.com Forum · Real Show Dogs

Thought I would share a thought-provoking, rather unsettling but truthful article, called The Tragic Loss of Bloodlines and Mentors in America.

Read here:

www.gompalhasaapso.com/GompaLhasaApsoPreservationProgram/Resources/Articles/The%20Tragic%20Loss%20of%20Bloodlines%20and%20Mentoring%20in%20America.htm

A snippet that I feel rings very true.

"I have personally noted that no apparent mental concept of the breed standard seems to be required by this new generation of dog breeders. In its' place resides the quaint desire to refrain from producing a show specimen with any disqualifying faults or other serious refractions that might prevent winning. If every critter produced by such breeders and their typical, entangling alliances is entirely different in type, temperament and structure from the next, this is apparently incidental if not amusingly quirky - rather than appropriately humiliating."

Please discuss and comment!

I think the point the article is missing is that big kennels with dozens of dogs are a thing of the past and concern about inbreeding and genetic disease (and not just the "deadly defect" ) is high, IMO quite rightly.

The consequence of this is that breeders today do not have enough dogs in their own possession to build their own bloodline particularly not if they intend to avoid creating a line full of cancer, auto-immune disease, allergies, orthopaedic problems, heart issues, epileptics, cherry-eyes, anxiety/OCD, or C-section requiring dogs.

The idea that the bloodline system has somehow proven 'superior' (at what?) is questionable at best, or demonstrably wrong if agricultural animal-breeding is considered.

grif,


-----
Last edited by griffin on 1/4/2014 6:29:11 AM

Thanks for posting this -- I really enjoyed it, very insightful. I disagree with the comment above. I think the point of the article was far more focused on the fact that people should try to overcome the challenges of creating a line and -- through trial and error -- will eventually have a healthier dogs that throws pups with more consistent temperament, health, and conformation. Which is the direct result of creating a healthy line by breeding unrelated dogs with similar traits.

-----
Last edited by Canis Lupis Kennels on 1/5/2014 10:50:13 PM

Below is an excellent article pointing out that breeders who breed for "type" are actually breeding for soundness since these are actually the knowledgeable breeders vs the hobby or fad breeders referred to in the previously cited article. These breeders are pursuing "lines" they have created in CONJUNCTION with health testing! There are two sides to EVERY discussion

www.thedogplace.org/GENETICS/Reading-Pedigrees_BJA-133.asp

-----
Last edited by Acclamation on 1/6/2014 11:49:58 PM

I would agree that the article is flawed, as the majority of the article seems to be pointing out flaws that apply to much of America's youth-- being lazy, expecting immediate reward, wrong priorities, etc.

While this is certainly a problem, I would have hoped for more on bloodlines and less about today's youth.

ARG Acclamation, that article makes me want to rant so much, but I will try to be polite about it and simply say that there are glaring errors about how genetics works and not a single mention of health testing.

grif,

quote

---

posted by griffin
ARG Acclamation, that article makes me want to rant so much, but I will try to be polite about it and simply say that there are glaring errors about how genetics works and not a single mention of health testing.

grif,

---

I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. Though studying a dog's pedigree can have many benefits (detecting serious faults in breed type, temperament, and health) it seems to ignore the importance of evaluating (and health testing) the actual dog in question. A line of healthy and conformationally correct dogs won't necessarily produce a dog with the same traits.

It's possible that most of you that replied missed the entire point of the article. It was not about genetics, health testing or newbies. This article shows a distinct trending in purebred dogs, a metamorphosis of the way in which purebred dogs in America are passed down as a hobby from one generation to the next. If you have been in dogs over 30 years, as we have, you would probably grasp this trend innately and if you are still in the AKC dog world, have probably adjusted to it. Bloodlines are not simply DNA and genetics. If that is what you think, you have really missed the boat. They are the end result of cultured, experienced production. You can look at that end results as a product or as a creative effort, a work of art. I choose to see the end result of a lifetime of intelligent, caring, selective genetic pressure in this hobby as a work of art, an act of love. That is the point of the article and I should know, I wrote it. FYI (and despite its flawed genetic language and imperfect grasp of every inclusion mentioned) it is the most widely reproduced article in modern canine breed history with reproductions WORLDWIDE in several languages. Evidently, it struck a note with those who chose to regard it as a valuable cognitive tool in the purebred dog world. Thank you for your kind attention.

Kudos to you for such an incredible article ... I'm the one who posted it under my other kennel name "Acclamation". A Dandie breeder/all breed judge who is a good friend had sent it to me and it really added to my respect for "Responsible Breeders" Thank you for your insight!!

Excellent article, a bit hard to 'get the gist of' from one read through, but I have to agree with the observations - IMHO we will NEVER again have the experience of 'old time' breeders offered say 20/30 years ago to 'newbies'.
In the US moneyed 'kennels' have existed, run by kennel managers, owned by the rich, guided by the manager who has free rein to buy 'the best', placed with top handlers and promoted in the dog press week after week. I think this practice is (thankfully) losing popularity.

This has not happened here in the UK. There have been larger kennels in some breeds but always owned by the dedicated exhibitor and/or breeder. Not since pre-war days have large kennels dominated our show scene. Most exhibitors and breeders of the past 2 or 3 decades have been hobbists, however the restrictions of the resession, higher entry fees, fuel costs, planning/environmental health restrictions on keeping over a certain number of dogs, cheap imported puppies from Eastern Europe, etc etc have meant that keeping dogs as a dedicated hobby has declined.

As for mentoring, it has happened here, but probably not like it did in the US. Everyone now appears to be 'out for oneself' and probably with good reason. I can relate first hand to every situation in the original article, nodding in agreement as the stories are relayed, understanding the 'knife in the back' scenarios because I've seen them up close and personal.

Dog breeder as we knew it 30 years ago is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. It won't go back to how it was. Dogs are now seen as disposable by so many - If they dont WIN they are out! If they dont BREED they are out! If they dont SELL they are out! More's the pity but that's the way it is nowadays.

Thank you Carol for the article, I will read it again and again, to remind me of what used to be, and of what we have now.

As someone who started breeding and exhibiting over thirty years ago (though I hate to admit it,but qualified my first homebred dog for Crufts in 1981)I found myself nodding sagely throughout!
Very much a food for thought article, somehow the whole idea of doing your research before you buy a dog, even for a pet, just doesn't exist any more!

Currently looking for a show pup in a different breed, I found myself lost for words when the breeder informed me they were very experienced top breeders, having been in the breed since 2004!!!!

quote

---

posted by Sonlit
Bloodlines are not simply DNA and genetics.

---

"Bloodlines" as a term is a hang over from the Victorian era when wealth, status and employment was often passed down from father to son and the class system was deeply entrenched. This was seen as the natural order of things and to marry outside of your own social class was frowned upon (Human 'bloodlines' were culturally important not just canine ones).

quote

---

posted by Sonlit
You can look at that end results as a product or as a creative effort, a work of art.

---

Dogs are not pieces of art for breeders to sculpt in anyway they want. They are living breathing individuals who can think and feel and suffer as a result of extreme traits and genetic diseases either deliberately or accidentally produced in the name of "art" or "beauty".

To glorify out-dated ways of thinking: of dogs as objects to be moulded and the all importance of bloodlines and passing things along one to another after a suitable period of indoctrination, by saying their loss is "tragic" IMO does a disservice to breeders, fanciers and owners who want to move forward and use the knowledge and tools of the modern science of genetics and animal cognition/behaviour to breed healthy happy dogs, and create a community of openness and cooperation rather than a one of closed-mindedness and elitism.

grif,

-----
Last edited by griffin on 3/2/2015 3:07:38 AM

I'm sorry, Griff, but are you actually involved in the purebred dog fancy or are you one of the PETA/HSUS proponents? Your statements are rude, uninformed and just plain disrespectful. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and you are no exception, but please try to keep your opinions respectful to other, better educated (on this subject) persons who are reaching out to educate others. Are you published?

-----
Last edited by Tizzy Too on 3/2/2015 7:34:19 PM

Tizzy Too, being "published" doesn't make your point any more valid.

tbh, grif is the only one making sense on this thread. Another reason I sit back and watch this obstinate 'fancy' shrink.

Also, your comment is a little dismissive and rude in itself. Everyone else should be quite while the "pros" talk it out (on a public forum)?

And another reason...

quote

---

posted by Tizzy Too
I'm sorry, Griff, but are you actually involved in the purebred dog fancy or are you one of the PETA/HSUS proponents? Your statements are rude, uninformed and just plain disrespectful. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and you are no exception, but please try to keep your opinions respectful to other, better educated (on this subject) persons who are reaching out to educate others. Are you published?

-----
Last edited by Tizzy Too on 3/2/2015 7:34:19 PM

---

I have published peer-reviewed scientific articles on genetic disease, as a biological researcher I have no love for animal rights activists (Having my lab put in lock-down once or twice a year because of them protesting will do that). Calling me rude is not a rebuttal to my arguments, and appeals to authority (Since when are hobby/fan magazines considered authoritative?) are a classic logical fallacy.

All I did was express a view which does not romanticize or glorify breeding dogs, which clashed with all the patting of ones' selves on the back going on here. Though I think you have proven my point about elitism & closed-mindedness by implying I should sit-down and shut-up because I haven't been breeding dogs for 40 years and expressed an opinion you disagree with. (Now I'm being rude & disrespectful, since you've already accused me of doing so)

grif,

-----
Last edited by griffin on 3/5/2015 5:39:22 AM

Griffin,

Your scientific approach is all well and good in theory but in actual practice, dog breeding, like all animal breeding is an art form and requires talent and instinct to manage successfully. That is, if you believe success can be found in creating dog breed standards and working toward them. I doubt that would qualify as a quality goal in your book. Am I right? As for your suggestion that bloodlines are a Victorian concept, It may go back a tad further. Start with the dawn of time and the Hebrew bloodline leading to the birth of Christ. Everything else sort of pales from there yet still we branch our various families based upon our various interests in life. Branching is also a genetic concept. Mendel, genetics and the fluidity of DNA is somewhere down that pathway and that should be sufficiently scientific even for you. However, as stated - great scientific principles don't always prove true in practical function. Isn't that amusing? I have worked closely with at least one masters degreed scientist/biologist who happened to love dogs, bred and showed them.

Bloodlines are far from an outdated concept. The truth is that your paradigm is much too small. Bring your finely tuned thoughts to the horse racing world and proffer them to their longstanding breeding community - yes, please run that 'outdated Victorian concept' past them. Let us all know how that goes for you. Using every scientific principle that exists so far and all the genetic testing you can afford, go ahead and breed some great dogs for the show ring or the field or just one or two great race horses. If there is no art, no instinct, no talent to it, you ought to be an enormous success and make scads of money. However, I suspect you don't approve of bloodlines because you may not approve of breeding purebred dogs for show standards. Too much harm done to dogs...right? I could set you flat on your face with that one statement alone using only my own records at home. It doesn't work to spread that unhealthy purebred propaganda on those who are in a position to make a liar out of you. You may not be working for PETA and you may have many peer reviewed articles, but you do not approve of breeding dogs or of bloodlines, IMO, period. (Period - that's the little dot at the end of the sentence used in place of an exclamation mark when you want to be polite where politeness is undeserved.)

You use an abundance of intelligent verbiage but you don't make a lick of good sense in anything you've stated here thus far. The article was written for dog breeders about bloodlines, a concept which I doubt you grasp at all.

Me thinks you doth protest too much... Griffin has said nothing outwardly offensive to anybody- they merely have a different opinion than you do. If Griff hates purebred dogs so much, why would they have but so many years into a game solely about purebred dogs?
I happened to think Griff had some excellent points. You, on the other hand, have yet to say much of anything besides that apparently anyone who holds a more nuanced view than you do is by default a terrible person.
There is absolutely no need for your venom towards Griffin here, all it's really doing, is proving Griff's point.

Yes, I protesteth too much and for no really good reason it seems. IMO, the purebred dog world was a place of greater beauty and depth three decades ago in all its pitiful genetic ignorance than it is now. To glorify or romanticize something you've done with passion for decades is not a crime. In fact, I think to spend a lifetime pursuing anything without passion (glorifying or romanticizing I)t is criticism enough of your methodology. If you are going to do anything that long, by God, do it with your whole heart as well as your practical mind or you've accomplished nothing whatsoever.

For what it's worth, I've been involved with purebred dogs and dog shows for forty years of my life. I wrote for many dog publications mostly unscientifically and primarily passionately. I also bred and showed two breeds very successfully and health tested ALL, every LAST ONE, of my breeding stock using all the tests available as they came available. Despite all that health testing available and used by the breeders, no real progress has been made. I wish I could say it has but the statistics OFA has provided don't indicate that. In fact, the health of the breed has deteriorated further. That's not particularly romantic, it's just a very dull fact. That fact did not keep me from continuing to health test the dogs I have remaining.

I resigned from dog judging as I no longer support the American Kennel Club as a judge manipulating, show granting club of clubs. I am also not actively showing nor actively raising purebred dogs. Those are also unromantic and dull facts. However, I find it more than annoying when people who spend a lifetime pursuing a hobby can find no place for passion, which is the love of what they are doing. You can do anything with great integrity and that itself is a form of beauty but to do it without love is a disservice to yourself and everyone around you. Just contemplate that last statement if nothing else I've mentioned here flies with you.

I am as done here as I am everywhere else in the dog world. Thanks for your time and patience.

Yes, I protesteth too much and for no really good reason it seems. IMO, the purebred dog world was a place of greater beauty and depth three decades ago in all its pitiful genetic ignorance than it is now. To glorify or romanticize something you've done with passion for decades is not a crime. In fact, I think to spend a lifetime pursuing anything without passion (glorifying or romanticizing I)t is criticism enough of your methodology. If you are going to do anything that long, by God, do it with your whole heart as well as your practical mind or you've accomplished nothing whatsoever.

For what it's worth, I've been involved with purebred dogs and dog shows for forty years of my life. I wrote for many dog publications mostly unscientifically and primarily passionately. I also bred and showed two breeds very successfully and health tested ALL, every LAST ONE, of my breeding stock using all the tests available as they came available. Despite all that health testing available and used by the breeders, no real progress has been made. I wish I could say it has but the statistics OFA has provided don't indicate that. In fact, the health of the breed has deteriorated further. That's not particularly romantic, it's just a very dull fact. That fact did not keep me from continuing to health test the dogs I have remaining.

I resigned from dog judging as I no longer support the American Kennel Club as a judge manipulating, show granting club of clubs. I am also not actively showing nor actively raising purebred dogs. Those are also unromantic and dull facts. However, I find it more than annoying when people who spend a lifetime pursuing a hobby can find no place for passion, which is the love of what they are doing. You can do anything with great integrity and that itself is a form of beauty but to do it without love is a disservice to yourself and everyone around you. Just contemplate that last statement if nothing else I've mentioned here flies with you.

I am as done here as I am everywhere else in the dog world. Thanks for your time and patience.