Dog Songs

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Like the OP, I don't quite agree with how Mary Oliver see her dogs, the poems are wonderful.

 

Donald McCaig

[CurlyQ]

According to this logic, border collies should be split into separate breeds. We'd have the black and white ones, the red and white ones -- would we allow tri-colors to remain in the breed for their base color or would they be separated, too? What do we do with all the other colors?

 

The primary difference between a Belgian malinois and a Belgian tervern where they originated is the length of coat. Should we separate border collies into rough coated and smooth coated breeds? Where do we put the curly coated ones?

 

The distinction of appearance standards is their artificiality. It has nothing to do with usefulness or any other practical application.

 

I've told this story here before, though I suspect you haven't seen it. I started out doing competitive obedience, which was the only game in town at the time, with my first border collie. Border collies had not yet been expropriated by the AKC. I was at a show and someone came up to me and said, "Oh, border collies are such nice dogs. It's too bad they don't have a standard." I proceeded to tell her that yes, we most certainly do have a standard, but it's one based on working ability, not they way they look.

 

Sadly, she couldn't get her head around the concept and walked away befuddled.

 

I agree with chene on this. It is a shame that some people cannot see past what is on the outside.

 

In response to your questions: I don't know. All that I can think of to say is that there is no system to the madness.

 

Perhaps I should rethink my POV. Maybe the breeds should be separated based on the way they preform their tasks? It seems as though each breed was "created" for a different purpose. Perhaps categorizing by appearance really is a pointless and trivial matter.

 

It seems as though each herding breed has their own style, or at least from what I understand they do. I have never herded sheep.

[Eileen Stein]

Sure! I don't mind! I was thinking about breeds more in the non-sporting group of the AKC.

 

Take the Norwegian Lundehund. Quoting the official AKC website:

 

 

Puffin hunting isn't really that popular of a sport, especially since puffins are now a protected species. According to the description, the breed (or at least the standard) was saved. This is what I meant by preserve. I have a large book with detailed standards for each breed, and they even include the personality traits that the average dog of that breed has.

 

Of course, Simba said (earlier post) people had purposely tried to alter the border collie breed standard and ended up making a great gap between 'brains' and 'beauty'. Prior to Simba posting this, I had no idea people tried to alter the standards, hence my idea of 'preserving'. If the Norwegian Lundhund was a more popular breed, and people tried to change the standard from what the breed was originally like, I'm sure there would be the same gap.

 

I hope this makes sense to you... I feel like I explained it in a rather unusual manner .

 

 

Nope, I still don't understand.

 

You've used the Norwegian Lundehund as an example. You say the AKC preserved it -- how did they preserve it? If anyone preserved it, it would be the people who bred the surviving dogs, right? That wasn't the AKC. According to the AKC description, the breed was saved "through the friendship of two concerned Norwegians."

 

You say that "the breed (or at least the standard) was saved." But do you think there was a written standard for breeding Norwegian Lundehunds back when they were hunting puffins? At some point -- probably when they applied for AKC recognition -- somebody made up a standard. They just made it up. That standard says, to take one example, "A tightly curved tail or one that falls too far to either side is undesirable." Who decided that, and why? If "Today, the Lundehund is a loyal and playful companion," what difference does it make how much the tail is curved? If there are so few Norwegian Lundehunds, it seems to me that you don't want to be restricting your gene pool by breeding against any appearance traits. A restricted gene pool leads to unhealthy dogs, through lack of hybrid vigor and the concentration of undesirable recessive genes. Why do that for the sake of having a standard? Who is better off because the dogs' tails are not tightly curled -- the dogs, the owners, the general public?

 

According to the AKC parent club's website, "The Lundehund is prone to varying forms of gastrointestinal (GI) problems, to include protein-losing enteropathy (PLE), intestinal lymphangiectasia (IL), small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) and intestinal [sic] bowel disease (IBD). . . . Some believe that all Lundehunds carry a gene that makes them prone to GI problems." For the good of the dogs, and the owners who love them, wouldn't it be better to be outbreeding to other dogs to dilute or maybe even eliminate the genes for these diseases? There are plenty of dogs that make "loyal and playful companions." I can't see how it makes sense to restrict breeding to the descendants of some six dogs who all carry an unhealthy gene, for the sake of a made-up "standard" and the distinction of being "purebred."

