Dog Breeding: Purity or Functionality?

[DaveC426913]

You know what aggravates me ? Ppl who get a dog only to pride with it at canine contests.
They become obsessed with "winning" those stupid pageants. It's low IMO. I really don't like those ppl.

I used to think that these pageants were stupid too. I've since changed my mind. They are necessary. Regardless of the pomp and circumstance of the show, the purpose of dog shows is to ensure the continued quality of the breeds and protect them from drifting or from dilution through uncontrolled inter-breeding.

Awards are given to owners who continue to breed their animals true and to the specs laid down for that breed centuries ago. This encourages these owners to keep breeding those animals.

If we didn't so this, a century from now, breeds would be blended and unrecognizable. These pageants are very important to the big picture of animal husbandry.

 

[BobG]

You know what aggravates me ? Ppl who get a dog only to pride with it at canine contests.
They become obsessed with "winning" those stupid pageants. It's low IMO. I really don't like those ppl.

Which type of contest?

I admit I don't have much interest in the dog shows that seem to just be based on quality of appearance, etc.

The "working" contests, such as obedience competition, agility competition, dancing competition, etc are just too cool. Or the real herding contests such as the one in the movie about sheepherding pig. The contests that take a lot of teamwork between the owner and the dog.

None the less, I can see where some might appreciate the "quality of breed" contests - especially breeders. Mind you, they have the same type of "quality of breed" contests for cats, as well.

 

[gravenewworld]

Ragdoll cats are bred especially to be friendly and affectionate. Supposedly they follow you around just like a dog would:

 

[Pythagorean]

I used to think that these pageants were stupid too. I've since changed my mind. They are necessary. Regardless of the pomp and circumstance of the show, the purpose of dog shows is to ensure the continued quality of the breeds and protect them from drifting or from dilution through uncontrolled inter-breeding.

(emphasis added)

I always wondered whether that significantly increased the chances of inbreeding or not and lowered the genetic versatility of the dogs. I mean, aren't mixed species generally more "fit"?

Of course, dogs have plunged deep into human society, so their survivability has a large social element to it.

 

[GeorginaS]

I'm not sure I entirely understand or appreciate maintaining the "purity" of specific breeds of dogs (or cats for that matter) either. And especially given that specific characteristics have been designated "desirable" for certain breeds, and that's caused all sorts of problems with animals bred especially to perpetuate those traits. Such as the thin skull issue with chihuahuas and the sloping spine/falling back haunches with German Shepherds. If a cross -breed produces a much more successful animal, what's the value in in maintaining "purity" for its own sake? I don't comprehend that in animals or people. (Hah! Lucien Bouchard reference for the Taranna fellow.)

Anyway. I love my cat, Bean, more than just about any creature who's ever lived with me. And I've lived with cats and dogs and parrots and rodents and fish and all sorts of critters. It comes down to the character of the particular animal to me. I don't "own" her; she lives with me. She's a cat, yes, but every day she's at the front door waiting for me when I arrive home. When I arrive at an unexpected time, I can hear her race to the door to greet me. She wakes me every morning at approximately the same time. She's never far off between 6:30 and 6:55. (My alarm goes off at 7) So every morning the first thing the first thing I see is her darling little face and hear her purring with her lying on my chest. We spend time cuddling, and I rub her face and head, and she head-bumps my cheek and licks my chin, (okay that part is icky) and I can't imagine a world where I'll have to wake up without her to make my world a friendly place from the moment I open my eyes.

While I don't have to walk her -- so she doesn't require that kind of maintenance -- I do specifically stay home on weekends and evenings and make time to spend with her and be with her so she's not always alone. And we actually spend time interacting with each other and just plain hanging out. Granted, she's not the best company -- her conversational skills are pretty limited -- but she flourishes as a result of my taking the time to be with her.

She knows who I am. She recognises me by voice alone. She actually gets physically ill if she's away from me for too long. She has goofy facial expressions. She makes me laugh. She makes me feel wanted. The fact of my existence matters to her. The fact of her existence matters a great deal to me. She's not aloof. She's intensely interested in me. She comes when I call her. She responds to specific words that mean different things.

Of all of the animals I've had the privilege to share my home with, my little cat has been the most noteworthy. Is she "better" than a dog? All I can do is shrug my shoulders. It's a different thing. We have a fantastic relationship. That's what counts.

 

[DanP]

I'm not sure I entirely understand or appreciate maintaining the "purity" of specific breeds of dogs (or cats for that matter) either. And especially given that specific characteristics have been designated "desirable" for certain breeds, and that's caused all sorts of problems with animals bred especially to perpetuate those traits.

Well, purity of race is important IMO. Much less important for company pets, but pretty important for work dogs who where selected for work or hunting for several hundred years.

However I think you are right about the fact that many breeders seem to go overboard with what they perceive as "desirable traits". Take the German shepherd you mention, von Stephanitz's selection created this dog breed for work, and not for "looks". I've been told that defects where quickly breed out of the race in his time.

Nowadays, the race is plagued with problems like the hip displasia you mentioned. In many breeding programs, the need that the dog strictly conforms some anthropometric standard considered ideal seems to be more important then the primary function of the race. It seems (may not be true, but it seems) that many breeders will resort to extensive in-breeding to fix and enhance the trademark "looks" traits of the race, in spite of more important traits. This not only results many times in dogs with genetic issues, but also result in dogs less and less suitable to do the functions they where initially designed to.