Unintended Consequences, or, Why I Won’t Just Shut Up

“…the law of unintended consequences has comes to be used as an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system tends to create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.”

The law of unintended consequences usually raises its ugly head because people don’t think. You might be under the impression that the purpose this blog is to post nice pictures of my dogs, tell stories about them, and maybe educate some people about certain doggy things. And you’d be right. But the primary purpose of this blog is to make people think.

I do (or don’t do) things that tend to make people pigeonhole me. I keep lots of dogs. I breed them occasionally. I don’t compete with my dogs. I cross-breed. (I will also add that I live off-grid out in the middle of nowhere and am clearly crazy.) All of these things, alone and in combination, cause criticism, which sometimes gets rather nasty.

My intention with many of the posts on this blog is to give readers a gentle (or sometimes, not so gentle) poke in the brain, and get them to think, to consider, instead of simply slotting me into the category boxes in their heads: lots of dogs: hoarder or puppymill, breeding not for competition or show: backyard breeder who knows nothing about breeding except that dogs ‘do it,’ cross-breeding: backyard greeder who misleads the gullible public with terms like ‘hybrid vigor.’

I don’t like being pigeonholed. So, I keep this blog. If one person pauses to think before they demonize somebody based on appearances, its purpose is served. If I can get people to think before judging in my case, perhaps they will do it in other cases as well.

Trouble Ahead

Right now, a great battle is raging. (Okay, maybe not great, but it affects me and many friends.) This battle is over dogs. How to keep them, how to breed them, how to think about them. I write frequently about how closed registries affect dogs: closed gene pools reduce diversity. In conservation genetics, it is accepted that genetic diversity is something to preserve, simply because you really don’t have any way to tell what’s going to happen if you lose it. You cannot stay within a closed system forever, because you will continue to lose genes over time. Conservation breeding programs are designed to keep these losses to a minimum. This seems to be common sense to me, but the dog fancy doesn’t see it that way. It is relatively easy to preserve genes, even in a closed system, by utilizing certain breeding practices. Because dog breeds are not different species (and they are certainly not endangered,) we can add cross-breeding to our toolbox to increase diversity if we lose it. Dogs have great diversity as a whole, but individual breeds are often descended from a small number of founders, and can be genetically impoverished. Closed registries that do not allow new genes in, coupled with modern breeding practices that severely limit the number of dogs that are bred, result in continual gene loss, sometimes occurring very quickly, concentrating both good and bad genes. Closed gene pools and small gene pools lead to increased incidence of disease, rare diseases becoming more common, and immune system malfunctions.

I find this fascinating, and I write about it. So do many other people (see links at the end of this article.) It’s an important concept. It is especially important right now, with the somewhat sensationalized criticism of dog breeding in relation to the health and welfare of the dogs being produced. For our trouble, those of us who write about these things, we get judged: called anti-purebred, animal rights activists, and other interesting things. Traitor to the dog fancy or the cause of breeders is a favorite epithet. We also get accused of trying to force people to do everything our way, and get told that we should just go and breed our own dogs and leave everyone else alone. Why can’t we just shut up and go away? Because we want people to think.

Dog breeders will be judged and found wanting, because they don’t think.

Why Don’t You Just Go Breed Your Own Dogs and Leave Us Alone?

“You want to force AKC /KC to your point of view. You don’t seem to want to just ignore AKC/UKC and do your own healthier breed using your concepts.”

“It is very easy to sit back and “armchair breed” but not so easy to step up to the plate and say…Hey I will do it my way…anyone else want to come along…I am sure the person who does that form the many that post here will find all sorts of followers…and then you can stop the KC or maybe even run them out of business with your new and improved plan instead of trying to improve upon something that most of you feel is a lost cause anyway…Leave the rest of us ALONE…perhaps we will just go away…perhaps not but you will have you own working system to enjoy and to impress the people who you will supply with dogs. Beat them at their own game as it were…” 

“…frankly if folk don’t like what we’re producing then there’s nothing to stop them breeding the type of dogs they DO like themselves…” 

“Look you breed dogs the way you want and we’ll do the same – if your way is so good then the public will be beating a path to your door and we simply won’t have a market for our dogs – simple?” 

“If you think you can create a better dog…do it.”

(Let me just interrupt for a second to say that if the market had any real effect on the health of the dogs offered for sale, we would not be having this discussion. Everybody wants a healthy pet.)

These people don’t want to upset the status quo, they don’t want to think. They just want to do what they’ve been doing and be ‘left alone.’ Anyone who questions the status quo of the closed registry system is an anti-purebred animal rights activist and is probably a liberal or a commie to boot. “Don’t you criticize us and call attention to these problems, we don’t want to talk about it. Talking about it might make us need to consider what we’re doing in a critical light!”

Needless to say, this attitude is not going to help breeders, and it does nothing to educate the public.

The Unintended Consequences of Responsible Breeding

The breeders who breed dogs for conformation shows are held up as the end all, be all, the True Responsible Breeders, regardless of the fact that they represent only a tiny portion of dog breeders. Look at any ‘how to spot a responsible breeder’ list or breed book, and you will be advised to seek out a breeder who shows. This has a terrible effect on proposed and passed legislation here in the United States. The defining characteristics of the ‘responsible breeder’ are directly responsible for much of the language in restrictive breeding legislation. The anti-breeding contingent is very clever about using the ‘ingroups’ very in-ness against them, because they are guaranteed to sound reasonable to people who look up to, but aren’t part of, that ingroup.

{We will now have a short digression.

After the first draft of this post went public, I got these comments, that I’m just going to call out and squash before anyone else decides to start kneejerking and their reading comprehension goes out the window:

“one of their chief tactics is to set all “categories” of animal owners against one another – the idea that “show breeders” are plotting against all other uses of dogs is pretty much bunkum”

If you are part of the show community and you have worked yourself up into a state of outrage, STOP READING NOW. Go outside, take a deep breath, pet your dogs, and CHECK YOUR READING COMPREHENSION. If you kneejerk at me in comments, I will rip you apart. I expect my readers to read and understand what they’re reading before commenting. Don’t make me make an example of you. (Hint: the show community has done far, far more to set ‘categories’ of breeders against each other than any animal rights group, ever. And since I’ve not only been ‘plotted against’ but also know other people who have been actively ‘plotted against’ and harassed, I can blow that one out of the water, too. Don’t go there.)

Let’s go on:

“I’ve never read any of the kinds of guidelines that Jess suggests.”

Did you look? No, seriously, did you go and seek information? This is the primary reason why we will ultimately fail: willful ignorance. Get out there, read what your fellow breeders write and say, see how the pet community interprets that. In case my assertions are still suspect, I’ve pulled twenty examples from web sites and books, just to prove my point that ‘show or conformation breeder’ = ‘responsible breeder’ in ‘responsible dog owner’ circles.

Let me be clear that I am not picking on this individual, they simply made a comment that allows me to make a point. But we cannot afford to be naive about how the show community, in general, represents other breeders. This has a direct effect on all breeders, and encourages the kind of climate where harassment, similar to that directed at me and others I know, is acceptable behavior.}

How about those examples? (Click for big.)

How does the pet community interpret all of this? I pulled these two flow charts off of a pet forum and a pet related blog. A Google search shows that these are widely circulated:

How does all this propaganda affect the ‘responsible’ breeder, the breeder of show dogs?

“Responsible breeders show or otherwise compete with their dogs.”

This gets us mandatory spay/neuter laws where the only exemptions are show dogs. Got a nice dog that hates to show? Too bad. Have crosses of any kind? Too bad. Breed pets? Too bad. Not the competitive type? Too bad. Low on cash and have to make a choice between showing and eating? Too bad.

“Responsible breeders only keep x number of dogs.”

Limit laws. This one actually does reduce genetic diversity, but not nearly as much as common ‘responsible’ breeding practices. It also discourages any type of experimental breeding where it’s a necessity to keep more than just a few dogs, and penalizes breeders who want to keep more than one line. Limit laws reduce breeding frequency because breeders cannot keep more than one pup to run on, or cannot keep a pup at all because it will put them over the limit, so they simply don’t breed. Limit laws hurt shelter dogs as well, by keeping people from adopting more than just a few dogs, sometimes as few as two.

“Responsible breeders don’t breed to supply the pet market, and don’t make any money.“

This results in limit laws on the amount of litters produced regardless of the number of pups per litter, or laws restricting how much you can charge, and most definitely laws severely restricting breeding on a commercially viable level. These laws usually have engineering standards similar to the ones USDA licensed breeders are subject to. El Paso, Texas, recently amended their animal ordinance to limit the amount of money a breeder can charge for a puppy to the exact expenses related to raising the pup, or fifty dollars, for any puppy that is under a year old. Despite the fact that this law is clearly unconstitutional, I expect other cities to follow suit.

“Responsible breeders NEVER cross-breed.”

You know how I feel about that one, it has been used repeatedly to define me as irresponsible. It is now illegal to cross-breed in El Paso and Los Angeles, and the breeding of unregistered dogs is forbidden. A list of ‘approved’ registries will usually go along with this type of law, putting people with rare breeds unrecognized by the larger registries at risk. If you are part of a sanctioned outcross program, you are screwed as well.

All of these provisions are a direct result of the deification of the Show Breeder, the Epitome of Dog Breeding, Keepers of Breeding Esoterica, the Chosen Few. I have even seen legislation requiring that a breeder be a member of a breed or kennel club with a code of ethics, or perform certain health tests. This is how the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head.

