From: srlee@beta.lanl.gov (Stephen R Lee)
Subject: Re: On the breeds' original purposes
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:48:49 GMT


I just thought I would add my 0.02 to this thread.  First of all,
there is an interesting discussion of the "breeding for conformation
v.s. breeding for ability" quandry in the book _The Dog's Mind_ by
Bruce Fogle.  In the first chapter, he discusses, among other things,
a study done by Dr, I. Stur, University of Vienna Animal Genetics Institute.
He investigated performance traits of 62 German Longhaired Pointers (never
heard of this breed before). 21 different conformation and temperment characteristics 
were classified by experienced dog judges.  He observed a negative correlation
between "form value" (breed standards) and "constitution".  Stur argues that
by selective breeding only to morphological breed standards, we unknowingly
breed for similar genes at gene sites or "homozygosity."  And unwittingly,
as we breed for homozygosity to conform to breed standards, we also breed
for homozygosity in the genes that affect behavior.

This research showed that pointers which were more likely to win at dog shows
were less likely to function in the field as pointers.  Stur says that there
was a negative correlation between shot proofness (the opposite of gun shy) and
hunting passion (which I find highly subjective -- perhaps a hunting type
can elaborate).  He suggested that shot proofness could be used as an indicator 
of the calmer and more obedient dog and could be a worthwhile factor to include in 
judging whether a pointer would make a good pet.

Fogle goes on to discuss the Golden Retriever, and states that there is a distinct
difference in the temperment of the show golden and the working lines of the
breed. 

In my opinion, this can be boiled down using the following analogy.  Lets say
we wanted to create a new kind of computational platform, one that would be
used for the solution of complicated physical problems.  If we were to
approach this problem by creating a computer based on an existing computer,
and did not actually test it on the problems of interest, it may or may not
perform as we would like.  I mean, it might look very impressive and on a
limited set of simple and carefully taylored test problems it might perform
wonderfully, but when applied to a real problem it might fail miserably.  Why?
Because the "end game" was not considered in its creation.  It was created
based on what we thought a computer like this ought to look like.

I realize that dogs are not computers, but when we breed dogs based on what
we think they should "look like" in order to accomplish a given task, without 
actually seeing if they can, we are in effect, ignoring the "end game" as
in the above analogy, and are increasing the likelyhood that we may produce
inferior dogs.  Inferior from the standpoint that they may not perform well
at performing task A.  This does not adress the argument as to whether or
not the dog *should* perform task A or whether or not task A is important.

This does tend support Chris' point.  I do agree with Chris, to a degree.
I am not quite as once-sided as Chris (not a flame!).  I take the approach 
that while there is nothing wrong with producing "pet" quality dogs (that is, 
ones that may not perform task A very well), they should not be
bred *unless* one wishes to specifically alter the breed, thereby creating
a "new" breed of sorts.  For example, in Britian, Guide Dogs for tthe Blind
has a very large breeding program.  They produce Golden-Lab crosses that
are genetically selected for training as seeing-eye dogs.  I see absolutely
nothing wrong with this.  I think that Chris might have a problem with this.
Please feel free to correct me, Chris, if I am mistaken.

I do remember that, a while back when this subject was discussed before, a lot of 
us agreed that for the working breeds, it would be nice to somehow fold in "field"
work with conformation trials.  That is, construct some sort of tests that evaluate
each dog performing an appropriate tasks as well as the standard conformation tests.
I think we all agree that each are important in their own ways.  The problem is 
implementation.

Sorry this got so long.  I have not finished reading _The Dog's Mind_ yet, but
thus far is is very interesting and well-written.  Those interested might want
to pick up a copy.

Happy holidays everyone.

-- 
============================================================
Stephen R. Lee                 | 
OooWoo Racing Kennel           | I'd rather be driving sled
E-Mail: srlee@beta.lanl.gov    | dogs.
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs