There are lots of words written on breeding dogs, and horses, chicken, cattle, all manner of domestic and exotic animals and I'm only qualified to write down my thoughts on breeding learned through breeding my dogs. I'm not a geneticist, or even a biologist, so please consider that as you read this super simple break down of the two primary breeding models we work with in the dog world.
So far in our German Shepherd Basics series we have discussed traits with a simple recessive mode of inheritance. These are easy traits to manage, and they can be managed with precision if desired.
The simple recessive genes, and their nice neat punnet squares have been the subject of our previous posts.
When we use genetic testing, or what we know of our dogs genes, to manage traits we are using a genotype model.
But most traits are controlled by many genes, and we may not have any idea exactly how they are inherited, activated, or show in observable ways.
That means that most breeding is actually done using a phenotype model based on our observations of observable traits.
Whenever we are looking at a trait that our dog is showing we are using their phenotype, our hope is that we will manage this trait, and the genes we think underlay it, effectively to reach a goal we have.
Maybe we want more, or less, the same, or maybe something completely different.
We often say that breeding is an art, and a science, and that's true enough.
The practical application of selection pressure is more akin to a skill than an art. Breeders learn how things work by doing them, not by reading about them, so in reality what can seem artistic is built from practical skills and practice.
What makes phenotype models the most frustrating for novice breeders is the imprecise nature and the unpredictability.
If someone believes that breeding two dogs with similar traits will always result in a third dog with the same traits they will inevitably be discouraged by the reality of working with mother nature.
An excellent example of this unpredictable nature of phenotype breeding his a disease like hip dysplasia, which is a complicated cocktail of genetics and environment.
So parents with normal hips (judged by looking with our eyes at observable traits) may produce offspring with abnormal hips. Because of course we can't see the sum of everything present in the genes.
As we try to make phenotype models more predictable and dependable breeders are going to use a variety of methods to attempt to "stack the odds" in favor of the desirable genes.
The overarching method is selection pressure, which is simply choosing dogs based on their phenotype, which is showing us the trait we want, or isn't showing us the trait we don't want.
Under the umbrella of selection pressure, the breeder can use other methods like inbreeding (breeding closely related dogs), line breeding (breeding related dogs) or outcrossing (breeding dogs unrelated, distantly related, or related only by breed) depending on their overarching goals around not only the target trait but also the needs of their population (program) and the breed over arching.
Where do ethics come in? While the above models and methods are basically neutral, how breeders use them is not and that is where responsibility and ethics come in.
Breeders cannot and should not make promises they cannot keep, they owe it to their dogs and those who take them home, to be accurate in their language and expectation setting.
Breeders owe their first allegiance to their own dogs and what is best for their physical and mental health. Selection pressure should always be applied in favor of the healthiest examples of the breed, both physically and mentally, by avoiding the over representation of individuals suffering from any condition or trait that makes their life difficult, unwell, or painful, even if that same trait is valued by a sport, job, club, or those who would purchase their puppies. Secondary to that ethical breeders will seek to increase the representation of examples of the breed who are better than typical in health, behavior, or historic traits.
Breeders owe their own dogs, now and future, the healthiest and happiest life possible within the confines of what can be controlled.
Allegiance to breed preservation and promotion is secondary to one's own dogs but yes, ethically breeders must be putting the long term survival, health, and welfare of their breed above the demands of judges, sports, styles, or those who would purchase their puppies for competition. Breeders must always resist the urge to produce competitive dogs when those in demand traits lesson the breed's quality, health (physical and behavioral), population, or preservation of historic traits and type. But when preservation of historic type, especially in regards to behavior, is actually contrary to protecting the breed's existence and adaptability to modern life, favor must be given to the needs of modern life as it guarantees preservation. It is impossible to preserve a breed which has no happy home, or environment, in the modern world due to extreme traits from the distant path which are no longer advantageous. But what is possible is to change extreme behavioral traits into traits more conducive to the needs of dogs in the present.
Breeders have an ethical obligation to use the tools available to them to produce healthy dogs.
But breeders also have an ethical obligation to preserve and promote their breed, so that homes may be found for this breed in today's world. This may mean modernizing traits to fit what we know is best for dogs today.
Breeders are also obligated to not damage their breeds by protecting them into extinction. It is not possible to save a breed when there are not dogs left it in. At that point a recreation is our only option and this has been done very successfully with breeds basically or functionally extinct.
But better is when breeders do the work of breeding enough dogs that a breed's population is stabilized, creating as many distinct lines within the breed as possible so breeders have genetic options moving forward, and in some cases modernizing behavior to ensure the breed has loving homes available. Breeders have an ethical obligation, in my opinion, to actually make dogs. Without robust populations breeds are lost.
Finally, breeders have ethical obligations to those who purchase their puppies and care for them through their lives. While breeders cannot promise perfection, or even particular traits, they can do their part by breeding dogs using the methods and models above, who can actually live in the modern world successfully. Dogs who fit today, no matter what their role was yesterday, and by placing those dogs into homes that will enjoy them. Pet owners who love their dogs are the backbone of purebred dogs, they make far more new breed lovers than fanciers ever do, by taking their dogs out with them, sharing them with family and friends, and being our breed ambassadors on the front lines. We owe them dogs who are designed for their needs and wants, with much higher priority than any dog designed for competition. If we make the pet owners happy with dogs they can enjoy and be proud of, our entire breed flourishes and thrives. We can satisfy the needs of competitors and judges secondary to the companion dog owners who really ensure our breeds preservation.