Pjrt

Hmm well all Dachshunds are ‘dwarfs’ having achondroplasia. They are not long, they are short. I find it quite odd myself that we deliberately, purposefully, perpetuate achondroplasia. Of course not all dogs with this condition lead miserable lives, but many do suffer consequences of the genetic choice humans make on their behalf. If this statement is actually adhered to, it might not be a mandated breed ban, but it would be hard to justify breeding Dachshund….

This is a really interesting topic. I find epigenetics endlessly fascinating.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/756482385800550?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&mibextid=0NULKw

Well there are different registries these days. I have to be registered as a breeder with DACO because I have 1 entire male dog. So technically I can call myself a breeder. Anyone who breeds a dog is a breeder. the idea that the kennel clubs should be the exclusive breeders is kind of weird

Adopt dont shop is redundant now anyway (in relation to pets) as nobody shops anymore, only ‘adopts’. I have heard quite a few of my own clients speak the words directly at me when telling me they have a new puppy ….. ‘that we adopted’ …..not from a shelter but directly from the breeder ! Personally I rather like the line ‘breeders don’t fill shelters, buyers do’ The vast majority of the dogs in the shelters here in SA are thoughtlessly bred, even more thoughtlessly purchased, working & bull mixes that are barely suitable for anyone other than experienced and dedicated dog people!

Reminds me of something I wrote here previously some while back.. Try convincing the farmer with a ‘short coat border collie’ who works hard daily and saves him the wages of several men, that his dog is less worthy than the show winning pedigree border collie, and vice versa...... All dogs have value in the big picture. Before the introduction of conFORMation dog shows, domestic dogs were bred almost exclusively for purpose. And more often than not, practiced their purpose. The look of the dog was secondary to what the dog could do, and even when ‘looks’ we’re taken into account, preferences were usually based on the terrain the dog was expected to work in and how. as Conformation dog shows rose in popularity, that drove down diversity by its very nature. the concept of uniformity and purity has been a disaster for domestic dogs. Anyone who thinks dividing and limiting gene pools towards a dead end has their heads in a strange place. the very nature of the ‘working v show lines’ is so divisive and does dogs no good. Within breeds, I doubt breeding exclusively towards either goal is a great thing. It seems all the pedigree conformation system has done for dogs is divide, limit, reduce.... In days gone by, I doubt Fred would have cared if Dave’s Labrador had white feet. Dave probably would have watched Fred’s dog and if Fred’s dog had some ability that Dave thought could enhance his own dogs, blokes would have got the dogs together to see what the results were. Maybe they gained some desirable traits, maybe they didn’t. Because they were using the dogs for a purpose they could nut that out pretty quickly and decide their next move. Meanwhile, Mark from a few districts over might have heard about those pups, that were a bit short on leg and a bit too flashy in their marking for the purpose that Fred and Dave needed, but reckoned they might be just the ticket for his slightly different terrain. Once working his new pups, Mark worked out they were lacking in the scenting department for his needs, but decided to take a chance crossing one out to his best little spaniel, and managed to gain the best working dogs he ever had! ( for his purposes) The idea of conformity & purity in dogs is the biggest disease we have bestowed on ‘mans best friend’ and no amount of health testing can undo what driving toward that end has done, whilst ever we still drive in that direction. I use the example of our ‘ beloved’ Australian breeds to demonstrate this. EVERY single Australian breed could only have existed in its current form since, well, since Australia began! And in all of those breeds I can think of, none of them ran off a ship in the form we know them today. They’ve all become what we know them to be today, since Australia was settled. Most recently, the Tenterfield Terrier, our newest ‘breed’ . I feel a little bit ragey when I see discussions about so called designer dogs. Pedigree show people get their knickers all mixed up decrying these dogs. But, in reality, I see new breeds and types emerging. Contemporary dogs bred for contemporary purpose. Just like the old days when the breeds we know and hold close today, we’re being developed, these contemporary ‘breeds’ don’t just hatch out of an egg. They take generations to emerge. We just happen to be the generations witnessing this transition, as I’m sure, in fact hope, that generations to come, will be able to witness the emergence of new dogs to suit their time and purpose. Because things change, and that is ok!!

Oh, so inherently flawed……. humans are idiots

I really wish the countries and clubs going down the route of outcrossing & back crossing all the best. but I can’t help turn my mind to the HUA v LUA Dalmatian project. There are still plenty of ‘purists’ out there decrying a healthy version of the Dalmatian because of ONE cross FIFTY YEARS AGO!!! So I can only barely imagine the shit these breeders are going to have to push up hills to fight for better versions of their breeds today. https://ckcusa.com/blog/2019/november/the-dalmatian-back-cross-project/

The problem I see is the dogged pursuit of ‘purity’. That can only ever go one way. To the bottom of the ever shallowing gene pool. Close a gene pool, keep breeding within that closed gene pool. Problems arise. Health Test the shit out of everything. Chuck out anything flagged in a health test depleting the gene pool more. More problems. More advanced health testing….more genes lost. All the while insisting everything that’s not deemed ‘suitable’ at 12 weeks is desexed…. that’s the other side of bringing back heath with out crossing…..there not much left out there due to the mindset of desexing. The saying ‘for the betterment of the breed’. Wtf does that even mean. It’s like people need to see incremental forward movement in everything these days. Somehow can’t be happy that something is great the way it was and work on keeping it that way. ughh I could go on and on. But for me, while I appreciate a ‘breed’ a ‘pedigree’ it is not the future for dogs. The whole show scene, the locked in standards, it’s almost run it’s course. It’s a blip in time. I just hope dogs can claw their way out of the mess. There are as many great dogs outside the pedigree arena as there are inside of it. We just need to see past, outside. and thanks @moosmum for taking the time to post. I always enjoy your critical thinking. Another thing disappearing ….. I have a clumsy way of expressing myself but I love reading critical thought.

I’ve always thought one of the quickest easiest ways to see more moderate examples is for judges to select away from extremes and trends, to choose those more traditional moderate and balanced examples. I think judges are often breeders themselves and get swept up in it all. Let’s face it, dog showing is a competition. People like to win competitions. Some at any cost. Judging alone isn’t going to be a solution though. kennel club purebreed /show breeding as it’s done in the dog world is quite literally inherently flawed. If you keep breeding into a closed gene pool long enough any idiot can see that’s a dead end road paved with problems. You can health test the shit out of these dogs but all that does is further diminish the available closed gene pool. The ONLY way to help improve things is out crossing and mixed breeding. I think that really scares people who are welded onto the ideal of purebreed

Thank you.

That is sad. I used to run a rescue, but we really on took unclaimed strays from 3 local rural councils who we had contracts with. I don’t call private surrender ‘rescue’. People need to rehome their own owned dogs. It was only in exceptional circumstances like deceased estate we took private surrender. So I never heard of breeders surrendering dogs. Personally I think private rescue are making their own beds by taking private surrenders. If we stopped giving people the soft options people might take a bit of damn responsibility for rehoming their own unwanted pets. I really do understand it’s not always simple. But while ever there is someone willing to take owned dogs, their will be people willing to dump them on those people. I think it needs to stop being like that.

Yep I’m all for limiting numbers to something that 1 person could manage and give that number of dogs a fair life and enough interaction. 10 seems reasonable to me. In SA pretty much for my entire 50 years or so, we have had limited number on domestic dog ownership. The general rule in suburbia is 2 per unattached dwelling and 1 per attached dwelling. So it’s actually unusual to meet an average jo with more than 2 dogs. It’s really kept a lid on byb here. Yes, plenty of folks still do it, but mostly with only a couple of dogs. Low volume mixed breedings is actually a healthy thing for volume and genetic diversity. The real problems start with the higher volume of dogs on site. Easy fix there. we will never be able to legislate away the hoarder types that will covet what they are doing, until it comes to light somehow.

The bit I’ve bolded is ridiculous. I agree that there should be a cap on numbers for sure. 10 seems fair to me. But seriously, to limit a bitch to 2 litters!! I’d say maybe 5 would be more reasonable, and as for limiting the age of a stud, that’s basically insane! That is legislative overreach imo.