I’ve played this game of dog blogging for several years now, and I can tell you that there are three ways to play the game:
The first is to be the milquetoast. Write nothing but blog posts in which controversial facts are not revealed. This game can only be played successfully if you have a compelling narrative about your dog or very good photos.
The second is to be a gamecock: fight everybody. You can get a lot of hits from drama, but it only works when you haven’t pissed everyone off. Once you do that, people won’t listen to you. And trust me, there are some bloggers who have learned the hard way about that one.
The third way is to pick your battles.
This is my strategy. There are some people I know who won’t listen to me, and honestly, they don’t care.
I get a lot of comments from trolls. If I feel that I might be enlightening to others by taking down the troll, I take down the troll.
I allow well over 90 percent of all comments to go through, but if I’ve decided that I’ve wasted enough time trying to argue with someone, I just delete the comments.
This is not a democracy. You can easily get your own blog for free and write about how awful I am.
Just don’t expect me to link to it!
I don’t think you can do this right by being a shock jock.
You can write screeds against the AKC all day long, but if your only solution is to get a border collie, a Jack Russell, or a pound dog– or a cat!– you’re wasting your time. The first two breeds are inappropriate for many homes, and not everyone wants a random-bred dog. Not everyone wants a dog that could have behavioral problems as a result of being rehomed several times, and many people do want a specific type of dog that might be next to impossible to get a shelter. (And I don’t want an effing cat!)
This is why if you’re doing nothing but AKC-bashing, you’re not solving any problems.
You’re just intellectually masturbating. Masturbation always gives you some pleasure, but it’s always a solitary process.
And you’re not going to solve this problem by attacking the AKC, which, in all honesty, is low-hanging fruit.
No, you really have to attack the full scale problems of caprice and vanity that have run amok in the domestic dog’s gene pools.
And if you’re only doing that to the AKC, you’re missing out on a whole lot.
You are exculpating the “working dog” people who celebrate inbreeding, even when it winds up failing in them in the long run.
You wind up exculpating the people who mass produce bird dogs, border collies, and hounds in terribly run-down kennels. We would call such people puppy millers if they were breeding small companion dogs, but because they are breeding “workers,” they get a pass.
You also wind up creating a major problem for a breed when you say its own place is doing its work. Ever see any turnspits? What about Belgian trekhonds?
With the US sheep industry on life support, who is to say that the same fate might befall the border collie? Within border collies, there is a near theological belief that they must be used as sheepdogs, but with no sheep to herd, what will they be?
They will become novelties, where people who own them buy them a few sheep for them to herd.
In effect they will become border collies on the border collie reservation.
That’s not a good long-term strategy for any breed of dog, but when these same people tell you that the way trial border collies have been preserved is the way to save all dogs, you know there’s something wrong here.
These people very rarely get called out on it, but when they do, their main retort is back to the get a cat or pound dog absurdities.
This is not a solution.
And never mind that it’s very easy to see the hypocrisy of people railing against inbreeding in AKC dogs, when they never say a word about popular sire issues in a wide variety of trial dogs.
This game cannot be played with the AKC being the cowboys with the black hats and the border collie and Jack Russell people being the white hats.
There are a lot of black and white hats on both sides, but most are actually gray hats.
And somewhere along the line we have to come up with workable solutions.
We can’t do that by constantly ranting against the same people over and over.
It’s satisfying to spin your wheels.
But it solves nothing.
I am for ending the closed registry system, but I’m not for ending selective breeding of dogs. I think people should be able to get the sort of dog they want, and if they want a particular type of dog, they shouldn’t be judged for it.
I am for creating sustainable gene pools in domestic dog populations. By sustainable, I mean ones where we have enough genetic diversity to control genetic disease. I don’t mean turning all of dogdom into a random-bred free-for-all.
