One moment please.
Forums Home
 
Forums  ›  General Discussions  ›  General Forum MD
 

why do dobermans seem weak?!?!?!

first off let me say I am a fan of the doberman dog. I like the way they look and feel that it could be a great dog with some work however I think the breed needs some "cleaning".  Every doberman I have come across has been just a pet dog not a working dog, no different from any other dog. They all seem to be very gentle, docile, thin/frail, and scared.

I have only met one working doberman that the guy had to import from china and cost him 3k. That dog impressed me, it was aloof/reserved. It wasnt aggressive or scared or anything but he definitely didnt trust me and kept his eye on me.

 

perhaps an outcross would be a good thing for this breed? maybe thats what they tried to do with the donovan pinscher and canis panther?

 

what do you guys think of the canis panther? never seen one in person but i like the way they look. Donovan pinschers as well

You are on to something here.  When a dog has no job they get soft and lethargic much like us humans do. The Doberman is yet another example of a fine working breed that went by the wayside in the USA where looks is preferred to performance and true temperament. I remember discussing this phenomenon on here before but most of the kennel clubs do their breeds a great disservice.  They talk about "preserving", "protecting" but I think the only thing the preserve or protect is their bank account.

Donovan Pinscher and Canis Panther - could be bred into a good doby line to get some strength and drive back.  That is a big task as the breeder will be fighting the breed clubs and KC all the way.

Gary Sicard

yeah but after being in the bully world and seeing so much "paper hanging". I would not be surprised if its going on everywhere, with every breed, in every circle. Its not very difficult to do and whatever outcross you used can easily be hidden within a few more breedings. I really dont see anything wrong with outcrossing IMO. its how new breeds are created, or how to "fix" or add to an existing breed.

 

Yes Dobermans are not terribly functional anymore and due to inbreeding have a few quite disastrous genetic flaws. For me though they've lost the suppleness, athleticism and steady headedness and drive needed. Too big, too changed for a flashy side gait at the expense of everything else. Those deep deep chests are a big problem with bloat and quite frankly look ridiculous and for sure get in the way of the dog being able to do any proper work. How do you get that over a six foot sloping wall. Hip dysplasia is becoming more and more of a problem affecting young dogs.......For all intensive purposes not much of a working dog anymore, the pedigree and showing dogs.

If they're not shy and timid and nervy they're completely dopey, all assuming they don't drop dead of DCM, Dilated Cardiomyopathy. There are no doberman lines free of it unfortunately anymore. Just look up "doberman dropped dead", you will be shocked. One minute the dog is appears absolutely fine playing, next its lying dead on the lawn.

Heartbreak breed.

Personally I wouldn't use dobermans in a breeding programme for that reason alone. There have been various recreations of the breed in different countries but most end up with the same problems by the age of six due to the inevitable back crossing to fix the Doberman phenotype.

Short lives, dysfunctional and lethally flawed, doesn't inspire much confidence. 

 

Just look up "doberman dropped dead", you will be shocked.

 Well I did and you are absolutely right.  I did not realize that there was such a serious problem in the breed.  Now I have to do some more research.

Here is a link to the search results.

At the end of this video the dog just drops dead. Very sad.

 

Gary Sicard

so now it seems an outcross is necessary to fix the breed, several outcrossings.

You got that right. Now who will do it and risk the wrath of the Doberman Club. :)

Gary Sicard

Yes so sad, Bella was also quite a moderate Doberman too. Watching that video my heart sank.

The Doberman is a classic case study in degenerative breeding practises. From one of the healthiest breeds to one of the unhealthiest. 

The breed had a huge genetic health advantage by the way it was created using mixtures of various breeds and half breeds. Up until 1950 there were practically no hereditary health problems. Like JRTs today they had phenomenally sound inbreeding co-efficients. The breed was recognised, the stud books closed and with immediate effect an ever shrinking gene pool was the result. In under 70years it's a breed facing extinction. 

We can expect the same to happen to the "pedigree JRT", a variant called the JRT at least, recognised now by KCs across the globe. Lessons just aren't being learnt. Stud books are still being closed with a confidence that screams of any true willingness to recognise science behind genetics at all. The JRT has an advantage in that there are still various working types outside of closed registries but they all appear to gravitate to a similar idea of absolute uniformity in desired phenotype said to define the only true type .......most unfortunately also with something of a determined fervour that doesn't separate them easily from the mind sets of the predominate eugenicists still rank in pedigree dog breeding. Luckily we still have the much maligned "backyard breeders and the odd terrier man" all too willing to do nothing of the sort to the JRT ha ha ha. 

Breeds like the Doberman unfortunately are almost symbolic one could say of the mind set now destroying pedigree dogs, also perhaps to lesser extent the historical associations etc, the appalling state of a breed like the show GSD, German shepherd too, for example. Even outside of those rather frightening associations you just have to look at the problems a breed like the Dalmatian had in outcrossing to realise its also a pretty much universal problem in dog breeding within all closed registries. One dog was outcrossed in the 1970s with a pointer and it took until 2011 for the AKC to recognise any of the progeny, 14 generations later! Even though all the Dalmatians the AKC did recognise had a double gene that causes the painful (and often lethal) build-up of sediment in the urinary system cause by high uric acid levels (ubiquitous in the breed).  Making it impossible to breed away from within any existing gene pool. The vote within the AKC was almost 50/50 so the battle there is only in its infancy, even with the healthy version now being eligible for registration.

I don't think the future can be very bright for the Doberman. There is as far as I know not even any identifiable single gene responsible so short of the discovery, a miraculous scientific break through, and finding a any dogs without those multiple genes things look bleak within the present mind set. Its less about courage though and more about willingness however as any healthy breed or dog (preferably working) that doesn't have the affliction could be suitable as an outcross. The hurdles are many and high dealing with such unprecedented cognitive dissonance in this day and age. It must also be said it's also costly, time consuming and requires a great deal of co-operation. When you can still just breed a litter despite the consequences, get it registered, who is bothered.

Who knows, all it would take would be one dedicated Doberman breeder.......set up an alternative registry, market the dogs as healthy while others are practically dropping dead and you've captured the market. Surely some kind of incentive and claim to immortality in the journals of history of the Doberman at least even if the KCs never recognise them and they never function as working dogs ever again. Would be nice if they did but there are quite a few breeds to choose from as alternatives even if they don't, though.

There are many problematic breeds in the US. The best way to fix it is; in order to show a dog the major registries should allow an occasional outcross preferably 1 within 6 generations, the dog must be competing in at least 1 other sport and have vet backed documentation of health.

 

    

exaclty! so why the big fuss about pure breds/inbreeding limiting the gene pool etc. I think it was either chimerakennels or midgardmastiffs on here way back in the day that was a big proponent of hybrid vigor.

The only way to fix the dobe is to paper hang.

 

A dobe cross the intrigued me was the dino dog. 

https://doberman-chat.com/threads/a-doberman-pit-bull-mix.2907/

I have seen some nice dobes. I don't see it often. They can still perform. They are good working dogs. However, they will only be what they have been trained to be. We live in a society where people take working breeds like this and never work them. They become nothing more than pets. The owners user them a a dog to sit on a coach. They never stimulate the working qualities is the breed. I've even had some comment on my video of me training a dog for property protection say 'm a horrible person for teaching this to a dog. This is what it was bred to do. It was one of my pups. The owner has some acres with some expensive equipment. He wanted his dog to keep intruders off of his land and away from his equipment. This dog was purchased to have a job. He was being taught to do his job. The video was just the beginning of his training.

 

As for as outcossing to fix the breed I think that is wrong. That is just my opinion. If you outcross the dog it is no longer the same breed. It is a just a mixed breed. Sure a mixed breed can be a good dog. It can be a good working dog. But it would no longer be a dobe. IMO it is too late for the dobe as a whole. I don't fault the show dog community. I fault more of the backyard breeds for ruining the breed. I also fault having a political correct society. Political correctness says you should have a dog that will bite. it is not needed. You are being abusive to the dogs. The backyard breeder will breed any 2 dogs just because they are dogs and they believe they can make a profit. back in the 70's and early 80's dobes were still fairly popular. People bought them. They wanted to make them meaner. They were feeding gun powder to the dogs to make them mean. No one knew the true affects that gun powder had on the dogs. Sure they became more aggressive. But it messing them up mentally. It was very harmful to the dogs. They did it with GSD too. These dogs were basically crazy. They had unstable temperaments. They were psycho. Anytime a breed becomes too popular it leads to the harming of the breed. People get them and no nothing about genetics. They no nothing about what is good and bad for the breed. They just want to make some money. Some start off by saying they just want to get some of the money back they put into it by buying a dog. Most think it is easy money. If they are selling this dog for $3,000 I can do the same. I was looking online today. I see ads were people are selling dogs. Some are asking for $1,000 or more for a dog or pup that is physically deformed. They don't know it. They are asking for serious buyers. The sad thing is there will be some other uniformed consumer that will think this is awesome or a great opportunity for them to get a good dog and make some money and they will purchase it and breed it a lead to more bad dogs being produced. I see people selling dogs claiming it is show quality. But the dog has a disqualifying fault. Sure it is a nice dog. But it should be sold as a pet only. The pet can still be a good working dog. It just should not be bred so that it will not reproduce other dogs that have serious or disqualifying faults.

All the same uninformed arguments show breeders use. Breeding for the show ring is what and to coin a phrase "fucked up" the Doberman not backyard breeders. A doberman is already a mix of breeds thats how it was created, like all breeds of dogs. They didn't just drop out of the sky fully formed, they're not a species they are type of a single species the grey wolf all dogs are. Thats also how it will be saved, if anyone truly cared about the Doberman that is and not instead only cared about producing a litter of fatally inbred mutts to win ribbons in the show ring.

You're mixing up environment and genetics. Doesn't matter if some owners or "pet dog" owners never worked their dogs if they were bred along working lines by anyone instead of showing lines they would be quite capable of working, generation after generation doesn't matter who kept some of them or how. However this isn't the case with the Doberman. Breeding for the show ring means they're selected for a showing phenotype, size, exact proportions, arbitrary things like depth of stop, eye shape and exaggerated movement......not for how well they can perform, jump  drive, eye contact blah blah blah all the things a working dog needs to be selected for. By doing this they are creating an image of a dog not a working dog. To make matters worse they inbreed to winning sires on mass hoping to produce a similar champion, they line breed to that single champion litter after litter, many breeders all reducing the gene pool. Until all they end up producing are crippled genetically inbred disasters that live just the few years it takes to become champions. What we call a Doberman today. 

Outcrossing both to other breeds at this point and within the breed if even possible is vital even if there is a hope just to save the show dog never mind a working dog. You have a point in that the Doberman seems to have fallen out of favour as a working dog in favour of any number of other breeds. Show breeders will often take such a breed and believe they're rescuing them by breeding them for the show ring but instead wreck them. If I was to choose extinction or  bred along show lines I would say extinction is preferable. Kinder at any rate.

Backyard breeders don't come into it at all. In fact you are more likely to find a healthy dog from a backyard breeder simply because they don't agonise so much over pedigree and dog shows so are just as likely to use a complete outcross on their litter as they are to inbreed, a simple query will tell you which. However show bred dogs carry the fatal genes, they created them and they persisted in breeding with them and not addressing the problem by outcrossing. Any cast-offs deemed "pet" quality will carry the genes too. Bear in mind any dog can be registered with the AKC if it has a pedigree, backyard breeder dogs, puppy mills and show dogs. So yes the blame lies fair and squarely with show breeders here.

Your argument for not outcrossing is like saying I don't want to build my house out of bricks because I don't have exactly the ten thousand bricks needed, if I use one stone instead of that missing brick its not a house is it???!!! Well it is a house and that one stone might be the only thing that holds the whole together. You would rather build a wooden house instead that gets flattened by a tornado. 

That was a rather obscure off the cuff metaphor but think of the doberman as the house and stone as the outcross. In three generations you wouldn't even know a stone was there in the first place and the dog would've been saved. Of course it might simply be too late because there are no bricks left after all that procrastination, no healthy Dobermans left to backcross to. Which might actually be the case anyway.

 

Interesting thoughts.  Everyone is entitled to their opinions.  Just consider this. What was the original purpose of the Show?  Keep in mind bit everyone the participates in Showing should be. The original  purpose in showing a dog was to evaluate your stock in order to make sure that dog meets the standards for breeding.  The standards are created not by AKC, UKC,  CJC, etc. They are created by the parent clubs.  There parent club for the doberman all had working dogs. Every line was a working line.  The came up with the standard saying a dog should not be too tall, small, eye color,  eye shape, hocks,  tails etc in order to have a specific look and function.  If the dog doesn't meet the criteria it is supposed to be removed from the breeding stock.  It may still be a great dog. It just shouldn't be bred. 

Since we are talking about working dogs you should also know that the Schutzhund  competition originally had a purpose too. It was a temperament test.  It was used to evaluate the dog to see if it had the correct temperament to perform the work that it was bred to do. Therefore, breeds like the GSD, Rottweiler, and Doberman that all came from Germany had to have both a working title and Conformation title before it could be bred and have pups registered.  

Of course AKC and others don't have such requirements. Anyone with a dog can put two dogs together with no knowledge of how genetics work.  They foolishly believe that if I put a oversized dog with an average undersized dog it will balance out the litter.  I've heard that far too often.  The truth is genetics don't work like that.  There is a scientific way the genetics work to produce dominant and recessive genes. There is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict which genetic traits will be passed in the next litter. 

 

If it were true that a working line would  produce generations after generations of working dogs the every dog from a working line would produce Working champions. The same would be true of Show dogs.  The truth is that neither litter will produce every pup in the litter that have the qualities to become champion of record. In fact science has proved through many studies that  temperament in dogs are nit 100% genetics. It is affected by environmental stimuli. It's called training.  The training can come from  knowledgeable trainers or from learning from other dogs.

 

It's a falicy to blame people who show dogs for ruining a breed by inbreeding.  Inbreeding is not only used by a single group of people. I'm not alone here as the only person that has seeds ads and or pedigrees of dogs that are inbred. Many claim to  be double bred back to the dam. It is used as a selling point.  I line bred too closely will become extinct.  Eventually it will produce dogs that can't reproduce. There are 3 types of breeding. Inbreeding which is breeding dogs that are related. Line breeding which is also inbreeding,  but not using dogs so closely related that the line becomes extinct. Then there's out crossing.  That is simply breeding dogs that aren't related. Most knowledgeable breeders that line breed follow a formula to know when they should add a dog from outside of the line with similar qualities in order to preserve the line.  Out crossing is not adding a dog from a different breed. That doesn't improve or preserve a breed. You no longer have a purebred dig. You are just producing mongers, mixed  breeds, mutts or our nice new term bandogs. There's nothing wrong with mixed breeds. But why should I pay $1000 or more for one when I  can get one from a pound or shelter for a couple of hundreds. When I buy a purebred dog I'm looking for a dog that has a record. It has been evaluated by unbiased 3rd parties that it had the correct temperament,  conformation and the at it has been tested for genetic health faults.  Unfortunately since anyone can be called a  breeder this can't always be found in certain breeds. 

Of the three methods that I've listed above one is the preferred or ideal.  I'm not going to talk too much about which is preferred and why. I believe that deserves a thread of its own. 

 

There's ignorance in both those that show or work.  There's ignorance in those that do both.  I've been doing this for over 20 years. I'm able to admit that I was ignorant. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge.  It is not an offensive word. The important thing is that I didn't stay ignorant. I've learned mire. I've done research.  Before I only knew what the older guys before me said and did. There experiences became mines. They had limited knowledge and limited resources. I no longer have those excuses. Now that learned more and no better it's up to me to do better.

If you are truly a breeder of a specific breed  or line your goal is not to improve it. I know that people make that statement all of the time. I've done it too. I hope that I've removed that from every place that I put online.  The goal or objective should be to preserve the breed or line. We should want the breed or line to retain the qualities that it was originally bred to have.  

I've learned a lot from the old guys before me. Those were my mentors. I have a lot of respect for them. They knew dogs and how to train them. They didn't go to school and learn about genetics.  They never had learning theory. They never heard of the 4 quadrants. They didn't know what classical conditioning or operant conditioning was or is. They couldn't pass that knowledge on to the next generation. 

 

The goal or objective should be to preserve the breed or line. We should want the breed or line to retain the qualities that it was originally bred to have.  

 Excellent post. The quoted text above is spot on. I always wondered about improving the breed as stated by many clubs an breeders. It implicitly means that either the breed is not good as is or it needs to be made into something else.  Preservation also has problems.. just what is being preserved? is it the current crap heap of what used to be the breed or someones vision of what the breed should be.

both have problems - to preserve something we must first define the qualities and characteristics that are worthy of saving. That is the biggest problem as we all have different views of what a breed should be. Standard be damned. 

Gary

Excellent points as always. This is my perception. I'm not saying I'm wrong or right. This is how I see it. I believe we that breed hold breed towards the standards. Tht I breeding towards the preservation of the breed. The standards in breeds have changed. I can't say why. The changes are minor or at least it's minor in my preferred breed, the Presa. The change is the mount of white that is allowed. I've heard it my change more nd allow even less white. If that is the case I'm fine with that. It is only color. In regards to everyone's perception of the standard this again is my opinion. I don't have statistics to back my thoughts. There is room in the standards to allow for some differences. But there is enough to have some uniformity. Every dog has some faults. Dogs producing oo many faults shouldn't be bred and neither should their offspring. Man people that breed aren't ethical breeders. They do not breed with the standards in mind. They breed just to make a profit or with their own ideal of what they want. I'll give a couple examples from what I personally know. I won't mention names or kennels. I'll use the presas fr my examples. 

There's a breeder I've spoken oo on a fe occasions. He breed very large presas. He puts down any Presa that is not as big as his. He has never participated in a dog show, but will say his dogs are show quality. His excuse is he doesn't have time to do a show. A disqualifying fult in the pres is excessive size. The Presa was bred to be a catch dog. Thy catch wild cattle, hogs, etc. If th Presa is as big as his dogs they are too slow o catch a wild boar or cattle. That would be a dead dog. Basically it's not functionl for the purpose that they were created. His top stud can't jump and gt it's hind legs off if the ground. It has to be picked up o be ou in a truck. I'm concerned or the of hips and its offspring. He doesn't o th OFA or Penn hip testing.

 

Another breeder makes claims of posing many grand champions. I'm not dying that he's lying but I am not aware of any grand champions that he's produced. He has produced some champions. He has done some dog shows. Usually with a champion dog that he's was given or purchased. Never one that he has bred. Years so before I knew him better I talked to him about getting a dog. I interviewed him like I did all breeders. He admitted to me that his top stud had a disqualifying fault and thet he doesn't breed towards the standard . Right now he is posting a pup as show quality . It has a very obvious disqualifying fault. 

 

I had a well known breeder tell me that he don't do hip trying on his dogs. The reason being is because he knows their hips are good because he picked all of his dog personally. 

 

Examples like this and more are some of the reasons why I say it is important to have a no biased 3rd party evaluate your breeding stock. We all believe we have great dogs. But do our dogs meet the criteria to be part of the breeding stock? It is possible that our dogs are just good dogs. 

No Elitegaurdianpresa, unfortunately not, it's also not even a matter of opinion. The first dogs shows held were never meant to access working ability.

There were no such "dog shows" as such. Just dogs proving themselves in the field, thats how they were selected. Dog shows are a Victorian invention along with closed stud books. The purposes of these shows was never to access the working ability of the dog and they still aren't today. It all began around 1859 in the UK. Yes most were working dogs shown at first. Not function tested, "shown", entirely judged on conformation. It's not that long ago either.

Registries were closed and the obsession with purity was born, not in the field, yes right in the show-ring.

Line breeding is synonymous for inbreeding. It eventually catches up with you and you have to outcross within the breed. But the outcrossing options become more and more limited as everyone is doing the same to popular sires that win ribbons, the dogs winning best of breed at any of the top dog shows today. They don't say "stuff you" can persist with their lines of non-winning dogs do they? Winning at shows is their entire point in breeding.

Breeding work to work was and is still the only way you can hope to maintain a working "line". Not line breeding. 

Breeding only working dogs proven in the field, like to like is the way. Dogs that don't make the grade in the field were not bred with. This has been the time honoured method of breeding working dogs. It's predictable. The critical point here is most truly working dogs were never bred under a closed stud book like show dogs. Breeding working dogs also always relied heavily on tweaking the dogs used, be it for size, temperament, tenacity, recall even in some instances colour, any number of desirable working traits.........not within a closed registry. Thats to say freely outcrossing to different breeds and types, where and when needed to maintain a working line. This is not possible in a closed registry of any type of dog, working or purely show dog. This way even if there was a small amount of inbreeding, breed types remained geneticly robust.

Most dog, non primitive,  breeds today are of course in fact as a result made up of many different "types" or breeds, selected over the decades even centuries.

Even companion breeds were selected to do a working job. That is until dog shows and closed registries were invented. A mad insane eugenicists fixation with "purity" evolved, was sanctioned and you had the birth of Crufts. As dogs became redundant in the field in various functions and pursuits they found them selves entirely bred along the showing principles and lost all working ability they ever had. Countless breeds fall into this category today, almost 95% of them. From the Great-Dane to the Corgi. Also being closed registries mean they were a shrinking gene pool from the very start of breeding in closed registries. In just over a hundred years many breeds have been destroyed. They also completely changed phenotype as a result of selecting for extremes that win in the show ring. Even if they still had any drive or ability they have morphed completely out of the "ball park". Functionless other than sickly show animals. This is also valid for other livestock species where showing took precedent over function. A show bred dachshund can't even get down a fox hole, its chest is too deep, its legs are too shorts its body too long.

Is this important, well not really because there are types that are bred that can still get down fox holes. Is it important most Dachshunds are kept for companionship rather than hunting (BTW there are still strains of hunting teckles) no. But they must be healthy and functional as dogs at the very least to even function as pets. Sadly they aren't and suffer from the same problems (many also unique of course) that most pedigree dogs suffer from. Genetic diseases and ailments, many life threatening caused by their extreme phenotype. We still need to select for function and tweak genetic vigour with outcrossing to other breeds or types to maintain any breed.

Absolutely, outcrossing to different types/breeds has always preserved the function of working types.

Many livestock guardian breeds never had pedigrees never mind closed registries. Dogs from different regions regularly met up and shared their genes. Where they didn't they became inbred weak and died out.

Pedigrees in this day and age where we are no longer nomads living in the hills are though a useful tool to avoid inbreeding. BTW you can also tweak and even fix phenotype by never line-breeding ever.

I think you mean there is "no" mathematical equation to predict which genetic traits will be passed onto off spring"?  Only by appraising  a certain percentage of off-spring for function and dominance of any inheritable traits, can you tell. Prepotency does exist. For some diseases where the genes responsible are known there is also an equation of how best to avoid. But if your referring to "Lloyd Brackett's" line-breeding formula, a denialist of Mendelian genetics on par with the anti-science creationists view of evolution, the same who did more to destroy pedigree dogs including his own breed, the German Shepherd than perhaps anyone in history you would also be wrong. All he could safely predict was the inevitable "severe and intentional degradation of both health and conformation" in dog breeding.

http://www.border-wars.com/2010/12/bracketts-formula-for-failure-1.html

 

Nice try, but it is opinions. Additionally I never said the first shows were created to assess the dogs working abilities. It was to evaluate the dog. It was to make sure the dog met the standard for the breed. The standard was created by the breed club. The breed clubs are the ones that determined what the standards were and the purpose which include function. The rottweiler for example needed its build to navigate the region were it was originally used. It need the type of coat the handle the conditions of the terrain and thick brush. A dog that retrieves on water had coats that repel water. The original show wasn't about winning. Many today use it for winning. But that is not the origin. I specifically mentioned Schutzhund was to test the temperament. It was combined with the conformation to determine if a dog could be part of the breeding stock. Closed registries were created for record keeping. Today they are still used to maintain records and make money. Yes every breed is made up of a number of breeds to create it. The parent organization had to determine that they have reached some form of uniformity and created the standard that identified this as a breed. It works to get it accepted as a breed. Once you add any other breed to it including one of the original breeds that was used to create it it is no longe considered a purebred. It is. Mixed breed.  The reason the Donvan Pinscer is not a Doberman  is the he out crossed dogs that were not Doberman thus changing the breed and forming his own ideology and breed. It doesn't fix the Doberman . Just like you can't fix the English Bulldog.

 

No I did not mean to say there is no mathematical equation. There is a formula used to predict. But it can only give you odds. The odds are favorable to reproduce certain traits. But there is no guarantee. If breeding adogs from what is called a working line to another dog from a working line as you said in you original statement would reproduce working dogs generation after generation even if they are are only used as pets were true then no breeder from that had working dogs would have had to remove dogs from their breeding stock because they weren't good workers. It's a fact that no matter what line, breed the dog is it has the ability to produce dogs that are not ideal. They are going to produce dogs that are imperfect. It is a known fact that despite the line a dog will produce adogs that will not excel at working. Just like every champion of record offspring will not become champion. None o Michael Jordan's sons were genetically good enough to play on the level Jordan did.

 

What makes a dog a show dog or working dog. It is the owner that decides if they are going to show a dog or work a dog or do both. Many dog owners today do not believe that the dog should do what they were originally bred to do. These owners never stimulate their dogs natural instinct to hunt, protect, .farm utility, etc.  

 

i should have noted that even the Schutzhund tet is no longer used for its original purpose. It tested temperament. Basically a dog suitability to perform the job it was bred to do. But today it has become a sport. I know individuls that have dogs with Schutzhund Ii and or III that have had their homes burglarized and these highly trained dog did nothing to protect. I know a boerboel breeder that has it on his website that if you learns that you are going to train one of his pups for protection that he will not sell you a dog. They don't need training. They are natural guardians and protectors. I read a newspaper article telling of his home being burglarized. I'm not sure but I believe some of his dogs or pups were stolen too. A dog becomes a good working dog because it is taught to work. If it is imprinted early it tend o excell at it more than dog that are taught later. Sure there can be exceptions. Dogs raised to be pets only are often taught to ignore their natural instinct. The never learn their original function. Just like my presas, they have never had the opportunity to catch will cattle or wild boars. They chances of them being used for that is very slim. But thy still have a job. They still will get between a threat and my family. They will still take down a man. They still protect my property. They have show titles. But they didn't have show careers. If they didn't have the correct conformation nd temperament I wouldn't breed them. I don't breed often. My dogs have to have both conformation and function. I've had dogs that didn't meet my standard even though it would've been enough to meet the standard that I refused to breed. I know others that feel the way I do.

 

ELITE -Nice try, but it is opinions.

[A] - Not at all. No Opinions involved at all. Science. Im afraid I can't write you a thesis on the subject with quotes each time I reply it would take a month or two.

ELITE- Additionally I never said the first shows were created to assess the dogs working abilities. It was to evaluate the dog. It was to make sure the dog met the standard for the breed.

[A] - What are the points looked at for evaluating a dog for breeding a working dog? It's not only conformation, its natural ability and phenotype or suitability of type, that can only be judged in the field. Sure no-one would consider using a great Dane to go to earth that would be nonsensical and anyone trying would soon come unstuck at the very first covert presented to it. Surely yes conformation plays a part in selecting the dogs to breed with for working dogs. Shows only use conformation as a selection criteria, for winning nothing else.

No standards came much much later. First judges just looked for the most impressive specimen amongst the bunch. The "winners" emulated in breeding. At a later stage they looked for uniformity in working dog types, rejecting anything that looked like something else.  Then absolute uniformity and closed stud books. Dog shows did this no one else??? Right. Take the Scottish terrier, it looked nothing like it does today the working Scottish terrier, it was a disparate "type", a small tenacious terrier from the general region. It was subsequently divided up into a number of separate breeds (big mistake) by the showing fraternity, isolating various types instead of embracing the variety but especially the genetic variability so critical. So now you have various breeds in closed registries, most facing extinction. Sky terrier, Cairn terrier, Scottish terrier, West highland white terrier..........were all one type called a "Scottish terrier",  tweaked and bred amongst the regions for working ability.

ELITE - The standard was created by the breed club. The breed clubs are the ones that determined what the standards were and the purpose which include function. The rottweiler for example needed its build to navigate the region were it was originally used. It need the type of coat the handle the conditions of the terrain and thick brush. A dog that retrieves on water had coats that repel water. The original show wasn't about winning. Many today use it for winning. But that is not the origin. I specifically mentioned Schutzhund was to test the temperament. It was combined with the conformation to determine if a dog could be part of the breeding stock. Closed registries were created for record keeping. Today they are still used to maintain records and make money. Yes every breed is made up of a number of breeds to create it. The parent organization had to determine that they have reached some form of uniformity and created the standard that identified this as a breed. It works to get it accepted as a breed. Once you add any other breed to it including one of the original breeds that was used to create it it is no longe considered a purebred. It is. Mixed breed.  The reason the Donvan Pinscer is not a Doberman  is the he out crossed dogs that were not Doberman thus changing the breed and forming his own ideology and breed. It doesn't fix the Doberman . Just like you can't fix the English Bulldog.

[A] - No not really, breed clubs weren't livestock improvement societies. Dog types evolved in the field. Used in the field to work that's how they got things like weather resistant coats, appropriate size, drive....... Not in breed clubs or dog shows, now or during the very first dog shows. Breed clubs made them one colour, one type, cooky cutter dogs for the "show ring". Original shows were all about impressing one another and the public as they are today not improving the dogs for workability. Ego pure and simple.

There are breed clubs today however that properly function test. Yes and most of these breeds don't have closed registries.

Here's a little revelation for you most working dogs and companion dogs never looked like they do today. A great Dane was used to hunt boars, its a boerhound it looked nothing like the over sized useless shivering prancing mutt in the show ring with heavy flews, dysplasia and eyelid ectropion and a pelvis with dripping vagina tipped to its stomach. No it was a tight muscular moderate to large sized functional dog.  Who turned it into the useless mutt found in the show ring today if not the show ring??? A boerhound is a dog capable of outrunning, tackling and holding wild pigs end of story. Its not a uniform cookie cutter creature prancing in the show ring, strictly divided into there genetic colour variants on the edge of genetic poverty. Thats not a Great Dane thats a show invention, an abomination. 

Same with the show Doberman. Its not a Doberman.

A Doberman is not a Doberman just for the sake of being a Doberman, it was invented with the intension to work. If it can't its not a Doberman but a show dog variant. 

You can certainly fix the English bulldog. They can barely breath, walk or function as dogs. They can't even whelp naturally ,even mate naturally anymore. Outcrossing to make them more moderate and functional they would still be English bulldogs to anyone who cared to call them English bulldogs. English Bulldogs have one of the worst inbreeding coefficients of any breed alive today, meaning they will surely go extinct, die out from genetic impoverishment unless outcrossing is introduced. Only show breeders won't because they think like you. They would rather have a dead show variant of the English Bulldog than a functional healthy alive breed of the same.

ELITE - What makes a dog a show dog or working dog. It is the owner that decides if they are going to show a dog or work a dog or do both. Many dog owners today do not believe that the dog should do what they were originally bred to do. These owners never stimulate their dogs natural instinct to hunt, protect, .farm utility, etc.  

[A] - No its not the owner who decides. Its the breeder that does, over successive generations of breeding. Try giving a sheep farmer a show bred border collie pup and see how that turns out. There is a fraction of a chance it might turn out but all the "nurturing" in the world wont make it so. "Nature" is a a very big part of a working dog, you can only breed that by selecting over generations the best working pups. 

You should read the scientific journal "Canine Genetics + Epidemiology" (CGE). They publish scientific papers, peer reviewed papers, in case you think it's "just opinions". They Published a very good paper on just this subject using Australian cattle dogs. How show breeding literally "genetically" alters the working abilities of dog breeds. They have extensive lay summaries so non-scientists can capture key messages from the research. 

http://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40575-015-0017-6

So you see if a breed is already "genetically altered" by show breeders its not a true Doberman already in your books right? Even if its never been outcrossed since its conception. So outcrossing can fix that and solve some disastrous health problems along the way, turning it back into the original you so prize. Bear in mind the original looked nothing like the show dog. Any book on the history of the Doberman showing the first Dobermans will show you that.

ELITE - i should have noted that even the Schutzhund tet is no longer used for its original purpose. It tested temperament. Basically a dog suitability to perform the job it was bred to do. But today it has become a sport. I know individuls that have dogs with Schutzhund Ii and or III that have had their homes burglarized and these highly trained dog did nothing to protect. I know a boerboel breeder that has it on his website that if you learns that you are going to train one of his pups for protection that he will not sell you a dog. They don't need training. They are natural guardians and protectors. I read a newspaper article telling of his home being burglarized. I'm not sure but I believe some of his dogs or pups were stolen too. A dog becomes a good working dog because it is taught to work. If it is imprinted early it tend o excell at it more than dog that are taught later. Sure there can be exceptions. Dogs raised to be pets only are often taught to ignore their natural instinct. The never learn their original function. Just like my presas, they have never had the opportunity to catch will cattle or wild boars. They chances of them being used for that is very slim. But thy still have a job. They still will get between a threat and my family. They will still take down a man. They still protect my property. They have show titles. But they didn't have show careers. If they didn't have the correct conformation nd temperament I wouldn't breed them. I don't breed often. My dogs have to have both conformation and function. I've had dogs that didn't meet my standard even though it would've been enough to meet the standard that I refused to breed. I know others that feel the way I do.

[A] - Yes all dogs need guidance and nurturing to be good pets or working dogs. What you start with though is critical to success.

All sorts has been written about the boerboel, killer of lions etc. Thing is if you don't breed for drive athleticism and function you end up with boerboel furniture. If you do like I did you end up with dogs you can't place in pet homes, too much dog and dangerous for pet owners as they have limited recall. For such a large powerful dog its not ethical to do so. Boerboels are intuitively protective and are not meant to be schutzhund dogs, they are property and homestead guardians that must get on with other animals/livestock children and even the odd visitor. Not neurotically reactive but generally completely aware. They aren't used as police dogs as a result. Malinois are much better at that. Mastiffs are not portable enough, they intuit mostly, and they have vague abilities of recall. They are good around the homestead though as very effective deterrents. Not knowing the breeder or the dogs they were breeding I suggest perhaps in this case you mention the breeder didn't breed the way they claimed, simply fabricating the abilities of his dogs or he  knew his attackers or burglars. Eighty percent of violent or other wise attacks and burglaries in South Africa (if thats where they live)  are known to their assailants. This has a lot to do with a history of dissatisfaction amongst population groups in a close work environment. Short of shooting, my own Boerboels  wouldn't have let anyone in uninvited. No I never had to train them just select them based on these characteristics. Besides as I already said Boerboels don't train very well, Mastiffs generally don't they were never bred for that kind of work. Sure I had the odd puppy that turned out all goof ball and lover of all they met, without the drive, rather sleeping on the settee than keeping an eye on things, those I found pet homes for excluding them from my breeding programme. Dogs in a pack situation also learn faster without the breeder having to do a thing other than select those most responsive to learning with the innate ability to perform,  but most importantly WANT to perform the task they are breed for, guiding them along the way goes without saying.

 The bold type as answer doesn't appear in the published text so its a bit hard to read - apologies

You are still attempting to blame one specific group of people and doing so falsely. There are breed registries. There are no requirements to breed a dog. Most dogs registered in the breed registry are not from people that participate in Show competition. Additionally they are not actively using a dog t perform the work that is was bred to do. We are not going to agree and that is fine. Again you take practically everything stated out of context. You still neglect to admit that the original purpose of a show was to evaluate the stock to see if it was suitable for breeding. It wasn't about ego as you claim. There is no science behind that. It has been proven that more than the dog's genealogy, temperament that determines how good of a worker the dog will be. Everything factors into it. The is why environment is so important. If you do not expose the pup to the right things it does not become a good worker or more accurately it will not become the ideal worker. That is even subjective. Because your ideal is going o be quite a bit different that others ideal.

 

There is no doubt that breeds of dogs do not look like they did many years ago. Some will argue that this is because is show breeders.  Some will say it is evolution.  There is also scientific evidence that point to the region in which is was born or raised. The dogs had to adapt to survive is a setting. Additionally instead of focusing on one group the truth is everyone that breeds a dog or have bred a dog play the same role. There are people that are called breeders that have their own ideas of what they want in a dog. Some wanted exaggerated features. This is not limited to one group. This is done but the one that hunt, guarding, retrieve, police, etc. In order to produce these exaggerated features they select dogs that have some of those feature even if that means selecting dogs that are not of the same breed. I use the term exaggerated. This is not limited to excessive size like the great dane.  This can be in shorter legs, longer or shorter muzzles and more. This is not done to create to show dog as you have suggested. This is done because people have their ideal of what they desire. Additionally they are many more people that breed dogs that don't use any type of selective breeding. They breed dogs just for the same of breeding. Some do it because they have been told that you are supposed to breed a dog. They will let any dog breed. then try to sell the pups. Often they end up in a shelter. If we take a look at the pit bull. It was a small dog. Now we have people claiming that they have pure bred pit bulls over 150lbs. You don't breed dogs that are around 35lbs and get 170lbs dogs. You don't do this be selective breeding of the largest dogs of this breed and get them to produce even larger dogs. You do this by adding a mastiff into the gene pool. This is not a function of "Show Breeders" That is a function of anyone that has a dog.

 

You've said that in the show there is no considerations for the dog's function. I'm not quoting you. But this is what your statements has implied. I have to disagree with you. In the written standards the dogs has to have stable temperament. It needs this to perform it function. It need to be of a certain size to perform its function. It is to have a certain temperament or confidence to perform its function. I can also tell you from persona experience that I had one of my pups in a UKC dog show. Personally I didn't and still don't agree with the judge. But I am able to accept the judge's opinion and ruling. My pup made it to best in breed. The judge chose this other dog over mines. The judge told me that my dog had the better gait for the breed. My dog had the better conformation for the breed. Everything on my dog was better head, muzzle, mask, gait, hocks, tail, etc. But the other dog was chosen because at that stage the other dog was more equipped to take down cattle than my pup/ My pup was maybe 6 months or less at the time. The other dog was over 18 months. Of course in theory the other dog had the appearance that it can take dog some wild cattle better that a immature pup. I accepted what the judge said and moved on. We don't know if that was true. But the judge made the decision based upon size and maturity. It is quite possible that the other dog has never seen cattle and would have run at the sight of one. It is also possible that my dog that was born on a farm with a guy that hunted on a regular basis and the one I chose because it was the first pup that began to chase the livestock and had a very strong prey drive would have been the one that would grab and hold that wild cattle.

I find it odd that you mention since and you call the dog a pack animal. According to science dogs are not pack animals. They do not have a hierarchy. They do not use the hierarchy to preserve the existence to the pack. This was debunked by science long ago. In fact pack and dominance have debunked. The person that originally wrote the book that was quoted as being the first to say wold pack later wrote a new book and said he made a mistake about packs, and alpha male and alpha females. Many books were written after the first book and used what he said about wolves and later associated with dogs. So if his writing were wrong everything everyone else wrote that used is wrong information must also be wrong. Apparently he went to the publisher and wanted them to change what he wrote with correct information that he learned after more research. The publishers refused to rewrite and publish the book. Therefore he had to write a new book that didn't become as popular and o one knew that they were using bad information.

well one thing is for certain and I can see it with my own eyes, is that natural selection works way better than breeding as a whole.

Natural selection is cruel to the individual, but good for the species.

I live in San Bernardino, and just like detroit has feral dogs, so do we. The feral dogs around here end up being the paraiah type that are most succesfful. These dogs are very healthy dogs, never see a vet, etc. and they make it through life.

Now, once in a while, I will come across a feral dog, that obviously has some pit, rott, shepherd, etc in it. The point im trying to make is that one of the feral pariah dogs, has most likely crossed with someone elses dog that got out........anyways, when I do see those dogs, holy cow they are tuff as nails, they got the survival genetics from the pariah dog, along with the "pit" or what have you influence as well. Now I am not talking about working etc, just the build of and health of these dogs. However the majority of the feral dogs are scavenger pariah type. Sometimes it can be hard to tell them apart from a coyote at a distance. 

 

I find it odd that you mention since and you call the dog a pack animal. According to science dogs are not pack animals. They do not have a hierarchy. They do not use the hierarchy to preserve the existence to the pack. This was debunked by science long ago. In fact pack and dominance have debunked. The person that originally wrote the book that was quoted as being the first to say wold pack later wrote a new book and said he made a mistake about packs, and alpha male and alpha females. Many books were written after the first book and used what he said about wolves and later associated with dogs. So if his writing were wrong everything everyone else wrote that used is wrong information must also be wrong. Apparently he went to the publisher and wanted them to change what he wrote with correct information that he learned after more research. The publishers refused to rewrite and publish the book. Therefore he had to write a new book that didn't become as popular and o one knew that they were using bad information.

 Not sure what you are saying, dogs are wolves. Wolves operate, hunt in packs, cubs learn by example, from both their parents and later from the pack. They learn to behave for one, in a social setting.

I didn't mention the structure of wolf packs at all. This can vary quite a lot depending on numbers, areas, situations, individuals and resources. Wolves are pack animals, social animals. It's a survival strategy.

Completely aside from anything that I didn't actually say, yes of course wolves display social dominance, humans do to.

It's not the entire concept of wolves displaying social dominance that was dispelled or "packs" even, just the simple "hierarchical pack structure of a dominant male and female" that was. The structure of a pack is very complex, nuanced behaviours of each individual in it affect the structure as do all the other things. Its also still a pack even though two wolves will more or less constitute a family, they still hunt in related packs, fend territory, show dominance, as individuals or as a pack. Certainly you get alpha males and alpha females this doesn't mean this is how the pack is structured or that they dominate the pack necessarily, just that those particular individuals display Alpha or Omega tendencies/behaviours. This might be only in some situations, within the pack or just towards their mate or another specific individual or individuals. Its even indeed possible to get an alpha male and female as parents within a pack dominating certain aspects of pack life. Parent wolves hold dominance over their cubs and will display dominance to protect them as well. Our relationship with dogs is defined by a parent cub type situation, where we act as the dominant parent, not the alpha, the parent. The operative word being parent. Through generations and generation of selection our dogs display more or less (varies with breeds) cub like characteristics and behaviours as a result. This suits us as we don't all want to be mauled by a wild wolf like dog in our living rooms or anywhere else.

Of course its interesting and the confusion that exists about wolf pack structure has led to some abominable practises but it's not in the slightest pertinent to what I said about pups and youngsters learning from the pack (meaning all the dogs it interacts with on a daily basis).

Working dogs are not always brought up in packs, no, but most are allowed to freely mingle as pups. Some no more than just the mother which can be a problem later on depending on the mother etc. My dogs were, and freely so after they were weaned. Assorted breeds as well. Creating a pack is something I might add that is also vital for example for livestock guardian breeds. Mature dogs don't chase sheep because as youngsters they learnt not too by example and by our guidance if neccessary, they also defend sheep better as a pack rather than as individuals..........as do homestead guardian breeds as youngsters learn to in the same way. If you constantly take them to the park to mingle with other people and socialise them to that they won't make very good guardians because they will see everyone as friendly. Some might not of course especially if they have more working drive and yes this can also depend on how they grew up on the nurture over nature. Both are important in working dogs.

I don't think you read the link I sent and Im not up to repeating myself endlessly but just to say "evolution" certainly didn't create the functionless and in many cases (bulldog for one) debilitating extremes found in the show ring, nor did working dog breeders, or pet owners or puppy mills or any other breeder besides the show ring breeders. The End. (:

 

well one thing is for certain and I can see it with my own eyes, is that natural selection works way better than breeding as a whole.

 

Yes absolutely. Certain aspects of natural selection like the rigid cull system of breeding based on working ability would produce similar results. In this day and age its considered unethical, but was freely practised in times gone by with many hunting breeds. More recently even and up until the ban in hunting with hounds in the UK this was practised with fox hounds. 

Pertinent to Elitegaurdianpresa there is now a show fox hound. A lady in the UK selected hounds that had no disposition to work, bred them and created the show hound. A dog that won't kill your cat. A dog that is useless for hunting too, no matter how hard you try and nurture is previous abilities as a working hound. These are not backcrossed to working hounds or they would make useless pets, instead they are line bred to the those showing the least hunting aptitude. The shrinking gene pool in effect. If true working hounds went extinct these show hounds would end up inbred mutts like all other show dogs.

The most healthy of types are definitely pariah type dogs. Also working dogs that are not bred in closed registries. Even pariah dogs can find themselves in a shrinking gene pool though, same as pedigree show dogs in closed registries. It's rare, but isolation like in some dessert communities for example produces the same results. You will see dogs born and living with genetic diseases and mutations. People too. I witnessed this in some hill "tribes" in Oman in the middle East, the people suffered the same fate due to inbreeding.

 

Certain aspects of natural selection like the rigid cull system of breeding based on working ability would produce similar results.

 Actually, not quite. Natural selection is simply just that "natural". Meaning that there are no input by humans and nature does the culling and selecting of the strongest most virile animals. The ultimate expression of survival of the fittest.  There are a couple aspects the play a major role in the outcome.. that is environment and function - all natural which is difficult to achieve in civilization.

Dogs are not wolves.  They share similar DNA. 

Your way is better.  Better is subjective. 

 

I mention wolves  because you mentioned science and writing a theses. Then you mentioned pack. This is odd. Reason being that science does not accept dogs as being pack animals. Science also does not accept dominance theory. 

Either you accept what the science community teaches or you don't.  Or you choose to pick whatever fits your theory and not what has been proven. 

I don't understand why it so hard to admit that every person that has bred some dog has affected future generations and that no one group alone is responsible for dogs changing over time from one state to another.  Even more perplexing is that you refuse to admit that mixing a breed by breeding something into it that is not the same breed will alter the litter and cause it to no longer be the same breed. 

 

 

Certain aspects of natural selection like the rigid cull system of breeding based on working ability would produce similar results.

 Actually, not quite. Natural selection is simply just that "natural". Meaning that there are no input by humans and nature does the culling and selecting of the strongest most virile animals. The ultimate expression of survival of the fittest.  There are a couple aspects the play a major role in the outcome.. that is environment and function - all natural which is difficult to achieve in civilization.

Yes naturally (pun intended), "certain aspects" should cover that. 

Purely academic but interesting enough, today, there is almost no where on our planet that has not been disturbed by man in some way or other. Man is playing a greater and greater role in what we considered "natural selection". It's effects are certainly more obvious in some situations than others but the full impact is not fully appreciated.  A very graphic perhaps example is the wild elephant. Some populations are being born with shorter and shorter tusks and in some populations with none at all due to culling selection from poachers and a history of trophy hunting, herds are smaller........this example is quite dramatic and took no time at all. Remove the genes for "tuskers" from the population and the tusks start vanishing. There are of course many less obvious examples......

Nonetheless "environment and function" as in nature, both play an important part in what we consider or considered when selecting and culling to improve working domestic dog. For example we took climate into consideration, the environment, we took function into consideration, what the dog is intended to be used for, we take ability into consideration and select accordingly, just as nature does. If the breed didn't succeed it went extinct, we stopped breeding it. The long legs of an Ethiopian wolf are no mistake nor are the long legs of a Borzoi, one natural selection one man made, both for entirely different functions. These "aspects" of selection are as critical for a wild animals survival as they are to a domestic working dogs success and survival. Well they were.

Show bred dogs are bred to win at dog shows, not even the function of a healthy pet or dog is considered. Where they are as in "health testing" it's often just trying to avoid the problem of the manner in which they are selected and bred rather than to save the problem and change breeding practises. To change would mean they wouldn't win in the ring given the criteria set out by what wins. So they're caught in a descending spiral of ever more compounded genetic diseases and exaggerations. The Doberman is no exception.

 

 

 

  Even more perplexing is that you refuse to admit that mixing a breed by breeding something into it that is not the same breed will alter the litter and cause it to no longer be the same breed. 

 Eliteguardianpresa,

By your definition I don't believe any dog is a "pure" breed.

I would say if you were to do a DNA test on your dog you would most likely see a mixture of breeds with one dominant breed in the DNA the Presa. However, the best dog DNA tests today only go back three generations and are rudimentary at this point in time.

The tests are always improving maybe in 3 or 4 years they will have more detailed ancestry.

If finding out others breeds were introduced to your cleanest Presa then the question to ask is your dog the same breed?

 

https://wiki.ezvid.com/best-dog-dna-tests?id=bng

 

if the dna tests only go back 3-4 generations, it would be very easy to hide an outcross.

going back to dobermans being weak, a friend of mine has a doberman. I invited to do some bitework, he said he thinks his dog wont do it and that he is just a big old wimp. Further going back to them being just pets. 

Guard dog, I didn't create the standards for a breed.  Every purebred was a mixed breed.  After the mixture of breeds they determined that a certain traits were acceptable to call it a separate breed. If  has the  be able to reproduce the same traits consistently in or to gain acceptance as a breed.  This is why designer breeds like the golden doodle is not  recognized as a breed in any large registry. No one has been able to consistently produce litter after litter with consistent traits. Some look more like Goldens and other look more like poodles. I imagine that one day they will gain acceptance. But that will take a lot of work and science to figure out what percentage of each it will take to produce the same look in every dog in the litter. They will have to determine size, color, tail, etc. 

 

Once this is established you don't continue to add breeds. You use dogs from the foundation stock and litters produced by the stock and their litters as long as the litters are from this point one breed.

Adding dogs from outside the breed is not reproducing the same breed. If you are going to do that you don't need to use a breed registry. You just have a dog.

 

 

Guard dog, I didn't create the standards for a breed.  Every purebred was a mixed breed.  After the mixture of breeds they determined that a certain traits were acceptable to call it a separate breed. If  has the  be able to reproduce the same traits consistently in or to gain acceptance as a breed.  This is why designer breeds like the golden doodle is not  recognized as a breed in any large registry. No one has been able to consistently produce litter after litter with consistent traits. Some look more like Goldens and other look more like poodles. I imagine that one day they will gain acceptance. But that will take a lot of work and science to figure out what percentage of each it will take to produce the same look in every dog in the litter. They will have to determine size, color, tail, etc. 

 

Once this is established you don't continue to add breeds. You use dogs from the foundation stock and litters produced by the stock and their litters as long as the litters are from this point one breed.

Adding dogs from outside the breed is not reproducing the same breed. If you are going to do that you don't need to use a breed registry. You just have a dog.

 

 With all respects this is complete nonsense.

Lets take your hypothesis even further and say after the Doodle has been accepted and is breeding true to type, they discover its a shrinking gene pool which it will be the minute they close the register. So the dog like many breeds today finds itself in a genetic bottle neck, after popular sire syndrome kicks in, thats breeding to top winning sires winning in the show ring. They become rife with emerging genetic diseases. They find the genes for some diseases and introduce genetic testing to help breeders but genetic bottle necks are such that there will be countless other problems involving possibly numerous genes in combination which can't be tested for or isolated. Fear mongering and a lack of understanding of science means they keep on at it pretending its diet causing the problems, other breeders, puppy mills, pet owners. Right.

Unfortunately they just keep on line-breeding and find there are no more dogs to outcross to anymore. Some of the diseases are so prevalent they can't even breed to avoid them    anymore. They become diseased fait accompli. One particular gene is fatal but now all the dogs have it........Doberman. Right. They can't avoid it. Like the black colour of the breed, it's there to stay.

So an educated breeder decides to introducing to the gene pool either a labrador or a poodle or an F1 cross between the two to save the breed from extinction. This miraculously works in this hypothesis (given the genetics of both the showing pedigree labradors and the poodle its unlikely). This has always been an option, introducing another type but suddenly according to you somehow that has tainted the existing breed pool, making it no longer a pure Doodle??? Even though DNA tells us its the same breed.

Welcome to the lunacy of purists destroying pedigree dogs.

You like to misquote and take things out of context....lol Let's be perfectly clear. There is no pure Doodle. It has not been accepted by any major registry as a breed. At this point it is only considered a designer breed. It is not different thn a band dog. They can be good dogs. They are purebred. 

 

However, if we were to accept you hypothesis or lunacy Secreteriat who was the first horse in over twenty years and concisidere to be one of the best ever was bred to be racing finest. His offspring were bred to be racing finest. They should have all be great examples of racing horses since they were selected from great working stock with those proven in racing. How many of his offspring won the Triple Crown? How many won the Kentucky Derby. How many won the Preakness? Surely with the outstanding working pedigrees of working racing horses they have no choice but to produce winners of the major racing circuit fir years to come. 

 

Secreteriat had a successful stud career. He fetch enormous sums for his fees. However, you won't find many of that won any major stakes such as the Kentucky Derby, Peakness, or The Belmont Stakes. Some have had success, but none nearly the success of their sire or grand sire.

 

just because something share the same DNA does not make it the same breed. The tiger and lion share the same DNA but they are different. They have been bred together. Not for the survival of the tiger or the lion. It was not to make it healthier smh. They produced a liger( tiger mixed with a lion).it is just a mutation of each original. 

 

If your preference is for a mixed breed there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just don't lie, mispresent what it is. Don't hang papers on it and call it a purebred. Donavan admits that he was happy with the Doberman and mixed something else into it to create his new breed the Donavan Pincher. WeaponX Kennel admits that he was looking for his ideal of the perfect dog and couldn't find it. Therefore, he mixed several breeds together to produce his ideal dog. 

 

If I were to mislead people and add a different breed into one of my purebred dogs and call it purebred it might be considered fraud. I would be deceiving people for personal and or monetary gain. Fraudulent behavior like this has occurred and still does occur. This is part of the reasons why breeds no longer look like their ancestors. People decide to change the breed by adding something onto it in hope of producing their ideals of what they want in the breed. This is how we get rare and exotic colors in the breed. This is how we get excessive size or tinier sizes( mini, micro, pockets).

Your friend is probably right. His dog might not do the bite work. If it was only taught to be a pet dog it never got the right environmental stimuli to be a pm outstanding protection dog. Even though they are supposed to be natural guardians. But it was taught to look to humans for all of its needs. If a real challenge comes it might bark butt still hide behind the owner. A good trainer cam evaluate the dog and if it has enough potential can teach it to protect. 

 

https://youtu.be/8T-bEsBukPM

 

https://youtu.be/DuZIxjgwd98

 

Only a few dogs will actually protect if they are untrained. I've seen dogs from very strong Schutzhund lines that were afraid of their shadow. It's dam and sire were selected because of their working ability and having generations of good working qualities. Yet thy still produce dogs that do not have the correct temperament to do the work. By the same token there are dogs that can do the work. They didn't come from a long line of working dogs. They still have the correct temperament to protect especially when taught. 

I want to be clear. Not all Dobermans are bad or weak. Some were poorly bred. There are dogs that come out of any litter that should not be bred. Breeding such dogs increases the chances of reproducing poor dogs in future litters. This can be producing undersized, excessive size, deafness, blindness , unstable temperaments, etc. 

I've had people come to me asking to breed to my stud. I had to turn them away. One recently did this. He showed my the pedigree. The dog was out of a well known a respected Presa breeder that specialize in working lines. I know the breeder. She has some good dogs. When I saw the dog I contacted her. She asked me to take the dog from the guy. She sold him the dog on a spay/neuter contract. He somehow falsified the papers. He's bred the dog a few times. I didn't take the dog like she requested. I didn't feel it was place to get that involved. But I do understand. This guy is giving her name and her kennel name a bad name. She thanked me for not breeding to that dog. My fear is that some other backyard breeder trying to make a few bucks will breed to it and use her name as a selling point. 

 

https://youtu.be/D1gCUs7alLE

 

https://youtu.be/QzPlSfnKANY

 

https://youtu.be/eS9mltHeeqU

 

Well bred dogs produce good examples of the breed.

https://youtu.be/wm5v--vvcVk

 Poorly bred dogs often produce deformed and or unhealthy dogs. Dog that can't perform, breathe, etc.

http://3milliondogs.com/dogbook/toadline-exotic-bullies-inbreeding-as-abuse/

 

all anyone breeds for is money, if we wanna keep it real.

Good point. I would slightly alter that statement though. Most people that breed breed for money. Some breed i order to to recoup a portion of their expenses. I also know some that only breed when their dog reaches a certain age. Then they breed with producing a replacement dog for their current dog. Dogs do not live forever. I have even met some that breed dog because it gives them something to do. They don't have many litters. They travel all over the US and Canada. They participate in dog shows and dog trials. They decided they were going to breed a dog in their next heat. Then find out their heat is going to right around the time of a trial. They choose not to breed and take the dog to a trial. I can also speak for myself. I have spent way more money on my dogs that I have made. My dogs would be considered a bad investment if I bred to make money. I don't have litters every year or twice a year. Prior to my recent litter it has been 4 years since I had a litter. But we have traveled. I've added more dogs. I kept dogs back. Training, vet bills etc don't compare to what I charged for the litter. I'll be at a working event this weekend. I have another coming up. I even coach sports. My team is playing this weekend and memorial day weekend, But I'll be with my dogs. I travel over 4 hours away to get my dogs ears cropped. I have to be at that vet office by 7 am during the week. I take off to do this. My vet is prepaid to be on standby 24 hours 7 days a week when I have a litter. That includes ultra sound, ex-rays, emergency C sections, Mom and pup exam after birth, follow ups, health certificates, worming, etc. I've had a number of people ask me about the females that I kept back for myself. My response they are not for sale. Honestly it would take what I believe is the right situation. It will also take the right price. So money is involved. But it is not the sole factor. What that number is. I don't know right now. Everybody has a price. I just don't know what it is. My wife said she don't care what the price is they are not for sale.

 

When I said for making a few buck. I meant the interest is not in the dog or the breed. The own a dog solely for the purpose of breeding it. They assumed that they could make some easy money. They saw the dog cost $1,000.00 or more. They saw dollar signs. I can make that back and more. They didn't consider the time, money, training, travel, etc that goes into why an ethical breeder dogs cost this much. The person that I was specifically talking about doesn't know anything about the breed or dogs in general. He has never done any health or temperament test. He didn't know what it means to approved bitches. He didn't care that he was sold a dog with no breeding rights for a reason. Therefore he got fake papers to breed a dog that should not be bred. He is passing on bad traits to future generations of dogs. He didn't even plan it well. That dog needed to be bred soon if the mating was going to be successful. It might have been too late. He didn't know what a progesterone test was. He thought I would just do a natural breeding with a dog I don't know that has never been tested for Brucellosis. His dog that he said never been bred but it had been could possibly make my dogs sterile. I'm not sure, but I don't think the dog had any type of shot records. He thought I would take a pup for payment. I wouldn't mind having a dog from that breeder as part of my stock. But that is not the way to get it. I know that breeder has her dogs tested for genetic defects, she does both conformation and working trials with he dogs. She knows the breed and will point out the faults in her dogs and pups. I know that if the dog or pup is not up to par she will only sell it with a spay/neuter contract. When I first met her she tried to sale me one with a spay neuter contract. The pup she didn't show me I got out. But it wasn't for sale. She was keep it. That was many years ago. In my opinion the dogs she has today are much better than the ones she had back then. She wanted $2500.00 for pet qualty. Now she only ask about that much or a little more for breed quality.  

especially in the bully world, the mindset is if I have a litter of 10 and I can sell each for 1000, I can make 10k just for letting 2 dogs hump. This is one of the reasons why "pitbulls" are so overbred.

check this out regarding dobes

 

from a European study, crossed many countries, have not got the original link;

I bet the breeders do not publish their own health results before making and selling puppies.

1 < 2 year old
3,3 %

2 < 4 years old
9,9 %

4 < 6 years old
12,5 %

6 < 8 years old
43,6 %

≥ 8 years
44,1 %



DCM diagnosted positive

I don't think money is the underlying factor in most good breeder's minds. People get into breeding for several reasons; they enjoy their dogs and want more, they are competitive and take pride when their dog's win in weight pull, hunting, schutzhund etcetera. There are a multitude of reasons why people breed. With that said I do believe that many breeders should have a formal education before breeding their dogs. They should have a agricultural, science or business degree or minimally a certification to know the basics in genetics, pedigrees, whelping, breed standards, dog hygiene and kennel up keep. I was looking up breeders education level the other day and unfortunately it is one of lowest education levels of any job.

 

With that said I do believe that many breeders should have a formal education before breeding their dogs. 

An understatement of epic proportions. laughing Looking at the results of a recent presidential elections in a certain country I think they need one to breed themselves never mind dogs.

Yes absolutely, there certainly are a large proportion of lunatics breeding dogs, sadly especially pedigree showing dogs. I've read some truly outstanding tripe from them.  Creationist breeders, I mean how can you breed dogs if you don't even understand or "believe" evolution, genetics. Pedigree dog breeds fell from the sky, immaculate conception.......honestly! Then you get the eugenicist who see purity ubber alles at the expense of almost every pedigree dog. Their understanding of genetics is horrifying to say the least. They believe outcrossing to another breed produces a chimera. Generally it's these misguided that have caused the most havoc. 

Yes definitely education is absolutely key. Even a basic understanding. A simple agricultural diploma would make buying a dog so much less traumatic for your average owner, knowing the breeder knows what they're doing. As it stands it's the pet owner that needs a PHD just to find a healthy dog! More than 90% of dog owners are pet dog owners, and quite frankly deserving of healthy dogs, doesn't matter what breed. Previously working breeds like the Doberman or show bred mutts. Why should there be all this heartache and disappointment and cost involved with sickly diseased inbred, line bred dogs hoisted on the innocent pet owner. Even worse dogs deemed "pet quality" by show breeders are the rejects of the already extremely suspect.

On the bright side I think due to some high profile issues in dog breeding brought to the attention of the public in the mass media, awareness is slowly becoming such that pet owners are beginning to know the problems, at least accept them better than most breeders can, certainly most show breeders who have their heads very firmly in the sand. As with many things it's a "consumer" led attack on these breeding practises and breeders. And quite rightly so. Certainly many many breeds, the majority found in the show ring are not out of the woods and issues like celebrity endorsement of particularly problematic dog breeds is a very real difficulty for some breeds, almost insurmountable problem for some.

Some countries are definitely doing something about the problem in a real and meaningful way, even where appropriate calling in the law to change highly ingrained, retrograde, destructive practises in some instances. I don't have a problem with that, when dogs get the vote then they can decide for themselves but meantime breeders should be if needed dragged kicking and screaming by the law into the 21st Century.

There are many people that breed dogs that should not breed them. I've said it many times they will just breed a dog just because it is a dog. They have no idea of what it takes to be a responsible or ethical breeder. This si why people should research the breeder as well if not more than the breed. In dogs like the doberman there is more than enough of a gene pool to be very selective in where you breed and where you buy. If the breeder is not doing genetic health testings you don't have to buy from that breeder.

 

I have a rare breed. There aren't as many dogs available in my chosen breed. I recall looking for a male pup. I saw some awesome looking dogs that were being bred. I began making a list of kennels and coming litters. I made sure I was in no hurry to buy. I'm not going to buy on impulse. I'm wiling to wait for the right litter. Even then it's a gamble. But at least it's an educated gamble. This one breeder responded to my questions regarding his litter. I asked about health testing and his health guarantee. He has never had any of his litters evaluated by unbiased 3rd parties. He guarantees his dogs because he has personally picked them out. He knows none of them have hip problems because he picked them out. He has never tested for hip dysplasia or any other possible genetic health problems. He wanted $2500 or $3500 for a pup. His dogs were nice looking. But if I'm going to spend that kind of money I want to know more of a history than a guy that is not a veterinarian saying he personally picked the pups so that's why he can guarantee them.

 

Needless to say I passed on getting one of hie beautiful pups. I ended up getting an import. Both the parents had been tested. Their parents had been tested and more. I'm certain every dog in the lineage hasn't been. But at least the recent one has. I knew I might end up getting a dog from a litter where enough testing had not been done. I could lose out, but that is a chance you take especially in limited gen pools. I've had dogs that I refused to breed even though they are champion of record. They met enough of the standard that they became champion. But the faults were enough for me that I didn't want to pass this on to future litters. I know other breeders that do the same. Unfortunately there are too many that will breed anything with four legs. man of them with have a dog with genetic health problems and may or may not know it. They will breed it to a dog of a different breed foolishly believing that because it is not a purebred dog now it is safe from genetic problems. This is far from the truth. If one dog has the genetic disorder and is bred to a different dog those traits will be passed along to future dogs. It just a matter of which generations those disorders will show up.

 

I don't think money is the underlying factor in most good breeder's minds.

 I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. The problem as I see it is that there are too many that breed dogs that are nothing more than puppy peddlers. They are not good breeders. I believe there are more of them than there are good breeders. I don't have the statistic, but it is pretty evident when we look and the dogs that end up in shelters. It is evident when we consider all of the puppy mills that we have in the USA. These people do not care about dogs or a breed. Money is the key motivation.

 

There are a number of them they begin with good intentions. But they do this through ignorance. Hopefully they get around some good people and learn from them and stop repeating mistakes that were made in the past. There is a lot of information available to us today that can help everyone make better decisions. We should rely on this is how my great grand father did it so I'm going to do it this way too. Great grandfather was a good man. He might have only had a 7th grade educations. Nothing against great grandfather. He was known as a good dog man in his generation. It's not his fault he didn't have a formal education. Today there is more available to us. We don't have the same reasons/ Today we just make excuses.

 

 They have no idea of what it takes to be a responsible or ethical breeder. This si why people should research the breeder as well if not more than the breed. In dogs like the doberman there is more than enough of a gene pool to be very selective in where you breed and where you buy. If the breeder is not doing genetic health testings you don't have to buy from that breeder.

 

I have a rare breed. There aren't as many dogs available in my chosen breed....... I asked about health testing and his health guarantee. He has never had any of his litters evaluated by unbiased 3rd parties. He guarantees his dogs because he has personally picked them out. He knows none of them have hip problems because he picked them out. He has never tested for hip dysplasia or any other possible genetic health problems.  

Needless to say I passed on getting one of hie beautiful pups. I ended up getting an import. Both the parents had been tested. Their parents had been tested and more...... I could lose out, but that is a chance you take especially in limited gen pools. I've had dogs that I refused to breed even though they are champion of record. They met enough of the standard that they became champion. But the faults were enough for me that I didn't want to pass this on to future litters. I know other breeders that do the same. Unfortunately there are too many that will breed anything with four legs. man of them with have a dog with genetic health problems and may or may not know it. They will breed it to a dog of a different breed foolishly believing that because it is not a purebred dog now it is safe from genetic problems. This is far from the truth. If one dog has the genetic disorder and is bred to a different dog those traits will be passed along to future dogs. It just a matter of which generations those disorders will show up.

 

At the risk of repeating myself. Here's the rub. The disease DCM in dobermans which causes them to drop dead does actually have a genetic test, only quite recently is it available. However in Europe alone the prevalence of the disease is considered far greater than 50% of the population, particularly in showing dogs. At the present time there is no breeding programme to eliminate the gene, even given the test available.

You would think this horrifically irresponsible, and yes it is. But not for the reasons you imagine.

These diseased show dogs where the prevalence is highest make up so much of the population due to line breeding to the few winning sires that the showing doberman would go extinct if they removed all those dogs with the gene for DMC from the gene pool. It would reduce the gene pool so drastically the breed wouldn't have any where to turn. There just wouldn't be enough showing dobermans left to select to breed with. Unfortunately the entire population is not much better. By reducing the entire gene pool to such an extent by eliminating all the dogs carrying the gene would quite correctly inadvertently massively increase the frequency of other genetic diseases. A genetic bottle neck of disease with no where to go. The point of no return.

Such problems could be avoided by out-crossing to dogs of other breeds. Choosing related breeds without the gene for DCM would solve the problem entirely and certainly increase the gene pool. This is not "foolish" this is science. For it to work like it has with the Dalmatian which had a similar crippling gene, breeders have to open their minds enough to let the simple science in. It has to be done responsibly and not just any unrelated dog or breed will work, the solution is simple but putting it into practise is rather more complicated than your average breeder understands presently (see the link).

However far from being frozen into paralysis like you might expect given the prevalent thoughts in show breeding concerning purity, they're rather just continuing like nothing was wrong! This is Dodo with head so firmly in the ground it's head has grown roots and it's died of old age already, never having seen the light. Much like the breed will become. Extinct.

Rare breeds face much the same problems but get to the point of no return just that much quicker, some even start there. Health testing as in the above example (the doberman isn't even considered a rare breed as such) is not "responsible breeding" either. It's not "saving" the breed. For your breed I would be more concerned with the inbreeding coefficient than health testing simply because by definition of "rare-breed" you don't have the numbers to exclude any of the dogs in the gene pool even those with debilitating genetic diseases. You can't assume that dogs from different lines or even different countries are less related than your own dogs. All the health testing in the world is not going to increase that gene pool. You will just find more and more diseases appearing. In so far as a breed should be "saved" it can be. Its just a matter of will.

There is definitely a place for health testing but particularly DNA profiling, if nothing else just to find out how much of genetic bottle neck your breed is in, so you can discover if there are any unrelated dogs to breed to. However it's not the panacea most show breeders suddenly have jumped onto the band wagon for. It's simply not the solution to many many breeds problems. It's also thus not the automatic guarantee of a "responsible" breeder by any means. 

Short of waffling endlessly on I leave you with a link and a quote to a very readable Q and A on the subject.

http://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/coi-faqs-understanding-the-coefficient-of-inbreeding

"The key to managing recessive mutations in any population is keeping them rare, so adding animals to the population that share many of the same mutations is asking for trouble in a very short time. Also, incorporating new genetic material into the breed requires a well-designed strategy worked out for at least four to five generations. A single crossbreeding (to a different breed) followed by sequential backcrossing into the breed will remove most of the genetic diversity you were hoping to introduce. You definitely need to start with a carefully designed plan. Without the tools of a geneticists at your disposal and short of becoming one yourself you risk waisting what for most pedigree dogs is a critical amount of time."

So yes you are perfectly right "anything on four legs" won't necessarily work. But without something entirely different on those four legs you can't solve anything either.

And don't you just hate it when rare breeds are marketed as such as though this were a plus instead of a big red flag in your face.

 

I haven't assumed anything because a dog is from a different country. In fact the import that I have do share some of the same dogs in their lineage back a number of generations. You should have noticed that it was chosen over the other breeder because the breeder has done testing. The "local breeder don't test and doesn't know what any of their dogs might have. They can have these genetic diseases or be carriers and never know it or in some cases they don't care. As far as the COI we have a calculator for our breed to see the COI before ever pairing dogs to see if if it is too high. Of course I've seen breeders that do number on what I would call the extreme side. I have avoided them. Again it goes back to what I said previously research the breeder. TO clarify my statement about taking chances is not about risking breeding to a disease dog. It is that if or when I choose to breed to a dog outside of what I own I might take a chance on breeding to a dog that has not been tested. If I know a dog or lineage has some type of disease I'd stay far away from anything that I know come from it or that has produced it. 

 

Regarding dogs being show dogs. Anyone can show a dog. It is not an exclusive club. They all share the same genetics as any other dog. Diseases or not due to showing a dog. Just as inbreeding is not exclusive to show dogs. It happens in every dog community. In fact it is extremely present in those that abhor anyone the shows a dog and only praise dogs that come from what they call working lines. Many of them have never done any health or genetic testing. It might even be hard to find enough of them that have regularly visit to the vet. They still feed big name commercial dog foods that are not nutritional to the dogs.

 

I do see a problem with people using certain dogs. I will not contribute this to one group of people such as people that "show" or people that only "work". What I have personally seen is that all groups do this. The want the popular sire. That sire might have done well at something. It has a name. Everyone has frozen semen. Many claim to be the only one that has semen. But everyone claims it is the sire of their next litter. No one talks about how that dog dog died a mysterious death at a young age. I'd avoid anything with its semen. Sure it has produced some nice looking dogs. But I'm unsure of how healthy they are. Especially know that every dog in its litter dies young and many of its offspring has done the same. 

Yes, there is no genetic test for HD. In your breed you still cannot eliminate every dog from the gene pool with HD.

Show breeders more than any other have ruined working dogs and other dogs by selecting for these traits that win at dog shows by line breeding to those traits that win and to winning sires that exemplify the winning model. Exaggerations, popular sire syndrome and genetic poverty creep in until the dogs is a wreck of a breed. They have to be bred in closed registries to get pedigree papers, to enter shows. 

"Pet breeders" or what ever you want to call them do nothing of the sort. They aren't showing their dogs. Do they care if the stop of the nose is slight or deep? No they don't. Do they care if there is a little bit more white on the chest than the standard dictates, no they don't. Are they line breeding for exaggerations in phenotype, no, to winning sires, no they re not..............They don't turn the breed into a parody of itself, they don't have incentive to do this like show breeders.

Look what has happened to the Rottweiler, it's face looks like a bus hit it, like it was morphed in photo-shop. A pug on long legs. This happened in the show ring no where else.

Would I buy a Teckel from a show breeder? Absolutely not. I would find a breeder who was selecting and breeding for working Teckles. These don't have extremely long diseased and accident prone backs of the show dog, these don't have tiny useless bent legs like a show dog, these would still have drive these would still be able to work and function as a dog as a working animal and a pet. They don't have mental health issues associated with inbreeding, they're athletic and live a long HEALTHY life. As a pet owner I would do the same just because I didn't want to end up with a disease riddled drain on my bank account and heart animal. Would I want a great big lump of couch-potato riddled with disease and dead at five like a show Mastiff, no I wouldn't why would anyone? Such a dog is not even athletic enough to be a pet. However those exact exaggerations that make it so useless for anything make it a winner in the show ring! Its not rocket science just bad breeding. 

Unfortunately pure companion breeds are not immune either. A show bred English bulldog, pekingese or pug cannot walk even a hundred meters in the sunshine in Nordic Scandinavia without turning blue and showing dangerous signs of asphyxiation. Did "pet breeders" do that to them no. They have been bred for the show ring for ever flatter faces with nasal passages so compressed they cannot breath due to large lumps of folded flesh in their air ways, and thats just one problem amongst many they have............

It is an irony, yes absolutely but you are more likely to find healthier animals sold in a pet shop without a pedigree! That doesn't mean I agree with puppy mills.....or disagree with pedigree dogs per se either. A pedigree is just a record of ancestors not a seal of quality and the more show winners in it the more likely you are to get a dud.

The bottom line for the Doberman.......

The Doberman has the lowest diversity in the DLA genes of the immune system of any breeds studied to date by Pedersen's lab at UC Davis. This, together with the high level of inbreeding documented from multiple studes and the overall relatedness of the dogs in the population, leaves breeders with little ability to circumvent the multiple genetic diseases in the breed. Furthermore, some deleterious genes could be fixed in the breed - that is, the normal, non-mutated version of the gene is no longer present in the gene pool and therefore are not available for selection.

It is highly unlikely that the desperate genetic situation of the Doberman can be improved by selective breeding within the closed gene pool of the breed. Breeders cannot restore health to this breed by selecting against health problems. Furthermore, trying to select less related parents in an effort to improve diversity in the offspring is a bit like pushing your peas around on your plate; you might look like you're accomplishing something, but with little effect.

The only hope for this breed is the initiation of a sound, comprehensive cross-breeding program, under the guidance of population geneticists, that will introduce new genetic diversity into the breed. The longer it takes to begin genetic rescue, the more difficult it will be and the less likely it is to be successful.

 

Of the number of people that breed dogs what percentage are what you call "show breeders"? People that show dogs are not more responsible than any other group. In fact people that show dogs for the most part do not breed for exaggerated traits. In doing so they would not be breeding towards that standard and create faults. Those that show dogs understand that you breed best to best. You don't breed towards exaggerations. That is done by those that do know the standards and or don't care what the standard is. The persons that participate in showing that also breeds will not sell you the average pet owner a dog that they believe will do well in the ring. Those dogs are kept back for their breeding stock or for someone else that they believe will do something with the dog other than the average pet owner. They know every dog in that litter is not show quality. Some might be breed quality. Some will also be pet quality. Even though they are not show quality or breed quality it does not stop them from being a good dog. 

 

People that breed for shorter stops, bigger heads, bigger or smaller size are just people that breed dogs and desire to change the dog to fit their ideal of the dog and not the breed standard. Often in order to do so they will breed a dog that is of a different breed and lie about what happened.  Unfortunately they are not honest. They should be honest and say this is a mixed breed instead of passing it off as purebred. These are the things that causes the dog to change their size, color variations, length, etc. They will eve throw in that this is a champion line because one of two dog far down in the pedigree has a title. That becomes the selling point to the uneducated consumer.   

 

Unfortunately there is so much ignorance and hatefulness in the dog community that one has to put down another in order to make themselves appear to be superior. Many make excuses as to why their dogs don't compete. Often they aren't honest enough to say my dog doesn't have what it takes. It has bad hocks, It has too long of a stop. It has feet that turn in or out. It has mixed color eyes. It's not really a purebred. I don't even know or understand what or how the judges looks at the dogs. There are a few that will tell I like what I like. I like this color even though it is not standard. It has this color because something that was bred into it had that color. I like a smaller dog.I like a larger dog.

It's a good point you bring up because it's exactly that, "the standards" that are causing havoc with pedigree showing dogs.

Of course closed registries, continual line breeding, popular sire syndrome etc are all also important players too. And of course no one is breeding to these standards  outside of showing so the results are aways going to be different and so by virtue as we shall see in fact also better outside of showing. Of course showing breeders are meant to sell on a show, spay or neuter contract, but many of their rejects do of course end up being bred by other people but the majority end up in so called "pet homes". The latter are the majority owners, who are getting those rejects thinking because they're getting a "pedigree" dog registered by the KCs from showing stock, health tested for one or two things, guaranteed to be pure, with so many Ch in the pedigree that they're getting the most fabulous dog possible on the market. Yes without a doubt these sickly diseased exaggerated dogs are often used for breeding too outside of show homes, they're often only marginally worse health wise than the ones the breeder keeps for breeding and to win at dog shows.

Exterior, or how a dogs looks is only a fraction of what a dog is, there is so much more. Well there should be but there isn't in the show ring, not much anyway.

Those standards written in stone that do not allow for any variation in any breed beyond ever more exaggerated compliance to that standard, these are exactly what causes so much intensive inbreeding and exaggeration in type.

As any breeder will tell you there is no such thing as the perfect dog, right. This is still however the aim even though it's apparently unattainable. Judges are supposedly judging from the standard, breeders are supposedly breeding and selecting from the standard. The aim, to produce cookie cutter examples of the breed, the closer to the cookie cutter (standard) the better right? However when does "a sloping back" or "pronounced stop", "deep chest" exemplify the standard?  When the dog has a head and muzzle that looks like a cartoon of a duck as in any number of ruined gun dogs? When it has a crippled face like a show bulldog? A head so grotesque the dog can barely see, eat or drink? Its awarding dogs with those exaggerations that is causing the ever more deformed dogs. Intentional qualzucht. They win dog shows. To win dog shows you have to selectively breed towards those winning exaggerations or go home with no ribbons. The best of breed has them all, they supposedly exemplify the standard and set the bench mark for all to follow. Until you end up with a great dane whose head looks like it has gone into melt down. Yes just like you those breeders will point to the standard and say "but it says so and only good breeders bred to the standard", it's a mark of a responsible breeder. Never mind that the dog can't even run anymore beyond trotting one side of an eight meter minimum sized show ring and many not even half of a side of the ring without having to stop and rest because it can't breath, because its legs are so bent or because its so loosely put together, so heavy and lacking vigour.......because it so closely inbred to fit the standard so it can win.

Why aren't breeders and judges selecting, breeding and judging for function instead with just a ball park concept of what fits the breeds phenotype? Allowing for a slight healthy variation in phenotype. Individuality in "line" or individual itself? Because then it wouldn't be as close to the standard as possible. Because showing is based entirely on what the dog looks like in relation to a standard instead. Not partial but entirely. Movement is not judged on function but action and ever exaggerated action which leads to ever ever exaggerated type, until a German Shepherds pelvis looks like that of a shrimp thats been hit with a sledge hammer across its back, with permanently deformed hocks unable to do anything but a wobbling trot. Will a Dalmatian be able to follow a carriage for ten miles, with a relaxed economical gait, well no but it can strut up and down an eight meter ring, is that OK. Not exactly, no it's not. Can a showing pekingese even trot for three meters, never mind get up three steps, no it can't. It's been bred for a rolling, bent legged, heavy body so such an extent it can hardly trot at all never mind walk, even if it could it has so much hair such a flat face that it can't breath, over heats and would fall over dead if it tried. The very same dog is best of breed and champion of all dog breeds at Crufts. Doesn't that tell you anything? It can't even do a lap of honour in the big ring so its carried instead. Believe me not many owners can even carry a Pekingese for that long its so heavy. Does that ultimate piece of ribbon and silver cup mean more than the health and life of your or anyone else's dog? Yes even a tea cup poodle or pekingese bred for a pet shop can mange to sprint around a large arena, no problem at all, no pedigree no champs and no register. 

Of course opening registries and allowing for variation even slight in the phenotype would mean greater genetic diversity on a continual basis, so would appraising breeds and judging on function ensure a healthy dog. So would standards describing a type rather than absolute cookie cutter dogs, allowing for variation as long as intended function wasn't compromised, and testing for intended function, be it pet, guardian or vermin control. A pet dog has a function, it needs to be sane, athletic enough and healthy. Yes all of these would ensure a healthy breed type, and yes a few do still exist mostly only in true working dog breeds but for a tiny few also for companion dogs not bred for the show ring. Yes bred entirely for the pet market. Of course many if not most of these will be highjacked by showing folks determined to ruin them as well, many are already in developing registries with KCs worldwide including your Labradoodle example. The lucky few with a job still to do be it as much loved pet or work dog remain unscathed and have the most robust healthy genetics found in the domestic dog kingdom. Doesn't that tell you anything either?

The plight of the Doberman is not unique, its the ultimate fate of every single breed bred in continuously closed registries, judged purely on phenotype which all pedigree showing dogs are.  No where else, only in the show ring.

Again doesn't that tell you anything either?

You can push those proverbial peas around a plate until the cows drop dead and you won't have changed anything. The same ultimate fate awaits every pedigree breed bred for the show ring under the present manner. Rare breeds just get there even faster, most start with impoverished gene pools, just a few founding dogs or numbers so small they can't ever hope to ever have a healthy gene pool unless they have access to a working gene pool still bred in open registries. In other words still unaffected by the show ring. Even then as with the Doberman even if they found perfectly healthy specimens of the breed in some small village in Kyrgyzstan it won't actually help much at all and certainly only for a fraction of a moment in time for the breed.

Basically nothing will change at all unless breeding practises change for good. The best you can do with a rare breed is keep it out of the show ring and keep its registry open for ever, fine tuning it for function where and when ever necessary with like types from as healthy stock as possible. Trying to cherish an exact phenotype within closed registries is like running with a ticking time bomb.

 

 

Here is an ad drone someone looking to breed. They are breeding just to breed. I would call this person a pet owner and backyard breeder.

 

"Very healthy full blood Cane Corso for STUD, no papers, will consider breeding with other cane corso, great Dane, press canario, or large breed. Pup back deals or small stud fee text: 8134461896 he is a true monster and great dog"

 

What is this person trying to accomplish? A few pics of the male. Mostly headshot. Nothing that sho the overal condition of the dog. This person will breed with a cane, Presa, or Great Dane. Someone will probably agree to the terms. This is how we get exaggerated features. Someone will falsify papers claiming its a cane or a Presa. If either of those dogs are unhealthy they will pass that to their pups. Of course someone will blame "show breeders" for all that is wrong. SMH

 

there Re no qualification for someone to breed. 

Yes the link doesn't work.

Things do need to be structured, there needs to be an aim, however........

A dog isn't a breed when it becomes accepted into a KC, when it has an exact standard and when it's register is closed. Then it becomes a pedigree mutt on a slippery slope.

A dog is a "breed type" when it fills the function needed, and is able to do so to an extent it's found useful and true to purpose and breeds like. There is nothing useful about a show dog, or the words Ch, or KC papers. So you could just as easily discount those dogs as you could the add you are referring to.

In an open register dogs are appraised on individual merit, not against each other and not only on phenotype but on function, standards are kept at a minimum allowing for slight variation of type be it regional or within a litter. A pedigree is just a record of it's ancestors. Important as a record but meaningless otherwise

Do they fit the general picture off the breed. Given a score. If they fall outside of all expectations especially function wise their score reflects that. A maximum score is needed to enter the stud book, but not on its own, it first needs to be tested for function, the two scores make the total. All may have papers from birth, a recorded pedigree but its not essential for appraisal, nor is a pedigree an automatic entry into the stud book or registry. Once it has a score and achieves the minimum it get papers even if its score falls bellow the registry requirement. The breeder may choose to use and improve the dog in a breeding programme until its progeny can be scored eligible to enter the studbook by virtue of there own appraisal.........this maintains genetic diversity and doesn't exclude anything from the gene pool, not ever.

Where there are problems creeping in like hips, hip scores should be a requirement for appraisal. Still doesn't mean dogs with bad hips are excluded from the gene pool. Its puppies if bred away from bad hips still get papers if they get the minimum score and are still eligible for appraisal into the registry subject to apparaisal scores.  To enter the registry the dog needs hip scores of a minimum soundness. Some breeds don't have enough numbers to exclude all of them due to things like bad hips or elbows, others might. But things like hip scores are essential so breeders know what they re working with.

That person with the stud dog you refer to should be eligible to have their dog appraised, given a score then you will know what you are working with. On the face of it its just a dog like any other. If they choose not to they choose not to their dog will stay an unknown entity to breeders. Like it is now for you

Beyond appraisals for type the dog need to be tested for function, is he really strong, does he have agility and endurance (he mustn't just "express" these things in phenotype he must BE these things). Is he all of these things "Intelligent, active and even minded, he is an unequalled watch and protection dog. Docile and affectionate with the owner; loving with children and with family, if necessary he becomes a terrible and brave protector of people, house and property. He is easily trainable." FCI Standard.

The dog needs to be tested for all of these things, given a score. Working trials, endurance tests.........whatever.

This kind of appraisal doesn't exclude any types out there it doesn't narrow the gene pool. If at any moment its felt the breed needs certain improvement, anything can be be added that is deemed suitable after an appraisal. 

If any dog arrives without a pedigree that looks behaves and functions like a Cane Corso who gives a rats arse that it has no papers? If that dog is appraised suitable it's given the minimum score for papers. Without papers its only eligible for a minimum score.  It can only enter the registry based on the success of its litters. Dogs without papers (breeding record) issued by the breed association doing the appraisals I wouldn't use for indiscriminate breeding because I have no clue how inbred it is due to a lack of that record, but the owner may breed with it and anyone else who sees fit, the puppies be appraised given papers....who knows if all things go well some of the puppies might enter the stud registry if they are healthy and score well enough..........if sufficient numbers do the dog can be reappraised again for eligibility for entry into the stud book, a new score given. 

Anyway thats just a rough idea.........A bit mixed up but i don't have time to set it all out correctly and edit.....