As long-time readers of this blog know, I think we need a new dog fancy.
By “fancy,” I simply mean the cultural institution that sets the mores and values for breeding dogs. The initial fancy was developed in the period from 1860 to about 1885 under the premise of improving strains of domestic dog. This was the time of Victorian science, which had inherited a legacy of the scientific breeding that traced back the eighteenth century agriculturalist Robert Bakewell.
This was also a time when zoology consisted of Europeans with some scientific training going to the far corners of the world in search of new beasts. If someone saw a bear with somewhat off coloration, that person usually declared it a new species. This was the age of taxonomic splitting to the extreme.
And it was applied to dogs in ways that we would later come to regret. In those days, it was common to apply those taxonomic splitting principles to dogs. Even if you could get several breeds in the same litter, it was generally accepted that one would register each puppy according to its phenotype. Perhaps the most extreme example is the Bedlington terrier and Dandie Dinmont terrier problem. At one time, one could get either breed in the same litter. If it had dwarfism, it was a Dandie. If it had legs, it was a Bedlington. At some point, the Bedlington terrier’s coat was altered through cross-breeding with a poodle, and it became much less likely to have strains in which Dandies and Bedlingtons would pop up in the same litter. In Northumberland and the Scottish borders, there were drop-eared terriers that produced long-legged and short-legged varieties, but the dog fancy decided to split them up.
And now they are quite different dogs.
Fights in breeds about the true type also led to breed splits.
Yes. It was politics. The golden retriever was split from the flat-coat for two reasons: 1. It was believed to be of Russian and not British origin and 2. the yellow dogs weren’t winning prizes at shows.
The last breed split I’ve seen that resulted from a dispute over phenotype was the division of the Norfolk and Norwich terriers. At one time, there was a breed drawn from the little terriers of East Anglia that was called a Norwich terrier. There were two varieties: one with prick ears and one with folded drop ears. If you have both ears in a breed, it’s actually pretty hard to breed for consistent ear carriage– just ask the people who breed phalenes to papillons in the US–so they decided to split the Norwich terrier into two breeds in 1960.
Splitting up types and refining them were the main activities of the dog fancy. They didn’t have a good grasp on the science of population genetics at all.
These were social climbing people who wanted to innovate and create. In some ways, their hearts were in the right place.
But they were still stuck in the limitations of the Zeitgeist.
We now know that splitting up dogs into often contrived esoteric forms called breeds and then shutting off all those breeds from almost all infusions of new blood are actions that are not going to lead to improved health or welfare. We also know that if rigorous selection is performed within those breeds, we are doing nothing more than making the march to misery move at double-quick.
The dog fancy that we have right now isn’t really that far removed from the Victorian days.
It has generally been impervious to new scientific findings that have directly challenged axioms about blood purity and rigorous selection within a closed population.
It has also been impervious to suggestions that breeding for certain phenotypes are directly responsible for creating health problems. The extreme brachycephaly of pugs and the sloping hyena backs of German shepherd dogs can be demonstrated to cause very real maladies, but these criticisms are ignored.
One intellectually lazy argument is to attack anyone who points out these facts about extreme conformation as an animal rights activist. I know the full mantra– “You’re one of those PETA types who wants to end dog ownership!”
Not at all.
When one points out the absurdity of blood purity in this day and age, the other intellectually lazy argument is to say that one wants to end purebred dogs or selective breeding.
I rather enjoy it when people who don’t wish to debate the issues simply put words in your mouth and intentions in your head that you simply wouldn’t consider in the first place.
No. I actually want to encourage selective breeding, but I want to give breeders more tools and more freedom to correct genetic problems and to innovate. Innovation is the key. People need freedom to think and to experiment.
The problem with the dog fancy is that skills and knowledge were passed on like apprenticeships. A new breeder would hook up with an older established one, and the established one would give out all the advice. That established breeder likely got his or her ideas from earlier one, who in turn got it from an earlier one. In the end, it may be that this wisdom all gets traced to someone who lived either in a time when we simply didn’t know or someone who was trying to peddle a pet theory about how to breed dogs (see Brackett’s formula for a good example of that one).
That’s not a culture of innovation. That’s a culture of tradition– often the culture of tradition for tradition’s sake.
In order to create a dog fancy of innovation we need a new paradigm, and I think this new paradigm needs to be based upon two principles
- Science
- Empathy
The first principle is oddly lacking in so much of the modern dog fancy. People use scientific findings. If there is a new genetic test for a disease or a recessive coat type they don’t want, they are excited to use it.
But when science questions the validity of long-standing traditions and ideas passed on from established people to their apprentices, that is when things get ugly.
There is very little critical thought, and critical thinking is key to having science as a main principle.
It can be acceptable for someone to say that if you don’t trim the fur on Keeshond’s feet, its pasterns will become weaker. (Someone did actually say this!)
If the dog fancy were more science-based as a founding principle, people would not be able to get away with pronouncements that are either not provable or are demonstrably false.
I don’t see why it’s such a scary notion, but a lot of people get nervous when you start talking like this. That’s because you may discover that some long-held shibboleth is nothing more than bullcrap.
Empathy is the other principle that is sorely lacking in the world of dogs.
I don’t know how someone can claim to love a dog and be satisfied with its constant discomfort.
But that’s exactly what you see when people breed extremely brachycephalic pugs that cannot cool themselves efficiently or breathe properly.
As soon as you start down this path, the accusations of confederacy with Ingrid Newkirk come out, and the breeders almost always say “It’s in the standard.”
And this is where the two principles come together. Breed standards are like scripture. They are written by fallible human beings.
They are also interpreted by fallible human beings, and they are misused by even more fallible ones.
At some point, your empathy for the dog has to bring to a critical analysis of the standard and the institutions that claim to be acting in its best interest.
It is at this level that the modern dog fancy has let the domestic dog down.
We can change it, but we have to be acting with the right principles.
Otherwise, we’ll fall into the trap that goes “All we have to do is have working trials replace dog shows and things will turn out fine,” which is followed by the even more absurd variant that goes “All we have to do is make sure our champion dogs pass a working test before they become full champions.”
Both of those statements are acting in the old paradigm.
They simply will not change things enough to make a real difference.
The new dog fancy cannot be the based on the old. It must be based upon principles that are worthy of the dogs themselves.
I sure am glad Mals weren’t made too fancy! I hope other pup breeds can be bred to be a healthier fancy! Wooooowoooooo, Ku
This pretty much sums up my opinion on the subject. Also, ha ha on the Keeshond example!
The problem is that most of these people are pretty thick. They can`t even spell “science”.
I was part of the group that saw to a standard being created for the Powderpuff, mainly to stop the universal practice of killing them at birth as “throwbacks”. I was the mug who tried to explain the inheritance of hairlessness to them. It was like beating my head against a wall. I wrote articles, I drew diagrams – but they couldn`t or wouldn`t understand it. Either they dismissed it as “science nonsense”, or were confident that as experienced dog breeders they knew better.
Of course once there was a standard for Powderpuffs and they started winning prizes, the custom of flushing them newborn down the toilet stopped. Hardly empathy, was it?
I think the best bet in the UK is heavy pressure on the KC to rewrite standards. Here exhibitors have nowhere else to go. If they want to go on winning, they would have to toe the line.
Elizabeth
Magical thinking (aka religious thinking) will exist as long a H. sap exists. You can step through the evidenciary process as many times as you like but if the person you’re trying to reach is enamored of a doctrine–no matter-what it is–it won’t change their minds. That’s because they’re not thinking, they’re feeling. The cognitive functions are willfully disengaged in favor of some magical, feel-good dream reality.
As I see it, in the face of this phenomenon you have three main alternatives: 1) legislation–which is usually ineffective (i.e., Prohibition, War on Drugs); 2) establishment of a competing model (i.e., you just start your own version of the AKC based on sound scientific principles, and hope that it prevails); or acculturation ala the the Anti-smoking campaign. This last is a progressive and evolutionary process. It takes time but is more flexible and less in-your-face than legislation, while ensuring that your new model eventually becomes the cultural standard vice a counter-culture. In my estimation, its also the option most likely to succeed.
I think the paradigm shift is occurring, I really do. Maybe I am a hopeless idealist, but it seems to me that more & more people are realizing the folly of the current model.
If that’s so Anna, when does it transfer to the AKC judge’s bench?
No idea, I don’t have any AKC registered dogs. The AKC has a much smaller influence than it would like to believe.
Agreed!
I would add that something that is sorely needed is a widely available means/source of good information on the subject (I hesitate to use that overworked term “education”, but that’s what it is) for anyone contemplating “getting into” dogs. Many and various means are possible, , everything from adult ed classes, all the way up to and including college-level classes for veterinary students, for breeders and judges, for trainers and behaviorists.
Livestock farmers often start very early with 4-H and FFA, then go on to agricultural schools. They have classes on breeding, genetics, judging, and much more.. But nothing of the sort is available to those who wish to “major” in dogs. Even veterinary schools very seldom teach anything about dog behavior, genetics, structural variations, breed characteristics, etc. Yet, certainly dog are of economic importance– and far more.
A good start would be to cruise the archived articles on this Blog, as well as on Jess’s Blog.
I am new to the world of dogs and (relatively) new to your site – but how similar it seems to (uneducated) me are the “debates” re:problems with the traditional dog fancy/iers and the schism(s) in the dog training world. I know that a little learning is a dangerous thing but I don’t think it takes an expert to recognize established interests clinging to harmful, outdated ideas……science and empathy should trump all in dog training as well. I read this quote by A.A. Milne for the first time this morning: Some people talk to animals. Not many listen though. That’s the problem.
I have always wondered why no one has actually even seriously attempted to try a competing model. Generally speaking, those who have the “better mousetrap” tend to outcompete their rivals. It is valid to point out that many in the “fancy” don’t have a good grasp of science — but unfortunately, they pretty much reflect modern society– MOST people don’t have a good grasp of science. For that matter, a good percentage of the population of the US can graduate from high school and be unable to read beyond a 5th grade level. I think that most of those who read this blog would agree that the “von Stephanitz” GSD is superior health wise to the most extreme hock angulated or banna backed dogs of the same name. But there are military working GSDs and Service (guide dogs, etc) GSDs that are every bit as good as those of Von Stepnanitz’ time, and perhaps better, since there ARE tools for health verification that didn’t exist pre 1900.
I’d love to see those that truly loved the bulldogs organize — because one does see “olde English bulldogges”, American bulldogs and a dozen other variations on the theme that do appear sounder regarding the muzzle and physical structure. But each of these seems to fragment into small competing groups (Alpha bluebloods, etc) rather than to work together, and none seem to be able to be as desired by the public as the “show” bulldogs.
The public needs to be educated as well. There’s no point in telling “John Q” that an English Bulldog isn’t a healthy animal if somehow John Q never thinks of an Olde English Bulldogge or American Bulldog as an alternative. Or, for that matter, John Q is not shown those breeders of English Bulldogs who ARE breeding for better animals. The interest in “designer dogs” shows that some in the public are aware of health issues, but most just assume that a cross automatically fixes everything, which it doesn’t.
There has been at least one attempt. The Master Dog Breeders Association in Australia. See:
http://www.mdba.net.au/
An excellent article and one I agree with totally. One form of a new dog fancy might be to follow the example set by show chicken breeders. I raise several varieties of fancy bantams that are fit for amusement only. Oh, they lay a reasonable amount of small eggs, and can be eaten if necessary, but their primary “purpose” in life is to be a form of amusement for people. And this leads to competition to see who can raise the birds that most closely conform to a written standard. This is much like the AKC and UKC dog fancy, except that if I find something lacking in one of my breeds of chicken, I am free to introduce another breed into my show line, and as long as my resulting chickens meet the standard they can be shown in a poultry show as a “pure bred” chicken. No one cares what the actual ancestry of a bird is; the bird is judged only on how closely it comes to the written standard. If dog breeders would do this, and change the standards for dogs with physical traits that are detrimental to an individual animals health (like the short pug muzzle), then a “dog fancy” can exists, and still breed healthier dogs.
As I’ve previously mention on this forum, I cross Irish wolfhounds and Alaskan malamutes in the hopes of creating a wolfhound-type of dog with an expected life-span longer than what is accepted in the breed, and a generally healthier constitution. I love Irish wolfhounds, but as with all giant breeds, show breeders care more for championships than breeding dogs that can live a long, healthy life. The fallacy that giant dogs must die young is something show breeders have made up to explain why so many of their dogs die so much younger than the average dog. Genetic diversity is the basis of health in all complex organisms, and by crossing wolfhound and malamute; I am introducing genes that probably haven’t been in the same animal for thousands of years. And the funny thing is, I have produce dogs that are ¾ Irish wolfhound, ¼ Alaskan malamute that could pass as good pure Irish wolfhounds even to the trained eye of a wolfhound breeder. I’m sure that if I had bogus “papers” for these mixed breed dogs I could enter them in an Irish wolfhound show and no one would blink an eye; some might even win a championship. I believe this is the kind of breeding program a new dog fancy must allow.
