Say what? There are still plenty of sacks and bridges.
This sounds a bit like science fiction, so maybe a science fiction answer for the genetic failures is in order: Soylent Green. Obviously unacceptable in lands where dogs are sacred, of course.
I believe that’s already used, by American Family insurance company. They may even have it copyrighted. (But they spell it AmFam.)
I have a mate who’s on an AWESOME pyramid scheme !
For the price of a bottle of Scotch whisky, you can buy a bottle distilled water with a little bit of salt in it, AND it will cure aches and pains, probably cancer, and no doubt make your dick bigger.
It s name begins and ends with an A, with a SEA in the middle.
I’m just biding my time before I rush out and buy cratefuls, before selling them on at an incredible profit !
I am so disappointed to hear this. And Ameridog sounds like an airline.
Amfid?
Sounds more like a description of the way most of them treat their passengers!
Shame on you! I’d never treat my dog that way.
Well, some of the “working breeds” are still selected for temperament and ability, not looks. There are also some “breeds” not formally recognized as showdogs who avoid being inbred for looks.
American Pit Bull Terriers (as distinct from their American Staffordshire Terrier cousins) were bred for temperament and ability for a long time, although that’s kind of gone out the window with the current backyard-breeding craze. Still, they are not supposed to be selected for appearance. Many of the backyard breeders became obsessed with a particular bulky look (I won’t dignify it by including the keywords that might attract the wrong sort of searches) but it looks like that trend might now result in separation into a new “breed,” the American Bully, so maybe the APBT will escape being bred for looks after all.
I would have said “pit bulls bred for sale,” as a significant majority of people I encounter outside the world of knowledgeable dog people seem to think there’s big money to be made selling pit puppies. So many young men think it’s like printing money. I think greed for cash drives more breeding than dogfighting…of course, dogfighting is probably the reason people think these dogs are worth big money. And, horribly, the reason they think the demand will always be there…because, in theory, people who buy dogs for fighting will always need replacement dogs. shudder
We own Border Collies. Border Collies are wonderful dogs - for us. I wouldn’t want any other breed. I value intelligence in dogs, but intelligent dogs need active companionship and constant attention.
For other people, the best dog is a lap dog that doesn’t need much exercise. Some people want dogs that bark, to act as a burglar alarm. But others want dogs that are silent to avoid disturbing the neighbors. Still others need a dog that can retrieve fowl on hunting trips, or that have hypo-allergenic fur (or no fur at all). Some people will only tolerate a dog that doesn’t shed. Others can’t stand tiny yappy dogs and want a large dog.
There is no ‘perfect’ breed, and therefore there will never be a single ‘AmFam’ dog.
There are plenty of dog breeds that already fit this criterion. Golden Retrievers, for example. Or if you want a smaller version, a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever. But there are many breeds that fit this list of requirements.
There are also many purebred dogs whose breed standards require them to maintain their working ability. Border Collies are a good example. There are other purebred dogs that are not registered with the AKC precisely because the upholders of the breed don’t want the breed to conform to rigid rules of conformation. Border Collies were kept out of the AKC for a long time because the various BC organizations wanted nothing to do with conformance shows.
The real issue is with the AKC and its focus on conformance to certain crazy breed standards.
What bugs me most is this new category of ‘designer’ dogs, which are dogs that are cross-bred but do not breed true. They’re given cute names like ‘Cocka-poo’ or “LabraDoodle” and sold in pet stores for outrageous sums of money. Our local ‘PJ’s’ pets always has a bunch of these puppies in glass cages, selling for $800-$2000. It’s basically a way to get cheap puppies and sell them at highly inflated prices. If you want a cross, go to the pound and save dog’s life.
Golden Retrievers are a great example of how fucked up the dog breeding establishment is.
They are all disposed towards hip displaysa. You have to bring them up in the right just to have a chance that they won’t get it.
Oh and sixty per cent of them get cancer.
WHAT THE FUCK?!!??!
Most of the really serious inherited defects in purebred dogs are not caused by breeding for appearance – except in those breeds where the appearance has become bizarrely distorted, like in show German Shepherds, American Bulldogs etc. It is due to inbreeding, which can’t be avoided if your gene pool started very small and then was completely closed off, which is a description of virtually all AKC registered breeds.
See, with our Amerifam Dogs, we would avoid this by using Actual Genetic Science to develop our breed, instead. High heterozygosity and a standardized breed type are possible via assortative mating.
I’m no geneticist but any fool can see that “purebred” dogs are going down the tubes.
But the inbreeding is due to the focus on appearance (and other arbitary standards). It is a completely rational response when you have a super short term horizon and silly aims.
It has been worsened by the use of artificial insemination. This reduces the cost, and increases the availability, so that many breeders can buy shipped semen from the currently-winning champions. Previously, because of cost, most breeders went with a local cross, which kept more bloodlines active. But now, breeders across the country can buy shipped semen from whoever is winning the big shows.
This isn’t allowed in racing thoroughbreds (must be live cover, no shipped semen) but they still have the problem. Of the 21 entries in the Kentucky Derby, about 3/4ths trace back to the same bloodline. And that has a known propensity to fast but weak legs and fractures (like Barbaro). There is much concern that other bloodlines are dying out in the breed. But in this breed, owners have long been able to bear the costs of shipping mares across the country to breed to a winning horse.
The Arabian breed had a problem with their in-hand show horses – they were breeding exaggerated traits for ‘living statues’ without any consideration of things like temperament and actual usability. So the breed dealt with this by refusing to issue the designation of “Champion” unless the horse also competed in performance (riding or driving) classes. This seemed to mostly correct the problem. I’m wondering if we will eventually see dog shows including requirements that the dog can do more than look pretty – it can actually do its intended purpose: golden retrievers that can retrieve, german shepherds that can herd, etc. I think those are called field trials, but they are far removed from the ‘beauty contest’ dog shows we see on TV.