What does this have to do with why we, the genetic diversity advocates, won’t shut up? Well, show breeders work within a closed registry system. Here in the United States, that means the AKC, the American Kennel Club. (I am going to leave the United Kennel Club, the UKC, out of this, for two reasons: they are not nearly as visible to your average pet owner, and they do not have international recognition. Plus, their conformation shows aren’t on television. And UKC is open to working with breeds that want to open the studbooks. Okay, four reasons.) The AKC is a closed registry. Because the AKC is close to synonymous, in the mind of the pet owning public, with dog shows and dog breeding, what the AKC does or does not do is of great consequence to dog breeders, whether they register their dogs with AKC or not. AKC has involved itself in fighting anti-breeding legislation; this is to be expected and commended.

Most puppies are not produced by show breeders. Therefore, according to the logic behind the web sites and books I’ve used as examples, most puppies are not responsibly bred. In order to makes laws against irresponsible breeding, we must define responsible breeding, and those examples show the current definition of ‘responsible’ breeder. The anti-breeding contingent counts on this. By making it illegal for breeders who do not fit into these criteria (show or compete, small number of dogs and litters, big registry dogs only), you cut out a huge number of breeders, making the remaining few, those ‘responsible’ show breeders, easy pickings for the next round of legislation. That next round is going to include a discussion of closed registries and their effect on dogs. Telling people to “go away and breed your own dogs your way” is not going to change that, not considering how easy it has been for the anti-breeding groups to use the very definitions of ‘responsible’ breeders against them.

(Another digression, forgive me: All breeders should understand how market forces drive consumption, just so that they don’t make fools of themselves by blathering on about how immoral it is to breed dogs for the pet market.)

The Role of Registries

Where the AKC seriously falls down is in its disregard over the concerns of breeding within a closed registry, some of which were raised in the documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed. AKC has not involved themselves in a public way in the discussion on health in regards to closed gene pools and conformational issues. (To its credit, the AKC did help to work towards getting acceptance for the LUA Dalmatians.) In fact, they’ve completely ignored the issue in the public sphere, even avoiding appearing on television shows and at conferences which raised concerns about the health of purebred dogs. Since AKC represents ‘dog breeders’ in the public eye, they could do a great deal towards moving these subjects away from the relatively ignorant but well-meaning public and into the ingroup, which would be most affected by legislation. (Please do not natter at me about studies and CHIC. I love studies, but it could easily be argued that the breed clubs and the AKC are avoiding the bigger picture by focusing loads of money and time on minutiae like finding genes for cancer. Breeding away from disease genes within a closed gene pool inevitably results in genetic drift and a further reduction in genetic diversity. Not to mention that the reasons scientists love purebred dogs for disease studies are because of their genetic poverty and high rates of disease. While I am very grateful that dogs can be so helpful in research, the things that make this possible are not something to be proud of.)

I really don’t care what other breeders do. Whatever blows your hair back, breed the dogs you like, have fun. But since AKC with its high visibility and big voice has decided not to take a stand, if I want to continue to legally breed my dogs, I have to stand up for myself. If I want to continue to breed my dogs, you, the closed registry aficionado, the show breeder, have to be able to continue breeding yours. That’s why you need to understand how to preserve genetic diversity in your breed, understand the basic concepts of population genetics, understand how conformational issues affect dogs, even if it means you never put that knowledge into practice. You need this information, and you need to be able to discuss it without becoming defensive, because your breeding is just as much at risk as mine is. When your breeding practices are questioned, you’d better have the answers. And they’d better be good answers, not “It’s traditional,” “We’ve always done it that way,” “It wouldn’t be pure,” “Our dogs are fine,” “We fund studies!” or “Why don’t you leave us alone and worry about puppy mills? We’re the responsible breeders!”

Don’t believe me? 

There Oughta be a Law

From Can the Bulldog Be Saved? The New York Times:

“While the British Kennel Club, in addition to changing its breed standards, has banned the registration of puppies from closely related parents, the A.K.C. has refused to follow suit. Wayne Pacelle, the Humane Society C.E.O., told me that if the A.K.C. and breed clubs won’t act, it’s inevitable that animal welfare groups will push for legal standards addressing inbreeding and the physical soundness and genetic health of dogs. ”Breeding certainly has a place in the world of dogs, but this mania about achieving what’s considered a ‘perfect’ or desirable outward appearance rather than focusing on the physical soundness of the animal is one of the biggest dog-welfare problems in this country,” he said. “And the emotional and financial cost of these sick dogs to their owners is enormous.” (emphasis added)

I urge you to read this article, not because bulldogs are fascinating (personally, I don’t find them to be so), but for a glimpse into the psychology behind the keeping and breeding of dogs with deformity and its attendant health problems. Can these breeders justify breeding a dog that is predisposed to problems due to the way it’s shaped? How do you think the pet owning public looks at such breeders?