And I am for changing breed standards so we produce physically healthy animals. We shouldn’t be producing a type of dog that is just physically unfit when it meets its breed standard. And here, I’m thinking of Clumber spaniels, Neapolitan mastiffs, and bulldogs. These dogs have physical deformities associated with meeting their standards, and it would be much more humane if we just changed the standards so these features were not selected for.
These are not radical steps, but they are almost impossible to implement.
One reason they are impossible to implement is because the reformers are often too strident to talk sense.
And in this way, they become the mirror image of the dog fancy.
And they are wasting their time.
No one is going to listen.
Love that fat blond puppy.
Find me a registry which is not closed. There is no substantial new blood in the “working” Border Collie or Jack Russell or English Shepherd registries. Nothing worth bragging about.
http://www.farmcollie.com/
The majority of the dogs registered seem to be English shepherds, but there are plenty of crosses and other breeds too. It’s a “new” registry, but it’s a start. If I had a farm (or even a yard) I’d want one of these dogs!
Three of the four English Shepherd registries are open. Each has different criteria for what and how previously unregistered dogs can be added to the genepool. ES are a rare breed compared to BCs or JRTs so a half dozen dogs a year added to a registry can make a difference. There’s also the fact that three of the registries for English Shepherds had an acrimonious split in the 50’s – some folks refused to acknowledge dogs from the other registries and others stopped registering their dogs altogether. This split supported quite a bit of diversity in the breed.
I wish there were a way of simply returning to land races
Yes, many breeds have turned into sick caricatures that exaggerate the features of their breed standard. But revising breed standards doesn’t fully do the job. A Labrador with a good dual coat is uncomfortable in the tropics. Double coat is great for water work in high latitudes. It’s a curse when it’s > 35C and humid.
Btw, the Continental KC isn’t closed…but I don’t think it’s a great solution.
This was a wonderful post. Sorry I don’t have anything more interesting to say.
I don’t know if the new FCI system is going to allow for a “non closed” system, but it is a possibility. KNPV is certainly “not closed” and the dogs they produce are essentially a landrace. the Australian Shepherd Club of America (ASCA) has had open and “hardship” registration on and off since inception (it’s currently off based on abuses, which is one of the issues with open registries).
It’s interesting that the dog registries pretty much went with the extreme restrictions whereas many livestock registries have “grade” provisions that can provide a means to keep a given gene pool in a breed from being overly restrictive. If I had to guess, I’d say the reasons for this is that the latter are designed for practical use whereas the former were more or less designed by those wealthy enough to make a “sport” out of it.
While I don’t think “designer dogs” are as much of a panacea as presented, their existence tends to put pressure on those who insist that no cross can be valid. The problem is that at the same time there is some movement to recognize that “new blood” can be essential to a breed’s health, one has many areas passing legislation to prohibit breeding of “unregistered dogs” or even dogs that aren’t registered with the specific “approved” lists.
Kennel clubs are easier targets then all the nameless breeders and individuals that can be a big part of the problem as well. With many breeds its possible to have a working quality and healthy dog that is AKC registered,I`ve seen it,it’s just that there’s many breeders for show and pet dogs that don’t care about those qualities.
Heavy inbreeding is a curse in show and working dogs as well,as you mentioned. I`ve seen a website of pet and working PIt Bulls with horribly inbred bloodlines,and they where proud of it.
Am Bullies where not created by some Kennel club either. Giant German Shepherds and Rottweilers are not part of the Kennel club,they are simply created for people that wanted impressive looking companion or watch dogs. These dogs are not bred for working or sporting purpose,or the temperament for it.
Dog sports on television has been replaced by cute puppy programming, Most people don’t care about athleticism in dogs anymore. Getting rid of dog shows is not going to be a cure all,far from it.
Also a breed shouldn’t be changed or gotten rid of because it may be uncomfortable in some situations,just have common sense like if you live in a place like Arizona don’t get a Alaskan Malamute. I don’t care if you even have the money to have air conditioning on all the time that dog will be miserable anytime it steps out of your house.