The inbreeding is the result of more than one thing. One is called “popular sire syndrome”, which is what happens when everyone breeds to the same outstanding male, and then his most outstanding son, and so on.
The second cause is closed stud books, which just means that after a certain introductory period for the development of a breed, no animals other than those bred from those which are already in the registry can be registered. It was originally a marketing idea by a cattle breeder in 19th century England, and it worked so amazing well (in terms of adding monetary value to what otherwise was just an ordinary cow) that it became a universal strategy by animal breeders.
In commercial breeding of animals which rely for value upon such things as early weight gain, good mothering traits, long lactation, or wool qualities, it was found that inbreeding has its uses but outcrossing to specific unrelated animals can correct some of the inherent genetic problems of this technique; stud books might be used but almost always have flexibilities built in, and the generality of meat for example comes from nonregistered animals.
Dogs however stayed right there in the 19th century with its antiquated ideas of ‘pure blood’ which came straight from human racist ideologies, because there was no real incentive to change the marketing strategy. The product was too subjectively judged for that.
The trouble for the purebred dog industry is that genetic reality is catching up with them and their branding strategy is failing. That’s why the ‘designer dog’ market – it is simply a response to the opening presented by the decline in prestige of the purebred dog, due the real genetic problems finally getting significant traction in the public mind. It makes little more genetic sense, though.
Precisely. Most of the genetic issues plaguing purebred dogs could be quickly solved if dog breeders adopted the same strategy as European sport horse breeders, and allowed carefully chosen crosses between related breeds to be registered (along with some restrictions on the maximum litter number allowed to be sired to keep popular sire syndrome down to a minimum). Linebreed to fix type, with regular planned out-crosses to ensure the gene pool remains sufficiently diverse for the breed as a whole to stay healthy.
Unfortunately, I don’t see the AKC (or many individual breeders, either) adopting that strategy any time soon. All you have to do is look at the fuss the Dalmatian fancy kicked up when a breeder deliberately crossed his Dals with Pointers to fix the hereditary uric acid syndrome 100% of puerbred Dals have. After several generations of linebreeding, the offspring of the original Dalmatian/Pointer crosses were 100% indistinguishable from “regular” Dalmations, except that they didn’t get kidney stones. But the fancy fought a huge battle to keep those healthier dogs out of the AKC studbook, on the grounds that they weren’t purebred. It was really, really stupid.
The problem with the AKC is that it is essentially a gigantic conglomeration of middle class middle aged suburban women who share a hobby.
The only real pressure on dog breed hobbyists is other dog breed hobbyists – in particular, the ones that are senior to you in your particular breed. They decide whether you are in proper conformance with the rules, and if you are not, your hobby is over. Nothing else really matters except belonging to the club, because that is what the hobby is about. The dog shows are the medium, but y’know, dog shows don’t create grossly malfunctioning inbred dogs, hobbyists do. Not on purpose, but as a side effect of what they must do in order to conform to the rules of the club.
It’s a game, with live dogs as the pieces in it.
Too true. There’s a third factor, at least for the breeds with smaller gene pools, at work as well, which I forgot to mention in my previous post, which is somewhat related to the popular sire effect, and is brought about by people with the best of intentions. My parents’ last dog illustrates this problem well.
My parents love Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. This adorable breed has a very small gene pool, and is wracked by serious health problems as a result. The most serious is a strong tendency to develop mitral valve insufficiency. 50% of Cavaliers have a heart murmur by the age of five. Cavs are a toy breed, and small dogs are generally the longest-lived, but the average lifespan of a Cavalier is only 12 years, largely due to premature deaths from heart failure. Cavaliers are also prone to a serious and painful neurological disorder called syringomyelia. Both the heart disease and the neurological disorder are polygenetic in origin, so there’s no simple gene test you can use to screen for them.
Enter my parent’s previous Cavalier, Buddy. Buddy was very friendly, and also a pretty typey animal; his breeder kept him for nine months before deciding he didn’t quite have what it took to be a top show dog. Buddy, like nearly all of his breed, developed mitral valve problems - but his first symptoms (a very faint murmur) didn’t develop until he was 10. He died at age 17, of renal failure, NOT heart disease, outliving the breed’s average lifespan by 5 years! And during the course of his long, long life, he never showed even a trace of syringomyelia.
Looking at the total package (type, temperament, and health), Buddy was unquestionably a breeding-quality animal. His robust genes would have been a clear asset to a breed plagued by severe health issues. He should have sired multiple litters, to spread those much-needed healthy genes throughout the breed’s gene pool.
Too bad he was neutered at the age of 9 months, in accordance with the breeder’s sale contract.
We spay and neuter too many purebred dogs way too early, well before their actual worth as potential breeding animals can be properly evaluated. This is a particular problem for breeds which have serious polygenetic health issues that tend to develop later in life (like a propensity to develop cancer, or autoimmune diseases, or cardiac problems). This inadvertently accelerates the concentration of “bad” genes in the breed, as less typey but healthier animals are removed from the gene pool while better-looking but less healthy critters are bred. But everyone encourages early spaying and neutering as part of responsible pet ownership! Add to this the popular sire effect and the closed stud books, and it’s no wonder so many dog breeds are such a mess.
Breeding good dogs isn’t easy. It’s too bad dog breeders don’t study the methods used by professional stock breeders, and learn some basic genetics. But as you said, the dog fancy is fundamentally a game played by people who don’t know much science, and I don’t see anything changing anytime soon.
I hear you. The early spay-neuter ideology isn’t helping this particular problem.