These are issues that need to be addressed by the AKC, the breed clubs, and  breeders. That’s not happening in any meaningful way, not in the United States. It may not happen until it’s too late, a reaction to legislation that’s already in place. Reaction is a position of weakness. We cannot afford to be weak right now. Public opinion of dog breeding and faith that breeders know what they are doing is at a low, as evidenced by the plethora of dog breeding bills that come up every year and the heavy criticism from almost every quarter. The public is important, these are the people who love their dogs, write and call their legislators, and can turn the tide. We cannot continue to breed dogs without justifying our practices to the average pet owner, the public. If we cannot justify those practices, we need to seriously reconsider what we are doing.

Until the registries enter the public phase of this battle, it’s up to us, all breeders, to be open with the problems associated with breeding dogs, and how we plan to deal with them, as individuals and institutions. We can show by our words and our actions that we understand the issues and are not just ignoring uncomfortable topics. We need to show that we can think.

When what you have to say, as a breeder, amounts to “leave us alone” and “if you think you can create a better dog…do it,” should we really be listening to you? Are you saying anything of value? How does what you are saying affect public perception of dog breeders? The anti-breeding forces in this battle are very good at presenting biased information. What kind of impression do you think “leave us alone” creates with the public?

Are you  thinking?

If I shut up and leave you alone, I will not be able to “create a better dog.” I will not be able to breed dogs at all, except under guidelines written by people who do not understand that there is not a simple fix for these problems, and have never bred so much as a hamster. I WILL NOT HAVE WAYNE FREAKING PACELLE TELLING ME HOW TO BREED MY DOGS, and that is exactly what is going to happen if the dog fancy doesn’t stop the denialism they are currently engaging in.

I know what I’ve decided to do, and I’m not going to let the “leave me alone”-ers drag me down with them. I will not allow people to assume that just because I breed dogs, I embrace the head in the sand attitude indicated by “leave us alone.” I am not going to shut up.

Breeding and legislation articles on this blog:

HSUS Hates Dog Breeders

Painting by Numbers

Lolly Will Be Keeping His Balls, Thank You

Husbandry and Hypocrisy, or When Fanciers Attack

More Creative Dog Breeder Math

Goodnight, My Wees, or My Yearly Screed Against Stoopid Legislation

Other articles concerning dog genetics:

Essays for the Dog Breeder

Jeffrey Braggs Articles

The Canine Diversity Project

Australian Shepherd Health & Genetics Institute

Natural Protection of Genetic Variation

Genetics articles on this blog:

Closed Registries: Dogs in the Handbasket to Hell, Part I

Closed Registries: Dogs in the Handbasket to Hell, Part II

Dear Closed Registry Proponent: Shut Up

Cooking with Jess: Make a Purebred in Four Easy Steps

Other blogs:

Border Wars

Health and Genetics Articles (just go read all of them. Seriously.)

The Retriever, Dog & Wildlife Blog

Intellectual Dishonesty on the Effects of Trials and Shows

The Dismal Science of Dog Breeding

The ‘Fancification’ of the Collie – an Instructive Case Study

Prick-Eared

Relayed Advice

Hoof & Paw

I Took a Class on That in College

Old-Time Farm Shepherd

Landrace VS Purebred Scotch Collies

Sources for ‘responsible breeder’ examples:

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Example 5

Example 6

Example 7

Example 8

Example 9

Example 10

Example 11

Example 12

Example 13, Breeding Dogs for Dummies, Richard G. Beauchamp

Example 14, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Getting and Owning a Dog, Sheila Webster Boneham

Example 15, What About Jack Russell Terriers: The Joys and Realities of Living with a JRT, Audrey Pavia

Example 16, “Please, Oh Please Can We Get a Dog?” Parents’ Guide to Dog Ownership, Cheryl Peterson

Example 17, The Angell Memorial Animal Hospital Book of Wellness and Preventative Care for Dogs, Darlene Arden

Example 18, The Whole Dog Journal: Handbook of Dog and Puppy Care and Training, Nancy Kerns, Pat Miller, C. J. Puotinen

Example 19, Bring Me Home! Dogs Make Great Pets, Margaret H. Bonham

Example 20, The Everything New Puppy Book: Choosing, Raising, and Training Your New Best Friend, Carlo De Vito, Amy Ammen

This article was inspired by and compiled from my comments on these posts on the Border Wars blog, and the Pedigree Dogs Exposed Blog. Additional inspiration came from a recent message board discussion (hat tip to SOB.)