A friend of mine sent me a recent article from the Albany Times Union Newspaper titled, "Regulate Breeding Practices." For convenience sake, I scanned and included the article below. Presumably, this article is just one of the thousands that appear on a regular basis throughout the country damning purebred dogs. Most likely many dog fanciers dismissed it accordingly, as it is by yet another misinformed animal rights lackey bloviating about purebred dogs.
However, still, this journalist took it a step further by hopscotching amongst and weaving her various claims inducing Readers to believe that purebred dog genetic homogeneity is to blame for both the increase in the population of animal shelters and the euthanasia rates rising in her region. Wow, what a stretch of the imagination! So, why am I dignifying this particular column with commentary? Well, this article does touch upon several topics I have written about and published in the Canine Chronicle over these past years. One of which is a mighty issue, genetic isolationism, and was the theme of my article, "Stud Books," published October 2013.
First, though, I am not bestowing any plausibility on this columnist's piece as her manufactured claims include demands for more government oversight via legislation to regulate a purebred dog's appearance. In brief, she does not know what she is talking about, and clearly lacks credibility in this arena as her declarations are absurd. It also amazes me that the Editor cleared this piece for print. The article casts wildly from one impeachment to another, such as Westminster is merchandising purebred dogs, and asserting that a lack of legislative oversight is responsible for purebred dogs physical and behavioral health conditions. These samples are interwoven with her claim that animal shelters cannot keep up with the flow of dogs because "they are not backed by sensible rules." It is a mystery as to what rules she is alluding to but this plea reveals that she is likely uneducated that animal shelters are shipping dogs cross-country to fill vacancies in other regional animal shelters across the nation. Indeed, I have written on animal shelter statistics and the urban legends related to such in an article published in 2013, titled "Reducing Animal Overpopulation."
However, let's get back to the meatier topic, genetic isolationism, that I addressed at length in my previously mentioned article, "Stud Books." Go ahead and read the article again as it tackles a subject that may be unimaginable to many purebred dog hobbyists-- opening a breed stud book to incorporate cross breeding to a nearest relative(s) to save high-risk breeds. I wrote:
Our society is advancing through the early twenty-first century, making remarkable progress in innumerable fields of research and development, innovations, and technologies. We, as a society embrace these changes. We most certainly look forward to, even expect and demand the newest inventions, intelligence and capabilities.
As a paradox, though, dog fanciers convictions about canine husbandry, the mating, and production of offspring appear, on the whole, not to have evolved. Instead, over the years, dog fanciers way of thinking has, in certain cases, retrogressed. Our formed judgments, many of which are not necessarily based on facts, lack maturity and growth. Conventionally, we doggedly hold on to old beliefs that a closed stud book is the only guarantee to maintain purity and perpetuation of our breeds as they document parentage and pedigrees. The sanctity of the stud book is likened to that of a Bible. The truth that so many refuse to accept or admit is that a Stud Book is simply genetic isolationism, warts and all. Suggestions of crossbreeding or backcrossing go against everything we ‘know’ about purebred dogs and selective breeding. This is because the process of line and inbreeding to inherit genes, fix qualities and characteristics of a breed’s progenitors or foundation stock has been a consecrated practice for more than several centuries now. Modern breeding procedures and recording the descent of domesticated animals that were linked to a public registry developed during the eighteenth century, in the early parts of Britain’s Industrial Revolution. Once ingrained in canine societal doctrine, it has become nearly impossible to pry such tenet loose.
Someone needs to ask the big question so, here I go. If we do not consider opening stud books, now, for high-risk breeds suffering genetic problems as a result of very limited gene pool diversity, then when will we? Do we just kick the can down the road making it someone else's problem? Will it have to wait another twenty-five years when most of us are no longer around? What about in fifty years? Most likely, those breeds most affected now will be extinct by then. What about AKC's role in this controversy? As I have already detailed in "Stud Books," AKC has the final word on opening a breed stud book. Hypothetically, if a Parent Club application is denied, do we continue to permit a small, elite group of AKC elderly statesmen to determine the sanctity and justification of the Parent Club's petition to open their Stud Book to improve its breed welfare by limiting or even eliminating the expression of deadly health issues?
For the record, I am not advocating opening every breed’s Stud Book, but there are compelling arguments for some breeds who are liable to suffer greatly from the Founder Effect, Population Bottleneck, and Inbreeding Depression and the increase and expression of deadly health issues. From "Stud Books":
Let us face facts. Human beings by nature are reluctant to change, preferring to stay with the familiar. This truth never ceases to amaze me and in my opinion, there are few areas of society where it is more prominent than in our dog world, particularly canine husbandry. Even while faced with terminal health issues affecting 15%, 20%, possibly 30% of the breed population, fanciers object to the mere notion of opening a Stud Book to incorporate genetic material from nearest relatives. It is both fascinating and sad, all at the same time.
We should examine and weigh the reality and span of most breed's closed gene pools today. Irish Wolfhounds, for example, having been resuscitated in the late 1800s have already experienced, to date, several genetic bottlenecks. Read my article "COI: Dog Genes Decoded." Moreover, the wolfhound population has grown exponentially since about 1965, which hides this breed’s actual inbreeding. The hound's actual Coefficient of Inbreeding (COI) calculation is not complete unless it is reviewed all the way back to Captain Graham, considered the Patriarch of our breed. Above all, according to the rigorous research of Dr. Silvan Urfer, he has yet to find an Irish Wolfhound with a complete pedigree whose inbreeding coefficient is below 30%, nor does he believe this is possible. A baseline of 30 percent and higher in just a blip of time -- you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this COI percentage is increasing, especially if you knew that this hound breed is undergoing a modern population bottleneck placing the breed at even higher risk.
The evolution of our mindset is both necessary and practical to assure the future for our breeds. It may very well be that those who refuse to consider or accept alternatives are guilty of enriching themselves while risking the preservation of our breed(s).