Is it ethical to breed bracycephalic and other sickly breeds?

This question has bother me for a while now. I'm all in support of good, ethical breeding. A outstanding example of the breed that has been titled, won numerous championships, passed all genetic health tests, is just really an amazing example of the breed. Of course we would want to pass that on to better the breed.But then you get some breeds that are just sickly because of how they are. English Bulldogs are my best example. Here is a dog that can hardly run. Common respiratory problems, even in well bred examples, just because of the nose shape. A breed that overheats extremely fast. A breed that can't even mate naturally because of the shape and size of the body. A breed that can't give natural birth because of the shape and size of the pups. Is it ethical to breed such unhealthy dogs in the first place? IMHO, if a dog can't breed for itself, then why are we breeding it?This brings me to another question. Are conformation shows ruining breeds. English bulldogs couldn't of been like this 100 years ago, when there was really no option for AI, and C-Sections. So the breed standard has obviously been modified and changed to create the breed as it is today, and similar breeds, all to fit what we find visually appealing for the breed. Do you feel largely conformation organizations (like the AKC) ruins breeds? Do you think an obsession with JUST conformation titles ruins breeds? Just look at german shepherds, for an example. I strongly believe the AKC has KILLED american lined shepherds. At the same time, in my search for a quality bred APBT through the UKC, I have found many great dogs that have been both conformation champions and weight pull champions. Agility champions. Some kind or working title. Not just focusing on form, but function as well.The roached back is an interesting point, seeing as how I've noticed that the roached backs in shepherds first starting popping up in west german SHOW lines, which just helps my point that being so focused on only conformation can ruin a breed. Besides, when trying to look at good breeding in the shepherd, I definetly would not start looking at ENGLISH lines. Get down to the very root of the breed. Well bred, GERMAN german shepherd. Even the surrounding countries.Yes, maybe the standard hasn't exactly changed, but if these gangly sloped backed dogs in america didn't continue to win, then they would not continue to be bred like that. It is the judges picking these dogs, choosing them for wins. I've RARELY seen an AKC conformation champion german shepherd that would ever amount to anything on the schutzhund field or in a K9 unit, physically or mentally. Just for the fun of it, I'de love to throw in a well bred DDR shepherd into the ring. Do you think it would win? Probably notAnd to state that the bulldog standard has not changed is just ignorant and naive, frankly. Maybe not in recent decades, but do you really think the bulldogs of today could grab onto a bull and be swung around? Or even be agile enough to catch onto a bull in the first place? No, they can't. And even though baiting is illegal now, as it should be, this breed was still bred for that function. Just like pit bulls and other bully breeds. Original bulldogs looked a lot closer to those dogs then your breed does now. The reason it changed? They wanted fat lap dogs, so they bred in pugs. Shorter faces, stouter body. The bite can not even properly grab and hold on like it was originally bred to do. So yes, the standard has changed GREATLY.

A few things.1. ONCE AGAIN, "the AKC" kills *nothing*. It is merely a registration body. It doesn't dictate, it doesn't demand. Ignorant breeders, who breed to fads and ignore working ability, "kill" breeds.2. The standard for the Bulldog has likely not changed. More than likely, the breeders breeding "sickly" dogs aren't actually breeding to the standard...they are breeding to a fad.Had to get this out. Now I'll go back and read the rest.----3. Agility and obedience titles should NEVER influence the decision to breed an animal. These are companion titles, obtainable by any breed, and are not specific to a breed's function. There is NO breed that was developed to excel at agility or obedience trials. They are not a "working title".I do agree that American GSDs and the Bulldogs have been trashed by show breeders. But I blame ignorant, short-sighted breeders with big egos and/or personal insecurities for that. I blame no registry, and I do not blame the shows themselves.IT IS VERY POSSIBLE TO BREED A SHOW DOG THAT CAN ALSO PERFORM ITS ORIGINAL FUNCTION.I believe that if all you are concerned about is a conformation championship...particularly in a working (hunting, herding, sledding, guarding, etc.) breed...you do run the risk of damaging that breed. I believe all working dog breeders should have an eye on working ability when they make breeding decisions...*just* as they should have an eye on preserving proper type, temperament, and health.It is a balancing act, but not an impossible one.As for your initial question, about the brachycephalic breeds...don't have one, don't breed them, not my issue. But I am a purist, far more interested in the breed originally developed, rather than the modern incarnation, and I think that anyone taking over stewardship of a breed owes it to the original developers to be true to that animal. If it had to reproduce naturally and perform a function then, it should do so now. Having an "outdated" function (i.e. Bullbaiting for the Bulldog) is not an excuse. There are other ways to preserve and gauge tenacity and athleticism. Find them.ADD: BTW, the AKC does support other breed-specific events beyond conformation shows...Coonhound events, Earthdog, field trials for some hounds and sporting dogs, lure coursing for sighthounds, herding trials, hunting tests, tracking tests, and even "working dog sport" events for Dobes, Bouviers, Rotties, and GSDs.http://www.akc.org/events/index.cfm?nav_area=eventsADD2: In response to Chaos' comment about English Siberians. The dogs you saw are sprint racing animals...they actually *don't* conform to the KC's Siberian Standard. I know you threw that in as an attempt to snipe at me for criticizing the athletic ability of your breed, but there it is. This is another case of a fad and a style becoming popular, which has nothing to do with the written word. The KC standard for the breed is not that different from the SHCA version, frankly. It's how the people have chosen to INTERPRET it, which gives us the problems GSDs have here, as well as the problems Siberians have there. Ironically, it's the reverse situation leading to the same problem...if you want to debate the finer points, email me.But if you think that the KC standard can somehow be changed to make dogs less "dirty", I'm not sure you know as much as you think you do.

While the AKC is not breeding these dogs, they are accepting registration of them as purebreds...that does not help any breed that is subject to "fad" breeding.If the AKC would conduct shows, real shows, not just conformation events but trials in which ALL breeds that want to become part of the AKC would have to prove themselves in their field of expertise and only those that passed those trials would get to be registered with them, things may be a little different now with many of the breeds that are suffering.If you knew, for a FACT, that breeding crap, just because it has papers does not make it a good dog, will never be accepted for registration, you may think a little different about "fad" breeding.The reason why you could not get your registration papers in Europe, Germany specifically, on your dog til that dog proved that he could function in all aspects of his breed was clear. Hope I helped!ADD: If they do indeed hold such events, why register dogs that do not pass them?Money maybe? Refusal of registration should be the penalty, not the witholding of a ribbon...The reality here is that the AKC, being the oldest and biggest of all registries has the power to make or break breeders, but, I think that greed comes before anything else.This shipping off registration papers to unknown litters of unknown parents needs to stop if we want to preserve the breeds we now have without screwing them up more then we have. Bring your dog to an AKC sponsored trial, have him pass all the requirements, work as well as beauty, and then get your registration slip with your ribbon and trophy!

I completely agree, I have not liked bulldogs for a long time, I don't see how anyone has the audacity to be called a reputable breeder, when they produce dogs that can barely breath on their own, can't breed without human intervention, suffers greatly from the heat, and has a shortened life span. I think conformation shows are ruining most breeds. German Shepherds for example, used to have straight, strong and tall back legs now, they're contorted into a frog dog shape, this isn't what they used to look like. Afghan Hounds in Afghanistan have no where near the amount of hair as the ones bred out of their COO. Bull Terriers used to have a straight nose, now it's hooked and extreme, and gets more and more extreme with each passing year.I believe that a dog should be able to perform it's original function, whether that's hunting, coursing, herding, or guarding, they should remain the way they have been, with only a few exceptions (like bull-baiting breeds, and dog-fighting breeds.)When I look at breeders, I am more impressed when they have working titles, rather than show titles. I don't give a rat's @$$ if your Saluki is a show champion, but I'm interested when I see that the dog has Open Field Coursing Titles.As for the AKC, I've heard people say, it's not their fault the AKC doesn't breed dogs, it's the fault of the breeders and the breed club. But I don't agree, the AKC has a closed stud book, which in my opinion, is ridiculous. That means that Saluki breeders aren't allowed to breed Saluki born in their home of the Middle East, yet the AKC allows inbred dogs from brother sister breeding to be shown and then bred from, they care nothing for inbreeding coefficients. The Swedish Kennel Club has made it that all offspring from a brother sister mating cannot be registered, why can't the AKC do that? I'm not sure, but I also think that the SKC also doesn't allow line bred dogs like mother-son, or father-daughter.I believe that function should be held in higher regard than form. I don't care what the dog looks like, as long as it can do the job I want it to do. For example, there are two very similar breeds, the Chart Polski and the Hortaya Borzaya, they look very similar, but the Chart Polski is bred for conformation, regardless of what their function is, and Hortaya Borzaya are bred for function, regardless of what their conformation is. If I were to get one of these (and I would like one, or both) I would try to get the Hortaya. But at this point in the breeds they both look so similar that Charts still are functional, but I'm sure in twenty years or so, I will not be able to make the same statement, and I bet in twenty years, these now almost identical breeds will look differently, because show breeding will change the Chart.I do think the AKC causes problems as well as show breeders. I hope that my favorite breed, the Azawakh, never gets AKC recognized or falls into the hands of a show breeder who wants to change them.ADD: After reading what Chaos is a veim put, I still think it's unethical to breed brachycephalic dogs. I do not at all agree that it's safer to have a c-section, a healthy bitch should be perfectly capable of whelping on her own, and it is safer to whelp a healthy bitch than to have a c-section. And the link they posted to "working" bulldogs, had almost exclusively photos of obedience, which is not working or functionality. All the dog has to do is a few tricks and fetch a few things, that isn't a working dog, that's a puppet. I will admit that their tracking and cart pulling were more impressive, but I also noticed that the tracking and pulling sections were much much shorter than the obedience one. If you look at pictures of what bulldogs originally looked like, you'll see they were much different than todays dogs. I would never like to own a bulldog, and I would never in good faith be able to breed bulldogs and bring more unhealthy dogs into the world. The bulldog has been called the least healthy breed or the breed with the most health problems, but the number and frequency of health problems aren't declining. These dogs are unhealthy and are continuing to remain unhealthy.ADD: I completely agree with what you added. The Bulldog Standard has changed. You can look up pictures of bull-baiting bulldogs and see the differences and there are several. In recent years, people have worked to re-create the old type of bulldogs, and they have had pretty good luck doing it. The Olde English Bulldogge looks much more similar to the old version of the bulldog, and it also has a longer nose and is more agile. But do people think, oh good, a healthier bulldog that can actually breath and move. No people say, oh that's just another designer dog breed, it's just an unhealthy overpriced mutt.People say it's fine to breed unhealthy bulldogs, but not okay to breed a healthier, sturdier version, that makes no sense. It's obvious to me that the bulldog of today could never bait a bull, but I've heard delusional breeders that seem to believe their dogs still could.

I'll stay out of the AKC debate, as that has been asked and answered hundreds of times here. But I do agree with you on the bracycephalic breeds and some others, If the dog can't breathe, can't breed on its own, can't deliver on its own, etc,. man has messed with it far too much.

