Kate McMillan who is possibly the best Canadian blogger on the right these days is a woman who I have a great deal of fondness for despite having never met her. She and I share similar political views, both are motorcycle riders (although I sold my bike two years ago). drive trucks and love dogs and rural life. Kate’s dogged (no pun intended) coverage of the recent Climategate affair which I wrote about on Tuesday deserves the type of award they used to give to reporters but then again Kate is not a reporter (and is proud of that)
Kate recently had an op-ed piece in the National Post regarding a conflict that is brewing (or already exists) between breeders of purebred dogs and some veterinarians. The crux of it (as I understand it) is that certain veterinarians are objecting to the practice of tail docking and ear cropping which is an important feature of some purebred dogs (Doberman Pinscher for example). If I understand it correctly many vets now refuse to perform these minor “surgeries” whilst still advocating spaying and neutering as well as “declawing kittens for profit”.
The crux of Kate’s argument is that veterinarians have no business sticking their nose into the world of dog breeding to the point of advocating for legislation to restrict certain elements of dog breeding they find objectionable. As someone who is no fan of state expansion into our lives I agree with her wholeheartedly. If veterinarians don’t want to perform certain procedures they should simply refuse and let other veterinarians who want to charge a premium for them have that option – a government edict would have the effect of forcing all veterinarians to conform thus taking choice away from breeders, vets and pet owners.
The world of dog ownership is becoming increasingly regulated these days many countries have banned certain breeds outright because they are considered dangerous. Other nations have banned or are seeking to ban certain dog sports that focus on guard dog activities (Schutzhund, French Ring Sport and KNPV). Dogs are given very little room for error in most modern societies either. If we lose our temper we might face some sort of censure either legally or via peer pressure however dogs get no second chances. Even what any dog behaviorist would count as disciplinary biting on the part of a dog (where the skin is not broken) will usually result in the dogs immediate seizure from its owner and destruction by the state.
Thus it is absolutely right for breeders like Kate to be concerned about yet another advocacy group trying to insert legislation into the life of dogs and their owners. However (you knew there was a however coming, right?) there is an issue that needs to be discussed when it relates to purebred dogs. In fact it is a debate that has been occurring for a number of years in the dog community and appears to be reaching a boiling point. In Kate’s op-ed piece she mentions the following:
Purebreds (of all species) carry health risks derived from their genetic founding fathers. Breeds weren’t created to compile longevity records, but to perform tasks for mankind — to dispatch vermin, predators, and enemy barbarians, locate game, retrieve over water, to pull sleds, or warm a dowager’s bed on a cold winter night. And so, they remain imperfect.
The Borzoi is living history of czarist Russia, the giant Mastiff a modern echo of ancient Rome — but they suffer high rates of bloat. Poster artists recruited the English bulldog as a symbol of resolve in World War II, but the massive head that encouraged a nation results in caesarian sections. The Dalmatian’s spots are beloved of Disney and children everywhere, but the genetics that create them can result in deafness. The merry spaniel can wag an undocked tail to bloody pulp, but no one hunts woodcock in these parts. Better no cocker, they say, than no tail.
Kate is being truthful here but there is more to the story. Certain dogs breeds do have genetic traits that lead to health issues that is true. But the purebred dogs as they exist today are very different (in some cases extremely different) than the same purebred dogs from 50-100 years ago.
Why? Because of the nature of dog shows and breed standards. You see when a dog is shown to its “championship” it doesn’t mean (as a lot of lay people assume) that it has won some great obedience competition or has performed a certain number of tasks better than other dogs. The show champion dog is simply the one who has been picked by a judge to conform most closely to the “breed standard”. The breed standard being a set of rules outlined by national and international organizations that define exactly what a dog of a certain breed should look like. This is on the surface a very good thing because you should have a set of rules that determine what differentiates a Beagle from a Beauceron and when breeders conform to those standards it allows the dog buying public to make well informed decisions and to not pay outrageous amounts of money for a dog that isn’t really the breed it was supposed to be.
Yet the breed standards that some breeds are held accountable to these days have not been helpful to the breeds and you can make a strong argument that they are causing great damage to certain breeds. Why? Because there has been a gradual evolution towards certain exaggerated features in these dogs that have nothing to do with the purpose of the breed as it was originally founded. A perfect example? The German Shepherd Dog.
Back in the late 90’s when our first Belgian Tervuren was still young (and still living – he died of cancer in 2003 at only age 5) we were looking for an activity to do with him. Something that would be a good outlet for his energy but that also suited the breed.
After some research (we had the Internet back in the 90’s for all you young’uns reading this) we discovered Schutzhund.
Schutzhund is a dog sport that originated in Germany. The name translates to “protection dog” and the sport was developed as a way to test German Shepherd dogs for suitability in police work. Hence the sport requires dogs to achieve proficiency in tracking, obedience and above all protection (i.e. biting criminals).
Our dog being a purebred Belgian Shepherd we figured he would be well suited to this type of activity. And while he clearly enjoyed the sport and seemed to have great fun while partaking it became abundantly clear from the get-go that he was never going to be a proficient Schutz-hund.
Why? He came from “showlines”
Most people who have a dog (and obviously people who don’t) aren’t familiar with the terms “showlines” or “working lines” when it comes to dogs. The titles are self explanatory but in the interest of being overly long winded let me elaborate.
A show line dog is one that is bred purely for display in the show ring. You know those dog shows you see on TV like the Westminster Kennel Club etc.? Those dogs are showline dogs. They as I mentioned earlier are bred to conform to the breed standard and are awarded championships based on that alone. In other words they are bred to compete and win beauty contests and nothing else.
A dog from working lines conversely is not built for showing but to do actual work, usually the work the breed was originally conceived for.
When we were told at our Schutzhund club that our dog probably wasn’t going to be a good schutzhund dog because he came from “showlines” I was confused. What difference did it make? A shepherd is a shepherd, a Doberman is a Doberman why would two dogs of the same breed be so dramatically different in behaviour - especially in breeds that were originated for specific types of behaviour?
The answer: dogs bred for show are only bred for a certain “look” all other traits are irrelevant.
This was the source of some consternation to me for a while but it all became crystal clear when we attended a club competition as spectators some weeks later (our dog was not nearly ready for competition - and never would be). Their were tons of people and of course tons of dogs. Immediately there were some differences that jumped out at me. For one a lot of the dogs especially the Rottweilers and Dobermans seemed to be a little bit on the small side. But this wasn’t necessarily a huge difference between show and work dogs in my mind. Then I spotted a man taking a dog out of the back of his truck.
The dog was obviously a shepherd of some sort but I couldn’t quite identify what breed. It looked mostly like a German Shepherd but it was not like any German Shepherd I had ever seen before. For one it wasn’t the traditional black and tan color with the black “saddle” that most German Shepherds have. This dog was more of a smoky grey colour. it looked like it had rolled in soot. The dog actually looked scruffy and mangy – like a junkyard dog. And as the handler began walking the dog toward the field another difference jumped out. This dog had a different shape. The back was hardly sloped at all. It was almost square. This was a radical departure from most German Shepherds I had seen at dog shows whose backs always had this odd downward slope that looked unnatural to me. Aside from that this dog’s eyes had a fierce wolf-like intensity about him.
So I asked one of our club members what kind of dog it was. “A German Shepherd” I was told. “Really? It doesn’t look like any German Shepherd I’ve ever seen”
“Oh it’s from East German stock. They weren’t breeding for show behind the Iron Curtain it was only for work.”
I have tried to find a picture of a dog that looked like the one I saw that day and the one on the left is the closest I have ever come to finding one on-line.
This day was the beginning of a revelation for me and as we continued to work with our own dog the differences between show lines and dogs bred for work became more stark. The most obvious one was temperament. The working line dogs of all breeds were high energy dogs that never seemed to turn off. Our dog was laid back and relaxed (almost all the time).
This is not a bad thing if you just want a pet. In fact most working line dogs make lousy house pets. There’s a reason why Hollywood dog trainers scour animal shelters for dogs to use. Typically they have been abandoned by owners who selected a dog that turned out to be a true representative of the breed and needed to work. Dogs that need to work and don’t get an outlet will create those outlets. Usually in behavioral problems.
