Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

Has Modern Breeding gone wrong?

13K views 104 replies 26 participants last post by  EJB 
#1 ·
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.

 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
keeping only the best pup out of a litter
disagree. this is common practice and it's full of fail. the reason is that the more animals you eliminate from the gene pool, the tighter the gene pool becomes which results in a higher probability of heritable issues.

the BETTER approach is to keep all the OVERALL good dogs from any litter and breed them to other OVERALL good dogs. gradual improvement is superior to fast and furious grasping for the best of the best. balanced ideals are key.
 
#3 · (Edited)
Zim has it right on, imo.

And true working breeds, even though their 'show ring' lines tend to drift towards fashion rather than function, still have groups and breeders who still breed them for their original purpose. You can still find hunting-bred Airedales, Dachshunds, Jack Russels, Red (Irish) Setters, etc etc. They still exist, often very unchanged over the last 100 years, even if their show-line relatives have changed a great deal. As long as the job exists, so will the working version of a breed.

The sad truth is that for many old breeds their work is gone, so they can only really be preserved as 'museum piece' breeds and show dogs.
 
#4 ·
Umm American showline breeders may not "kill all but the best pup" but they DO usually keep the dog that they feel is the best in the litter for themselves, and the rest (or the majority) are not used for breeding. Both practices are essentially the same thing as they lead to the same result (only the best dog getting bred). So your argument is kind of flawed if you're suggesting that the problems with purebred (well bred, not BYB) dogs are due to breeding that is not selective enough.
 
#5 ·
The sad truth is that for many old breeds their work is gone, so they can only really be preserved as 'museum piece' breeds and show dogs.
the problem with this is the idea that preserving a breed means sticking religiously to the idea that the original function is the highest ideal.

you can retain the original function..or you can retain function. the difference in wording is slight but the implications are profound. and what im suggesting in no way at all calls for deviating from type.

Working Bred Pit Bulls retain their original type and temperament. they however have begun a process of adaptation to newer and more relevant functions. this is a very healthy thing for a breed...even if the original purpose of the breed was totally harmless.
 
#7 · (Edited)
I'll tell you this, the Guide Dog Labradors are some of the finest, and Lab-iest, Labs I've seen.

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.
This is actually a contradiction... if you're inbreeding, you have a closed gene pool. If the dogs are "rugged and tough... with almost no health problems" that is an argument FOR a closed gene pool.
 
#10 · (Edited)
The show ring does not degrade dogs in any way, When I enter Haweye in the show ring I am not putting him at risk of loosing his bite on cattle I am not putting his potential offspring at a disadvantage just because thier daddy did some conformation or has his Ch. What degrades a breed are the breeders who think that conformation is the only and best way to evalute their breeding dogs.

Hawkeye is still a rough and grippy cow dog, that doesn't change because show him in conformation.
 
#8 · (Edited)
I hear these arguments often because my breed is the German Shepherd. If a breeder is only breeding for the AKC breed ring, the dogs that often win are not, IMO, the best representatives of the breed. The American Ring desires too severe angulation at the stifle and the emphasis is all on "gaiting." Most of the dogs I see are gaiting long.. too long. I also think they have over emphasized neck length and other structures that I think make the dogs sometime appear whispy. Soft dogs have also cropped up as winners in the ring. The GSD used for breeding should not be 'soft' in temperament or fearful. This is my opinion only!!! American show breeders will disagree.

There are breeders of the GSD who breed for their original purpose.. herding. My last GSD, sire and dam both imported from Germany, herded cattle on my farm. I never bred her. She has great hips and lived to be almost 14. She was versatile.. and after the cows were sold and I was no longer a farmer she became my Dad's Hearing dog. She was all that the GSD was bred to be.. and she was born in 1992.

I currently own a female American line dog that would herd if I had the opportunity to get her doing it. She has been out on stock and is very good. She is a well built dog but is actually underangualted at the stifle and has less bone that I would like to see. Still.. she is a free and floating mover with a very efficient trot and could go all day. She was bred for the AKC show ring but I spayed her and she is doing AKC obedience.

My young dog MAY be my first venture into breeding these dogs. Her sire was imported from Germany and he dam is sired by an imported dog and she has German lines. She is a show line dog.. but the dogs behind her have working titles in addition to show titles under the German System. IF she health tests and titles I will be breeding her. She is the 2nd best puppy from a three puppy litter. Why take the 2nd best? The best puppy is long haired (Germans now recognize them as of this month). This was an outcross litter.

