A difference in cultures

 You know that old saying: "actions speak louder than words?". 

In my previous post, I briefly brought up the contrast between pug breeders and pekingese breeders in regards to historical preservation. Despite what some may claim, the world of purebred dogs and their owners is not a monolith. I've come to learn that most breed specific communities are rather insular- though they answer to the same authority and share a code of ethics that changes very little. Ask your local fanciers about the current hot gossip in their clubs and I doubt you'll get the same answer twice. This is also a good strategy to find the people that you need to stay away from. 

Petty interpersonal politics aside, there's something to be said about the ways in which breed clubs differ from each other culturally. Some take a liberal approach to the prospect of outcrossing whilst others treat the very notion of mixed blood with distain. It's an interesting dichotomy. 

The Pug Dog Club of America (PDCA for short) has always left a lot to be desired. From their lackluster health testing policies to the (mis)information they present to the public and their standard that has irrevocably damaged the "bulldog in miniature". Now, to be fair, this isn't something unique to the PDCA. I could make the same criticisms of the Pekingese club of America (PCA) who breed similarly crippled and disfigured animals: something which I abhor irrespective of who is doing it or how they spin it. 

So why do I praise the latter and disparage the former? 

To be clear, my admiration of the PCA begins and ends with their dedication to historical accuracy. In a sphere where fanatics will proudly tell you that with breeding they are helping to carry on a lineage dating back hundreds of years, it is concerning how little many of them know about their own dog' ancestors. You can see my commentary on 'Fanciers and Preservation' for more of my thoughts regarding this topic, I don't want to tread old ground, but long story short: more often than not, talk of conservation is just window-dressing and rarely does the average breeder know what it is exactly they're supposed to be protecting. 

The Pekingese Club of America, on the other hand, has a culture of genuine fascination and respect for the origin of their breed. I'm certain this also extends to other national Pekingese clubs based on the interactions I've had with people all over the world. They catalogue and study and share information with a zeal scarcely observed in other purebred dog circles. From ancient imperial China to post Opium war: I can't understate how incredibly helpful some of the resources posted have been in informing my own understanding of the ancestral oriental toy breeds. Even if I may disagree with their politics, It's impossible to fault their enthusiasm for what came before. 

The PCA also has a sizeable bibliography available on their website free for the general public to view and not just members. A mildly impressive feat in the purebred dog world which isn't usually so forthcoming. I do encourage you to check it out if you're at all interested in the topic, or if you simply want to take advantage of the free content on offer. 

By contrast, the Pug Dog Club of America is almost pitiful. The breed history section of their website used to consist of about 5 paragraphs of information in total, but after the recent redesign it seems it wasn't even important enough to warrant its own webpage. Suspiciously, they did have the space to add a dedicated account of the Club's history; all but proving my theory that the only thing they care about is their own institution and not necessarily the breed itself. 

The main takeaway from all of this is that there's more often than not a difference between PR and what goes on behind the scenes. Usually you can discern what's what simply by seeing what an institution places value on: whether its health or structure or the pursuit of grand champion titles. To me, it's almost alarmingly apparent where the priorities of the PDCA lie. However I also think it's important to acknowledge that the purebred dog world is also filled with genuinely passionate people caught up in doing the wrong thing. For all my qualms with the Pekingese people, I can't fault them for their genuine conviction and self imposed duty as vanguards of an ancient cultural relic.

The question we have left to ask ourselves is this: when does the intent of doing good excuse the copious amounts of harm perpetuated by these establishments?