ron2
Posted : 5/11/2008 9:52:58 AM
You haven't alienated me, Truley.
I can see some points. For example, in a well-bred litter, there will be variations in color and size that will fault against the standard. These dogs are then deemed pet quality. They might be wonderful in any job assigned, could compete in the contests and win, have a wonderful disposition, love on children and take all the ear pulling galore, and be sweet around other dogs, etc., and are deemed unsuitable to breed because they are an inch too tall or 8 oz over standard weight limit. And that has to do with what is considered proper breeding, now. Even I violate my own standard. Shadow is a mix of Siberian Husky and Lab. I currently do not have a dog cart or dog sled, so we are not working the job he was originally bred for. I do not hunt, so he doesn't get to hunt every day with me. Nor do I fish in the oceans with nets, which is what the Lab was originally bred for, to jump into the frigid waters of the northern seas around Newfoundland and the Island of Labrador to retrieve net buoys. That's why Labs have waterproof skin and an otter like tail. He is a pet more than he is a working dog.
There's an interesting dichotomy. What makes a good working dog is not what always makes an easy pet. And, genetically, there is a price to pay when one concentrates on a few traits. I think it was wise to state that there wil be faults with even the best of breeding. But it doesn't have to stop us from pursuing perfection.
But, with most people not in the organized competitions and shows, how important is it that the height of your male Sibes not exceed 24 inches? Is it more important that they receive training well and easy? Their job has become to fit into the family group and not eat the cats. The original breeding did not consider genetics. A winning dog, so to speak, wanted to run for hours in front and still be good around the kids, as they often lived with the family, or burrowed out in the snow at - 70 F. Color, height, and weight were not the primary consideration. However, what is now considered the standard, was a good combination considering the food resources and demands of life in far northeastern Siberia. But there would still be some variation in the physical dimensions, even then. So, were the chuckchi ethical? The breed was fairly hearty and healthy. And they didn't select by preemptive surgery. There were sometimes drastic measures.
So, as was stated elsewhere, if the desire is to breed show-worthy but only a few statistically have the genetic chance to possess all the qualities to be allowed to breed, then the general affect is that the majority of breeding is producing pet quality. But pet quality does not mean that the dog makes a good pet. Pet quality means that they are not show-worthy and show worthy is defined by the arbitrary standards defined by a set of dimensions agreed upon by a group of people.
If I were a chukchi and were to breed superior sled dogs, Shadow would have been an excellet source. Big, fast, strong, runs like the wind and loves doing it. A bit independent but biddable enough to train. He has the aspects of a great sled dog but is faulted against the AKC standards in both Sibe and Lab breeds, not to mention being a mutt, or mix of two breeds, which is not recognized by the AKC.
Maybe I am elitist in liking the ancient breeds. And things have changed, maybe. Are many dogs working dogs? Or are they members of a family group where social cohesion is even more important than the job of their breed?
I can see some of DPU's point from his perspective. He's not training dogs to hunt, pull, or retrieve. He is acclimating them to life with human families. So, how well they hunt is secondary to how well they get along with others. With the majority of dogs being "pet quality" and the majority of dogs simply needing a good home to be in, is he then concentrating on the right thing, regardless of how you find is attitude to be, or not to be? No, I don't agree with the notion that people should be breeding just because and I don't see evidence of the mythical family that can breed well and be responsible but, how many guidelines were in place when Man started breeding dogs so long ago. Or even 300 years ago, when some of the modern breeds arose? In fact, I read somewhere that many of the breed standards were orginally started, not to define the breed for its own good, but to set apart the dogs owned by the aristocracy as opposed to those owned by the working class and all those not gifted with the divine right of Kings and landed gentry.