Re: [pyrnet] GPCA -- and dwarfs

["Linda Weisser" <lmweisser@olywa.net>]

Cindy,

I sure don't think that you're being a pain.  So, let's see where we can go
with this.  We need to separate "litter registration" from "individual
registration".  I presume that all dwarfs are included in the count of the
litter being registered.  Most dwarfs are not even identified by the time
that a litter is registered.  One then has a choice to individually
register a dwarf or not.  Or the dwarf could have limited registration.

Nothing in what the GPCA proposes to do will have any effect upon the
ability of a dwarf owner to register the dog and show at any AKC event.
Techinically full registered dwarfs could be shown in conformation.  They
would undoubtedly be excused for "lack of merit" but couldn't be
disqualified because our standard has no DQs.

What the GPCA would be saying is that the club will not recognize with its
own private club awards an animal that demonstrates a genetic deformity
which makes it totally outside the standard.  We really are talking about a
great deal more than just not being "correct to the standard".  I'm not
interested in arguing here the "relative" merits of other Pyrs.  Dwarfs are
clearly in a different category and we recognize that and the club has a
general "policy" of striving to eliminate them.  The fact that "The very
people who know that he is a dwarf, that know it's a condition that is
trying to be eliminated or
controlled within the breed, and know that while he isn't  'correct to
standard'  he does currently exist within the breed" is at least partially
behind the Board proposal.  If the people who know most clearly that this
is a serious genetic defect are willing to reward such with their own
highest recognition, what does that say about the "seriousness" of the
desire to combat the problem?  As in "sure,we don't want dwarfs and we know
they are a genetic problem in the breed but heck, we'll make this one (or
that one) a Hall of Fame dog and call it the best among the breed."  At
some level that may not make much sense.  Just because you know something
exists and you don't hate it and you don't banish it to the outer rings,
does not mean that you need to honor it.

How is this changing things in the public eye?  Interestingly enough one
officer of the club received close to a dozen phone calls over the year
from people wanting to known where they could get a Pyr dwarf since they
had just seen one and thought that they were *so* cute.  Personally, this
tends to strike terror into my heart.  This situation is certainly not
helped by putting the GPCA imprimatur of a HOF on them. This also connects
somewhat to the earlier thread about breeding for dwarfs deliberately.  It
does seem increasingly clear that there may be a market out there.

I really wish that we could strike some sort of balance here.  Dwarfs are
not "freaks" or horrors or to be banned and/or banished.  They are what
they are through a "mistake" of the genes.  They are not anyone's "fault".
They are not, or should not be, an embarassment to anyone.  They simply
"are".  OTOH, they are *not* just like any other Pyr only smaller.  They
are not "cute".  Do we see human dwarfs as "cute"??  I sometimes wonder if
breeders who are so quick to trot dwarfs out into full public view and make
an issue of them, would be so quick to take into public and "promote" a
normal size Pyr of their breeding who exhibited serious structual faults or
bright blue eyes or some other serious deviation from the standard.  I
suspect that these breeders would be *very* unwilling to have the public
(and other breeders) see a dog so deviant from the standard. So what makes
dwarfs different??

There are probably more questions than answers, just as there is clearly
more heat than light.

Linda Weisser
lmweisser@olywa.net