Are Breed Standards Good for the Dog?

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Most on here know how I feel about the YTCA Yorkshire Terrier Breed Standard, but I was not aware of how much negativity in general there is toward breed standards in the scientific community. I think a lot of the members here will be just as surprised as I was when I read this. The fact is that is hard to find anything positive written about breed standards froma scientific point of view.

We have always been told that the goal of a responsible breeder is to improve the breed but just the opposite is occurring apparently.

A Brief History of Breed Societies

It is significant to note that the modern concept of "breeds" only developed in the 19th Century. It is an invention, born of the English and Continental upper class, and very much rooted in intellectual elitism. During this period the sciences were formed and acquired their great cultural authority. Major transformations occurred across the Victorian period including the change from "natural philosophy" and "natural history" to "science", the shift from gentlemen and clerical naturalists to, professional "scientists", the development and eventual diffusion of belief in natural laws and ongoing progress, secularization, growing interaction between science, government and industry, the formalization of science education, and a growing internationalism of science. The Victorian age witnessed some of the most fundamental transformations of beliefs about nature and the place of humans in the universe, particularly in regards to man's dominance over nature.

The concept of distinct breeds is less than two hundred years old. The idea was founded on the contradictory premises of preservation and progress. Ancient breeds were "discovered" and preserved, even as modern science was employed to improve the breed.
One author writes:

In the early 1800's, the British, having begun the development of "pure" breeds of livestock through inbreeding, applied the same principle to their dogs. By the 1850's, they were writing Standards and holding exhibitions. When a new "breed" was proposed, the fanciers of that breed wrote the Standard to fit the dogs they themselves owned . As the custom spread to the Continent, influential fanciers collected groups of dogs, described them in a Standard, and proclaimed the "discovery" of an "ancient breed". ("Another View of Livestock Guardian Dog History", Catherine de la Cruz, AKC Gazette 4/95)

Which contrasts nicely with this:

This insistence on absolute breed purity arises from nineteenth-century notions of the "superior strain" which were supposedly exemplified by human aristocracies and thoroughbred horses; this same ideal, pushed to an illogical conclusion on the human plane, resulted in the now discredited 'scientific racism' of the Nazis, who tried through selective human matings to breed an Aryan superman. The idea of the superior strain was that by 'breeding the best to the best,' employing sustained inbreeding and selection for 'superior' qualities, one would develop a bloodline superior in every way to the unrefined, base stock which was the best that nature could produce#46;..Certainly towards the close of the nineteenth century it became embarrassingly obvious that the human aristocracies of Europe were degenerating rapidly under their own version of the 'closed studbook.'" (Purebred Dog Breeds into the Twenty-First Century -- Achieving Genetic Health for Our Dogs, J. Jeffrey Bragg 1996)
Now, less than two hundred years since the emergence of breed societies and breed standards, one will be hard pressed to find a working definition of what a "breed" is. The best, perhaps, was written by Jay L. Lush in The Genetics of Populations:

"A breed is a group of domestic animals, termed such by common consent of the breeders,In short, there is no scientific basis underlying the term "breed". The idea of distinct breeds of domesticated animals, born in the elitism of Victorian England, has been carried forth for two centuries because it serves the use of the breeders of those animals.
The Utility of Breed Standards

Breed standards are seldom based on the interests of the animalsThey are elitist by nature, intended to encourage demand by creating an aura of exclusivity.

There is little question that breed societies have been successful in increasing the monetary value of "pure" blooded animals. In 1996 Thoroughbred horses (As its name implies, it was the first pedigreed, or "thoroughbred" horse, with a studbook first began in 1791) sold for an average of $28,240 in public auctions, and the highest price paid for a weaned foal was $1,400,000, while in 1985 a yearling colt sold for an incredible $13.1 million.

A more important question though is, [B]"Have breed societies, using their standards, been successful in either preserving or improving their breeds[/B]?" If we look at dog breeds, where a great deal of literature on the subject exists, the answer is an unambiguous "No".

