I assume most just have same breed parents. That’s how it’s always been done around here. The traits of the puppies don’t affect the cost at all. Reese was dark haired runt, rather than the classic dachshund look of his sisters, but we paid the same amount for him.
Sure, at some point in the chain, I’m sure they got them from breeders who maintained a standard, and at some point before that, they were actually cross breeding to create a breed. But I don’t know how far back that actually is.
So, sure, this change would have little to no effect on mutts. It would obviously have a big effect on show dogs. My question is about the in-between: the purebred puppies that get sold to families.
The reason I ask is because I love dachshunds, and I would be concerned that changing the AKC requirements would then mean that the pet dachshunds would lose even more dachshund traits. I’m mostly hoping they’d stay about the same, too, like you say the mutts probably will.
We are being criticized and possibly prohibited by law for “playing God.” God – whatever you conceive Him to be, Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin – cannot be controlled and manipulates genes as He sees fit. But if mankind does the same thing, he must have limitations.
With human-generated scientific progress, we can now “play God.” My question is, why shouldn’t we?
The American cocker spaniel began going downhill in the 1930s and 1940s due to popularity inspired by their roles in movies, leading to overbreeding. The breed has fallen in popularity but the physical distortion and personality problems remain.
Compare the stocky, healthy dogs in the early 20th century (exemplified by champion Obo II):
…to what we have today:
I don’t know how you can legislate against careless breeding though.
*we had an American cocker several decades ago. Pretty solid conformationally and physically tough (great swimmer) but problematic in terms of disposition.
One of the biggest changes is that the modern cocker’s head is smaller in proportion to the body, giving the pinheaded look so favored by judges at dog shows.
Most pet-grade American cockers these days don’t need the sort of obsessive grooming those show dogs endure, but there’s still a lot of over-abundant fur to deal with.
There is nothing wrong with selective breeding; humanity has been doing it for centuries and it is arguably one of our oldest technologies after fire, language, and making complex hand tools. The problem is when it is done for purely aesthetic reasons without consideration for the severe compromises in the functionality and health of the animals in question. When a great breed like the German Shepherd, prized for its intelligence, obedience, and physical prowess is literally hobbled to meet a show standard that causes hip deformation and various other common congenital defects, it is a major problem.
Cockers are one of the worst examples of what breeding for show or ‘companion’ aesthetics does to a dog. I have read that the Cocker Spaniels were once intelligent sporting dogs that served as trainable ‘gun dogs’ and retrievers. Good luck finding one today that can be trusted to learn anything, and temperamentally they’re more likely to turn and bite you through the hand than take a treat. It has become a breed that should probably just be completely eliminated at this point because they have become so innately inbred it would be difficult to produce a decent or well-behaved animal from it.
In the early 1970’s I was into show dogs, it took me about 2 years to figure out I wanted no part of it. But at that time cockers were the worst dog for biting judges.
I raised and trained field bred English setters for many years as hunting dogs. They hardly resemble the show bred dogs.
I said above and say it again…man has been selecting the traits they want from canines since the first wolves came close to the fires of early man.
Is it our arrogance at being humans, therefore becoming the “god” of dogs and other animals?
Probably.
The standard can be modified to describe defective conditions as defective rather than as desired.
A standard that describes as desired faces flattened to the point at which breathing is somewhat hampered in many dogs bred to it and severely hampered in some, that describes deep skin folds as desired, that describes short legs as desired without also specifying that damaging features that often go with breeding for short legs are disqualifying and/or that doesn’t set some sort of porportional limit on how short they mean by short (or, if the issue is backs, doesn’t specify for healthy backs), etc. – such standards aren’t all of the problem. But they’re certainly some of it.
And they need to be trained, very thoroughly and when they are very young, what species not to hunt.
You’re probably never going to train an adult Husky not to hunt cats; but you can do so while they’re pups.
– We really do need also a great deal more education of humans in how to behave around dogs; whether the specific humans intend to own any or not. Dogs are all over the place. And way too many humans, including both people who keep dogs and those who don’t, have no clue.
Cats are also being bred in some breeds for overly pushed-in faces; and in other breeds for very thin elongated skulls. Both cause problems.
(Want a sane Siamese? Try to find an old-fashioned round-headed one. I think a few people may still be breeding them.)
– Laws shouldn’t specify particular breeds, IMO. They should specify degrees of repetitive inbreeding (an occasional close cross carefully done can be OK, doing it routinely not so), and traits damaging to health, as in hampering breeding, hampering movement, hampering normal jaw or brain development, increasing chances of infection, etc. Some people who know better than me how to phrase this should do the writing, and run it by a batch of veterinarians.
We shouldn’t do so recklessly and ignorantly; because we’re often damn bad at it.
And, to the extent that we do know what we’re doing: why should we be allowed to deliberately create animals who will be in significant physical difficulties much or all of their lives? We’re not allowed to keep a dog and not feed it. Why should we be allowed to breed a dog that can’t breathe properly, or one whose hips are probably going to give out long before their lives otherwise would?
Not every French Bulldog suffers from brachycephalic obstructive airway disorder. Half do not. A conscious breeding standard to disqualify signs of that could be effective.
If only their struggling to breathe wasn’t so dang cute! (Really many owners hear the stridor and think it is endearing…)
And quite a lot of theists will say ‘because our god(s) will punish hubris’; or, of course, some version of the “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?” speech.
So whether you’re talking to theists or atheists, that isn’t really a useful way to phrase what you’re saying. Which seems to me to amount to “why can’t each of us just do whatever we want?”; a question which has the obvious answer ‘because lots of the rest of us don’t want to have to live with the consequences. And probably you don’t either, because if you can do whatever you want why can’t everybody else?’ (“The rest of us”, IMO, not being restricted to humans.)
I have to say, nothing I did on purpose or thought about but my dogs, everyone I ever owned, adored me. Loved me to excess.
I was in essence, their god.
I was kind and benevolent to all.
This is how dogs get into trouble with humans. They count on us and worship us. Even if you are a mean, nasty or just a forgetful, stupid owner they love you.
It’s kind of sad.
It worries me. I think in this century we become so much better with healthcare, feeding, training and trying to understand what dogs need to be happy.
It showcases the really extreme incidents of abuse and neglect. There will always be horrible things done by horrible people.
This is where money should go. Weed out the unsuitable owners instead of trying to make perfect examples of dogs.
Yes, if you Google “applehead Siamese breeders” and your zip code, you’ll come up with hits for breeders near you. There’s also the Thai cat, which is pretty much the original Siamese before Western breeders started monkeying with the breed.
Mine are the scrawny pointy ones. They are insane. My breeder said the round headed, heavy bodied ones are mixed breed.
Maybe, I don’t know. She was kinda insane herself.
I would say mine are insane but also very genius. It amazes me how they control all situations.
Could be just annoying me til they get their way. But they know how
Which is genius in its own way.
Not necessarily. Mutts happen mostly when pets get loose at critical times. So pets with hip dysplasia will cause mutts with hip dysplasia. You just don’t see it as often because no one is caring for those puppies so they don’t grow up.
That breeder is full of it. The appleheads are bred from original Thai stock and are likely less inbred than Western elongated Siamese.
ETA: True, some colorpoint cats are the luck of the genetic lottery in random matings, but there are dedicated breeders of the Thai type who don’t outcross.
