The Pedigree dog.......

A

Alec Swan

...
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,080
Location
Norfolk.
Visit site
.......but specifically, the less than popular.

If we consider that some of the old and established breeds, are in decline, and not just numerically, but because of such a small gene pool, these dogs are declining in health standards, training or "use-ability" (which would include behavioural problems), then if we consider that these breeds have "evolved", then would it not be time for outcrossing, to a similar, and perhaps linked breed, where by they could be allowed to "re-evolve"?

As an example, consider the Deerhound. I saw a woman with 3 today, and they were a pitiful example of those which we see in very old photos from the 1890s. Would not a careful, and well thought out introduction of the Greyhound, be an idea? By refinement, the breed ideals could then be returned to, but with a better understanding of "type", and certainly a vastly expanded gene pool.

I've used Deerhounds as an example. There are so many more. Flat Coat Retrievers, Wolfhounds, Curly Coated Retrievers, Irish Water Spaniels...... the list goes on and on.

Am I right in thinking that there are so many breeds which are being allowed to stagnate? Evolution, for them anyway, seems to have stopped.

As an example of a breed which has a huge and successful gene pool, consider the GSD. I remember them from 30-40 years ago, when the "idiot sector" got hold of them, with predictable results. Decent GSDs were as common as tits on a frog. Today, well a few weeks ago, I think that it may have been C_C, there were some pics posted on here of some Continental dogs. There wasn't one that I'd screw my nose up at!

I'd welcome your views.

Alec.
 
Interesting post. If dopey KC judges keep putting up dross, for whatever reason:rolleyes: then said dross will be bred from. I haven't seen a half decent Deerhound in years. But then the Deerhound mob are very cliquey & steadfast.
 
I am friendly with a SUPERB deerhound breeder and he has basically left the breed because he cannot be arsed with the show scene anymore.
His mentors were two old ladies who he was a kennel boy for, there were always rumours that they threw in wolfhound every generation or so and when one of the sisters died, the surviving sister was found in the garden burning lots of papers!

The GSD is one hundred years old and no one can argue it has changed immeasurably, and evolved in shape and character, for good and for bad.
There are some superb dogs in Eastern europe which are now being utilised better to correct conformation and working drive, long may it continue.
There is a lot of diversity in the types, which again, is good and bad, and I would be lying if I said I would love to see a more uniform type - and I would especially like to see size coming down.

Alec I am going to PM you a website, I am sure it will knock your socks off!!!
 
CaveCanem said:
I am friendly with a SUPERB deerhound breeder and he has basically left the breed because he cannot be arsed with the show scene anymore.
His mentors were two old ladies who he was a kennel boy for, there were always rumours that they threw in wolfhound every generation or so and when one of the sisters died, the surviving sister was found in the garden burning lots of papers!
fQUOTE]

MIL gave up on Deerhound showing too. They can be an odd lot.
Click to expand...
 
Alec, I'm not sure evolution has stopped - only improvement! Change is still happening, only in an impoverishing way...

As far as I can see it is true of a lot of pedigree dog breeds, not just "rarer" ones - and the influence the show world does seem to have (from a knowledgeable outsider's point of view only) is to encourage the breeding of what I can only describe as "over-type" - so a typical trait of a breed gets more and more exagerated until the animal looks difform, and probably also loses the attributes that made it fit for purpose in the first place.

Bit of a generalisation, I guess :o

I am not a dog breeder and I am not particularly interested in preserving any breed "type" and as a dog owner, well, the 4 dogs I have owned in my adult life have all been cross-breeds.

I had to go and rummage around my book shelves but was unable to lay hands on a very old book about JRTs which I got in a charity shop some years ago and even though the author was effectively talking about non-Parsons & therefore not KC recognised, he recommended outcrossing to a staffie or an English Bull Terrier every so often to improve skull size, as well as using Patterdales to prevent dogs from becoming too small - and it just makes so much sense to me when I see the hundreds of JRTs that seem to live around my village and notice that their head is so small and narrow that a rat could probably have it off in one bite :eek: (and that include my own little terrier cross, whose JRT mum had the most ridiculously narrow head).

Now, you could see how a narrow skull in a JRT would weaken the jaw muscles and make the dog less suitable as a working terrier...
 
CaveCanem said:
I MEANT I would be lying if I said I would NOT love to see a more uniform type...I am a numpty :p
Click to expand...

