A pdf of this article is here.
The breeder featured here is using goldens as trial competitors, but because working golden genetic diversity is an issue in virtually any country where they exist, she is forced to do some outcrossing.
“I periodically use total outcrosses, by mating my [field bred] bitches to ‘old fashioned goldens’ (goldens that work and look good). I call these puppies my ‘lost generation.'”
(Keep in mind that in Sweden, goldens really didn’t become popular until the breed had become more heavily built and lighter in color. The real “old-fashioned” ones are the ones that are field bred, darker in color and more svelte).
What she means is that when she crosses a European show-type golden, even one that works well, with one of her performance-bred dogs, there is a really good chance that her puppies aren’t going to have all the instincts and trainability that exist in a pure field-line dog. She has no way of predicting working ability.
She then breeds these outcrosses back to her working-line dogs, and by the second generation, she can more readily predict working ability.
This isn’t a bad strategy, provided it is mere occasional outcrossing. However, if this practice becomes too much a part of field line dogs, the chances of producing the lazy rug golden in a field line becomes too great.
What I find interesting is she got her start with flat-coats, many of which are high quality working dogs (although probably not the top field trial dogs), and she then went for the golden. The golden has rather marked difference in its performance-bred and show-bred lines, enough to make people think they are separate breed.
Virtually all lines of field-line golden have some issues with genetic diversity. However, the problem is that so many of the show-type dogs lack good working conformation and have little of the instincts required for the job. But you really don’t have many options when you’re trying to get some more genes into a population.
This outcrossing is a band-aid solution to a problem that could become a real long-term issue in the breed.
My solution is to change the breed standard so field-bred dogs can win in conformation shows and also require that no championship in conformation can be given unless the dog passes a real working test. That way, you are ensuring that the golden will exist as a working breed, and that all show dogs have some abilities and conformation that they might make better outcrosses for the field lines.
That sounds radical, but it’s not. After all, conformation is supposed to complement ability, not surpass it as the main judge of quality. That was the original function of the conformation show. I don’t think it’s radical at all, but I am sure that lots of people, who have matured as dog experts and developed lines within the fancy of rather useless dogs, would hate such a recommendation. “You mean my dog with no retrieving instinct, eight inches of feathering, and lumbering gait is no longer the preferred type?”
My answer:
It never was the preferred type when the standard was written in 1911.
So why should it be the preferred type in 2009?
Should the golden be a dog that can be used for field work and other canine occupations? Or should become a cute plaything for the caprices of the fancy?
This issue raises questions about what we think goldens are. If we still think that they are still to be an animal useful to mankind, then we really need to look at what we’re doing to their bodies, to their drives, and to their temperaments.
If we decide that these dogs are to be cute playthings for the fancy, then we should keep on doing what we’re doing. And then you’ll see goldens go the way of the bulldog and the Old English sheepdog. You’ll never see the modern bulldog catching pigs, although you’ll see its cousins, the American bulldog and pit bull, doing this work. I’ve never seen an Old English sheepdog herd, although bearded collies have some amount of herding instinct.
Where we want the golden to go in the future is up to us. I have my rather strong opinions on it. But the choice needs to be made.
My dealings with Swedish breeders show that they are actually more open to outcrossing for purpose in their dogs. Just a way of thinking that is not so dramatically fanatic to a fault like it is with the Breeders I’ve dealt with here in the States who are clearly driven by the “champion” bug and have lost sight of the original goal. They (Swedish Breeders) seem to understand that sometimes to maintain the desired “DOG” has more to do with intelligent breeding than with selective breeding.
If continued selective breeding with blinders on while being driven towards goals set in place by ancestors, who had no real clue about the decisions they were making, is ultimately leading to the demise of a breed then change is required to preserve it and possibly rewind to a better place. Or, at least preserve the purpose of it.
I believe you’re right in your thinking, just that is goes well beyond just the plight of Goldens. FCR lifespans have not improved significantly since the damage done by line breeding has taken its long term toll. And reversing the damage when faced with the continued practices of breeding from the same limited gene pool seems fruitless. I agree with several breeders I’ve partnered with around the world that in order to save the breed and reverse the effects that some “intelligent” Outcrossing will need to be employed. to ultimately get the breed back on track and ultimately improve upon it.
When you consider what our ancestors were attempting to do, it really all boiled down to improving upon what they had. And they didn’t do this by limiting themselves. That only seemed to start happening once the breed clubs acknowledged the registries. And got worse once the registries closed.
Where Goldens go in the future, where the FCR winds up as well as other breeds is going to be in the hands of a few. Since the status quo and the majority seem to only march to the beat of the same old drum and really don’t want to hear a different one.
Even if breeders do listen to what science is telling them they may have done so much damage already that outcrossing is the only way to fix it. Yet even the scientists working hard to provide answers and search for genetic markers to identify Cancer in the lines…. well the following is the scientific concern…
—————————————————
+++Teri King, Ph.D., a flat-coat fancier and a genetic epidemiologist at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.++++
“King noted that if a genetic test ever hit the market for flat coats and cancer, the club also might face an even tougher choice. “If it’s monogenic [involving one gene] and dominant, I don’t think we could breed it out without completely corrupting the population genetics because the flat coat gene pool is so small, ” she said. “From my studies, about 30% of the dogs are bred. So, every time that you have a generation that is bred, you’re talking about reducing the gene pool that much.”
But Ostrander said genetic testing in general does not require that breeders make immediate and absolute decisions. She said in many cases, the correct choice for breeders will be to limit the mating of gene carriers. “Breeders are aware that they are going to have prized dogs that epitomize everything that is great about their breed, but that do carry a deleterious mutation,” she said. “The only way to keep them in and the deleterious mutation out is going to be by judicious breeding of carriers. The key is to try and dilute the gene from the breed.”
——————————————————-
Its time for the folks with the blinders off to set the tone for others to follow. And educate following generations of dog fanciers about better and safer alternatives.
What you’re talking is using outcrossing as a way of reshuffling the deck in favor of better health.
I couldn’t agree more.
I’ve always believed that in addition to health testing, some sort of proof of working ability (or at least proof of trainability/good temperament/physical soundness…. SOMETHING) should be required along with the conformation points to be awarded a Championship. Hunting, herding, swimming, lure coursing, agility, obedience… even certified therapy work (which actually would be a very appropriate task for companion breeds) – any of these will tell you more about how sound and sane and useful a dog is than a breed class.
But of course for many breeds, the standards would have to be changed to allow true working type.
Interesting on that 30% number. I read a study recently that said that only 20% of KC registered dogs go on to reproduce. Think about that. In a litter of ten, eight pups do not get bred, thus removing their unique genetic combinations from the gene pool. One or more of those unbred pups may well be the only ones in the litter carrying certain genes, since pups do not all get the same genetic combination. And yet it is ‘reputable’ to breed only one or two dogs in a litter, to breed only the dogs that are finished instead of going to a brother or a sister, and to only breed ‘when you want a puppy for yourself,’ thus reducing the gene pool even further.
Then you have people who poorly understand the pet overpopulation issue. If you want to understand it better, check out Nathan Winograd. http://www.nathanwinograd.com/
I think the fancy has used the some of the animal rightsniks who proclaim that we must neuter and spay every single dog we find. These two groups, who largely hate each other, are both advocating a dangerous long term strategy.
I don’t think every dog should be bred or everyone should be breeding, but we do need to focus on how to get better genetic diversity in our dogs.
And how we do that will take a real sea change in how we view dogs.
I don’t care if my goldens have some white on them. I really don’t.
I also don’t care to use worthless rug retrievers as outcrosses, provided they are healthy and it’s only used occasionally.
Barb,
Current standards and accepted health tests do not do enough to stop the breeding of dogs that will exhibit these genetic health issues. OFA tests since they have been introduced as a measure for bad hips and elbows hasn’t made a dent towards improving later generations of dogs. PennHip tests are not a pass fail system like OFA testing. There is a measured grade that must be met in this test and if you hit below 30% it is highly recommended that you do not breed. Its recommended you consider not breeding at 50%, yet as I’ve discovered it is very common for a breeder who failed on the PennHip to just take the OFA and pass it, then breed their dog anyway.. thus the reason for needing better practices.
Barb wants to see some “sort of proof of working ability.” PennHip won’t tell a breeder a thing about temperament or working ability. Neither will OFA. That’s a separate issue completely, and no x-ray or blood test will tell you whether a hunting breed can bring back a duck or a herding breed will move a flock of sheep to a pen. They offer no indication of the dog’s trainability and willingness to work.
PennHip & OFA both provide useful information. Many breeders do both, if their vet has undergone PennHip’s training procedures. At this point, PennHip’s database is private. The information publicly available limits PennHip’s usefulness to a breeder seeking hip status on a potential sire, that of his parents, grandparents, and other ancestors, and that of siblings, half-sibs, and progeny. Most breeders value not only information on a potential sire or dam of a litter, but information on ancestors. A dog that is ranked in the top third of PennHip’s database of their breed, or is rated excellent or good by OFA’s system might not be a great choice as a sire if he is the only dog in his litter to have a great rating. If his siblings are all in the lower half of PennHip or fair or borderline (or dysplastic) in OFA, I would probably look elsewhere. I can get that information from OFA’s website.
Something to note — PennHip still doesn’t have an open database. At some point, PennHip promises an open database, but will require owner approval to release information.
PennHip’s private database contains no information on elbow dysplasia, slipping patellas, thyroid and cardiac status, and many other inheritable conditions and diseases that are available on the OFA site ( http://www.OFFA.org )
I found this page on PennHip from the Visla Club of America — http://clubs.akc.org/vizsla/PennHip_Info_2008_0704.pdf
Through February, 2008, there were 390 Vislas in the PennHip closed database. Through February, 2008, OFA had 10,230.
There is no one magic test or organization that can give a breeder all of the information he needs to make a sound breeding decision. Breeders should look at the whole dog. Genetic tests, diagnostic tests, health histories of parents, grandparents, relatives. They will hopefully see a working dog work. They will constantly evaluate the pups they have produced, looking at conformation, working ability, temperament, and health status.
What I was suggesting is something like the rigorous testing that goes into registering German HPR’s. A German Weimaraner generally will have been bred for a more rigorous level of working ability than one bred in the US.
However, what I was hoping for is a kind of delayed registry system– like the JRTCA’s system.
I’m pretty sure that Old English Sheepdogs were more of a drover dog, working in a similar way as, say, a Bouvier, than actual herding dogs like collies.