Would like to explore the modern practice of breeding dogs with anyone that may be able to contribute their opinion or facts.
It seems to me, (and I am in no way a professional on this subject) that most of the recognized dog breeds that have been around for more than 150-200 years has developed many health issues,and lost functionality (such as physical ability, defensivness, agressivness, herding, etc).
My observation is based mostly on research of working breeds, and comparing them to the common breeds. When I say working breeds, it refers to 1-2 generations removed, not 100 years ago or a tiny percentage.
Take the Azawakh for example, a 8,000-10,000 year old breed (have maintained the same look and function). Tough, rugged, extreem physical endurance, heat tolerance, stable temperment, and very few noted health issues. I think the extreem environment, demanding job, poor diet, and extreem culling have maintained functionality despite being an ancient breed. Compare that to most AKC recognized breeds.
Then the Catalburun Pointer from Turkey, a more recent, and obviously inbred dog. (Has a split nose) Is noted for being rugged and tough, fast and with strong endurance considering build. And with almost no health problems. This argues against the closed gene pool argument with modern practices. I feel it is again the extreem environment, tough culling, and demanding job.
Then as with most giant breeds today with the multitude of health problems and short lifespan. Compare that to the Malakli or Kangal ( of which I have personal raising experience). The Malakli, 33-40 inches tall, weigh 160-260 pounds. Lives 12-14 years, with some having pups up to 12-13 years old. Can run up to 36 mph, can run for 2-6 miles a day. Can jump, fight, kill wolves. Pull 7,000-10,500 pound rolling loads. Has a strong defensive nature with a low prey drive (allows them to double as a livestock guardian). Have few health problems, digestive issues, or joint problems. I feel this is because of the ingrained practice of keeping only the best pup out of a litter, killing all the dogs that show weakness or inability to work. Having to survive on a horible diet (barley mash and tomato paste or watered yogurt). And the practice of breeding to the males that have proven their abilities (killing wolves, fighting) for 6-10 years. And the harsh environment they live in.
I understand that few of us are willing to kill all but the best pup. Most do not have the situation to be able to test them as strong, or willing to let them suffer and subsist on a poor diet. But what beside the show ring could we do to maintain the functionality of the dog breeds in our care. I do not believe breeding for extreem looks benefits them.
Sorry for the length, but this is something that has bothered me for some time. I will put a picture of a Malakli male. Look at the structure, muscleing, and substance. I can only imagine that many of the big lazy breeds of today looked similar in the past.
It seems to me, (and I am in no way a professional on this subject) that most of the recognized dog breeds that have been around for more than 150-200 years has developed many health issues,and lost functionality (such as physical ability, defensivness, agressivness, herding, etc).
My observation is based mostly on research of working breeds, and comparing them to the common breeds. When I say working breeds, it refers to 1-2 generations removed, not 100 years ago or a tiny percentage.
Take the Azawakh for example, a 8,000-10,000 year old breed (have maintained the same look and function). Tough, rugged, extreem physical endurance, heat tolerance, stable temperment, and very few noted health issues. I think the extreem environment, demanding job, poor diet, and extreem culling have maintained functionality despite being an ancient breed. Compare that to most AKC recognized breeds.
Then the Catalburun Pointer from Turkey, a more recent, and obviously inbred dog. (Has a split nose) Is noted for being rugged and tough, fast and with strong endurance considering build. And with almost no health problems. This argues against the closed gene pool argument with modern practices. I feel it is again the extreem environment, tough culling, and demanding job.
Then as with most giant breeds today with the multitude of health problems and short lifespan. Compare that to the Malakli or Kangal ( of which I have personal raising experience). The Malakli, 33-40 inches tall, weigh 160-260 pounds. Lives 12-14 years, with some having pups up to 12-13 years old. Can run up to 36 mph, can run for 2-6 miles a day. Can jump, fight, kill wolves. Pull 7,000-10,500 pound rolling loads. Has a strong defensive nature with a low prey drive (allows them to double as a livestock guardian). Have few health problems, digestive issues, or joint problems. I feel this is because of the ingrained practice of keeping only the best pup out of a litter, killing all the dogs that show weakness or inability to work. Having to survive on a horible diet (barley mash and tomato paste or watered yogurt). And the practice of breeding to the males that have proven their abilities (killing wolves, fighting) for 6-10 years. And the harsh environment they live in.
I understand that few of us are willing to kill all but the best pup. Most do not have the situation to be able to test them as strong, or willing to let them suffer and subsist on a poor diet. But what beside the show ring could we do to maintain the functionality of the dog breeds in our care. I do not believe breeding for extreem looks benefits them.
Sorry for the length, but this is something that has bothered me for some time. I will put a picture of a Malakli male. Look at the structure, muscleing, and substance. I can only imagine that many of the big lazy breeds of today looked similar in the past.