Scandalous!

I'd like to preface this post with the statement: This is pure rumor. I do not know the people or dogs involved, but think it is an interesting ethical question regardless.

I hear there is some controversy over the Westminster choice for one of the Best of Breeds. The rumor is that the winner is the pup of a blind and deaf double-merle sire. Further, said sire has never had a ‘normal’ litter, and many of his offspring have health problems. The BoB winner was apparently a singleton pup, though healthy.

The controversy arises of whether or not the BoB winner should have been given the award, considering his lineage. Most people consider a merle-merle crossing ethically questionable at best. Then to breed a blind and deaf double-merle seems downright wrong. So should such breeding practices be encouraged by awarding high honors to descendent pups?

(For the record, my little Aussie is a double-merle. He has blind and deaf sibling, but grew to be a healthy dog himself. Plus, most people mistake him for a tri-color!)

Now for my two cents. While I abhor the practice of breeding two merle parents, I have to think that the judge did the right thing. My limited understanding of breed shows is this: The judge is judging the dog in front of him. That’s it. In a perfect world, the judge wouldn’t know anything about the dog that they cannot see with their own eyes and feel with their own hands. So while breeding from the double-merle sire may not be ethical, his progeny should in no way be penalized in the breed ring for their heritage. By all means, refuse to use him as a stud, but the breed ring is about how each individual dog fits the breed standard.

So to all the winners, congratulations!