Without humans, you wouldn’t even get the yellow dog (AKA pariah dog AKA dingo). Without humans, the only “dog” breed would be the wolf. We bred a lot of different traits into wolves for a lot of different purposes, but there were some traits we bred into all of the breeds we created, and yellow dogs still have all of those traits common to all dogs.
To the OP, I agree that dog breeding has gone too far, but I’m not sure how (much less where) to draw the line. Every change we’ve made to dogs has some benefits and some drawbacks. Some benefits are definitely worth the drawbacks, and some aren’t, but how do you write a law to define that?
They may develop back issues, but they (all of mine, at least) are very sweet. loyal and intelligent little beasts. Unless you are a mouse or field rat. Then they will hunt you mercilessly and eventually tear you to pieces.
Oh, that link didn’t work for me, by the way. Must be on my end…
How much effect do AKC standards have on the average person’s pets? All the dachshunds I’ve ever owned were “miniature” in that they were significantly shorter in length and slightly taller. They were just pups from someone else who had a dachshunds. (One set were not even purebred, but they still looked noticeably dacshund).
Most dogs are not bred to be show dogs, so it has to be some sort of knock-on effect. So I’m wondering how much effect it would have on the dogs we get access to.
I love dachshunds and obviously do not care if they meet the current AKC standards. But how much would the average dachshund change?
The AKC has almost no effect on people who have mutts as pets. But if you’re picking a specific breed, then they’re ultimately coming from someone who raises that breed. And what standards are they breeding them to?
That’s a bit overstated. The AKC has done much to make the world of dogs better.
Expressing need to have vet checks often, vaccines regularly and spay or neuter pets. They clearly love dogs.
It’s not like they’re take bad examples of the breed out back and clubbing them to death.
Dogs that are not show standard are sold or adopted as neutered pet quality.
Show dogs are not treated terrible( I’m sure there’s been some bad examples) but for the most part they are treated like royalty.
Exactly. I’m thinking of Munchkin cats - it’s not that they are “regular” cats who happen to have legs on the short side, bred with similar cats until the legs get shorter and shorter. The Munchkins possess a certain genetic mutation that causes very short legs (and a host of health problems, quite often - it is a recessive gene and if a kitten inherits two copies, it is not viable).
I have a Carolina dog. Not the breed for the faint of heart.
Their smarts get them into many kerfuffles.
Dillon, my Carolina dog does love me. And is gentle around the kids.
I wouldn’t want him out in the general dog park or noisy location with lots of people. He’d go berserk.
Not sure what he’d do.
The devil in him wants to run. We have to keep him carefully kenneled and leashed. And we live in the middle of nowhere. But he goes very far.
While it is tempting to single out the AKC as the cause of congenital health problems and poor genetics in dog breeds, the reality is that it is just a manifestation of the general problem of breeding dogs for ‘show’ characteristics (i.e. appearance) and the general rise of ‘companion’ animals that exist as accessories for people who have no business owning a dog. (Dogs bred and ‘trained’ for pit fighting or as attack dogs are obviously an abuse, and people who do this shouldn’t be allowed to own any dog.) Actual working breeds tend to have far fewer health issues (except for size related problems for the giant breeds) just because it is too expensive to invest all of the time and effort into training a working dog to perform tasks and be adequately socialized and because they are generally bred for some combination of intelligence, obedience, and innate drive.
I doubt trying to outlaw ‘breeds’ of dog will have much of an effect because breeders (especially puppy mills) can delist, and most of the breeders producing ‘defective’ animals aren’t selling to owners for show purposes. I would argue that it is better to inform the public that dogs are creatures with rich internal lives and strong innate drives that require that they be placed in an appropriate environment (i.e. don’t buy a Belgian Malonois as a ‘family pet’ or a Border Collie as an apartment dog which is expected to lay on the couch for hours on end), and buying them for appearance or breeding them with known health problems but I suspect relatively few prospective owners and many breeders are completely indifferent and actively obtuse.
Wow. The Humane Society case against their track record is pretty damning.
Show standards and breeders competing for closest adherence to them are dumb, but many of those standards are neutral to health. I am not convinced that form (appearance) is totally immaterial to the modern function of likely most dogs, which is being the companion animal.
Relatively few working breed dogs actually are working. And many dogs chosen because they are cute, and look cute with their owners, are loved intensely. Maybe they are accessories but they are coddled accessories.
I think there is just poor awareness that the perceived cuteness of America’s currently most popular dog (by AKC registrations anyway), the French bulldog, comes at the price of dogs suffering.
The creation of the supply that exaggerates those features is a reflection of the demand by those informed mostly by seeing celebrities with their dogs.
These sorts of laws may be impossible to enforce but if they inform the public narrative to a perception that the purchase of these dogs is driving canine suffering they may still impact demand and have some effect.
It is tragic though that the AKC is such a part of the problem. Standards could and should include aspects correlated with health and fitness, not the superficial alone.
While most members of ‘working’ breeds are not performing the herding, hunting, or guarding tasks that they were originally bred to fulfill, they are still (generally) better in terms of having fewer genetic defects and congenital problems, at least until they start being bred primarily for appearance. Unfortunately, these are also breeds that often have strong drives which owners need to exercise and accommodate, and so many people get a handsome looking bred like a Belgian Malinois assuming that it is just a bolder kind of German Shepherd and don’t appreciate that they have an animal that can destroy a large piece of furniture in minutes and outwit a typical member of Mensa when it comes to escaping or getting their way unless they are adequately trained and socialized.
Well, the problem is that the AKC can publish breed standards (and genetic fitness and health are at least ostensibly part of those standards) but they don’t have any actual regulatory authority or control over breeders. That the organization has essentially becoming a lobbying source for puppy mills and large scale breeders is unfortunate but also kind of a logical conclusion since that is where the money comes from. I think the larger problem is that most people, even repeat owners of dogs who have been bred into phenotypical monstrosities and innately bad-tempered ‘pets’, don’t understand or care what this does to the animal’s quality of life. Banning specific breeds, as tempting as it might be as a quick (if ineffectual and almost impossible to implement) solution, doesn’t really address the core problem that owners need to view their pets as having psychological needs and some level of interior life. I don’t mean this in the PETA way that dogs should just be allowed to do whatever they want without discipline or restraint, but that an owner has a responsibility to their companion to make sure it is well-socialized, can respond and return whether on or off leash, and to look out for all aspects of the dog’s well-being, including not patronizing breeders who squirt out cocker spaniels that will as soon snap your hand as accept a treat, or miniature whatevers which have a powerful prey drive but no way to ever appropriately exercise it.
They will still be bred. As long as there’s a market.
My Dalmatian was bred during the Popular phase of the Movie ‘101 Dalmatians’
She was a terribly sad dog. Surrendered because she was mean and prone to vicious outbursts.
I worked at the shelter who got her. And she learned to trust me. I knew there was goodness in her. She couldn’t help what happened in her being bred badly.
It was determined she had a neurological disorder. I didn’t put her thru more tests. She was also partially deaf. Once she understood hand signals her behavior was better. Around us. I never trusted her around other people because of her fear response.
A beautiful but damaged dog who I gave the best life I was able to.
I also had a purebred Yorkie who was physically and mentally handicapped. She was due to be euthanized and I rescued her at a very young age. Handfed her the whole 10 years she lived.
That little 4lb thing gave me more love than any animal I’ve ever had. She was worth saving.
Both dogs probably shouldn’t have been born. But they were.
It’s no organizations fault that people do these things to dogs.
It’s consumers who want these dogs.
You’ll see the Frenchie will go out of favor because they are not an easy breed. Stubborn is their middle name. Like the Bulldog(not bully breeds, the Bulldog breed) which the Frenchie has in their DNA they will challenge your every rule. They are not exactly cuddly after puppyhood and can be snappy. Health problems. Eye and skin folds are messy and stinky. I love watching the little videos of them, they’re so cute. I ain’t living with one, tho’.
All this to say it’s the human species that does this to canines.
Organizations have a responsibility, of course. But they are not the real problem. They are a extension and ran by failed humans, sometimes.
Since the first wolf got close to the fire of early man and learned to co-exist, breeding for a better hunter, sled puller and other special uses Man has done this to canines.
Sure they do. If someone is breeding defective poodles, then you declare that that breeder’s dogs don’t meet the breed standard and thus aren’t officially poodles.
Yeah, a large fraction of consumers actually care about getting their dog’s “papers”. Especially the ones who buy names breeds to begin with. The AKC could address the issue if they wanted to. But the money comes from breeders.