Humans have been selective breeding dogs for hundreds of years. Well before the Kennel Clubs were formed and we had breed standards dogs were being bred for particular purposes, mostly for work, but heck even the toy breeds have been around hundreds of years thanks to imperial courts. We talking about breeding out barking, particular diseases and particular genes - that is still interfering with nature. Although I do agree that breed standards have been used to excess to change some breeds for the worse.
Exactly. When breeding animals (including humans) for a specific purpose, it is much different than breeding for a specific attribute because we like it or think it looks good. When breeding work dogs, or ratting dogs, it's not only desirable that they can perform the tasks we would like them to do, but for them to be healthy and long lived, even if for only economic reasons.
Today, clubs have turned this into show with little regard to purpose. As the original article pointed out, many of the working breeds are ill-suited for actual work based upon the weaknesses bred into them to further a standard. *THAT'S* what I take issue with. Floppy ears or prick ears, curled tail, flat tail or no tail ... all that's fine as long as breeding in those traits won't increase physical ailments. And, if they do, see what can be done to minimize them in the breed even if it means losing the curly tail or sloped haunches. Some breeds suffer less with these issues, but it can't be denied that certain breeds have been grossly exaggerated to their detriment in search of a specific "look".
Keep in mind too that many changes have been brought about by better and varied diets and better care. A dog can expend more energy on physical strengthening when they aren't starving of nutrients. In humans we've seen this in the post war period - humans have actually changed shape in only a few generations, and in Germany the height difference between generations since the fall of the Berlin wall has been astounding.
Again very true, If the idea is to have larger, healthier animals. Proper nutrition and exercise will certainly be a large part of that. But, as in breed "standards", too much of anything will eventually work toward the detriment of the animal. Having an abundant food supply food supply in the face of pre-war poverty has led to a generation of obesity here in the US. Exaggerating or isolating specific physical characteristics in dogs *can* (not necessarily *will*) cause unexpected problems.
The argument of 'hybrid vigour' is also one that has not been proved. It stems from the very old theories of 'survival of the fittest', which itself has been largely debunked. In nature there isn't as much genetic diversity from breeding alone that you would think. And if you have a look at humans - the least genetically diverse nations actually have the greatest longevity and best health. It's more a matter of 'inbreeding' that causes problems. Plus I read an interesting article that many of the 'better', healthier and fitter dogs don't go off mating indiscriminately - it's usually the poorly cared for ones that get out and wander so mating two poor quality dogs is hardly going to introduce 'hybrid vigour'.
It would be more like "Natural Selection". "Survival of the fittest" implies a continuation of a species through it's strongest members while the weak and mutations are left to perish. Natural selection is where adaptive mutations of a species that give them advantage in their environment continue in the species to further the advantage. Breeding dogs to standards for sport disregards the work or survival advantages in favor of the desired attribute.
As far as humans are concerned, that is an excellent point because health and survival in those cultures is not from genetic predispositions, but lifestyle and diet. Dogs, at least domesticated ones, have little control over their particular lifestyle or diet and it's up to us to provide them an environment in which to thrive. Look at humans trained for athletics. With taller, faster, heavier, or whatever attribute makes them better at the sport, they have short careers and more physical problems as they age. I wouldn't want to be 7' tall if it meant my back and knees would fail at 40.
While I am neither breeder nor geneticist, I find this a plausible argument.
To the annoyance of most purebred breeders, most of us (vets) tend to side with the mixes (and, no, we don't consider hybrids, like Labradoodles, exempt from the purebred designation). Mutts mostly win out for their sheer hardiness, thriftiness and longevity, due to their lower incidence of genetic disease.
Since they are likely to have a lower risk for receiving a high dose of specific purebred genetic material that can lead to inherited disease, I believe they’re healthier than purebreds in this particular sense. As a result, many mutts have a lower rate of hip dysplasia, certain knee diseases, most spinal diseases, many heart diseases, plenty of cancers and a whole lot of skin, blood, brain, liver and kidney diseases, among others.
Source
As with all discussions of this type, there are two sides and truth/reality will always be somewhere in the middle.
