It's a mystery to me how conservation and conservatism got so separated from each other. To me, conservation is simply being cautious and careful with the natural world upon which our lives depend, and conservatism is being cautious and careful with traditions and culture. But somehow conservation became, in conservative's minds, a way to take power and control away from people, and conservatism became, in liberals' minds, a way to take power and control away from people. Odd.

I was thinking about this because I think of the working Australian Shepherd as an endangered American heritage breed of dog. There are several organizations devoted to the project of identifying and supporting minor and landrace livestock breeds, and seedstocks of 'heirloom' cultivated plants. There is growing awareness of the importance of genetic diversity in domestic plants and animals, and how threatened it is by industrialized farming techniques. But few notice how the same thing is true for breeds of working dogs.

If all the Aussies bred for conformation shows and dog sports and companionship are set to one side, leaving just those bred specifically for stock work, I myself find that the pedigrees all start to look rather the same. The same handful of dogs are in back of most of the current dogs. That is not a healthy thing.

What is genetic diversity and why is it desirable? Not to get too technical about this, but in nature, it is always advantageous to have multiple versions of essentially similar organisms. The broadest reason is that the environment is always changing, and some variations are going to be more adapted and others, less. If the genetics of an organism is very uniform, its ability to cope with these changes, as a species, is going to be much less.

Another reason, of critical importance in dog breeds, is that many negative inherited traits are recessive, that is they only become visible when two "carriers" of the trait are bred together. In its simplest form, each carrier has only one copy of the gene, hence they don't show the trait. Only their offspring with two copies will show it. The more closely related the parents, the more likely these negative recessive traits will show up.

In Aussies the gene for epilepsy is an example, and it is far from being the only one. The smaller the gene pool, the harder it is to find unrelated animals which do not carry the specific recessives you wish to avoid.

Furthermore, continual inbreeding, for reasons still debated, creates a syndrome called ''inbreeding depression' which depresses vitality. This is manifested by immune system problems, reproductive problems, and possibly, shortened lifespans.

There are two different concepts here. One is that working-type Aussies are in themselves worth preserving because they are a currently useful breed of working dog, in the same category as other "heritage" breeds of domestic animal which fill niches in the agricultural economy.

The other is that, if working-type Aussies are to continue, improve, and remain viable as a working breed, a concerted effort to seek out lesser-known lines and make sure they don't fade out is urgently needed. This is presently still possible, with effort. But it seems to me that this window is closing. I am not the only person who is seeking 'outside crosses' and having a hard time finding them.

Conservation, at its core, means looking beyond your nose, beyond your immediate personal benefit, to the probable effects of your actions upon future generations. Are we, right now, doing the right things to protect this gene pool? And if we are not, how then must we change our thinking and our actions?