The Think Tank: Evolution
Is it realistic to think we can or should freeze our breeds in time?
By Amanda Kelly
Originally published in Dogs In Review magazine (U.S.A.) in 2006. All rights reserved. This text may not be reproduced without the express, written consent of the author.
When I proposed this topic several months ago I had a clear vision of how this article would go.
Modern breeders have always operated under the principle of breed preservation. We work hard to keep the traits most valued in working dogs. Isn’t that, after all, the purpose of breeding dogs?
As I sit here today, however, my conviction seems to have faltered slightly. The above still makes sense, and yet a compelling argument can be made for the need to adapt – to change our dogs, however slightly, to fit the wants and needs of modern North American society.
Dogs were, after all, domesticated by man and diversified according to the needs of man. Those needs have changed in modern times. Is it incumbent upon us as breeders to follow suit and produce dogs that are suited to the needs of today? Does this explain the entrance of more complacent temperaments and the rise of breeds like the Labradoodle (whose serious breeders, by the way, would do well to consider a name change).
Certainly, this topic is multi-faceted and much too complicated to be encapsulated easily into a single column. And yet, even limited discussion has merit if for it succeeds in provoking further thought. So, rather than tackle this question alone, I decided to bring in a few reinforcements! The result was the formation of a ‘Canine Think-tank’ of sorts, and everyone had an opinion on this topic. So let’s dive right in…
Breed Standards
When discussing categorizations of our breeds, the most logical place to start seems to be the breed standard. It is, after all, the blueprint and theoretically sets out the perfect example of a given breed. The properties it describes usually have deep historical roots and it most certainly hails the preservation of a breed's ability to perform its "original function" as its raison d'etre. But is ‘original function’ always so clear cut? And who says that the function a breed used to perform is more important than the function it performs today?
“Although standards are the blueprint of any breed,” says CKC/AKC judge Dr. Michael Woods, “they are blueprints that are constantly changing either in their interpretation or through the actual process of revision. That is why there are few, if any, standards existent today that are exactly the same as the original standard written for the breed.
Mankind has, in fact, always changed canines to fit his/her needs as companion, herd or personal protector, game finder and retriever, draught animal or whatever function human beings considered necessary and important. As the lives of human beings have changed and evolved, so has the role of the dog. I really believe that this evolution is necessary if these breeds are to continue to be viable and not simply exist as minute populations perpetuated by idiosyncratic breeders as some type of evolutionary anomaly.”
What is original function?
As Michael points out, breed function has been quite fluid for many dogs over time. In some cases, this change in function is historical (several of the Terrier breeds, for example, were forced to adapt to different tasks -- however subtle the change -- following the banning of blood sports).
For others, the change may be more recent as our society moves toward a singular role for the dog as canine companion.
A simple and obvious point, it’s true, but one that introduces still more questions. Which of the functions in a breeds history, for instance, is ‘most’ important – the very first one? The one the breed performed for the longest period? The one it is performing today? Upon which should the perfect dog be modeled? Even in breeds where a singular “original function” is easily identified, unless dogs are currently being used in a working capacity, is it realistic to think we can or should freeze frame a breed in history?
“Damned right,” is the answer quickly supplied by Carelian Bear Dog enthusiast Dawne Deeley. Dawne spearheaded efforts to have the breed recognized in Canada and has spent a good deal of time in her breed’s homeland observing them at work.
“To change the temperament, character or appearance of a working breed is, in my mind, a display of the ultimate in human arrogance. As breeders in the "New World", what right do we have to erase or minimize carefully preserved traits and unique qualities that may have taken centuries to hone? What conceit!”
Dawne also cautions against the narrow-world view of assuming that the AKC/North American experience of a breed is completely accurate. “Likely it will come as a rude shock to many, but in their homelands Bear Dogs and Laikas still hunt, Owtcharkas still guard, Sheepdog breeds still live with their flocks. Take a look at the number of FCI standards which stipulate the necessity of Working Trials for breed Champion status, or the number of countries who insist on 'proof of working aptitude' in their native dogs before the gene pool may be perpetuated.
I'm afraid I'll never understand the mentality of buyer/breeder/owners who have a 'purpose' in one hand, a selection of appropriate breeds in the other, yet insist on shoehorning an absolutely unsuitable variety into the job description, simply to have something 'different'. At best you have an unequal partnership - at worst, a self-perpetuating travesty.”
Originally published in Dogs In Review magazine (U.S.A.) in 2006. All rights reserved. This text may not be reproduced without the express, written consent of the author.
When I proposed this topic several months ago I had a clear vision of how this article would go.
Modern breeders have always operated under the principle of breed preservation. We work hard to keep the traits most valued in working dogs. Isn’t that, after all, the purpose of breeding dogs?
As I sit here today, however, my conviction seems to have faltered slightly. The above still makes sense, and yet a compelling argument can be made for the need to adapt – to change our dogs, however slightly, to fit the wants and needs of modern North American society.
Dogs were, after all, domesticated by man and diversified according to the needs of man. Those needs have changed in modern times. Is it incumbent upon us as breeders to follow suit and produce dogs that are suited to the needs of today? Does this explain the entrance of more complacent temperaments and the rise of breeds like the Labradoodle (whose serious breeders, by the way, would do well to consider a name change).
Certainly, this topic is multi-faceted and much too complicated to be encapsulated easily into a single column. And yet, even limited discussion has merit if for it succeeds in provoking further thought. So, rather than tackle this question alone, I decided to bring in a few reinforcements! The result was the formation of a ‘Canine Think-tank’ of sorts, and everyone had an opinion on this topic. So let’s dive right in…
Breed Standards
When discussing categorizations of our breeds, the most logical place to start seems to be the breed standard. It is, after all, the blueprint and theoretically sets out the perfect example of a given breed. The properties it describes usually have deep historical roots and it most certainly hails the preservation of a breed's ability to perform its "original function" as its raison d'etre. But is ‘original function’ always so clear cut? And who says that the function a breed used to perform is more important than the function it performs today?
“Although standards are the blueprint of any breed,” says CKC/AKC judge Dr. Michael Woods, “they are blueprints that are constantly changing either in their interpretation or through the actual process of revision. That is why there are few, if any, standards existent today that are exactly the same as the original standard written for the breed.
Mankind has, in fact, always changed canines to fit his/her needs as companion, herd or personal protector, game finder and retriever, draught animal or whatever function human beings considered necessary and important. As the lives of human beings have changed and evolved, so has the role of the dog. I really believe that this evolution is necessary if these breeds are to continue to be viable and not simply exist as minute populations perpetuated by idiosyncratic breeders as some type of evolutionary anomaly.”
What is original function?
As Michael points out, breed function has been quite fluid for many dogs over time. In some cases, this change in function is historical (several of the Terrier breeds, for example, were forced to adapt to different tasks -- however subtle the change -- following the banning of blood sports).
For others, the change may be more recent as our society moves toward a singular role for the dog as canine companion.
A simple and obvious point, it’s true, but one that introduces still more questions. Which of the functions in a breeds history, for instance, is ‘most’ important – the very first one? The one the breed performed for the longest period? The one it is performing today? Upon which should the perfect dog be modeled? Even in breeds where a singular “original function” is easily identified, unless dogs are currently being used in a working capacity, is it realistic to think we can or should freeze frame a breed in history?
“Damned right,” is the answer quickly supplied by Carelian Bear Dog enthusiast Dawne Deeley. Dawne spearheaded efforts to have the breed recognized in Canada and has spent a good deal of time in her breed’s homeland observing them at work.
“To change the temperament, character or appearance of a working breed is, in my mind, a display of the ultimate in human arrogance. As breeders in the "New World", what right do we have to erase or minimize carefully preserved traits and unique qualities that may have taken centuries to hone? What conceit!”
Dawne also cautions against the narrow-world view of assuming that the AKC/North American experience of a breed is completely accurate. “Likely it will come as a rude shock to many, but in their homelands Bear Dogs and Laikas still hunt, Owtcharkas still guard, Sheepdog breeds still live with their flocks. Take a look at the number of FCI standards which stipulate the necessity of Working Trials for breed Champion status, or the number of countries who insist on 'proof of working aptitude' in their native dogs before the gene pool may be perpetuated.
I'm afraid I'll never understand the mentality of buyer/breeder/owners who have a 'purpose' in one hand, a selection of appropriate breeds in the other, yet insist on shoehorning an absolutely unsuitable variety into the job description, simply to have something 'different'. At best you have an unequal partnership - at worst, a self-perpetuating travesty.”
|
The centre of the storm -- Temperament And herein lies the potential for problems. For many breeds, the gradual switch from working dog to pet hasn’t offered many conflicts. The Golden Retriever, for example, is generally as well-suited to a singular role as companion as it is any sporting function. But what about the breeds for whom such a transition is not as easily accomplished? Do we as responsible breeders need to consider whether preserving our 'snapshot in time' is realistic, or should we be working to update our idea of what "ideal" really is? Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of temperament. In a culture of BSL, should it be acceptable, for example, for the Rottweiler standard to state that an "aggressive or belligerent attitude toward other dogs" is acceptable? “Such a dilemma,” says prominent CKC judge Virginia Lyne, “political correctness or the breeder’s passion for the protective quality of the Fila Braseilero! Certainly, breeders and judges must maintain the breed's essence, its integrity. But, there is no question that the political incorrectness of the original purpose of a breed for blood sports, fighting and similar tasks cannot, in the 21st Century, be acceptable to the survival of the breed. If we are to have a hope of preventing the Animal Rightists from winning the game, we must become more in tune with the realities of temperament and purpose in this Century.” |
Where Do You Fit?
Whether you regard it as evolution or adaptation, breeders owe it to their breeds to look critically at their programs and their breed as a whole. My suggestion? Circle the wagons in your breed and have a very real, very frank discussion about exactly what the essence of your breed is. Here are a few questions to ponder:
Keep an open mind! This is a complex issue with valid points on both sides. |
Dorothy Kendall (Orlane Lhasa Apsos) agrees, saying “A breed standard that calls for aggressiveness or belligerent attitudes toward other dogs’ may be going a bit far -- even for a tough working/guard dog. That should have been changed or removed earlier in my opinion, as I don’t think it lends anything to the natural selection of quality animals and their ability to be watchdogs, guard dogs, etc.”
She recognizes, however, that these issues are not limited only to the more obvious traits, like aggression. Many breeds, like the Akita, Rhodesian Ridgeback and Manchester Terrier, for example, have breed standards that call for a temperament that is reserved or wary with strangers. But, while that resolute character undoubtedly served them well in the past as they faced down bears, lions, and hordes of vicious rats, is it a characteristic to be lauded and preserved in today’s society, where friendliness and bidability seem to be valued above all else?
“Temperament is always important, second only to health issues,” Dorothy says, “but what is good temperament? Do we want dogs that run up and jump on strangers or that will go with anyone anywhere?
The Lhasa Standard asks for a temperament that is “chary of strangers” … and I like that. That doesn’t give the breeder the option to have dogs that bite, growl or attack strangers – but does differentiate between owners and strangers.”
Dorothy also points out that, even among those who agree that breeds must evolve to meet new demands, there is indecision about where exactly the line is drawn. “Would we breed dogs without undercoat so they wouldn’t shed? Breed all dogs down to 35 lbs. or less to make carrying them around easier? Where does it end? Who is to say which characteristics have no purpose today?”
Is There a Simple Answer?
