# 3rd Dog-Health Group report: KC continues pretense, closed gene-pool = OK



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

this month's _Country Life_ mag celebrates the KC's history -

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: KC admits: "We needed to get a grip"

but buried on page-30 of the latest *dog health group* report, is this marshmallow statement:
_"...our results show that most breeds have an effective population size *below the 
recommended minimum* to maintain a sustainably low rate of inbreeding."_

i added the *bold* emphasis; what they're saying is that breeds DON't have the numbers 
to continue to breed ONLY same-breed pairs, & avoid all the fallout of inbreeding.

however, it's couched in terms as vague & fuzzy as possible, lest they admit the truth:
Closed gene-pools are not long-term sustainable.

For a simple example, see the wolves of Isle Royale, or the Florida cougar - after years of screaming, 
several out-of-the-area toms were released in Florida, & litter #s doubled; cub-survival tripled.

The screaming about the Isle Royale wolves is ongoing; by the time they make a decision, 
the isolated wolf-popn may be irrecoverable. :nonod:


----------



## Pixieandbow (Feb 27, 2013)

Well who would read to page 30...

I despair sometimes. A colleague of mine wants a puppy. I said just don't get something like a grunty pug, make sure you know the pup is as healthy as possible. She replied "oh I love the way they grunt, it's sooooooo cute" :frown2:


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I have zero knowledge of breeding and genetics - but it seems to me there has to be a sensible way to widen the gene pools with importing and possibly outcrossing (is that the right term?) I don't understand why those involved in the breeds are so resistant, surely if they don't do something their beloved breed will disappear 
But then that sounds expensive and time consuming if done correctly - not something many people would be prepared to do.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Yeah ...I read JH 's typical foaming at the mouth tirade against the KC too ...answer me this CC - how is it possible to out cross at the level required to maintain genetic diversity and still have all the hundreds of different pedigree breeds we currently enjoy ? ....has ANYONE done this ? ...has Jemima Harrison or any of her cronies? ...have you ? 


Breeding pedigree dogs is all about selecting for specific traits and this inevitably means staying within a restricted gene pool, even if we out crossed (cross bred) if we wanted to keep our breeds we would subsequently then have to select pups from the outcross that had the characteristics we wanted to breed on from thus again working within a reduced gene pool and as culling is no longer acceptable (thankfully) just what would we do with all the untypical crossbred pups that would be produced ? ..if I cross bred my BSD with a GSD for example I might get one or two pups that had sufficient BSD characteristics to breed on from - these would likely be over used in an attempt to try and get back to the breed I love ...how is this widening up the gene pool ? 

So excuse me if I'm not welcoming with open arms the idea that I can somehow 'save' my breed by destroying it 

Of course if you , or JH or indeed anyone else has any evidence that it is possible to continuously cross breed without losing breed type then please share it....in fact go one better and DO IT YOURSELF !


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ... how is it possible to out-cross at the level required to maintain genetic diversity & still have all
> the hundreds of different pedigree breeds we currently enjoy?


Bijou, 
there have been several deliberate outcross-programs in the past few decades, of which
the most-well-known is one that introduced a few outcrosses to Pointers, in order to eliminate 
the "gout" gene [purine intolerance] in Dalmations. Tho the original idea was approved by the breed-club, 
when it came to actual REGISTRY of the LUA-Dals [low uric-acid], the club members changed their 
collective [& IMO closed] minds.

These LUA-Dals are just as handsome as 'pure' Dals, minus the deleterious gene - & look exactly like 
any other well-bred Dalmatian. Yet these pigheaded ppl would rather bar them from AKC-registry, 
which of course means they cannot be used to sire or whelp registered litters.

talk about dog in the manger behavior! Very shortsighted & IMO not in the best interests of their dogs,
or their chosen breed. :nonod:


Bijou said:


> Breeding pedigree dogs [selects] for specific traits & this inevitably means... a restricted gene pool;
> even if we outcrossed... to keep our breeds, we'd subsequently... select pups from the outcross [with traits]
> we [want to keep], thus again working within a reduced gene pool, & as culling is no longer acceptable
> (thankfully), just what would we do with all the untypical crossbred pups
> that would be produced ?


hooey.

It isn't necessary to go entirely outside one's breed - using a stud from another area is often 
sufficient to improve diversity; CHECKING the Coefficient of Inbreeding is a simple step, which avoids 
the egregious use of highly-related sire & dam lines.

As a USA east-coast resident, i could use sperm from a dog west of the Mississippi, or Canada - 
so long as i confirm the COI. I could choose a bitch from the Country of Origin, the tactic used by 
the Basenji CLub of America, when a *fatal* bleeding-disorder began to decimate the US 
& European descendants of this African dog-breed.

Somehow the breed developing a deadly heritable problem overwhelmed the breed-club members' 
horror of introducing "new blood", altho it took a lot of talking to get there. 


Bijou said:


> ..if I crossbred my BSD with a GSD...


Dutch Shepherds received a whopping infusion of "dumped" purebred Malinois in the 1920s / 30s, 
i'm not sure of the exact year - as that was the year that BRINDLE was tossed out of the Malinois 
standard. Suddenly they didn't want striped coats - & all those dogs moved to the Dutch-Shep registry.

so, yeah - there's a reason that Mals & Dutchies look a lot alike.

Also *Weim, Viszla, & GSP* - they're closely-related breeds. I'd love to see an outcross reduce Sep-Anx 
in Weims, as the breed is nearly synonymous with the problem-behavior, & their suffering can be awful;
i've worked with affected Weims, & it's a very complex, difficult, highly emotional issue, not just for the dog,
but the owner / family.

However, i doubt i'll see such a logical, reasonable effort in my lifetime - the muleheaded insistence 
that any outcross whatever will, _"RUIN OUR DOGS!"_, is so predictable.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Pixieandbow said:


> A colleague of mine wants a puppy. I said just don't get something like a grunty pug, make sure you know
> the pup is as healthy as possible. She replied, "oh, I love the way they grunt, it's sooooooo cute!" :frown2:


retraining is needed. :yesnod:

fit her with a prong-collar, & every time she looks at a dog or pup who appears to have had an accident 
with an ice-cream scoop smashing their foreface, teeth, sinuses & jaw back toward their ears, JERK 
the leash - just a short, sharp correction -- & instantly release the pressure. 

After 2 or 3 dog-magazines, or 20-minutes viewing an on-line website dedicated to Brit-Bulls,
Pugs, Toy-Spaniels, Pekes, etc, she won't love those abnormally foreshortened faces *nearly* 
as much.  B-Mod can be negative association, not only happy pairings.


----------



## Pixieandbow (Feb 27, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> retraining is needed. :yesnod:
> 
> fit her with a prong-collar, & every time she looks at a dog or pup who appears to have had an accident
> with an ice-cream scoop smashing their foreface, teeth, sinuses & jaw back toward their ears, JERK
> ...


If I used a shock collar on her I could shock her remotely...that may also be effective...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Here we go again, JH and PDE save the world of pedigree dogs, not!! 

It doesn't matter how you think the gene pools can be broadened, to breed out things like separation anxiety within weimerarners, the simple fact is, poor breeding has probably led to this *trait*, and if you outcross and poor breeding practices continue, it will resurface, in the same way as you get noisy and hard mouthed Labradors. But it's all the fault of the KC and those who show their dogs, it's nothing to do with supplying demand to Joe Public from unscrupulous breeders who would bung two dogs together, or worse still, use a popular stud on their bitch with no real thought except increasing saleability. 

Life's too short to bother reading JH's rantings, heard it once, heard it all before.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It doesn't matter how you think the gene pools can be broadened, to breed out things like sep-anx in Weims,
> *the simple fact is, poor breeding... probably led to this *trait*...*


actually, the GENETIC BOTTLENECK caused by the death of so many dogs during WWs I & II caused the strong 
tendency to sep-anx in Weims.

if U have any brilliant ways to prevent the deaths of many thousands of dogs of individual breeds,
let alone millions of individual humans, during 2 huge wars that covered most of 2 human-generations,
over the greater part of Europe & Russia - a vast geographic area - let's take out a double-page spread 
in the New York Times, & damn the co$t.

nobody "planned" this; *there were very few survivors by 1945*. Dogs continued to be killed or die 
needlessly in the UK, years after WW-2 ended, due to the scarcity of FOOD; rationing continued, & dogs' lives 
couldn't be justified when humans' lives & well-being were in the balance. Malnutrition of the dam leads to 
pup-mortality & fading - we all know this. Even adult-dogs, after years on end of poor nutrition, are 
more-susceptible to microbes of all kinds.


----------



## JAChihuahua (Nov 23, 2012)

Please forgive me for butting in here... I'm not a breeder and have no intention of ever breeding, however I do love genetics!

To answer Bijou... As I understand it, there are several cat breeds which have small gene pools but which allow outcrossing with other breeds (including moggies!!!) and they all still retain their breed individuality but their gene pools are much more diverse. It seems much more common in those breeds in which their ancestry can be traced back to 1 or 2 cats.

On the downside, I understand that genetic defaults which were once unique to one breed are now widespread in breeds in which they have been outcrossed (or used as an outcross). PKD being a prime example of this, however with genetic testing its possible to eliminate PKD from your lines.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

CC - using dogs from other countries , importing, using AI and frozen semen is already pretty widespread within the world of responsible pedigree dog breeding ....that is not what Jemima and her followers are calling for . I do know of the Lua Dalmatians, the breed was out crossed just once and has subsequently remained strictly within the closed Dalmatian gene pool for over 15 generations , the same technique as was used to create the bob tailed Boxer. This also is not what Jemima is calling for .

In order to retain genetic diversity her argument is that pedigree dog breeders should be continuously cross breeding .....the rough figures given are around every third or fourth generation ( dependent on the population size of the breed ). I frankly believe that it is not possible to do this and retain our pedigree breeds, I know of no pedigree dog breeder who does this and no evidence that it is possible. Call me a conspiracy theorist but I do think her underlying mission is to see an end to pedigree dogs altogether :thumbdown:

Many people use the argument that our breeds were created by amalgamating several breeds and this is true but the methods used to subsequently 'set' the desired new breed characteristics were pretty drastic and would be unacceptable now , pups born that did not conform to to what was required were culled, and VERY close inbreeding often done , read this description of how the Cesky Terrier was created to get some idea CeskyTerrier.co.uk: Development
Quite rightly breeders today are not going to go down this route in order to try and retain their breed's unique traits and inevitably these would over time be lost. The paradox that JH and others cannot seem to grasp is that they are in effect asking breeders to work towards the destruction of their breeds in the name of saving them ....you could not make it up !

However I could be wrong ......and I would happily eat the biggest slice of humble pie if those who are telling me that it's possible to CONTINUOUSLY cross breed and still retain all the wonderful and unique characteristics that make my breed different from any other actually put their money where their mouth is and do it themselves....go on...if it's possible - SHOW US !!!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

It's interesting that outcrossing is used in pedigree cat breeding - is this done frequently within the same line ? Or is it the same technique as was used to create the Lua Dally ( I.e once only then bred back in to the closed gene pool ) .


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Bijou said:


> It's interesting that outcrossing is used in pedigree cat breeding - is this done frequently within the same line ? Or is it the same technique as was used to create the Lua Dally ( I.e once only then bred back in to the closed gene pool ) .


As far as GCCF (the main registering body) is concerned, outcrossing to non-pedigrees is available to a tiny majority of pedigree cat breeds but in practice is rarely, if ever, done. Allowed outcrosses to 'other' pedigree breeds is far more common for some breeds but is generally only available in the developmental stage of a newer breed or new colour within a breed.

However, for most breeds where the gene pool is considered (whether it actually is or not is another question) large enough, outcrossing is not allowed. Where outcrossing is an available option, it tends to be done in a very limited fashion and/or as a one-off because of the onerous constraints of the registration policy (i.e. mating back, in subsequent generations only 'within' the particular breed before the cat can go back on the full register for showing purposes) so some might say it doesn't do an awful lot, gene pool wise, for an already impoverished gene pool.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> actually, the GENETIC BOTTLENECK caused by the death of so many dogs during WWs I & II caused the strong
> tendency to sep-anx in Weims.
> 
> if U have any brilliant ways to prevent the deaths of many thousands of dogs of individual breeds,
> ...


In that case you're behind the times, dogs were outcrossed where the gene pool was diminished and it was deemed necessary to preserve a breed. Flatcoats were outcrossed with Labrador retrievers, which is one reason why, when looking at the health tests for flatcoats, I also bear in mind what is recommended for Labradors.

I'm not sure why Weimerarners developed separation anxiety because of the war(s)?!! Surely it's poor breeding of dogs with the incorrect temperament, not them worrying about the war?? The history of the breed shows they weren't widely available until quite late in comparison to other breeds, so they weren't a popular breed in the UK or else where other than their home country for quite a long time. So I'm sorry, but the first and second world wars causing separation anxiety in weimerarners is a pants explanation.

Again, life in the 1950's with dogs was very different to life now. What are now called various doodles and *****ugs, were either drowned in a bucket or given away as mongrels, and pedigree dogs were not widely owned. It wasn't just the war that prevented people owning and feeding dogs, it just wasn't as popular, people couldn't afford to buy a pedigree dog for the most part. Those who could afford dogs fed them on scraps, there really is no comparison to the way we own and treat our dogs today, it's over sixty years ago at least, much longer for the first world war, which is a lifetime.

I've heard everything now, if it's not show breeders, then it's the war that's to be blamed for the demise of pedigree dogs, even though there have been, and continue to be steps to help ensure the gene pools are kept as open as possible within a closed gene pool, and outcrossing has been, and will be used when it's thought necessary.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

horses, cattle, & cats all have various breeds, but outcrossing is practiced.
Crossbreds are also registerable & tracked, can be bred & their offspring registered, etc.

it's obvious to geneticists that the current scheme in dog-registries [AKC, UKC, CKC, FCI, etc]
is not viable long-term, & the sins of the breeders are rapidly coming to blast the innocent dogs.

whether any registry or breed-club has the guts & the brains to act before their breed are wrecked 
is an entirely open question; given the current mindset of breeders, clubs, & registries, i doubt it - 
& i think it's heartbreaking.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Bijou said:


> Yeah ...I read JH 's typical foaming at the mouth tirade against the KC too ...answer me this CC - how is it possible to out cross at the level required to maintain genetic diversity and still have all the hundreds of different pedigree breeds we currently enjoy ? ....has ANYONE done this ? ...has Jemima Harrison or any of her cronies? ...have you ?
> 
> Breeding pedigree dogs is all about selecting for specific traits and this inevitably means staying within a restricted gene pool, even if we out crossed (cross bred) if we wanted to keep our breeds we would subsequently then have to select pups from the outcross that had the characteristics we wanted to breed on from thus again working within a reduced gene pool and as culling is no longer acceptable (thankfully) just what would we do with all the untypical crossbred pups that would be produced ? ..if I cross bred my BSD with a GSD for example I might get one or two pups that had sufficient BSD characteristics to breed on from - these would likely be over used in an attempt to try and get back to the breed I love ...how is this widening up the gene pool ?
> 
> ...


On the other hand the evidence of continuous line breeding (in breeding irl) is clear for all to see.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

if you think the preservation of our pedigree dog breeds is 'heart breaking' then there is absolutely nothing to stop you breeding dogs the way you want ...( plenty of Oodle Doodle breeders do ) just don't expect other breeders to agree.

Lets look at what we have here ...on one hand we have Jemima Harrison who is not a scientist, is not a geneticist and has never bred a single puppy in her life with her followers all of whom have similarly *ZERO *experience of what they are 'advising' us to do and on the other we have thousands of experienced pedigree dog breeders ...but hey you know what they might all be wrong - personally I'm not prepared to breed generations of crossbreeds in order to find out ...are you ?


> on the other hand the evidence of continuous line breeding (in breeding irl) is clear for all to see.


yep ..I live with the result of my breeding decisions as do my puppy buyers - by using line breeding I've reduced the incidences of epilepsy and improved temperaments, I've produced dogs that live on average 12-14 years with the only veterinary intervention being their annual check up and eye tests and hip scoring, I've produced dogs that are able to compete at agility, obedience, HWTM and conformation as well as SAR and therapy dogs ...by using line breeding I've been able to track health, structure, temperament and fertility across 8 generations.

