Nonsense From a Breeder of “Designer Dogs”

Over on Facebook, someone posted a piece by someone who says she has been breeding Silky Terriers for the last 40 years -- "a breed that is now about as rare as the Panda."

This person then goes on to celebrate "preservation breeding" and decry the "amazing breeds" that have "critically low registrations," such as the Sussex Spaniel.

Putting icing on her upside down cake, this woman goes on to say "pretty soon... all that will be left is designer dogs".

What makes this piece laughable is that the author is a breeder of Australian Silky terriers -- the very definition of a failed "designer breed".

As Wikipedia notes, this breed is not ancient, has never been a working dog, and is very much a put-up job by hair dressers chasing ribbons:

 

Up until 1929 the Australian Terrier, the Australian Silky Terrier, and the Yorkshire Terrier were not clearly defined. Dogs of three different breeds might be born in the same litter, to be separated by appearance into the different types once they were grown. After 1932 in Australia, further crossbreeding was discouraged, and in 1955 the breed's name officially became the Australian Silky Terrier. The breed was recognised by the Australian National Kennel Council in 1958 in the Toy Group.

This is a breed that was not even recognized in its country of origin until 1958.

Under the "care" section, we are told:

The Silky Terrier's coat is highly susceptible to tangles and matting and requires daily brushing and combing. This breed requires a deep commitment from the owners. To keep the coat lustrous, regular shampooing is necessary. Use of an aloe and oatmeal shampoo helps alleviate the itchy, dry skin of this breed.

Right. 

Here's the truth:  the SilKy Terrier does nothing other dogs do not do better.  It's the Edsel of breeds and there is nothing here to "preserve".

And what is this breed to be preserved from?  Market forces?  The trash tip of failure?

Back in 2011 I wrote:

This idea that every failed breed needs to be preserved despite lack of function, and despite lack of popularity, and despite heavy coefficients of inbreeding and disease is a common, if deeply broken, idea within the world of pedigree dogs.

It's time we started to think of dogs as breed products.

It is incontestable that some breeds have proven to be failures both as workers and as pets. Why not say it out loud? Why preserve failure within the Kennel Clubs as if it were a success? 

Look at the dog breeds that have never been popular and that do not work, and that are NOT needed to preserve canine diversity.  In the terrier world, the Glen of Imaal terrier, the Cesky Terrier, and the Skye terrier come to mind.

These dogs have less than 100 puppies a year in any registry.

Why preserve a breed which has never been popular, which does not work, and which is an inbred genetic mess?

Do we ask Apple Computer or Ford Motors to keep producing Apple IIs and Edsels?

We do not.

We understand that some products are failures out of the box, while others have been improved upon to the point that the old model is no longer in demand.

And what is the common-sense approach of a business when that happens?

Simple: the company stops stops listing the product in their catalogue, stops making parts, and eventually stops servicing them.

Meanwhile, the world continues to look for a better dog, as it always has. 

It generally wants a smaller dog.

+Itoftem want