Judging the inbreds.

If the standards can't easily be changed, can the judging be changed? Can there be a rule made like the rule that applies to all breeds: "All male dogs must have 2 testicles, fully descended in the scrotum"?

Can that universal rule be expanded upon to read things like the dog must be healthy, move well, not have saggy skin, -

- not have loose lower lips that cause the saliva to run out of the dogs mouth (yucky for the owners & dry mouth for the dog - AFAIK, only useful for Frankensteins that want to measure saliva production (Pavlov?), and I don't think scientist do that same experiment anymore.

etc.

How about the rule that the dog can't try to bite the judge? Can that be expanded upon to have where the dog must be friendly towards the judge?

Can it also say that all dogs must be friendly towards people at the show, and towards other dogs?

Is that too much to ask of show dogs?

It might be. That is probably one of the things novices first notice at a dog show. They know that their own dogs would be overjoyed to be at a dog show - in the belief that they could play with other dogs.

Pet owners can often picture what their dog would do at a show - jump up and down, wag his tail, grin, make eye contact at the other dogs. Whine at the in season females, or flirt with the boy dogs.

But I have noticed that at the dog shows, so many of the dogs move around like zombies - that is, the dogs don't try to play with each other.

They often act like they are the only dog there. Like the other dogs and other people are not there at all. Like a negative hallucination - like they are not seeing reality, as if they fail to smell that these are other dogs, and that there are other people there.

After a few dead end conversations, someone told me "They aren't trained to do that, they have kennel syndrome."

What? Harking to terriermans post "Do Kennels make dogs stupid?" It has a name "kennel syndrome".

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/
Dec 3, 2009

Have you noticed how people have gotten that way? We have! People use to say "Good morning", "Good afternoon" or "Good evening" to everybody who walked by the on the sidewalk.

Crocodile Dundee (one of the movies in the series) had a scene where he first goes to New York City (having been raised way out in the boonies of Australia) and he greets each person that walks by him on the side walk with "Good Day!" and tips his hat at the ladies. Because that is what he was taught, and that is what everybody did in his little town - just like people use to do in America.

Now we walk by each other like one show dog does another.

Eeeeks, is this a sign that we have "House syndrome"? Did we fail to notice that we were causing dogs to suffer from this, and in divine retribution, now we suffer from it?

I have said for some time, that dogs so mean and un-sociable that they can't be kept in a pack should be neutered/ spayed. Now, I believe that even more.

If they are written only on paper?

If the standards can be legally be changed, then the answer is easy, re-write the standards.

What to change? Want my opinion?

Get the breeders themselves to reach that moment of realization where they understand that they have been breeding for harmful mutations.

Those breeders who can't understand will have to adjust to "We are all doing it this way now, breed accordingly."

What to change in the standards is very easy - maybe if you are too close to it, you can't see it, but just breed normal looking dogs.

Some basics:
1. Dogs have a tail. The tail expresses the dogs emotions.

2. The dog's tail should NOT curl over it's back. A curl in any part of the spine, could mean a deformity in other parts of the spine, which might not be obvious when the dog tries to stand normally.

In dog sign language, a tail temporally curled over the back is a sign for aggression or suspicious alertness - which is not generally the baseline temperament you want your dog to have.

A genetically curled tail, that usually stays in that position, communicates this mental state all the time - leaving owners and guests unaware of when the dog is hyped, because he always looks like that.

3. Dogs have two ears. Dogs with one ear, might have had a damaged ear, dogs with two cropped or chomped off ears should not be shown, because how would you know what type of ear he genetically has? And if you let people show cropped dogs - some people will crop their dogs ears.

Dogs ears come in various forms. Some dog's ears are like a wolf's ears - they usually stand up, but are mobile. Some dogs have ears that flop down. Some dogs have ears that part way stand up. These are all okay.

But some dogs are bred to have very long ears. This does NOT help them hear better, it's like having giant ear lobes (although it is actually the whole exterior part of the ear).

Very long ears are bad, especially if they are wrinkly. The dogs can get ear infections, and the tips of the ears can drag the ground when the dog puts his nose to the ground.

3. Dogs should not have very short legs. Dogs should not have very long backs.

4. All dogs should have teeth that meet well. The incisors should meet in a scissor position. Level or slightly undershot is a fault. Obviously undershot or overshot is a DQ.

5. Dogs like to see, they should be allowed to do so. All dogs whose hair covers their eyes, should be shown with their hair pulled away from their eyes, or with their bangs cut. (This one is easy to do, it is not a breeding change.)

6. Dog's hair has a natural growth direction. Dogs with cowlicks or ridges of hair that grow the wrong way, should not be shown.

7. Dogs have a snout, a muzzle. If a dog doesn't have a snout, he can't breathe right. Dogs without a snout (flat-faced dogs) should only be bred to dogs who do have a snout. Dogs without a normal snout should not be shown.

8. Dog's skin should be elastic, but not wrinkled or in folds.

9. Dogs should have eyes that are set like a wolf's eyes, or somewhat deeper or a little bit shallower set. Dogs should not be shown if they have pop eyes.

10. Dogs have four toes and one dew claw on each front leg. Each back leg should have 4 toes, with one dewclaw being optional.

There are probably lots of others, if I took the time to think on it, but you get the idea, of what I mean.

And what about all the health problems that can't be seen? Aren't they even worse?
Yes, they are. But we have to start somewhere, and this is something the breeders can see without testing. Judges can see it.

Changing the standards?

As some of you might have read, people sued when one breed club & the multi-breed kennel club which it belongs to, changed one breed standard.

Some dog people are really into the show scene and they don't like changes that put them at a disadvantage or push them out of the game.

As far as I know, neither of the clubs had to pay anything out in any settlement, but court battles still cost money.

Which brings us to the question of: Can breed clubs change their standards (without courtroom conflict), or are they like a steel hulled ship, strong but not very flexible?

The British are changing some of their standards a little bit.

IF, if, if, if American dog breed standards are not truly changeable, then what?

Could any of the multi-breed kennel clubs in America safely drop any breed because they no longer feel the standard describes a healthy dog?

If not, then, although the standards were not written on stone, they might as well have been, for they are no longer erasable, or editable. They have turned to stone (wasn't that a song?).

Even if they are dieing like dinosaurs, they would not be able to change?

If the court case was more of a test, and the standards are changeable, and the standards are re-writable then what?

The first question isn't "How should the standards be re-written?", but "How do the big kennels, and active breeders want the standards to be re-written" - that will tell you what to watch out for.

The people involved are very apt to want the standards to describe their own dogs, even if those dogs are having genetic problems.

If you followed the arguments against ear cropping, breeders whose dogs had ears that looked good uncropped were not so much against banning ear crops -

-but breeders whose dogs did not naturally have the desired type of ear, tended to be against banning ear crops, as then their dogs would lose in the ring, and be out of favor with the pet buying public.

It comes down to the question of just how changeable the standards are.

Could any multi-breed kennel club oust one of their breeds, without it being more effort and expense than what they could be asked to do?

1. First Step. 2. Second step.

1. Change what the judges give ribbons for.

After getting council from lawyers, who don't breed dogs/ have a conflict of interest, plan the changes in what dog show judges look for in dogs.

There is no need to get every dog breeder in the country stirred up about this - you know what the vast majority will want - they will want changes that give themselves the best advantage over the other breeders.

You are planning changes that will help the dogs themselves, and the public at large.

Why are you doing this? Because the animal loving public increasingly doesn't like what you are doing.

2. Second step: Respect pets and the people who love pets. Pets are NOT any animals that doesn't show well.

The public who are buying "pet quality" puppies, expects that to mean the puppies have been bred to be quality pets.

The term "pet quality" is a misnomer. Aren't they really just "not good enough for the show ring"?

If I breed dogs as pets, can I label the puppies that are too bad tempered to be sold as pets, "show quality"?

It is the same thing. Call it a lie if you want, but the truth falls on both sides.

If Mary breeds puppies with most of the right instincts to be good pets, and who are usually good with children, can be left in a pack loose in the house, don't bark much, don't require much coat care, and don't shed a lot, and she sells them as good pet puppies - what do you call those puppies who have a bad temper?

Are they "nothing"? "Culls"? "Show Quality"!
Terms like "nothing" or "culls" wont sell the bad tempered puppies. So can Mary call them "show quality" to sell them?

If Joe breeds puppies with most of what it takes to win in the show ring, what do you call those puppies who don't have what it takes to win in the show ring?