...still what do I know ?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Here we go again, JH and PDE save the world of pedigree dogs, not!!
> 
> It doesn't matter how you think the gene pools can be broadened, to breed out things like separation anxiety within weimerarners, the simple fact is, poor breeding has probably led to this *trait*, and if you outcross and poor breeding practices continue, it will resurface, in the same way as you get noisy and hard mouthed Labradors. But it's all the fault of the KC and those who show their dogs, it's nothing to do with supplying demand to Joe Public from unscrupulous breeders who would bung two dogs together, or worse still, use a popular stud on their bitch with no real thought except increasing saleability.
> 
> Life's too short to bother reading JH's rantings, heard it once, heard it all before.


Want to rep you for this but can't


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

gskinner123 said:


> As far as GCCF (the main registering body) is concerned, outcrossing to non-pedigrees is available to a tiny majority of pedigree cat breeds but in practice is rarely, if ever, done. Allowed outcrosses to 'other' pedigree breeds is far more common for some breeds but is generally only available in the developmental stage of a newer breed or new colour within a breed.
> 
> However, for most breeds where the gene pool is considered (whether it actually is or not is another question) large enough, outcrossing is not allowed. Where outcrossing is an available option, it tends to be done in a very limited fashion and/or as a one-off because of the onerous constraints of the registration policy (i.e. mating back, in subsequent generations only 'within' the particular breed before the cat can go back on the full register for showing purposes) so some might say it doesn't do an awful lot, gene pool wise, for an already impoverished gene pool.


And it's ruined some breeds, I think the state of the coats in the Siamese breed is due to the out crossing with Orientals  but there ya go we are talking about dogs not cats


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Bijou said:


> if you think the preservation of our pedigree dog breeds is 'heart breaking' then there is absolutely nothing to stop you breeding dogs the way you want ...( plenty of Oodle Doodle breeders do ) just don't expect other breeders to agree.
> 
> Lets look at what we have here ...on one hand we have Jemima Harrison who is not a scientist, is not a geneticist and has never bred a single puppy in her life with her followers all of whom have similarly *ZERO *experience of what they are 'advising' us to do and on the other we have thousands of experienced pedigree dog breeders ...but hey you know what they might all be wrong - personally I'm not prepared to breed generations of crossbreeds in order to find out ...are you ?
> 
> ...


Am not knocking you personally, you seem to be a very caring breeder and am glad its worked for you - from another thread you commented on (think it was you anyway) you are & always have been against very close matings (brother/sister, mother/son etc). Sadly its not the same for all breeders is it.

I am not against showing, breeding, the KC etc. Just against going through same experience again with a breed heavily "line" bred - auto-immune disease before 2 years old, nearing £10,000 worth of medication by the time he was dead at 5 years old.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> if you think the preservation of our pedigree dog breeds is 'heartbreaking'...


no - 
i think the potential destruction of purebred dogs as breeds, is heartbreaking.


Bijou said:


> Let's look at [who] we have here ...OTOH Jemima Harrison - not a scientist, not a geneticist...
> never bred a single puppy in her life, with her followers all of whom have similarly *ZERO *
> experience of what they are 'advising' us to do...


Feel free to cross-check anyone who advises paying strict attn to COI before mating, testing for any
breed-specific & all dog-generic heritable problems before mating, etc.

here's a strong voice who was talking about this issue decades before JH - & he's a geneticist, 
specializing in dogs. I have this book - 
Amazon.com: Control of Canine Genetic Diseases (Howell Reference Books) (0021898050045): George A. Padgett: Books

using AMAZON's "look inside", see pages 163 & 189 - Breed CLubs re control of genetic disease,
& the appendix on breed-specific problems.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

for "Padgett on purebred dogs" -
Google

Dr Padgett died in Dec 2004; his loss to the dog-fancy was a great blow.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Am not knocking you personally, you seem to be a very caring breeder and am glad its worked for you - from another thread you commented on (think it was you anyway) you are & always have been against very close matings (brother/sister, mother/son etc). Sadly its not the same for all breeders is it.
> 
> I am not against showing, breeding, the KC etc. Just against going through same experience again with a breed heavily "line" bred - auto-immune disease before 2 years old, nearing £10,000 worth of medication by the time he was dead at 5 years old.


But if you look at the pedigree for the litter I bred, it was line breeding to the grandparents, and no doubt there were numerous relatives (I didn't work them all out) between all of the dogs in her past five and more generations. But if you don't use the facility to choose dogs within the closed breeding to do your best to get the attributes you think you need to improve on going forward, then you can end up with dogs that aren't good representatives of a breed in many ways. There are some very odd looking pedigree Labradors out there, because people tend to bung two dogs together without doing enough research. So even if you stay within a gene pool you can lose type and temperament, a lot of flatcoats are starting to look more borzoi in the head, and have narrow eyes instead of the lovely almond eyed expression, imagine what would happen if some of these people were encouraged to outcross to another breed entirely??!!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I think the potential destruction of pure bred dogs as breeds, is heartbreaking


But that is exactly what will happen if we go down the route of continuous outcrossing to different breeds .....eventually all we will have is generic dog types , no Borders, Australian shepherds, Rough or Smooth collies just a herding 'type '....no Borzoi, Afghan, Deerhound or Saluki , just a sight hound 'type' and no Irish, Gordon, English or Red and White. Setters , just a one size fits all Setter 'type' ...yep we will have much wider gene pools to choose from but we will have destroyed most of the breeds we currently have in the process .

Personally that's not a price I'm willing to pay.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But if you look at the pedigree for the litter I bred, it was line breeding to the grandparents, and no doubt there were numerous relatives (I didn't work them all out) between all of the dogs in her past five and more generations. But if you don't use the facility to choose dogs within the closed breeding to do your best to get the attributes you think you need to improve on going forward, then you can end up with dogs that aren't good representatives of a breed in many ways. There are some very odd looking pedigree Labradors out there, because people tend to bung two dogs together without doing enough research. So even if you stay within a gene pool you can lose type and temperament, *a lot of flatcoats are starting to look more borzoi in the head, *and have narrow eyes instead of the lovely almond eyed expression, imagine what would happen if some of these people were encouraged to outcross to another breed entirely??!!


Glad I haven't been imagining that! I've met a few Flatties and instantly thought of Borzoi but thought I was just not understanding Flatcoat conformation (is that right word?!)

LEASHED FOR LIFE - very interesting what you note about why Dutch Shepherds and Malinois look similar sometimes!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Glad I haven't been imagining that! I've met a few Flatties and instantly thought of Borzoi but thought I was just not understanding Flatcoat conformation (is that right word?!)
> 
> LEASHED FOR LIFE - very interesting what you note about why Dutch Shepherds and Malinois look similar sometimes!


Conformation is the right word, flatcoats shouldn't have a head like a setter, or a borzoi, where it's *domed* but some of them are starting to look like that unfortunately. But that's a whole other topic of conversation!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> this month's _Country Life_ mag celebrates the KC's history -
> 
> Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: KC admits: "We needed to get a grip"
> 
> ...


Sorry, bored out of my skull because I can't sleep, actually read the very short JH blog and this speaks volumes, here we go, JH's conclusion:

'This is massaged-genetics-speak for BIG trouble.'

Wow!! Someone give that journalist a medal!!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But if you look at the pedigree for the litter I bred, it was line breeding to the grandparents, and no doubt there were numerous relatives (I didn't work them all out) between all of the dogs in her past five and more generations. But if you don't use the facility to choose dogs within the closed breeding to do your best to get the attributes you think you need to improve on going forward, then you can end up with dogs that aren't good representatives of a breed in many ways. There are some very odd looking pedigree Labradors out there, because people tend to bung two dogs together without doing enough research. So even if you stay within a gene pool you can lose type and temperament, a lot of flatcoats are starting to look more borzoi in the head, and have narrow eyes instead of the lovely almond eyed expression, imagine what would happen if some of these people were encouraged to outcross to another breed entirely??!!


SL you can end up with dogs that aren't good representatives even if you DO linebreed closely but mess up on selection.

The idea of avoiding diversity loss in gene pools by favoring assortative mating (meaning deliberately favoring less related over more related in a gene pool) also includes SELECTING, not just bunging two dogs together.

It seems in discussions the breeding choices are represented as 'close inbreeding', "linebreeding with selection" and 'bunging two dogs together. That just doesn't cover all the choices that are out there for breeders and specifically it misses 'assortative mating from within the gene pool using selection' which is the one that BEST helps to maintain diversity. At this point I believe it is already too late for some breeds to have even that last choice.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . . imagine what would happen if some of these people were encouraged to outcross to another breed entirely??!!


. . . and at the same time imagine the improvement that could happen if people well versed in their breeds and in selection had the opportunity to do the same. We could diminish the number of dogs suffering the effects of CM (level 2) in Cavaliers and MVD MUCH more quickly. That means many more pups born to less pain and suffering. IMAGINE if this had been done in '98 when it was first suggested by some geneticists for the MVD issue. There has been 15 years since full of too many dogs dying too young MVD, and much of it was preventable.

CC


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

There are worldwide over 1000 different breeds ...why is it most discussions on the 'evils' of pedigree dog breeding almost entirely focus on the same few ? 

Cavaliers have a myriad of problems but they are not representative of Pedigree dogs as a whole .

Personally I believe that all breeding protocols should be formulated on a breed by breed basis instead of the blanket cross breeding solution favoured by Jemima and her cronies. 

It is interesting that many of the breeds flagged up time and again as problematic are incredibly popular and frequently bred by BYB'S or puppy farmers......breeds that remain in the hands of a few dedicated breeders are rarely mentioned , when was the last time the Keeshond, the Kerry Blue , the Hamiltonstovare or the Polish Lowland was highlighted as problematic ? .

All these and many others are safely managed by those who breed with a deep knowledge of their chosen breed. Why on earth would you rather believe the rantings of a journalist who'se income depends on retaining her 'shock jock' status?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> SL you can end up with dogs that aren't good representatives even if you DO linebreed closely but mess up on selection.
> 
> The idea of avoiding diversity loss in gene pools by favoring assortative mating (meaning deliberately favoring less related over more related in a gene pool) also includes SELECTING, not just bunging two dogs together.
> 
> ...


I very well know the above CC, perhaps I'm not as eloquent as your posts, and don't use the *correct* wording, but I'd never advocate simply breeding without at least researching as much as possible.

I'm not sure why you're picking on my post, I've certainly never been against outcrossing where it is needed, and have been quite vocal about it in the past, but if you think JH has the best interests of any breed at heart then personally, I think you're sadly mistaken. She's a journalist, not a geneticist, she knows no more than I do which isn't a lot, yet comes across in her articles as trying to *save our dogs* from the nasty evils of the kennel club and those who show and breed dogs. That is far too naieve a view, in her books, I'm a nasty evil show breeder, lumped into a big pot with some who no doubt are nasty evil show breeders, but then there are many involved with health schemes and surveys, pushing for better health for our breeds of dogs.

Cavaliers are not my breed, I won't pretend to know anything about them other than what's been discussed on here and other forums, but why pick on them? If you'd have discussed outcrossing Labradors you'd have been laughed at, it simply isn't needed, it might be for Cavaliers, I'll leave that to people involved with that breed to argue whether it is needed; personally, I think if it would be of benefit, and they are refusing to allow it to happen to retain their pure bred lines, they're cutting their nose off to spite their face. If the same sort of decision were facing me then I'd be first in the queue to look at the possibilities, what benefits it could bring, and what drawbacks there might be.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Why on earth would you rather believe the rantings of a journalist who'se income depends
> on retaining her 'shock jock' status?


excuse me, but as a PRE-VET undergraduate with a dual major in AgEd & AnSci, i came to this long before 
JH was a gleam in anyone's eye. :nono: Don't try to lay ignorance or BS at my door - my concern is GENETICS,
not bloody be-damned dog-fancy political cr*p.

i don't give a flying toss Who's who, how long they've been breeding, what breed it might be...
*inbreeding depression* hits any breeding-popn with too many offspring from closely-related parents,
no matter _what species_ we're talking about - insects, mammals, birds, ANY species.

Dogs aren't exempt.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> excuse me, but as a PRE-VET undergraduate with a dual major in AgEd & AnSci, i came to this long before
> JH was a gleam in anyone's eye. :nono: Don't try to lay ignorance or BS at my door - my concern is GENETICS,
> not bloody be-damned dog-fancy political cr*p.
> 
> ...


I find it so very depressing that seemingly sane, intelligent people cannot grasp this very simple fact that its no different for dogs and no good will come of sticking to the same old "fixing this, fixing that, know your lines, you are not a breeder so know nothing" mantra. Its a wonder pedigree dogs aren't playing the bloody banjo :001_huh:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I find it so very depressing that seemingly sane, intelligent people cannot grasp this very simple fact
> that it's no different for dogs, and no good will come of sticking to the same old "fixing this, fixing that,
> know your lines, you are not a breeder so know nothing", mantra.
> 
> It's a wonder pedigree dogs aren't playing the bloody banjo. :001_huh:


if they could play the banjo AND had bad teeth & chewed tobacco, the dogs could have 
a reality-TV show on USA-cable, anytime.  Think of the potential income!... 
NOTE:
some breeder will cash in on this idea, & i want a cut when s/he does. :001_huh:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> excuse me, but as a PRE-VET undergraduate with a dual major in AgEd & AnSci, i came to this long before
> JH was a gleam in anyone's eye. :nono: Don't try to lay ignorance or BS at my door - my concern is GENETICS,
> not bloody be-damned dog-fancy political cr*p.
> .


When your initial post quoted in some detail from JH's blog, and your post was all about* JH's *intrepretation of a KC article, and you reference JH's blog, then you will have to forgive people for concluding that you are merely another mindless JH sycophant.

If you wanted to be taken seriously on your own behalf then why didn't you leave JH out of it, reference the KC article directly and post your own thoughts on it, rather than posting and quoting JH's thoughts?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> When your OP quoted in some detail from JH's blog...


Wrong.

the ONLY quote is from p. 30 of the *Dog Health Group* report, to wit:


> but buried on page-30 of the latest *dog health group report*, is this marshmallow statement:
> "...our results show that most breeds have an effective population size
> below the recommended minimum to maintain a sustainably low rate of inbreeding."


there are ZERO quotes from the blog - only a *link* to it. :skep: Which prompts my Q:
did U read the blog?


Spellweaver said:


> ...why didn't you... reference the KC article directly and post your own thoughts on it,
> rather than posting and quoting JH's thoughts?


 A - i didn't post HER thoughts, but mine.

B - i don't have a DIRECT source for the KC-report. 
If anyone does, *please share* - as Google returned precisely nothing.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I find it so very depressing that seemingly sane, intelligent people cannot grasp this very simple fact that its no different for dogs and no good will come of sticking to the same old "fixing this, fixing that, know your lines, you are not a breeder so know nothing" mantra. Its a wonder pedigree dogs aren't playing the bloody banjo :001_huh:


Well if you put it like that, I find it depressing that the same old *tripe* is recycled by JH in an attempt to further her career. I only wish everybody shouted from the roof tops every time I helped some one find a good breeder, who bothers to research and health test to give pups the best chance of a healthy happy life, and puppy buyers the best chance of a pup that will grow to make the addition they wanted to their family; or for every time I've talked to people about breeding, explained health tests and why they're so important, etc, etc.

I have never ever said, 'you're not a breeder so you don't understand', to anyone. I may be very vocal about my breeds, but that's because I genuinely care about them, there aren't really any huge problems with my breeds re genetic diversity, and as I've already put, I think for those who do have a limited gene pool and are against outcrossing that could well prove beneficial done in a controlled way, then to me, they are cutting their nose off to spite their pure breeds. But there is absolutely no point in out crossing for the sake of it. Breeds have been developed, they are what they are now, we don't need to develop them further, the qualities of *a* breed should be available within the gene pool, and within each individual to a greater or lesser extent.

