A tricolored retrieving setter, perhaps very similar to the type Benjamin Franklin imported.
On Facebook, a friend of mine posted this bizarre rant from a purebred dog breeder:
“I DON”T call freedom a choice to do whatever!!!!!!… Don’t get confused….. Ben Franklin worked for freedom— but he worked at having a purebred Gordon setter brought from England and bred them.. to preserve something special. the Freedom was to have a choice to own a dog so let’s get this Freedom of Choice thing straight… where did you all go to school???? what happened to parents teaching their children the real meaning of this slogan??? .. not to breed mutts/designer dogs on a whim and to see how much money you might get …Dogs were bred for a purpose for a certain breed to have that characteristic…. Ben and all the rest of us spent millions of dollars to insure something true and honest…. how dare you or anyone else decide to take our Freedom of choice away from US..it is not ok to breed this way.. it shows lack of purpose, lack of loyalty.. lake of knowledge and lack of you wanting to spend money to support a breed to insure it’s Freedom to exist…. you might as well say we have the freedom to poop on the street…or anything else we choose to have the freedom we feel like doing…..”
Well, freedom to choose means the freedom to do whatever. I don’t know how you can twist the meaning of the words to mean to change the meaning to fit whatever totalitarian delusions that one might have. It’s like the people who tell you they are for freedom, but at the same time, they tell you that this country is based upon Christian values.
Those two things do not compute!
As I’ve noted before, the dogs are one of the many ersatz religions that no exists in this post-Christian culture in which we now live. I am fine with the decline of organized religion, but what has replaced it is not a culture of reason.
What has replaced it is many irrational, tribal cults which allow people with totalitarian impulses to act out their pathologies on others. It’s one reason I’m not a joiner. I love dogs, but I’m very dismayed and continually disappointed by dog people.
So in that crazy rant we have several claims. We have the hilariously irony-deficient claim to be a champion of freedom while telling others what to do, and we have a claim from history that could at best be called a delusion. And at its very worst, we would have to call it an utter misrepresentation of the history.
The claim is that founding father Benjamin Franklin imported a Gordon setter from England, and the implication is that he imported a closed registry setter that comes in only black and tan.
Of course, that type of dog didn’t exist when Ben Franklin was alive!
The Gordon setter, which should be called the Scottish setter, is actually derived from the old crouching setter of Britain, a dog that was the quintessential British fowling dog that would crouch before game birds hidden the brush or corn. A hawk would be flown over the birds to keep them from flying and a net would be thrown over the crouching dog and the hunkered birds.
This type of dog became very popular in British Isles during the early modern period, and it was also sent to the colonies in North America in droves. In America, we developed this setter dog into a sort of HPR, which we would use to point grouse, retrieve ducks from cold water, and track wounded deer.
In Britain, there were many, many different strains of setter, of which only a handful remain. The Dukes of Gordon did breed a type of setter in Scotland, but it is laughable to assume that this was a closed registry breed. All records of the setters of Gordon kennels I’ve read from that time period talk about the dogs being tricolored, black, white, and tanned like a Dobermann.
And it was well-known that the in the eighteenth century, the 4th Duke of Gordon was always breeding his stock to those of other nobles.
In his excellent Gundogs: Their Past, Their Performance and Their Prospects (2013), Col. David Hancock mentions that this fourth Duke of Gordon coveted the blood of Thomas Coke’s setters, and it was Coke’s setters that were the foundational stock for his particular strain. I have seen no evidence that Coke’s setters were anything other than the more typical predominantly white setters that were always common in England. (Coke’s estate was in Norfolk, nowhere near Scotland).
It is also well-known that Gordon setters have a bit of collie blood, which is always mentioned in all the historical texts of the breed, but no one seems to acknowledge what this means. It means that the Gordon setter as a working gun dog didn’t become a gun dog through being a closed registry breed.
It became a great gun dog through the continuous desire to innovate. This desire to experiment and innovate is what made British Empire the world’s leader in agricultural improvement.
As soon as closed registries were established, this ability to innovate and experiment was taken away.
And we all know that Benjamin Franklin was among the leading intellectuals of the world at the time. He was clearly a man of science and reason, and if he could read and understand the modern concepts of population genetics, he would be among the foremost opponents of this closed registry system.
He imported a British setter because they were great gun dogs. They became great gun dogs because the British were willing to innovate and experiment with bloodlines.
It is that freedom that should be celebrated and encouraged in the world of dogs, but unfortunately, it goes against all the totalitarian impulses that exist in the dog world that has since developed.
For the sake of the dogs, dog breeders should be reading up on the science and understanding the real history of their dogs.
They shouldn’t be wasting their time with pointless myths that are ultimately harmful to the animals they claim to love.
But that means that some grand poobah of yore was wrong somewhere and that modern breed mandarins might have to be humble and accept that they cannot control everything that goes on with their breed.
The first idea that must be trashed is that closed registries and blood purity for blood purity’s sake are ultimately good values. Unfortunately, that is the basic religious tenet of the modern dog fancy, and it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion with people who adhere to such poppycock.
It is this religious belief that is causing so much misery in the world of dogs– higher incidence of inherited diseases and winnowed away gene pools are not good things.
And it is also stymieing innovation.
We could be producing better working dogs for a variety of tasks if only it were acceptable to cross strains. Imagine West Siberian laikas that natural retrieve because of a golden retriever that was crossed in a few generations before. Imagine a cocker spaniel-sized Labrador that easily fits in a canoe that got its small size from a simple outcross to a small working spaniel.
It is this kind of freedom in the world of dogs that we should all be fighting for.
But unfortunately, too many “freedom lovers” in the world of dogs really don’t want it.
It crosses their fundamentalist beliefs, and they will having nothing of it.
But like all bullies, they ought to be put in their place. Totalitarians have no use fighting for freedom.
Freedom means freedom to do as one would like, and don’t be fooled by the demagogues who apparently can’t understand that simple fact.
Your statement,
“The first idea that must be trashed is that closed registries and blood purity for blood purity’s sake are ultimately good values. Unfortunately, that is the basic religious tenet of the modern dog fancy, and it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion with people who adhere to such poppycock.
It is this religious belief that is causing so much misery in the world of dogs– higher incidence of inherited diseases and winnowed away gene pools are not good things.”
must be taken as an absolute truth if any conversation on breeding healthy dogs is to be considered. I own some AKC dogs, but only use them (besides being my loved pets) for the desirable genes they may carry; I do not breed AKC registrable dog. The AKC means absolutely nothing to me, and all their rules and regulations and beliefs mean no more to me than the half coherent mumblings of some drunk in a bar. No one in the AKC knows anything about breeding healthy dogs, or if they do they keep it well hidden and mouth the AKC “genetic purity” and “closed registry” lines for whatever financial or social advantage it gives them.
I have always expressed full freedom of choice by totally ignoring any rules and regulations set by anyone seeking to control how I breed dogs, and have cross-bred dogs to my hearts content, all with the goal of breeding healthy and intelligent animals in mind, and never for championship points in a show ring. It has always brought me great satisfaction that in this land of well-trained AKC dogs (I live in the center of the Atlantic Waterfowl Flyway, and in the smaller Champlain Flyway in particular, so there are dozens of retriever breeders all around me), whenever a group of knowledgeable dog people get together and talk dogs (with the exception of the AKC show people of course) they always get around to pointing to the cross-bred animals I have produced as examples of healthy and intelligent animals.
Cross-breeding will be the salvation of the domestic dog.
This is one of the best posts from you I’ve seen in awhile and GO SCOTTIE!!!
Gordons are the one setter I’ve been curious about, probably because they seem to be the least popular of the three we see in AKC rings. All the setters seem prone to the same sort of exaggerated features today but the working line ones I see seem smaller and with shorter backs and necks, and I think I saw a pic of one once with some white. You NEVER see white on any of these ring Gordons.
I have nothing against purposeful, thoughtful, well-planned cross-breeding. Many excellent dogs/strains have been created that way. However, more commonly we see cross-breeding merely for convenience and quick sale of canine novelties, which is another matter entirely, and that is what worries people.
It should also be kept in mind, that it is the purebred rootstock that enables the cross-breeder to have a more reliable source of breeding stock with which to begin, and to backcross to if need be.
“However, more commonly we see cross-breeding merely for convenience and quick sale of canine novelties, which is another matter entirely, and that is what worries people.”
If one is going to blather on about freedom, then one must expect that people will have the ‘freedom’ to do things that one does not agree with. I could give a shit if this ‘worries’ people. There are now two cities in the US where it is illegal to breed dogs that are not registered by specific registries, and it is illegal to produce unregistered (crossbred) dogs. Every mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, adopted or proposed, that I have seen has provisions for keeping ‘purebred’ show animals intact. Not so for those impure dogs. If I lived in Los Angeles or El Paso, I would not even be able to import and breed COO Salukis, because they are not AKC registered. There’s some freedom for you. Exactly the kind of hypocritical ‘freedom’ the crazy woman who posted that on FB was talking about. IOW, I am free to do what I want, even if it’s destructive (closed registries ARE destructive), but not you, no, I don’t like that so you can’t do it, and I’ll lie my face off about why you can’t do it.
‘Purebred’ rootstock can be maintained in an open registry. The livestock people do this all the time.
Jess, you’re reading far more into my comment than what I actually said. Sure, people are free to breed whatever they please; but, having worked at a vet clinic for some 30 years, we see a lot of those so-called “designer dogs” with health and temperament problems due to careless selection of breeding atock. ( and yes, purebreds with problems as well, for the same reasons). Often people buy them simply because (a) puppies are so appealing (b) they’ve bought the sales pitch about “hybrid vigor”. However, it’s their decisions, both the breeders’ and the buyers’, and I would not propose to regulate that.
As for open registries, I’m all for them. Keep accurate records, with full disclosure, and people can make their own decisions as to what to buy, what to breed. Use an appendix registry, or whatever system works, as long as all is open and aboveboard. (A full database of health and genetic testing information could be useful as well, but that’s unlikely’)
When pups are produced which don’t have life inhibiting exaggerations and are not predisposed to disease or aggression then what more should anyone be entitled ask? If these criteria are well met then let’s all mind our own business. Answer this question – what are mainly the healthiest and longest lived dogs, the purebreds or the crossbreds/ mongrels?
Chervilmeadow, I agree completely with you on that score (producing healthy dogs with good temperament).
As to which is healthier, purebreds or non-purebreds, that is not a simple question. Some breeds are disasters, others are very good for health and longevity. Is it fair to lump all together? For that matter, should all non-purebred dogs be lumped together for statistical purposes?
“I love dogs, but I’m very dismayed and continually disappointed by dog people.”
Yessssss.
My planned litters page (with a cross planned) was posted to the Afghan hounds International group on FB, with the outraged comment that I wasn’t doing anything illegal. Of course the implication is that it (crossbreeding) should be illegal.
Be careful what you wish for.
*uproarious applause*
Really hilarious comment (in a smh kind of way) on a question where someone asked why dog breeders line breed:
As M________ T____ said, line breeding (and my favorite is uncle/niece or aunt/nephew) helps to make the genes in the line more obvious and more likely to be passed on. In other words, it helps to make dogs that are more and more pre-potent for the type or temperament or health or hopefully all three. This allows people to get a type that you recognize as coming from their kennel and it allows litters to all be more and more alike instead of having such varied characteristics. It strengthens the reasons we breed pure-bred dogs- allowing us to more exactly “know” what we will get in the next generations. It also does allow bad to show up. Those horrid multi-gene issues and the horrid recessive issues both of which can hide for 5 or 8 generations and then rear their ugly head again, can be brought to the surface much quicker and allow you to change direction. Also on those genes that are simple recessive dominant, it allows you to get rid of the bad gene easier. All of these things are allowed because you are working with a more similar set of genes and therefore fewer combinations and outcomes.
It is different in dogs than in humans because humans have fewer chromosomes (46) vs dogs who have 76 (or 78 I can not remember off hand). They naturally have more genetic diversity which allows for line breeding to be safer and more successful. This does not mean that we should ONLY line breed but if you want to solidify genes and try and actually find out what all genes are there and then only perpetuate the best, then line breeding needs to be a part of your breeding program. Also, IF you line breed, when you bring in an outcross (which should be done from time to time) it should come from someone who you can trust as well as someone who line breeds so that you have some idea what genes you are bringing in to your program. You do not want to bring in a bundle of complete unknown genes because you have just undone all you have gained with your line breeding. So you want to bring in as much “known” as possible but just different “knowns” than what you have.
Genetics are a wonderful and powerful tool but not the easiest to understand nor easy to “control”. But all good breeders should do everything in their power to understand them as much as possible. It is the only way to breed intelligently and with fore-thought and thus in the best interest of the breed. Even with the very best of fore-thought and planning bad things still happen but at least you did your very best to try and NOT have bad stuff AND you may actually be able to figure out how the bad occurred and get rid of it before it is ingrained in your dogs.
Love genetics!!! Sorry so long
Apparently dogs are “naturally more genetically diverse” so inbreeding is okay. I learn so much about science from people who can’t science.
Actually, within the breeds, they aren’t more genetically diverse.
It is true that we, as a species, are actually pretty inbred. At one time, we were thought to be the most inbred of the great apes, but it now turns out that bonobos are even more so.
OMG. O. M. G. I have blood dribbling out of my ears, my brain just melted.
What the hell is a ‘simple recessive dominant?’
‘This allows people to get a type that you recognize as coming from their kennel and it allows litters to all be more and more alike instead of having such varied characteristics.’
Because what we really want is a bunch of clone dogs. That’s something important to strive for.
I’m not even going to touch the rest of it.
I knew you would just love that. I hope it didn’t give you an aneurysm. I had to laugh to keep from screaming. She may “love genetics”, but she doesn’t appear to have a very solid grasp of them.
Reminds me of that twit I’ve crossed words with in Xolos who swears up and down that they ‘reverse the laws of genetics’ because she can’t wrap her head around incomplete dominance probability (i.e., litters aren’t always 50/50 hairless coated like the Punnett square says they should, therefore it CANT APPLY TO THESE MAGICAL ANIMALS).
Every time I think I have become cynical about the intelligence of my fellow human beings, I read stuff like this & discover I have actually been very charitable & optimistic.
There is a Saluki breeder who believes the same thing about smooths. Can’t be a dominant gene because you don’t get exaclty fifty percent of the litter being smooths. Explaining that EACH PUPPY has a 50% chance of being smooth, NOT the entire litter, means nothing. People will believe what they want to believe.
I used to be charitable about people, too, but the internet made me realize that Sturgeons Revelation applies to people as well. 90% of people just don’t think.
I’m beginning to believe it’s because they CAN’T think. 8-/
Also, OMG, the smooth coat gene is dominant over the long coat gene in every breed because it’s the SAME FARKING GENE. But of course these people seem to think “breed” is the same thing as “species”.
Gene is not the same as allele LOL.
Try explaining a dominant with incomplete penetrance.
Looks like a Munsterlander to me.
LOL.
I have a draft post out called “Americans invented the HPR”– we used our setters just as the Germans would later develop their gun dogs into multipurpose hunting dogs.
BTW, its actually suggested that the Large Munsterlander resulted from a Gordon setter being crossed into Langhaars. I’m skeptical, but it is possible.
Does Hancock’s book include Tollers?
Yes.
“Red decoy dogs.”