I did wonder when you said that! :p

It seems to me - as an admittedly un-knowledgable numpty who has never bred a dog, never will, and only recently has had any kind of breed affiliation - that problems arise when there is a dichotomy in the breed between the working dog and the show dog. The former is generally function over form, the latter sometimes a gross representation of form over function. When the breed no longer has a purpose, things seem to get a bit weird...
 
then if we consider that these breeds have "evolved", then would it not be time for outcrossing, to a similar, and perhaps linked breed, where by they could be allowed to "re-evolve"?
Click to expand...

This is exactly what they did with the Clumber spaniel not so long ago. The gene pool was very small, there were hardly any working Clumbers left and so they introduced a bit of Springer and brought the Working Clumber back to life again :)

http://www.workingclumber.co.uk/history.htm
 
Ravenwood said:
This is exactly what they did with the Clumber spaniel not so long ago. The gene pool was very small, there were hardly any working Clumbers left and so they introduced a bit of Springer and brought the Working Clumber back to life again :)

http://www.workingclumber.co.uk/history.htm
Click to expand...

EXACTLY my point. The Clumber, in perhaps a clumsy fashion, evolved via the Springer, or at least, they'd have had a major influence.

Dogs have evolved, or so it seems to me, to be ornaments, or to work. I have little interest in ornaments, though quite strangely, I've seen some that I'd have been happy to keep!

If we took for instance, a Clumber Spaniel, who had Springer in his blood, but he fulfilled the breed's ideals, then would that be wrong?

I'd be very wary of introducing Wolfhound into the Deerhounds, for the reason of too much bone, but then further out crossed to a Greyhound, could we then, perhaps, not see a return to the "ideal'? As someone else has said, those who breed Deerhounds, seem themselves, to be a breed apart!!

Far to many breeds have reached a stage, where the breeders, or the breed societies, for reasons that they alone will understand, have stagnated, and that's both the breeders and the dogs.

There can be no question that the show bench is responsible for quantifiable damage. There is a lesson for all of us to be learned. I look at so many photos of GSDs from the '50s and backwards, where there are the most awful roach backed things. Previously, in the 20s and 30s there were some dogs, not that many, but a few, who were slight of body, but had a good head and eye. I'm quite certain that the modern GSD has reached a standard which would be the envy of those breeders of 50+ years ago.

It's actually been relatively simple for the GSD, and that's because there's a huge world wide gene pool, but what of the numerically lesser breeds?

Alec.

PS, I was going to bed, an hour ago, and now I'm actually off!! a.
 
I think the problem is that it is SO hard to import dogs into this country, not to mention incredibly expensive (think 5 figures for a quality dog and getting it here), plus it takes around 8 months to get the passport for which you may have to pay boarding ontop of that. I appreciate that we have these "rules" in place for a reason, but it really is hindering the progression of dog breeds in this country terribly.

Take for example, the basenji. A breed im involved in and its numerically very small. Two yrs ago of 5 litters registered in the BRS, 4 of those were from the same stud dog. This was because he was a new import and people wanted new blood in their lines. Fantastic right?? Well, a generation on and most of the best quality dogs in this country are by that stud so are too closely related to breed (though many are through lack of options i think), the gene pool has taken a step back really, despite this dog undoubtedly producing better quality dogs. If it were more realistic to the majority of breeders to be able to import there would be more options for future breeding and widening of the gene pool.

In America the AKC have allowed a number of hand selected dogs from the Congo (where the breed originates from) to be imported and registered, once they have been assessed to be of good enough quality. If our country were more lenient with import regs, and the UK KC would allow that sort of project i think it would help the breed no end.. But it seems unlikely.

Im not a huge fan of mixing breeds, and certainly something like the basenji there are no comparable breeds to do that with. I think the best option for most breeders is to import unrelated dogs from overseas.
 
Alec Swan said:
Dogs have evolved, or so it seems to me, to be ornaments, or to work. I have little interest in ornaments, though quite strangely, I've seen some that I'd have been happy to keep!
Click to expand...

That's not totally true, there are quite a few dual purpose dogs who do well in the ring and in the field or what ever the purpose of their breeding, though I can see where you're coming from.
 
echodomino said:
That's not totally true, there are quite a few dual purpose dogs who do well in the ring and in the field or what ever the purpose of their breeding, though I can see where you're coming from.
Click to expand...




There are a few but not that many I think, and I suspect it depends on the breed. My old girl is a Pointer. I have always wanted a Pointer and when I went about looking for a puppy I found that there were 2 distinct types being bred. The show Pointer (instantly recognisable) and the working Pointer. My instinct was to go for the dog that could actually do the job it was bred for.

I've spent the last 13 years saying 'no, she's not a Dalmatian, she's a Pointer'. She would have been totally disregarded in the showring as she's not 'Pointery' enough - but she was bred from top working champion stock. Why would you want a Pointer who couldn't work but looks pretty?