I do think that there could potentially be problems within any breed, and there are certainly bottle necks in all of them, some people can't see beyond the end of a title and want to use a dog because he's won something. Bitches are obviously less influential as individuals. But even if you prevent the over use of your dog, their progeny could fall foul of someone who allows them to be over used, it happened in flatcoats with a dog called Shargleam Blackcap, who appears in the majority of flatcoat pedigrees within the UK.

Having said that, there have been fantastic advances made in the knowledge of both my breeds, cancer has been a problem with flatcoats, and there's a huge study ongoing for both breeds of which both my youngsters are a part. What has JH done? Stirred up hatred towards show people who to many, breed unhealthy mutant dogs following her television programme, and she continues to twist the knife every single time she has a chance, with completely inaccurate claims.

Do I think the show world is perfect, no I don't, but I'd rather be involved with it and fight for better breeding, health tests etc than sit on the outside and throw sticks and stones like some folk. And that's not aimed at any one person on here or elsewhere, but there seem to be a lot of arm chair critics who aren't involved, don't want to be involved, or even know any more than is posted on an internet blog or forum, but still feel it's ok to put down *dog breeders* in general, lumping them and their practices all together under one definition.

Right, I'm off to pour a glass of white wine and relax


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> Wrong.
> 
> the ONLY quote is from p. 30 of the *Dog Health Group* report, to wit:
> 
> there are ZERO quotes from the blog - only a *link* to it.


No, I was right. The quote about the dog health group report is a quote from the blog you referenced and not from the report itself. Ergo you referenced her blog and quoted from it.



leashedForLife said:


> B - i don't have a DIRECT source for the KC-report.
> If anyone does, *please share* - as Google returned precisely nothing.


Kennel Club celebrates 140 years | News - Property News, News from the Countryside and Culture | Houses for sale, properties for sale - Country Life

There you go - a quick google of "Country Life Kennel Club" produced it straight away.

You could have made your point by referencing this and the Dog Health Group report directly, without using JH's blog at all. So if you choose to do it second handedly via JH's blog then you lay yourself open to being dismissed as a mere JH sycophant.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . . I'm not sure why you're picking on my post, I've certainly never been against outcrossing where it is needed, and have been quite vocal about it in the past, . . .


I wasn't trying to pick on anyone's post. I was simply responding to the part of your post (after others) which included the idea that the alternative to linebreeding is 'bunging two dogs together' and 'imagine if these people were encouraged to outcross' . . . again that idea made without offering the alternative that GREAT breeders CAN do well with assortatvie mating and as well with outcrossing.

That false idea, that type has to be lost if linebreeding isn't embraced, has been so often trotted out that it just gets tiresome . . . usually it ends with 'and then they'll all look like feral dogs'. It has caused too much suffering that I have been privy to for me to just let it go.

CC


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Kennel Club celebrates 140 years | News - Property News, News from the Countryside and Culture | Houses for sale, properties for sale - Country Life
> 
> There you go - a quick google of "Country Life Kennel Club" produced it straight away.


thank U kindly for the link, but i looked for a link to the HEALTH REPORT - not the magazine. 

Does anyone have a direct link to the *Dog health group* report #3?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Kennel Club celebrates 140 years | News - Property News, News from the Countryside and Culture | Houses for sale, properties for sale - Country Life
> 
> There you go - a quick google of "Country Life Kennel Club" produced it straight away.
> 
> ...


i read the entire mag-article - 
there *is no quote from the Dog Health Group report #3 in that article,
nor is there a link to the report on-line.* So... where would i get the relevant statement 
from page-30 of said report, without referencing the blog?... :001_huh:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> i read the entire mag-article -
> there *is no quote from the Dog Health Group report #3 in that article,
> nor is there a link to the report on-line.* So... where would i get the relevant statement
> from page-30 of said report, without referencing the blog?... :001_huh:


From the report itself - again, not hard to find for anyone who is interested in the report itself rather than a hack's view of it. All I did was go to the KC website, searched for "Dog Health Report", and there it was. However, seeing as that seems to be too difficult for you, here is a direct link:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/14936/doghealthgroupannualreport2012.pdf

and here is a link to the two predeeding reports:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3671

And when you do read the report itself you will see the error that reading and quoting JH has led you into. For example, you entitled your thread "the KC continues the pretense - closed gene pool = OK". Just how did *you * - ie *you,* not JH - come to this conclusion? There is no pretense in the report.

The quote itself is not actually part of the report per se, it is an annexe to the report compiled by the KHGC at the AHT. In it they say they will be recommending to the KC various breeding strategies to overcome the need for inbreeding. Where is the pretense there? The answer is there isn't - as you would know if you had read the original report instead of JH's take on the report on her blog.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

SL haven't quoted your post as anyone who wants to know what I am answering just has to pop up the page.

I don't doubt you care deeply and are very knowledgeable, its just personally I cannot agree with line breeding to me its all in breeding. 

Nature itself is random and no two parents produce in whatever species identical offspring constantly (identical twins etc aside). I have an elder brother & younger sister, self & brother have similar hair colouring & complexion as dad but mums eye colouring, we look like dad's side of the family. Sister

Sorry can't finish what I was going to say mum has rang to say she can't wake my dad so got to go


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I wasn't trying to pick on anyone's post. I was simply responding to the part of your post (after others) which included the idea that the alternative to linebreeding is 'bunging two dogs together' and 'imagine if these people were encouraged to outcross' . . . again that idea made without offering the alternative that GREAT breeders CAN do well with assortatvie mating and as well with outcrossing.
> 
> That false idea, that type has to be lost if linebreeding isn't embraced, has been so often trotted out that it just gets tiresome . . . usually it ends with 'and then they'll all look like feral dogs'. It has caused too much suffering that I have been privy to for me to just let it go.
> 
> CC


But the vast majority of people wouldn't have any idea how to go about outcrossing and maintaining a breed *type*, which is why I think it should only be used if really necessary, and done carefully to ensure that it does provide a benefit for *the* breed overall. I think you must agree, the vast majority of dog breeding is done by people simply bunging two dogs together, if outcrossing were more generally available, then those breeders who simply bung two dogs together would outnumber, by far, those who actually think, two, three or more generations ahead.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> SL haven't quoted your post as anyone who wants to know what I am answering just has to pop up the page.
> 
> I don't doubt you care deeply and are very knowledgeable, its just personally I cannot agree with line breeding to me its all in breeding.
> 
> ...


I hope your dad's ok xx


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> ...not hard to find for anyone who is interested in the report itself...


thank U for the link - i do appreciate it, as Google gave me a big fat nothing. 

i didn't know they post them on the KC website - if i had, i'd have searched there.
Next year, at least i'll know where to look! :thumbup1:

i've read the previous reports, but they also had *press releases -* which this 3rd 
issue did not.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But the vast majority of people wouldn't have any idea how to go about outcrossing and maintaining a breed *type*, which is why I think it should only be used if really necessary, and done carefully to ensure that it does provide a benefit for *the* breed overall. I think you must agree, the vast majority of dog breeding is done by people simply bunging two dogs together, if outcrossing were more generally available, then those breeders who simply bung two dogs together would outnumber, by far, those who actually think, two, three or more generations ahead.


I do agree the vast majority of breeding is done by people who generally do very little. The lines from their dogs usually never make it back into the central gene pool of the breed again though, even when they breed within the gene pool and manage to register their litters. Those are not the ones I worry about and I could really care less if they are breeding pure or mixed as neither way are their dogs or their dogs progeny ever going to make an impact. They will breed, no matter, however.

I do as well believe crossbreeding is a tool that has to be monitored. There are methods in organizations already in place to do so - FCI being one where native Tibetan Spaniels have been brought in.

What I do care to do is lessen the prejudice against crossbreeding for breeders who DO care and who are striving to make a difference in their breeds.

As an example, Henny who has taken on the work and full expense of the Graussie project (Grffon with CM x Australian Terrier without) in aims of looking at how crossbreeding affects CM has been completely ostracized (still looking for study cooperative foster homes for two pups). - http://www.cmsmtrust.com/page7/page20/index.html

THAT is WRONG. I know that you wouldn't be one to be like that, but we have too many.
















(images are from the Graussie link above)

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I do agree the vast majority of breeding is done by people who generally do very little. The lines from their dogs usually never make it back into the central gene pool of the breed again though, even when they breed within the gene pool and manage to register their litters. Those are not the ones I worry about and I could really care less if they are breeding pure or mixed as neither way are their dogs or their dogs progeny ever going to make an impact. They will breed, no matter, however.
> 
> I do as well believe crossbreeding is a tool that has to be monitored. There are methods in organizations already in place to do so - FCI being one where native Tibetan Spaniels have been brought in.
> 
> ...


I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet, but coming at it from opposite directions.

I just cannot ever agree that JH has anything but her own interests at heart, actions speak louder than words, and for me, all she's done is criticise from the outside, and isn't even factually correct much of the time, including misleading about the information she uses to portray the issues that she does. I wouldn't disagree that there are some awful issues within pedigree dog breeds, but then there are some awful issues within dogs full stop, not just from those who show and breed. But JH would have the world believe that those who show and breed are the root of all evil, we're all Nazi's at heart according to her awful programme. I think she did genuinely come across some real issues, with people who were finding it difficult to be heard, but what JH did with those issues was to sensationalise them and create barriers.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

from page 31:



> _ ...Mate Select is designed to help breeders manage inbreeding & ensure, as far as possible,
> the good health of the puppies they produce. The service is available for all breeds. Breeders simply need
> the KC-registered name, registration number, or stud-book number of a particular dog, in order
> to access information on that animal.
> ...


have any PF-uk breeders used *Mate Select*?

What did U think of it? 
How easy to use? 
How effective [or not]?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> ... JH would have the world believe that those who show and breed are the root of all evil,
> we're *all Nazis at heart*...


Jeez. It's *eugenics*, not Nazism - & it was a cultural paradigm that lasted over 30-years.
Eugenics was found in magazines, newspaper articles, books [period novels, not texts!], etc - 
it was literally everywhere, it was the air U breathed.

we've been over this repeatedly - PURE BREEDING & "bloodlines", etc, were hugely influenced 
by the worldwide popularity of eradicating "the lower classes", stupidity, poverty, etc - 
thru selective breeding. This began in the late-1800s, long before Nazism - altho Hitler himself 
was a correspondent, writing letters to a USA public-health doctor who was notorious for racism, 
advocated OVHE for poor women of color, etc.

Morality at one point, along with the ability to learn, were thought to be strictly heritable - 
owing nothing to nurture [nutrition, brain growth, etc] or early education [exposure to color, 
shapes, spoken words, toys, books...].

In fact, a couple who are both intelligent & normal have a *greater risk* of producing a child who 
is retarded, vs a retarded person who has a child - or even TWO retarded persons, who have 
a child.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> Jeez. It's *eugenics*, not Nazism - & it was a cultural paradigm that lasted over 30-years.
> Eugenics was found in magazines, newspaper articles, books [period novels, not texts!], etc -
> it was literally everywhere, it was the air U breathed.


That still does not alter the fact that PDE showed pictures of Nazis whilst talking about the KC. SL was right - PDE linked pedigree show preeders to Nazis.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> That still does not alter the fact that PDE showed pictures of Nazis whilst talking about the KC.
> ...PDE linked pedigree show-breeders to Nazis.


Yes - 
perhaps BECAUSE Nazism & eugenics were very-closely related.  Aryan purity, anyone?...

Nazism had roots in eugenics; so did the entire concept of 'pure blood', as well as classism, 
prejudice to immigrants, intolerance of different cultures, & more. It's a package deal - 
the whole mess was everywhere, found in every possible public & private issue over nearly 
40-years.

The *Kennel CLub* was another bastion of privilege, wealth, & prejudice. In many ways, 
it still is - IMO. So is the AKC, by the way. Only the UKC has its roots in blue-collar dogdom.

Historical footnote:
"Public health" allowed the US-state of Virginia to perform OVHE on black women & retarded women 
until 1972. : It isn't a period that ppl boast about - it was horrific.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

leashedForLife said:


> from page 31:
> 
> have any PF-uk breeders used *Mate Select*?
> 
> ...


Terri, I know breeders that have put it to use.

I used it last night as I was looking at two closely related dogs, COI 33% and 29% that produced a litter with a DE/CC carrier (30% COI) and was looking to see if the database gave the relationship coefficient between sire and dam. I believe theirs would sit well above 50% (brother-sister) as they came from the same line bred tight and started on ~6 dogs (Homaranne Caption and two sons being involved). It did not supply that, or an ancestor loss coefficient, but it did predict the litter COI which is a great start. I have been happy that the KC has taken up some of this. I know in North America it just won't happen as the registries are structured very differently.

It was very easy to use. - http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/kinship/Default.aspx

For some breeds the tool will be better than others. In Cavaliers a main stud dog born in '76, Homaranne Caption, doesn't have a COI as they don't have the info behind him. On other databases he sits at ~13%, so I know in Cavaliers the pedigree COIs on the KC database are not deep.

For term explanation -


> ANCESTOR LOSS COEFFICIENT (AVK)
> 
> Indicates to us the suspected loss of ancestors, when computed with which one can reconstruct the in-breeding in earlier generations. The AVK for n-generation family tree is calculated by the number of actual (independent - unrepeatable) ancestors, and the total number of possible ancestors. Responsible breeder values the health of their animals (and future puppies) and are ready to pursue this information as the demand for this marvelous breed increases and further need for continued good health of the breed increases with that demand.
> 
> ...


CC


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

I realise Jemima Harrison has ruffled more that a few feathers but I'd just like to remark that it's far more important to assess the content of what people write than worry too much about who wrote it or where it was found.

The original topic of the thread was taken from a Kennel Club Report and it's surely more important to analyse what it says than the fact the JH reported it.

I'd just like to remind everyone that inaccuracy in reporting about dog breeding isn't confined to any one person of type of person. Dog breeders do not own all knowledge about dog breeding, they own some of it. Onlookers do not own all knowledge about dog breeding _but they may well own some of it_.

A dog breeder who is a professor of animal genetics and computational biology???? Well she may be so blinded by her breed that she commits academic fraud apparently......Shariﬂou, M.R., et al. A genealogical survey of Australian registered dog breeds. The Veterinary Journal (2011), doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.06.020. That's the required/correct citation, the fifth author is, of course, Claire Wade. For those who care about such things I read it in The Veterinary Journal, on-line. I read it as a result of comments about it in Borderwars and wanted to see for myself. It's an atrocious piece of work and deserves to be studied by psychologists interested in "The Effects of Kennel Blindness".

Personally I have a great deal of affection for "whistleblowers". I admire moral courage above_ unthinking_ loyalty. However I do FIRMLY believe we should respond with thought about and evaluation of the identified problem NOT a witch-hunt. Damning "all pedigree dogs" or "all dog breeders" is just stupid, absolutely STUPID. I love different types of dogs and revere good dog breeders. It's the problems that need examination.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Terri, I know breeders that have put it to use.
> 
> I used it last night... looking at two closely related dogs, COI 33% & 29% that produced a litter
> with a DE/CC carrier (30% COI)... to see if the database gave the relationship coefficient between sire & dam.
> ...


Oh, excellent! :thumbup: thank U so much.

i don't know if the AKC would ever do this - frankly, i doubt it, as it's common for AKC-reg'd dogs 
to have their health-tests hidden if they score badly / show positive, but they're trumpeted to the skies 
if the dog scores well / is clear. :incazzato: Why that's considered acceptable & even laudable or clever, 
i'm damned if i know. :nonod: I think it's a sin.

i'd love to see the registries make it EASY for breeders of all skill-levels to see the basics of genetics, 
use the tools to predict COI, potential problems, & so on - there's no reason to have only madly-dedicated 
breeders, who can do their own math, doing COI & heritable-issue tests, we need *everybody* to do so - 
& yes, i do mean everybody, every breeder who plans one litter in their lifetime, every breeder who 
whelps a litter every 3-months, around the calendar - which is why it needs to be easy & available, IMO.

the sooner it's SOP, the safer our beloved breeds will be - if every litter is accurately checked, 
& COI is carefully monitored, i firmly believe that some breeds [the Berner comes to mind] will recover 
their fertility, others will lessen the likelihood of devastating illness, & we can hope for a healthy future.

it would be terrible to think that we might condemn the breeds we love to an ignominious end, due to our 
current insane practices of matador studs & breeding for the current 'taste' in color, coat, furnishings, etc, 
whilst ignoring such underlying trivia as skeletal or organ abnormalities, crippling illness, & so on.

Personally, i hope that 7 generations from now, there are still healthy, happy dogs of the breeds we love, 
the over 600 breeds & landraces around the world are still extant, & that our many-times great-grandkids 
still love their dogs as much as we do, rely on them as we do for help in partnership, & cherish them - 
whatever their breed.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ozrex said:


> A dog breeder who's a Prof of animal-genetics & computational biology?... Well, she may be so blinded by her breed that she commits academic fraud, apparently.
> 
> "Shariﬂou, M.R., et al. A genealogical survey of Australian registered dog breeds."
> The Veterinary Journal, 2011; doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.06.020.
> ...


i found it - Yikes. :eek6: As the Toller Burns


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

YIKES INDEED!!! In fact YIKES squared.

It's NOT the source - JH/Claire Wade/Ozrex - it's the information and how it's presented......


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ozrex said:


> I realise Jemima Harrison has ruffled more that a few feathers but I'd just like to remark that it's far more important to assess the content of what people write than worry too much about who wrote it or where it was found.
> 
> The original topic of the thread was taken from a Kennel Club Report and it's surely more important to analyse what it says than the fact the JH reported it.


The original topic of the thread was not taken from a KC report but from JH's take on the KC report - quite a different matter.

One of the basic tenets of research is that you read the original first. which is why I posted the links for Lfl. Reading someone else's take on something means you also read their opinion - and Lfl did this and then posted as if JH's opinion was correct. If she had read the report itself rather than a hack's take on it I doubt if she would have entitled her thread "KC continues pretense" because there is no pretense in the report.

But she didn't read the report itself, she read JH's take on it and then posted as if that were true - which it wasn't. So she has added to the misinformation flying around about the KC.



ozrex said:


> I'd just like to remind everyone that inaccuracy in reporting about dog breeding isn't confined to any one person of type of person. Dog breeders do not own all knowledge about dog breeding, they own some of it. Onlookers do not own all knowledge about dog breeding _but they may well own some of it_.


Which is why it is important to read and discuss the report itself and not someone else's take on it.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> *emphasis added, T.M.P.:*
> 
> The [OP] was not taken from a KC report but from JH's take on the KC report - quite a different matter.
> 
> ...


from page 30, in its entirety:


> *emphasis added, T.M.P.:*
> 
> _
> 
> ...


i'd say there's plenty of pretense, there. :huh:

The report basically states that in the breeds they've analyzed so far, most are below the minimum *effective 
population size* to sustain a genetically-healthy popn. They've analyzed 100-plus breeds; that's no drop 
in the bucket, that's a large proportion. 
Yet there's no apparent urgency, no "there should be minimum standards set", nothing concrete 
to be done Now;

instead, in future reports, with no timetable of when they might emerge from the soup, there will be 
_"Recommendations to improve the effective population-size"._

Am i reassured by this? :blink: Not in the least - if anything, i'm alarmed that they aren't alarmed. 
Everything is in understated terms, as vague & fuzzy as the outline of a pussy-willow catkin, 
& with just as much substance. :thumbdown:

Translated:
* Most if not all of the 100 breeds analyzed have too-few breeding individuals or too-few unrelated dogs
to sustain the breed's genetic health.

* We aren't in a rush to do anything about this; but if U, the individual breeder, are willing to limit 
use of popular sires, use COI to reduce relatedness, & seek out less well-known potential mates,
we might be able to improve the statistics - maybe. But don't worry about it, we'll issue another report
sometime or other.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> f
> 
> Translated:
> * Most if not all of the 100 breeds analyzed have too-few breeding individuals or too-few unrelated dogs
> ...


Sorry - this is "translation" is a load of twaddle. To begin with, you are reading the report as if it is a report from the Kennel Club. It isn't. It is an* annexe *to the report from the Kennel Club. It was written *not* by the Kennel Club, but by the AHT. It is merely saying that it will be publishing reports that will make recommendations to the Kennel Club.

"_Recommendations to improve the effective population size for each breed analysed 
will be included in the published reports._"

So sorry, where is the pretense in that? Are the AHT pretending anything? No. Are the KC petending anything? No.

You have outlined no pretense. You have merely imagined - and not imagined very well - a response from the Kennel Club to reports that have not yet been published.

Dealing in facts rather than the fevered product of your over-imagination would be more beneficial.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> ...you are reading the report as if it is a report from the Kennel Club.
> 
> It isn't. It is an* annexe *to the report from the Kennel Club.
> It was written *not* by the Kennel Club, but by the AHT.
> ...


the committee was appointed by the KC - was it not?

their task was set for them by the KC executives - yes?

in essence, they are employees; consultants hired by the KC.

it may be an addendum to the direct report, but it is also, i'm sure, something that was 
discussed with the various directors, etc, before it was published. If they had felt any urgency 
about the results, i think the tone would reflect this.

instead, it's very much "bizness as usual" - pompous, understated milquetoast. 
IMO, of course - which is probably not shared.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> the committee was appointed by the KC - was it not?


No



leashedForLife said:


> their task was set for them by the KC executives - yes?


No



leashedForLife said:


> in essence, they are employees; consultants hired by the KC.


No.

You are wrong on all counts. The Animal Health Trust is a totally separate entity to the Kennel Club. Their genetics centre is called "The Kennel Club Genetics Centre" because some of the money to finance it was donated by the KC. (The KC gives a lot to charities) The KC does not employ their staff, set their agenda, or any other of the twaddle you have imagined

Animal Health Trust | UK Veterinary Charity | Fighting Disease and Injury in Animals

Canine research | Animal Health Trust

And here is the team - not a KC employee amongst them:

http://www.aht.org.uk/cms-display/genetics_staff.html

Read and learn and then deal in facts rather than your over-fevered imagination.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> from page 30, in its entirety:


I could quote the same paragraph from the mid term report KCGC march 2009 - August 2011 where it can be found on page 6, along with other genetic stuff.

How come no-one mentioned it then? Possibly because finding the info on page 1 and page 6 of a report doesn't sound so buried? 

I was led to believe that the KCGC part of the AHT is entirely funded by the KC and that it is the KC and breed clubs that decide what is worth investigating, depending on whether they can get enough people to join in?

I did have a little naughty chuckle to myself where they say/imply they use voluntary information from the breed clubs as they don't want to deliberately breed genetic disasters themselves. lol I don't think it was meant to come across how it did, or perhaps that's just me. :devil:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> How come no-one mentioned it then? Possibly because finding the info on page 1 and page 6 of a report doesn't sound so buried?


No-one mentioned it because it was an interim report from the AHT and JH has no axe to grind with the AHT. The only reason JH has picked up on it now it is that she mistakenly thinks it is part of the KC report and has not realised it is merely an annexe to the report from the AHT - and LFL has perpetuated the error on here by quoting JH instead of quoting the original report.

Interesting though, don't you think, that apart from a few snide comments about the KC applauding themselves on their successes, the only part of the KC's report that JH can find to criticise is not from the report itself, but part of a report from the AHT. 



Elles said:


> I was led to believe that the KCGC part of the AHT is entirely funded by the KC and that it is the KC and breed clubs that decide what is worth investigating, depending on whether they can get enough people to join in?


They've committed to putting in 1.2million a year for five years - I don't know but would suspect that genetics research at the AHT costs a lot more than that. As for deciding which inheritred diseases to investigate, of course the KC and the breed cluibs will have an input - they are the ones who know the problems, after all.

ETA - according to the AHT's financial report they spent 3.2million on research during 2011 - but I think that includes equine research as well as canine research.

http://www.aht.org.uk/skins/Default/pdfs/tr2011.pdf (on page 22)


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> I could quote the same paragraph from the mid term report KCGC [march 2009 - August 2011]
> where it can be found on page 6, along with other genetic stuff.
> 
> How come no-one mentioned it then? Possibly because finding the info on pg 1 & pg 6 of a report
> doesn't sound so buried?


Possibly b/c very-few ppl were aware of the 'interim report' at all -

& if the verbatim paragraph was previously-published in a *2009 - 2011* report, 
then there's been zero progress in at least 2-years... Correct?

IOW, the promised forthcoming "recommendations" are as vague & formless today, 
& can be summarized by saying, _'take the minimum precautions breeders should have taken 
in 1970 or so, as COI has been a well-known formula in genetics for a very long time, indeed, 
but in the meantime, we'll just fiddle while our Rome genome-library burns irreplaceably.'_

Is that about right?

This extra knowledge doesn't make it better; it makes it worse. :blink: I'm stunned.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> Possibly b/c very-few ppl were aware of the 'interim report' at all -
> 
> & if the verbatim paragraph was previously-published in a *2009 - 2011* report,
> then there's been zero progress in at least 2-years... Correct?


No.



leashedForLife said:


> IOW, the promised forthcoming "recommendations" are as vague & formless today,
> & can be summarized by saying, _'take the minimum precautions breeders should have taken
> in 1970 or so, as COI has been a well-known formula in genetics for a very long time, indeed,
> but in the meantime, we'll just fiddle while our Rome genome-library burns irreplaceably.'_
> ...


No.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, you show an abominable lack of knowledge about scientific research. Good research takes time - surely it's better that the research is done properly rather than rushing it and getting it wrong, just to appease keyboard warriors like yourself who would rather believe a hack than take the trouble to source and read a report properly?

Instead of being stunned, why not read the AHT annexe properly and see what they *have* been doing about inbreeding during this time?

They have developed the Mate Select tool. In addition,

_"Kennel Club records are being used to calculate the rate of inbreeding over the last 30 years"_

So far they have collated details for 100 breeds and it is still ongoing. When it is complete, they will report their findings to the KC. So they are not doing nothing - only in your "La-La" land.


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

OK, gotta wade in here...

Spellweaver, you're wrong on this one.

The AHT research into breed effective population sizes has been funded by the KC (for which I am happy to give them credit - at least they've asked the question, even if it is, perhaps, a question suggested primarily by the geneticists at the AHT).

The KC Genetics Centre is, in reality, a few desks and the time of the AHT's Cathryn Mellersh, Sarah Blott and Tom Lewis - not actually a building. 

The KC "owns" this research, not the AHT - which is why I have to go to the KC for the data, not the AHT. It will be the KC publishing the findings, not the AHT.

The Dog Health Group is a KC initiative - replacing the old Breed Health and Welfare Strategy Group.

Jemima


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> The AHT research into breed effective population sizes has been funded by the KC (for which I am happy
> to give them credit - at least they've asked the question, even if it is, perhaps, a question suggested
> primarily by the geneticists at the AHT).
> 
> ...


thank U kindly - Good to know. :yesnod:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> Spellweaver, you're wrong on this one.


Really? Well, let's see.



Jemima Harrison said:


> The AHT research into breed effective population sizes has been funded by the KC (for which I am happy to give them credit - at least they've asked the question, even if it is, perhaps, a question suggested primarily by the geneticists at the AHT).


So the AHT suggested the research and the KC funded it. So when I said the KC did not set their agenda and that they have funded them 1.2 million a year over a five year period was I wrong there? No.



Jemima Harrison said:


> The KC Genetics Centre is, in reality, a few desks and the time of the AHT's Cathryn Mellersh, Sarah Blott and Tom Lewis - not actually a building.


I never said it was a building and I posted a link to the team members - the same team members you have mentioned here. So was I wrong there? No.



Jemima Harrison said:


> The KC "owns" this research, not the AHT - which is why I have to go to the KC for the data, not the AHT. It will be the KC publishing the findings, not the AHT.


In your blog you present the AHT annexe to the KC's report as if it were the KC themselves reporting. It is not. It is the AHT reporting to the KC. So when the AHT write in their annexe, "Recommendations to improve the population size for each breed analysed will be included in the published reports" they are talking about THEIR published report to the KC, not whatever findings the KC makes from those reports and subsequently publishes. So was I wrong there? No.



Jemima Harrison said:


> The Dog Health Group is a KC initiative - replacing the old Breed Health and Welfare Strategy Group.


I never said anything about this, so was I wrong there? No.


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

Spellweaver, the KCGC at the AHT is the KC-funded scientific arm of the KC and it reports to the KC. 

The population analysis that the KCCT has undertaken is part of that - and as much part of the KC as is Mate Select and EBVs.

But at the end of the day, the real issue here is that the findings (whoever initiated or owns them) are alarming. 

The point I was making in my blog is that much more attention needs to be paid to this issue which at the moment is not being taken seriously enough by the Kennel Club and most breeders. 

Jemima


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> The point I was making in my blog is that much more attention needs to be paid to this issue which at the moment is not being taken seriously enough by the Kennel Club and most breeders.
> 
> Jemima


And the point I was making was that it is being taken seriously enough for the KC to fund research by the AHT into it and for breed clubs to participate in the collation of information about it. The research is still undergoing. Anyone who tries to draw a conclusion about the whole subject by extending the interim findings is riding for a fall.

Once the research is somplete and the AHT have reported back to the KC, *if *the KC does nothing about it, or *if *breeders ignore whatever the KC does about it, then your point above would be valid. But until such time you are merely basing your reaction on iterim findings and second-guessing the reaction of the KC and breeders, and that invalidates any point you might be trying to make.


----------



## Jemima Harrison (Oct 7, 2008)

The effective population size figures released to date are not interim findings, Spellweaver - they are actual findings. And those findings say that the rate of inbreeding in many of the over 100 breeds they've looked is unsustainable. 

That pretty much stands alone, in my view, as reason for alarm - and in my opinion is worthy of greater attention than given in the latest Dogs Health Group report. 

That said, I do agree that effective population sizes need to be seen in the context of individual breeds. A small effective pop size in one breed won't perhaps be as immediately cataclysmic in breeds that currently enjoy overall good health compared to those than don't. 

And yes, I agree too, that much depends on what action ensues from here. My concern is, as ever, that it will be too little too late.

We've known about the very low effective population sizes in some breeds since 2008 (Calboli et al - research that the KC commissioned, if a little inadvertently). Five years on, we have greater awareness about inbreeding and we have Mate Select - which is genuinely a great thing - but still a lot of inbreeding and still no limits on popular sires, which do so much damage. 

Forgive me for being a little impatient.

Jemima


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

You be impatient all you want.

In the meantime, the ones actually doing the research will continue until such times as proper and meaningful scientific conclusions can be drawn - conclusions which will point the way forward without the need for impatient knee-jerk reactions that may actually cause more harm in the long run.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> The point [of] my blog is that *much-more attention needs to be paid to this issue,
> which ATM is not... taken seriously enough* by the Kennel Club & most breeders.


Precisely - *funding, research, vague goals, amorphous 'concern', & self-righteous blather aside,*
if the breeders, breed-clubs, & KC as a whole don't act in a planned, co-ordinated fashion, who paid the bills 
will be moot, which committee-member wrote what position-statement will be file-fodder, & purebred dogs
will be a historical footnote. :nonod: At some point, _soon_, talk must become practical acts.

All the hot-air & editorial copy in the world won't preserve a single breed, without concrete action.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> You be impatient all you want.
> 
> In the meantime, the ones actually doing the research will continue until such times as proper and meaningful scientific conclusions can be drawn - conclusions which will point the way forward without the need for impatient knee-jerk reactions that may actually cause more harm in the long run.


Knee jerk reactions?! Never had that before have we??


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> Precisely - *funding, research, vague goals, amorphous 'concern', & self-righteous blather aside,*
> if the breeders, breed-clubs, & KC as a whole don't act in a planned, co-ordinated fashion, who paid the bills
> will be moot, which committee-member wrote what position-statement will be file-fodder, & purebred dogs
> will be a historical footnote. :nonod: At some point, _soon_, talk must become practical acts.
> ...


And you don't think a whole genetics team researching the problem along with the KC and the breed clubs is acting in a planned, co-ordinated fashion?

Or would you prefer that the KC and the breed clubs not bother with the research and do something - anything - to appease the journalists and the sheep who swallow their every word hook line and sinker? Because that's what you are advocating here - acting without doing the research first.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Knee jerk reactions?! Never had that before have we??


:lol: :thumbsup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> And you don't think a whole genetics team researching the problem along with the KC and the breed clubs is acting in a planned, co-ordinated fashion?
> 
> Or would you prefer that the KC and the breed clubs not bother with the research and do something - anything - to appease the journalists and the sheep who swallow their every word hook line and sinker? Because that's what you are advocating here - acting without doing the research first.


Surely you'd prefer a flashy programme that highlights the problem and points fingers, whether or not it's presented in an accurate way


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Surely you'd prefer a flashy programme that highlights the problem and points fingers, whether or not it's presented in an accurate way


Stop it now - you've just made me spit my tea all over the keyboard


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Stop it now - you've just made me spit my tea all over the keyboard


I can't help myself, science fiction is my favourite!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Jemima Harrison said:


> The effective popn-size figures released to date are not interim [but] actual findings...
> [& they concluded] that the rate of inbreeding in many of the over-100 breeds [analyzed thus far]
> is unsustainable.
> 
> ...


i do wonder why they make no specific recommendations for the 100-plus breeds analyzed, thus far?

Must everybody "wait to start simultaneously"...? *Why?* surely some are in worse shape 
than others, & the sooner started, the better their potential prognosis?

It's not a horse-race; there's no starting gate, no finish-line, no prize for getting 'there' faster,
other than to maintain at minimum or preferably to improve our dogs' structure & health 
for the near & distant future - *and* unlike Saturday's Derby, it's a forever task: it goes on,
for as long as domestic species exist - dogs, cats, cows, pigs, water buffalo, Guinea pigs, rats, pigeons, 
camels, donkeys, food plants, microbes, flowers... Whatever it is, every species must conserve 
their genetic diversity, & for domestic species, *we* are the conservators.

It can be similarly argued that as the most-influential species on the planet, ultimately humans are 
the conservators or the destroyers of virtually every species on the planet.

I don't think we're ready for the task - but our Industrial Age created massive fallout that we did 
not predict, are just now beginning to understand, & have yet to see the ultimate results.
It's our mess - Can we clean it up? ... I don't know. 


Jemima Harrison said:


> We've known about the very low effective-popn size in some breeds since 2008 (Calboli et al -
> research that the KC commissioned, if a little inadvertently). Five years on, we have greater awareness
> about inbreeding, & we have Mate Select... genuinely a great thing - but still a lot of inbreeding, & still
> *no limits on popular sires*, which do so much damage.


That one thing, *matador sires*, U'd think could be acted upon, right here & now, across all breeds.
It's not in dispute; we know that gene-pruning of entire branches results from this common practice.

Why is there no common resolve to set absolute limits? It boggles the mind - or at least, boggles mine.
:nonod:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> i do wonder why they make no specific recommendations for the 100-plus breeds analyzed, thus far?


How do you know they are not going to? After all, the AHT report that was annexed to the KC's Dog Health Group report (note, *THE AHT* report) did say they were going to report their findings to the KC. Until the KC has received the report no-one - not you, or me, or JH knows what it will say.



leashedForLife said:


> It's our mess - Can we clean it up? ... I don't know.


No, you don't know. Yet you want to rush in all guns blazing and do god knows what untold damage before the scientists have even given their report. What was that you said about human beings being destroyers? Seems like some human beings never learn


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> Originally posted by *LeashedForLife* AKA terry -
> 
> _...every species must conserve their genetic diversity, & for domestic species, we're the conservators.
> 
> ...





Spellweaver said:


> *It's our mess - Can we clean it up? ... I don't know.* - LFL / terry
> 
> No, you don't know. Yet you want to rush in, all guns blazing, & do god knows what untold damage
> before the scientists have even given their report.


Pardon me - that refers to the global mess left by the INDUSTRIAL [& post-industrial] REVOLUTION, 
:blink: if U check the original post - not merely the itty-bitty subset of 'inbred pedigree dogs'.

the "mess" includes pollution, endangered species, climate change, dead zones at river mouths,
the CO2 pumped into our atmosphere, China's incredible appetite for coal, India's growth,
human-popn pressure, desertification, changes in the microbe-popn of the human gut 
[due to antibiotic use & abuse, among other things], & more.

It's a helluva lot longer laundry-list than the KC's recognized breeds list.  I think we *can* save
pedigree dog-breeds, if we act soon; some breeds may not be salvageable [LundeHund AKA Puffin Dogs 
spring to mind]... however, i'm far less hopeful that we humans can prevent a rise of more than 2-degrees 
Centigrade worldwide, stabilize [let alone reduce] the atmospheric CO2 levels, or reduce our species' 
carbon-footprint & environmental impact.

Even saving US-popns of bats [endangered or common] may not be possible, due to a new fungus
[probly brought from Europe] wiping out 75 to 90% of entire hibernacula of multiple species. :nonod: 
The "mess" is a monstrous tangle of interrelated & interacting events, many of which we set in motion,
but few that we can control today - & we can't put the genie back in the bottle, either.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> not merely the itty-bitty subset of 'inbred pedigree dogs'.


At last - you're getting the problem of inbreeding into perspective! About time!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> At last - you're getting the problem of inbreeding into perspective! About time!


Excuse me?! It's only "itty-bitty" when compared to the *massive* issues of climate change,
horrific pollution in developing-countries [China, all of Africa, India...], the former-USSR countries
& their legacy of enviro-damage, altered rainfall patterns, endangered species, etc - the breakdown
of global systems [climate, ocean-currents, etc] & destruction of *wild* species.

DOGS - specifically purebred / pedigreed dogs, including crossbred dogs bred out of registered 
parents - in strong contrast, are DOMESTIC species, & our damage to them is inflicted *by the ppl
who are spozed to carry their genetic legacy forward:* breeders. It's not an 'itty-bitty' issue
for the dogs, for breeds, for puppy-buyers, for adopters, for folks who depend on dogs 
as partners in their work or lives [hunters, k9-units, SAR handlers, disabled SD-users, ___ ]

Looked at in isolation, it is anything BUT an itty-bitty issue. For dogs & breeders,
IMO nothing else looms as large. :nono: Don't try to minimize it by looking thru the wrong end
of a telescope - atmospheric-CO2 & ozone-destruction *threaten life on the planet.*

The wrecking of dog-lineages only threatens dogs - one species.
Do i think dogs are unimportant? Hell, no. Do i think they are the only species we humans 
should be concerned about? That's asinine; without a living planet, there'll be no humans *or* dogs.

A comparative "small" affecting ONE species cannot be said to equal threats to ALL species.
That doesn't make it unimportant For That One Species. :thumbdown: 

Would the utter destruction of the Taj Mahal ruin the earth? Of course not. Do i think that would be 
a great loss of history, art, culture?... Undeniably. The dog genome is dog-lovers' Taj Mahal - 
more accurately, our Alexandrian library, which is burning volume by volume while we watch.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> Excuse me?! It's only "itty-bitty" when compared to the *massive* issues of climate change,
> horrific pollution in developing-countries [China, all of Africa, India...], the former-USSR countries
> & their legacy of enviro-damage, altered rainfall patterns, endangered species, etc - the breakdown
> of global systems [climate, ocean-currents, etc] & destruction of *wild* species.




Exactly - it's itty-bitty in comparison to the rest.



leashedForLife said:


> Looked at in isolation, it is anything BUT an itty-bitty issue. For dogs & breeders,
> IMO nothing else looms as large. :nono: Don't try to minimize it by looking thru the wrong end


I'm not trying to minimise anything - you're the one who wandered off on a tangent about everything else that is wrong in the world.

I think dogs are important - so important, in fact, that I don't want their future to be ruined by the "impatient" JHs and the "fools rush in" LFLs of this world. I think the future of dogs is so important that we should wait to see what the scientists at the AHT advocate before we decide the next step. That way, when we do take the next step we will take it secure in the knowledge that we are taking the correct step for the right reasons, and not just because we have been harried into doing something - anything - by a journalist with an eye on ratings and a keyboard warrior on a pet forum dictating what should happen.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

What do the breeders think needs to be done? The report says that something does. Don't breeders have some idea of what they'd like to see recommended and believe would improve matters?

Or do they think they are already sorting out what needs sorting out?

If so, how long have they been sorting out what needs sorting out?

If anything?

Or do breeders believe that there isn't a problem anyway and line-breeding/in-breeding is fine as it is now?


----------



## Mark Walden (Mar 31, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> I think dogs are important - so important, in fact, that I don't want their future to be ruined by the "impatient" JHs and the "fools rush in" LFLs of this world. I think the future of dogs is so important that we should wait to see what the scientists at the AHT advocate before we decide the next step. That way, when we do take the next step we will take it secure in the knowledge that we are taking the correct step for the right reasons, and not just because we have been harried into doing something - anything - by a journalist with an eye on ratings and a keyboard warrior on a pet forum dictating what should happen.


Well said, I think you've pretty much summed my thoughts there.



Elles said:


> What do the breeders think needs to be done? The report says that something does. Don't breeders have some idea of what they'd like to see recommended and believe would improve matters?
> 
> Or do they think they are already sorting out what needs sorting out?
> 
> ...


Most breeders agree that change is needed, and big steps are being taken now. I can account for Bassets here (bearing in mind they are classed as a 'high profile' breed) they are constantly looking ahead at what can be done to improve the overall health of dogs with Health Groups. I've seen the work they do and it's brilliant, they should of done this a long time ago in my opinion. The problem with JH program was how incredibly biased her views were, stereotyping *ALL* breeders to be ego maniacs who have no consideration for their dogs health. What utter rubbish. I've been involved for over 6 years and most, if not all breeders I've met love their breed and will do anything to ensure that their breed remains healthy and free from exaggerations.

Of course In all industries you will encounter a small bad crowd who give a bad name to the hobby, I have no doubt there are a few bad apples. But the Kennel Club are doing more and more to ensure that these people are accountable for their actions and avoid these problems starting in the first place.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

> Of course In all industries you will encounter a small bad crowd who give a bad name to the hobby, I have no doubt there are a few bad apples. But the Kennel Club are doing more and more to ensure that these people are accountable for their actions and avoid these problems starting in the first place.


I think that's absolutely true and I completely agree with you that no-one should condemn "ALL BREEDERS" or even the majority of them.

The problem has been that poor breeders, no, make that TERRIBLE breeders have been rewarded at major shows. Think Beverley Costello, think Wyndlair Avalanche, think Ch Buzz Lightyear at Dereheath in your own breed. Think of deliberate misinformation; for example Claire Wade, and she's a full professor at a good university. Think of how Margaret Carter was treated by fellow breeders (top breeders, influential people in the breed club), many of whom supported Beverley Costello!

As an analogy, I get angry if I hear of cruelty to dogs; the majority of people do, I bet you do yourself. When someone is cruel to a dog there tends to be a fuss in the papers. It doesn't mean that all dog owners are cruel but nothing excuses the cruelty of the people involved. If the cruelty was perpetrated or condoned by people involved in dog rescue the fuss would be correspondingly greater.

There IS a problem in dog breeding, in fact there are two in my opinion.

1. Breeding within a small, closed population has inherent problems which need to be addressed

2. Breeders are acting as "selection" and should not select for appearance over health. If they do they should be penalised not rewarded for doing so.

Most breeders are good people who care deeply for dogs and do their very best for them. A few are absolute heros. A few are terribly misguided and I have NEVER known self-regulation to work in any profession, EVER.

Outsiders pointing fingers will (and HAVE) generated much needed change. The good breeders do not need to take umbrage where the finger pointing does not apply to them.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

There is more than one problem within dog breeding, let's face it, humans are involved with it so there are bound to be a multitude of problems within dog breeding. In all honesty, the only way to completely eradicate problems with pedigree dogs would be to abolish the breeding of them, but you wouldn't eradicate problems with all dogs because it would just shift. 

I find it really disheartening to think from the posts, that people think that *we* (and I say that lightly because I'm very aware how little contribution I've made physically, more verbally!!) are sat now, twiddling our thumbs. I was just chatting last night to Rhuna's breeder, who's had one of her dogs in for an operation and talking about vets fees. I'm facing a £1k bill this year for health tests for two dogs, I don't call that doing nothing. I don't call campaigning my dogs to show they are correct conformation nothing, or planning to compete with them nothing, or planning to work them nothing. I also don't count trawling through a multitude of dogs right this minute planning a possible mating (dependent on how everything else pans out) looking at CoI's, whether their conformation is good, whether they're proven and how, what they're producing if they are yet, is it worth a gamble if they aren't? Etc, etc, etc. None of that is doing nothing. 

Participating in health surveys for the breed (which I need to get caught up with and this has reminded me) also helps with overall information about the health of the breed, and gathers extra data about diet, exercise and lifestyle. It's giving up my free time yet again to benefit the dogs overall, but that's something I feel passionate about. 

And, going back to the point I made earlier, helping anyone who wants to buy a pup find a good breeder, again, more of my free time spent trying to push the good breeders above the bad, and also chatting to those thinking about breeding to tell them the real ins and outs. 

You are always going to have an element of line breeding, and in breeding within a closed gene pool, it can't be escaped in most gene pools, even within Labradors you will find it difficult to find a chocolate Labrador without one of a couple of very famous examples of that colour in there. One reason I'm completely pro breeding chocolate to yellow, even though its frowned upon by many as you could produce a dog without the correct skin colour around their eyes, nose and lips, is because I view that as a genetic barrier. You are unlikely to have a whole litter of Dudleys, and if you have one or two, they'll still make fabulous pets, while the quality of the dog you used and why you used him will hopefully be apparent in the pups overall. It's also why I wouldn't be averse to crossing between the show and working divide, which many are unwilling to do worried that they won't win in either sphere with the progeny. You get people who are obsessed with how much red there is in a pedigree, which, whilst it proves the ability must be in there, just as many dogs with the same potential exist that are regularly worked, and/or compete in different spheres, I don't just look at proven show dogs, or field trial dogs. 

I don't want my choices taken away by limiting stud dog use, or stopping me from using a dog that has the same grandfather, grandmother etc, if I chose to line breed for a litter, and then outcross the next. I certainly don't want a cap on CoI because the KC database isn't complete, so the CoI is a *guide*, and because of the missing information it's actually higher than quoted on their database. I also don't want a cap on health tests or results, I believe it's important to base health testing on fact, not on sudden swings in what people believe is a problem, only to then find out it was a red herring and we've constricted gene pools for no reason. 

Am I the only one who thinks like this? No, possibly not every breeder would agree with everything I do, or think, but there are lots of like minded people, and from what I've seen that number is growing, who are willing to think outside the box and take on board the health test recommendations.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Great post SL ....it is in my opinion, not possible to breed pedigree dogs without restricting the gene pool we are working within ....phrases such as " crossbreeding for genetic diversity" are unworkable in practice because if the aim is diversity then the cross breeding will have to be repeated across many breeding lines and many generations making it impossible to retain breed type. There is no point in just one breeder cross breeding to increase diversity !!! 

Suggestions like " assortative mating" are also bandied about with no understanding of what this means in reality ...there are only a small handful of breeds who have assortative types within them (Border Collies and Jack Russell's are the only ones I can think of ) ...where are the assortative types in Chows , Leonbergers or Japanese Chins for example ? ....in the overwhelming number of cases if it looks like it's breed it will have come from the same restricted gene pool as all the others ! . 

I truly don't think most folk understand the implications of what they are asking breeders to do and frankly I am sick of being lectured to by those that are unwilling to commit to the job themselves ! .


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

GREAT post S_L. Loved it. Particularly liked the acceptance of possible Dudleys. That's putting genetic diversity above appearance.

Bijou would you consider the progenitors of the breed "associative"? At least most crossbreeds find ready homes these days...


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Not sure what you mean by associative ? .....and I also doubt that there would be the demand for all the cross bred pups that would be produced by 'outcrossing' at the level required.

For example....I have just mated my Groenendael bitch to a Tervueren dog ( for many reasons ) my bitch should be homogenous for black so I should get all black pups I.e Groenendaels , but there is the possibility that the mating will produce miss marked Tervueren ( lacking mask, too much black overlay reversed masking, black with tan legs etc etc ) at the moment I have over 20 people on my waiting list all of whom want Groenendael , none of whom want a Terv from a mixed mating like this , of course I would eventually be able to home any mismarked pups but it would be much much harder.....

