Originally Posted by gemy  Breeding to the standard is always the goal. But how to do that responsibly is the question.
But what if the standard is set in such a way, that it actually breeds in, dogs with health problems at least structurally. I hesitate to mention this, but the BBC special "Pedigree Dogs exposed" published what 4yrs or so ago, albeitly terribly biased did raise some very important issues with the health and the breeding practices and standards for some breeds.
It got so much press and exposure, that The Kennel Club, undertook a review of all Breed standards, and did "issue" changes to the standards for some breeds. Which is almost un-heard of for a registry to do; as it has always rested with the National Clubs to change breed standards.
Overall you do need gene diversity, that does produce dogs with-in the standard. For otherwise the gene pool narrows, and you find yourself (breeding wise) in a cul-de-sac.
I believe here in North America, although this is a very very unpopular view, with little support; that all Championships earned prior to two years old are provisional, and only finally granted after all health tests that can be done are done, and posted on the applicable health databases.
In the beginning as long as you do and post the health results, then good breeders can scruntinize them, along with the pedigree information, and can make much better informed decisions.
Eventually, when we get more and more genetic tests available to us as breeders, the health screenings for many breeds will become a moot point, if only clear to clear is bred. But there is more than just health screenings, there is temperament, attitude, coat, drive, and a whole host of breeding decisions that likely won't be able to be fixed on a particular genetic marker or two.
These threads are so very informative! |