Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. . .Other than looks and appreciation for the breed, what would one use that dog for today in modern society? Again, it will depend on the fanciers; whose numbers are dwindling and are becoming extinct themselves, to determine whether or not these breeds stay around.
I think very highly of breeders, by and large. They love dogs, and do the best they know how to breed healthy pups. And I no longer am an avid fan of the rescue world, as that has gone well beyond the issue of finding homes for dogs who don't have homes. Of course, most of the posters here today also know I tell people to adopt as quickly as I'll tell them to find a breeder.
I think the vitriol spoken of is the faddishness of the adopt-a-dog crowd. The PR engines for the adopt crowd have done such a good job over the past 40 years, and people pick up on the theme without thinking about it deeply (as people tend to do). Some natural competitiveness and "us vs them" attitudes have come with that territory.
However, I am against the concept of "purebred", and, in particular, how the UK's KC (The Kennel Club) and the American AKC have defined the modern version of the dog. For some background, you can start with this: https://aeon.co/ideas/dog-breeds-are-mere-victorian-confections-neither-pure-nor-ancient .
The problem is twofold in practice. First, for the kennel club dog fanciers, the defining characteristic of a dog's breed is looks. Second, they insist on closing the studbook, for "purity" (limiting the breeding population). I've been told the KC has moved away from that position slightly, but the AKC has not. The whole dog fancy thing got its start in Great Britain (KC), anyway.
And regarding dogs as breeds came out of the successes of scientific selective breeding (1700's, see Roger Bakewell) and Darwin's work.
Prior to that dogs were selected for function. Some dogs would have been of a type - a landrace. The thing I don't like about the priceonomics article is where it swallows the breed idea whole. Like here:
Quote:
Meet the Skye terrier. Named after the Scottish Isle of Skye, he’s one of the oldest terriers in the world -- with a lineage tracing back to the Middle Ages. . .
Well, yeah, but ALL dogs have a lineage tracing back to the Middle Ages. Any terriers on Skye prior to the 1800's would have been bred to ANY OTHER terrier who did a good job at whatever the human wanted done. IF the breeding was even planned. To be fair, the priceonomics article DOES go on to cover that very fact. But it sets things off, AFAIC, on the wrong foot. So many people want to believe their dog is a breed that is ancient, and pure. And that does our dogs a disservice.
If everyone who bred their dogs to maintain a breed, did so on scientific and rational principles (assuming a closed studbook, and a breeding population of 3,000 or so) then a breed could be maintained in a healthy fashion. The problem is, it is HUMANS who are managing the breeding choices, and so it is doomed to failure. People breed for appearance first (for almost every breed). And breeding for appearance, some people are going to continue to breed for that "oh-so-CUTE" trait, regardless of how healthy that leaves the gene pool. Also, breeding for appearance eventually REDUCES the number of genes available, and increases the likelihood that bad and unhealthy gene combinations will show up.
Cattle breeders manage to scientifically breed cattle breeds, and maintain them. But they also do exactly what dog breeders fail to do - use cross-breeds, outcrosses, and line-crosses as necessary for function.
However, that desire to keep a breed pure is what will ultimately doom it.
I'm not in favor of doing away with breeds altogether, but I would be in favor of a more open attitude of "if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it must be a duck". As the priceonomics article points out, though, there isn't any call for many of the services and duties once performed by dogs. Nobody does droving anymore, for instance. Butchers don't have carts to pull, and don't need protection from strangers on the road. Dogs aren't used for hunting - or only rarely. Etc. Which makes the whole issue more complicated. How can you know if a dog is good at a function if there isn't any function to do?
I have Australian Shepherds. The breed has more or less divided into show Aussies or working Aussies. I think probably fewer and fewer livestock owners are using dogs to herd their animals, so I don't know the future of working lines. After my first Aussie, from basically a backyard breeder, got hemangiosarcoma and died suddenly at 9, I researched more and decided to get working line Aussies only because they were said to have fewer health problems. I had also taken herding classes with the one who died, who had no aptitude for it. I asked a lot of questions about known genetic problems and chose a breeder who was not known to produce them. I have two great, seemingly healthy, dogs, but both developed seizures, a known Aussie trait, although usually not so much in working line dogs. Too much inbreeding can really reinforce problematic genetic traits. So do you preserve the breed but risk reinforcing bad traits? How do you "clean up" the breed without outcrossing, once the gene pool gets too small?
I have Australian Shepherds. The breed has more or less divided into show Aussies or working Aussies. I think probably fewer and fewer livestock owners are using dogs to herd their animals, so I don't know the future of working lines. After my first Aussie, from basically a backyard breeder, got hemangiosarcoma and died suddenly at 9, I researched more and decided to get working line Aussies only because they were said to have fewer health problems. I had also taken herding classes with the one who died, who had no aptitude for it. I asked a lot of questions about known genetic problems and chose a breeder who was not known to produce them. I have two great, seemingly healthy, dogs, but both developed seizures, a known Aussie trait, although usually not so much in working line dogs. Too much inbreeding can really reinforce problematic genetic traits. So do you preserve the breed but risk reinforcing bad traits? How do you "clean up" the breed without outcrossing, once the gene pool gets too small?
