marysue@hpfclp.UUCP (marysue) (10/16/84)
A query on purebred purity: Recently, a person who is well respected in the dog training/showing community (locally) told me that she did not think ANYONE should be breeding a dog unless that dog has a PERFECT temperament, conformation, and really has something to contribute to the breed (any breed). On a very high level, I agree with it, and think that is the way that the registry has been set up traditionally. However, so many of the breeds are getting "polluted" genetically by indiscriminate breeding (such as the German Shepherd), it seems that if professionals are really interested in cleaning up the breed, they should place restrictions on those members of the breed who could contribute to the gene pool. Proposal for discussion: Let there be a certification process that is required for any dog that will be contributing to the gene pool (bred). Before a dog will be certified to breed, it will have to have OFA certification (hips shown to be free of displasia at the age of 2 years), conformation certification, and temperament certification (could be done at conformation or obedience trials). You might also require certification to be free of diseases that affect certain breeds, like eye diseases in German Shepherds. If someone wanted to get a dog of a certain breed (because he likes its looks), but doesn't want to breed it, he could get a registered puppy, but not worry about having it certified to breed (and thereby relinquishing the right to produce registered puppies). He could, of course, produce mixed breed puppies. This would make breeding a more expensive process, and drive up the cost of purebred puppies. It might also cause people to get their pets in the pound more often (good). But it would, in the long term, allow a lot of the genetic defects to be lost from the gene pool and accomplish that which a registry is supposed to accomplish. What do readers think? Please keep in mind that I am talking about DOGS and ONLY DOGS, and would not wish my words to be construed as statements of my political belief. :-) Mary Sue Rowan hpfcla!marysue
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (10/25/84)
Part of the desire of breeders to restrict dog breeeding greatly (as in breeding only perfect, worthwhile animals), derives from a sad fact: the earth is simply awash in unwanted dogs (and some other pet animals as well). It would be far better if many fewer were born, and the if the people who desired ungenetically controlled dogs were able to adopt most of those now unwanted. On the other hand, it is a serious mistake to overcontrol breeding, because the available gene pool will become smaller. Any species with an undiverse gene pool runs much higher risks of being wiped out by an environmental change, or a new type of predator (include bacterial and viral predators!). The safest way to protect the species is to have a considerable pool of uncontrolled bred dogs. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison