Documentary - BBC - Pedigree Dogs Exposed

[sillysally]

I guess that I should have taken care in each post to clearly state Canine Eugenics...not Eugenics (which is your Hitler reference).
I do agree with your point on the title and actually with some of the slants, but the facts are the facts and what was presented was certainly not anything like PETA's garbage.

I'm not sure why anyone, responsible breeder, pet owner (purebred or mutt), would not want to know what's really going on.

The concern I had about the show was not that I didn't want to know what was going on (although it was not exactly surprising--people are greedy, and when greedy people and animals mix it can be messy), but that there was absolutely no balance. IMHO, that just scream "AGENDA!!!" and that is something that needs to be kept in mind. I would have a lot more respect for the people that put this together if they had talked to responsible breeders, showed shots of dogs bred by those that actually cared about the health and temperament of the breed. But no, that would not only not fit the agenda but would not have the same shock value, and if it bleeds it leads.....

In addition, I think it should be noted that it is not just "show breeders" that can damage a breed, but "performance" breeders as well. At least in labs, the field trials are much more demanding than an actual hunting situation, and many field trail breeders therefore breed dogs that end up being absolutely wired and often not a good family pet, which is what a lab is supposed to be. There was an article in "Gun Dog" a year or so ago discussing this issue, and they mentioned how many hunters now who are just looking for a dog for non-competitive hunting and a companion are staying away from the hardcore field trial breeders. IMHO, the destruction of the breeds temperament is just as big an issue as failing to address health issues in the breed. I think that in the dog world breeding for extremes in general needs to be addressed.

 

[sillysally]

While I do understand the concern for agenda, this is fact and we have all seen the results of Eugenics in dog breeding.

Personally, I don't think that selective breeding ( I prefer to call it that because Eugenics can be a loaded word) in itself is the problem, but rather the way breeders are applying it.

The Arabian horse, a breed which influenced a huge number of modern breeds today, was inbred for purity a loonnnng time before anyone had even heard of such a thing as a dog show. Yet this was done carefully and these horses were hardly unhealthy mutants. They were war horses that were highly prized and well thought of by their owners.

"There were five main lines that were bred by five tribes. Each tribe would breed and interbreed only one line to keep the pedigree pure. The priced the purebred horse above all else. These tribes would pass down an oral history of each horses bloodline. In this way they are considered the first to keep a record or type of registry. The lines were remembered through the mares with the stallions holding much less significance. The mares were most treasured because they were used in war because they would not nicker to the enemies horses like the stallions. The purebred mares usually carried no price, meaning they would never be sold. Occasionally they would be given as a gift, which would signify the greatest honor. Usually, the only way another tribe could get them was to steal them or to compete in a long desert race. The winner would take the best mares from the loser’s herd."

"Over the centuries, the Bedouin tribes zealously maintained the purity of the breed. Because of their limited resources, breeding practices were extremely selective. Such practices, which eventually helped the Arabian become a prized possession throughout the world, have led to the beautiful athletic breed we know today, which is marked by a distinctive dished profile; large, lustrous, wide-set eyes on a broad forehead; small, curved ears; and large, efficient nostrils."

"Arabian horses became even more cherished when the Islamic prophet Mohammed made them a cornerstone in his Holy Wars. Mohammed improved his army by elevating the horse to a sacred level. He told his followers if they painstakingly bred and cared for fine cavalry horses they would be blessed. As the Moslem religion grew, the Arabian horse was introduced in North Africa, Spain and France. The breed again grew with religion when the Christian Crusaders landed in the Holy Land in the 12th century. The Crusaders were so impressed with the swift, tough Arabian horse that they imported large numbers of the breed into England and France. As Christianity spread across the globe, so did the Arabian horse."


IMHO, it is the methods (concentrating too m uch on looks, judges pinning dogs that are at the extremes of their standard, kennel clubs not requiring breeders to health test dogs), not the concept itself...

 

[dr2little]

I am going to state what I have believed for many many years (LauraLeigh can back me up with some of the chats we've had as breeders).
This is far more common that anyone wants to believe and I do believe it does represent the majority of breeders and with breeds across the board.
It is terrible that top breeders who are often mentors in there breed play this game and justify their actions as bettering their breed yada yada yada.
I hate the showing/breeding game and this is just one of the reasons why. And its justified for the sake of a bloody ribbon and Titles...........

Give me a working dog any day and a working dog breeder that does genetic testing etc.
I have known breeders that are mentors to so many people, people beat down their doors for pups and stud services......and those same breeders have said to me............'It's not their job to educate people'. Good grief and who's job is it?????

Or another favorite of mine.........breed BEFORE something shows up.

Or the breeder that flipped out because someone else told me about the PPL that she should told me about BEFORE I bred my bitch to her stud, especially since I asked repeatedly.
Of course that breeder wasn't concerned about anything except who told me, which I told her it didn't matter WHO to told me when she should have.
Of course, I had a devil of a time placing that litter (I petted them all with iron clad s/n contracts) because I told everyone about the risk of PPL.

Not surprised in the least and I hope it makes people open their eyes..........

This is exactly what I've been hearing from other breeders - too much being swept under the rug....for what purpose, to what end?
I think that those in the breeding world agree more with what has been represented than anyone in the general public. I know quite a few really great breeders who would like nothing more than to see this stuff brought to light.

I have to add that the only reason that the term Canine Eugenics bothers anyone or is considered a loaded term is because of the Eugenics reference to Hitlers agenda when in reference to human 'controlled selective breeding'.

The term 'Canine Eugenics' is actually not only not loaded...but is completely correct by definition and widly used in scientific research.

 

[sillysally]

I have to add that the only reason that the term Canine Eugenics bothers anyone or is considered a loaded term is because of the Eugenics reference to Hitlers agenda when in reference to human 'controlled selective breeding'.

Well, that's kind of a big reason, is it not?

I'm sure when they brought up Hitler and Eugenics in relation to dog breeding in the documentary they meant nothing by it though......

 

[Lilavati]

The term 'Canine Eugenics' is actually not only not loaded...but is completely correct by definition and widly used in scientific research.

It may be a fine term in scientific circles. But, trust me, when most people, the vast majority of people, hear "eugenics" they think Hitler, or the appalling acts committed in this country. They don't think selective breeding, they think the killing of those who don't match up, the forced sterlization of those of "bad blood" (you can argue this is true with dogs, but its not quite the same as with humans), the degredation and humiliation of people in the name of prejudice. bigotry and ignorance.

Its a loaded word. I even know what it really means, and I still think of unpleasant things when I hear it.

 

[dr2little]

It's those comments that 'dirty' these terms I agree, but why perpetuate it? I'm studying an entire section in class right now 'Canine Eugenics', and not one reference to Hitler...

In this context, it is simply a term meant to describe selective breeding and is used everyday without the reference back.

How about from now on, we just call it selective breeding then...

 

[adojrts]

Personally, I don't think that selective breeding ( I prefer to call it that because Eugenics can be a loaded word) in itself is the problem, but rather the way breeders are applying it.

The Arabian horse, a breed which influenced a huge number of modern breeds today, was inbred for purity a loonnnng time before anyone had even heard of such a thing as a dog show. Yet this was done carefully and these horses were hardly unhealthy mutants. They were war horses that were highly prized and well thought of by their owners.

"There were five main lines that were bred by five tribes. Each tribe would breed and interbreed only one line to keep the pedigree pure. The priced the purebred horse above all else. These tribes would pass down an oral history of each horses bloodline. In this way they are considered the first to keep a record or type of registry. The lines were remembered through the mares with the stallions holding much less significance. The mares were most treasured because they were used in war because they would not nicker to the enemies horses like the stallions. The purebred mares usually carried no price, meaning they would never be sold. Occasionally they would be given as a gift, which would signify the greatest honor. Usually, the only way another tribe could get them was to steal them or to compete in a long desert race. The winner would take the best mares from the loser’s herd."

"Over the centuries, the Bedouin tribes zealously maintained the purity of the breed. Because of their limited resources, breeding practices were extremely selective. Such practices, which eventually helped the Arabian become a prized possession throughout the world, have led to the beautiful athletic breed we know today, which is marked by a distinctive dished profile; large, lustrous, wide-set eyes on a broad forehead; small, curved ears; and large, efficient nostrils."

"Arabian horses became even more cherished when the Islamic prophet Mohammed made them a cornerstone in his Holy Wars. Mohammed improved his army by elevating the horse to a sacred level. He told his followers if they painstakingly bred and cared for fine cavalry horses they would be blessed. As the Moslem religion grew, the Arabian horse was introduced in North Africa, Spain and France. The breed again grew with religion when the Christian Crusaders landed in the Holy Land in the 12th century. The Crusaders were so impressed with the swift, tough Arabian horse that they imported large numbers of the breed into England and France. As Christianity spread across the globe, so did the Arabian horse."


IMHO, it is the methods (concentrating too m uch on looks, judges pinning dogs that are at the extremes of their standard, kennel clubs not requiring breeders to health test dogs), not the concept itself...

Yeah and the Arab is one of the most heavily INBRED and screwed up breeds out there today in horses. The Arab is a great example of how breeders for the show ring can mess up a good thing.................

 

[Dekka]

Hmmm yes this is a great example of what can happen in VERY well bred arab lines

and yes the bred her! Thankfully she seems not to have reproduced the deformed face.

On thing you forgot about the arabs in the bedouin days is that they were also rigorously culling. They would kill foals that didn't measure up. They couldn't afford to keep unsound or unhealthy animals. So while yes they were inbred they thew out all the defective ones. Another issue is that they were breeding for performance. Yes they wanted a beautiful horse, but beauty doesn't save your butt in a holy war. (of course an athletic horse will be a nice looking one) Soundess, good temperament and athleticism were paramount.

The reason arabs have such horrid reps now is due to the breeders who keep inbreeding or breeding just for looks. Who wants a brainless flighty tiny horse-even if it is pretty? The good arabs I have met are worth their weight in gold, but they are as rare as hens teeth. I have met so many flighty silly small arabs with 'pretty' faces out there...

 

[dr2little]

That picture took my breath away Dekka....

 

[Lilavati]

It's those comments that 'dirty' these terms I agree, but why perpetuate it? I'm studying an entire section in class right now 'Canine Eugenics', and not one reference to Hitler...

In this context, it is simply a term meant to describe selective breeding and is used everyday without the reference back.

How about from now on, we just call it selective breeding then...

Because once a word is tainted like that its almost impossible to clean it. And I don't recommend you try. Although you may be right, its just a word, and not a word with an inherently bad meaning, unfortunately, it is a word associated with VERY bad things . . . and if you use it, most people will, fairly or not, assume things you don't want them to. Just as Hitler permenently ruined the perfectly good name "Adolf" so he (and many others) ruined the perfectly good word "eugenics."

 

[dr2little]

It's those comments that 'dirty' these terms I agree, but why perpetuate it? I'm studying an entire section in class right now 'Canine Eugenics', and not one reference to Hitler...

In this context, it is simply a term meant to describe selective breeding and is used everyday without the reference back.

How about from now on, we just call it selective breeding then...

Which is exactly why, for this forum I suggested the above.

I am certainly not trying to change anyone's opinion of a word and if you knew my history, you'd know that I am more than aware of how the word eugenics (as it relates to Hitler) can stir up discussion and emotion.

As this is NOT about human eugenics, and I have totally acknowledged the fact that the word eugenics was used at all may now REALLY be used to jack this thread...can we please move on?

Again, this would not even be a discussion in the Canine study of selective breeding. I am not insensitive to the connections but as this is part of what I am studying, you can see why the terms do not drum up the same arguements in that context.

 

[Lilavati]

Which is exactly why, for this forum I suggested the above.

I am certainly not trying to change anyone's opinion of a word and if you knew my history, you'd know that I am more than aware of how the word eugenics (as it relates to Hitler) can stir up discussion and emotion.

As this is NOT about human eugenics, and I have totally acknowledged the fact that the word eugenics was used at all may now REALLY be used to jack this thread...can we please move on?

Again, this would not even be a discussion in the Canine study of selective breeding. I am not insensitive to the connections but as this is part of what I am studying, you can see why the terms do not drum up the same arguements in that context.

I was responding to your question about perpetuating it . . . there's no reason to . . .but it will perpetuate anyway, so might as well just live with it . . . now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

 

[perla123]

I watch the video on Monday and I just think is a horrible think that they are doing. What made me think the most is that one of the judges said that the GSD at the show ring was perfect according to the breed standard. And all so they said that these dogs where perfect to do what they are suppose to do. How can these dogs do their job when they can barely walk?!!. And if breeders are so pose to help the breed and breed dogs that have good temperament and supposedly health; why breed dogs that have such horrible decease? IMO this is the same as BYB

And another thing. Now that we have watch this video. How do we know that the breeder that we are getting our puppies from is a good breeder and is not giving you a pup with these deceases? wouldn't you think that b/c they are showing their dogs at such high stage they will give you a healthy puppy?

this is just confusing to me. Who can you trust these days?

 

[dr2little]

I was responding to your question about perpetuating it . . . there's no reason to . . .but it will perpetuate anyway, so might as well just live with it . . . now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

Understood..

 

[Dekka]

I just sat down and watched it. I am not a 'well known geneticist' by a long shot but they say the same things I have been saying for a while now. No matter how well you screen for health issues if breed 'cookie cutter' dogs you will get health issues. Inbreeding is bad. And if all the lines are related, even your out crosses aren't really.

I do think its sad that this documentary seemed to be anti purebreds. Cause its not 'pedigree' dogs that are the issue, its they way they are evaluated and bred thats the problem.

 

[joce]

I do think its sad that this documentary seemed to be anti purebreds. Cause its not 'pedigree' dogs that are the issue, its they way they are evaluated and bred thats the problem.

Exactly-which is why I think a lot of people who watch this will take nothing away from it other than get a mutt. Which would be good if the designer mutt people were not saying exactly what the video is When they are breeding even worse quality dogs.


And it even talks about health tests and points out no one uses them and the breeders do not wait till the age vets tell them to breed. It should be called dog breeders exposed. But even then people would go to back yard breeders instead. Just makes show breeders look bad. It needs some balance-maybe one good breeder.

 

[sillysally]

Hmmm yes this is a great example of what can happen in VERY well bred arab lines

and yes the bred her! Thankfully she seems not to have reproduced the deformed face.

On thing you forgot about the arabs in the bedouin days is that they were also rigorously culling. They would kill foals that didn't measure up. They couldn't afford to keep unsound or unhealthy animals. So while yes they were inbred they thew out all the defective ones. Another issue is that they were breeding for performance. Yes they wanted a beautiful horse, but beauty doesn't save your butt in a holy war. (of course an athletic horse will be a nice looking one) Soundess, good temperament and athleticism were paramount.

The reason arabs have such horrid reps now is due to the breeders who keep inbreeding or breeding just for looks. Who wants a brainless flighty tiny horse-even if it is pretty? The good arabs I have met are worth their weight in gold, but they are as rare as hens teeth. I have met so many flighty silly small arabs with 'pretty' faces out there...

Note the last part of the post
"IMHO, it is the methods (concentrating too much on looks, judges pinning dogs that are at the extremes of their standard, kennel clubs not requiring breeders to health test dogs), not the concept itself..."

Again, it is not necessarily the concept of selective breeding that is flawed, it is the methods used and the ethics of those involved. It's not like they had some magic breeding bullet back in the day--they culled (which is easily done medically today), and they bred for soundness, temperament, and performance, which could most certainly be done today.

Actually, I am a fan of arabs and have met quite a few very nice ones. Most of the arabs that I have met a merely sensitive, intelligent horses. These "brainless flighty tiny" horses make up the majority of endurance horses competing today. Actually, I have known *way* more insane QHs than arabs (and I am a QH owner, BTW).....

 

[sillysally]

This is an interesting article on the subject of inbreeding I found on another board.....

http://members.tripod.com/~Marge_S_2/nonframes/inbreeding.htm

 

[adojrts]

^^^ thats a good example for the novice. Its absolutely true that many people confuse the terms, but typically not someone who has been breeding, done their research first, had some mentors and learned a bunch of knowledge etc, whether it be horses or dogs for many years and of course they would have to know pedigree's, lines etc. Which bybs don't know or care about etc.

I will always believe that inbreding didn't work for the royal families and it DOESN'T work for horses or dogs either without huge conquences. And it may not bite those who are practising it then, but those who follow........

And I also know that there are far to many breeders out there mass producing puppies for that ONE puppy in pursuit of those Titles and championships...........

 

[Dekka]

Hey silly sally. I am a forensic biotechnologist, I am continuing on to do more work in genetics to finish up as a geneticist. I do have an idea what I am talking about.

I have met some good arabs (see my post) and a the majority were actually the ones from endurance lines. LOL I love the thoroughbred, I LOVE LOVE the uber sensitive types. I own an andalusian arab cross who took 3 years under saddle before she would accept contact! I do know the type. I am talking about (mostly) the arabs I see around here, bred to be pretty but little else.

Think about this if you will...

You take a population of one breed of purebred dogs, say its 250 000 dogs. All these dogs are owned by breeders who breed 'to better the breed' by breeding for conformation, and will only breed the dogs that are excellent examples of the breed.

So each generation they throw out (by s/n) a minimum of 90% of the genetic material. They use the 10 to breed.

The next generation they throw out 90% again and so on and so on. How long do you think it takes before all the dogs in that population are so related that even if you out cross you are inbreeding?

Now you might say that doesn't matter you are breeding the 'best'. BUT you will find NEW and interesting health issues come up. A single random mutation can play havoc with what is left of the genetic profile of the dog. Just read up on "Impressive" in the AQHA and see the damage ONE stallion can do in a diverse population. Imagine if he was all through a breed before they found out what was going on (if everyone was breeding for looks and no one was breeding on performance)

Another issue I have with breeding for looks is that often its silly. For example take tollers. Tollers used to be able to have white on the back of their neck less than 10 years ago. Now according to their standard they can't. Now this doesn't affect their health, temperament, or working ability. But the really silly part is that its not even inheritable. The problem is that most breeders don't really understand medalian genetics and dogs are more complicated than pea plants. (tho its a great beginning)

Markings are NOT directly inheritable. Look at clones. Cloned animals have markings in different areas. It has to do with activation of genes within the womb. So toller breeders are throwing out genetic material for no reason!!

Actually I own a breed that is very inbred. BUT they are outcrossing like crazy now that the traits they want are there.

If you want a great example of what inbreeding can do. Look at the cheetah. They are so inbred as to practically be clones of eachother. They can accept skin grafts from 'unrelated' cheetahs.

Good article here http://www.messybeast.com/inbreed.htm

Now that is not to say 'some' inbreeding or line breeding isn't good. You acutally need s small amount of inbreeding to keep a population fit for its environment (or a dog breed to have a type) If anyone wants some 'light' reading google Sewall Wright or one migrant per generation rule (hahah) tho some are now saying you need 10 per generation to keep heterozygosity alive. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119217980/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 If I remember correctly Wright thought that a 0.2 inbreeding co efficient was ideal. This is the gold standard used by animal conservationists around the globe.

Now if you look at people breeding for working ability you will see a much greater diversity in phenotype than you do in conformation dogs. Take Border Collies for example. The conformation version all look big and blocky (like aussies) with lots of hair. The working type varies in coat type, ear style and to a degree body style. There is a lot more genetic variation there, which leads to a more stable population when you can't breed outside your breed.

I could go on more.. but this is turning into a novel I love to talk genetics and breeding.