Purebred dog breeding discussion for the broader population - Page 1

has now hit the States in the way that Jemima Harrison's BBC show did in the U.K.


http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7064046


What always surprises me is this:
It seems that people are often intellectually incapable of differentitating between what is in their OWN SELF INTEREST and what is truth.

Why is it that EVERY breeder disputes the notion that shrinking genetic diversity is a big problem in the purebred dog world/? Why is it that people can't take a breadth and remove themselves from the picture - and examine the issues objectively.

Of course this Nightline piece referenced above is simplistic (the nature of the beast - a five minute report) but AT LEAST it spelled out EXPLICITLY that the problem they are trying to illuminate (genetic health and the lack thereof in the purebred dog world) is made up of two relatively SEPARATE issues.

Issue 1) - Easy to agree with in principle (the devil is in the details though).
Exaggerated characteristics as a goal. Everyone picks on the Bulldog as an example, but within almost all breeds there is a push for extremes. Extreme brachycephalia, extreme size, extreme haircoat, extreme drives, etc....all bad for OBVIOUS reasons. It's hard to imagine that there are any people who truthfully don't see that selective breeding which rewards extremely exaggerated characteristics - is bad for the breed as a whole even if it provides a competitive edge for the dog's owner.

Issue 2) - This is the one that MOST people are totally ignorant of, even though the basic principle is NOT hard to understand.

Lack of genetic diversity in any breeding gene pool leads to extinction. Simple.

Continually weeding out more and more individuals that represent variations (even if undesirable) leads to overall failure of the breed. Breeding only the best - for generations spells doom if it results in prevalent homozygosity.
-Easy to understand but folks can't give up the notion!

Of course "inbreeding" as defined in most people's minds is bad -
But every purebred dog is inbred. Everyone.
The trick of good breed management is to move entire breeds towards a "better place" WITHOUT THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER. Think of variation in the gene allele pairs as the baby you don't want to throw out.

Here are some ideas for solutions to the problems:

Every dog lover should indulge their love of the unusual - in their mind - but refuse to own a dog that has extremely unusual characteristics. Indulgence in the bizarre and unusual is a major contributor to the basic problem.

Every dog lover, once they are adults should discipline themselves to care LESS about physical conformation. The very act of people loving "looks" has led millions of dogs to a place of suffering and desolation.

All breed clubs should allow for maximum variation among all non-essential characteristics. The list of essentials should be very short.

All breeds should have programs designed to introduce outside genetic material, periodically. (Get rid of the stupid notion of "pure bloodedness". )

All breeders should buy COI software and never produce a litter with a COI that is higher than the average for the breed.

All breed clubs should mandate that the number of breeding females in any one generation be approx. the SAME as the number of breeding males. (Read about this importance elsewhere).

Finally, breeders must stop their fanatic devotion to their own self-interest by demanding that most dogs be sterilized. Many more specimens of each generation must breed - but NO DOG should breed a lot. Two litters for ANY INDIVIDUAL dog should be an absolute maximum. The bar for the first li

Ran too long.

The bar for the first litter should be very low - simply that a dog is
1- in aggregate better than the average specimen of the breed
2- doesn't have any major health issue

The bar for the 2nd litter should be very, very high.

There should be no 3rd litter for any individual dog.


Obviously, these things are unlikely to happen because few breeders are willing to give up the notion of autonomy and competitive edge in favor of health of the purebred dog world.

You can run health screens until they carry you off to the poorhouse, but you won't begin to solve the problem that way.
Sterilizing every dog in sight won't do it, either. In fact, it will make it worse.

Certainly the video is worth watching and there are many problems highlighted that should be a concern for anyone who loves any breed of dog.  I had to laugh when they pointed out that the AKC is supposedly the advocate for the breeds. Laughable indeed when, in fact, there are not even minimal health requirements set for breeding. The AKC is about one thing and one thing only, and that is money and self-perpetuation. I hope they will change to really see that registering any and all dogs is not in the best interests of the animals. 

Unfortunately, the answers to the problems brought up in the video are not so simple. In any case, you will never get everyone on the same page on any issue such as those brought up. For example, let's just say that genetic problem Y is identified in dog A. One of the problems is that many genetic problems already probably exist in at least 25% of the population of the breed, if not more. Even if one could get all the reputable breeders to agree not to breed dogs ever who show the genetic trait, it is problematic because there are people all over the country, indeed, all over the world, who will. So you can never eliminate any problem completely, regardless of how one or a group tries. And legitimately, some problems don't show up until a dog is older. And unless it is clear that the problem is not one also influenced by "nature and environment", one cannot expect to control outcomes.

Secondly, and as an example, the GSD breed has several genetic bottlenecks in it already. Another issue is how to resolve that bottleneck to maintain "hybrid vigor". One must be very careful not to induce a new, but just different, bottleneck. And if one says, well, we will excuse the fact that this dog is a carrier of an autosomal recessive inherited gene, for instance, because it is an otherwise wonderful specimen of the breed and brings many outstanding qualities, characteristics and physical traits to the breed, then who is to say whether those qualities, characteristics and physical traits are, in fact, enough to keep the given dog in the gene pool? It is a difficult issue and one with which I am well familiar.

These are important issues, but most people will not give two seconds to them.  If so many of the posts on this board are representative of even 25% of GSD lovers in a given geographical area, we are all in trouble because too few are able to discuss issues like this and understand what they are talking about. Americans, for certain, are lazy. Don't confuse us with the facts and god forbid that we might have to learn something when we would rather sit and drink beer and watch the Simpsons.

July9000, I agree with you. I cringed when that woman said she KNOWINGLY bred to a deaf dog. I had a client here who wanted to KNOWINGLY breed a very nice lab, but he had epileptic seizures of unknown origin. I was able to talk her out of it.

That's why I'm an advocate of "working" German Shepherds.  A true working dog breeder is not so concerned with the "looks" of the dog, but rather the function.  This includes the health, temperment, and of course working ability.  The German Shepherd has descended from regional breed types of Thuringian, Wurttemburg, Swabian, etc., hence, they came from true working stock.  That was their purpose from the beginning.  This was the dream of Max V Stephanitz.  I have no problem with someone wanting a dog to be a pet and companion only, that is a useful function, but when the health and innate ability of the dog is compromised, then I have a big problem.  That is the issue  with show dogs; health and working ability are sacrificed for that certain "look." 

Line breeding is only destructive to the breed when done incorrectly.  If done properly the "old blood" of the original working breed stock still comes through to our modern Shepherd.  There are a few knowledgeable breeders out there who are dedicated in bringing this "old blood" back to fruition today.  You can outcross all your dogs to bring in "hybrid vigor"  but you never know what you will get.  Just because you outcross is no guarantee that you will have healthy strong dogs.  The reality is, you don't know what you will get, and how do you really establish a knowledgeable breeding program that way?  Better to linebreed correctly, on the true strengths of the old blood. 


dcw

 dcw,

Your post makes some good points, but I too must take issue with your pounding of the show lines. Just because a dog is from show lines does not mean necessarily that it is unhealthy or not able to work, or of unsound temperament. And I have seen plenty from all bloodlines who were poor representatives of what the GSD is to know it is not simply a problem with one type of bloodlines to the others. Further, as you know, most of the working lines and do, in fact, go way back and have as ancestors dogs who were from the "show lines" In my opinion, to make such generalizations about show lines only detracts from the real issues, which I think you and I can agree upon, and which are health, working ability, temperament and correct structure, among others. 

All breeding is subject to risk, whether done without human interference, or whether done by humans in line breeding or outcrossing. Why? Because we are not fully knowledgeable about the genetics to the extent that we can really predict what we will end up with (despite all the ads here for puppies advertising that "this litter can do anything"). Further,  we have no great understanding of just what role environment/nurture really plays in much of this.

The real problems arise in that we, as GSD enthusiasts, cannot even find the "same page" so that we can agree on what really is the goal of breeding or the definition of the breed as a whole. I have no confidence that we will ever be on the same page. So in the end, I think one hopes that there will always be breeders out there who will struggle with these issues and come up with reasonable answers that do not do direct harm to the breed.

And July, you are correct.....as Blitzen was always saying: "you can't fix stupid". 

Great discussion!