The German Bred dogs have "show line dogs" and "working line dogs" too.. and they look different and, often, behave differently.

I think that while a tough life doing the work required will separate the good dogs from the bad most dogs no longer have a job (the ABCA won't register a Border Collie if you register it AKC.. as they want to keep the breed true to its original design.. herding). The German system for German Shepherds requires a dog to get a Schutzhund 1 working title OR an HGH herding title before the dog can be bred/accepted in the German registry. Of course, the dog must also pass the Breed Survey and have the right temperament. If everyone were honest, this system would probably make for good, solid dogs. Problem is.. people are not honest, and there are such things as "mid night trials" and other methods to "get a Schutzhund 1" so the dog can go on and show and breed.

Now.. my breed, bred for tending loivestock, doesn't have much work anymore. The GSD can still find work because the breed does well at protection work. There are other breeds that need to find "other work" because they were bred for something not done anymore... like dog fighting (yes.. I know.. still done illegally but I think you get my drift). This is not to say the dog fighting breeds cannot find other contests (such as weight pulling) that test the breeds structual soundness... but the question then becomes does the 'new job' fit the conformation of the dog as originally designed? Other breeds.. like Rhodesian Ridge backs.. were bred to hunt lions.. what physical and mental test can they be put to here in the US?

I know what you mean.. cull by either design or by environment.. and only the strong survive to breed (Evolution with human fiddling). I would like to see more breed organizations require some sort of title for the dog to show they can work in addtion to winning a beauty pagent...

..but even then.. you won't eliminate the irresponsible breeder.. the BYB who just puts two papered dogs together and sell the puppies without a thought to XRays for health or temperament testing and so the genetic issues are still there.
 
#16 ·
I hear these arguments often because my breed is the German Shepherd. If a breeder is only breeding for the AKC breed ring, the dogs that often win are not, IMO, the best representatives of the breed. The American Ring desires too severe angulation at the stifle and the emphasis is all on "gaiting." Most of the dogs I see are gaiting long.. too long. I also think they have over emphasized neck length and other structures that I think make the dogs sometime appear whispy. Soft dogs have also cropped up as winners in the ring. The GSD used for breeding should not be 'soft' in temperament or fearful. This is my opinion only!!! American show breeders will disagree.

There are breeders of the GSD who breed for their original purpose.. herding. My last GSD, sire and dam both imported from Germany, herded cattle on my farm. I never bred her. She has great hips and lived to be almost 14. She was versatile.. and after the cows were sold and I was no longer a farmer she became my Dad's Hearing dog. She was all that the GSD was bred to be.. and she was born in 1992.

Of course, this makes me wonder why conformation is all about looks if the breed isn't all about looks.

If "holding to the ideal of the breed" also means the breed can do their true purpose and function, why is that not part of conforming to the breed's ideal? Isn't that what conformation is supposed to be about?

And why do breed standards want things that would actually detract from the breed's ability to perform their function? That makes even LESS sense. Not to mention preferring certain colors if color isn't a part of function. Reminds me FCI that wants only white cotons. Why? So they can look like Frisés and Maltese. Color is of no importance to the Coton's "function" (since they aren't working dogs I put "function" in quotes) so why does it matter?

I don't get it.
 
#11 ·
(the ABCA won't register a Border Collie if you register it AKC.. as they want to keep the breed true to its original design.. herding).
This is incorrect, actually. They will remove ABCA Registration if the dog garners a championship.
 
#13 ·
Elena et al make a good point.... dogs in working dog competitions are bred to maintain the strengths of the breed. I would venture that herding dogs, scent hounds, retrievers, and many of the sight hounds (working salukis and Afghans, etc.) maintain or exceed the original vigor of the breed.
 
#14 ·
I, too, agree with what Erin said in the bolded. My focus with Mogwai is NOT just conformation. My focus with Shepherds is NOT just conformation. I exhibit in conformation because it's FUN, and because I can admit that it does my ego good to have "one of those beautiful dogs". But I'd also like to put Mirada through the BH, and DEFINITELY get her working on sheep!!!! I'd like to put an HX on her (if not an HC). I just have to find someone willing to give us lessons (people do not want to work GSDs here from what I've found...just Aussies and BC's...hoping for better look in PA/NJ).

The stud dog I'm looking at should add a lot of what I'm hoping for in terms of a more solid temperament and better drive. I'm still trying to find other boys with titles behind them (seems a near impossible feat at times), but from what I saw of this particular male, if the owners DID anything with him other than specialing, he'd have his CD and his Started titles with no problem. Most unfortunately, they don't, and so if Mogwai is bred to him, I'll have to prove that the talent is in the puppies.
 
#18 ·
Thanks Laur. Knew I'd forget something.
 
#22 · (Edited)
Why do we judge dogs to a standardized look? because without a standardized look there would be no breed only a type of dog. WHY are Sable aussies not allowed? because the ranchers who originally wrote the standard looked at the most common colors in the dogs and decided that those are the colors this breed should be simple as that. Not to mention Merle was so popular in the breed already that allowing sable would make breedings more difficult since it can often be very hard to see the merling on a sable dog and unintentional MXM breedings would be more likly to occure.

A friend of mine breeds Welsh Springer spaniels, their breed only comes in Red and White. She had a litter of puppies and had a hunter interested in the litter. The Hunter wouldn't buy the puppy with the best noticeable instinct because that puppy didn't have enough white for his taste his reasoning "I wouldn't be able to see her very well in the long brown grass" and that was important to him. So you see many times colors in a breed were created by a preferance for the working breeders. That is why the West Highland White terrier was made, the hunters wanted a white terrier so they would never mistake their red terriers for a fox and shoot it.
Sometimes colors in a breed are decided to set that breed apart from a breed of similar build but different colors. Othertimes It is because at the time a standard is written those are the only colors known to exsist in the breed and any new colors that show up afterward make it easy to identify an outcross.
There are many different reasons why different breeds allow or don't allow certain colors.

Same deal with Nova Scotia Dock Tolling retrievers, they were bred to mimick the look of a fox to aid hunters, to be any color other than red with white spotting would ruin the purpose of the breed.
 
#23 ·
Why do we judge dogs to a standardized look? because without a standardized look there would be no breed only a type of dog. WHY are Sable aussies not allowed? because the ranchers who originally wrote the standard looked at the most common colors in the dogs and decided that those are the colors this breed should be simple as that. Not to mention Merle was so popular in the breed already that allowing sable would make breedings more difficult since it can often be very hard to see the merling on a sable dog and unintentional MXM breedings would be more likly to occure.

A friend of mine breeds Welsh Springer spaniels, their breed only comes in Red and White. She had a litter of puppies and had a hunter interested in the litter. The Hunter wouldn't buy the puppy with the best noticeable instinct because that puppy didn't have enough white for his taste his reasoning "I wouldn't be able to see her very well in the long brown grass" and that was important to him. So you see many times colors in a breed were created by a preferance for the working breeders. That is why the West Highland White terrier was made, the hunters wanted a white terrier so they would never mistake their red terriers for a fox and shoot it.
Sometimes colors in a breed are decided to set that breed apart from a breed of similar build but different colors. Othertimes It is because at the time a standard is written those are the only colors known to exsist in the breed and any new colors that show up afterward make it easy to identify an outcross.
There are many different reasons why different breeds allow or don't allow certain colors.
Also, markings can be important as far as reducing risk of deafness (requiring color on the head, stating how much 'flash' can be on a dog, etc).
 
#24 ·
A breed show is a beauty contest. That is all it is
How true, in the 70s the German Shorthair Pointer breed had more AKC Dual champions than any other breed. There were few though that could compete on the national field trial circuit and they were usually 2 to 3 inches taller and at least 10 lbs heavier. At least though there were owners that did both but can you imagine the expense.
 
#27 ·
There is a faulty premise set forth by the original post.

There are breeders who are breeding working dog lines who have actually improved their lines, both genetically and in work ability as well as improved health, because of very selective genetic testing and careful breed prospects.

