Certain Choices, Certain Consequences
By Dr. Gareth Morgan-Jones
As we approach the end of yet another year, the twentieth in which I have contributed monthly essays to The Canine Chronicle, perhaps some further reflections upon certain aspects of our sport are in order. Within the firmament of our pedigreed-dog indulgence there exist so many complexities, so many causes and effects, so many modes of action, so many contradictions. Everyone who participates is confronted with making certain choices, each of which have certain consequences. Some are good, altruistic and rewarding, others less so. Even in the very act of breeding dogs there are countervailing forces and conflicting purposes. The condition of our breeds is even viewed differently depending upon one’s background and interest. Much continues to be said and written about the subject of breed changes, development, improvement, type preservation, health maintenance, et cetera. Some of this is undoubtedly the product of convoluted thinking, much of it derivative, but some is surely rational and soundly-based. Generalizations in this regard tend to be made rather casually and foreboding prognostications are rather readily produced. As an example, there is this notion doing the rounds that our show dogs are becoming progressively more ‘generic’ as we constantly and continually strive for so-called improvement. Thoughts along this line have now been in prominent existence for quite some time, several decades in fact. The problem with this type thing is that the distinction between what is real and what is imagined is not always clearly apparent. So assumption and speculation come to the fore and the theoretical supersedes that which is rationally demonstrable. This is what is called postulation. Is breed integrity indeed being compromised? Yes say some, not so say others. Who is to be believed? There is, unfortunately, no consistency in our collective thinking and views on the state of our breeds and, as a result, contradictory opinions on this subject are commonplace. Are there indeed some diametrically conflicting elements in what we are trying to do with the pure-bred dog? Are certain choices which lead to undesirable consequences being made?
As I have written about previously, on several occasions over the years, there lies a certain ambivalence, some doubt as to which approach to follow when it comes to making selective breeding decisions. There can potentially be inherently contradictory factors in place but a deliberate determination of direction has to be made. The subtle interplay between preservation of intrinsic, unique breed characteristics and further development for purposes of successful conformation dog show competition enters the equation. A dichotomy of intent has to be confronted head on, so to speak. The responsible breeder, of course, sets a balance. Now here is a pertinent question. Is it really true that we have now largely ended up with generic shows dogs being judged generically or are thoughts concerning this merely wild philosophical musings, more abstract and fanciful than real? In this context it has to be remembered that biological organisms possess a certain genetic resilience. We want to conserve and preserve but yet we have an intent to advance, develop, improve and perfect. Are these two goals necessarily and mutually incompatible? In a sense, I suppose the answer to this question, on the surface at least, is a qualified yes. But yet there surely exists a compromise, a middle ground. To move in a certain direction, a choice is deliberately made but the dynamic is always far from simplistic and one-dimensional. Nothing is exactly static in this regard. The problem here, as suggested above, is that there are some inherently conflicting elements in play and hence there oftentimes exist contradictions in our reasoning. All this requires some steady, meaningful perspective. One of the main, ongoing concerns in all of this has been that in order to achieve desired change certain extremes have to be selected for. This, in the view of some breeders, is where the opportunity lies, where significant forward progress can be made. Then the relevant question becomes; how far can you take a particular breed before you begin to lose it?
There was a time, in the not-too-distant past, when this author firmly believed that many breeders, in some entities in particular, were all too guilty of unduly pushing the limits and narrowly indulging in irresponsible selection practices without paying sufficient attention to the dictates contained in standards. Such temptation appeared to be hard to resist. Perhaps some still do. There appeared to be some disregard for the original form of breeds, their morphological peculiarities, their make and shape, and for the purpose for which they were specifically developed. Tradition seemed to be in jeopardy. Ongoing improvement through breeding procedures had seemingly nothing, or very little, to do with enhanced ability to fulfill a particular function but rather to increase their potential, structurally and aesthetically, in the context of conformation dog show competition. Breeding so-called better dogs, meeting the ever-present, born-to-win challenge, was certainly being conducted in a different context, with vastly differing emphasis and priorities. A possibly detrimental dichotomy seemed perfectly evident but yet today who has the unreasonable temerity to suggest that many of our breeds have lost part of their identity? Has breed well-being been negatively impacted and breed integrity indeed been compromised, at least to some degree? How do we go about validly answering such questions? How can one possibly generalize about such matters? As I alluded to above, biological resilience is a countervailing factor in all of this and there surely exists a certain genetic safety-net which has served our breeds well through the generations. An inherent, in-built, inheritance and hereditarily-controlled security system has certainly served as effective protection with the passage of time. So perhaps we have been in the habit of being overly concerned about this type thing and the ultimate consequences thereof. Perhaps there is less of a harmful influence at play here than we are sometimes led to believe.
When discussing such a subject as this, as I have suggested previously a number of times, it is highly desirable to keep everything in proper perspective. Breeding choices always have to be made, or should be, with a specific goal in mind and each participant in this activity has to place things in appropriate context. This should, ideally, not be merely a hit and miss activity but conducted with a certain vision and, ideally, a particular instinct and insight. Insofar as likely, cumulative consequences are concerned we have to resist the speculative and focus on the demonstrable rather than purvey the theoretical and the imagined. Each individual obviously bears a certain responsibility to his or her breed to make good choices for the right reasons. By the same token, those who feel a need to periodically comment on the condition of breeds at a particular time also should consider things in context and bear in mind the interrelated factors involved. A historical frame of reference always helps breeders view things in their true relations and relative importance. The individual breeds, as we know them today, are, after all, the product of many generations of decent from common ancestors, all visibly similar. Or they have been derived through the interbreeding of previously recognizable but distinct entities. These ancestries provide the foundation and, in the larger scheme of things, anchor the breeds. Beyond this there are the changes which have become inexorably evident over time through ongoing, selective breeding. A certain biological inevitability is at play in all of this which all breeders sooner or later have to come to terms with.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Gareth Morgan-Jones holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Nottingham, England, and a Doctor of Science degree from his alma mater, the University of Wales. Now retired, he carries the title of Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at Auburn University, where he was a member of the faculty for thirty-eight years. He is approved by the AKC to judge Best in Show, the Hound and Toy Groups, sixteen Sporting breeds, and Pembroke Welsh Corgis. He can be reached at morgangj@charter.net.
Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=13850
Posted by subschron
on Jan 9 2013. Filed under Current Articles, Editorial, Featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed
