How To Ruin a Breed -- a Primer
This seems to be making the rounds of discussion groups and blogs. I'm sorry I don't know who wrote it. It turns upside down many of the long-held beliefs that breeders glibly espouse. I think it speaks particularly strongly about rare breeds.
HOW TO RUIN A BREED - A PRIMER
*Only breed quality dogs that meet an extremely narrow breed standard. The more show points earned, the better.
*Seek out a popular sire; one who has already produced many Champions.
*Require that every pet be sold on limited registration. Or better yet, be sterilized.
*Withhold papers unless the buyer belongs to the breed club, shows his dogs, does health testing, and otherwise demonstrates proper ethics.
*Avoid breeding older dogs who are plain, even if they are healthy. As a general rule, breed your dogs when they are younger.
*Eliminate any potential carriers of genetic disease (i.e., every dog ever born).
*Breed for color, fashion and flash. You want something so beautiful that it will take your breath away.
*Once you have achieved the "type" you like, stay within your line. Don't outcross.
*Discourage new people who show an interest. Breeding is only for the knowledgeable.
*Exercise restraint in your breeding activities. A litter or two per year is plenty.
*Always bear in mind that the only acceptable reason to breed is for improvement.
HOW TO RUIN A BREED - A PRIMER
*Only breed quality dogs that meet an extremely narrow breed standard. The more show points earned, the better.
*Seek out a popular sire; one who has already produced many Champions.
*Require that every pet be sold on limited registration. Or better yet, be sterilized.
*Withhold papers unless the buyer belongs to the breed club, shows his dogs, does health testing, and otherwise demonstrates proper ethics.
*Avoid breeding older dogs who are plain, even if they are healthy. As a general rule, breed your dogs when they are younger.
*Eliminate any potential carriers of genetic disease (i.e., every dog ever born).
*Breed for color, fashion and flash. You want something so beautiful that it will take your breath away.
*Once you have achieved the "type" you like, stay within your line. Don't outcross.
*Discourage new people who show an interest. Breeding is only for the knowledgeable.
*Exercise restraint in your breeding activities. A litter or two per year is plenty.
*Always bear in mind that the only acceptable reason to breed is for improvement.
Comments
Recently I've been thinking about the subject, and definitely agree with 1 and 2. Also was told recently that a lot of times the best dogs to breed are 'middle of the line' dogs, and not necessarily the 'flashy' dogs. The flashier dogs tend to lean a bit more toward one side of the genetic spectrum apparently.
*Discourage new people who show an interest. Breeding is only for the knowledgeable.
- I'm not sure about discouraging new people, because everybody has to start somewhere. BUT, and this is a big BUT, anybody who does decide to breed should make sure to educate themselves and seek a knowledgeable mentor. So discouraging new people isn't really right, but discouraging new people from breeding before they get an education is the right thing to do IMO.
*Exercise restraint in your breeding activities. A litter or two per year is plenty.
- The rate of breeding should be determined by a number of factors including diversity of available breeding pairs, number of dogs the breeder has access to, and number of homes available for the puppies. A blanket statement such as "two litters per year is plenty" probably isn't right, but given the current situation of these rare breeds I think two litters per year actually is plenty. The situation may, and likely will, change at some point though.
*Always bear in mind that the only acceptable reason to breed is for improvement.
- If you aren't breeding to improve a breed, why else would you be breeding? Profit? To meet demand? Just for the sake of breeding? I don't see any of those as being an acceptable reason to breed. Perhaps I've missed a reason though.
Easier said than done, Dave. Taking the Kishu, Shikoku or Kai as examples -- how many dogs are there in the U.S. to choose, in order to "improve the breed?" If you get a male so that you can breed to your existing female, how do you know that they complement each other, that he improves her weak points and vice versa? Do you send your bitch to one of the main mentors and let her make the choice? She only has so many studs in her kennel too.... Do you import from Japan hoping that whatever you import "gels" with your line?
If you (generic you) haven't figured it out yet, ALL of the points on the list simply reduce a gene pool, reduce the genetic diversity that a rare breed should have to prosper. A rare breed has few original bloodline material to build upon -- if any one of these lines is rooted out entirely, through choices for appearance or any number of other reasons, the loss can be seriously damaging to genetic integrity. It takes a full complement of original strands continually woven into the gene pool fabric to keep it robust. That means the Plain Janes, the healthy but less flashy, the pet quality even. In your Nihonken breeds which seem to be basically healthy, perhaps you (we) should concentrate INSTEAD on preserving what you have, maintaining the breed as it comes from Japan, insuring health and vigor. If we throw out the "pets," whatever they may look like, what else are we throwing out that might be used in future generations? What constitutes a "pet" Nihonken, to begin with?
As we all know, if you make bad choices that reduce original stock down to one bloodline, this is catastrophic! Perhaps it is healthier for the breed overall to strive for assorted matings, avoiding anything such as those practices on the list that might be unwittingly narrowing the breed as a whole.
I fully understand that the dictum of most purebreds is to breed to improve. That is fine if you have enough stock from which to choose in order to do so. I'm sure you can find Shiba that will improve what you have if you decide to breed; I'm not so sure about the others. Maintaining healthy genetic variety might be a better way to go for now.
ETA: Looks like Brad beat me to it. :-)
Also, I don't think anybody is advocating "we throw out the pets". At least I haven't read that. I, as well as others, have advocated for a focus on working temperaments rather than softer, more pet-friendly, temperaments; however, as I've stated before, strict adherence to any "standard" is to the detriment of the breed, especially in these formative years. The nihon ken will only thrive in the U.S. if breeders work together to create the most diverse population available. There are those that may focus on show/pet production and those that may focus on working production, and those that will breed without an eye for either. As long as those breeders continue to cooperate, there is a reasonable chance these breeds will not just survive in the U.S., but thrive as well.
For this point: "*Exercise restraint in your breeding activities. A litter or two per year is plenty."
Seems to imply breeders should breed more, which I get the reasoning, but I wonder if this includes repeat breedings? How does repeat breeding factor into the genetic equation - does it help or hurt?
----
I don't have a good idea how it's calculated by population geneticists (who have basically said "it depends"), but moving forward two dogs to be breeding dogs seems to be the minimum.
If Shikokus usually have 3 pups in a litter, then in theory a breeder is forced to make two choices out of a field of three possible gene combinations if they restrict themselves to one litter. What if the breeder needs females but only get males? What if two of the combinations lean towards a structurally off pup but the third appears well-balanced ? (Pat Hastings has a theory that at 8 weeks of age only, a pup can be evaluated for structure and balance. If they're good at 8 weeks, they'll be good at adulthood.)
If a breeder has a repeat litter, the two choices can be picked from a field of 6 offsprings with different gene combinations, and maybe the breeder gets both the structure and the sex choice that allows them to continue a line. The temptation to try again has got to be very high.
edit: trying to explain my thoughts more clearly.
I agree. In fact, I couldn't find one point on this list with which I completely agree. One of the most frustrating things about rare breeds is that they are rare not based on demand but on supply.
As for repeat breedings, I think it can either help or hurt. If pups from one litter are well-balanced, it follows that (likely) the pups from another will be.
Additionally, as someone who's kicking around the idea of getting into a rare breed, I'm shocked by the elitism I've encountered. Everyone seems to think that he has it figured out when it comes to breeding and that for that reason, his dogs will be so expensive as to require a second mortgage. It's insane. If rare-dog breeders are really breeding for the love of a breed, they'll encourage future breedings of healthy offspring and diversify the genepool.
There are justifable circumstances that would cause a missed opportunity, but an arbitrary limit sowed by ARists into the public mind is not one of them.
OK, I'd buy that. You're right, but that's not what most people are thinking when they talk about "improving the breed."
On repeat breedings: there's nothing wrong with doing so maybe once. As ayk pointed out, there are legit reasons to repeat a breeding, especially if none of the offspring of the first litter turned out to be breedable. But it's not a way of diversifying the gene pool if it's done over and over again, as in a situation where a kennel has one stud dog and he's being bred repeatedly. I think we would all agree on this. That's what makes it so difficult in the rare breeds -- IF you want to breed once/twice a year, and IF you only have a couple of studs and a couple of breedable bitches, you very quickly breed yourself into a corner with nothing left that isn't related..... you're stuck with importing new stock, or how they do it apparently in Japan, swapping studs around.
If rare-dog breeders are really breeding for the love of a breed, they'll encourage future breedings of healthy offspring and diversify the genepool.
That's not the way they (some breeders) are thinking, however. In the breed I was interested in, the ONLY way I could get and keep an intact male was if I was going to show it in conformation. ALL others are to be neutered at 6-8 months. I sent the breeder I was corresponding with the Chris Zink article about the effects of early neutering and talked her into letting me wait until at least 14 months when the growth plates were hopefully closed, before neutering. Anyway, this whole practice of very strict control over what goes out of one's kennel, does not foster a wider gene pool.
So, here's the fine line: do you want quality over quantity, and therefore you hold down the numbers that are bred; or do you want enough dogs out there to breed from so that you will have future generations with a wide diversity to choose from? Can you have it both ways?
Dave said:
I, as well as others, have advocated for a focus on working temperaments rather than softer, more pet-friendly, temperaments; however, as I've stated before, strict adherence to any "standard" is to the detriment of the breed, especially in these formative years. The nihon ken will only thrive in the U.S. if breeders work together to create the most diverse population available.
Is this not a contradiction in terms? If you buy into a totally wide gene pool for now at least in the early years, the LAST thing you want to do is focus on ANYthing like working vs softer, high drive vs pet temperament. The whole idea is to NOT focus on any one particular characteristic: physical OR mental -- the ONLY reason to breed AWAY from anything is health or bad temperaments. However, what Dave said in his last statement is entirely true: US breeders need to work together to create the most diverse population available.
And by the way, taken to the extreme, this would include incorporating off-colors into your breeding program, because how do you know what else you are throwing away with that odd/different but completely healthy color? In Vallhunds we regularly get whites, creams and patched dogs -- dogs colored rather like a Fox Terrier. It's been noted time and again that these dogs are unusually sound, healthy, friendly -- whatever the forefathers used as a white dog to incorporate into the bloodlines used a very sound, stable, heathy specimen.
It's the same thing as was reported on that BBC clip on Crufts, where Rhodesian Ridgeback breeders in the U.K. were culling perfectly healthy ridgeless dogs as inferior.....
If you reject ANY dog for reasons other than health problems and bad temperament, you may have lost something crucial. How do you know?
- No, it is not a contradiction in terms. I repeat: "as I've stated before, strict adherence to any "standard" is to the detriment of the breed, especially in these formative years." A focus does not imply strict adherence. One can focus on a particular type while having the primary goal of genetic diversity by applying the criteria of the type they are interested in to the selection of dogs to import or puppies to retain in a breeding program. In other words, if a littler of 5 all prove to be healthy, you need some desiderata for selecting breeders (because breeding all five of them will not be contributing to genetic diversity). Think of it like weak affirmative action.