Breeding to type

[DogsAndTheMob]

This is an interesting opinion piece.

 

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0xvc5ZawtmCCkTimAgQ9EfpBWVNdERNCjcbGirSuE3YfxB1zZj6jxMASHPkyrJTs5l&id=100064451033652
 

From my own observations over the last 40+ years, the meaning of “breeding to type” seems to have changed. At one time, consistency of type was considered important at the level of a kennels. Different kennels had slight differences in type, all within standard, and it was often easy to identify the kennels from which a dog came, just by looking at the dog. Now, the term “breeding to type” means that all “good” dogs of a particular breed should be of uniform type. I’m not convinced that is best for purebred dogs.

Edited January 5 by DogsAndTheMob

[_PL_]

Love this. 

 

Quote

Now I do believe that there ARE rights and wrongs, Any traits that lead to a loss of functional athleticism or of intrinsic soundness are wrong, period, end of sentence.

 

[sandgrubber]

The more I look at it, the more I question even Standards, much less type.  Yes, breeds should have certain characteristics, and it's good to be able to predict what you're getting when you acquire a dog.  Yes, pedigree could be important for improving both health and temperament / working ability.  But I feel something like nostalgia for the late 19th and early 20th century when it was considered laudable to work toward a better adapted gun dog by crossing Springers, St John's Dogs, setters and pointers.  Or the equivalent in other Groups. 

I wish the pedigree world would focus on adaptation to present realities and demands, and less to somewhat revised scripts about what was wanted from a dog in my great grandparents days and before, as decided by a committee of aristocrats or wanna be aristocrats.

[Diva]

As far as DogsandTheMob’s link goes, I agree. I got out of that ‘one perfect ideal’ thinking by seeing my breed across the world and listening to different breeders’ views. I don’t like all the types, but I can appreciate their virtues.  And our breed standard has room for all of them. The big kennels’ distinct lines have largely disappeared for economic and demographic reasons, but also because people tend to look down on line breeding and strive for more genetic diversity so blend types more readily. (And, less positively, popular sire syndrome.)

 

Oddly, I think what works for genetic diversity at the individual level works against it at a population level- those separate lines served a good purpose in maintaining distinct gene pools within a breed and population level diversity, instead of the current trend towards a mishmash. 

 

As far as focussing on modern demands, to me dogs are becoming like fast food. A market dominated by a few generic, mass produced, well marketed ‘brands’.  The trend to devalue breed standards and history, in favour of the generic, sh*ts me to tears.  What we lose is not easily regained. 
 

Yep, breeds have always adapted and so they should, but in my breed those aristocrats did a damn good job and I don’t want the focus to be on changing the breed to make them suited to the ‘average’ modern pet dog household. They never were average, they never will be common, they are far too big and hairy to be convenient,  but what they bring is enriching, precious, and highly valued by those who are looking for something other than Maccas. I know some standards are dodgy around health issues, but ours isn’t. It promotes a functional dog and I don’t think anything is to be served by messing with it. 
 

Apologies for such a long post!!

[ellz]

Personally I am of the opinion that type IS type. It’s what makes the breed standard.

 

Variations of “type” are “styles”.

 

I will use vehicles as an easy analogy…….a car is built a specific way that makes it easily identifiable as a car and not a truck. That’s the “breed standard” or the blueprint/plan of the vehicle.

Within that “standard” are variations of “style”….ie a Hyundai i30 is as correct as a Kia Cerato…..both unmistakably cars, just different styles……

[moosmum]

Homozygosity is the inevitable result of breeding to type or standard in systems where deviation from the recognized  (ie, what is  familiarly seen) is discouraged.

As it will be when a standard is imposed before other considerations can be met. The refusal of K.Cs to recognize cross breeds or non-pedigreed Dogs simply speeds up the process, But also ensures it.

The early days of the breed standards included much more diversity. Differences  were seen, and recognized as some thing not foreign to to the standard set. The less they are seen, the more they are regarded as foreign. There was more room for breeders to focus on their own priorities. Line breeding increases, not decreases the homozygosity of breed standards because its inevitable that lines will mix over time. You are right though that whats lost is very hard to get back....Impossible in a closed system, since you  only have access to whats left.

Domestic Dogs were selected in a natural process for the purposes they served their Human environments, and their abilities to respond to its demands.

Dogs evolved according to the purposes they were bred for, and types emerged to suit. Form follows function. Breeds were recognized from those types, with much diversity from both individual preference and priority, and local conditions.

Standards take precedence over individual preference and priority. Over Environment. You have a Pedigree system in decline or entropy because it has put all its value into a state, rather than purpose. A breeds Statehood has become the purpose, and all states are in entropy when maintenance of the state succeeds its purpose.

Problems arising from this are difficult to address when there is no recognition of alternatives within the recognized 'Standard" or state of the breeds.

When environment is recognized, problems can be readily addressed as recognized at the individual level.

When Environment is not, problems tend to remain unrecognized until they are near universal to the Standard, and then a universal strategy is employed or imposed across the state, while other problems gain traction. To top that off, the only avenues available to address the problems are to reduce the state of the breed  or adherents in question to disclude the problem.

A viable state, standard or Objective is one that serves a purpose to its environment, and responds to its demands. Evolves and alters to meet them.

One that values its own statehood above the demands of Environment can't do that. 

The Objective has no value. Negative Value.

All value is subjective. 

When the value is put into the Objective, It can only manifest in the negative. Thats the reality.

 

 

[JRG]

1 hour ago, ellz said:

[sandgrubber]

21 hours ago, moosmum said:

When environment is recognized, problems can be readily addressed as recognized at the individual level.

When Environment is not, problems tend to remain unrecognized until they are near universal to the Standard, and then a universal strategy is employed or imposed across the state, while other problems gain traction.

I think you and I are saying similar things.  One problem is the definition of Environment.  Surely there are multiple environments.  Retrieving shot waterfowl, being a family companion, detecting drugs, and assisting the blind, autistic and PTSD and are all environments for Labradors.  It makes sense for breeders to develop different types better suited to different environments, as does happen with Labradors... but it's under a loose, unofficial system, not the kennel clubs.

Unfortunately, few breeds have the numbers or the apparent flexibility to adapt to diverse environments that have favoured the Labrador.  A population of many tens of millions worldwide can support a lot of variation.

Edited January 8 by sandgrubber
Afterthought

[moosmum]

Yes, I think we are on the same page. 

People seem to have a poor understanding of what environment is, and how it applies to either an Organization or an Organism.

 

One breed can thrive in many different environments/situations, and  gain support for that enhanced response ability. Increased diversity follows, with breeders  able to focus on the traits they value for their purpose, or elimination of faults/disease that interfere with their effectiveness.

Labs are in a unique place where K.Cs Standards as defined in the show ring are not such absolute arbiters of the dogs worth. Its easy to censure individuals who put their own purpose before breed standards, Not so easy to discredit  breeders with the backing of organizations with broader representation than show line Lab breeders. Labs are in a better place for it.  

Motor vehicles evolve for performance,  efficiency and safety. They are not stuck with the limitations of their original templates or split into different classes based on color.  The Form limits function and value to be had from it. Which is why function dictates form and not the other way around.

[DogsAndTheMob]

7 hours ago, sandgrubber said:

I think you and I are saying similar things.  One problem is the definition of Environment.  Surely there are multiple environments.  Retrieving shot waterfowl, being a family companion, detecting drugs, and assisting the blind, autistic and PTSD and are all environments for Labradors.  It makes sense for breeders to develop different types better suited to different environments, as does happen with Labradors... but it's under a loose, unofficial system, not the kennel clubs.

Unfortunately, few breeds have the numbers or the apparent flexibility to adapt to diverse environments that have favoured the Labrador.  A population of many tens of millions worldwide can support a lot of variation.

I agree, and the differences in purpose or “environment” can be quite subtle. A dog working Suffolk sheep may need different traits from one working merinos and dog working 3 sheep needs different traits from one working 300. The environments of lowland England and highland Scotland are different from each other and from (for example) western NSW. Given the problems of heat and burrs in much of Australia, I find it ironic that, for so many years, the UK Kennel Club breed standard allowed short coated border collies but the ANKC standard did not. 
 

I’m sure there are similar regional variations and variations in purpose affecting even the traditional retrieving work of labradors. I would expect the hobby hunter to have different requirements than those of the professional hunter or the competitive sportsman and I wonder if the size and behaviour of the game species would also affect the characteristics of a “perfect retriever”.

 

I follow a US Golden Retriever group and I sometimes wonder what Lord Tweedmouth would have thought of the Golden Retrievers bred for competitive field work over there. Would he have been impressed by their drive and energy or would he have found them too edgy for a quiet afternoon of hunting?

Edited January 9 by DogsAndTheMob