But if the difference between show and working dogs were only temperament that wouldn’t be a big problem. Those who wanted their dogs for work could buy working line dogs and those who wanted a good pet could buy show lines right?
Generally yes. But there is another more serious problem. Lets go back to the German Shepherd Dog. Remember how I said that he working line shepherd from East German Stock had a back that didn’t seem that sloped? Well there is a reason for that. There are a large number of herding breeds out there. None of them except the German Shepherd have this feature because structurally it doesn’t help a herding dog if it needs to perform quick turns. So why do German Shepherd Dogs have that pronounced back angularity? Because somewhere along the line someone decided that a dog with an angular back looked better at a “trot” in the show ring. Suddenly dogs with angular backs were winning more championships and breeders began responding. And the results were dramatic.

On the left is an American/Canadian show shepherd on the right is a working line shepherd. Notice the difference? Now partially the dog on the left looks so extremely sloped because it is in a “show stance” but go to any dog show and watch most of the German Shepherds walking around outside the ring and you will still notice a pronounced slope to much of their backs. This is not what the original German Shepherd dogs looked like. They looked a lot more like the dog on the right.
So it is not quite fair for breeders of show dogs to flatly state that they are preserving the dog breeds are they were meant to be and the health problems are just a sad side effect. The British Bulldog as we know it today couldn’t have survived without modern medical science. There were no Cesarean sections for dogs 100 years ago. So to hold this dog up as an example of a breed that was bred to serve man but not to compile longevity records is ridiculous. There is a reason that someone decided to create an Olde English Bulldogge and it was a reaction to the extremes that British Bulldogs had begun to reach. They had breathing problems. Their heads were so large they couldn’t be born naturally and the males were not interested in mating. Does that sound like a breed that would have arisen at any time before WWII? David Leavitt who created the Olde English Bulldogge breed didn’t think so:
My dogs can now breath. They will never be like hounds, able to run for miles during the hottest weather of summer, but they’re three times better than the restricted modern Bulldog. Cesarean section births are not necessary. Artificial insemination, due to male ineptness and lack of drive, has been replaced by natural ties. Life span in over eleven years. All breeding stock have had hip x-rays. No dog with bad hips is bred. I’m now achieving my goal of producing a Bulldog with the health and temperament to be able to serve people, instead of forcing people to serve him.
There are several breeds of dog that are still used purely for work that are rarely seen in dog shows. For a long while breeders of Border Collies tried to resist having the dog recognized by the various kennel clubs due to fear that it would lead to diminished working capacity. The dog is now present on the show circuit and differences in structure are starting to become apparent. The Dutch Shepherd which is a relative of the German Shepherd Dog and Belgian Shepherd is not recognized by the AKC and both breeders and owners of this dog are almost universally happy about that. In fact Dutch Shepherds are often bred to certain other breeds (such as the Belgian Malinois – a variety of Belgian Shepherd) to increase the health and working ability of the line – a positive side note is that it keeps the breed from being recognized because no cross-breeding is allowed in show dogs. The dogs that run the Iditarod race in Alaska are referred to as “Alaskan Huskies” and are also not recognized as an official breed because they are not purebred but are bred for one thing: to race in harsh conditions. Thus the main focus is on health and the ability of the dog to run. The dogs are mostly Husky but have often some hound or other breed in their lineage.
Purebred dogs are a wonderful example of our ability to create traits and characteristics in an animal to serve a certain purpose. The Irish Wolfhound had a different purpose than the Shetland Sheepdog hence the two breeds look different despite both being dogs.

However the current focus on conformation to standard has eroded many characteristics of many dogs so that not only are they unfit for their original task but are structurally unsound as well.
This is not something that is difficult to correct however it does require an admission from purebred breeders who breed for conformation that their breed standards need to be reevaluated. Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be a dialogue that most kennel clubs are interested in having.
Some links:
Balance Problems in the American Show Shepherd
Working vs Show Lines
Popularity: 20% [?]