|
New and Improved
Every few months, the world’s designers unveil their
fashion statements for the coming seasonRarely do fashion shows present anything
unique because there are formal constraints on possible ways to revise basic
wardrobe components. Their real appeal is self- expression. Influences run the
gamut from medieval to futuristic but their basic appeal remains the same. We
may not be equally enthralled by next season’s sequined tights, patchwork bags
and bubblegum lipstick. Some of us are happy to look in the closet and find
something that fits. Even so, fashion will always have guaranteed fans seeking a
means to define and express their values and attitudes. Although it’s a quick
fix that promises more than it delivers, it is also a time tested, multi billion
dollar global industry. Love it or hate it, it’s not going away any time soon.
In many respects, dog fads are fueled by the same
incentive. Dogs were selected to their functional limits of speed, endurance,
agility, size, etc. centuries ago. At this point, novelty breeding amounts to
tinkering with the trappings. And the sustainability of fad breeding is directly
dependant on wide social acceptance, not functional value. In recent months, the
NY Times ran two thought-provoking articles on dog fads. Neither one made this
direct comparison but the analogy continually came to mind as I read them.
The Feb. 4 NYT Magazine feature, strategically timed the
week before Westminster, examined the ongoing popularity of designer dogs. I
couldn’t argue with the writer’s contention that the faddishness attached to
Puggles and Yorkiepoos mirrors the purebred craze of a century ago. It’s hard to
make direct comparisons between events of today and 150 years ago. But many
instances of nineteenth-century breed popularity were directed by the familiar
influences of publicity, celebrity endorsements and scandalously high prices.
Since their inception, dog shows have been touted a means
of objectively evaluating canine functionality. In reality, numerous personal
and commercial agendas were involved in creating and sustaining interest in
them. This is illustrated by the fact that early show supporters split into
conflicting camps of sporting and non-sporting aficionados within mere decades.
Today we condemn designer dogs as the product of genetic chaos with no purpose
beyond consumer appeal. But that was precisely the same rhetoric aimed at many
breeds a century ago. The bulk of experimentation that resulted in most modern
purebreds occurred within a few decades, which easily fits the definition of fad
breeding.
At least half the breeds in our present toy group achieved
their purebred status during the late nineteenth century breeding extravaganza.
The Pug reigned supreme as the Victorian ladies’ pet dog until the Pom came
along and replaced it. A few years later the Pom’s supremacy was usurped by the
Peke. All of them remain popular today even though their initial success was
largely driven by fads.
Not only that, the nonsensical extravagance we associate
with today’s pet parents was equally rampant in the nineteenth century. Pampered
pets had their own servants, wardrobes, jewelry and parties. If anything,
today’s version is rather watered down in comparison. The idea of paying $2000-
$3000 for a designer dog sends us reeling with shock. Translated into modern
equivalents, prices for nineteenth-century purebreds often topped $10,000.
Of course, if and when various breeds fell from prominence,
there were dedicated breeders ready to ensure their survival and continued
development within specific parameters. Perpetuating a standardized type through
countless generations has now become a focus for media criticism of purebreds.
Ironically this transformation of values is concurrent with unprecedented
insights into the mechanics of genetic conformity. The ‘toy breed gene’ is one
of the most recently identified.
Researchers analyzed DNA from
over 3,000 dogs representing 143 breeds to confirm that almost all small dogs
studied share the same genetic variant. They also believe the trait emerged
quite early and likely contributed to the domestic dog’s proliferation by making
them easier to transport and keep in large numbers. Toy dogs may be a fad, but
it must be one of the longest on record.
In contrast, the popularity of designer dogs is predicated
on the fact that no selection process is involved in their creation. Randomness
is the desired end result. They are marketed as the ideal solution to securing
the good qualities and avoid the faults of purebreds. Although this contention
is debatable it rarely garners much publicity.
The major difference between creating a new breed through
crossbreeding and creating a designer breed boils down to form and function.
Variations of size, structure and temperament are inevitable when any breed
begins to take shape. But there are objective reasons directing the choices
leading to the next generation. Stabilizing a predictable type normally requires
ten, twenty or even more generations before unusual surprises and problems slow
to a manageable trickle. That is just one of the potential complications
downplayed in designer dog breeding.
At its best designer dog breeding includes no safeguards to
discourage extreme or faulty traits. In the purebred world, hurdles include
registration eligibility, health testing, peer pressure and dog shows. Although
this system remains open to criticism, “you don’t know what you got till it’s
gone.” Regardless of the breeds involved, crossbreeding can have regrettable
results unless the parents are good representatives of their respective breeds.
That’s seldom the case because serious breeders generally refuse to contribute
stock to such ventures.
For instance, Pugs are supposed to be slightly undershot.
And undershot bites are incorrect, but not uncommon in Beagles. Breeding a Pug
with correct undershot dentition to a Beagle with an incorrect undershot
dentition inevitably doubles up on the genes for that trait. The resulting
puppies can end up with teeth wildly out of alignment and a cosmetic problem
becomes a major structural defect. Likewise, breeding a slightly oversized Pug
to a slightly oversized Beagle often produces puppies far larger than either
parent- which are then marketed as miniature Mastiffs.
Another consideration is that the designer (hybrid)
qualities carry though a single generation. Crossing a Labrador Retriever to a
Poodle will produce Labradoodles in the first generation. Breeding a Labradoodle
to a Labradoodle inevitably starts the ball rolling towards gene pairings.
Second gen doodles won’t possess the coveted hybrid vigor promoted as an
all-encompassing health guarantee. In reality, its effects are dependant on the
genetic health of the parents.
Crossbreeding hybridization cannot prevent unwanted genetic
combinations simply because it involves crossing two related strains of the same
species. (This technicality also receives little airtime in designer dog
endorsements). Every dog, purebred, random bred or hybrid- possesses at least
five defective genes. Numerous disorders like hip dysplasia and PRA are
widespread in many breeds. The fact that the parents come from two different
breeds will not prevent their transmission to progeny.
Whatever they’re worth, designer dogs are here to stay.
The money, publicity, and outlandish guarantees attached to
designer dogs have obscured a bigger issue. Whether you are a breeder, a buyer
or a judge, at some point all dog evaluation becomes subjective. Our choices are
an ongoing reflection of our priorities. Even though the absence of purebred
predictability is a major selling point for designer dogs, consumers seldom
prefer uncertainty. Predictable expectations about ownership responsibilities
-rather than genetic variability- have made designer dogs a hot commodity. They
don’t require training or grooming and are guaranteed never to fall ill. We
recognize these claims as mere = hype encouraging irresponsible ownership. It’s
annoying, but it’s nothing new to the dog business. Nor am I really bothered
that the idea that designer dogs are anti-purebred. What worries me is that this
entire marketing campaign is thoroughly anti-dog. The supposed shortcomings and
demands of purebreds are precisely the issues any dog owner might encounter. . I
have yet to live with a dog that did not come with baggage. grooming, training,
vet bills and dog damage come with the territory
A December 28, 2006 Times article presented an equally disturbing picture of
consumer delusions about dog ownership. Undersized purebreds have become the
latest focus of Japan’s insatiable mania for status symbols. Exceptionally tiny
or unusual specimens sell for unprecedented sums. the resulting irresponsible
breeding practices have given Japanese dogs the world’s highest rates of genetic
defects, estimated to be four times higher than rates documented in the US and
Europe. The article detailed unprecedented consumer demand for a frightening
distortion of canine companionship. Inbreeding was cited as the mainculprit
although many of the defects highlighted in the article were typical results of
double merle breeding. What was more interesting was the acknowledgement that
these tiny dogs are mainly intended as surrogate children. Not just average run
of the mill children, consumer expectations have elevated them to the status of
prodigies and superstars. The times noted that Japan’s pet dog population
doubled to 13 million last year to surpass the number of children under 12. An
expert interviewed for the piece had this to say “Indeed, many of these buyers
want dogs they can show off like proud parents. […] Households with few or no
children are turning to dogs to fill the void,” he said. “For a dog to be part
of the family, it has to be unique and have character, like a person.” That’s a
tall order for any dog.
Breeders and dog clubs have excelled at realistically
presenting their breeds to the public. Poodle breeders admit their dogs need
extensive grooming and cannot be guaranteed non allergic. Pug breeders freely
admit that shedding and snorting comes with the package. When someone asks me
about Chinese Crested temperament I tell them it’s like having your own private
stalker. Every breed has its own unique charms and drawbacks. We happily take
the good with the not so good. We love our chosen breed, but more than that, we
love dogs. We enjoy sharing our lives and homes with living, breathing,
unpredictable often messy and annoying animals.
This is what really worries me about the marketing tactics that have sent
designer dogs and Japanese mini pets to unprecedented heights. Their primary
appeal is the expectation of a “dog-free” companion. These marketers are not
merely selling a fantasy of an idealized human/animal relationship. They are
offering consumers the opportunity to reinvent themselves via dog ownership
without the inconvenience of actually having to live with a dog. The scariest
part is that so many purported dog lovers are buying into it.
|