A breed standard debate...

Seen in the wild today in a debate I took part in: "It is very difficult to preserve and protect a breed following a breed standard. It is why many people are not good at it." I just want to give my two cents on this subject. The person I was debating was someone who supports line breeding. I personally do not support line breeding. Her argument is that line breeding is NECESSARY to "lock in" traits. First, I disagree with that entirely. But more importantly, let's look at the comment that it is "difficult to preserve...a breed following a breed standard." This is only true IF you have an unreasonably strict and limiting breed standard which emphasizes conformity. This is one of the biggest issues with the standards for aussies and MAS. It is full of restrictions that have nothing to do with the breed's purpose and which limit the gene pool for no logical reason. We have a limited selection of coat color, restrictions on white spotting, one correct coat length, a limited number of correct ear types, and in MAS, a small size range. All of this limits us IF we choose to follow said standard to the letter.

Compare this to, say, the border collie which has no DQs, no serious faults, and a wide range of acceptable phenotypes (ears, color, coat, etc). Breed standards are only difficult to uphold if the writers back themselves into a corner. Another breed standard worth noting is that of the greyhound, which is only a few sentences long. My favorite part of it is "Color: immaterial". How brilliant! I love that. Color is immaterial because it doesn't make or break the dog's ability to work. Breed standards which choose to place a higher value on cosmetic factors than working ability will indeed be difficult to follow and preserve. Instead of seeing this as permission to inbreed, let's re-write the standards to focus on health and ability.

It's really quite a simple solution.