Are they "nothing", "culls", or "pet quality"?
If you think they are "pet quality" then, in all fairness, aren't Mary's rejects automatically "show quality" when they aren't good enough to sell as good pets?

Giving it a go (or a heave-ho)

For the people in the small upper percentile, who know what the problems in dog breeding are, have some big picture of the situation at the breeder level, AND who care enough to want to improve dog breeding -

- but for some reason don't want to send the old structure into the trash bin, I am going to try to write a patch up job.

I don't know that it can be done. The world is full of greater minds than mine - and no one has done it yet, but then it doesn't look as if anyone has tried.

My ego is NOT so grand, that I think I can do this, but I am going to try, and if anyone comes along and takes it to the next step, that'll be good with me.

So consider it a first rough draft - that I am letting the public read - not so much because it is great, or even good, but because nothing will get done, unless people try.

I have written about some of the problems (below), now I am going to try to find a few answers, or rather, a few possibilities that might be worth discussing.

I have no idea where this will lead. I might give up after a short while, but for right now, I am going to try to be helpful, and constructive not destructive - although I won't hesitate to conclude that the whole system will never meet my standards and should go down, if I can not find a step by step way to chart a course for improvements.

So lets start off with the assumption that dog shows could be useful to the future of dogs, and that it is possible to divide dogs into separate breeds and still have things go well. (Start with the least likely scenario?).

Patch it Up, or Toss it Out?

There are major problems in dog breeding.

There are puppies being sold with genetic diseases.

Puppies are being bred for one purpose but sold for another - bred for the ring, but sold as family pets.

Health and temperament are often NOT priorities with show dog breeders.

The person producing the puppies (the dog breeder) is often trying to produce traits which the buyers (puppy owners) don't want, or don't care about.

While traits that the family buying the puppy want their puppy to have, are often traits that the dog breeder doesn't want or care about.

Genetic variation is being lost very rapidly. Some of it can never be recovered even if we could stop the inbreeding, and popular sire trends right now. There is no recycle bin for genes, once a gene is extinct, it is gone forever.

There are puppy mills, and smaller scale puppy mills: basement-puppy mills, garage-puppy mills, and extra-bedroom puppy mills, where dogs are kept in crates or cages. It is cruel to the dogs, and often produces inferior puppies that are not bred to be good pets.

Salon agriculture?
There are people breeding purebred dogs who don't even like dogs. They breed a few litters, so that they can claim to be in the business of selling puppies, so that they can use their dogs as a tax shelter. They can be a bossy and very vocal group, trying to get the rules changed into their favor.

Real puppy farmers?
Covered that, under puppymills. That is what for profit breeding often is.

Hobbyist?
On their own, hobby breeders might not be too bad. But they tend to get social, and led around by craftier people who are using dogs as a tax shelter, selling dog related services, using dogs as sport objects, or using dogs in experimental research or product testing.

Dr. Frankenhound?
That bunchers get dogs and sell them into research labs (laboratories), and product testing centers is a fact. It is a business. Pets do get used this way - it can be torture.

Some breeders produce puppies with genetic diseases to sell into research. But many of these puppies end up being sold into pet homes, or to other dog breeders.

Competitive Sports Breeder?
They only want the few puppies that are most likely to win in the ring or in the field. Their left-overs are taking over other areas of dogs, like kudzu in a southern summer. Like someone who breeds fancy carp, and sets the not-fancy-enough carp loose in public waters.

Family Pet Owner?
Pet puppies traditionally have come from other people's pets. A neighbor's dog has a litter of mutt puppies, and one of your kids asks "Can we have one?". This seems to be the best way to produce pet puppies.

It is often best that ranchers produce sheepdogs, that mushers produce sled dogs, that hunters produce hunting dogs, that pet owners produce pet puppies.

Two things have messed up this traditional method of producing puppies.

1. The pet market is the largest demand for puppies. Commercial breeders have pushed the pet owners out of their own turf. Pet owners are too naive, and the business people too organised.

2. Some uses for dogs, produce a large unwanted surplus of puppies.

Competitive events, like dogs shows, means that only those puppies most likely to win in the ring, have any value to the show breeders - the rest of the show-bred puppies will not find a home with a show dog person.

So the left over puppies are sold as pets, or as "pet quality", although there were not bred to be good pets. The traits selected for were NOT: how good they are with children, how easy they are to house-train, if they can be left in the house without destroying it, if they don't bark all day, and if they have a desire to please.

Other competitive events have a similar effect. Only the most likely to win puppies have value to their breeder - the rest are sold as pets. This includes breeding fighting dogs: the puppies that are not quite "game" enough, or not "game" at all, are sold as pets.

Time Magazine

One of the best articles on buying a puppy or dog, what NOT to breed dogs for, and a general understanding of the problem. By Time Magazine.

And, no, nothing has been done to fix the problems in dog breeding.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981964,00.html
A Terrible Beauty.

Wendy the Whippet

You can view these photos of whippet dogs.

The first vertical column is of typical whippets.

The middle vertical column is of whippets with one normal copy, and one myostatin mutation copy - you see, as is often the case, one trait is NOT recessive to the other, both genes are expressed, and these whippets run faster than other whippets - read from the link.

The right-side vertical column are the whippets with two copies of the mutated gene. They have huge muscles.

http://commons.wikipedia.org/
(enter: myostatin)

Wild Goose Hunt

You've seen photos and video of Wendy the Whippet with the mutated "stop code" gene that should (but in her case doesn't) turn off muscle growth?
(google: wendy the whippet) - many articles, and photos.

You know about the cattle breed, Belgian Blue - they are often shown with their butts shaved. I don't know why, other breeds aren't. Could be that the huge rear muscle prevent the poop from failing down? and they are shaved because that part gets dirty?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Blue

Ignore the blog title, this article is something else:

http://www.who-sucks.com/people/monstrous-myostatin-misfortunes-a-collection-of-myostatin-deficiency-pictures

Science has, once again, brought us to a fork in the road. In the comments at "who sucks" , you can read about pills that turn off the myostatin stop code, and some people think they would like to have that.

But the questions/problems are much much more vast than beefy cattle. Scientists no longer have to wonder IF they can tinker with the human genetic code - the question is how best to do it. Because companies, and governments will tinker with it.

We hope, that they will do better than the dog breeders, who have made a mess of things - and who, not only don't say they are sorry, they keep on with ideas that don't work.

Balance please. The dog breeders won't buck a bad system, and the scientist have not shown any "big picture" plan - just random individual guesses.

One thing from dog breeding: the truth is usually not simple.
Unintended consequences pop up when you change things.
Changes that have benefits, also have costs.

Like the Belgian Blue cattle, with the mutated myostatin gene, the cows often need C-sections, and the bulls often sire calves that must be born Cesarean, even when bred to cows who usually give birth vaginally.

If you change one protein to effect a particular item, you are also changing that protein's effect in the whole system.

Just breeding the best to the best doesn't work. Whippets that race the best, are often heterozygous for the mutated myostatin gene, so 1/4 of their puppies turn out like Wendy.

"who sucks" states, in the comments, that Einsteins brain was different. I'm not sure about that, but, what is unusual, is usually deviant, even if it seems to be better.

That is, super-normal is often another form of ab-normal. Something was traded.

The classic example being the scientist said to have 2 heads, but no heart.

There are stereotypes of strong men who weren't smart, and smart men who were weak, or heartless - as if, doubling one trait, reduced some other trait. Engineers who can't dance, dumb but pretty women, and so on. Most times stereotypes are NOT true.

But traits are more often NOT linked than linked. It is wrong to think that if a person inherits genes that make them much better at one thing, that they must (or must not) have inherited other better genes as well.

That's one of the downfalls of dog breeding: He grows such pretty hair, he must also be a better stud dog to produce better hunting dogs, and better puppies. Wrong, he has a gene to grow better hair. period. Breeding for 'better' hair is stupid, it takes away the focus of breeding for health, temperament, and usefulness.

Totally one dimensional breeding, It would be a joke if it weren't so sad.

Junk it

The whole idea of breeds is silly. It is dog show stuff. It is belief inspired by purebred ideology.

Breed dogs for their use. Coat and size are a factor, but not breed.

Are your field bred working setters getting too inbred?
Why breed them to a bench setter?
Breed them to a field bred working pointer.

Do you hesitate because then the puppies would have no "purebred papers" and it would be easier to sell 1/2 working setter, 1/2 bench setter puppies, with papers, to the fools who would buy them, than to sell pure working field bred pointsetters?