One of the great things about having a blog is that it provides a forum—and an unparalleled opportunity—to outrage and offend large numbers of people, which is what I am about to do. At least I certainly hope so.
We have had a concatenation of events (to use a phrase of Bertie Wooster’s) around here in the last couple of years, all having to do with dogs.
We rescued a German shepherd (an Alsatian for those of you in Great Britain) a few years ago after her owner died, and I won’t bore non-German shepherd people with a recitation of bloodlines, but factoring in both show and working lines, she made the Prince of Wales look like a parvenu, red-necked, blue collar, nouveau riche, social climbing wannabe. Her uncle was imported by a Texas oilman for more money than any other German shepherd (or possibly any other dog) in history. The accomplishments of her ancestors, close relatives and littermates, are comparable to the accomplishments of the Manning family in football or the Marsalis family in jazz. Ours was sweet and loving, and that was the end of her talents. We put her down last year, at the age of six, after the side effects of renal failure made her life insupportable. Hereditary chronic renal failure is common in German shepherds; it is one of fifty-one hereditable diseases the breed is prone to, according to the University of Cambridge database. (Other databases give different figures, some considerably higher, but I’m going with Cambridge primarily because it seems both rational and dispassionate.)
The German shepherd who proceeded her in our home, also a rescue, had to be euthanized at four because of degenerative myelopathy (think spinal cord, pain, and ultimate paralysis) which is also a hereditary disease common in shepherds (and forty-two other breeds).
We have a rescued Cardigan Welsh corgi who may have to be put down eventually because three surgeries have proven incapable of fixing a severely pronated foot. Pronated feet are common in Cardigans because they have been bred to have feet that turn out. Other than that, they’re fairly healthy, with only four hereditary diseases listed.
We recently rescued a young Boxer, a magnificent specimen about whose bloodlines we know absolutely nothing (he was found running loose in the mountains), and when we took him in for his shots, our vet told us to be prepared to lose him young. Boxers, it turns out, are subject to thirty-six hereditary diseases, including five different and fatal forms of heart disease, and multiple forms of cancer.
I could go on with other examples, personal or from any one of dozens of databases, but I think you can see where I’m going. The list of heritable and/or genetic diseases in all breeds of dogs is so long and depressing I’m not even going to try to count or list them.
One of the other concatenating links was an article by my friend Tom Davis about new evidence concerning the evolution of dogs, specifically the timeline. It used to be thought fifteen thousand years ago was when man and dog began to co-exist. Then it got pushed back to about thirty-three thousand years. The most recent thinking is that the relationship may go back as far as one hundred and twenty thousand years. Even more dramatic, more astounding, and harder for some people (non-dog lovers specifically) to believe is a new theory of co-evolution, a sort of symbiotic relationship between proto-humans and proto-dogs where both species evolved as they did at least in part because of the other. In other words, dogs are what they are today because of man’s influence, and man also is what he is today because of the dog’s influence. This is not as extraordinary as you might think. Another example of co-evolution would be man and cow: Europeans, who domesticated the bovine ancestors of the modern cow, have a far lower incidence of lactose-intolerance than non-Europeans. Actually, if you think about it, the only surprising thing about this theory is how much better a subject the dog was than man, and how much more adept he was at climbing up the evolutionary ladder.
There are, depending on how you count them, approximately four hundred different breeds of dogs, with greater variety across the spectrum (coat, size, temperament, etc.) than any other species, and over three quarters of those breeds have been created since the so-called Revolutions of 1848 which gave non-aristocrats and the emerging and newly affluent middleclass created by the industrial revolution, both the right to hunt and the financial means to own dogs. New breeds were created all across Europe, but both the British and the Germans in particular embraced the idea of tailoring the dog to meet man’s needs. Which brings me to the next concatenating link. Scientists believe the dog has a genetic component, something in his DNA, that allows him to evolve faster than any other species, specifically something that allows a given trait to be fixed in fewer generations than any other domestic animal. So if you wish to breed a dog for a certain kind of coat, or a certain color, or a certain attribute—for example, the ability to detect a specific cancer by smell, or a gift for herding, or a tendency to protect—you can fix that trait relatively quickly. The downside is that you will also almost certainly fix any number of traits you would rather not have. Hereditary chronic renal failure, for example. Or degenerative myelopathy. Or cancer. Or heart disease. Or hip dysplasia. Or…
One of the things the newly emancipated German dog owners did was institute testing programs for the breeds they were creating, breeding only those dogs that were able to perform the tasks for which they had been bred. Today, variations of this kind of testing exist around the world in many different genres: field trials, retriever trials, versatile hunting dog tests, hunting retriever tests, Schutzhund, herding trials… The list goes on. The idea was—and still is—that breeding the best to the best was good for the breed. In theory, it works. Unfortunately, it also, by definition, creates a closed gene pool and a concentration of fixed traits, both good and bad.
One of the breeds born out of the Revolutions of 1848 was the Deutsch Drahthaar, for years reviled in Germany as a bastard non-breed. It was Hermann Göring, an ardent hunter, who was responsible for the Drahthaar’s eventual popularity when he pronounced the breed, “Germany’s hunting dog.” But prior to that the dog was looked down on because Drahthaar breeders took as their motto: “Take the good where you find it; breed as you like, but be honest about it; let the results be your guide.” In other words, if you need to go outside your own creation to keep your creation viable, do so. Don’t close the gene pool. Were they right? Well, the Deutsch Drahthaar is now considered Germany’s premier and most popular hunting dog, and it’s worth noting that it is one of the healthiest purebred dogs in existence. I have no idea if the national club, the Verein Deutsch Drahthaar, still occasionally goes outside its own gene pool, but I tend to doubt it. However, I think it is time for all breeds and breeders to go back and heed their original advice.
There are countless thousands of breeders around the world who devote their lives to improving their particular breeds to the detriment of their bank accounts, and they deserve praise and credit, but their efforts are doomed by definition. A closed gene pool will concentrate the bad as well as the good, and the proof is in the results. There is not one single purebred breed that doesn’t have at least some heritable disease in its genetic makeup. Some—usually less common breeds like the Cardigan—are relatively healthy, but not completely so. But most—especially the more popular breeds, like the German shepherd, the Boxer, the Labrador, the Golden, and so on—are so riddled that the odds are slim you will ever own a specimen that lives out its full canine allotment of ten to thirteen years.
This doesn’t have to be taken to ridiculous extremes, crossing basset hound to Irish wolfhound, or Chihuahua to mastiff, but if you know some of the breeds that went into making up your particular favorite breed, why not go back to the source? The description by von Stephanitz of the randomly bred sheepdog that caught his eye back in 1889 is very close to the description of today’s Belgian Malinois. (It is also of note that von Stephanitz placed little emphasis on looks; to him intelligence, temperament, and soundness were paramount.) The Malinois is one of the healthiest breeds around, with only three heritable diseases. Today’s German shepherd, the original police and army dog, once considered the king of working dogs, has been largely surpassed by the Malinois for those tasks primarily because of health issues. Would more harm be done to the German shepherd by breeding back to a similar ancestral type and improving the overall health of the breed, or by keeping the gene pool closed and speeding the decline of a once magnificent dog? Would your Labrador be better or worse for having a small dose of healthier Curly Coated retriever blood? “Let the results be your guide.”
Hear, hear! The closed studbook paradigm is a recipe for genetic impoverishment and disaster.
The plan for the Drahthaar is the model for many domestic animals outside of dogs & horses. I have always outcrossed my pigeons for both appearance and performance and no one minds, but dogs are generally bred “pure”, to their detriment. Dysplastic shepherds with hips like frogs and the topline of a hyena, deaf Dalmatians, eyeless or blind double merles bred in hope that a littermate’s color might be perfect… the list goes on.
An outcross to pointers that might have save Dalmatians was rejected by the KC for years.
Salukis are a rather sturdy breed founded on forty something original founders, believe it or not a relatively large number, though several lines are not represented today. There is also an unusual mechanism for bringing in “native” dogs through the Society for the Perpetuation of the Desert Bred Saluki, all of which makes for what you might think would work very well.
But the same pressures, mostly from show people, prevail. All believe in pure lines, most in a myth of mystical Arab- invented dogs, not realizing that virtually identical salukis (or “tazis”) occupy the same niche from Morocco to Mongolia, and may well have originated in the east and come down the Silk Road to Arabia (good images in Asia pre- date Mohammed, recognizable petroglyphs are earlier than Christ).
I brought back wonderful tazi dogs from Kazakhstan starting over a decade ago for hunting, and both pure and crossed descendants have made a name for themselves in NM,AZ, even Cal ever since. I had them get (excellent) evaluations as salukis from the SPDBS because my other reason for importing my three breeders was to bring new genes to the saluki pool.
It wasn’t to be. the AKC judges (Saluki Club) consider them “mongrels” though they have at least 3 and up to 6 gen pedigrees. Others object to brindle, common in Asian lines and not unknown in Arab, saying it comes from greyhound– I can show them images of good salukis in Chinese art over 1000 years old, and only slightly younger portraits in Mughal art.
One mover and shaker in the SPDBS brought up that the Kazakhs consider them a different breed, even though they admit breeding from Turcoman lines which in turn are bred with Arabian peninsula imports (they are also functionally, temperamentally , and mostly visually indistinguishable from them, though some get shaggy especially on their legs in the winter– think “Afghans”, probably another more exaggerated descendant.) Kazakh nationalism should no more break up the gene pool than show Nazis; besides, every Turkic and Arab nation in Eurasia is threatening to separate their saluki and their flock protection dog from the others for the same nationalistic reasons. THAT’ll help….
If it weren’t for a few brave hunters and dog scholars who understand genetics breeding to my dogs they would be dead ends. Worse, they have no legal status as “pure”– if NM adapts mandatory spay neuter I will not be able to buy an exemption for them and must (though WON’T) neuter this genetic gold. As the gun folks say, “Molon Labe”. Come and take them if you dare.
I should end on a note of black comedy. A Cal show judge was delicately (and passive aggressively) insulting what she called “your pretty little Asian lurchers” [ie crosses] “which can’t be pure salukis!” Why? “Real salukis descend from Bell Murray’s and a few other English diplomat’s dogs imported in the early part of the 20th century. Even the ARABS don’t have pure salukis any more!” Leaving out the fact that any number of rich Arab hunters I know or know of would have her beheaded for that, I have seen and run good salukis in eastern Turkey and Kazakhstan, have or have bred from excellent ones from– in addition– Siberia and Turkmenistan, and have seen excellent dogs owned by friends from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgizstan, and even Xinjiang, where there are good images dating to AD 700! All “mongrels” of course…
Her provincialism as well as her ignorance of biology is showing.
But the kicker? Re appearance: “Your dogs have VISIBLE MUSCLES– salukis don’t!” ????
At the time, before health slowed me down, we ran 2 or 3 days a week and hunted 8 months of the year on a friend’s ranch– 100 + sections of high rugged New Mexico plateau with no cross fencing, that doesn’t touch pavement. My hounds were indeed all bone and muscle and appetite– “a wind in the grass with teeth” as my eloquent stepson once said. I tried to probe diplomatically what my interrogator did to exercise her dogs– lure course? “Oh no– they could injure themselves. Besides– too much exercise makes them build TOO MUCH MUSCLE.”
****
Glad you and Tom Davis– hi Tom!– are on this too. I may borrow some for my blog and link you. Check out Retrieverman and Border Wars among other blogs who also know the score. Thanks JP!
Forgot to sign my last- Steve Bodio,Querencia blog.
The dog fancy has forgotten the roots of the dog, if it has ever actually known or understood them. The dog is a tool, and humans are clever in adapting their tools to new uses, thus the plethora of breeds and types available. The smart human realizes that a tool that breaks easily or turns in the hand to hurt the user needs to be modified.
The dog fancy is not populated with smart humans. It is composed of people who believe in the purity of blood like a religion. I cross-breed, and I have been subject to the same kinds of ridiculous arguments and e-mails that Steve has. No one who has a brain in their head would truly believe that the Saluki, or any one of the other very old ‘breeds’, was developed and maintained through the same sort of Victorian toilet science that the closed registry system represents.
You will, no doubt, hear from those within the dog world that will point to the vast number of diseases that humans are subject to, and say that this means that dogs are perfectly healthy and good to go. Refer them to the Hutterites or any other human population ‘bred’ along the lines of the closed registry.
Jess
http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/
All ‘breeds’ of dogs are, by definition, line-bred. And all dogs have genetic diseases in the gene pool – cross bred, line-bred or inbred – they all are subject to these potential problems. But blanket statements need to be examined more closely.
The key to all breeding is selection of breeding stock. If the breeder selects one (or just a few) attribute to the exclusion of all others, he is breeding potential future problems. The only standard that should be a constant in all breeding decisions is selecting stock that is, first of all, healthy.
While I am no fan of breed clubs or breed standards, I do not believe that maintaining a breed is a bad thing – quite the contrary. There are any number of sporting breeds that are healthy and generally live to late maturity, barring accident or misadventure. Breeding based on field performance and selecting healthy, high performing animals will improve a breed and will tend, over time, to REDUCE the probability of genetic faults. But no breeding is likely to completely eliminate them.
While it is popular to condemn line breeding and other tools for breeding sporting dogs, In the many years that I have been raising, training, hunting and field trialing FDSB English setters, I have never experienced any loss due to genetic faults.
Just stay away from artificial standards, breed the best (and healthiest) to the best (and healthiest) and NEVER do it for money.
Mr Parker both myself and hubby read this article and agree. I don’t believe that a poodle for example should be bread with a husky. I agree that breeds of dogs should be bred with similar breeds such as you mentioned. This is a huge debate absolutely! However as a Muslim I believe that we should treat all animals and humans with kindness. I don’t think mixing a poodle and a husky is being kind to either breed. You raise a very intelligent and eye raising discussion that no doubt will set off alarms, tempers etc. However with that being said I commend you for taking in the corgi and other dogs and I find it extremely sad that you had to put them down. I have been so far so good with my rescue kitty for 12 years now and I do not or could not think of the day that we have to put him down. God Bless you for looking after those dogs, they might have suffered without you.
Tena French Halifax, NS Canada
The higher the price tag on a “purebred” puppy(especially from conformation show lines), the more likely you are going to have health problems, because it is the show lines that are more severly “linebred”(INBRED). And no, judicious linebreeding done carefully and only occaisionally isn’t a bad thing, but the Conformation Show tribe/religion have overused this breeding “tool” far too much. I personally PREFER the appearance of working-stock lines of dogs over their supposedley conformationally superior counterparts(whose conformation is so superior, they can no longer even perform their original functions, in many cases!). Who in their right mind thinks the blocky, chunky, squat Labradors look better than sleek, athletic, leggy working labs? Who insists the cobby, short-legged, poofy-coated Siberian Huskies look better than the lean, tight-coated racing lines of Sibes? How can ANYONE prefer the German Shepherds of these modern times–virtually crippled walking vet bills, over the incredibly athletic versatile dogs they used to be? Just get some old Rin-Tin-Tin movies(OLD being the key word here…) and watch those magnificent GSD’s racing ahead of galloping horses, with EASE! No way could a modern Alsatian do THAT now. I hope someone eventually restores this breed(crossing back to Belgian breeds, etc., and digging up old working lines–a few scattered exist). If you want to get a healthy, functional dog of ANY kind, avoid show lines LIKE THE PLAGUE–go as close to the source of working lines as possible, for better health and temperment(not to mention ability–and WAY cheaper price tags!!!). Sadly, you are even better off taking your chances with the villified”back-yard-breeder” types that don’t have a clue–as long as their dogs are far from show lines(as they often are), and aren’t too inbred themselves. And MANY so-called “back-yard-breeders”(hunters, farmers, hobbyists with a lick of common sense) are LIGHT YEARS ahead of conformation dog show breeders in producing REALLY superior dogs. I’m curious–have you seen the hilarious(but sadly, very true-to-life) mockumentary “Best In Show”? Yup, these are the kinds of people putting themselves on pedastals as dog “experts”…..Lane Batot
While it is clear that crossbreeding could produce healthy animals, successfully doing so seems to be a research problem in genetics. One can imagine some specialty outfits being hired to analyze the genetic make-up of an existing or proposed breed in order to assess its robustness (or perhaps ability to roll over and play dead). Another practice that could become widespread is the cloning of an exceptional specimen (its upbringing being more or less equally reproducible). But, although one can confess to appreciating certain breeds of dogs, individuals of a breed (or mutts!) seem to possess such strong individual character making them appreciated on a separate level altogether: a pet we are lucky shared its much shorter life with us. This dog (and cat) lover will simply keep on trying to be so lucky.
RA
….Research problem in genetics$$$? Cloning$$$$$$$? For THOUSANDS of years, humans have been producing all manner of servicable, functional, robustly healthy domestic animals, long, long before the “Dog Fancy” came along and told everyone only THEY could breed properly, and proceeded with their tyranny to screw up one breed after another. One reason other humans could do so effectively, is that they allowed themselves to see what didn’t work, and would move on to what DID. It’s high time breeding dogs by show conformation standards opened their eyes, realize that emphasizing exagerrated physical appearances over everything else(like health and ability) is NOT the best way to breed dogs, and go back to breeding dogs like our “primitive”(yet infinetely more sensible) ancestors did. And it ain’t rocket science….L.B.
Amen! This is why the Border Collie people who raised, trained and used Border Collies on sheep and cattle fought so hard to keep the breed out of the AKC, where they are bred fro looks. There are many great Border Collies who do not look a lot like others. But! They will really work livestock! Nuff said….
Now, if we could just get this idea across to some of the horse breeders!
An Elaboration (in response to multiple comments above)
‘The dog is a tool’. A lesser animal perhaps, but a tool?
Okay, even if it is a tool, minimizing its misery is quite possibly a prerogative of the superior human-animal. If parents of a proposed breeding experiment are not scrutinized, there could be untoward results: sickly puppies that will sooner or later need to be put down. Healthy looking parents could also produce a miserable result (look-up recessive genes). Why not evolve a database and a blood test to check for known diseases and estimate disease probabilities in the offspring of proposed parents? This is what was meant by ‘a research problem in genetics’. This may not be needed for some breeds as long as time is on your side. But with more and more breeders cropping up, any selectable breed that is going unscathed is only so for a discernibly finite time (i’d guess less than two doggy lifetimes for popular breeds).
That man has been successfully breeding the dog for thousands of years is not of any value other than as an interesting historical fact for he has, fairly recently and irreversibly, screwed the pooch’s gene pool. Breeds by definition have a lower variation, and the variation was lowered through inbreeding- and recessive genes have been expressed. Maybe we need some extraterrestrial canines to come here and be fruitful before mandatory spay and neuter gets to them. If the ETs are a no-show, cloning might be the only way to freeze the state of the gene pool as represented by a good specimen. All the ‘poor-little-rich-kids’ should currently be able to afford cloning. And as with any technology, the costs should go down with time. Working ‘sniffer’ dogs have already been successfully cloned in the far east, possibly alongside ‘delicious’ ones (all done humanely, one hopes).
The setting up of a disease database could be done incrementally at modest cost (excluding the still pricey gene sequencing that could be optional) and the input of dog owners, breeders, vets and researchers. Schools of Animal Husbandry may already be half way there. The technology is already there. Let knowledge be your guide.
Finally, It seems more credible that someone cries out ‘molon labe’ just after announcing ‘the burgers are ready’ . Will they really only get to take your dogs balls from your cold, dead hands? If containment is demonstrated, it would be surprising if mandatory spay and neuter is blindly enforced. What’s not surprising is that back-yard breeders and dog fanciers get equally vilified due to unscrupulous and/or goofy practices out of their sheer ignorance and/or apathy. And they spoil it for everyone else. Still, why not work with law enforcement and other local agencies to solve the problem of strays and unwanted puppies. Ok, enough. Need to go and offer biscuits to my mutty mates and ask the age old question: Happy, Yappy?
RA
JP- You should read Modoc by Helfer. – MAY
You should read Modoc by Helfer. Interesting book – MAY
Sorry, all this makes my head spin. I love dogs but they have always been pets to me and not a working animal. So I, perhaps have a different attitude. My father had working dogs and was never interested in a ‘bred’ dog. He preferred a ‘mutt’. Lived his early life during the great depression in the Australian bush. His dogs helped find food and kept him warm at night (3 dog night=bloody cold night).
I don’t understand this need to ‘fiddle’ with things. I know you want a good strong,intelligent hunting dog but to what cost? As human beings we have this incessant urge to improve – animals, food, intelligence. It is time to stop and look at what we have, not what we could have.
Interesting blog,Mr.Parker
You all have written a lot about the problem. Actually, I can not add anything more. But, I would add how I think about it.
First: In Germany you can in the respective blogs or forums about not discuss. The fronts are hardened, so to speak. Everyone likes to feel attacked and misunderstood whether breeders, dog owners or veterinarian. Discussions have there often miss the lack of respect towards other people.
Joint deformities, eye diseases, skin diseases and many more. People walk with their seemingly healthy dog to the vet to have him vaccinated. The good vet clears the dog owners about possible hereditary diseases of her favorite. He examined the dog and then unfortunately is almost always successful. That is sad.
This is the flip side of the medal, when selecting for certain traits. By purebred breeding in all breeds certain (breed type) assessments were bred with.
The problems of the dog based on the fact that we have concrete ideas to look like the dog and should be. Far too few think about the properties or claims the dog! Down to a single additional feature, for example, color, often leads also to increased inbreeding for this feature to breed as pure as possible. A low predisposition to certain diseases is then already times less weighted, as the feature. In combination with the narrow gene pool (inbreeding) often goes awry.
Yorkshire Terriers, are actually bred to eliminate rats now look good in handbags.
Is it any wonder when the ungracious act accordingly?
Border Collies, working dogs absolutely bored to death because they are visually so appealing. The suffering of this breed is unfortunately not measurable by physical methods.
Pugs originally designed as a companion for the whole family, but now condemned to one suffering from chronic respiratory disorders creature, which it often is not possible to follow a normal walking pace.
Far too many dogs have to be beautiful, will not address their claims. And last but not least, the German Shepherd. In Germany this is, once great dog, mostly as sports equipment. They are bred for sport. Many are sitting in animal shelters but that’s another topic.
In Germany, tried to document by the Association VDH by checking the parents and siblings, ancestors and animals excluded where a substantial likelihood that they share certain diseases.All breeders who sell dogs with papers are required to prove a license under the Animal Welfare Act (§ 11). This also includes the allowance of Veterinary any time to check the attitude.But security is also not really. Bred is completed according to the VDH. Whether these requirements are really getting good for the dogs, I do not know … Each control is only as good as the competent inspector!
Also a problem, the more popular the breed the more puppies are produced. Since there are the so-called masses breeds. These “breeders” only counts for a quick buck. Due to the stricter rules in Germany, animal protection law is national, not EU!, The breeders usually sit in neighboring states. The puppies are usually much too soon separated from their mothers and transported over hundreds to thousands of km in order to be sold here with us. These “breeders” are focused mostly on the currently popular breeds without regard to certain diseases or racial predispositions.
I hope that someday we see and understand what we are doing to our dogs so. Dogs need not be perfect. I hope for the dogs that they eventually may simply be back dog. A friend and loyal companion for humans ……
Manuela