Defensive Breeding

Walt has been writing about the demise of the purebred dog world at the hands of its owe through lack of awareness by choice or by "head-in-the-sand" syndrome for some time, the whole while during this time the AR and AL vested interest organisations and groups have been influencing the American law makers very very successfully. I guess those of you who read by blog may be asking why I write about those things which are happening in America.

The answer is simple, it's happening here but perhaps not yet, YET being the operative word, quite as quickly as in America and in including these American events it is my hope the Australian purebred dog world will put the "blue ribbon" second to that of lobbying the Australian Governments both Local, State and Federal, to ensure the law makers DO NOT make decisions based on only what the AR and AL groups tell them.

Defensive Breeding by Walt Hutchens

What I meant by the term 'defensive breeding' was changing our programs so that the primary goal is assuring that our breeds will survive in a political and social climate that is increasingly hostile to breeding.

That means we need to think a lot more like folks who breed endangered species and a lot less like, well, 'dog breeders.'

Show dog breeders think of winning (mostly appearance and movement), they think of perfection for this litter, and they think of control -- nobody should be able to breed from an animal I bred unless I approve.

(I know that some show breeders consider other factors or may even put other things first. It is also true that things are someone different for breeders of hunting dogs, working dogs, and others. I am speaking in general.)

The defensive breeder would think of:

1. Genetic soundness: Because we can expect steadily smaller breedable populations our breedings will need to be planned with consideration of genetic diversity and minimizing the spread of inherited disease. We need to ditch the use of popular sires, stop breeding only to the dogs that win, mostly eliminate high inbreeding coefficient breedings. Every dog in every line ought to be a possible breeding candidate, considered on the sum of its merits. The most distantly related animals (often foreign or recently imported) need to get favorable consideration just because they're distant.
2. Geographic dispersion: Breedable animals should be spread as widely as possible. We need to ask ourselves "If I lost all my breedable animals tomorrow, would I be able to rebuild my line? Or would it be gone forever?"
   

(Suppose your kennel were burned with the loss of all? What if an ACO shows up with a truck and a cop with a warrant to seize them all? Ten years from now there'll be drugs to cause sterility: what if someone tosses drugged meat into your dog yard?)

Get rid of requirements for S/N of every pet. Explain the issues both ways, including the AR goal of eliminating breeding. Support any responsible owner decision. Encourage those owners who might want to participate in activities requiring an intact animal to do so; if someone might want to breed, try to steer her toward a quality dog and offer encouragement and support. Consider partnerships in which you exchange intact dogs with a breeder in another state (or even better, another country!), either with or without plans to breed.

(Yes, these changes might mean a few more unintended breedings. Is that really worse than the risk of losing our breeds over the next ten or twenty years?)

In general we need to raise our eyes above the horizon of the next litter and think how our line might continue ten or twenty years from now. We need to stop thinking just of winning and begin to view ourselves as stewards of our breed, responsible for its health into the distant future in an America with laws and a strong AR subculture that are likely to make continued breeding steadily harder.

That's what I was thinking about when I said 'defensive breeding.' It would help if the AKC could begin to say some of these things.

Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets