Jump to content
BC Boards

The danger of breeding to form


Pippin's person

Recommended Posts

I've never shown dogs and don't really have a lot to do with folks who do (just the nature of the beast, no pun intended), but ISTM that shows like "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" did specifically mention secret surgeries to make dogs acceptable for showing that otherwise wouldn't be. So I don't suppose it's out of the realm of possibility that show breeders other than the ones "exposed" also do stuff like that. I doubt it's widespread, but where money and prestige are involved stranger things have certainly happened, and those who have the means and the desire to do so probably do. It's not as if there aren't myriad examples of such "tricks" (including falsification of pedigrees) in conformation showing of any number of species, not just dogs.

J.

 

It would be silly for me to assert that falsification of papers "never" happens among breeders who show dogs, but like you, I also doubt it's widespread, and I have some experience with the culture that leads me to that conclusion. Hence, based on my own experience, I am reluctant to make a blanket association, and I very much want to disassociate myself from unsubstantiated claims to that effect.

 

I would be more inclined to believe that the fixing is widespread, based on my anecdotal experience, but that is also an unsubstantiated claim, so take it for what it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Terrecar,

I don't think anyone--including any of your show friends--would read this thread and believe that you are participating in generalized accusations about cheating.

 

Other than the articles like the one that started this conversation and the few shows out there like Pedigree Dogs Exposed, I imagine most "evidence" is anecdotal. But just for example, I know someone who has bred a particular type of sheep for decades. This person no longer bothers to sell sheep as registered, but instead sells them as *purebred*. This person will say that it's tacit acknowledgment that the term registered is pretty meaningless anymore when breeding (purebred) sheep for show.

 

I doubt that such behavior is widespread among dog breeding simply because of the ease of checking through DNA testing and a culture that might even expect such testing to take place. But I don't really know, so you're right that what we're discussing here is more speculation than fact.

 

That said, I think a culture of silence in many venues is the very reason that people get away with cheating (or abuse, for that matter, but that's another topic).

 

I don't think it's a great leap to assume--knowing what we do of human nature--that if chalk and mousse, strategic clipping, etc., can reap succees in the show ring that *some* people will always go a bit further to ensure success.

 

But I understand that you don't want to be associated with any such assumptions or generalizations, and that's certainly your right.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean you have had the same experience as me, or as the other poster?

 

Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear.

 

Aside from creative hair trimming, ear cement and chalk, all the folks who I counted as friends who participated in conformation events were very honest. I have heard of the things Geonni talked about, but I did not find them to be widespread. I have been involved in showing dogs in obedience since 1991 or so, so that's when I started attending dog shows.

 

Its possible that the folks I knew were the exception, and most were people who showed in obedience or agility too and did conformation as part of a contract with a breeder or if they were a breeder because they felt their dogs should have "titles on both ends," as they say...so that may have been different. I also only knew one Collie person and she was a real newbie so maybe its more rampant in Collies.

 

But no, most were good people who believed in the function following form idea and that all good breeders should show their dogs and prove they were worthy. I did not hear of faked papers, selling to pet stores, surgical correction of real problems or deliberate breeding of colors that one knew would be dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But no, most were good people who believed in the function following form idea and that all good breeders should show their dogs and prove they were worthy. I did not hear of faked papers, selling to pet stores, surgical correction of real problems or deliberate breeding of colors that one knew would be dangerous.

 

Your experience is the same as mine, and I handled in the breed ring here and there since about 1974 until 1999.

 

I guess I probably should have simply stated my own experience, because looking back on my post, I can see how my commments appear as a challenge to someone's honesty. I basically just wanted to give my own experience and a more balanced picture.

 

I'll state it more succinctly here:

I have a good deal of experience with this group, and while they are guilty of a lot of things, there are other things to which, in my experience, they show quite a bit of disdain. Fixing paperwork, breeding MM and selling to pet stores are three of those things. Therefore, my own observations have been that they tend to police themselves via their Bylaws and Code of Ethics in those specific matters.

 

I think one of the things that makes me question some accusations and generalizations is the tone of some of them. I get real nervous when things start looking like a free-for-all or a witch-hunt (not that there aren't any witches that need huntin').

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article merits close, attentive reading. It provides so many insights into AKC culture, and into the fundamental, puzzling question: How can people who love their dogs and their breed deliberately breed them to be defective?

 

But they're good people! They love their dogs! Their dogs are their whole lives! They're responsible breeders! They spare no expense and never stint on vet care! They are respected by their peers! They produce champions!

 

How can they fail to see what is so glaringly, painfully obvious?

 

Thanks, Robin.

 

Eileen, you sum up my thoughts about the article perfectly. I was both saddened and confused by the attitudes expressed. I went and googled the re-bred bulldogs and to me they still looked like bulldogs, but I guess border collie owners are not fussed by having identical dogs!

 

I read the article a few days ago just after we met a bulldog on a walk, he was a nice friendly dog who wanted to play with our boys really badly but just lacked the physical ability to, it seemed like every step was hard work. I thought he was obese, but my husband who got a little more physical with him trying to get our bumper back said he was solid muscle, the poor boy just could not breathe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a good deal of experience with this group, and while they are guilty of a lot of things, there are other things to which, in my experience, they show quite a bit of disdain. Fixing paperwork, breeding MM and selling to pet stores are three of those things. Therefore, my own observations have been that they tend to police themselves via their Bylaws and Code of Ethics in those specific matters.

 

I think we're all pretty clear by now what you are saying, terrecar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrecar,

I don't think anyone--including any of your show friends--would read this thread and believe that you are participating in generalized accusations about cheating.

 

Other than the articles like the one that started this conversation and the few shows out there like Pedigree Dogs Exposed, I imagine most "evidence" is anecdotal. But just for example, I know someone who has bred a particular type of sheep for decades. This person no longer bothers to sell sheep as registered, but instead sells them as *purebred*. This person will say that it's tacit acknowledgment that the term registered is pretty meaningless anymore when breeding (purebred) sheep for show.

 

I doubt that such behavior is widespread among dog breeding simply because of the ease of checking through DNA testing and a culture that might even expect such testing to take place. But I don't really know, so you're right that what we're discussing here is more speculation than fact.

 

That said, I think a culture of silence in many venues is the very reason that people get away with cheating (or abuse, for that matter, but that's another topic).

 

I don't think it's a great leap to assume--knowing what we do of human nature--that if chalk and mousse, strategic clipping, etc., can reap succees in the show ring that *some* people will always go a bit further to ensure success.

 

But I understand that you don't want to be associated with any such assumptions or generalizations, and that's certainly your right.

 

J.

 

Julie:

 

I am more concerned with presenting a fair and balanced picture than I am with what my 'show friends' think, and quite frankly, I don't travel in those circles any more. I see too many problems with breeding for the show ring (or at all for that matter) in general. But yes, you are right. I don't want to be associated with assumptions and generalizations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're all pretty clear by now what you are saying, terrecar.

 

While I am not quite as sure as you are about that, I'll leave off this discussion simply because it's diverting from the original subject of the post, which is an important one for anyone who cares about dogs.Just save me from myself and give me the command "that'll do" :P

 

ETA: Oh wait, that's only for a job well done, right? Scratch that. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone who is interested:

Re: Pedigree fraud

 

Pedigree fraud in Norwich Terriers

http://www.dignpop.com/Home_files/Page568.html

 

Bulldog, Kuvaz, Samoyed AKC Studbook corruption

http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/Ped.Fraud.1-0603.asp

 

Look at section entitled “Registration”

http://www.canismajor.com/dog/akc.html

 

Also, if one reads my post (#18 on this thread) one will see that I don't accuse all or even most conformation breeders of these abuses.

 

But there is money in pedigreed dogs. And like most things that involve money (and ego) there are abuses. My point was simply that for a number of people who breed show dogs, or run puppy mills, and some who fall between these designations, there are abuses and unethical goings-on. The ones I mentioned I have seen for myself. If others have not, well and good. I was not in the ring with the show dogs, getting paid as a handler. I was in rescue, trying to pick up the pieces of Collies in trouble, whether from the stupidity of uninformed or uncaring owners, or the unethical practices or of show, backyard or puppy-mill breeders. So yeah, I was "running in different circles."

 

Personally, I don't see too much difference in surgically altering a Collie's ears so they "fall right" or plastering them in place with moleskin, string, carburetor-cleaning fluid, Popsicle sticks or whatever. But one is forbidden by AKC rules and the others are not - so long as the dog isn't wearing them when it steps into the ring. Both types of alteration involve varying degrees of discomfort for the dog, and both are pretty pointless except in the pursuit of a ribbon. It was (and still is) done to Collies, and I have no doubt it is now being done to Border Collies. Unfortunately, it is one of the least damaging things being done to the Border Collie by it's "recognition" by the AKC.

 

The point is, there are all kinds of unnecessary,stupid, and bad things done to dogs in the AKC world - from the show ring to the puppy mill.

 

Like bulimic supermodels and child labor in the clothing industry, AKC dogs suffer from human vanity and the greed and abuse in the pet/show industry. And that is very much the point of the article on Bulldogs in the New York Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grizel,

Could you point me somewhere towards this test?

maja

 

 

First, I have to apologize - the disease in question is degenerative myelopathy NOT myasthenia gravis. Not to blame everything on breeders, but myasthenia gravis is banging around in my brain because it came up when I was trying to figure out what was wrong with yet another purebred dog. Anyway, my friend found a wealth of information on offa.org.

 

 

My experience with AKC breeders is similar to Terrecar and RushDoggie. Over the years, I've known a number of breeders who have tried to produce healthy, sound dogs. The people who participate in conformation are not a monolithic whole. Still, it seems like well-intentioned people have the cards stacked against them.

And not just with creeps faking papers or refusing to screen for horrible diseases, but with the foundations of what they are trying to do.

 

However, I have to admit that the border collies of the world are fortunate that their breeders have a non-physical goal. So many other breeds are defined only by their appearance that it's hard to know what their breeders would work for, even if they decided to try a different road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......Just save me from myself and give me the command "that'll do" :P

 

ETA: Oh wait, that's only for a job well done, right? Scratch that. ;)

"That will do" (that is enough) is correct for the situation you described.

We will use that'll do during a dog skirmish to break it up or when one dog is thinking about working or obsessing on another dog (clearly not jobs well done).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That will do" (that is enough) is correct for the situation you described.

We will use that'll do during a dog skirmish to break it up or when one dog is thinking about working or obsessing on another dog (clearly not jobs well done).

 

Huh. That's interesting, Mark. I never use "That'll do" in situations like that, or as any kind of correction (although of course I'm familiar with the term in its "upperclass reproof" sense). Between me and my dogs it has the meaning, "Stop what you're doing, which was a perfectly okay thing to be doing, and return to me."

 

Sorry for the hijack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. That's interesting, Mark. I never use "That'll do" in situations like that, or as any kind of correction (although of course I'm familiar with the term in its "upperclass reproof" sense). Between me and my dogs it has the meaning, "Stop what you're doing, which was a perfectly okay thing to be doing, and return to me."

 

Sorry for the hijack.

Growing up in Texas I heard "That'll do!" directed at both dogs and children that were "acting up." We were definitely not what you'd call upper class. It's true that most of those people had never been around sheep or sheepdogs - or wouldn't admit to it even if they had. (It was cow country there. And men didn't use dogs, they used Quarter Horses and a rope.) But, (I blush with shame)I never heard "That'll do" in the way you mean it until I saw the movie Babe :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. That's interesting, Mark. I never use "That'll do" in situations like that, or as any kind of correction (although of course I'm familiar with the term in its "upperclass reproof" sense). Between me and my dogs it has the meaning, "Stop what you're doing, which was a perfectly okay thing to be doing, and return to me."

 

Sorry for the hijack.

This is my approach, or at least the approach I try to use. "That'll do" means "That's okay but it's time to stop now".

 

The tangent on this discussion (breeders doing outright unethical practices) reminds me that there are rotten apples in every barrel - but I think there may be some barrels (situations) that may provide more rewards for unethical practices - and I think the show ring (for many species and disciplines) may be one of those places.

 

With regards to merle-to-merle breeding, the ASCA website advises against it, naming some of the unfortunate potential side effects (deafness, blindness, etc.) but ASCA does not forbid it. That, in itself, to me, says volumes about ASCA as a registry. I would like to think that any responsible registry would not allow the registration of pups from a MM breeding, to discourage breedings that produce defective, throw-away pups in the name of producing color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for those of you with friends who show dogs in AKC, to bring this back to the main topic at hand: do the ethical breeders, those who want to do the right thing by the dogs, make any sort of concerted effort to influence breeding trends?

 

I ask this because I have a friend who loves bloodhounds and wanted to raise them, but she was concerned about the (what she considered to be) excessive numbers of dogs with persistent eye infections resulting from breeding for drooping eyelids. She said she could find dogs with "tighter" eyes, but of course those dogs weren't desirable because they couldn't win in the show ring.

 

So, if there are breeders out there who love and care for their breeds and they know that there are also serious health issues associated with that breed--issues that can be ameliorated, at least somewhat, by changing breeding practices, why aren't they doing it?

 

The only logical answer I can come up with is that in doing so they'd be ensuring healthier dogs but giving up breed ring wins. I understand from my participation on a herding e-mail list that is largely populated by AKC folk that driving change in AKC is not easy, but shouldn't these good breeders be trying to effect change? And if they could bring together a critical mass of breeders working to breed dogs who are healthier and less extreme would it be possible to influence breed ring judging?

 

And if they can't influence AKC in this way, then does it make sense to continue to participate in an organization that is creating (either through benign neglect or direct participation) breeds with serious health problems?

 

FWIW, my friend chose to stop involvement with AKC. She later got Cavalier King Charles spaniels and bred them but did not register them. I would consider her a BYB, but honestly it's difficult to fault her completely because her goal was to breed healthy dogs that met the breed standard if not the de facto show ring standard.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for those of you with friends who show dogs in AKC, to bring this back to the main topic at hand: do the ethical breeders, those who want to do the right thing by the dogs, make any sort of concerted effort to influence breeding trends?

 

Sadly, not so much. I don't really know people who show dogs with droopy eyes or brachycephalic faces, but the folks I know who show more moderate breeds are willing to color noses or put on 10 lbs to get the Ch part over with. I have a friend who decided to show her Border Collie in conformation many moons ago, and she couldn't get a point on him at all. She hired a professional handler who was ale to get a few points but it wasn't until she made him a little fat that she got her majors. She she gritted her teeth, did it and when he had the desired Ch before his name, she slimmed him down and went back to performance sports. I asked her WHY on EARTH she would want that Ch when it clearly had more to do with who was holding the leash and the added 10 lbs, and her answer is it was what responsible breeders did. I was sad, but shes very ingrained in the culture and I have yet to change her mind (I'm still working on it).

The only logical answer I can come up with is that in doing so they'd be ensuring healthier dogs but giving up breed ring wins.

 

Probably.

 

I understand from my participation on a herding e-mail list that is largely populated by AKC folk that driving change in AKC is not easy, but shouldn't these good breeders be trying to effect change? And if they could bring together a critical mass of breeders working to breed dogs who are healthier and less extreme would it be possible to influence breed ring judging?

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think its the AKC who trains or sets breed standards. I think its the breed clubs and each breed club could set standards for health clearances if they really wanted to.

 

When you feel like being frustrated, go read the PDE blog and see the comments from breeders who say "yeah but..." over and over looking at dogs like the bulldog or the Neo Mastiff. Its beyond sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know some breeders who have very good track records with their own dogs - they breed Collies, and they choose normal-eyed stock to use for breeding. These people are also very involved in rescue. They are very concerned with temperament and one in particular works really hard at putting good running gear under her dogs. (Collies, especially Roughs, are notoriously poor movers). But she puts the extreme head and skull on her dogs, and does a lot of winning in Conformation.

 

But they are not particularly vocal with their show-ring peers. People who make waves are frowned upon. It can get pretty brutal. Rumors get started and people start getting shut out. And as show people go, Collie people are pretty easy-going. Try being around Afghan or Standard Poodle people... Yikes!

 

If you want to win, you have to play the game. And people buy into the "club." They have enormous emotional investments in the show-circuit. Their whole life revolves around finishing champions, making pups and finishing them. Everything else is secondary. Think about that woman in Pedigree Dogs Exposed - the one who lost 2 dogs to that brain disease. She wasn't part of the breeding scene, but she made waves. Those breeders hated her. How much worse it is if "one of their own" starts making waves? They would crucify them.

 

Word gets around. Judges don't put up your dogs. You can be ruined. For most of these people it isn't like they are breeding dogs that can do a job. If they lose the show crowd they lose everything. The dedicated ones don't just want to make pups to sell to pet homes - they want to breed the "perfect" dog. The one that looks like the illustrated standard. They want a piece of glory, and they really believe it's all for "the good of the breed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked her WHY on EARTH she would want that Ch when it clearly had more to do with who was holding the leash and the added 10 lbs, and her answer is it was what responsible breeders did. I was sad, but shes very ingrained in the culture and I have yet to change her mind (I'm still working on it).

 

And this is the crux of the matter. In Dog Wars, the author uses a religious analogy that illustrates the wrong headedness* of this quite nicely. He compares it to faith. And it is like faith, or dogma (or faith in dogma). There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that breeding dogs to a paper standard has created healthy, functional animals ( i.e. that it is the responsible thing to do) and there is plenty of evidence that it has gone horribly awry. But this is what show folk are told, and if we don’t question this ‘received wisdom’, we make some pretty stupid decisions.

 

 

*I claim a copyright on that word

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. That's interesting, Mark. I never use "That'll do" in situations like that, or as any kind of correction (although of course I'm familiar with the term in its "upperclass reproof" sense). Between me and my dogs it has the meaning, "Stop what you're doing, which was a perfectly okay thing to be doing, and return to me."

 

Sorry for the hijack.

Eileen, I simply change my tone to convey the use (correction or simply it's time to stop an okay activity). I use "that'll do, here" when I also want a recall.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for those of you with friends who show dogs in AKC, to bring this back to the main topic at hand: do the ethical breeders, those who want to do the right thing by the dogs, make any sort of concerted effort to influence breeding trends?

 

I ask this because I have a friend who loves bloodhounds and wanted to raise them, but she was concerned about the (what she considered to be) excessive numbers of dogs with persistent eye infections resulting from breeding for drooping eyelids. She said she could find dogs with "tighter" eyes, but of course those dogs weren't desirable because they couldn't win in the show ring.

 

So, if there are breeders out there who love and care for their breeds and they know that there are also serious health issues associated with that breed--issues that can be ameliorated, at least somewhat, by changing breeding practices, why aren't they doing it?

 

The only logical answer I can come up with is that in doing so they'd be ensuring healthier dogs but giving up breed ring wins.

 

It's what our local Bloodhound pack did -

 

http://www.vlhunt.com/about/the-three-counties-bloodhounds

 

No longer eligible for the show ring but they can now do the job they should be able to. Which is more important?

 

It's a great sight to see them speeding across the ground and leaping field boundaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^Too bad more don't do this. I think there's just a huge divide between being concerned about the health of a breed and doing something about it and wanting to stick around and win ribbons and not cross the pwoers that be.

 

J.

 

Absolutely. Whenever ones ego or pocketbook is tied to their dogs, no good thing can come of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but using the Google Books Ngram viewer, I discovered that the term wrong-headedness can be found in literature as early as 1805. :lol:

 

J.

 

 

LOL! I don't know if I should be crushed or relieved :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms. Rushdoggie writes,

 

 

 

"I could be wrong, but I don't think its the AKC who trains or sets breed standards. I think its the breed clubs and each breed club could set standards for health clearances if they really wanted to."

 

That's what the AKC would like you to believe. In fact their Board approves/ or disapproves/ or edits all standards (they disapproved the AKC parent club's Border Collie standard and adopted the Australian KC's standard instead.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...