Improving the breed is an often quoted motivation for breeding.  In the world of purebred dogs this rationale is offered up primarily by show-oriented breeders.  Debates have raged for years about what constitutes improvement in a breed.  Breeders emphasizing function have long been at odds with “fancy” breeders.  A study of German Shepherds published in 1934 and quoted in Bred for Perfection- Shorthorn Cattle, Collies and Arabian Horses since 1800 by Margaret E Derry is said to conclude that “the modern German Shepherd has been so carefully bred for ‘show points’ that, to a great extent, it had lost much of its original value as a utility working dog.”  Derry also frames the debate, “The question, in a nutshell, was How could “improvement” be achieved through breeding for fancy when such breeding led to a new type?  Did dogs improved for shows also demonstrate improvement over original type, or could it be said that they represented a lack of quality because of the basic deviation from the older style?  As breeds became more standardized to specific conformation standards, a question haunted many breeders.  Was quality an issue of closeness to original type or should that type be molded into a newer “improved” forms?”  Nearly a hundred years later, the debate over what constitutes improvement rages on.

The relatively new phenomenon wherein dog breeders have begun embracing the term “preservation breeder” challenges us to address this age old debate yet one more time.  The issues are complex.  Reputable breeders struggle with these questions and concerns in thoughtful fashion and should be able to articulate their reasoning within the context of their own breeding programs.  There is no right or wrong answers unless or until the quality of life for the dogs and the owners are compromised.

The question of historical purpose might be the most logical place to begin our discussion.  Does the function for which a given breed was developed still exist in any numerically and/or socially acceptable fashion?  Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Akitas, Bulldogs and American Staffordshire Terriers are examples of breeds whose original purpose is either virtually extinct or (appropriately) illegal in our society.  Reputable breeders have and continue to improve temperaments and to preserve these breeds.  Yet, we must ask, how much variation from their progenitors is acceptable?  When have we crossed the line from preservation and improvement to the creation of a new breed masquerading under an old name?  Clearly, temperaments must be modified to some degree, but without the counterbalance of a functional task to measure the form to, how often and how far can we stray from the original before it is lost anyway?

As our society has become more urbanized, the role of our canine partners has changed as well.  Field dogs, herding dogs, hunters of game, killers of vermin and other dogs that worked for a living in a rural environment have moved to the city.  A few of those dogs continue to work whether in law enforcement and search and rescue or as therapy and service dogs.  A few still exist in a rural environment doing something akin to their original purpose.  A minority of dogs have found a niche in competitive dog sports.  Yet the vast majority of dogs do none of those things.  They serve solely as pets; companion animals in homes across the country.  A neighbor has two Siberian Huskies.  They regularly frolic with the children off-lead in the front yard in a busy Los Angeles suburb.  They never leave the yard.  They don’t step off the curb, let alone run.  If it looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck, but it has no desire to run, is it still a Siberian husky?  Do those of us who breed field dogs or herding dogs have an obligation to attempt to preserve those innate instincts in our breeding programs, or is it simply enough to produce dogs that people love?

Jon Franklin, in his book The Wolf in The Parlor – The Eternal Connection Between Humans and Dogs, takes us on a 12,000 year journey through our conjoined history and concludes “Humans don’t just like dogs, we cannot do without them.  They are our only touchstone to an emotional past we have forever lost, and yet desperately need.”  The human experience is widely varied. Responsibly bred dogs allow people to choose a companion who will be a good fit for their family, interests and circumstances.  As preservation breeders, if we are to be successful in continuing our breeds of interest, we must never lose sight of fact that the vast majority of our dogs will never do any real work or see the inside of a ring or trial arena.  Their purpose is to bring joy to the humans in their lives.  Whether or not this is acceptable as a sole focus for any breeder is a question to be answered by each individual.  But a preservation breeder must embrace the dogs primary role as companion as the foundation before any other consideration.  If we are going to preserve our breeds and produce enough puppies to maintain and strengthen our gene pools, we must have companion homes for our pups. An insufficient number of companion homes capable of and willing to own and enjoy the dogs we are producing leads to more limited breeding programs and/or dogs being placed in less than ideal circumstances.

So what are the components that are important to making our dogs good companions regardless of breed?  The first criteria must be temperament!  Many breeders describe their dogs with obvious pride as happy, loving family companions.  They can be feisty terriers, active working dogs, independent hounds or patient sporting dogs, but they must without exception love their people and be amenable to living peacefully with their human caregivers.  Dogs that display unwarranted aggression toward people or other dogs for any reason are more difficult to live with and are not good candidates as companions for the average home.  As breeders, we are assaulted with an avalanche of criticism.  The current sociopolitical environment makes it critical that every single pup we place must be manageable and well matched to the abilities and interests of the new owners.  If we have any chance of reestablishing the public’s respect for breeders, the foundation of that will be excellent puppies going to the right homes accompanied by a never-ending interest in the well-being of all involved.

Another important factor in reestablishing purebred dogs as preferred companions is concern about the health of our dogs.  The age old debate about utility versus fancy type has at least partially morphed into the assertion that breeding for show is negatively affecting the health of purebred dogs.  While the health status of purebreds versus mongrels is a subject of continuing and vociferous debate, there is no question that some show-related changes have affected the health of purebred dogs.  While we all continue to strive toward minimizing serious disease in our breeding programs, the ever watchful public will serve as a harsh critic when we overstep the bounds of appropriate modifications (aka “improvements”). The necessity for surgeries like gastroplexy, congenitally obstructed airway correction and entropion or ectropion repair leave the public feeling like we are not doing a good job breeding healthy dogs.   When corrective surgery becomes a cultural norm within a breed that is a strong indication the desire to win has trumped all reason.   Quality of life for both the dogs and their owners is degraded in breeds of dogs where normal life-spans are regularly shortened due to devastating disease.  These and other dire health-related situations indicate the need for serious reevaluation of breeding priorities.  When “improvement” in type or style compromises the quality of life or the health and well being of the dogs, then everyone can see the falsehood.  The emperor is wearing no clothes!  We know that the deck is always stacked and no human or dog will get out of this life alive.  We need to be honest about the health concerns in our breeds even if it makes us unpopular with some of our peers at the dog show.  We can help the public to realize that a well-bred purebred dog simply allows families to stack the deck in their favor of acquiring a long-lived companion, instead of rolling the dice with a mixed breed dog of unknown ancestry and uncertain health history.  Then we can direct them toward breeders who place more emphasis on producing healthy dogs than on ribbons.

Perhaps the final piece of the puzzle that must be a part of the preservation breeder’s program is basic structure.  Before a dog can be a good representative of its breed, it has to be a good dog; four good legs, two functional ears, two eyes, etc.  In the introduction to her book, Structure in Action – The Makings of a Durable Dog, Pat Hastings says, “Many veterinarians and canine body workers have noticed an ever-increasing need for education about canine structure, as have I.”  She also comments, “It speaks poorly of us if we ask our dogs to do things that could break them down prematurely and so diminish the quality of their lives as they age. However, we can’t make the right choices for our dogs if we don’t know their structural issues, so we must work to fill in our information blanks with practical knowledge.” Sound structure is essential for every dog, but particularly for those going to homes with an active lifestyle.  Most people looking for a purebred companion don’t care that their dog has some white where it doesn’t belong, a coat too long or too short, or a tail carried poorly.  They care that their dogs can live long and happy lives, and remain comfortable as they join their humans in their chosen endeavors.  Exaggerations in style that contribute to orthopedic problems are the most obvious to the public.  You do not have to be an expert in dogs to know that some of the dogs that do well at the show are crippled.  Others are less obvious to the public, but we know better; tendency toward cruciate injury/rupture in heavy bodied dogs, poor fronts that contribute to lameness, pain and shoulder injuries and other serious structural shortcomings are too often considered acceptable costs.  Notwithstanding, the rising costs of veterinary care, the dogs pay the real price in pain and discomfort, particularly in many companion homes.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.  While debates about style, function and health continue to influence both breeders and buyers of purebred animals, changes in our living situations, our social and political perspectives and an avalanche of new information, constantly transform what we can and what we are willing to do to improve the quality of life for both ends of the leash.  Primary concerns for anyone embracing the role of preservation breeder must be the production of sound, healthy dogs and a concerted effort to educate the public about the importance of our role.

© 2016 Peri Norman