why do dobermans seem weak?!?!?!

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. 

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.

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.

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

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

 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. (:

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.

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.

 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

 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.

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.

An understatement of epic proportions.  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.

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.

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'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.

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.....