Just to add that the pups from this litter will have their registration marked with three *** to denote their inter variety status and they will have to be line bred back into the Groenendael only gene pool for three generations before being considered 'pure' Groenendael .

That's the reality of what is being asked and remember that this is just from an inter variety mating ( they would all still be BSD) not pups resulting from cross breeding where the differentiation away from breed type would be a hundred times greater.


----------



## Mark Walden (Mar 31, 2013)

ozrex said:


> I think that's absolutely true and I completely agree with you that no-one should condemn "ALL BREEDERS" or even the majority of them.
> 
> The problem has been that poor breeders, no, make that TERRIBLE breeders have been rewarded at major shows. Think Beverley Costello, think Wyndlair Avalanche, think Ch Buzz Lightyear at Dereheath in your own breed. Think of deliberate misinformation; for example Claire Wade, and she's a full professor at a good university. Think of how Margaret Carter was treated by fellow breeders (top breeders, influential people in the breed club), many of whom supported Beverley Costello!
> 
> ...


Absolutely, I have no objection to bigger measures to tackle these problems. I'm sure if the KC took these issues seriously even 10 years before PDE was televised, they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. In a good way It's brought awareness even inside the KC, it's just a shame a lot of people outside have been misled to quickly assume such false and biased claims and views about the KC. With tighter regulations, using great tools like Mate Select and having Breed Health Groups I'm fairly confident that they are tackling these issues head on and although you can't change these issues overnight, clear improvements have been made even in the short time I've been involved.

But you've made a good point in your first statement, I think when you're heavily involved in the hobby, people use it as a ego trip and benefit from major shows. There's nothing wrong in benefiting yourself from these shows, but you shouldn't do so while sacrificing the dogs health, and your breeds overall health for that matter. That is where the problem lies.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> and I also doubt that there would be the demand for all the cross bred pups that would be produced by 'outcrossing' at the level required.


Give them a special name, price them at double the price of the purebreds and they'll sell like hotcakes won't they?


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

I have found people who don't breed underestimate how difficult it is to find suitable homes for your puppies, it would take a lot of organising finding people prepared to take on what could turn out to be a complete mix of the breeds involved, I would worry about finding homes if I wasn't sure how the puppy could turn out .


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

exactly .....that's why it is so important that bodies like the Dog Advisory Council are NOT largely made up iof Scientists and theorists but have at least an equal number of experienced breeders who can highlight the sheer impracticalities of some of their suggestions ...the DAC breeding standards document is a prime example of this , here are some examples :

*Bitches close to whelping and when lactating must 
not be mixed with other adult dogs. * ...my bitches live as part of the family and mix freely with other dogs right up to the time they give birth -

*Bitches in season must be kept out of visual and auditory range of 
entire males* ...same as above - how is it possible to keep bitches out of auditory range of other dogs ?

,* breeding dogs 
must be trained so that they:
a. Walk on a lead;
b. Come when called;
c. Sit and stay when requested;* ....Why ? we are talking about breeding dogs not doing an obedience test !

*Puppies must be introduced to non-aggressive adult dogs in addition 
to the bitch.
The adults may be others on the premises and all should be fully vaccinated 
and healthy. The adults should be from a number of different breeds where 
possible.
* ....many breeders keep only one breed and personally I'm not about to introduce a strange dog to mum and the pups !

*
Bitches may only be mated to a dog when the Coefficient of 
Inbreeding (COI) of the resulting puppies as measured from a five generation 
pedigree would be lower than 12.5%.*....this may not be possible for some breeds

did they ask anyone who actually breeds pedigree dogs before writing such nonsense ?


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Bijou said:


> exactly .....that's why it is so important that bodies like the Dog Advisory Council are NOT largely made up iof Scientists and theorists but have at least an equal number of experienced breeders who can highlight the sheer impracticalities of some of their suggestions ...the DAC breeding standards document is a prime example of this , here are some examples :
> 
> *Bitches close to whelping and when lactating must
> not be mixed with other adult dogs. * ...my bitches live as part of the family and mix freely with other dogs right up to the time they give birth -
> ...


How bizarre!

Perhaps mum will pass the knowledge of how to sit/stay/walk on a lead to her pups before they are born?? 

And strange dogs - no way! Even if they are vaccinated, who knows where they've been walking, and what they might bring in with them.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I do think a breeding bitch should be trainable enough to have some basic commands. 

As we aren't supposed to go to puppy farms and bitches should be 'proven' be it in the show ring, or working, loose lead walking, recall and sit stay shouldn't be too difficult to teach them and if it is, should they be bred from?

The other stuff depends on the individual circumstances I think, so shouldn't be a must have/do.

As for the outcrossing/crossbreeding and other controversy, I'm not sure why everything always has to be so black and white and extreme? If someone suggests bringing a couple of working bred dogs into the show lines, that's not going to suddenly make retrievers look like St Bernards, labradors look like dachshunds and spaniels look like border terriers, why would bringing new blood into the equation mean the dogs are all going to look like the ubiquitous little brown dog, which seems to me to be rarest breed of all. 

No-one I've seen has suggested doing away with all breeds, breeding anything willy nilly regardless of looks, utility, or temperament, just cutting down on line-breeding and introducing new blood after careful consideration. Don't know why breeders need scientists and the Kennel Club to tell them to do it, they've been telling them to do it since the 60's, if not earlier as far as I know.

Anyway, if they don't want to do what the scientists and the KC tell them to do, they start up a group and argue about it, so I don't see why they'd take any notice now. 

However, the guys on Petforums should make the scientists, JH and the vets a little more optimistic, seems to me they already are trying to do what's suggested, agree that there's a problem and don't all have their heads quite so buried in the sand as some people might think. :thumbup1:

Glad I asked.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> I do think a breeding bitch should be trainable enough to have some basic commands.
> 
> As we aren't supposed to [buy from] puppy farms, & bitches should be 'proven', ...in the show ring or working,
> LLW, recall & sit / stay shouldn't be too difficult to teach them - & if it is, should they be bred from?


if the bitch / dam & dog / stud live in their respective owners' HOMES - or even in I/O kennel-runs - 
they should still have basic manners, yes? ... If s/he cannot walk on a leash, how in H*** do U get 
the adult-dogs to the vet for any health-checks, or take them along for any socializing, or even for 
a simple walk round the neighborhood?

Nowhere does it say that the dog must have an obedience-championship - just that s/he has 
some basic cued-behaviors. What's wrong with that?

Puppy-farms & industrial-scale breeders have their dogs live in pens or on wire, caged, all their lives.
They don't NEED to walk on a leash, as the only trips out of the cage or pen are for vet-care, 
& they immediately return to their prison - or for mating, which is another 20 to 30-mins in a closed space, 
& returned to the cage.

The breeding dogs aren't exercised, don't walk anywhere, & small breeds are often simply lugged about 
like four-legged purses; larger breeds may be shoved into a wheeled crate & rolled to their destination, 
then back to the cage / pen.

Anyone who breeds adult-dogs that they live with, who CAN'T or WON'T teach them any manners 
[cued behaviors, socialize, LLW, etc] is IMO a complete scuzzball, & i wouldn't buy a pup from them 
if the infant came with a money-back warranty & 2 years of free food & vet-care. :thumbdown:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

I do not teach my dogs to sit and stay , as show dogs they are taught to stand. I also don't teach recall, we have our own land to free run them on and when not at home they are never off lead - I have 7 dogs and lead walk several at a time , we use head collars to walk them on rather than teaching them individually to heel Does this make them unsuitable for breeding or me unsuitable as a breeder ? 

Fox hounds, racing greyhounds, sled dogs etc etc are also not taught to sit and stay should they too not be bred from ? .....it's just nonsensical and irrelevant !


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bijou said:


> I do not teach my dogs to sit and stay , as show dogs they are taught to stand. I also don't teach recall, we have our own land to free run them on and when not at home they are never off lead - I have 7 dogs and lead walk several at a time , we use head collars to walk them on rather than teaching them individually to heel Does this make them unsuitable for breeding or me unsuitable as a breeder ?
> 
> Fox hounds, racing greyhounds, sled dogs etc etc are also not taught to sit and stay should they too not be bred from ? .....it's just nonsensical and irrelevant !


I agree - written by people who haven't a clue what they're talking about and supported only by other people who haven't a clue what they're talking about. Of all the legislation that needs to be written around breeding dogs, this isn't it!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> unsuitable for breeding or me unsuitable as a breeder ?


Possibly. Depends. If talking about breeding dogs as pets or advice to councils legislating commercial premises, I see nothing wrong in recommending that the dogs are taught basic commands and can demonstrate temperament and trainability. If you're talking about foxhounds, herding sheepdogs, or police dogs, the requirements would be different.

I expect the puppy farmers would find a way around it. If Joe Public was advised to check that the mother of the pups was happy around people, knew sit/stay and would LLW, Mr Puppy Farmer would probably train one or two dogs and reel them out as 'this is mum' for every litter. Or failing that, mum would be at the vets, or out on a walk, when potential purchasers turned up. 

I don't see why that part of the list would be a big deal for show dogs, even if they live on a farm and are normally walked in head-collars though. Not if the pups are going to be sold on as pets, but then trainability and temperament was a big issue for me when looking for a potential pet dog, so I'm biased.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> I don't see why that part of the list would be a big deal for show dogs, even if they live on a farm and are normally walked in head-collars though. Not if the pups are going to be sold on as pets, but then trainability and temperament was a big issue for me when looking for a potential pet dog, so I'm biased.


Show dogs are generally not taught to sit and stay because you do not want them to sit when they are being gone over by judges. They are, instead, taught to stand and stay.

With regards to temperament and trainabiltiy, there is no difference. A dog who learns to stand and stay has as much "trainability and temperament" as a dog who learns to sit and stay.

Bitch A can sit and stay.
Bitch B can stand and stay.
Why should a breeder be allowed to breed from bitch A but not bitch B?
That's why having a requirement in the DAC breeding contract for the bitch to be able to sit and stay is nonsensical and can only have been dreamed up by people who don't really have any practical experience or knowledge of the things they are proposing.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I actually train for both, mine stand (sometimes) and will sit/stop as well. But I don't think a dog that sits is indicative of a good temperament, I'd suggest a dog that stands and let's strangers go over it is a better temperament.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I actually train for both, mine stand (sometimes) and will sit/stop as well. But I don't think a dog that sits is indicative of a good temperament, I'd suggest a dog that stands and let's strangers go over it is a better temperament.


Just what I was thinking SL. Bess can stand still for long periods, and is happy for any stranger to open her mouth to look at her teeth, and to run their hands all over her body. I think this demonstrates a good temperament - which is part of her breed standard after all, and something the judges are looking out for.

I suppose if a dog is not shown, or worked, then total lack of training make reflect badly on the breeder, but not necessarily the dog. I'm not sure that train ability of the bitch shows what the pup will be like anyway. How many dogs are bought as show dogs, from show stock, and then prove unsuitable temperament to show? (E.g too nervous or stressed in the ring).

Is the ability to respond to training really down to nature, or nurture? I would suggest the latter probably has more influence.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I think it's both, some dogs are bred specifically to be more biddable, if you ever come across working Labradors in experienced hands, they are almost born walking to heel. Of course an experienced handler would also be able to get a show bred Labrador to walk to heel nicely, but there is a difference in the level of how much they aim to please. 

Rhuna is more biddable than my Labradors, she's got more working breeding in her. It doesn't mean she gets everything right, it does mean however, she has the desire to please me more by getting things right


----------



## kirksandallchins (Nov 3, 2007)

Spellweaver said:


> Show dogs are generally not taught to sit and stay because you do not want them to sit when they are being gone over by judges. They are, instead, taught to stand and stay.
> 
> With regards to temperament and trainabiltiy, there is no difference. A dog who learns to stand and stay has as much "trainability and temperament" as a dog who learns to sit and stay.
> 
> ...


Why can't a show dog be taught to sit and stand on command? When I showed my Pembroke Corgi who also did obedience and agility (for fun) she knew many different commands. My current dogs all stand when I brush them, but they also sit, lie down and stay.

When buying puppies I have never asked to see how well the mother is trained

But, part of me questions that if a dog can not be trained to a basic level does it have a suitable temperament to be bred from?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

kirksandallchins said:


> Why can't a show dog be taught to sit and stand on command? When I showed my Pembroke Corgi who also did obedience and agility (for fun) she knew many different commands. My current dogs all stand when I brush them, but they also sit, lie down and stay.


Showdogs can be taught both commands - mine are, because like you we have also done obedience and agility (with the YKC) - and they also know a whole host of other comands that have nothing to do with any discipline other than behaving in the house and on walks. My post did say "in general" 



kirksandallchins said:


> When buying puppies I have never asked to see how well the mother is trained
> 
> But, part of me questions that if a dog can not be trained to a basic level does it have a suitable temperament to be bred from?


I have no beef with the DAC contract wanting training to basic level to be demonstrated - it's its insistence that a bitch must be taught only to sit and stay that I find ridiculous.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

kirksandallchins said:


> Why can't a show dog be taught to sit and stand on command? When I showed my Pembroke Corgi who also did obedience and agility (for fun) she knew many different commands. My current dogs all stand when I brush them, but they also sit, lie down and stay.
> 
> When buying puppies I have never asked to see how well the mother is trained
> 
> But, part of me questions that if a dog can not be trained to a basic level does it have a suitable temperament to be bred from?


You could train any dog to sit and walk to heel pretty much, doesn't mean it proves it's got the right temperament to be bred from though. It's a pointless exercise thought up with good intentions behind it but absolutely does nothing to prove a dog has a good temperament, or even that it picks up training easily. It could take you ten months to train a reliable sit, how would the person assessing the dog know that?


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Just a thought, but maybe the aim is also to see if the bitch is socialised a bit. I mean any bitch kept in a house generally knows the basics. Most people would teach "sit" and how to walk on a lead if not exactly to my definition of "heel".

Not all breeding bitches are show dogs, some are just related to show dogs. Some breeding bitches are kept in kennels and have never been for a walk or been in a house or been "pets" in any sense of the word. I don't necessarily mean "true puppy farms" more bitches kept in kennels and runs and allowed out to run with other dogs before being shut up again. They're handled enough to allow people to touch them and treat them if ill/whelping but are not otherwise interacting with people. They're not badly treated all their health/exercise needs are met (unlike a puppy farm) they're just not pets.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Really? :blink:

i know many dogs with multiple Championships in the breed-ring who also have titles in Obedience.

How in Hell did they teach those dogs to _both_ *Stand for Exam* AND *Sit / Stay*?
Are they rare k9-geniuses? Were they genetically-modified, by inserting human-genes?

Personally, i think they are neither vanishingly-rare dog-Einsteins, nor weird behavioral-flukes;
i think someone simply took the time to teach them both behaviors, On Cue. :yesnod:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

In case y'all have forgotten, there are a number of breeds who are NOT to be touched by the judge 
in the breed-ring; they are *look-only*. The handler exhibits the bite, moves the dog, opens the coat 
if the judge wants to see skin or texture, etc.

What about their temperament? 
They aren't "tested" by being asked to allow a stranger to invasively approach, loom over them,
put hands on them, lift their petticoats, handle their genitals - They're just looked at.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> In case y'all have forgotten, there are a number of breeds who are NOT to be touched by the judge
> in the breed-ring; they are *look-only*. The handler exhibits the bite, moves the dog, opens the coat
> if the judge wants to see skin or texture, etc.
> 
> ...


I'd be interested to know which breeds they are, I'm guessing they make up a very small number/percentage of the breeds overall. And I'll hazard a further guess that these are typically large guarding breeds?

And if they are such large and dangerous dogs, surely having a number of them in a ring together proves the point that even large and dangerous dogs can be trained to be shown in close proximity?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

I know of no breeds here in the UK that are not physically touched by the judge when being shown .....


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> You be impatient all you want.
> 
> In the meantime, the ones actually doing the research will continue until such times as proper and meaningful scientific conclusions can be drawn - conclusions which will point the way forward without the need for impatient knee-jerk reactions that may actually cause more harm in the long run.





Spellweaver said:


> At last - you're getting the problem of inbreeding into perspective! About time!