As an example, in the general population of Labrador Retrievers, the hip dysplasia rate is about 30%, even among the "top quality" breeders. Think of that....one out of every 3 Labs will have hip issues.... even in purebred lines. Now take a look at the closed-population (not "inbreed", which is direct line ancestor to direct line progeny, but closed to outside unknown variables that general population Labs bring in) Lab breed lines that Guide Dogs for the Blind uses for their purposes: they have, through very strict genetics testing and breed sire/dam manipulation brought the hip dysplasia rate to less than 1/2 of 1 percent. From 30% to less than 1%. They have also had similar success rates with other "inherent" breed-specific issues such as vision and structural functionality.
It is done through very careful scientific selection using a closed population breed pool that does not limit the gene lines. Almost all of the reputable guide dog providers who have their own breed lines share their breed pool sires and dams, and all have been genetically tested and cleared for breeding to ensure superior offspring. And it works.

Please, original poster, conduct some valid research into what constitutes proper breeding before making generalized statements which spring forth from what appears to be a heavy PeTA influence. When done correctly, proper breeding continues to improve the overall lineage of the breeds.
 
#28 ·
Always enjoy your input SmithCat because of your first hand experience with a working Guide Dog.

The situation with German Shepherd's is similar. A study was done on eyesight. 52% of German Shepherd dogs are near sighted. Of German Shepherds who make it as Guide dogs that is something closer to 12%. I will say too that careful breeding of German Shepherds vastly reduced HD in the breed. Labs (not Guide Dog Labs) have more HD/ED now than the GSD's.
 
#32 ·
So the dog can be pure bred of the certain breed but because nature "decided" to give the dog one kind of markings/color and not another, the dog is no longer "that breed"?
Er...that's not what she said. She said there are many different reasons why different breeds allow or don't allow certain colors. White Shepherds are disqualified in the show ring...they're still German Shepherds.
 
#34 ·
I have learned alot from all the post. I do appretiate all the input. As I said, I am far from a professional in this area. I do feel that many breeds could benefit from a more working selection process. It was refreshing to hear of some of the efforts already in place. I do realize that many breeds were never intended as a working dog, and many others have morphed into other roles. But even with a high percentage of dogs being placed into non-working homes or environments, it would be nice if some were maintained with the original function in mind.

My comment about the Catalburun that their health and ruggedness despite being inbred, argues AGAINST the closed gene pool argument. It was misread, and may not have been written very clear. I did not intend to anger anyone, and did not intend to say that the show ring degrades our breeds. Only that in some situations, more could be done. I do feel that advances in genetic testing, and identification of recessive related health issues will be a great tool to help clean up some some of the health problems. Thank you everyone!
 
#35 · (Edited)
#37 ·
Oh no x.x that's posted on this board like once a month.

Look.. you are new here.. you stand a chance at insulting a lot of people if you say things like "Showline GSD's look like frogs." I found the documentary interesting (just because I like to watch things about dogs and see different perspectives on things), but I acknowledge that it's EXTREME. Not NEARLY every show dog looks like that. Yes... there are some bad ones (too many, really), BUT there are also a heck of a lot of good breeders who show their dogs but don't have cripples.
 
#36 ·
Ugh, that dog gone propaganda! CURSE YOU PDE!

My American GSD is not a frog, thank you very much :p Nor is my big male, who is mostly show lines (and I had a couple of people not believe me when I told them so).
 
#40 ·
And calling dogs frogs helps HOW?

The white GSD thing is different -- aren't they genetically pure GSDs (with no extra health issues), same as any other color?
In GSDs, white is a masking gene. They are purebred GSDs, and though they appear white, they could be any color that GSDs come in genetically. Black, Black and Tan, Sable, Blue, or Liver.
 
#42 ·
My dear, you just posted the link to this thread xD
 
#43 · (Edited)
Haha, so I did! I guess sugarr didn't actually read it, because several people have explained why dog shows are useful. :p I wish I could remember the titles of the other threads where people have discussed the benefits/drawbacks of conformation shows in more detail.

Edited, anyway!
 
#44 ·
Ok, well.. I shut up for a while and read through this forum.

Really, I didn't mean to insult anyone - I don't know a thing about breeders nor dog owners that use this forum so I would never criticize them.
As I said my words shouldn't be taken personally.

That's all for know, sorry if I've ofended anyone in any way
 
#46 ·
Don't be sorry! No offense taken by me - I just hate to see people make such generalizations because I know they can be hurtful to others who do show their dogs and have good intentions (a.k.a. not breeding crappy crippled cancerous cantankerous messes). ;)
 
#45 · (Edited)
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top