Well I will address something all of you have absolutely WRONG. Bulldogs CAN and DO breed naturally and whelp naturally. One since the US is so big, and a lot of good studs are half way across the country, we do AI because its easier, in England where its smaller they only do AI when they can't get the bitch and dog tied. We do c-section in the US because we feel its safer which it is, but they do let them whelp naturally in England, i know a perfectly healthy bulldog in England that was whelped naturally, his mom died but that was not from complications of birth. The ones you see unhealthy are the ones being bred by inexperienced and pet owners. I have 6 perfectly healthy bulldogs, that love being out in the sun to sun bathe, they are smart and know when to find shade or come in. All mine are show dogs.Now for the AKC question, I will copy what I have been writing in all the other questions like this.But before that I will tell you the shepherds in England are worse then in the states, roached backs, touching hocks, weak fronts. The KC is doing something about it because they DO have rights to the standards unlike the AKC. I know a "american" german shepherd that is out there winning all the time and does not have that overly sloped, exaggerated back, which coincidentally is NOT in the standard. If you actually read the standard nowhere does it say they have to be like that. The kC is stopping all CC's from 2012 onward till they fix that problem and double handling problemAKC can't legally do that because they have NO and mean ABSOLUTELY NO rights to the standards at all. Here is my answer to another q.Sorry but this whole AKC has ruined breeds is completely ludicrous. Unlike the KC in England, the AKC does NOT Have rights to the breed standards. Meaning the AKC has nothing to do with the standards, they are just a registry. Its the national breed club that sets the standards. So if anything its the national breed club supposedly ruining breeds. But no I don't think either the AKC nor the breed clubs have ruin breeds, they are there to preserve the breeds, and improve where needed. Its BYB and puppy millers that have destroy breeds.As others have said, nowhere and absolutely nowhere does it say in the standard of the GSD that they have to have that exaggeratedness. Its what the breeders have interpreted and what wins. FYI all my bulldogs run just fine, in fact im thinking of doing agility with some, and for those who think bullies can't do performance events check this out before you spew you're nonsense.http://www.bulldogperformance.org/yes its a very reputable site, and I sortof know one of the ladies that has her pic on there.I will certainly do obedience with my boys.We don't want the standard to change because there is nothing wrong with it. Its people interpretations that need to change. KC is changing theirs for the bulldog and guess what people are fighting it, same would happen here if the AKC actually had rights to the standards which they don't, the breed club holds that right.If i wanted a dog that looked like a boxer or a pit bull I would get those breeds, I don't want that, I want a bulldog.It pisses me off that every time this comes up people pick on the bulldog when there are plenty of other breeds you can be picking on, stop bashing the bulldogThey don't have a shorten life span, I know bulldogs that live into their teens. Yes heat gets to them, but heat can get to any dog if left out in it, thats common sense. Most reputable breeders ARE breeding for dogs with more open nostrils. I have a male that can breath just fine, he has nice open nostrils. And another thing people go on about the tails, well if you read the standard the preferred tail is a straight, loose tail not a corkscrew/tight tail. Yes corkscrews are cute but dogs with straight tails win way more than corkscrews.Breeders ARE working towards more healthier bulldogs, there IS a national health fund much like every other breed has. But we are looking for ways that does not involve changing the look of the breed, we don't want them to go back to what they were, nasty dogs they were (temperament), and then be another statistic for BSL, no way will we let that happen.Gabe the multi talented bulldog http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=FR&hl=fr&v=LCPUU5sEyEcBulldogs are certainly not the dumb, couch potatoes people think they are, they are smart and agile. I know one lady that will only use bulldogs as her service dogs, she is in a wheelchair and he does lots of stuff for her.Im not denying they have health problems cause they do, but so do almost all purebreds, thats because their health problems are actually registered if you registered mutts like purebreds you would see they can have just as many health problems if not more. Singling out a breed like this is ludicrous and frankly insulting to us who are breeding for the betterment of the breed, and are working towards eradicating the health problems we can.Its funny how the KC is changing at least 209 breed standards, but none of them are the breeds of KC officials, I know at least one breed standard that needs to be changed which isn't being, which is the siberian husky. The dogs I saw over there were disgusting, skin and bones, dirty, horrible toplines and movement, out of control, just downright horrible, if it calls for them to be like that in the standard and they are not changing it thats horrible. The dogs that even remotely looked good and could do the job they were bred to do, never won a single thing. The dogs over there most certainly would not be able to pull a sled.

Well, for one thing, the AKC does not set the breed standards. The judges at conformation shows are merely trained in what to look for. The national breed club sets the standards period. I agree with the bulldog statement. The technology of the recent decades has allowed them to become what they are. 100 years ago the breed would have died out because they did not AI then.