The Effects of Breed Standards
Graham Peck writes in "Is Crufts Damaging Our Dogs?":

"Something is going very wrong with many of the recognised dog breeds. In the early part of the 20th century under/over shot jaws and retained testicles were a breeders' main worry in terms of genetic problems. However…in the 1970's…increasing hip dysplasia problems prompted the introduction of a screening programme which continues to this day. Since then hip dysplasia has been joined by an ever-lengthening list of genetic disorders that now blight most purebred dog breeds...[and]...if anything it is inexorably worsening. Why has this happened? Wasn't the purpose of breeding purebred dogs to improve the breed as a whole?...A consequence of...inbreeding is a reduction in the genetic variety due to the often small number of founding individuals used...[I]n a limited population such as a dog breed if closely related individuals are repeatedly mated with each other as the generations pass…the percentage of individuals…carrying…problem genes becomes high enough that most matings will result in offspring with some degree of problem...

"Unfortunately the selection procedure necessary to establish a new breed and that which is necessary to ensure the continuing health and vigour of a breed on a long term basis are quite different.
"The crux of the matter was the failure by the breeding and show community to realise that a variety of key factors were perpetuating inbreeding which in turn markedly increased the chances of inherited disease being manifested."

Bragg writes:

"Modern registries based on a rigidly-closed studbook are throttling the genetic health of all registered…breeds. Genetic impoverishent is now a real and present threat. Many breeds now bear a genetic load of defects which has grown totally unmanageable as their respective gene pools have become more and more narrow through imprudent breeding and selection practices."

Johnathan Smid, B.Sc. of the Department of Biology, University of Ottawa conducted a very enlightening study described in his paper "Increased Mortality in Rhodesian Ridgebacks: The Consequences of Inbreeding Depression". The Rhodesian Ridgeback came to life on paper with the writing of the first breed standard in 1922, a mere 80 years ago. Among other things that Smid's study found,

A dog's length of life is based on their COI (Coefficient of Inbreeding), giving strong support that reduced longevity is caused by inbreeding depression.
An increase in midlife mortality rate in dogs with higher degrees of inbreeding.
An increase in COI over time representing an increase in overall homozygosity.
Increasing homozygosity is creating a significant genetic load in the Rhodesian Ridgeback population.
It is of significance that Smid found that, "Cancer appears to be the number one cause of midlife death and appears to be more frequent as the coefficient of inbreeding increases."

Using regression analysis, Smid demonstrated reduction in longevity related to COI over only six generations!

J.B Armstrong states that the Standard Poodle showed a decline in lifespan of approximately 10 months for every 10% increase in inbreeding in his paper "Inbreeding and Longevity in the Domestic Dog"

Decreased lifespan related to COI is insidious, as it is only apparent after the animal dies. What this means is an apparently healthy animal is an active breeder for some time before any problems become apparent
A growing body of literature strongly suggests breed standards have a deleterious effect on the animals they intend to preserve and improve. This is well enough recognized that efforts are under way to preserve what genetic diversity still exists in some breeds.

Anyone that carefully researches the history and impact of breed standards will be forced to conclude that they have been a failed experiment.

There is clear evidence of significant degradation of specific breeds in as little as 80 years.

Here is the internet link for the entire article:http://www.sojaa.org/alpaca-industry...-standards.php

[sshaw]

Thanks for posting that, I thought it was pretty interesting. I think it has some merit for surely there are some problems that most yorkies have, like tooth decay. Never had one that did not have to go and get there teeth cleaned.

Sue

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Retained baby teeth, luxating patellas, a higher propensity to liver shunt, etc are all breed specific I think.

[sshaw]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

Retained baby teeth, luxating patellas, a higher propensity to liver shunt, etc are all breed specific I think.

Yes, absolutely, but I only mean that for me it has only been the teeth. Quite right about the rest.

Sue

[SnowWa]

It seems that the author (or person who endorsed this article) is a person who raises and sells apacas. There is a meeting coming up regarding whether or not there should be breed standards set for the alpaca, and the writer is obviously against having these standards and is hoping to convince his readers to think the same way.

He quoted a lot of opinions with good documentation and did bring up many good points, but he is trying to further his own point of view ---- to the point of excluding many good reasons for selective breeding and setting breed/species standards. He isn't really representative of any current scientific point of view. Science recognizes both the pros and cons of selective breeding.

He cited many problems found in prebreed dogs to backup his argument against setting standards for alpacas. His main focus was on "inbreeding" as the reason for most breed-selective faults. And this is certainly true. His point that monetary gain often regulates breeding practices is also true.

