French and Dutch Kennel Clubs

[djangonut]

A French breeder of water dogs - barbet, Portuguese, Spanish, lagotto, and Irish Water Spaniel - crossed an Irish Water Spaniel to a barbet in 2000. She was concerned about the incidence of epilepsy and cancer in her IWS. She then mated a cross IWS/barbet puppy back to its Irish Water Spaniel sire. There were three puppies all of which resembled Irish Water Spaniels. One puppy was sold to the Netherlands. The Dutch Kennel Club recognised the puppy as an Irish Water Spaniel and was given registration based on its phenotype.

With a UK Pets Passport, the Dutch puppy was brought to England and mated to a not too distant relation of the original French IWS sire. This English dog was of show quality but also had working credentials. (This dog is still alive, vigorous, healthy, and still working in his twelfth year. (A recent longevity survey, conducted by British breed clubs, and collated by the geneticist Dr. Malcolm Willis, suggests that most IWS do not live beyond nine years.)

Eleven puppies resulted in 2004. Already there are German, Dutch, and French show champions, three dogs have won field trials, and one of those three has become a French Field Trial Champion, competing against English Springer Spaniels. (This is the first Field Trial Champion in the breed for thirty years, and only the fourth in the history of the breed.)

One of these eleven came to England to live with its sire. I thought that there may be trouble registering the puppy with the UK Kennel Club, and spoke with Dr. Jeff Sampson the KC geneticist who promised to facilitate matters if necessary. (The IWS is designated a "vulnerable" breed in the UK because of the small number of annual registrations.) In the event, because of reciprocal arrangements between UK and Continental kennel clubs, the puppy is registered in London. He has three stars next to his name. Next generation two, then one star, then a full pedigree. British IWS breeders have shown no interest in using this dog even though he has won in the show ring, and has a lot of working ability. (A typical reaction was " I don't believe in it!" - the outcross I think.)

Another of the eleven was recently taken from Holland to the US, and on Christmas Day 2007 was mated to a totally unrelated American Champion IWS dog with working qualifications. Nine puppies were born in Holland and they can be seen at http://www.greensocks.nl

Moral: If you want new blood in your breed, do it in France!

[ditkoofseppala]

Thank you for that information, Djangonut. An interesting tale for sure! Yes, I've heard the Irish Water Spaniel mentioned from time to time as a breed in trouble. NOT to say that this is anything to elicit condemnation -- not these days, when to a greater or lesser extent, all dog breeds seem to be in trouble.

Generally speaking, European registries seem to be a bit more advanced in their awareness than AKC and CKC on this side of the water. My Spanish colleage Ramón Rojas and I both imported Russian dogs at about the same time; I returned to Canada, and found that CKC would not accept my Russian import. Ramón, on the other hand, found that the Spanish LOE, though it would not admit his imports into the main stud book, has an auxiliary stud book (the RCC, Registro de Razas Caninas) into which worthwhile dogs with paperwork deficiencies could be entered. The same protocol you mention, basically -- three generations of RCC breeding and the resulting descendants can enter the Libro de Orígines Español. The Canadian Kennel Club told me that they would not even consider third-generation descendants of my imported Siberian sleddog for registration.

So thanks for bringing up this example. It's important for people in North America to realise that the way AKC and CKC handle things is not necessarily worldwide practice, and particularly that the respected registries of Europe do not share the extremist position on "breed purity" that seems to prevail over here.

[dalriach]

An Irish Red and White Setter bitch, bred in Holland, has been registered in both Ireland and the UK by an Irish field trialler without problems. The dam of the bitch is an IRWS (bred in Ireland, now living in Holland), the sire is a red and white dog, Harry, bred from two red Irish Setter parents, who was registered as an IRWS by the Dutch Kennel Club. I think the Dutch Kennel club gave the same limited registration for three generations as was given for the IWS/Barbet crosses
Harry also sired a litter in the US, who are not accepted as Irish Red and White Setters by the AKC (the UKC has accepted them)
The Irish and UK Kennel Clubs have reciprocal arrangements with the Dutch Kennel Club so had to recognise the registration of the imported IRWS bitch who had two red Irish Setter grandparents

I have to admit, I'm not entirely happy about freelance one off outcrosses of this kind. If we need further outcrosses in Irish Red and White Setters, which have a small and rather inbred gene pool and a few genetic problems, I would rather see a well planned outcross programme sanctioned and monitored by the Irish Kennel Club and the breed club in Ireland. While the IWS/Barbet outcross seems to have worked well, it hasnt been widely accepted within the breed
We had a previous outcross programme in IRWS in Ireland starting around 1989, using working red Irish Setters, which was sanctioned and monitored by the Irish kennel club, to improve the working ability of the IRWS. Only one breeder in Ireland carried the programme through the required four generations, but his dogs have had a considerable impact on the field trial dogs in the breed, making up several field trial champions. The effects of the outcross have been positive and the descendants are indistinguishable from other field trial IRWS
Since then, understanding about the genetic problems of small gene pools and inbreeding in breeds like IRWS has increased a lot, and if another outcross programme was embarked on , this time it would be more about expanding the genetic material of the breed and avoiding the growing risks of genetic and health problems in the small and rather inbred gene pools of both the field trial and show dogs
Margaret Sierakowski

[ditkoofseppala]

Margaret, one good point you make here is where you said:

Since then, understanding about the genetic problems of small gene pools and inbreeding in breeds like IRWS has increased a lot, and if another outcross programme was embarked on , this time it would be more about expanding the genetic material of the breed and avoiding the growing risks of genetic and health problems in the small and rather inbred gene pools of both the field trial and show dogs

Awareness HAS increased in some areas, at some levels. That's progress. If that awareness could be more generally expanded throughout the dog fancy then much more progress might be made. That's needed, because time is running out, both in terms of increasing genetic problems, and decreased public toleration of the perceived faults of the dog-breeding world.

Another point is that you, personally aren't entirely happy about the freelance outcrosses. That is where the worst of the political problems come from -- the simple fact that breeders rarely are in full agreement with one another about the value of ANYTHING. Factionalism happens very readily and in the highly politicised atmosphere of the dog fancy folks are quick to condemn what they don't like -- and in many cases to work to do one another down. There is not very much of a tolerance for differences of opinion, and -- as long as the registries are in any way exposed to dog-politics -- someone usually has the power either to facilitate or to obstruct almost anything that doesn't represent "business as usual." People are never going to agree about outcrossing programmes and how they should be conducted.

That is what is leading me these days to the inexorable conclusion that we might all be better off if our registries were simply recording what breeders do -- strictly and utterly non-judgmentally. At the very least that would mean that we should all then be free to follow our own best judgment as breeders -- and that others would be entirely free to decide how they valued the results of that, by either breeding to our dogs or ignoring them in favour of someone else's. It may be a pretty stark solution. We might lose some of our favourite hobbyhorses in the process -- including losing most of the never-ending inconclusive battles that dog folk seem to love. But it might put the emphasis back where it belongs -- on the dogs and the individual breeding programmes that produce them. I just don't know . . . but that's the way I'm tending to think these days.

Thanks for your interesting and informative post, Margaret!

Jeffrey

[dalriach]

"Another point is that you, personally aren't entirely happy about the freelance outcrosses"

Some of that is about the motivation for outcrosses, and concern about lack of knowledge about the breed in some people who might want to be involved in outcrossing. We have had one really bad example of an attempt at outcrossing in IRWS by an American, who apparently thought the breed was extinct and set out out to recreate it - he had little knowledge of either the breed or its history, and simply thought that anything bred from setters (any kind) which was approximately the right colour was an Irish Red and White Setter. There are still descendants of his dogs around in the US and people who have tried unsuccessfully to get them accepted by the AKC. In this case AKC was right not to accept them
I'm a very conservative breeder, wanting to conserve an ancient Irish breed that has changed remarkably little since the late eighteenth century - unlike the other three setter breeds which have all evolved from the ancient setters into modern breeds, and split into very distinct show and working sub-breeds. From a purely historical perspective, I dont want to see any freelance and ignorant attempts at messing up my breed, I want it preserved as it was, a very functional early type of working setter bred and designed for the Irish landscape . A kind of living antique. From that perspective I welcome the controls of the Irish Kennel Club who also support the preservation of their native breeds.
On the other hand I'm also "modern" enough to be concerned about the health and genetics of my breed. And yes, I would agree that national kennel clubs generally are not doing enough about these aspects of dog breeding. But if they could change, and accept the necessity for preventing close in-breeding , controlling the use of popular sires, and not breeding to perpetuate health and genetic problems, and more flexibly allowing the incorporation of new blood into breeds which need it, I would rather see responsible kennel clubs doing all that than allowing completely uncontrolled free lance cross breeding.
In my own breed it would be a disaster, imagine show breeders deciding to crossbreed their IRWS with extrene show bred Irish Setters, and turning their IRWS into a some kind of non functional long haired, long necked , brainless and crippled Barbie doll. No thanks! If we need crossbreeding to keep the breed healthy and functional , then I would rather see it done through a carefully planned and controlled breeding programme, approved and sanctioned by the Irish kennel Club
But at the same time I can see that the situation of your Seppalas is different, you havent got a national kennel club that values what you have and you probably feel happier with an evolving breed, whereas I just want to preserve mine, rather than see it evolve into some kind of extreme modern dog
Margaret Sierakowski

[ditkoofseppala]

A very thought-provoking post, Margaret. You raise a question that has always given me great concern: preservation. The ratio of deeply-committed, "conservative breeders" like yourself to new breeders, casual breeders, and outright transients is nearly always an unfavourable one. And even long-established breeders can quite often turn out to be not the kind of breeders that do much good for their breed.

"Responsible kennel clubs" . . . I think we can probably all agree that we would rather see responsible kennel clubs doing the right things for dogs. But the record in that sector is pretty bad. In my country, the Canadian Kennel Club is certainly "conservative" in its way, but not to the benefit of the dogs. The club untiringly depicts itself as "respected" worldwide, for the "integrity of its stud book." In actual fact it is merely hidebound and resistant to change, unwilling to admit that any of its policies and procedures might be mistakes. AKC, these days, seems even worse, having become a huge corporate beast in search of profit, most of which it derives from the commercial sector, interested in volume registrations above all else, committed to a policy of putting all competing registries out of business, and in the process of swallowing up 65 rare breeds that are all ill-suited to its way of doing things. Can organisations like these become "responsible kennel clubs"? I have my doubts . . .

You wish to preserve your breed, not to see it "evolve into some kind of extreme modern dog." I think that position is virtually identical to my own in respect of the Seppala Siberian Sleddog. What we both must consider is that our respective populations ARE going to evolve, one way or another. The fact that Seppalas at this time bear the Agriculture-imposed label of "evolving breed" doesn't mean that they are necessarily in a state of rapid change, much less towards anything modern or extreme. Just as the fact that the IRWS is an ancient Irish breed does not, unfortunately, make it immune to change. In this connection I am reminded of the words of Hampton Carson, cautionary words that I have tried to keep uppermost in my mind for the past fifteen years:

The genetic system is not a fixed and frozen entity but is dynamic and variable. . . The biological conserver, short of putting the DNA into liquid nitrogen, cannot hope to freeze the characteristics of any natural population, be it a deme, a subspecies, or a species.

Carson was speaking from a zoological conservation manager's point of view, but the caution applies to manmade varieties . . . "breeds" . . . as well. Especially in small populations like ours, to arrest change is beyond our powers. I look at the McFaul/Shearer survivors of Seppala strain, and I cannot honestly say that these are the same dogs that stepped off the schooner Nanuk onto the gravel beach of Nome in the Gold Rush days. How much of the change is due to conscious decisions made by the small handful of breeders that perpetuated the strain (Leonhard Seppala; Alex and Charles Belford; Harry Wheeler; J. D. McFaul; Bill Shearer; Keith Bryar; J. M. McDougall; Douglas Willett; Gary Egelston; my poor self, and a couple of others that bred single litters -- so few!) and how much to genetic drift is arguable, I suppose. I tend to think that drift had more to do with it than breeding decisions. Random drift is the breeder's hidden enemy; it takes the decisions out of our own hands quite often. As breeders we have our own desires and aspirations, but frequently Great Nature overrules us. A breed population MUST evolve, in one way or another. The question is whether we actually have the capability -- or even whether we should attempt -- to direct that evolution into rigid channels, let alone try to arrest genetic change and recombination.