If you focus on the job they are bred to do and breed for that purpose, then you are doing it right IMO. Select for performance and ability and you won't go wrong. It's when you start to breed for appearance alone that you create the appalling travesty that is some pedigree dog/cat/horse/rabbit/whatever breeds.
 
I know they aren't the majority when they should be.

My mum shows and breeds Hungarian Wirehaired Vizslas, we've had a lot of puppies go into working homes and do just as well as a "working" bred one.

I agree it does depend on the breed.

I'm sticking with my Jack Russells, I've got my size and shape uniform, they've still got extremely good ratting instincts (my oldest is "farm stock" and her son's sire is a working dog) - I've just got to suss the coat colour, I've had all sorts lol
 
Bedlam said:
If you focus on the job they are bred to do and breed for that purpose, then you are doing it right IMO. Select for performance and ability and you won't go wrong. It's when you start to breed for appearance alone that you create the appalling travesty that is some pedigree dog/cat/horse/rabbit/whatever breeds.
Click to expand...

100% agree with that Bedlam.
 
Sorry if this is a really really stupid question but I know nothing about breeding dogs (though I find these kind of threads very interesting reading). Is there a reason that AI is not a possibility for dogs? Just thinking that this would dramatically help increase the gene pool. I have never heard canine AI mentioned so I am assuming it is impractical or impossible or something but would be interested to hear.
 
Katikins said:
Sorry if this is a really really stupid question but I know nothing about breeding dogs (though I find these kind of threads very interesting reading). Is there a reason that AI is not a possibility for dogs? Just thinking that this would dramatically help increase the gene pool. I have never heard canine AI mentioned so I am assuming it is impractical or impossible or something but would be interested to hear.
Click to expand...

Most Bulldog litters are concieved through AI as they cannot get it on. They also always need a C sec.

It happens alot with some breeds.
 
Last edited:
Using AI is getting more and more the way to go,but the good old Kennel Club really don`t realize this yet.Their new rules include ,a dog can only have an AI litter registered if it has proved itself beforehand with a natural mating.Result? No one tells them! Their latest rule states no bitch to exceed two C-Sections,any more and they will refuse registration.Result..no one tells them!ALSO they expect Vets to drop the patient/client confidenciality and INFORM the KC each time they C-Section a pedigree bitch. No one,so far,has told the vet practices this yet.
I did say to mine it was a bit of a no brainer really,the KC won`t pay him for this info,he loses a client..result vet out of pocket.
Told him if he had any ideas on it to send his bills to the KC in future.:D
I can also see a lot of suffering resulting from the rule..i.e. a four year old bitch ,already having had one caeser might be left to struggle rather than have a second op ,which would then mean a young breeding bitch being over her breeding career.
Another point,puppy farm dogs DO NOT get C sections,way too expensive!The other new rule is no more than four litters per bitch,used to be six.Now your wily puppy farmer will just register a bitches fifth,sixth,eighth litters with the DogLovers Reg Scheme..or have an extra bitch registered for each of his,the Kennel Club are just SO naive!

In some breeds,bulldogs,pugs etc C-sections are very common,in fact it would be unkind to let some of these bitches even try because to do a Section on an already tired bitch is life threatening.Obviously in breeds like gundogs ,for instance,a Section is an abnormal event,but for the more man made breeds it is far from unusual.Whether this is right or wrong ,not going there,but what I do feel is that it will cause un-necessary suffering,and that is just wrong.
As for using AI from abroad..oh dear..the KC make that very hard indeed,so for us here to widen the gene pool it usually means importing a dog.Meanwhile ,one of my mini boys has kids in Europe and the USA by frozen semen with no problems whatsoever.
 
Alec Swan said:
EXACTLY my point. The Clumber, in perhaps a clumsy fashion, evolved via the Springer, or at least, they'd have had a major influence.

Dogs have evolved, or so it seems to me, to be ornaments, or to work. I have little interest in ornaments, though quite strangely, I've seen some that I'd have been happy to keep!

If we took for instance, a Clumber Spaniel, who had Springer in his blood, but he fulfilled the breed's ideals, then would that be wrong?
Click to expand...

No - because we only take into account a five generation pedigree, so taking the Clumber as an example again, it is easy to use a springer every five generations for a breeder who has, say, three generations on the go. The end result will be reasonably quickly achieved.

And thank God they did do this - there is now a healthy population of working Clumbers here.

And talking about going abroad, there is also a huge following of Clumbers in Sweden and dogs are used between here and there to increase the gene pool. It really is a success story :)
 
CaveCanem said:
I MEANT I would be lying if I said I would NOT love to see a more uniform type...I am a numpty :p
Click to expand...

I am very glad you corrected that, thought you had lost the plot.:D

I do agree the KC are being a bit naieve if they think everyone will adhere to the maximum litters rule, there have always been people prepared to register pups to imaginary bitches etc, that sadly won't change. It will be interesting to see how many vets do notify the KC when they have carried out a C section, but what does amaze me is that anyone would consider breeding from a bitch who had already needed two. I have had 2 bitches who had sections, the first was at her second litter and actually had to be spayed at the same time as she was haemorraghing (sp?) so badly, the other was her first litter but I made the decision not to risk breeding from her again.
Evie has more than one dog in her pedigree who was conceived using AI, though as EK says the KC don't make it easy.
 
WoopsiiD said:
Oooh.

I was talking to someone a few days ago about how strange it was that the greyhound is considered 'At Risk' and we are in danger of losing some breeds altogether. I always liked Otterhounds but Good Old Storm The Rocking Horse has more chance of winning the Grand National then me getting my mucky paws on one!

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/808
Click to expand...


Its done on number's registered with the KC though, so will mainly be the show type and they maybe at risk compared to racing bred greys, although if in the studbook racers can also be registered with the KC and shown but not many do. I went to watch a friend compete with her ex-racer at crufts the other year and was interesting to compare the differences. Here's the show type http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?i=1207373 BOB Crufts 2010.
 
EAST KENT said:
In some breeds,bulldogs,pugs etc C-sections are very common,in fact it would be unkind to let some of these bitches even try because to do a Section on an already tired bitch is life threatening.Obviously in breeds like gundogs ,for instance,a Section is an abnormal event,but for the more man made breeds it is far from unusual.Whether this is right or wrong ,not going there,but what I do feel is that it will cause un-necessary suffering,and that is just wrong.
As for using AI from abroad..oh dear..the KC make that very hard indeed,so for us here to widen the gene pool it usually means importing a dog.Meanwhile ,one of my mini boys has kids in Europe and the USA by frozen semen with no problems whatsoever.
Click to expand...


We have had 2 litters of pugs and both were textbook whelpings. Its a common misconception that pugs mostly require c-sections, I know several breeders that have had litters this year, probably about ten or so, not one of those required c-sections. However, one of my lab bitches had to have a c-section for her pups a few years ago and i know of a few people this year who also have had to with their lab bitches.

I also know of several bulldog breeders who mate their dogs naturally with no problems and have good, strong self-whelping lines.

I've looked into AI with one of my bitches and whilst it isnt an expensive procedure (importing the semen is though of course!) the main problem is that there are very few vets qualified or experienced enough to do it. In my extensive research i only found two vets who had any kind of reliable success rate on AI with dogs.
 
Re importation, it has provided the life blood our breed needed, and more people should be doing it! And with the Pet Passport, it is much, much easier now to go to the continent for covers.
 
Oh if I ever get enough dosh together I will import some semen from one of those beautiful rich red show type labs from the US or Europe;in the South we have Hector Heathcote (Clone) near Gatwick who is extremely capable with using frozen semen,and shipping ours overseas too.He`s in Deerhounds..and his look lovely!
 
UnaB said:
We have had 2 litters of pugs and both were textbook whelpings. Its a common misconception that pugs mostly require c-sections, I know several breeders that have had litters this year, probably about ten or so, not one of those required c-sections. However, one of my lab bitches had to have a c-section for her pups a few years ago and i know of a few people this year who also have had to with their lab bitches.

I also know of several bulldog breeders who mate their dogs naturally with no problems and have good, strong self-whelping lines.

I've looked into AI with one of my bitches and whilst it isnt an expensive procedure (importing the semen is though of course!) the main problem is that there are very few vets qualified or experienced enough to do it. In my extensive research i only found two vets who had any kind of reliable success rate on AI with dogs.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine is looking for a healthier bulldog breeder and these sound perfect (the breeder not the pups) could you please send me the details of the guys you know as he is looking for a pup next year.

Cheers
 
Bedlam said:
If you focus on the job they are bred to do and breed for that purpose, then you are doing it right IMO. Select for performance and ability and you won't go wrong. It's when you start to breed for appearance alone that you create the appalling travesty that is some pedigree dog/cat/horse/rabbit/whatever breeds.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with that

Samoyeds are one of the most ancient breeds left and are one of only 4 (I believe) to be considered "pure" (ie they've not had any outbreeding from sires or dams of a different breed) - as a result of that and careful breeders sticking true to what they're meant to be, they still look very similar to their ancestors of the past

with the exception of the black samoyed which was effectively (but not totally) bred out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top