Do you think details of the 100 breeds tested so far should be made public whilst the research and scientifice conclusions are awaited? That way anyone intending to buy such a pup can then either choose to go ahead or choose to wait until the meaningful scientific conclusions are reached


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Do you think details of the 100[-plus] breeds tested so far should be made public whilst the research
> & scientific conclusions are awaited?
> 
> That way anyone intending to buy such a pup can then either choose to go ahead or choose to wait
> until the meaningful scientific conclusions are reached.


_Like - very much._ :thumbsup:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> I know of no breeds here in the UK that are not physically touched by the judge when being shown.


the Tibetan Mastiff under ARBA rules is one, here in the USA;
the Brazilian version of a 'guarding Bloodhound', the Fila Brasiliero, is another.

most if not all are either LGBs or property-guardians; highly territorial, & do not suffer strangers who take 
what the dogs consider to be excessive liberties, or simply get too close.

Some are primitive breeds, such as the Turkish LGB which doubles as a fighting-dog, the Kangal.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> the Tibetan Mastiff under ARBA rules is one, here in the USA;
> the Brazilian version of a 'guarding Bloodhound', the Fila Brasiliero, is another.
> 
> most if not all are either LGBs or property-guardians; highly territorial, & do not suffer strangers who take
> ...


Three of those breeds don't exist or aren't allowed in the UK, and as the Tibetan Mastiff is used at discover dogs and the public are allowed to say hello, I can't see a judge not going over them. So sorry, but doesn't seem to be the same here in the UK


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

I've judged Kangals ( Karabash ) here in the UK and hubby judges Tibetan Mastiffs ...we most certainly look in their mouths, check that the males have two descended testicles and 'go over' the dogs thoroughly .


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> I've judged Kangals ( Karabash ) here in the UK and hubby judges Tibetan Mastiffs ...
> we most certainly look in their mouths, check that the males have two descended testicles
> and 'go over' the dogs thoroughly .


Did U not read my post?

USA, not *UK*, & ARBA, not *KC*.

i don't KNOW what the rules are under the FCI. I have no idea if they have multiple no-touch breeds, 
or zero. *i stipulated what i referred to, to prevent precisely this sort of time-wasting.*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

So you're talking about a report about the UK KC and pedigree dogs in the UK, but you want to use the USA as an example for how you can't handle a dog? That's the most tenuous link you've come up with so far!!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> *emphasis Added -*
> 
> So you're talking about a report about the *UK-Kennel Club* & *pedigree dogs in the UK*,
> but you want to use [USA registries] as an example for how you can't handle a dog?


pedigree dogs in ANY closed-registry are affected precisely the same way;
a closed gene-pool, whether it's UK, NZ, or any other region or country, large or small, 
does *exactly* the same thing, particularly as all the purebred registries do the same 
bloody stoopid things - Allow *matador studs,* ignore *inbreeding,* & don't *mandate*
breed-specific tests except for a pathetic few, nor mandate *dog-generic* tests 
for all the issues which can affect any dog, of any breed, or even mixed breeds.

UK or USA, KC or ARBA, doesn't mean diddle. *Purebred dogs in registries around
the world, all have the same damned issues.* I wasn't the person who claimed that 
"being examined by a judge in the show-ring" is the virtual equivalent of the ATTS 
*temperament test*, was i?... And for what it's worth, IMO it's *not*.

A full-on temp-test covers far more than "stand still & let someone touch U" - if that were all,
ppl wouldn't be paying to get the ATTS test & driving considerable distances for it,
from all over the USA's 3,500-mile wide, 1,500-mile deep, 48 states... plus HI & Alaska.

Am i aggravated? Too true. 
Don't reply to a legitimate question with a load of toffee. :nono:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> pedigree dogs in ANY closed-registry are affected precisely the same way;
> a closed gene-pool, whether it's UK, NZ, or any other region or country, large or small,
> does *exactly* the same thing, particularly as all the purebred registries do the same
> bloody stoopid things - Allow *matador studs,* ignore *inbreeding,* & don't *mandate*
> ...


Nice of you to change the text within my quote, however Terry, you fail to comprehend, you're the one making a comparison to dogs in the USA NOT being able to be handled in the ring, where as the same breed that appears here, is not only handled in the UK show ring, but it is a part of the discover dogs event, where members of the public are encouraged to interact with the dogs. It was YOU who inferred that because judges couldn't go over these dogs, that they were of poor temperament, and you were simply wrong.

I did not say that a dog allowing a judge to go over it equals good temperament, I merely pointed out that it was more likely to prove it was a better temperment than a dog that had simply been trained to walk to heel and sit. Where is the temperament qualification in there? It could have a bl**dy awful temperament, but just be well trained.

So before you go *ADDING EMPHSIS*, and trying to tell me I'm wrong, try reading what you've actually posted!!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> ... you're the one making a comparison to dogs in the USA NOT being able to be handled in the ring,
> whereas the same breed that appears here, is not only handled in the UK show ring,
> but it is a part of the discover dogs event, where members of the public are encouraged to interact with the dogs.
> 
> ...


I did NOT say that being "look-only" means that they're *of poor temperament*.

being "look-only" means they're *not 'tested', however minimally, by being examined.*

U mentioned one breed, Tibbies, as being among Discover Dogs; what about the others?
Anyone bringing their Fila to a hands-on meet & greet at UK shows?... :skep:

And YOU were the one who implied that only KC breeds or KC-registered purebreds have any 
issues or potential problems, due to a closed gene-pool - which would be ludicrous if it weren't 
also an insult, to anyone who's thought about genetics in dog-breeding or any other closed pool.
:thumbdown:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> In case y'all have forgotten, there are a number of breeds who are NOT to be touched by the judge
> in the breed-ring; they are *look-only*. The handler exhibits the bite, moves the dog, opens the coat
> if the judge wants to see skin or texture, etc.
> 
> ...


So Terry, here you're quoting about the USA show ring, inferring that dogs are not temperament tested because the judge doesn't put their hands on them, handle their genitals etc, so NOT the UK, which is what the UK KC report is about. You are then corrected in that one of the breeds you mention (not all are shown here in the UK) is judged hands on, are you finally seeing that you've posted incorrectly yet?



leashedForLife said:


> I did NOT say that being "look-only" means that they're *of poor temperament*.
> 
> being "look-only" means they're *not 'tested', however minimally, by being examined.*
> 
> ...


I never said you DID say they were of poor temperament, but your post above INFERS their temperament hasn't been assessed in the same way as if a judge went over them. You're the one using standards for showing in the USA, which is not how it's done in the UK, to try and prove a ridiculous argument that sitting and walking to heel is a better way of assessing temperament than having a stranger go over a dog with their hands!! But the argument fell flat on it's face when you tried to imply some breeds weren't gone over using what happens in the USA.

The Fila as far as I'm aware isn't shown in the UK, I can't remember off hand if it's one of a few breeds that are banned to be quite honest.

I never said pedigrees were the only dogs with problems, what a CROCK, if you read any of my posts I always point out that all dogs are capable of having genetic problems. If you actually read one of my earlier posts, I point out the only way of stopping all these problems with pedigree dogs is not to breed them, BUT THAT WON'T STOP THE PROBLEM WITH OTHER DOGS!!!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> I did NOT say that being "look-only" means that they're *of poor temperament*.
> 
> being "look-only" means they're *not 'tested', however minimally, by being examined.*
> 
> ...


No because they are a banned breed here?? I've read this thread from start to finish, and am utterly confused, the UK KC was the BAD at the start of the thread, but when UK rules and regs of the breeds are used ie going over in the ring and being illegal, suddenly the goal posts are moved, how does that work?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Do you think details of the 100 breeds tested so far should be made public whilst the research and scientifice conclusions are awaited? That way anyone intending to buy such a pup can then either choose to go ahead or choose to wait until the meaningful scientific conclusions are reached


As I've already posted in reply to LFL earlier on in the thread - how do we know they are not going to be made public? Despite what LFL c&p'd from JH's blog, the report was from the AHT, not the KC, and they are going to report to the KC - until then no-one other than the AHT knows what breeds and what details.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Does it really matter what country we're talkng about? Does it really matter whether information comes from Jemima Harrison, the KC, the AKC or Uncle Tom Cobbleigh?

What are we going to do about the problems that are inherent in breeding from a gene puddle?? I don't want to lose "all pedigree dogs". With a few exceptions I love all their shapes and sizes.

Breeding to dogs with obvious genetic disease is plainly wrong. Breeding to a smaller and smaller gene pool by eliminating dogs with obvious genetic disease won't work long term. So what's left??

Breeding more dogs of a particular breed from the foundation-type dogs? Breeding from dogs related to the breed but not of the breed?

Are people willing to allow this to happen? How can we encourage people to consider it?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I actually train for both, mine stand (sometimes) and will sit/stop as well. But I don't think a dog
> that sits is indicative of a good temperament, I'd suggest a dog that stands and lets strangers go over it
> is a better temperament.





BessieDog said:


> Just what I was thinking SL. Bess can stand still for long periods, and is happy for any stranger
> to open her mouth to look at her teeth, and to run their hands all over her body. I think this demonstrates
> a good temperament - which is part of her breed standard after all, and something the judges are looking out for.
> 
> ...





leashedForLife said:


> In case y'all have forgotten, there are a number of breeds who are NOT to be touched by the judge
> in the breed-ring; they are *look-only*. The handler exhibits the bite, moves the dog, opens the coat
> if the judge wants to see skin or texture, etc.
> 
> ...





Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'd be interested to know which breeds they are, I'm guessing they make up a very small number/ percentage
> of the breeds overall. And I'll hazard a further guess that these are typically large guarding breeds?
> 
> And if they are such large and dangerous dogs, surely having a number of them in a ring together
> proves the point that even large and dangerous dogs can be trained to be shown in close proximity?





Bijou said:


> I know of no breeds here in the UK that are not physically touched by the judge when being shown ...





leashedForLife said:


> the Tibetan Mastiff under ARBA rules is one, here in the USA;
> the Brazilian version of a 'guarding Bloodhound', the Fila Brasiliero, is another.
> 
> most if not all are either LGBs or property-guardians; highly territorial, & do not suffer strangers who take
> ...





Bijou said:


> I've judged Kangals ( Karabash ) here in the UK and hubby judges Tibetan Mastiffs ...we most certainly
> look in their mouths, check that the males have two descended testicles and 'go over' the dogs thoroughly .





leashedForLife said:


> Did U not read my post?
> 
> USA, not *UK*, & ARBA, not *KC*.
> 
> ...





Sleeping_Lion said:


> So you're talking about a report about the UK KC and pedigree dogs in the UK, but you want to use
> the USA as an example for how you can't handle a dog? That's the most tenuous link you've come up with so far!!





leashedForLife said:


> pedigree dogs in ANY closed-registry are affected precisely the same way;
> a closed gene-pool, whether it's UK, NZ, or any other region or country, large or small,
> does *exactly* the same thing, particularly as all the purebred registries do the same
> bloody stoopid things - Allow *matador studs,* ignore *inbreeding,* & don't *mandate*
> ...





Sleeping_Lion said:


> Nice of you to change the text within my quote, however Terry, you fail to comprehend,
> you're the one making a comparison to dogs in the USA NOT being able to be handled in the ring,
> where as the same breed that appears here, is not only handled in the UK show ring, but it is
> a part of the discover dogs event, where members of the public are encouraged to interact
> ...





leashedForLife said:


> I did NOT say that being "look-only" means that they're *of poor temperament*.
> 
> being "look-only" means they're *not 'tested', however minimally, by being examined.*
> 
> ...





Meezey said:


> No because [Filas] are a banned breed here?
> 
> I've read this thread from start to finish, and am utterly confused, the UK KC was the BAD
> at the start of the thread, but when UK rules and regs of the breeds are used [ie going over in the ring
> and being illegal], suddenly the goal posts are moved, how does that work?


that's how the thread went to Hell in a handbasket, Meez.

- All registries do the same damn dumb things.
- All purebred dogs in closed gene-pools run the same risks, & have the same problems:
entire branches of gene-material are cut off by matador-sires.

it's not about the KC's sins - it's about *genetics*.

Claiming that show-dogs have been 'proofed' as the dog must allow the judge to examine 
her or him, is very shaky proof, indeed. 
ARBA [the American Rare Breed Assoc] has a number of look-only breeds, which includes the Fila,
Tibetan Mastiff, & several LGBs, among others;

i saw a Tibetan Mastiff who GrOWLED at the judge repeatedly whilst in the ring, given the PURPLE ribbon 
at an ARBA show in Virginia - i thought the judge was a damned fool, & the handler should have been 
ashamed of himself; the dog had been crated in the shade of trees more than 200-feet from the rings, 
well away from any possible passersby, across a cut *field of stubble - * it was obvious that the owner 
or handler was fully aware of his dog's temp, the male even growl-barked at dogs who were walked on leash 
within his VIEW to potty, & who were over 75-feet away from him.

i did phone their headquarters to complain - dogs who growl at the judge are supposed to be 
excused from the ring immediately; they are certainly not to be held up as models of the Ideal! :incazzato:

And for anyone not aware reading this thread - Temperament IS highly heritable.
[obviously this is *not* directed at the breeders here - but at novices who may not know 
that behavior, as much as eye-color or coat patterns or structure, is heritable.]


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> There is more than one problem within dog breeding, let's face it, humans are involved with it so there are bound to be a multitude of problems within dog breeding. In all honesty, the only way to completely eradicate problems with pedigree dogs would be to abolish the breeding of them, but you wouldn't eradicate problems with all dogs because it would just shift.
> 
> I find it really disheartening to think from the posts, that people think that *we* (and I say that lightly because I'm very aware how little contribution I've made physically, more verbally!!) are sat now, twiddling our thumbs. I was just chatting last night to Rhuna's breeder, who's had one of her dogs in for an operation and talking about vets fees. I'm facing a £1k bill this year for health tests for two dogs, I don't call that doing nothing. I don't call campaigning my dogs to show they are correct conformation nothing, or planning to compete with them nothing, or planning to work them nothing. I also don't count trawling through a multitude of dogs right this minute planning a possible mating (dependent on how everything else pans out) looking at CoI's, whether their conformation is good, whether they're proven and how, what they're producing if they are yet, is it worth a gamble if they aren't? Etc, etc, etc. None of that is doing nothing.
> 
> ...


I think if you read the above, it pretty much says that the problem with all dog breeding, not just pedigrees, is us humans. We are creating breeds that wouldn't exist except for our interference. But if we abolished pedigree breeds, we'd end up with one big closed gene pool, and goodness knows how soon the problems within that would end up ensuring all dogs were prone to a multitude of genetic problems that as their own smaller, separate pedigree breed, they would never have developed.



leashedForLife said:


> if the bitch / dam & dog / stud live in their respective owners' HOMES - or even in I/O kennel-runs -
> they should still have basic manners, yes? ... If s/he cannot walk on a leash, how in H*** do U get
> the adult-dogs to the vet for any health-checks, or take them along for any socializing, or even for
> a simple walk round the neighborhood?
> ...


Here you are disagreeing with something Bijou quoted saying you wouldn't buy a pup from someone who couldn't teach a dog basic manners. I'm sorry, I disagree, I don't care if someone is capable of being a dog trainer, if they're breeding, I do care that they know about health tests, conformation and are aware of temperament, and where necessary can identify biddability if it's asked for within the breed standard. I want someone who can socialise a pup/dog, not teach it to sit and walk to heel, that is a bonus, but it doesn't prove a dog is of the correct temperament to be bred from, nor does it indicate to me someone would be a good breeder.



leashedForLife said:


> that's how the thread went to Hell in a handbasket, Meez.
> 
> - All registries do the same damn dumb things.
> - All purebred dogs in closed gene-pools run the same risks, & have the same problems:
> ...


Ok, I'll put this to you one more time so you understand it. It was pointed out that it's a better test of temperament for a dog to allow a stranger to go over it at a show, than it is for someone to teach a dog to sit and walk to heel. Nowhere has anyone said that if a dog allows a judge to go over it at a show, then it's ideal breeding material. Nowhere has anyone implied temperament isn't inherited, but teaching a dog to sit and stay doesn't have a jot of anything to do with temperament, the dog could *hate* the world and everything else in it but would walk to heel and sit for it's handler.

