Ansy--if this topic is going to cause too much trouble, feel free to delete it.
When discussing registries, we often talk of breeds (or mixes) that ought to be added but seem to take for granted that the breeds already accepted should remain there. Whenever a new all- breed-type registry starts up, it always accepts all of the AKC breeds. So, I'm wondering would anyone like to see any breeds eliminated because they are, in their current state, too unhealthy. I'm not asking if any of the breeds are in any way unlovable, but if you think that perpetuating any of the breeds is cruel because of the practically guaranteed health problems.
__________________
"Thought is an invisible and subtle power that mocks all the efforts of tyranny." Alexis de Tocqueville
I for one don't think registry is a big deal. That is unless you want to show. The only thing I see that is good for registry is looking up your dogs past generations. So I guess that really doesn't answer the question you're asking. I really don't have an answer to it.
When it comes to that question the answer is kinda hard. If you really want to get technacial all breeds CAN be unhealthy. Any breed can be unhealthy if not bred properly. It still would be unfair to kick out a certian breed for being unhealthy when there are unhealthy dogs in all other breeds. No matter how you look at it's all unfair. Healthy, unhealthy, mutt, purebred, registered or unresgersited they all deserve love.
I think this is an excellent question and it's a question that I've never seen asked on ANY board I visit. It's one of those questions that really makes you think. I don't know alot about the health problems that are 'expectable' in some breeds, but I know the GSD is prone to lots of health issues if bred improperly.
I think, given enough research, this could be a credible way of looking at things. The object of every breed is to ultimately have a healthy dog, even for those who cross some breeds. The AKC has totally deformed some of it's dogs through breeding standards. A show dog and a working dog of the same breed can look totally different. To me, THAT poses a huge problem. A breed is a breed and should look a certain way, regardless of whether you are showing it or working it. I find it duiscouraging that a registry that is as respected as the AKC, is allowed by its members to practice such things. In the end, isn't the 'perfect' dog an all-around healthy dog and not just a 'beautiful' dog?
I know some of you will not agree with this, but with all the talk about cross breeders 'chopping up' the breeds..........isn't the AKC doing the exact same thing? Sure, puggles aren't all going to look the same from a single litter........but that is also the case with some pure breeds. You can have a litter which produces those who make good working dogs and then there are those who will make better show dogs - all from the same litter. Where is the predictability in that? There isn't any.
Also, for those who show dogs and breed with whatever means necessary to produce the ultimate show dog (regarding looks and not a dogs original working ability), they DO sacrifice health in order to obtain this 'perfect dog'. Are they not also creating a variation of the original breed? Is that really so much different than what a cross breeder does? Both give the end result of a dog that does not resemble the original pure bred breed you began with.
Although all breeds suffer from health problems, not all breeds are equally healthy.
I love bassets. They're stubborn; they're loud; they're impossible to train. They want your love, but your respect--not so much. That's an attitude I can respect. Also, they're quirky, eccentric. And hillarious. I've never met one who wasn't a laugh riot.
But I don't think we should breed bassets, not as they are. They're achondroplastic. Their build is structurally unsound, so most of them have painful back problems that can start at four, three, even two years of age. And I'm not just talking about the dogs who are allowed to become overweight. My mom has a basset who's been on pain meds since he was two-and-a-half. I've known many others with similiar problems.
Is the way to show love for the breed really to make more dogs destined for painful back problems? Outcross to taller hounds? Okay. Use taller hounds to create a breed with a personality similiar to a basset but without the dwarfism? Sure. But continue to support the breeding of bassets because I enjoy their company? No. It's selfish. If you truly love a breed, shouldn't you act in its best interest rather than your own?
__________________
"Thought is an invisible and subtle power that mocks all the efforts of tyranny." Alexis de Tocqueville
I have never shown any of my dogs in conformation but I have gone to a few local shows to support a friend who has a gorgeous GSD. It is always disappointing because he never ranks too high because he doesn't have the exaggerated angulation (sp?) and the professional handlers always tell her to have him lose about 10 lbs so that his ribs show. According to his vet his is definitely not overweight.
Novice that I am tho, I don't think it is the AKC or any other registry that can be totally blamed for the standards of any of the breeds as they are currently. After all, it seems logical to me that all registries would have been started by breeders and the standards for each breed set by a committee of breeders of those specific breeds as well.
I think some of the change that has occurred over the years is due, in part, to the fact that the need for "working" breeds has diminished tremendously. However, many people, for whatever their reason, wanted one of these breeds without the working drive. Therefore, a market was created, and some breeders started to work on either eliminating or greatly reducing these traits in order to create a dog that would be better suited as a "companion" as versus a "worker". However, I think some things probably were lost with this selective breeding as the emphasis was too great on the personality instead of structure and health.
I think the same thing has happened when it goes to color. I have heard (but don't know how true it is) that this same thing has happened with labs. I have heard that black labs are generally the healthiest & most sound in temperment, followed by the yellow labs. Now there are chocolates and a very pale yellow (white) that many have told me can have more health & temperment issues. They are, however, gorgeous. I have heard the same thing about poodles - over the years there have been occasional mismarks (parti-colors) that certain breeders are striving to breed because there is a market for them. I have heard long-time poodle fanciers complain about the bad structure many of the parti-color poodles have because the breeders again are concentrating on color instead of structure & health.
Some day I am sure the AKC & other registries will eventually allow many of these new, now unacceptable, breeds/variations due to the breeders campaigning for it. So, I guess what I am trying to say is I think it is breeders, not registries, that are the ultimate cause. After all it is the breeders who, for all intents & purposes, are the AKC & other registries.
Again, these are the ramblings of someone who really has no input based on personal experience in breeding any breed but rather the thoughts that I have had which may be out in left field.
Protodog, not meaning to hi-jack this thread but I just have to tell you about a couple of bassetts I have met.
A gal who goes to the obedience school we go to is the president of the local bassett rescue group. She has a bassett, Teddy, who has earned his AKC obedience CDX title and is currently working towards his Utility! It is a riot when we go to an obed. show - when Teddy is in the ring you can just about hear a pin drop because everyone is amazed to see a bassett competing in obedience and then when he gets his ribbon the whole place goes wild!
She has also starting working another one, Will, and altho he's not quite as enthusiastic about it as Teddy is, he is doing well in training. We'll just have to wait and see if he shines as well as Teddy does.
To me, the problem seems circular. The breed club, run by successful breeders, sets the standard, and the registry adopts the standard. The registries could tell a breed club to take a hike, but they never do. Then, additonal people start to breed according to the accepted standard, and those breeders don't want to see the standard changed because changing the standard would undermine their success. So, few people actually take a step back and objectively look at where a particular breed or segment of the dog population is heading.
Also, there's so much folklore and tradition tied to dogs. For instance, poodles haven't been used as water retrievers for some time; they aren't even in the sporting group. But, all of the show poodles have those silly haircuts as if, at any moment, they could be called upon to charge into the water after a downed bird. Granted, the haircuts are harmless, but they represent a culture that is resistent to change. And science is ever changing.
In 1980, Robert Schaible, a geneticist at Indiana University, bred a pointer to a dalmatian then backcrossed to other dalmatians. In ten years (five generations), nobody could tell the difference between Schaible's dalmatians and AKC dalmatians. The only important difference was that Schaible's dalmatians didn't have the genetic problems that the AKC dalmatians had. After some lobbying, the AKC agreed to let Schaible register his dalmatians until the breed club pitched a fit. The breed club complined that Schaible's "unpure" dalmatians were wrecking the breed, so the AKC cancelled Schaible's registrations even though his dogs were healthier than the regular dalmatians, thus allowing Victorian notions about purity to prevail over progress.
__________________
"Thought is an invisible and subtle power that mocks all the efforts of tyranny." Alexis de Tocqueville
~~~Also, there's so much folklore and tradition tied to dogs. For instance, poodles haven't been used as water retrievers for some time; they aren't even in the sporting group. But, all of the show poodles have those silly haircuts as if, at any moment, they could be called upon to charge into the water after a downed bird. Granted, the haircuts are harmless, but they represent a culture that is resistent to change. And science is ever changing.~~~
Protodog, as always, I like how you think. Very intelligent point! I bet some of those people would flip over dead if they saw their prize poodle run into the muddy water after a bird!...lol
That is one thing that bothers me about the "show" poodles in their special clips. With all of the hours that are spent attaining the look I am afraid those dogs don't get to be dogs & romp and play and just plain have fun! I know with the way my 2 play outside with the tumbling & zoomies there is absolutely no way I could keep them in a conventional poodle clip. Their hair is like velcro & catches every pc of debris there is around and even with the short clip I keep them in they still manage to always bring a little of the outside inside. Plus I think, Farley especially, would be too embarrassed to be seen in public with his butt shaved and the puff balls on his feet, tail & hips!
"Thought is an invisible and subtle power that mocks all the efforts of tyranny." Alexis de Tocqueville
