.

If we could just start thinking this way, maybe we could have a better future for dogs.

But we have to change our dog culture, and that is going to take time.


Basenjis are hardly the most extreme case. The Norwegian lundehunds (the polydactyl puffin hunting dogs) are derived from just six dogs that survived a distemper outbreak that happened during the Second World War. All of these dogs have the genetics to develop an extremely debilitating set of digestive disorders called lundehund gastroenteropathy in which digestive bacteria grow out of control, preventing the dogs from deriving nutrients from food.  Some dogs never develop symptoms, but others eat and eat and never get enough nutrients.

Open registries are not the solution for all problems solving dogs. Lots of things have to be done to solve these problems. Opening registries alone will not save them in the end. However, if we don’t open them, we will be doing very little to solve the macro-level problems that are making breed after breed less healthy.

The registry issue is systemic, which means that it is sometimes harder for people to understand. It is also the biggest sacred cow in the fancy– purity for purity’s sake. To even suggest that this problem is the greater systemic problem in dogs is a great heresy.

But not everyone in the fancy is entirely in love with it. I think the number of people who love dogs as dogs in the fancy is much larger than you might assume from reading this blog or others.

Within the fancy itself, there are people who want something better and who are articulating it and pushing for it.

Bit by bit, change will come.

For those of you who want a better future for dogs, please know that you’re not alone. It’s starting to happen.

In the public consciousness, the AKC doesn’t mean what it once it did. When people think AKC, they think of unhealthy purebred dogs. It doesn’t mean golden. It means gilded.

That’s a major branding problem.

It’s one I’m sure the AKC doesn’t want to have.

It’s also why the AKC is losing out market share the paper mill registries. If the AKC is just a paper mill, then why can’t Jim Bob down the road start his own?

In the end, we have no quality control or consumer protection institution for dogs in the United States.

We are lost.

We have to do this research for ourselves, which, thanks to Google, means that it isn’t as hard as it once was.

But I still think we need some kind of body, even at the breed and function-based level, to have some sort of regulating or quality control influence over breeders. I’m not in favor of new laws. I’m in favor of a better system in which dog people regulate themselves.

We need an open registry system, but we don’t need one in which people are inclined to do crazy crosses just for the hell of it.

And that’s my dilemma.


In case you were getting ready to dispute me on whether basenjis can bark:


I wonder whether living around “normal” dogs has any effect on that behavior. I remember reading about some wild-caught wolves that were kept in a kennel with lots of barking domestic dogs. The younger wolves in the pack started barking like dogs.

Barking does have a learned component to it. I knew a Dalmatian that joined a household that included a mongrel beagle. This beagle had a tendency to great everyone with a baying howl.

After about two weeks, the Dalmatian was trying to make that noise– very unsuccessfully.

Maybe some basenjis are learning let loose a few barks here and there  just to fit in.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: