When someone brings up the prospect of open registries and cross-breeding, and the first thing out of your mouth is a squealing, “But…but…but…they won’t be PURE,” you ARE NOT HELPING.
Do you know what the Average Pet Owner, the one who loveloveloves their furbabies, the one who wants to abolish puppy mills, the one who writes and calls their legislators about dog laws, actually hears when you start in about purity-no-matter-what-omg-it-won’t-be-pure-even-though-the-cross-was-fifteen-generations-ago-omg? A piece of paper is more important than the living dog. The pedigree is more important than health. The dog on the couch is worth less than the pile of paper in the filing cabinet. That’s what the pet owner hears. And it sounds just as weird and nonsensical to them as it does to me. It sounds bigoted.
Dog breeding is no longer a respectable hobby. The proliferation of publicity surrounding puppy mills and abusive breeders has given the non-doggy public a skewed perception about what dog breeding is about and how it’s done. If you want to regain respectability by claiming that dog breeding is a skill, that it takes commitment, research and a desire to constantly learn, it’s not just something done willynilly, you are going to need to get over the purity thing, because it makes you look really bad in the eyes of the public. If you want to claim scientific validation for breeding decisions, like breeding on back to back heats, you have to accept science, you cannot pick and choose. And the “but…but…but…” is anything but based on science, or even common sense. It’s nothing more than tradition and superstition. Inbreeding is just a tool, you say? So is outcrossing, and cross-breeding. Look beyond the dog world and you will see.
Do you think it is the breeding community that has been the catalyst for the changes made by the UK Kennel Club? No, it’s a response to public perception, which sent the KC’s reputation into the toilet. Now they’ve got to drag themselves back out, dripping and stinking, by appealing to the public with studies and new rules that make them look like they’re really thinking about what they’re doing, instead of relying on tradition and superstition.
No one is going to force anyone to crossbreed. No one is going to force anyone to breed to a dog with another breed in it’s background. Whining about purity does no one any favors, since it flies in the face of commitment, research and desire to learn.
Plus, it makes you look stupid. It shows a level of ignorance about genetics that is appalling, especially when you claim decades of experience. It is absolutely the stupidest, shallowest, most idiotic argument you could make against open registries. When you say that dying of pickyourdisease at six years old is just part of being a Golden Spotted Gooberhound, it sounds disgusting to normal people. It sounds sick and twisted to people who have just lost their beloved young Gooberhound to pickyourdisease.
So when someone mentions open registries, or cross-breeding, and you feel that little outraged squeal bubbling up in your throat, bite your tongue. Hard enough to bleed, if necessary. I’d like to keep my right to breed dogs, to make the breeding decisions I feel are best, without interference from well-meaning but ignorant people, and you aren’t helping.
Amen. The obsession with 'genetic purity' (whateverthefuck that is) is the biggest threat to dogs today.
I've seen very few sane voices in the breeding world on this subject. And most of the reasonable arguments against an open stud book all boil down to, “but what if they open the stud books and breeders breed *irresponsibly*?!?”
As if that wasn't happening now.
I think the modern show fancy breeding culture hinges on a rather insulting premise: that a breeder cannot be trusted to know which of their own dogs are worth breeding unless someone appointed an 'expert' tells them. However, comparing a lot of breeds today with their own standards will start showing you that there are apparently a LOT of posers going around pretending to be experts, if the dogs are any reflection.
There's like this horror at the very thought of someone daring to breed a dog without getting the approval of the rest of their social (breed) club. It's taking a rather a dim view of themselves, really.
The AKC point system really does not allow for 'evaluation of breeding stock', which is the ostensible reason for showing. It does foster extreme competition and bad sportsmanship, IMO, by rewarding only one dog with points, regardless of the quality of the dogs in the ring. The German system of giving each dog a rating and a written review is much better, IMO, because the heavy competition goes on at a level above the simple ratings. IIRC, German dogs must receive two 'very good' ratings in order for their offspring to be registered. It is still subjective, but the judge must justify their decisions better, I think.
Azawakh are still quite rare, and I hear story after story about judges literally reading the standard outside the ring before judging. I am supposed to hold this person's opinion in high regard?
I have pointed to the UKC Chinook club cross-breeding program over and over again as an example, but people rarely look.