Please read this page, especially point “II. GRCA Responds to a Goldendoodle Breeder.”
7 Likes
I agree wholeheartedly. My strong reaction is due to being raised to glorify the ideals of the Purebred Dog Fancy and then slowly finding out that the foundational premises are flawed in essence, that they are often not honored even so, that the tribalistic “we’re the good ones and everyone else is stupid or evil” is a ubiquitous tenet, and discussing any of the above or anything else that challenges the status quo is met with slammed doors and shunning.
I once was ranting to someone on the periphery of all this who only said, “if you think the dog people are bad, you just haven’t been to my quilting club!”
This doesn’t tell me anything I don’t already know about what purebred breeders think they are doing, and how they feel about crossbreeding. I am in agreement with the focus on genetic health testing of breeding stock, and I am in agreement with finding crossbreeding in dogs to be an unfortunate fad. However I think it’s mainly unfortunate because of its amorphous, free-for-all, amateurish qualities, not because there is something inherently special about closed-stud-book animals.
Anyone with any time in the dog world remembers waves of purebred fads, set off by a popular film with that breed featured, in which ignorant new breeders jumped in to produce as many (purebred, registered) breed of the hour pups as the market demanded. Crossbreeding is not any different, except for the potential for hybrid vigor and avoidance of breed-specific genetic flaws, advantages which are over-sold but still do exist.
As I’ve said before, the Fancy brought this upon themselves, by failing to strongly address the inherent weakness of rigid adherence to closed gene pools. Slowly the general public became aware of just how many purebreds were coming up tragically ill with weird genetic problems. It took decades, but now they are wary and for good reason. Yet AKC breed clubs still have their heads stuck deeply in the sand and I don’t see them ever pulling them out.
A lot of people involved in breed clubs aren’t educated, in general. It sounds mean but in the case of my breed club, it’s true.
We’re still working to understand how the internet works. And things like credit card billing.
4 Likes
@fledermaus - I am sorry you were so soured by your involvement with AKC breed clubs. And yes, I am sure there are some run by folks who are so deeply mired in their own beliefs that they “cannot see the forest but for the trees.”
However, not all AKC breeders or breed clubs are as you portray them to be. Are they passionate about preserving and promoting their chosen breed(s). Yes, indeed. But there are many who “get it” about inherent genetic issues with their breed and who perform appropriate genetic testing and make deliberate (sometimes emotionally and financially painful) decisions to eliminate stock from their breeding programs that doesn’t measure up physically or genetically or mentally (i.e., temperament-wise).
Many of the breed clubs have info on their website about health issues common in the breed, often with links to other sites containing scientific or veterinary information related to those issues. Some of them have Health Committees that gather health-related information about the breed and provide insights to the Board of Directors about issues of concern, and will pass on information to the Breeder Referral Chair should the need arise. So even though they do insist on a closed gene pool, they ARE trying to reduce the risk of serious genetic health issues by promoting/insisting on appropriate genetic health testing of breeding stock. (Unfortunately, this is not true of all breed clubs but hopefully the tide is turning as more AKC breeders become more educated about their breed.)
As for your last paragraph about "how many purebreds come up tragically ill with weird genetic problems’ - those problems also crop up with frightening regularity in products from backyard breeding, puppy mill breeding, and yes, even in crossbreds. And I will bet dollars to donuts very, very few of those breeders do any genetic testing. They are in it simply to make money. Dedicated AKC breeders are in it to preserve the breed.
[Edited to fix a typo]
10 Likes
They might do the cheek swab from Embark and call it good. And ignore the testing that are really the issues but not detectable by a cheek swab. Like dysplasia, epilepsy, cardiac, thyroid, etc.
And/or…they don’t even know that those issues affect their breed(s) because they have done little/no reading/research (or maybe can’t read.)
2 Likes
Sigh. If I had any conviction that closed-studbook breeders were, measurably, producing healthier, longer-lived, emotionally more stable dogs than crossbred or random matings, I would be in your camp 100%. But I don’t see it. What I see is the production of a standardized appearance and a lot of verbiage.
I actually know two people who produce crossbreds. They are ranchers whose livelihood it is to breed and raise livestock. They apply similar methods to their one to three litters a year. Neither is in the doodle business, but they see nothing wrong with mating two working dogs with similar functions, like a Border Collie and a Heeler, together, or a Great Pyrenees and an Anatolian. I’ve known them to breed a corgi and an Aussie together, for a herding-type pet. They sell for hundreds not thousands of bucks, but they aim to at least break even. One does hips and the other, nothing, as far as I know. If pups turned up with problems, or the bitch was a poor mother, they’d never make that mating again, just like with their other stock. The dogs they produce appear to be sound and sane, and in some cases useful. It’s way different than the AKC Breeders Code, but I find it hard to condemn.
1 Like
I don’t have a problem with a rancher wanting to produce a working herding dog with two herding breeds, or crossing two livestock guardian breeds.
I would hope at least with the border collies and Aussies the test for the MDR-1 gene would be done. I am assuming these ranchers aren’t selling pups based on their coat color or their eye color. Big difference in breeding a dog for its intended purpose (herding, guarding, etc), and breeding because the breed is popular now.
6 Likes
No on the MDR-1, but it is very rare in Border Collies (around 1%).
This is an example of only one breed, but the breed I currently own used to have an expected life expectancy of 10-13 years. It is now 12-15 years. That can of course partly be a result of better health care, better feed, etc., but it is also indicative of breeders making use of genetic testing to help them make more informed breeding decisions.
I would like to see breed clubs include verbiage in their official standard about genetic-related health issues and the importance of genetic testing and proper interpretation of said tests, but sadly, the puppy mill and backyard breeder types will not pay any heed to it because they rarely even know there is something called a “breed standard.”
So if you want to laud those types of breeders for producing whatever the heck they want to produce, it’s certainly your right. But if you put a well-bred AKC champion Miniature Schnauzer (for example) next to a puppy mill or backyard bred Miniature Schnauzer and asked the general public which one appeals to them the most, I’m betting that the majority would pick the first specimen.
6 Likes
For sure, all breed clubs are not the same.
(nor all breeders)
When I took my vet school genetics class, Jean Dodds gave a guest lecture. (NB–This was well before all the nonsense misattributed to her thoughts on vaccination.)
She related two stories about AKC breed clubs and genetic diseases.
I will not name the breeds here.
One had a genetic disorder that was becoming increasingly common due to the popularity of certain sires. Dodds did some pedigree research and advocated for testing for the trait.
She received death threats.
The other had a genetic disorder that was likely a result of the small gene pool in the US that was the foundation of most of the animals of that breed. She was approached by representatives of the breed club who wanted her assistance in eliminating that disorder by breeding away from it.
For her help, she was made an honorary life member of the club.
11 Likes
Healthier, longer-lived, more emotionally stable – how much can these be improved?
This is the same idea as “good breeders should be looking to improve the breed” - that’s silly. They should be looking to meet the standard and preserve the standard, but it’s impossible to continue to improve the standard. Dogs would be 25 years old if that was the case.
“Healthier” than a cross-bred. What does that mean exactly? How do we know if cross-bred or mutt puppies have dysplasia unless it’s severe? It’s not like they routinely get xrayed. How often do we track mixed breed/mutt dogs for their entire lives? Why are you sure that random matings are “healthier” or even as healthy as purebred dogs?
Now - ok, I agree - there are some breeds that have significant health issues. But of the hundreds of official breeds - I don’t think most of them have significant health issues that are worse than random matings. My breed certainly does not.
7 Likes
- I’m not lauding anyone – show me where I’m lauding.
- OF COURSE purebreds are more attractive. That’s their whole point, for pity’s sake. Attractiveness.
Yes, breed clubs are not the same. Like most volunteer organizations, a small core of people do almost all the work, and an even smaller group make the lasting decisions. A few leaders with vision and ethics make all the difference. Just like a core group of bullies promoting antiquated ideas will. Unfortunately, in the two breeds I know best, the latter is more prominent, and the thoughtful are treated with contempt.
And both breeds are quite popular, they are not some Irish Water Spaniel or something…
The data does not bear out your conclusions, I’m afraid. I’m not talking about non-breed-specific issues like hip dysplasia, but the many ills caused either by inbreeding or exaggeration of phenotype. If I can see it, and the GP can see it, it’s pretty obvious to anyone who wants to take an objective look around.
Um, the GP is some of the WORST offenders of inbreeding & exaggeration of phenotype - don’t believe me, go look at the backyard bully breeders and all their micro & extra extra dogs. 
The general public has no fricking idea what the bully breeds SHOULD look like anymore thanks to all the BS dogs being breed that can barely walk, let alone live good lives.
As for breed clubs being religious fanatics, go look at the dalmation backcross project. Breed specific problem, breed club worked with geneticists to find a solution and when that solution involved careful outcrossing to other breeds, well, they bit the bullet and came up with a plan to get it done. There is adherence to the standard that DEFINES what a breed should be and then there is bettering the breed. Good clubs work towards both.
What you’re calling “general issues” are health destroying issues that shouldn’t be bred on and that good breeders work hard to keep out of their lines though … you know darn well, pups from years of hip & elbow testing lines with careful breeder are so much less likely to experience those problems, so why discount all that work?
11 Likes
What data are you referring to?
Do you mean, for example, potential problems due to brachiocephalic heads? Or something else?
I’m not sure cross-breeders are breeding to correct these issues. Do you think they are?
4 Likes
Some cross-breeders are indeed correcting issues that are caused by those genetic defects caused by both parents passing on breed-specific deleterious mutations, simply by crossing unrelated dogs. A substantial number of closed-studbook breeds have such a small founder base, exacerbated by popular sire syndrome, that there are few to no unrelated breeding pairs available.
But this is a very diffuse group of people we’re referring to. There are people who are breeding “teacup” dogs (which ugh) but those are not the same people who are breeding long-haired GSDs. Or racing sled dogs. Or those American Bull Terriers which are more like Bull Mastiffs. There are in fact all sorts of dog breeders who have nothing to do with the AKC at all, some of which are very careful indeed. What they mainly have in common is an indifference to the appearance standard and closed-studbook which are the twin pillars of the AKC model. Many are ignorant idiots, but that doesn’t mean the AKC is a beacon of truth and righteousness either.
The Dalmatian case is instructive, because I remember when the original proposal was made. What a howl went up. Everyone was absolutely set against it, for all the Breed Purity reasons. It took quite a long time before anyone would even acknowledge that the proposal had any merit whatsoever. Changes in thinking come very slowly and painfully to the AKC, no matter how rational such changes are.
I am certainly not discounting the work of careful breeders, when it comes to testing. Indeed I rely upon it myself.
It seems like this discussion only compares the very best AKC breeders to the very worst non-AKC breeders. Which doesn’t really give the whole picture.
I offer you the Puggle. Only semi-pushed in face, no perceived breathing issues, similar size and energy level to a Pug, and for awhile half the price tag.
1 Like
So you’re saying that the purpose of a Puggle is to correct the brachiocephalic traits? Is that really the reason people breed them?
And, let’s be real - can you really argue that a Puggle from random parents without health testing is actually “healthier” than a well-bred pug from OFA recommended health tested parents? Because that’s likely what the Puggle is - average (at best) specimen of a Pug + Beagle with no health testing whatsoever.
Are you just trading one issue (pushed in face and related issues) for another (hip or elbow dysplasia, eye disorders?)
14 Likes
You put a lot of words in peoples’ mouths. It’s useless to have a discussion with someone who does that.
I answered your question. I offer no judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the puggle. It’s not my kind of dog anyway. I would offer yes, this is why people breed them, because Pugs are cute and popular but breathing problems aren’t.
4 Likes
