Breeding dogs for "modern" activities?

Question

In the void created by technology, many breeds of dogs no longer perform their original function. Some have mentioned recently that many breeds have found a new niche in "modern" activities -- agility, obedience trials, therapy work, flyball, dock diving, etc.

Do you think it is acceptable to breed dogs to excel at these modern activities, despite the fact that they may have nothing to do with the dog's original function?

Example 1: Breeding a line of "agility" Border Collies, or "obedience" Belgian Tervuren.

Example 2: Crossing Border Collies and Border Terriers to get a "better" Flyball dog.

Example 3: Breeding two Labradors with excellent Guide Dog potential, even if they are not structurally sound.

Example 4: Breeding Dachshunds who win Weenie Dog Races, or Chinese Cresteds in order to get your next "World's Ugliest Dog" winner.

Is there a line to be drawn here, somewhere? Or is all of this okay, since the dogs are performing a function?

Answer 1

Well, my personal "law of breeding" states that in order for a dog to be bred he/she needs to pass the TPR test.

T - Tested....any dog who is to be bred should be health tested (this might be the first road block for some of the examples you gave)

P - Proven...yup, I'm just fine with a BC being proven in the Agility ring rather than among a flock of sheep or a Lab being a proven service dog rather than a hunt test champ.  I don't see any need for there to be a change in the breed for most of this to occur.  The reason BC's are used for agility is because they qualities they have in order to be good herders also makes them good at an agility course.  I also do not find "County Fair" type competitions to be a legitimate way of proofing.  

R - Responsible...responsible breeding, to me, includes only breeding sound dogs at a responsible frequency, etc.  

An unsound dog would make a crappy service dog just the same as he would make a crappy retriever and I don't find the "World's Ugliest Dog" to be a function (and I think you'd be hard pressed to find such a dog to breed who's passing health tests with flying colors).  If a Doxie was winning Weenie Dog races and his pedigree was free of back problems...perhaps it's not the worst thing in the world.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....until the pet over-population problem is fixed, I will not put my stamp of approval on the purposeful breeding of any dogs who are not of the same breed.

That's my "line", and I'm sticking to it.  :o)

Answer 2

I don't have a problem with breeding for a particular function - if there is not already a breed that can do that job (unlikely with around 400 breeds to choose from)   but it has to be remembered that not all dogs will make the grade and homes need to be found for those that don't.

1. Agility Border Collies - Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm ,, many of them are already bordering on the manic, can't see many pet homes who could deal with even more hyper examples.

Obedience Tervs - can't see a problem.

2. Nope - not a good mix - can't see why they should be better Flyballs dogs anyway, surely it depends on character as much as anything. More understandable to breed from 2 mutts who show promise at Flyball.

3. No dog should be bred from if it isn't structurally sound. Blind people don't want to have to carry their dogs home!

4. Doesn't bear contemplating - I refuse to even think about that!

Answer 3

I don't have a problem with breeding a line of dogs for a specific purpose but some of your examples would not be what I would consider good breeding practices.  Structurally unsound labs for example don't have good guide dog potential because if they develop hip dysplasia or joint problems, they won't be able to adequately perform their function.  

But breeding a line of agility border collies doesn't seem out of line to me and consistent with modern uses for certain dogs.

The other examples to me seem questionable.

Answer 4

Hard question--

Yes, I think its acceptable to breed dogs that excel at activities beyond their historical function... BUT... I believe it has to be done with an eye towards retaining their historical function AND I believe there should always be some people in the breed who breed ONLY to retain their historical function.

Somehow I got into breeding Bernese because I wanted one as a working dog.. and became impressed by the fact I'd found one that is structurally superior to most of the dogs in the ring.  I felt it would be a waste not to breed her although I didn't buy her with the intention of ever breeding her.  --  My Bernese are capable of performing their historical duties... yet, I'm breeding them to work as Service Dogs... and in selecting the pups I'm going to work with I'm selecting for more than just their ability to pull a cart and guard a farm, I'm selecting for an affinity towards strangers (not historically correct) for retrieving ability (NOT historically correct) and for trainability.  I'm told my Bernese are a bit more "up" in attitude than normal... and that the line I started with historically has "busy" Bernese.  (I find it interesting that after 2 years of looking for the "right" Bernese I somehow stumbled into just what I wanted without knowing they are a bit of an oddity).

1. I have no issues with this type of breeding as long as the dog fulfills other areas of the breed's historical purpose.  I don't see "agility" or "obedience" as being that far off the historical purpose... in fact I see them as being a mere part of the historical purpose.  Now, *I* would think it would be a good thing if they also tested for herding instinct before breeding these specialist dogs.

2. Again, I have no issue with this.  I see it as no different from the creation of any other breed 100 years ago for the "sport" of hunting.

3. Not structurally sound I have a HUGE issue with!  Who cares about the brains and ability if the body is prone to failure!  

4. I have an issue with breeding for "World's Ugliest Dog" since so many of them seem to have health issues .. especially with their heads/jaws/eyes.

Edit: I'd like to add some commentary on #2.  If the breeders (and I mean ANY breeders) are following responsible breeding practices-- getting all health testing done, culling by  selling pups that aren't fulfilling exactly what is desired for flyball on spay/neuter contracts and have a mandatory "return to breeder" clause in case the pup needs rehoming *I* personally have no issue with it.  I don't see it as any different from Louis Doberman's desire to create his breed.

Answer 5

I don't think there is anything wrong with breeding dogs for agility or obedience or for guide dogs. Those things are no worse than dog shows.

Breeding dachshunds for racing? That is not cool. They will probably end up just as abused as the racing greyhounds. Plus a lot of those weenie dog races are held at greyhound race tracks. They rake in more money to support the tracks and so more greyhounds suffer.

I think there are enough ugly dogs in the world. Breeding more just to win contests is dumb.  

Answer 6

I have no problem with breeding for modern activites, like example 1.  Breeding a line of "agility" BC's or "obedience" Belgiums

I do have a problem with breeding crossbreeds for flyball, ie: the border jack or the border border.  My issue is this are usually very high drive dogs and what happens to pups that don't make it, they wouldn't be able to go to just any home.

I do have a problem with breeding any dogs that are not structurally sounds.  If they're not sound, then can't work.

Example 3:  Dachshunds do not get breed for Weenie Dog Races.  This is really not a popular sport among dachshund owners.  I don't have a problem with breeding dachshunds who are excellant hunters, structurally sound and biddable.  

I also have a problem with dogs being bred to be purposely ugly.

Answer 7

This is an excellent question.

I haven't really thought about this before. I'm a bit split; I believe dog's original functions should be preserved, but then there's also not many outlets for the original function of some breeds.

My breed doesn't have a "job" really, they were bred for companion dogs. I have no problems with people breeding papillons with agility in mind (though I believe they should still show in conformation as well and have a high-quality dog that excels in both, after all, the physical features are the namesake of the papillon).

Example 2, I don't believe mutts should be purposely bred, there may be exceptions few and far between, but this isn't an exception.

As far as example 3, if the labs aren't structurally sound, they wouldn't be bred for guide dog potential. I've been a puppy raiser for a specialty dog organization, we got a dog back to keep as a pet because it wasn't structurally sound, she had mild hip dysplasia.

Example 4 I feel is comprising the dog breed completely. Breeding for anti-conformation is ridiculous.

There's also a subject i hope Greekman addresses if he answers, about how herding breeds like GSD and Belgian Malinois relate to protection work. Is it the same drive, or is if different breeding?

.

Answer 8

I'm kind of torn. In some cases I do think that some breeds original purposes can no longer be fullfilled safely. For example the many bull baiting breeds. I can understand these dogs being bred for purposes that better suit our modern society. However for breeds that are bred for activities that are still acceptable its another story altogether. I feel these breeds should be bred to retain the drive and instinct that they where ment to have. I feel that it is a breeders reponsibility.

1.I know with my herding breeds I will only purchase from a breeder who not only strives to meet conformation standards and titles but who also titles her dogs in herding, or at least works them in it. I feel the two should go hand in hand. I believe that things like agility, flyball, and the like are great ways for owners to use the dogs natural drive, to form a bond, teach obediance, and exercise their dogs. I think these sports are about skill. I would be more impressed by someone who worked hard to train a breed that may or may not be naturally gifted at agility or obediance. Than someone who bred a genetic coctail that thrives at it.

2. Mixed breeds should almost never be bred. I feel we should use the best specimens of the breds we already have to compete.

3. Guide dogs should be bred to standard or at least sound otherwise the money and time spent on training them would be futile.

4. Wrong. These are existing breeds which should be bred to standard. Intentionally breeding warped versions of the bred is irresponsible.

The breeder needs to draw the line. They need to breed to their breeds standard with its instincts intact. Regardless of currant demands for ugly, mixed, or unsound dogs. If people choose to compete in these events with the resulting offspring fine

Answer 9

First, I would want the breeder to explain to be why the breed's original characteristics are unsuited for the task?

Example 1:

To do agility, you need a dog that is smart and fast (among other things) - sounds like a border collie to me.

To do obedience, you need a dog that is smart, very handler-focused  - Tervs fit that bill pretty well.

Example 2: - why?  Flybayy - you need fast, ball-focused dogs - both those breeds fit the bill.  The team jumps at the jump height of the shortest member - so why try to make a bigger border terrier?  

Example 3:  Form follows function.  Always, forever, and in everything!!  A fantastic guide dog isn't worth **** if it can't walk due to hip dysplasia

Example 4: You can't breed winners.  You breed the best dogs you have, and assess the pups for potential.  Then you start the hard work of maximizing that potential.  

So - no.  Until someone can tell me the valid reason an original breed cannot fit in their new "niche".  And especially - since the majority of these activities (not all, but the majority), were devised by humans so they can have "fun" with their dog.

Answer 10

Example 1, 2, and 3, yes.  Example 4, no.

The first three can still be done responsibly... the last one is just plain dumb.

Answer 11

Crossing dogs on purpose, is always wrong.  There's nothing wrong with working a regular border collie in agility, or a regular Belgian Tervuren in obedience.  Are Border Terriers better at flyball?  Negative.  

What's the point of a good guide dog, if it can't walk more than four blocks without limping from dysplasia?

4.  Ew.

The line?  What do you mean?  The line is drawn NOW.  It's drawn at mixing mutts, designer breeding, BYBing, puppy mills, and EVERY OTHER ATROCIOUS ACT THAT DEMEANS PET OWNERSHIP AT THE CORE.

Blarg.