"Are breed standards good for the dog?"

I have loved and appreciated all the different breeds of dogs all my life. If we want to continue having these different breeds, we have to have and maintain these standards.

Breed standards, in themselves, are not bad for a dog. Most standards address the health of the breed. They mention the physical size, measurements, and appearance of the different breeds, and also state that these dogs should have good muscle tone, good teeth, a good bite, good knees, healthy shiny hair, and other health-related features. Anything that is not healthy is considered a fault and not up to the standard of any breed.

I am in favor of different breeds and having standards for these different breeds. I am not in favor of inbreeding (none of us are), and I am not in favor of developing or even maintaining breeds that are fragile, sickly, and cannot live and enjoy a healthy life.

Carol Jean

[wnalegria]

Originally Posted by SnowWa

It seems that the author (or person who endorsed this article) is a person who raises and sells apacas. There is a meeting coming up regarding whether or not there should be breed standards set for the alpaca, and the writer is obviously against having these standards and is hoping to convince his readers to think the same way.

He quoted a lot of opinions with good documentation and did bring up many good points, but he is trying to further his own point of view ---- to the point of excluding many good reasons for selective breeding and setting breed/species standards. He isn't really representative of any current scientific point of view. Science recognizes both the pros and cons of selective breeding.

He cited many problems found in prebreed dogs to backup his argument against setting standards for alpacas. His main focus was on "inbreeding" as the reason for most breed-selective faults. And this is certainly true. His point that monetary gain often regulates breeding practices is also true.

"Are breed standards good for the dog?"

I have loved and appreciated all the different breeds of dogs all my life. If we want to continue having these different breeds, we have to have and maintain these standards.

Breed standards, in themselves, are not bad for a dog. Most standards address the health of the breed. They mention the physical size, measurements, and appearance of the different breeds, and also state that these dogs should have good muscle tone, good teeth, a good bite, good knees, healthy shiny hair, and other health-related features. Anything that is not healthy is considered a fault and not up to the standard of any breed.

I am in favor of different breeds and having standards for these different breeds. I am not in favor of inbreeding (none of us are), and I am not in favor of developing or even maintaining breeds that are fragile, sickly, and cannot live and enjoy a healthy life.

Carol Jean

Thank you very much for your response. It seems as though the chain is being yanked again. I hope that this is clear so that even those who may have cognitive memory problems like myself can understand. If any breed of dog, cat, bird or fish, any animal, or flower is not bred true and according to a standard you can loose what originally attracted to you it. That means standards. With out the standards all breeds of dogs would end up being looking like each other. I personally do not want a yorkie that looks like a mixed breed. I want to keep the visual, behavioral and physical traits that make them what they are. I think that is why we all chose the breed not because it looks like the neighbors alpaca.

[red98vett]

Originally Posted by wnalegria

Thank you very much for your response. It seems as though the chain is being yanked again. I hope that this is clear so that even those who may have cognitive memory problems like myself can understand. If any breed of dog, cat, bird or fish, any animal, or flower is not bred true and according to a standard you can loose what originally attracted to you it. That means standards. With out the standards all breeds of dogs would end up being looking like each other. I personally do not want a yorkie that looks like a mixed breed. I want to keep the visual, behavioral and physical traits that make them what they are. I think that is why we all chose the breed not because it looks like the neighbors alpaca.

Since you are a breeder I respect your opinion and thank you for sharing it. You worded it very eloguently even if you DO have a disclaimer about cognitive memory problems The chain HAS been getting yanked ALOT lately hasn't it ?

[ChristyE1971]

I just don't understand why is so important for all yorkies to look so much alike. We as humans don't look alike. I think it would be a boring world if we all looked alike. I think that us looking different and having different personalities is what make each one of us special. That goes for yorkies or any other breed of dog. But thats just my opinion which I know don't count for much..lol.

[Gazou]

Standards are very good guidelines for breeders . I wish that more breeders follow them , it could prevent new owners asking if their dogs are purebred or not .

[YorkieRose]

There is little difference in a breeder who disregards the standard and a builder who does not use a blue print.

We have a forum full of members who adore Yorkies, we talk about them all day. If breeders toss out the standard, before long we will be talking about an animal that slightly resembles a Yorkie, acts somewhat like one and where will be alot of posts about "what happened to those REAL Yorkies they used to breed???"

Would you buy a car from a manufacturer that told the employees to just wing it...? You might think that is not important in a dog..BUT to me it is vital that I follow the standard..how else can I produce these darlings we all love so much?

[BamaFan121s]

Come on guys...this is a no win situation. The only way to breed and not to promote "breed standard" is to breed dogs that do not meet the standards, be it wieght, look, genetic defect, whatever. If we practiced it, THAT wouldn't be right either and somebody would be giving us a new lecture. I think we all need to realize that we as owners/breeders/posters whatEVER, are not going to be able to please everybody all of the time--no matter what you think, somebody is always going to find fault over it.

[YorkieRose]

Christy, your opinion counts!
Most of us buy a breed because we love the look, temperment etc..if we didn't care and just wanted a dog..then we would go to the pound and get one...but we love that special Yorkie personality and look.

By following the standard we are still going to get all types of Yorkies..all you have to do is go to a show and you will see a line of dogs, similiar, but also different.
I think it is the temperment we want to keep...I loved my Doxies, BUT they were not anything like a Yorkie in personality.

[hasrv4fun]

How could we show, how would we be judged if we had no Breed Standard ? Just let the judge pick what ever they like on a given day or their friends dog ? ( I am not saying that doesn't happen now but shouldn't ) We must have a superior guide to strive for or just breed mutts and hope you get healthy puppies. Please- that's not a good scheme. Every great piece of architecture had a blue print, this country has a constitution so why not have a standard for our precious Yorkies. Not all meet it and that is why there are show quality and pet quality. You can love either or both but to think of doing this without a standard is Folly.. What size and type dog would we want ? Just my opinion.

[red98vett]

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

There is little difference in a breeder who disregards the standard and a builder who does not use a blue print.

We have a forum full of members who adore Yorkies, we talk about them all day. If breeders toss out the standard, before long we will be talking about an animal that slightly resembles a Yorkie, acts somewhat like one and where will be alot of posts about "what happened to those REAL Yorkies they used to breed???"

Would you buy a car from a manufacturer that told the employees to just wing it...? You might think that is not important in a dog..BUT to me it is vital that I follow the standard..how else can I produce these darlings we all love so much?

NICE analogy ! I liked the car statement and you are so right I do fear there are way too many people out there just winging it ....and we need to encourage breeders such as yourself Pat. If there were more out there like you and many of the members here who breed to Standard - we sure wouldn't be seeing so many health issues and upset new yorkie parents.

There is nothing worse then reading a post from someone who bought from a breeder who just did NOT do their research and thought they could just produce yorkies (with money as their motivation) and seeing the devestating health issues that some of these yorkies have.

[txshopper73]

Originally Posted by wnalegria

Thank you very much for your response. It seems as though the chain is being yanked again. I hope that this is clear so that even those who may have cognitive memory problems like myself can understand. If any breed of dog, cat, bird or fish, any animal, or flower is not bred true and according to a standard you can loose what originally attracted to you it. That means standards. With out the standards all breeds of dogs would end up being looking like each other. I personally do not want a yorkie that looks like a mixed breed. I want to keep the visual, behavioral and physical traits that make them what they are. I think that is why we all chose the breed not because it looks like the neighbors alpaca.

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

Come on guys...this is a no win situation. The only way to breed and not to promote "breed standard" is to breed dogs that do not meet the standards, be it wieght, look, genetic defect, whatever. If we practiced it, THAT wouldn't be right either and somebody would be giving us a new lecture. I think we all need to realize that we as owners/breeders/posters whatEVER, are not going to be able to please everybody all of the time--no matter what you think, somebody is always going to find fault over it.

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

Christy, your opinion counts!
Most of us buy a breed because we love the look, temperment etc..if we didn't care and just wanted a dog..then we would go to the pound and get one...but we love that special Yorkie personality and look.

By following the standard we are still going to get all types of Yorkies..all you have to do is go to a show and you will see a line of dogs, similiar, but also different.
I think it is the temperment we want to keep...I loved my Doxies, BUT they were not anything like a Yorkie in personality.

EXCELLENT posts!