DAC, I ‘m fairly sure that you didn’t mean to imply that “bogus papers” should become customary, but rather that carefully considered out crosses should be allowed– and properly recorded, so that accurate information would be available. That way, if another desired to use dogs of that lineage, they would know what they were working with. And could then choose to use, or not.
As with all breeding, whether cattle, chickens, horses, or whatever, a true record of parentage is essential for the knowledgeable breeder (and buyer, in many cases), particularly as we have more and more tools such as DNA testing to help in selection.
Of course I never meant to suggest “bogus papers” should ever be used. I was just pointing out that if one of my 3/4 Irish wolfhounds were to be entered in a wolfhound show (something that could never happen unless the dog was entered with bogus papers), no one would ever realize it was a mix-breed. And yes, careful record keeping is essential in all animal breeding endeavors.
Excellent article describing perfectly the situation (the diagnosis). Agree we need a new fancy. But still missing the HOW.
Science and Empathy are starting ideas, but we need to work on the DESIGN of this.
I only see a problem, dog people and fanciers aren´t interested in science in general (nor science people -or people with some intellect- in the SPORT of dogs-).
I mean, lots of people love dogs, but usually the people who finally wants to get involved into the “sport/s”, or just to breed dogs; is usually people with some kind of need: affective needs, or just a frustrated need to transcend in life.
It is not really about giving something back to the dogs, to the “breeds” or the sport/s (whatever they can be) but to express a personal and own desire of some kind of recognition they cannot find in their lives. Therefore the “sport” ends attracting these people as their majority…
And don´t get me wrong, I mean in general, there are exemptions -like the people like we that agree with this article-, but we are minority.
The thing is to start thinking in a new sport, new points of view attractive enough to attract a different kind of fancier.
I meant exception (autocorrect)….
I actually agree with this but I do not agree with the idea that we should somehow eliminate certain breeds like pugs because of extreme traits. Maybe that was not your intention, but it does start to come off that way. I’m not sure even modifying the brachycephalic muzzle to be less flat would help all that much with their health issues.
But I generally agree that narrow gene selection and lack of any true crossbreeding is detrimental in the long term to dog health. People seek to correct certain traits in their dogs but they can’t find the traits they need in their gene pools…this is merely shuffling around a limited amount of genes and hoping that something that isn’t there will pop up. I don’t really understand this line of thinking but it is deeply engrained in the dog fancy, and I wish dogs operated more like livestock where crossbreeding was not unheard of, as another commenter showed with her chicken example.
In my own breed, the Field Spaniel, the gene pool is extremely tiny. They all but went extinct in the 1940s/1950s and while a few crosses to Springer Spaniels and Cockers were done, I believe more could be done, especially to British type Springers which are far different than our American show ones and resemble an older type of land spaniel which the Field is supposed to represent. Another consideration for crossbreeding would be to working spaniels in England, or what would be considered “native stock,” that resemble the type of dog we saw in older paintings or images of the old type land spaniel that the modern Field hearkens back to. Of course such breedings would have to be done carefully for fear of bringing in unknown health issues, and this is the biggest complaint I hear from breeders when the idea of crossbreeding is discussed. But I think the infusion of new blood could potentially help reintroduce a type of Field that is truer to the original breed than we currently have, which was created out of a severe bottleneck. We could possibly also better correct some structural issues like poor fronts/shoulders, but also regain old type traits such as diversity in color, better coat, and size. While the current breed is overwhelmingly liver, the true old type land spaniel would have consisted primarily of black and also include roan. Our breed does include both colors but in such small numbers and in lower quality than they should be. Of course color is not that important but it’s just one example of a trait that could be improved upon.
What is funny is that when the breed was reintroduced to North America in the 1960s, one of the foundation dogs was a dog rescued from a Canadian shelter, a black spaniel that fit the type that the breeder, Mr. Squier, had in mind. This dog became very important to re-establishing the breed, and was crossed to some of the few remaining purebred Fields imported from England, yet now such an act would be scoffed at!
I would never act on these ideas to crossbreed without the blessing of the breed club as I don’t wish to incur their wrath (some might look down on this but I feel like if I acted without their consent it would do nothing to change the fancy). Nor do I have the resources to take on such a breeding program. But I wish crossbreeding was considered more often by breeders. It does not have to be done in large amounts to have a significant effect. I believe the Fanconi problem in basenjis was reversed after just a generation or two of using imported African dogs in limited amounts. I take heart some breeds have opened their studbooks to allow the use of native stock or even crossbreeding, such as the aforementioned Basenji, but also in the Lhasa Apso, Tibetan Mastiff, Dalmatian, and Bearded Collie (that I know of). The Bearded Collie is a great example, especially, because like my breed, it came from a foundation of just a few dogs in the UK after nearly going extinct, and they reopened the studbook briefly to working collies that resembled the older type in Scotland and England. It has since closed and I don’t know how long it was even open, but I wish more of this practice went on.
Oddly enough the Bearded Collie and Field Spaniel, while both having very small gene pools, suffer from relatively few health problems and are on average rather long lived, both living well into teens, 14-16 years of age. This may just be the luck of the draw, but I still think crossbreeding in limited amounts could be beneficial to most breeds, especially with helping to correct traits that the breed currently does not possess or possesses in such small amounts that hoping to correct it from within seems impossible.
I never say any breed should go extinct. There is another blog on this topic that often does…
I feel standards need to represent what the original phenotype or true working dog. Even dogs that had no purpose like Pugs could be represented by how the dogs of the past looked. As well as allowing different colors and ear carriages. I know many standards where originally like that.
For example Rottweilers where going extinct once they lost their job, until picked up by a couple breed clubs. Originally the standards called for smaller dogs with long muzzles,and allowed different colorations. Why do standards always seem to change? I know people interpretate things like having a short muzzle to having no muzzle,but then not allowing different colors is another thing.
Franky I think not many people care about function,athleticism and are too dull to think that a heavy built dog would have more health issues then a lighter one. Or they don’t plan to actually spend enough time with their dog to care either. What looks good or makes cute puppies is what matters. And if you no longer have a dog(like me) who looks like the new norm you will get called out on it,you will get people thinking its not even a purebred. So people end up getting pressured into getting the more impressive dog,they want to fit in.
I`m also worried if standards and working purpose disappear then people will breed even worse dogs. That’s why Staffordshire terriers have it much better off then Am Bullies.
Pets DO have a purpose. They enrich the lives of people: provide tactile stimulation for people who get too little touching, allow play and nonsense for people whose lives have gotten too serious, show unconditional love to people who don’t get enough affection, get people to take daily walks instead of sitting on their bums, and fill in our lives in hundreds of other ways.
One of the things that bothers me most about ‘the Fancy’ is its contempt for companion animals. If you want to see someone look down their nose, try telling a show type or a working dog type that you are thinking of breeding your bitch because she’s proven to be a great family dog. Or take your much beloved entire dog to a breeder and inquire if there’s any possibility of organizing a litter to carry on the bloodline of a dog who has contributed enormously to your family.
I didn’t state that very well.
The opening sentence should have said something like: “we need to recognize both official and unwritten breed functions. In many cases, the unwritten function may be more important in the modern world.”
I meant a working or sporting purpose,a purpose that function should alwayss come before fashion. It also depends on the pet owner,and if they just want a cute purse dog/status dog/lawn ornament or a dog they can train,hike with,play fetch and the like.
A non working/sporting breed should still be bred for a conformation at least similar to a working one,yet with a easier temperament. I have also the issue that even pet bred versions of working dogs should still be athletic and with medium drive. I shouldn’t have to feel like I need to choose between high drive and no drive.
My dogs have been companion animals,I love well bred companion animals.
Their is always going to be snobs in the dog world,some of the worst I’ve meet where at agility competitions.
People are also so worried about pet over-population that some don’t want you to breed at all,so even non show or working people will harass you if your dog is not proven in some way and plan to breed.
Jen, I think you stated that quite nicely, thanks.