 

"The standard" is not "the breed." The International Sheep Dog Society (ISDS) -- the original registry and still the pre-eminent registry for border collies -- has never had a written standard for the border collie. The American Border Collie Association (ABCA), which registers far more border collies than the AKC, has never had a written standard for the border collie. Yet the border collie was a breed long before the first conformation registry wrote a standard for it, and those written standards have no effect on the real border collie breed. The standard is the work.

 

Consider the Alaskan Husky. It has no written breed standard. It doesn't even have a registry. AKC-oriented people can't imagine that a breed could even be a breed without a written standard, so they would probably call the Alaskan Husky a "type." But it's a breed, just as the border collie was a breed before somebody wrote a breed standard for it. And like the border collie, its standard is its work. There are all different ways that an Alaskan Husky can look, but their working traits are what define them.

 

 

To answer your question about the three-way recognition, I think that preserving them as separate breeds is better. It allows for more detail in the standards (assuming the standards are accurate, a mistake on my part), but that's just me.

 

It sounds sort of like you think the dogs exist for the sake of the standard, rather than the standards exist for the sake of the dog. It's purely arbitrary whether you consider them separate breeds (as the AKC does) or a single breed (as the FCI and other foreign registries do). Only the most superficial appearance traits separate them. So why not opt for the alternative that's best for the dogs: a broader, more diverse (and therefore healthier) gene pool?

 

BTW, I don't think I thanked you for posting that Mary Oliver poem. Nice!

[Eileen Stein]

CurlyQ, I posted before I saw your last post. If you are rethinking your POV, you might find the essay Rosettes to Ruin interesting reading.

 

 

ETA: Just to illustrate my point about the Alaskan Husky, here is Martin Buser with a group of his Alaskan Huskies. They're pretty varied when it comes to looks. But they can run 1,000 miles in less than 10 days, through harsh sub-arctic conditions, pulling a heavy sled. That is the standard they're bred to.

 

[CurlyQ]

It sounds sort of like you think the dogs exist for the sake of the standard, rather than the standards exist for the sake of the dog. It's purely arbitrary whether you consider them separate breeds (as the AKC does) or a single breed (as the FCI and other foreign registries do). Only the most superficial appearance traits separate them. So why not opt for the alternative that's best for the dogs: a broader, more diverse (and therefore healthier) gene pool?

 

NOW I see what you're getting at, and I agree wholeheartedly as well.

 

I never really understood why most people here had a beef with the akc (and other organizations like it), but now I think I understand. Forgive me for being "akc-oriented". I had no idea responsible dog-people didn't support the akc before I joined the forum. But now I understand why.

 

Yes, I do think broader gene pool would be best. Dogs should be judged/considered for what they do, not what they look like. (As should people.)

 

Again, my apologies for being so akc-oriented (sheep mentality... I need to stop with the puns). I am quite new to this way of thinking, so it was only natural for me to want to defend the akc. This thread explained so much to me, and do believe me when I say I'll be keeping it close at hand for future reference. Hopefully this can be something I can base my growing knowledge off of.

 

EDIT: I'll be adding that essay to my list of need-to-read border collie books/articles. Thank you much!

[Eileen Stein]

No apology necessary! AKC is so powerful and pervasive in our society when it comes to anything to do with dogs -- after all, Dogs R Them -- that almost everybody's thinking is shaped by AKC initially. I thank you for having an open mind, and being willing to think about this stuff instead of reflexively rejecting any different POV.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms. CurlyQ isn't the only one who was once naive about the AKC. Many years ago, Ethel Conrad and I met our lawyer in a coffeeshop outside AKC headquarters where we would meet with their BOD. I told him just why and how AKC "recognition" would harm the Border Collie and he gave me this look - the polite equivalent of a dope slap -.

 

"Why do you think they'd care about that?" he asked.