Great article btw.
Say what you will about cats, the cat registries are very open-minded when it comes to outcrossing. Several breeds allow crossing to the “landrace” to maintain genetic diversity and avoid too much inbreeding.
I’m not a fan of the species, but the cat fancy is not foolish in this area.
True… We have two Siamese in our Oriental Shorthair’s pedigree. Tho he’s more of a dog than a cat anyway. ;)
To my mind, one of the truly major flaws in the dog world today, is that there is really no place to go to learn, for someone sincerely interested in dogs (whether as hobby or as vocation).If one wishes to become a farmer, there are university level agricultural schools, or even just ag classes. Yes, there are some classes at veterinary schools, but they are not open to anyone other that prospective veterinarianns. And even vet schools don’t teach much about husbandry, practical breeding, or breedspecific traits.
Anyone with an intact female dog can set him/herself up as a “breeder”. Anyone who may have (or may not have!) trained one dog to a minor title can put out a shingle saying “Professional Dog Trainer”.
Where does the novice go, to learn about dogs? If he/she is lucky, will have an experienced and sensible mentor– but that’s rare. Some years ago, one of the colleges in Ontario had a course in basic dog structure and movement, headed by a knowledgeable dog person, but when she died, so did the program. Presently, it’s whatever the novice might glean from books, magazines, word of mouth, or. . .the vagaries of the Internet.
I think the reason there aren’t any University (or even junior college) level classes in “dog breeding 101″ is that so many view dog breeding as “hobby only”. So while you might have “quilting classes” as a recreation, you don’t have it in a university — the same applies for dog breeding. Most of the Ag classes that apply to livestock could apply to dog (or cat or whatever) breeding — understanding proper care and management, understanding genetics, how to track production, etc — but doing it for dogs would imply to many that it isn’t a “hobby”, but a business. As long as it is anathema to raise dogs “like livestock”, university level classes on such will be considered frivolous. It’s a catch-22. There actually have been classes in herding and sheep shearing– but it was part of the sheep raising program run at one of the CA ag schools. The primary instructor got in a “guest instructor” — who gave nothing to the students regarding proper selection or management of their herding dogs — the assumption was that you “had one” and the instruction was how to manage the sheep with the dogs.
Most people have kids without ever taking any kind of university level instruction on child care, management or even biology beyond high school — because pets are pretty much kept at the same level of emotional approach, you see the same approach for them — “anyone can do it” with minimal (if any) education on the subject.
To be fair, lots of livestock raisers don’t take ag studies either. But at least they can if they want to.
Peggy Richter
In Finland and Sweden, if you want to be registered with the SKK or FKC, first-time breeders need to take several courses on how to be a breeder. This is probably why they are more progressive than other kennel clubs of the world.
And those countries are known around the world for producing quality dogs in a majority of breeds, as well as knowledgeable judges.
Peggy, you’re quite right, unfortunately. But if one adds up all the various ways in which dogs contribute to the economics of this country — not just in breeding, but also in the aspects of feeding, training, grooming, boarding, competitive events with the accompanying travel costs, hotels, meals, etc and much more– it would seem quite logical to have a college level program for “Dogs as a Profession”
Breeding can be a hobby, sure. (But even “hobby breeders” can be completely serious about what they are doing.). However, with the ever expanding ways dogs are used as guides , service dogs, military, etc, intelligent breeding programs to produce dogs for these specific purposes is becoming essential. Seeing Eye and Guide Dogs for the Blind have very sophisticated breeding programs that have brought their success rate extremely high. Those principles and techniques should be Made known to dedicated breeders.
And by the way, I think mandatory parenting classes for jprospective parents would be a good thing!
Amen to open studbooks and amen to changing standards to produce more healthy dogs.
I concur that putting all the blame on the AKC or other kennel clubs is not hitting the main target of the problem.