Years ago when I was looking for a 2nd dog to live with Jazz and I had decided to get an Aussie and seizures were a BIG issue in many lines but I found a breeder that did not seem to have that issue and was considering one of her pups but decided top go check out the local human society and that is where I found Dash who was a year old and I was told he was a border collie X springer spaniel. This tail had been cropped so many people thought he was an Aussie. I ended up with a great 2nd dog and did not have to worry about seizures, I was hoping they had become less of an issue by now in the breed but know several people with Aussie seizure issues as well as a few with recently lost an Aussie to hemangiosarcoma
It is so sad to see these health issues in such a nice breed so I can only hope the breeders are trying to eliminate them.
I have Australian Shepherds. The breed has more or less divided into show Aussies or working Aussies. I think probably fewer and fewer livestock owners are using dogs to herd their animals, so I don't know the future of working lines. After my first Aussie, from basically a backyard breeder, got hemangiosarcoma and died suddenly at 9, I researched more and decided to get working line Aussies only because they were said to have fewer health problems. I had also taken herding classes with the one who died, who had no aptitude for it. I asked a lot of questions about known genetic problems and chose a breeder who was not known to produce them. I have two great, seemingly healthy, dogs, but both developed seizures, a known Aussie trait, although usually not so much in working line dogs. Too much inbreeding can really reinforce problematic genetic traits. So do you preserve the breed but risk reinforcing bad traits? How do you "clean up" the breed without outcrossing, once the gene pool gets too small?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashdog
Years ago when I was looking for a 2nd dog to live with Jazz and I had decided to get an Aussie and seizures were a BIG issue in many lines but I found a breeder that did not seem to have that issue and was considering one of her pups but decided top go check out the local human society and that is where I found Dash who was a year old and I was told he was a border collie X springer spaniel. This tail had been cropped so many people thought he was an Aussie. I ended up with a great 2nd dog and did not have to worry about seizures, I was hoping they had become less of an issue by now in the breed but know several people with Aussie seizure issues as well as a few with recently lost an Aussie to hemangiosarcoma
It is so sad to see these health issues in such a nice breed so I can only hope the breeders are trying to eliminate them.
I can't imagine that breeders AREN'T trying to eliminate the problems. However, I don't think you CAN breed problems out. Because every time you try to cut some trait out, you are reducing the number of gene combinations available - IN A CLOSED BREEDING POPULATION.
I have come to the conclusion that outcrossing occasionally is the ONLY rational solution. It is my opinion that FUNCTION must come first. So, if you have a BC who acts like an Aussie - breed it to an Aussie, and vice versa. And forget the "pure" thing, because "pure" is based on Victorian era thinking about genetics. Back then people thought that they were more "pure" because they were born to high-falutin' families. Or for other qualities. In people, we've mostly left those attitudes by the wayside. Mostly. They still crop up. But we never gave dogs the same consideration.
But, please, get your library to find a copy of the Sponenberg book. Read it, and come back here and tell me if you reach a different conclusion. Sponenberg himself, btw, is, I think, pretty much anti-outcrossing, but the book is well done, and rationally done.
BTW, BC's are having the same issues - show lines vs working lines. The AKC decided to recognize BC, oh, in the 90's? Donald McCaig wrote a book about it: The Dog Wars. Good book. SINCE the AKC recognition, a very visible difference has become visible between AKC show dogs and working dogs.
This is a very controversial topic, with many (I am NOT saying "most") dog people blaming McCaig for the changes in BC. I don't know how one can logically get to that conclusion, but people do.
We’ve owned three Springers: from a backyard breeder, a rescue, and a show dog line. The three dogs have had basic similarities that we like in a dog. We knew what to expect and that shot us to the top of the rescue organization’s list with our second dog. All breeds have their idiosyncrasies and if someone understands them, chances of a successful adoption are increased.
We had cocker spaniels before the springer’s and there are similarities, but we prefer the springer’s lower pitched bark, temperament and size. Interestingly, years ago, the Springer and cocker were once the same dog, until the ones that could spring game out and the smaller ones better at hunting woodcocks were bred apart to become two separate breeds years later.
Now springers are split into two distinct lines: show or field. Besides physical differences, the field type need more activity while the show dogs can be content with a lesser degree of activity. I love both types, but our lifestyle at 65 is better suited to the show type. Show dogs do have more health problems though, since they are bred from a smaller pool. I agree outcrossing should be done to open the show dog’s gene pools up for healthier dogs, or any line of purebred dogs with heath problems due to breeding programs.
We’ve owned three Springers: from a backyard breeder, a rescue, and a show dog line. The three dogs have had basic similarities that we like in a dog. We knew what to expect and that shot us to the top of the rescue organization’s list with our second dog. All breeds have their idiosyncrasies and if someone understands them, chances of a successful adoption are increased.
We had cocker spaniels before the springer’s and we prefer the springer’s lower pitched bark, temperament and size. Interestingly the Springer and cocker were once the same dog, until the ones that could spring game out and the smaller ones better for woodcocks were bred apart years ago to become two separate breeds years later.
Now springers are bred for show or field with distinct differences. Besides physical differences, the field type need more activity while the show dogs are alright with a lesser degree of activity. I love both types, but our lifestyle at 65 is better suited to the show type. Show dogs do have more health problems since they are bred from a smaller pool. I agree outcrossing should be done to open the gene pools up for healthier dog.
Given that most dogs today are pets, and don't work, there are some advantages to that!
For years we adopted dogs and many that were old. 3 years ago I met a person that showed Maltese and occasionally bred them. She gave me a puppy not show quality and 2 retirees. When one died of GME at age 3 she immediately had her others fixed because it’s genetic and it was the second dog to get it in her line. She is a very responsible person and it changed my mind about reputable breeders.
I think very highly of breeders, by and large. They love dogs, and do the best they know how to breed healthy pups. And I no longer am an avid fan of the rescue world, as that has gone well beyond the issue of finding homes for dogs who don't have homes. Of course, most of the posters here today also know I tell people to adopt as quickly as I'll tell them to find a breeder.
I think the vitriol spoken of is the faddishness of the adopt-a-dog crowd. The PR engines for the adopt crowd have done such a good job over the past 40 years, and people pick up on the theme without thinking about it deeply (as people tend to do). Some natural competitiveness and "us vs them" attitudes have come with that territory.
Very good thoughts here. I only quoted part of post as other posters addressed outcrossing/breeding issues that I am not familiar with.
Glad you read the article I posted even if you didn't agree with all of it. The article brought up a lot of good points about dog breeds and their purpose throughout history. This still applies today. Even many of the "adopt don't shop" crowd have their own personal demands with a breed or mix but won't admit it. It's no coincidence that the small non shedding breeds are always adopted first.
That is OK and I try not to judge, but I would tell those who choose only those type of "rescues" to put their altruism aside long enough to be honest - I deal with pet hair and I know what a pain it is. I bought a cordless Dyson so I could vacuum daily as it is quieter and won't scare the cats. I never buy wool coats anymore and have sold my nice ones on Ebay as they are pet hair magnets. Good thing nylon or poly puffer coats are in style Leather and suede or faux leather/suede are also good at repelling pet hair.
Even in rural areas where I live coon hound breeds are becoming rare. People just don't racoon hunt anymore. It's gradually gotten to the point where it is considered inhumane even by most "country folk" I talk to and there is the rabies risk to consider.
I do at times think about this issue deeply. Frankly, modern society needs low maintenance "pet companion" type breeds as that is what the current lifestyle for most people demands. The majority of pet problems and issues we read about would be solved if this would happen.
Last edited by motownnative; 01-01-2020 at 11:39 AM..
Especially with breeds developed for a specific functional purpose. The purpose goes away, so does the dog, unless someone decides they like them for some cute physical trait, coloration, media fame, etc. How many breeds have been ruined by mass popularity?
The English 'spit dog' comes to mind. Bred to be a kitchen dog and run the spit, kill rodents- an all purpose kitchen assistant..
For the breeders and fanciers of the rare breeds, there is a lot of record sharing. Problems in the breed are tracked, pedigrees are analyzed, health is tested, all in a group supported effort to keep the breed healthy.
The rare breeds are very often healthier overall than the most popular breeds. Nobody is breeding the rare breeds for income; it is done for love of the breed.
The serious Labrador breeders do the same sort of record sharing, but they produce a very small percentage of Labradors bred and sold. There are thousands of Labradors bred for profit, because pups are easy to sell, and no concern about health or genetics. Labradors can possible be affected by many genetic health problems if you buy one from a "breeder" who doesn't care about much except the money ...and there are a lot of those backyard breeders and puppy mills who breed Labradors because they are easy to sell.
My Scottish Deerhounds that I mentioned above: the breed is genetically clear of any eye disease. They don't get hip or elbow dysplasia. They don't carry the gene for any of the hemophilia or bleeding disorders. They don't have any of the genes for skin disorders. They don't have that gene for the blood brain barrier that plagues collies. Why on earth cross in another breed for "genetic diversity" when genetic diversity would mean bringing in genes for eye disease, bleeding disorders, epilepsy, who knows what else.
The fanciers of the rare breeds know what genes they are fighting. That's the entire purpose of a pure breed is to limit the number of genes so that the breed will be consistent. There really is no advantage to a huge mishmash of assorted unrelated genes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Leather and suede or faux leather/suede are also good at repelling pet hair. 
