Should the American Kennel Club perpetuate breedism?

No

1 of 3

by Scottie Westfall

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Dogs are perhaps the most varied animal species on the planet. Between 400 and 800 breeds supposedly exist in the world. These vary from the tiniest Chihuahuas and Yorkshire terriers, some weighing less than two pounds, to the largest mastiffs and St. Bernards, which might easily exceed two hundred pounds in weight. The squat bulldog is a member of the same species as the speedy whippet. By comparison, when one looks at wild dog species, one sees a basic theme about them. The dog's closest wild relatives are wolves, coyotes, and jackals, and although these species are of different sizes, they all essentially resemble each other, possessing long legs, a bushy tail, a long muzzle, and pointed,erect ears. These species have been separate breeding populations for millions of years, while most dog breeds arose in the last one hundred fifty years. Dogs have far more variation. This variation comes from selective breeding and the use of a closed stud book system within breed registries, such as the American Kennel club. Because of the closed studbook, this type of breeding may produce these novelties, but it also may be destroying dogs as a species. The other problem that this sort of breeding causes is physical problems that result from breeding exaggerated types to breed standard. In short, this concept of "breed" is not good for dogs.

Domestic dogs have been in existence for at least 15,000 years. During that most of time, humans have selectively bred them for various purposes. Dogs were bred together that shared a common set of behavioral traits, and the offspring were chosen that best represented those behaviors. Over time, various different types of dog developed. These began to fall within several categories, such as livestock guardian dogs or water dogs, but bloodlines were kept open. New blood could always be introduced to reduce inbreeding coefficients, and different dog breeders could produce their own strains of working dog. For example, the golden retriever was developed by a single individual his own strain of wavy-coated retriever. It was often crossed with other strains of wavy-coat, water spaniels, and setters to reinvigorate the lines. Most working dogs breeds were maintained in a similar way. It was only with the rise of the modern dog fancy that the vast plethora of different dog breeds developed, and it is with this fancy that the modern concept of "dog breed" was developed. Inherent in this new concept was the practice of keeping closed stud books, which shut all dog breeds off from the introduction of new bloodlines. It is without a doubt that this practice has largely been to the detriment of domestic dogs the world around.

Before a further analysis of the situation can continue, one must understand that the modern concept of breeds is largely an arbitrary system based largely upon phenotype and less on genotype and function. There are differences between types of dog in terms of behavior and genotype. For example, sight hounds are excellent sprinters and spaniels have a tendency to chase birds. There are genetic and phenotypic reasons for both of these traits. However, in terms of breed, the actual difference between lines of various dogs of the same type was always somewhat spurious. One only has to look at three breeds of British retriever, the golden, Labrador, and the flat-coat. All three were excellent retrievers of waterfowl. The only difference between the strains of retriever was a matter of phenotype. Today, as separate breeds, there are some differences among the three, but these differences are more likely explained by the simple fact that many Labradors are bred specifically for field work, while many goldens are bred to be obedient family pets. Flat-coats are exceedingly rare, so they do not have the chance to fully specialize as the other two have. Most breeds of dog have been split off of a basic type, as the retrievers have been, and the differences exaggerated to make these breeds as we know them.

Now that it is understood that concept of breed is largely arbitrary, it now becomes necessary to see what the results of a closed stud book have produced. The American Kennel Club begins recognizing a breed it sets up what is called Foundation Stock Service in which the AKC accepts individual dogs into what will eventually found the AKCrecognized breed. Dogs recognized as Foundation Stock Service go into the Miscellaneous Class. These dogs are in a kind of limbo until they are fully recognized and placed into a group, such as the sporting group for bird dogs or the hound group for scent hounds and sight hounds, and the studbook is closed. Often the time period that exists between Foundation Stock Service to full recognition is relatively short or the breed club in charge of choosing membership in the service is overly selective, resulting in just a relatively few individuals brought into the foundation studbook.

As the dogs are shown over the generations, very few studs become breeders, and those that do well in conformation shows wind up being bred to many females. Because of these constraints, inbreeding becomes more and more evident. In most dog breeds, any two individuals within the same breed can usually trace common ancestors within ten generations. If any one of these foundation dogs or most-used studs has a genetic abnormality or carries the gene for genetic abnormalities, the chances are greatly increased that a higher percentage of dogs within that breed will develop this abnormality at some point. Certain breeds of dog produce certain conditions.

For example, in all the collie breeds, including rough and smooth collies, shelties, and Australian (sic) shepherds, a condition exists called "collie eye" that can result in blindness. The fact that it is called "collie eye" shows that it is well-known what sort of breeds develop it. It is interesting to note that this condition is relatively rare in border collies, which are largely bred for work over appearance. Most border collies bred in the world today are bred from stock registered in organizations that have open studbooks, which allow for the addition of new bloodlines. As a result, border collies in these registries tend to be healthier than their show-dog relatives, because the risks of too much selectivity in the foundation stock and the over-used stud phenomenon are mitigated. As a result of this sort of registry, though, working border collies tend to vary widely in appearance, which makes the ability to breed for a specific breed standard impossible.
Perhaps this variation in appearance is a good thing. Most border collies are average in terms of dogs. They are not overly large or overly small. Their coats are medium long or medium short. Their muzzles are not as flattened as a pug's or as long as a borzoi's. All dogs started from these "average" sorts of dogs. Most pariah dogs, which are believed to resemble the first domestic dogs, are medium sized, roughly 25 to 45 pounds and have erect or semi-erect ears. All have some variation in appearance, of course, but few have the great exaggeration we see in modern dog breeds recognized by the AKC or other kennel clubs.
Even though the first working types of dog did vary from each other, the types themselves remained average within the type. The Scottish terrier type from which the Scottish terrier, the Skye terrier, the West Highland white terrier, the cairn terrier, and the Dandie Dinmont terrier evolved was a relatively similar type of dog with some region variants. These variations often resulted from cross-breeding, supposedly with some kind of hound in the case of the Dandie Dinmont and perhaps the Maltese in the case of the Skye. However, all of these types were interbred. Cairn terriers were thought of as a type of Sky terrier, while West Highland whites were simply white cairn terriers. The modern fancy split these types into the breeds we know today.

All dogs began to greatly vary in appearance with the rise of the conformation show. The first of these shows was held in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, in 1859. These spectacles became popular among the rising middle classes, which came into force during the economic expansion and democratization of the nineteenth century. Some of the middle classes were rising to become the new rich, which greatly patronized the show dog fancy. Most of these middle class and new upper class desired dogs that were "of breeding," meaning that they belonged to a recognized breed with a closed studbook. Keeping pet dogs of a specific type existed a bit before this, beginning with the Industrial Revolution and its freeing of many working dogs and people from their drudgeries. People had leisure time and extra money to spend, so keeping pet dogs became fashionable. Now, keeping a dog of breeding meant that the supposed nobility of pure breeding for the dog could be transferred onto the owner who was now up with it.

Thorstein Veblen excoriated this approach to all sorts of consumer goods in his Theory of the Leisure Class. He particularly attacked the dogs that were part of what he called "conspicuous consumption." The dogs had no economic utility beyond their existence as purebred animals. Owners wanting to prove their pet's excellence began to show them in dog shows, which are more properly called conformation shows.

Originally, dog shows were haphazard. The judges created arbitrary breed groupings, and different judges used different criteria to judge the dog's looks. Eventually, a desire came about to standardize the criteria. The result of this standardization was the breed standard, which is a blue-print of the "perfect" example of a particular breed. All dogs are to be judge according to their breed standard. No one breed is judged against the other. No other development in the conformation show would lead to the development of so much exaggeration in dogs and would lead to the acceleration of the development of dog breeds.

Breed standards supposedly have some functional utility to them. However, in the modern dog breed, these are often hard to see. The show bulldog looks nothing like its ancestors, which probably closely resembled the American bulldog in looks and temperament. The modern bulldog is so over-developed in terms of muscle that if it falls into water it is likely to sink. Its flattened muzzle often prevents it from cooling itself effectively through panting, which means that it is useless as an active working dog. The bulldog's head is so large that puppies cannot be born without Caeasarian section, and this problem is further exacerbated with the tendency to breed for narrow hips. Of course, the bulldog's original function, killing bulls in a blood sport called "bull-baiting" is now thankfully illegal.

However, even breeds for which there is a function the breed standard seems to be hampering their utility. Consider golden retrievers, which are often thought of as inferior to Labradors as working retrievers. However, this inferiority may be explained when the current breed standard calls for much more development in terms of muscle and bone than what could be called functional in an active working retriever, which needs some bone but also needs some reach to swim quickly. The show-form of golden also tends to have too much feathering, which becomes water logged quickly when the dog swims. This waterlogged feathering reduces the dog's speed in the water. Most of those who breed working golden retrievers breed for a lighter build and less feathering. As a result, the golden retriever has both show and working-type varieties that share a common stud book but behave and look rather differently.

The standards alone did not create exaggeration. Showing all the breeds together was the culprit. Dogs begin a conformation show within a subgroup for their breed and after beating the dogs in that subgroup work their way up to best of breed. Only those who are experts at that particular breed's standard judge the dogs. After a dog wins best of breed, then it goes onto the group, where a judge who is an expert on a variety of breeds chooses a winner based upon each breed's standard. Most judges who are judging many different breeds have a rough blueprint of what each breed is supposed to look like. It is because of this that certain breeds begin to look a like, which is already exacerbated with the already narrow closed stud book and most-used stud phenomenon. Breeders only win prizes for dogs that have that blueprint look, and many of these breeders pride themselves on how similar their dogs look.
After generations of this, the exaggeration begins to take its toll on the health of the dogs. Excessive bone in mastiff breeds and retrievers has lead to an epidemic of hip and joint problems, while breeding for an extremely sloping topline in German shepherds has resulted in hip displasia and spine problems. Dachshunds bred for the show ring have much shorter legs and much longer backs than any hunting Teckel of Germany, and as a result, the modern dachshund has lots of back problems that come from poor structure. These problems really do affect the quality of the dog's life, as well as its function as a family pet and ruin its chances to do its original task for which it may or may not still possess the instinct.

The AKC's maintenance of closed breed registries and the use of breed standards as the only way of determining a dog's quality have greatly damaged dogs as we know them. Reforms could easily be introduced to the fancy, but it is unlikely that these reforms will be taken seriously. The main reason for this resistance is the very real perception that many in the fancy have about their particular breed. Not only does the breed confer upon the owner some form of status, but the owners and breeders somehow believe that the breed standards were attached to the stones Moses brought down from the mountain. To them, the breed's purity is all that matters, forgetting that virtually none of these dogs existed as a breed up until one hundred fifty years ago for some and many are more recent creations than that.

One of these reforms would be to open the stud book for similar dog breeds. In Belgium, four types of shepherd dog exist. These dogs resemble the German shepherd superficially and perhaps have a common ancestry with that breed. These breeds are the short-haired Malinois, which is fawn or silver with a black muzzle, the Laekenois, which wirehaired and fawn with a black muzzle, the Tervuren, which is sable with a black muzzle and long-haired, and the Groenendael, which is solid black. In the AKC, the Laekenois is not recognized, and the Groenendael is called the "Belgian Sheepdog." They are all separate breeds but are judged by the same standard, except for coat and color. In Belgium, these dogs are all varieties of one breed. They are interbred, although there are certain crosses that cannot happen, such as breeding Groenendael to a Malinois or a Laekenois, which would result in puppies that fit none of the varieties. The stud books are remained open to allow for genetic diversity. Often Tervurens and Groenendaels are born in the same litter. With the AKC, the closed stud book would not allow a Tervuren born to Groenendael parents to be registered as Tervuren. It would simply be a faulty Groendael or "Belgian Sheepdog."

Another reform would be to write breed standards in a way that reflects the function of working breeds and reflects the needs of dog health. Changing breed standards in this way would also allow for outcrosses, which would take away from each breed's "blueprint" image to a certain degree. Of course, breed standards are maintained by breed clubs, which often have very obtuse procedures for changing them. These obtuse procedures allow certain breeders to have much more say so in how the standard is written and interpreted, and these are the same breeders who succeeded in producing generations of dogs to that very standard.

The American Kennel Club and other breed registries that operate in this way are greatly damaging our dogs. Those of us who love dogs are working animals and as healthy companions really should do more to force these changes in the registry. We can start our own registries or align with the United Kennel Club, which is a working dog registry. However, the AKC remains the big fish in the pond when it comes to dogs. Changing its practices will take many decades of concerted activism from enlightened dog owners, many of whom are so disgusted with purebred dogs that they have gone onto mixed breeds, which may be healthier because they have diverse genetic origins and have less of a chance of developing genetic disorders.

Learn more about this author, Scottie Westfall.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.