Back to Dogs Again
In the Political Science department at the University of Alberta, where I got my BA, one professor had a cartoon up on his door. A seedy-looking intellectual type is hunched over a typewriter (Dan Rather-era technology); the page in the machine is blank, and no manuscript is in sight. He is obviously blocked. He is also surrounded by dogs, and his wife is nearby. The caption is his wife saying: "Write about dogs."
I've actually been meaning to post on this for a while: two articles in [link=http://www.shopanimalnetwork.com/product.asp?0=206&1=299&3=794]Dog World[/link] magazine, July 2004.
"How to Choose a Stud Dog--and How Not To".
Good breeders determine the "inbreeding coefficient" for their bitch--more or less an indication of whether all her relatives are very closely related. The big question is whether to breed once again to a male who is closely related--which promises to produce more puppies in a distinguished line of heredity, making them worth a high price. Of course the hope is the puppies will also show the best working or show qualities of the line--but the risk is that with a lot of inbreeding, bad qualities will be reinforced along with good ones.
A good breeder will determine if the bitch's inbreeding coefficient is already quite high--that is one risk factor. Then a search of available males in the same line is carried out. If none of these males truly bring qualities that are not available elsewhere, this is a strong argument for using a stud that is not closely related, and in fact for giving preference to less inbred combinations.
A bad or careless breeder will simply think the more of a famous line you use, the better off you are--not realizing that some famous dogs have also been infamous for such things as bad feet, shy temperaments, even carrying a recessive disease.
The good breeder will ask stud owners for specific information. If one tells her there are no problems, but produces no documentation, she crosses that stud off her list; if another admits to some hidden problems, she keeps the information to herself so that other breeders will trust her in the future. A bad breeder tends to believe any good news she hears, and if she hears bad news, she repeats it, so no one is inclined to be honest with her.
There are a lot of other contrasts--price, whether the stud owner wants a pup, how to be careful in placing a pup, whether with a breeder or not, etc.
The other article is "A Breeder's Challenge: Do you breed to the standard, or breed to the winner?"
Here the complication is that "physical perfection and the ability to replicate it are by no means mutually inclusive." Mendelian genetics shows that each individual animal is the result of a random selection of genes from a hereditary pool; a sibling who is not as impressive may have offspring who are far more impresive. For breeding, it is essential to look beyond an individual animal's show records to a pedigree.
The other interesting wrinkle is that judges are human, and judged events (just like at the Olympics) sometimes yield strange results. "...a dog comes along that is more caricature than substance when compared to the official document [the breed standard]. Still, the dog is an arresting figure." (In figure skating: "granted, she fell on her ass three-or was it four?--times, but she has been a great champion, with a smile that lights up the world, and the judges won't forget that. She's got a medal in the bag!")
The article also quotes a very successful breeder to the effect that in the old days, in contrast to today, "mediocre dogs simply were not admitted into the protected gene pools." I take this to mean: there is great disparity today between the best dogs and the worse within the same gene pool.
All of this just to repeat my point. Dog breeding must be a unique business in that it produces consumer goods--puppies--largely for ill-informed urban and suburban people. Rural folk, especially small family operations, have generally fallen on hard times, and breeding dogs can seem like a good way to make money. Unfortunately, the big money may come faster with unethical practices: knocking off puppies that are practically identical genetically, just because they have the "look" (from a movie, say) that people want. Ignoring the overall quality of the gene pool, or the risk that inbreeding will multiply hereditary defects. Putting a focus on championships, and that crazy world of the shows, which is related to, but somewhat distinct from, good ethical breeding.
Of course defenders of the status quo, whether the issue is diet or whatever, always say dogs live longer now than ever. How can there be a proliferation of health problems? Well: there are certainly more people willing to pay big money for dogs--for vet care along with boarding, exercise, and everything else--than ever before. Vet care prolongs the lives of dogs. That doesn't mean the incidence of hereditary diseases is not on the increase at the same time, and this may be driven by a somewhat corrupting relationship between breeders and consumers.
Responsible dog lovers, like the editors of Dog World, seem to be aware of some significant problems, although they deal with them diplomatically as well as firmly. Where does their money come from? Besides subscriptions to dog lovers, they sell ads to breeders, and suppliers of the increasing variety of products that vets and pet supply stores can sell. There are people who don't want the whole lucrative boat to be rocked.
|
