Reciprocity Issue

It is nice to know the real history and not the history that a vocal minority would like to put out. From my perspective, the point I will make is that the show standard is something that was created to please the eye of the people in charge of writing the standard, which has been changed many times over the years to fit the dogs being produced, while the field standard, or at least the conformation of the dogs that compete at a high level in field trials, is brought about by what works and what allows the dogs to do a job. Which standard is more natural?

After speaking at length with Mark Neff, geneticist at UC Davis, my belief is that in ten years, this debate will be moot among enlightened individuals because science will be able to prove that the gene responsible for pointing is the same gene present in all pointing breeds, the gene responsible for backing is the same gene in all breeds of dogs that back, the gene responsible for scent is the same in all breeds, etc. The have already proven that there is one gene responsible for size in all of the toy breeds and all toy breeds descend from one animal, so how can you say they are "cross-bred"? My point is with a better understanding of science, we will come full circle and get back to breeding dogs as it was done centuries ago, and abandon the artificial confines of a "closed pure bred registry". It is ironic though that science is now on the verge of telling us that those who bred dogs in the "dark ages" actually did it with more scientific validity than what has been done in "modern times". I for one, am looking forward to a time when we can put this debate behind us and move forward in our pursuit of the "Purest Challenge".