 

Donald McCaig

[simba]

I had the EXACT same thing, Curlyq- I grew up on standard 'breed books', which often had chapters on 'how to breed', and the most responsible breeders bred for show and all that. Never quite drank the kool-aid but I could have gone that way.

 

Indeed I just had, thanks to your thread, a 'Why do we need a standard at all' moment. I mean, why not either breed for an 'average' appearance of the dog and 'good' health rather than the other way around (testing for minimum health, striving for perfect appearance), or (to be more revolutionary) just not have appearance standards for pet dogs at all and base 'standards' on health, temperament, size, intelligence, and energy?

[medic09]

As for the title of this post, I will just mention that the book has some very nice poetry in it. If you like dogs, and like poetry - you'll likely find one or two bits that suit your fancy.

[Sue R]

The distinction of appearance standards is their artificiality. It has nothing to do with usefulness or any other practical application.

And to paraphrase, "The distinction of breeding for a purpose is reality. It has everything to do with usefulness and practicality."

 

Ignorance is powerful, just as knowledge is powerful, but in a perverse way. I remember years ago when I first learned that the AKC did not "recognize" the Border Collie. I was crushed! How could the AKC, the pinnacle of dogdom in the United States, not recognize the best breed of dog there is? Oh, my, has my viewpoint changed completely!

 

Thanks to all, and particularly Eileen, for such eloquent and educational replies. This has been a great and civil discussion.

[juliepoudrier]

Coming a little late to this thread, but wanted to address this comment regarding standards. Standards can be rather vague, and it's the "wiggle room" that exists within standards that allows a breed to be changed, often drastically, even with a closed gene pool. If you watch "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" you will see in a very dramatic representation of how dogs who are held to a standard still can be physically changed over time, sometimes to the point of being unrecognizable from the original. This documentary focuses on the health issues associated with such breeding, and it's eye opening.

 

Working bloodhounds didn't always have the huge amount of wrinkling around their faces that we see today. They also didn't have the eye problems that come from the excessive droopiness of their eyelids. The standard probably just mentions the wrinkles and probably their purpose, but leaves it up to breeders and judges to decide what's acceptable within that standard, and over time some traits will be exaggerated and others diminished. You can actually see this phenomenon occur across many dog breeds and any species that humans choose to show to a conformation standard. Look at Arabian horses or Quarter horses, many breeds of sheep, cattle, goats, etc. If they're being judged for a particular look some breeder will decide that more or less of something is better, some judges will agree, and so the slippery slope begins. And all this without outcrossing.

 

So no, a closed stud book and a standard don't mean that a breed can't change. It really just means that the changes made may be difficult or impossible to reverse once someone recognizes that a problem(s) has arisen and needs to be resolved, at least unless outcrossing is allowed.

 

I grew up in the 1970s with a Belgian Tervuren. When I was on my own and thought about getting a dog, naturally that breed came to mind because of my many positive childhood associations. This would have been in the early 1990s. I looked at dogs of that breed, but aside from the color, they weren't much like the dog I remembered. They looked more like Lassie collies with a Turveren color. And that change happened in two decades (which, granted, is a lot of generations in the lives of dogs).

 

You've seen photos of dogs on this forum and you've seen border collies at dog shows (I assume). I haven't looked at the breed standard in ages, but as a simple, easy to distinguish example, I believe that any type of ear is considered acceptable for an AKC border collie. So why is it that what you see in the show ring are tipped ears only (and nearly all of those tipped ears are created artificially**). Why don't you see smooth-coated border collies? Or white factored ones? All are certainly allowed in the standard. But the judges (enough of them to influence what people breed for and show) have decided that the full-coated, usually black and white dog, with tipped ears is what a border collie should look like, it's what they put up in shows, and so it's what breeders breed for because, guess what, they want to win shows. The occasional renegade will go out and show something that meets the written standard, but doesn't meet the de facto judging standard within the standard and if they choose the right shows and the right competition, they can get championships on their dogs, but they aren't likely to be seen at Westminster and so their influence on anyone else's breeding choices will be minimal.

 

**This is the sort of thing that boggles my mind. AKC (and other KCs) claim that they are seeking purebred dogs and preserving breeds, promoting proper breeding, etc., and yet they choose and reward conformational characteristics that are not necessarily passed from one generation to the next and that can be (and are) achieved through articifial means. Hence the glued ears on border collie puppies so they will have that tipped ear that is "required" for the show ring. Why reward an appearance that can't easily be achieved through breeding and genetics (if you're going to buy into the KC's raison d'etre)?

 

J.

Okay, so when a breed joins the AKC they close off the gene pool, which effectively locks the breed in the place and standard is it at the time it's registered. Right? If they didn't do that, could the breed continue to evolve until it became completely different and the original "standard" was lost?
Again, not saying I agree with it, just trying to understand.

 

[juliepoudrier]

According to this logic, border collies should be split into separate breeds. We'd have the black and white ones, the red and white ones -- would we allow tri-colors to remain in the breed for their base color or would they be separated, too? What do we do with all the other colors?

 

The primary difference between a Belgian malinois and a Belgian tervern where they originated is the length of coat. Should we separate border collies into rough coated and smooth coated breeds? Where do we put the curly coated ones?

 

The distinction of appearance standards is their artificiality. It has nothing to do with usefulness or any other practical application.

 

This is a wonderful illustration of the artificiality of some breed distinctions made by a kennel club.

 

J.

[Sue R]

**This is the sort of thing that boggles my mind. AKC (and other KCs) claim that they are seeking purebred dogs and preserving breeds, promoting proper breeding, etc., and yet they choose and reward conformational characteristics that are not necessarily passed from one generation to the next and that can be (and are) achieved through articifial means. Hence the glued ears on border collie puppies so they will have that tipped ear that is "required" for the show ring. Why reward an appearance that can't easily be achieved through breeding and genetics (if you're going to buy into the KC's raison d'etre)?

 

J.

It never ceases to amaze me that people clamor to breed to unhealthy dogs (flat-faced dogs that have had to have surgery so they can breathe and cool themselves, and not die of overheating) and unsound dogs (like a Newfoundland with bilateral elbow surgery) that are show winners or champions - simply because they *are* show winners and champions, even when the prospective breeder knows of these issues in advance. There are people who have animals surgically altered and then show them (and this is not confined to dogs but is known in horses and other species) because a winner and a champion is eagerly-awaited breeding choice, no matter how poor that choice might be.

[Tea]

And if a farmer, who does not know, buys a show bred akc border collie for work, and the dog is unsuccessful. Then there is one less farmer, with work for a dog, that will not get another.

[geonni banner]

... But we also have to consider how many breeds they have 'preserved' that would be extinct by now. This internal argument I'm having with myself is tearing me apart. The AKC may be in it for money, but they're also holding past breeds that would be lost without them...

I'm really late to this party.

 

Have to second what Julie and Eileen, and others have said.

 

As to the above quote - the unborn Bulldogs, Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, German Shepherd Dogs, Pugs, Chinese Cresteds, and a host of other AKC breeds should be lost. People who care about the dogs mentioned are probably not breeding dogs that look like, walk like, breathe like or are in any way as screwed up and sick as their AKC counterparts.

 

There are people breeding some of these breeds who actually care if their dogs can walk, breathe or do the work they were developed for. Their dogs would probably be sneered at by the AKC set, just as the working Border Collie is sneered at by the show set. Let 'em sneer, I say. If you're gonna dance with the devil, you have to let him pick the tunes. The AKC's tunes are all, sooner or later, death-marches.

 

I'll see them at the vet's with their genetic train-wrecks as I breeze by with my "weedy little collie." My dog will be the one that's there for a tapeworm shot. Theirs will be the freaks with life-threatening, inherited disorders that cost thousands to treat.

[terrecar]

AKC is so powerful and pervasive in our society when it comes to anything to do with dogs -- after all, Dogs R Them -- that almost everybody's thinking is shaped by AKC initially. I thank you for having an open mind, and being willing to think about this stuff instead of reflexively rejecting any different POV.

 

This is so true. It only takes a bit of thinkng outside the box to see beyond the entrenched AKC paradigm. I think this website and message board are incredibly helpful in offering a fresh perspective.