As Chowists we are all fanciers of our breed, but our priorities
are as different as we are. Some of us prefer a
close relationship with a single specimen, others travel
the obedience route, while still others pursue recognition
at dog shows.
Breeding was rarely our initial motivation for purchasing
our first Chow. We sort of backed into it for various
and sometimes dubious reasons such as fame, fortune
or even a straying bitch. Sometimes it appears to
have been an afterthought deemed necessary to ease
the financial burden of our hobby rather than a desire
to improve the breed by creating a variety of consistently
high quality specimens.
The term "breeder" is merely description of a group of
people unprotected by trademark registration, unlike
MD, DVM, CPA, etc. No kennel club has sought trade
name protection by demanding that the title require
successfully completing accredited courses on
breed knowledge; kennel club bylaws, procedures and
rules; law; kennel theory, management and practice;
advanced registry, kinesiology, nutrition, basic
health care, etc.
It is therefore no wonder that dog breeding is held in
such low esteem by the educated public and their perception
of dog breeders equates them with vendors
at local farmers' markets. Upon examination, the
main thrusts of kennel clubs are clearly registration (administration) and dog
shows (promotion). Education
is only now becoming compulsory for people
who by and large have retired from breeding
(judges).
This helps explain the destruction of so many traditional
breeds and the widespread enthusiasm for
rare new breeds that have not yet experienced the
privilege of our improvements.
A case in point is
the Eurasier. It was created rom three
well established traditional breeds the German
Wolfspitz (Keeshond), Chow Chow and
Samoyed--in an attempt to combine the favorable
attributes of each while eliminating their
less desirable characteristics.
The component breeds were
once functional and area
specific. Now none has any function other
than as a companion dog. To properly fit
their current function each had to be modified to
meet today's requirements. For instance, viciousness,
once functional to protect the homestead
from intruders, is now unacceptable in
modern society. Hereditary health problems, once
ruthlessly eliminated as being non-functional, are
often excused or artificially controlled by today's breeders
hut remain quite unacceptable to the
public at large. The failure of fanciers to recognize and
address this reality has increasingly led to bastardization,
either covert or through the creation of
new breeds.
The Eurasier has been recognized since 1973 Our
interest is limited to its fanciers' motivation to include
the Chow in its makeup and their rejection
of some present Chow characteristics they
deem undesirable. It suggests we may be out
of touch with or insensitive to present public expectations,
and should motivate us to consider
all legitimate concerns. Failing to
regularly examine current values and rigidly sticking
with a dogmatic approach will destroy our
breed. It
was noted that the early Chows had longer skulls,
a reference to the present excessively short,
overly padded heads that have led to an increase
in breathing problems and reduced vision.
Valued are the Chow's reservation toward
strangers and its readiness to defend both
home and territory. Unwanted are many health
problems, low fertility, excessively straight
stifles and their headstrong independence.
The Keeshond contributed
to the Eurasier its lack
of degenerative traits, a guardian instinct, its
devotion to family rather than a single person
and its bitches' outstanding nursing qualities.
The Samoyed contributed its robust health
and easy maintenance.
Upon reflection, these observations are legitimate
and indicate that the Chow fancy is increasingly
motivated by winning, often at the expense
of type, functionality, health and the concern
of the general public that makes up
merely 95 percent of our clientele.
From time to time we are confronted with
extreme ideas on desirable breeding practices.
Either inbreeding is proposed as the sole
route to success or rejected
as highly destructive. A
case can be made for either approach, but the blind
pursuit of either extreme is disastrous. The
answer is a balanced, commonsense approach.
To that end, we must once again go back
to basics before we spout off highly selective technical
jargon. It is well known that unless people
can reduce complicated issues to basics and
express them in ordinary, easily understood language,
they generally have no idea what they are
talking about. Scientific
research can be a tool, but selective presentation
of test results can be very destructive. Consider
the following anecdote: A scientist takes a
flea and tells it to jump. The flea jumps 10 feet, where
upon the scientist rips off one of its legs and
urges it to jump again. This time it manages only
9 feet. The experiment goes on with an ever- decreasing
number of legs and jump distances until
the flea has no more legs. When the scientist repeatedly
implores the legless flea to jump and it
doesn't move, he concludes that fleas that lose their
legs become deaf. Scientific studies may be impressive,
but their conclusions may vary from common
sense.
Before I get into their specifics as applied to Chows,
we should define line breeding, inbreeding, outcrossing
and family breeding. Line breeding is the
mating of dogs closely related to a common ancestor
but with little (or no) relation to each other
through any other ancestor. If a dog is presented
as being linebred, the question is,
linebred to which dog? Inbreeding
is a much closer relationship between the
mating pair and is limited to only four relationships
father to daughter, mother to son, brother
to sister and half brother to half sister. It
is simply a means of sorting out the virtues and faults
inherent in a strain or family. It will fix both good
and bad points and expose any weakness or
defect that may be dormant in the parents. The
emergence of faults by combining recessive genes
may, of course, occur in litters bred from
unrelated parents, but inbreeding certainly increases
the risk.
Outcrossing is the breeding of unrelated dogs and
should only be done for a special purpose. The
idea that a complete change of blood should
automatically be introduced after a few generations
of inbreeding is a mistake. However, when
a fault or weakness occurs repeatedly in a strain,
outcrossing may be the only answer provided
the dog used brings in as few alien traits
or genetic defects as possible. Once the purpose
of the outcross has been achieved, the
next step is to breed back strongly to the original
line to maintain the genetic purity previously
established in valuable strain.
Family breeding is the grey area
not entirely covered by line
breeding and inbreeding and is
simply an extension of both.
To totally dismiss inbreeding,
line breeding and family
breeding and strictly advocate outcrossing
is to exhibit a total ignorance of
the subject. Any characteristic can be bred up
or down, strengthened or weakened by inbreeding
or line breeding. In nature the strong survive
and the weak die, whereas in breeding
dogs we mainly select for show, color,
size or coat, ignoring vigor and fertility until
they have become commonly possessed characteristics
and frequently show up, especially when
inbreeding is practiced.
The argument that inbreeding does not occur in nature
is specious. All wolf packs have their dominant
male that breeds each female in the pack for
several generations until replaced by a younger and
stronger one, perhaps one of his sons. The
same holds true for deer, foxes, rodents, horses
and cattle
In human terms, a scientist in Hawaii has been conducting
extensive DNA testing on a great number
of women of various racial backgrounds over
a number of years So far her test results suggest
that all people, regardless of race or location,
are descendants of one single African
mother. If correct, it would blow any suggestion
of the fatal influence of inbreeding and
line breeding right out of the water. Give
it some thought. F.P.A.
Odenkirchen, PO Box 863, Waterdown
Ontario, Canada LOR 2HO |