A friend of mine and I had a very interesting discussion and I thought I’d bring it here.
Lead In: Up until about 100 years ago (give or take a few – changes with each breed / country), we didn’t really have standards for our breeds. Dogs of like types were bred to other dogs of like types for uses that people required at the time. If farmer A had a great herding dog and farmer B had a great herding dog – chances are that they’d breed them to get more great herding dogs. Keeping in mind that these were the days before cars, internet and telephones – dogs were bred to others within specific areas (hence breeds being specific to areas / countries). Of course – this was just a part of the discussion – the exact accuracy is a continuing debate among all.
And it’s not the topic of this post anyway….
The interesting part of the discussion was if standards were doing us and our dogs an injustice. Is maintaining a standard that fit a need 100 years ago, realistic in today’s world? Breeds were developed and were constantly evolving to fit needs. By implementing a standard, we eliminated the continuing evolution. Who’s to say that the standard of then, fits now? Who’s to say if the dog of ‘then’, was properly captured or interpreted in that standard? There have been slight changes in standards – but I doubt that they’d reflect the same timeline of changes that would have occurred naturally. Is there a possibility of maintaining a breed that has no place in today’s society? Essentially – wouldn’t that eventually, breed them out of existence because no one would have any need for that particular type / temperament of dog?
Of course, if you want to preserve a breed, you must define it. The real question is, are we doing those same breeds a disservice by not allowing them to ‘grow with the times’? There’s no right or wrong answer here – just a theoretical discussion of opinions!
