Breeding Better Dogs Malcolm B. Willis, PhD Department of Agriculture, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England

Summary:

A better dog is a relative term and it depends what one means by better. Dogs are used for a large number of purposes ranging from child substitutes, through companion animals to a variety of forms of work. The criteria sought in a companion dog would not necessarily agree with that sought in herding dog, for example, and those of herding dog will differ from those of a livestock protection dog. Despite this the bulk of dog breeding is undertaken by breeders who are seeking to gain success in the show ring. Skill is measured by show ring wins and progeny from these winners become the companion animals and, often, the potential working dogs of the future. There is nothing wrong in seeking beauty but it must be secondary to functional aspects of the dog. Attributes of "beauty" must be subservient to functional traits and especially those associated with character. In the show ring little opportunity to assess character exists other than very superficially so alternative methods must be sought.

In Bernese Mountain Dogs testing on a number of attributes has been undertaken on 100 animals. Some 65 percent were graded into categories A, B+, B and B- which were potentially trainable grades and the remainder fell into categories C (23 percent) and D (10 percent). Such testing is too time consuming to undertake in the show ring but could be valuable in seeking to assess potential breeding stock as well as evaluate their progeny.

The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association in Britain has gone from a 40 percent success rate to over a 90 percent success rate in terms of making successful guide dogs since the organization began to breed its own animals rather than rely on gift dogs. Most British Police forces have a low success rate among their dogs because they still rely on gift animals. By starting to breed its own the Metropolitan force has been successful and in terms of features like hip dysplasia, an important consideration in a working dog, the force has increased the percentage of dogs scoring 10 or better on the British scheme. the change in fortune results from both organizations selecting dogs for what the organizations want them to do instead of taking dogs which were initially selected for physical beauty.

In Britain, dog judging is too often in the hands of multi-breed judges and it is in the author's opinion impossible to be an expert on over 100 breeds. Judging requires that dogs be assessed on constructional virtues and mental attributes and this necessitates critiques and the grading of exhibits into categories such as Excellent, Very Good, Good etc and the elimination of fads about minor issues. Traits like eye color and coat color should be subservient to issues like character and construction based on a functioning dog.

Over the past thirty years great strides have been made in the breeding of GSD in Germany to the extent that breeders from around the world flock to the German Sieger show in great numbers and hang on every word of the judges. But in that time the eagerness to make dogs run mindlessly around the ring has brought about hyperactive dogs that line run and bark incessantly and increasingly the bloodlines found in working dogs are differing from those of the show ring which cannot be desirable for any breed. Judges seem incapable of judging unless they indulge in long and often pointless running, none of which makes the breed better to live with.

In Britain dogs that have had surgery for cosmetic purposes, e.g. the correction of entropion, cannot be shown or are shown illegally but such dogs can continue to be bred from and their progeny registered. Ruling bodies have to ensure that such illogicalities are reduced or eliminated.

The issue of genetic disease is important but breeders must beware of trends in breeding by numbers. Schemes to combat genetic disease must be economically viable in that the costs of undertaking such schemes must be less than the benefits ensuing and increasingly that may not be true. The British Elbow scheme will be used as an example. Dogs that have good hips, for example, are not necessarily worth breeding from if they are not blessed with other virtues. Breeders must also beware of being encouraged to seek perfection to the point that otherwise useful animals are culled on some minor failing. Perfection is laudable but absolute perfection is a pipe dream. If we applied it to man, most of us would never reproduce!

The increasing success of gene mapping will have a part to play but breeders must not imagine that success in this field will eliminate the skills required for breeding. In breeds such as the Bedlington Terrier copper toxicosis is so widespread that elimination of carrier animals will not be possible at a stroke. The number of genes being identified increases each year but application to breeders is not routine. Many polygenic traits like hip dysplasia and idiopathic epilepsy may take a long time to sort out genetically and in the interim breeders have to make the best of more mundane methods. Progeny testing for such traits is highly desirable and data will be presented to show progress being made in Newfoundland hip dysplasia in Britain over the past twenty years as a result of various measures and the failure to make progress in some other breeds through a failure to take steps along logical lines.

Breed Surveys in which dogs are evaluated by experts in a non competitive situation and which include genetic features as well as character testing would be a step forward in seeking to evaluate which are breeding stock and which are not. A move in this direction has begun in British German Shepherd Dogs but incentives are needed to get the support that such schemes have had in Germany, South Africa and Australia.

A healthier attitude to the use of Artificial Insemination would enhance breed improvement. Above all welfare must be considered. Breeders should become conscious of their responsibility to "take back" dogs that they have sold and which have fallen on hard times or are no longer wanted. A breeder who does not have the facilities to "rescue their own" is probably breeding too much.

Biographical Profile

Dr Malcolm B. Willis was born in 1935, in Yorkshire, England, and was educated at Durham University (BSc: 1956) and Edinburgh University (PhD: 1960). -He spent some time as a geneticist for the Milk Marketing Board (1960-65), taught abroad from 1965-72 and is currently a Senior Lecturer in Animal Breeding and Genetics at Newcastle University (1972-date). Dr. Willis is the author of nine books including Genetics of The Dog (1989) The German Shepherd Dog, a Genetic History (1992) and The Bernese Mountain Dog Today (1998). He got his first dog in 1953 (a German Shepherd Dog) and has had one ever since. Dr. Willis first judged in 1959 and currently gives CCs in German Shepherd Dogs and Bernese Mountain Dogs, having judged in ten countries. Chairman of the German Shepherd Dog Breed Council since it began in 1986, Dr. Willis is also the Chairman German Shepherd Dog League of Great Britain and President of the Northern Bernese Mountain Dog Club. He has been awarded the Gold Medal from the Australian German Shepherd Dog Council in 1988, the Dog Writers of America Award in 1992 (for the German Shepherd Dog book). In his spare time, Dr. Willis advises Police forces and lectures around the world. He lives with his wife Helen, six German Shepherd Dogs, nine Bernese Mountain Dogs, two terriers and 30 British shorthaired cats.