25 Oct Breeding Confusion

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 repeatedlyimplores 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