The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. While everyone seems to agree that aggression and belligerence have no place in the modern dog – you would be hard-pressed to convince most breeders that the personality of the Golden Retriever should be instilled across the board. In fact, the disparity of views can be quite marked – especially between those advocating for preservation of purpose in the past and those wishing to adapt to a purpose (i.e., companion) in the present.
For some, in the end it is it is a black and white issue. Dawne Deeley, for example, remarks that “having spent time in the field with working Bear Dogs, I can honestly say I would rather the Carelian become extinct than to see this proud and peerless hunter compromised into a black and white dullard or performing clown.”
For others, like Sylvia Hammarstrom (Skansen Giant Schnauzers), it is a matter of necessity, “Temperaments should be geared toward modern lifestyles. We don’t need as protective a dog today, some breeds are unacceptable because of their overprotective behaviour.”
And for still others it is a matter of balance.
Regardless of which side of the fence you land on, I’m sure you will agree with Christine Heartz’s (Chriscendo Pomeranians) observation that in all things – even in change -- “the essence of each breed must always be held in the highest regard, for without it, you just have another dog.” Not an answer to our original question, I know – but certainly enough to get conversations rolling in your breed.
____________________________
Amanda Kelly is an award-winning dog writer from Halifax, Nova Scotia. Along with her mother, Wendy, Amanda breeds top-winning Toy Manchester Terriers under the Fwaggle prefix. She is currently Editor of Canine Review, Canada's oldest independent dog magazine.
She recognizes, however, that these issues are not limited only to the more obvious traits, like aggression. Many breeds, like the Akita, Rhodesian Ridgeback and Manchester Terrier, for example, have breed standards that call for a temperament that is reserved or wary with strangers. But, while that resolute character undoubtedly served them well in the past as they faced down bears, lions, and hordes of vicious rats, is it a characteristic to be lauded and preserved in today’s society, where friendliness and bidability seem to be valued above all else?
“Temperament is always important, second only to health issues,” Dorothy says, “but what is good temperament? Do we want dogs that run up and jump on strangers or that will go with anyone anywhere?
The Lhasa Standard asks for a temperament that is “chary of strangers” … and I like that. That doesn’t give the breeder the option to have dogs that bite, growl or attack strangers – but does differentiate between owners and strangers.”
Dorothy also points out that, even among those who agree that breeds must evolve to meet new demands, there is indecision about where exactly the line is drawn. “Would we breed dogs without undercoat so they wouldn’t shed? Breed all dogs down to 35 lbs. or less to make carrying them around easier? Where does it end? Who is to say which characteristics have no purpose today?”
Is There a Simple Answer?
The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. While everyone seems to agree that aggression and belligerence have no place in the modern dog – you would be hard-pressed to convince most breeders that the personality of the Golden Retriever should be instilled across the board. In fact, the disparity of views can be quite marked – especially between those advocating for preservation of purpose in the past and those wishing to adapt to a purpose (i.e., companion) in the present.
For some, in the end it is it is a black and white issue. Dawne Deeley, for example, remarks that “having spent time in the field with working Bear Dogs, I can honestly say I would rather the Carelian become extinct than to see this proud and peerless hunter compromised into a black and white dullard or performing clown.”
For others, like Sylvia Hammarstrom (Skansen Giant Schnauzers), it is a matter of necessity, “Temperaments should be geared toward modern lifestyles. We don’t need as protective a dog today, some breeds are unacceptable because of their overprotective behaviour.”
And for still others it is a matter of balance.
Regardless of which side of the fence you land on, I’m sure you will agree with Christine Heartz’s (Chriscendo Pomeranians) observation that in all things – even in change -- “the essence of each breed must always be held in the highest regard, for without it, you just have another dog.” Not an answer to our original question, I know – but certainly enough to get conversations rolling in your breed.
____________________________
Amanda Kelly is an award-winning dog writer from Halifax, Nova Scotia. Along with her mother, Wendy, Amanda breeds top-winning Toy Manchester Terriers under the Fwaggle prefix. She is currently Editor of Canine Review, Canada's oldest independent dog magazine.