I don't pretend to know the answers to such questions. I only know that you and I must consider them in our rôles as would-be conservers of our historic populations. I suspect that you don't know as much about the 18th-Century IRWS as you would like to know in order to fulfil that rôle; I KNOW that I don't know as much about the east Siberian draught dog at the dawn of European contact as I wish that I could. There are not enough surviving data for full knowledge. Until we have a time machine wherewith to return to a bygone era to delve deeply into our special interests, our knowledge is necessarily fragmentary. How, then, can we possibly "conserve" our populations -- which have already been subject to a century or two of drift in the interim -- in the absence of full knowledge?

Neither you nor I want an "extreme" "modern" "Barbie-doll" dog, in terms of either IRWS or SSSD. The question is how, as minority breeders of minority breeds, we can go about the task of conservation -- especially given a registry atmosphere (including the registry-sponsored/regulated dog shows) that is so hostile to our goals?

[djangonut]

Further to the previous discussion of "preservation", and the inevitable evolution of breeds, there is one aspect of my breed that should not be perpetuated.

The Irish Water Spaniel standard states of temperament, "initially aloof". I am sure that this is a description as how most water spaniels happened to be in the nineteenth century, and not a prescription of what they ought to be. Harding Cox, show judge, influential in the early breeding of cockers and flat coats, a shooting man, and master of foxhounds described the breed in "Dogs and I" in the 1920s as surly. And the "initially aloof" tag has been used to justify or excuse shy, fear-biting animals.

Although IWS temperament has improved somewhat over the last 25 years there are winning show dogs who still resist handling. There is still excessive nervousness in the breed. I have observed a champion show bitch snap at a judge.

Many IWS are shooting dogs who need to be happy leaping in the back of a Land Rover with assorted other breeds. They are not required to protect the game hanging there from other dogs or humans! Most IWS are placed in pet homes where good temperament is essential for harmonious modern living. "Aloof" may have been a requirement when tied up as a yard dog, guard dog, occasional gundog, behind a croft in nineteenth century Ireland. Good temperament is a necessary precondition for most modern dogs in family situations.

I understand that the barbet is known for excellent temperament. I also understand that the barbet is an ancient breed possibly important in founding water breeds, the poodle, and the (bar)bichon - the little barbet. An outcome of the barbet/IWS cross has been that all eleven puppies in the third generation have been "laid back". There was one that lived on an isolated beach in Portugal that barked at the rare passer-by, but apparently even he now welcomes visitors happily. My own youngster is immediately friendly without being over-pushy, and I have not known him to be apprehensive in any situation. He is excellent with other dogs when sharing the game cart and travelling between drives. But he still retains the joie-de-vivre associated with the breed.

The barbet/IWS cross has demonstrably been successful up to now in Europe in both the show ring and field trial departments. Its long term value though may be on future generations of better emotionally balanced Irish Water Spaniels.

John

[ditkoofseppala]

John, that is a telling success story! Temperament problems seem to be one thing that cuts across breed barriers to show up as a problem wherever inbreeding and showdog selection have combined. Behavioural traits are all too often ignored in favour of "conformation," flashy gait, or whatever. That is a shame, because good temperament and manageability are so basic and vital, especially these days in an overpopulated world where dogs are sometimes just barely allowed on sufferance, and subject to considerable regulation -- not to mention the folks like P.E.T.A. who would gladly see them cease to exist at all.

It is true that sometimes ancient and/or primitive breeds show behavioural or temperament traits that are maladaptive today. It's good to see someone with such a breed recognising that such traits can, over time, be changed -- and should be. Thanks for this example of how an intelligent outcrossing program can kill two birds with one stone, improving temperament as well as restoring genetic diversity and relieving inbreeding depression. Thanks, John.