It's All About the Money!

Our purebred dog conformation events have been transformed. The first sentence in the AKC Mission Statement is, “The American Kennel Club is dedicated to upholding the integrity of its Registry, promoting the sport of purebred dogs and breeding for type and function.”  I would suggest “...and breeding for type and function” needs reconsideration and updating.

Just about everyone will agree that conformation dog shows no longer highlight the best breeding stock to perpetuate the breeds. Clearly, many of today’s breed exhibits are not products of breeding for type and function. Rather they are the results of breeding for the accepted and often sought after exaggerations and extremes which produce dysfunctional show dogs. Such as bird dogs with keels similar to a prow of a sailing boat; spaniels with incredibly domed skulls; dogs with necks like a swan; galloping sighthounds with short legs and level toplines; or shepherds standing on nearly horizontal metatarsal bones, to name just a few.

The breed ring is commonly a crapshoot. The exception to this rule is if a professional handler is exhibiting then this may improve the odds of winning. Breed metamorphosis usually influences the unknown or uncertain aspect of dog show adjudication’ by incompetent or uninformed judges. In my article “What Are They Looking For?” I discussed the lack of knowledge and capability for some judges to explain ‘why they did what they did’ after they quickly point to a dog(s) in a class for a win.

There are numerous, interesting articles by respected adjudicators who recognize and discuss the transmutations taking place throughout the breeds. We talk about the arbitrary state of judging, and though everyone hears what we say, it seems no one is LISTENING because nowadays, to win, extremes and or generics are how you have to play the game. It is àpropos to quote AKC Judge and long-time breeder Katie Gammill here.

“The best of the best or one that looks like the rest? Let’s be honest. Something called “preferred type” is flooding the rings today and in many breeds, it has little to do with the Breed Standard. When “current type” does not equal correctness, the best dog can lose because in many rings, the fatal flaw is being a stand-out. Should we just BREED TO WIN or should we BREED TO THE STANDARD and expect judges to judge to the Standard?”

There is an abundance of ‘show breeders’ these days whose primary goal is to breed litter after litter after litter, often selling many or even all pups as show prospects in their maniacal obsession to achieve the most number of AKC champions produced for their breed. This itself has become its individual competition. Some may consider me to be very old-fashioned, or out-of-touch in my attitude towards conformation dog shows. The truth is I am only interested in conserving the original purpose of purebred dog show competition, breeding for and preserving type and function and protecting a breeds welfare. Sadly, it appears that an overwhelming anxiety stokes some breeders modus operandi, this being 'who will buy their puppies' and 'who will breed to their stud dog(s).' Setting aside any principles for the sake of a win.

Our sport has shifted gears. In the all-breed ring it is about marketing, positioning your dog to reach the highest pinnacles of achievements. It is about public relations and money. Money spent on advantageous grooming products, shampoos, conditioners, gels, hair spray, colored chalk, enhancing powders, Snoods and blow dryers. It is about money spent on training, shipping and freighting dogs off to handler’s kennels for extended periods. It is about money spent on airfare for handlers/owners/dogs, private planes, luxury dog haulers/vehicles, Professional Handler fees or exclusive contracts, and $$$ magazine advertisements.  

Breed ring competition now is a contest about who has the disposable income and or time to campaign their dog to accumulate Grand Champion achievement levels. Group level competition is about who has even more affluence and time to achieve Top-Ten group rankings. As one advances to the all-breed ranking system, it is an entirely different ballgame and parlay. It comes down to money and sometimes perseverance -- as to which of the financiers, breeders and owner(s) have the most fortune to finance their All-Breed Top-Ten quest and yes, career. It is all about the money and all about coming out on top.

This edited article was published in a previous version on the Canine Chronicle website. Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=9751

The Disappearance of the Old-Guard

The Old Guard, canine husbandry’s authorities, are sadly leaving us. Indeed, as unfortunate as this is, it also leaves us with a very pressing issue. Many of the Old-Guard had an underlying foundation of knowledge of other species such as horses and cattle and were able to apply it efficiently and successfully to canine breeds. Their departures are especially worrisome when you consider who may be filling their ranks. Owner-handlers who, although after having many, many years of experience attending shows and breeding litters, nevertheless lack the discipline and intuition to understand fully animal husbandry, including canine husbandry and the study of various species anatomy. The architectural reference, ‘form ever follows function’ is essential to living, breathing working animals. As often is the case, many of those above ‘invested’ fanciers lack the intellect of the old-guard. Indeed, everyone can admit knowing, at least, one dog fancier who has exhibited and or bred dogs for decades who simply has not the ability, the finesse, the expertise to breed or recognize superior animals. A fact that does not take away from the accreditation of many reputable, honorable fanciers whose valuable participation over these many years has been indispensable. Preferably, and quite logically, it is an innocuous truth that all our ranks cannot be virtuoso’s in canine husbandry despite well-intended efforts.
 
I refer to livestock often in my writings on canines because it is extremely pertinent. In centuries past, authorities were exceptionally erudite in the development of horse and cattle breeding. Their knowledge was formidable and was not limited to livestock but, likewise, to dogs. Many of these arbiters developed and controlled almost all of our canine breeds except for a few whose origins reach into the mists of antiquity, so ancient that no records exist today as to their advancement. Their routine husbandry also involved canine reproduction, thereupon nearly all canine stock were selected carefully according to the dog’s purpose, performance, quarry, and terrain. It is safe to conclude that present-day canine fanciers are not so learned as these progenitors were.

Additionally, another troubling effect of the Old-Guard’s passing is our diminishing ranks evidenced by the significant loss in AKC dog registrations. This should concern everyone as our long-term replenishment rate is dismal. Apart from the younger professional handlers and assistants, we look at the familiar all-breed show ring today, and there is a majority of senior and middle-aged exhibitors. Keep foremost in mind that AKC data supposedly reveals that 80% of exhibitors are owner-handlers. For our sport to thrive and ensure continuity, we need the passion and participation of the younger generations. For many of us who have participated in the game for decades and who have raised families, it is the same old story. Many but not all of our children have grown up displaying little to no interest in the sport. In truth, some dog fanciers children, now adults, harbor resentment towards “the dogs” and are indifferent or even belittling of the sport. I can count on one hand the number of my acquaintances and friends’ children who participate in conformation dog shows. We have and are losing precious assets.

I am not suggesting that canine husbandry is going the way of the dodo bird as mankind’s bond with and love for canines is from time immemorial. There will always be corrupt, disreputable commercial puppy mills and auctions which will take up the reins and supply the American public with unhealthy, poor quality breed specimens raised in appalling conditions to satisfy and profit from the economics of supply and demand. Likewise, there will always be unscrupulous ‘backyard breeders’ and ‘show-mill breeders’ to fulfill the same purpose. I liken myself as a boutique breeder, and I have my self-imposed limitations as to the number of hounds we keep and when I breed, coupled with maintaining a healthy balance in my schedules of work, judging and exhibition. I, along with all the others like me, can only do so much. Perhaps we dedicated, knowledgeable, intuitive breeders will be the one’s going the way of the dodo bird.

This edited article first appeared on the Canine Chronicle website. Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=13789

Purebred Dog Breeding Practices

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).

View fullsize

View fullsize