Again, off with an example of a show in the US which really has nothing to do with the report you've posted about.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> ...an example of a show in the US which really has nothing to do with the report you've posted about.


The report has to do with physical or medical aspects of health - 
however, since behavior is also heritable, it is germane. Genetics includes both.

I wasn't the person who introduced "Stand for Exam" as a litmus temp-test.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Terry, no-one introduced stand for exam as a litmus test, have you not read my reply? You said you wouldn't buy a pup from someone who couldn't teach their dog to a basic level of training. I responded to suggest that actually, dogs that allow someone to go over them in the show ring is a better example of a good temperament, than someone who's managed to teach their dog to sit and walk to heel, there is no evidence that the same dog would allow a stranger to get so up close and personal. Do you really not understand that basic concept??

I swear you're not reading a word I post! And yes, it is about genetics, and none of it has anything to do with what goes on in the show ring in the US.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

In reply to Ozrex.... Here's the truth , if we want to continue having all the separate and individual pedigree dog breeds then we must stay within their restricted gene pools, there is no other way of producing and maintaining them.

....outcrossing will only work if done at a level that will eventually destroy individual breeds.....but then I think that's the real agenda of some vociferous journalists and bloggers


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> it's not about the KC's sins - it's about *genetics*.


So it's not about the KCs sins, eh? Well, when the title of your thread is about a report from a group commissioned by the KC, and when the title of your thread unjustly accuses the KC of continuing some pretense or other that does not exist outside your head, you will have to forgive people for assuming that you are posting about the KC and something you feel they are pretending about.

And you talk about a thread going to hell in a handbasket?

You started a thread about one thing and you were shown you were wrong. You then tried to confuse the issue by switching to showing dogs in the US rather than the UK. Because no-one fell for that, you are now trying to pretend your thread is about universal genetics.

Make up your mind - is your thread about its title, or is it about the temperament of show dogs in the US, or is it about genetics? Or are you now going to come up with something else entirely?

Confused dot com? You bet!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

So I'm picking up my pup this weekend, a pup from show lines, dam and sire are hip and elbow scored, eye and heart tested, DNA, pups leave with eye and heart certs, all pups are subject to ENS. I know sire very well and met dam for first time, are you seriously telling me that the basic obedience of the parents should have been high up on my agenda when choosing who I would get a pup from? Surprisingly it wasn't even in my list!!!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

FYI fathers temp test was graded excellent, but I'very no idea how well he sit or walks to heel?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> As I've already posted in reply to LFL earlier on in the thread - how do we know they are not going to be made public? Despite what LFL c&p'd from JH's blog, the report was from the AHT, not the KC, and they are going to report to the KC - until then no-one other than the AHT knows what breeds and what details.


But what do you personally think? Presumably the KC have this report by now should the results be published immediately?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> But what do you personally think? Presumably the KC have this report by now should the results be published immediately?


Personally, I think that the sooner the info is out there the better it will be for all dogs. However, I have no idea when the AHT will send the report to the KC - and common sense dictates that the very earliest anything can happen is that it will be discussed at the first committee meeting after the report is received. Having said that I think I read somewhere that the KC will be discussing it with the breeds clubs in the first instance - don't know where I got that from or even if I dreamt it!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Meezey said:


> ...I'm picking up my pup this weekend, ...show lines, dam & sire are hip and elbow scored, eye & heart tested,
> DNA, pups leave with eye and heart certs, all pups are subject to ENS. I know sire very well & met dam for first time...


GOOD! :yesnod: excellent screening on the parents, congratulations.

just out of curiosity, do U know the COI of the parents?


Meezey said:


> ...are you seriously telling me that the *basic obedience* of the parents should have been
> high up on my agenda when choosing who I'd get a pup from?


No, that's not the major criteria - instead, i'd look at:
* are both parents sociable? [within the norm for their breed?]

* are they controllable, or madcap dingbats?

* can they meet friendly strangers [potential puppy-buyers] nicely, or is the owner constantly 
having to intervene to get the dog off the visitor, stop the male from leg-lifting on the car, 
call one or the other unsuccessfully from some self-chosen hobby [digging the garden, fence-running 
& barking at the neighbor's dog, staring fixedly at a bird or squirrel in a tree, ______ ] ?

It's not so much "can they LLW?" or "can the dog do a 2-minute sit-&-stay?", as are both dogs sociable, 
polite, & a pleasure to live with, rather than UNsociable, UNcontrollable, & a major pain in the arse.

Just as i'd want to know that a pup i was buying as a future hunter came from hunting-lines, 
i'd want to know that the pup i bought as a companion came from parents who were good companions - 
not trouble on 4-feet.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> GOOD! :yesnod: excellent screening on the parents, congratulations.
> 
> just out of curiosity, do U know the COI of the parents?


Yes Sire 11% Dam 18%  Breed average 7%.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Personally, I think that the sooner the [reports are released], the better it will be for all dogs.


i very much agree. Hopefully there will be a minimal gap between the breed clubs getting the report 
on their individual breed, & the reports of each breed being released to the public for perusal.

IMO this is *the* single most-pressing issue in purebred dogs: How are we going to ensure 
that our children's children in 7 or 10 generations & beyond, will be able to have dogs as healthy partners?
Not fragile codependents who shuffle or snort or limp along beside them, then go home & collapse 
to recover from their walks, but solid, happy, healthy animals who are capable of work or play, 
& who can live long, happy lives of at least a decade & preferably 12 to 15-years or more?...

Conserving genetic-diversity is the key to retaining our longest species' friendship; before the horse, 
there was the dog. For more than 20,000 years they have lived beside us & helped us not only survive, 
but thrive. The least we can do in return in NOT destroy dogs in our human fascination with looks 
& our love of exaggerated traits; "more" is definitely not always better.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Yes Sire 11% Dam 18% Breed average 7%.


thank U kindly. :001_smile:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> IMO this is the single most-pressing issue in purebred dogs: How are we going to ensure
> that our children's children in 7 or 10 generations & beyond, will be able to have dogs as healthy partners?
> Not fragile codependents who shuffle or snort or limp along beside them, then go home & collapse
> to recover from their walks, but solid, happy, healthy animals who are capable of work or play,
> & who can live long, happy lives of at least a decade & preferably 12 to 15-years or more?...


My dogs are line bred, they do not snuffle, snort or limp along neither do they collapse to recover from their walks , they regularly live to 14 years or more ...a genetically diverse Bulldog or Pug may still snort, snuffle etc. etc but that's to do with their physical extremes NOT their coefficient of inbreeding !

If you want your children's children to have dogs that do none of the above then tell them to stop buying dogs with flat faces ...there are after all almost 1000 different breeds to choose from


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> If you want your children's children to have dogs that [don't *shuffle or snort or limp along beside them*],
> then tell them to *stop buying dogs with flat faces.*]


ANY dog can have structural-problems, joint issues, bad knees, EXERCISE INTOLERANCE, 
& many other problems which can cause symptoms such as "shuffling, snorting, or limping".

A Malinois is not flat-faced, but i've seen specimens who could barely walk due to serious knee, hip, 
or elbow problems, or had such severe exercise-intolerance that they could not do more than -Walk-
on a mild day - & i do mean *walk*, they couldn't trot - let alone run!

why are U blaming all the "health issues" on Brachy-breeds? :skep: 
are U trying to imply that any long-nosed breed is automatically healthy?
If so, IMO that's bull. Plenty of long-nosed dogs, individuals AND breeds, are genetic disasters; 
watch a show-ring GSD walk away from U on the down-&-back, for a nauseating example.
:thumbdown:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> Plenty of long-nosed dogs, individuals AND breeds, are genetic disasters;
> watch a show-ring GSD walk away from U on the down-&-back, for a nauseating example.


Oh good grief, don't you love to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I've seen many show-bred GSDs that are perfectly healthy, with excellent conformation.

In fact, I've seen far more healthy show bred dogs of all breeds than I have seen unhealthy.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem there - there are bad examples in all breeds and a few breeds do have more problems than others. But to say that because there are a few unhealthy examples in a breed means that breed is a genetic disaster is just plain exaggeration, and furthermore it totally ignores all the ongoing work to produce healthy animals that is being done by good breeders.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

I have read, but only made one comment so far on this thread as I'm new to showing (but not new to owning a pedigree dog). 

To read some of the comments someone would think the word pedigree equates to unhealthy dogs -and unfortunately this leads to problems. People think buyinga mongrel that is home bred by throwing two pet dogs together without health testing (mongrels don't need them don't you know) is better than buying anything registered by the evil KC! 

My dog is a Gundog. They should have musculature that shows they can run all day. I've never seen an overweight Irish Setter at a show, nor one with any problem that would prevent it having a happy, healthy life (Although perhaps prospective owners should have a health test to keep up with this breed). I've also owned a pedigree Great Dane (who lived to a great age of 11), an English Setter and a Cocker Spaniel. 

I suspect the vast majority of breeds are similar. There are breeds which require vet checks as they've been bred to not be able to breathe or walk properly, but these will be in the minority. And is it breeders that are at fault? The KC? No, it's the uneducated public who like dogs who look like this!!

Please do not perpetuate the myth that indiscriminate breeding of pet dogs, or worse puppy farmed dogs are healthier than well bred pedigree dogs. 

The KC is doing its best - I don't believe they are ignoring or hiding problems.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

> In reply to Ozrex.... Here's the truth , if we want to continue having all the separate and individual pedigree dog breeds then we must stay within their restricted gene pools, there is no other way of producing and maintaining them.


Yes and no. I _do_ want to see pedigree dogs. I do agree that means breeding like to like and that is a restricted gene pool by definition. However there are degrees of restriction and I would very much like breeding to be such that it produces type rather than perfect type. Selection can be for health as well as a perfect ear set and to me the ideal selection would be for health BEFORE ears. I could cope with say, a GSD which looked more or less like other GSDs; sort of _recognisably_ GSD rather than _perfectly_ GSD in exchange for a robust MHC.



> ....outcrossing will only work if done at a level that will eventually destroy individual breeds.....but then I think that's the real agenda of some vociferous journalists and bloggers


I've never heard anyone outside fringe groups like the PETA nutters say that but I dare say you're right. There are some strange people in this world.

I don't actually agree that outcrossing will destroy any breed but perhaps it depends upon what one means by "destroy".

If the aim of breeding a show dog is to create the closest animal possible to the breed standard and ALL breeders have the same aim then the animals should become genetically identical. OK that won't happen in the real world because different breeders and judges have different ideals. It's happened in lab. mice and the results aren't pretty. We all know that this is not going to be pretty for dogs, it isn't now.

How about breeding and selecting for criteria other than appearance? How about keeping a general appearance but placing the emphasis on genetic diversity, health and temperament? How about showing dogs of good type and robust health/nature?

There will be homes for such dogs. We pet owners have cheerfully purchased dogs that are "not quite show standard" for years. Hell, we even buy crossbreeds......


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I've seen many show-bred GSDs that are perfectly healthy, with excellent conformation.


Really?
show-line GSDs with moderate angulation & straight, level backs...

As opposed to roached backs that arch to drop at the loin, & short hocks that make a figure-8 
with every step forward, as the dog drags their upper-surface of the hind paw along the ground 
before flipping it up to set it down?...

Show me one - with a level back & normal rear-assembly, who has WON in the ring.

the only GSDs i see these days with normal spines & rears are working-line, not show bred.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> In fact, I've seen far more healthy show bred dogs of all breeds than I have seen unhealthy.


How do you know? Unless you're a vet, examined the dogs thoroughly and all of these dogs have been health tested, I don't see how you can say that tbh. Even if you are a vet etc. until post mortem I still don't know how anyone can know.

It's easier to see an unhealthy dog than it is to know that an apparently healthy dog on the outside is also healthy on the inside, plus 'healthy' is open to interpretation, there's plenty of 'differences' that have been acceptable in showing, that wouldn't be acceptable in humans or working dogs and would be considered health issues that affect quality of life?

So I don't believe you.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

BessieDog said:


> I suspect the vast majority of breeds are similar. There are breeds which require vet checks
> as *they've been bred to not be able to breathe or walk properly*, but these will be in the minority.
> 
> ...*is it breeders that are at fault? The KC? No, it's the uneducated public who like dogs
> who look like this!*


it's the supposedly "educated" judges, who've been AWARDING ribbons, plaques, 
loving-cups, rosettes, etc, for decades who have shaped those breeds, with the willing help 
of breeders, who deliberately exaggerated breed traits to reach the current godawful state.

the PUBLIC doesn't breed the litter - & the show-ring has determined what's trendy, & whose dogs 
are considered mediocre, acceptable, or admirable -- not the ignorant unwashed "public".

THIS isn't admirable:
Kaleef German Shepherds - Memories

Please note "Dallas", 3rd from the bottom - he was the winner of the Eukanuba Invitational 
& the GSD that i had on videotape, during the down & back, walking AWAY from the judge - so that 
i could clearly see his hocks trace a figure-8 with every forward stride, while his rear-paws dragged 
their upper surface - the toes - along the carpet, as he brought each rear paw forward, flipped it up, 
& then set it down. I could run the video frame-by-frame; it was unbelievable to me.


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

ozrex said:


> Yes and no. I _do_ want to see pedigree dogs. I do agree that means breeding like to like and that is a restricted gene pool by definition. However there are degrees of restriction and I would very much like breeding to be such that it produces type rather than perfect type. Selection can be for health as well as a perfect ear set and to me the ideal selection would be for health BEFORE ears. I could cope with say, a GSD which looked more or less like other GSDs; sort of _recognisably_ GSD rather than _perfectly_ GSD in exchange for a robust MHC.


What you are seeing with the breeds that were 'created' after the advent of kennel clubs and registration, and with breeds that were derived from a larger, more variable landrace population, is the results of hyper-selection. There is a very good article on how hyper-selection can affect the gene pool, regarding sled dogs but certainly applicable to most populations, by Jeffrey Bragg.

Exploitative Breeding Methods?

Here are the results of hyper-selection in dogs that derive from a variable landrace, the Afghan hound, from the twenties:


















































The second to last dog is Buckmal, the first English champion. The last dog, Sirdar of Ghazni, was considered to have a very heavy coat in his day.

Here is an 'average' modern show Afghan:










There is a racing population of Afghans that still maintains moderate coat and conformation but you are still talking about a pretty small gene pool and hyper-selection for competition.



ozrex said:


> I don't actually agree that outcrossing will destroy any breed but perhaps it depends upon what one means by "destroy".


You are correct. We have plenty of examples of animals maintained in open registries that haven't been destroyed and still have 'breeds,' (and shows) including cats, rabbits, horses, and even some ::gasp:: dog breeds.

I own Salukis, which have been maintained in a fairly typical open registry, where country of origin dogs can be registered. These dogs are critiqued, given an SPDBD number (I am in the US) and after three generations, can produce AKC registered offspring. Each generation is critiqued. This is not any different from a number of open or appendix registries, just the generation count until 'pure' varies. It works the same way for dogs without a country of origin population, like the Chinook outcross project:

Chinook Cross Breeding Program

Chinooks have not been 'destroyed' by an outcross project.

The current hyper-selection process for show and competition dogs results in a huge amount of gene loss. In a closed system, unless there is every effort to breed from as many individuals as possible, gene loss is rampant. One study showed that only 20% of UK purebred dogs are ever bred from. The ultimate consequence of too much gene loss is inbreeding depression. An open registry allows for a little trickle of genes back in.

The thing that closed registry proponents do not typically address when they are hand-waving about 'destroyed' breeds, never regaining type, etc. is that the entire system they are basing their assumptions on is actually the biggest genetic experiment humans have ever engaged in. Most registries have only been truly closed since post WW II. A few outcrosses here and there are not going to sink the boat (and you may be assured, under a proper outcross program no one is going to be cross-breeding and registering the progeny will-nilly, it takes time, dedication, and commitment, just like 'reputable' breeding of purebreds does.)

(And there has always been a certain amount of experimental breeding that sneaked into the registry system, especially during the heydays of large kennels breeding many, many litters.)

BTW, no diversity proponent has ever made the assertion that there must be an outcross in every line every four generations. What diversity proponents want is this: an open registry, which will allow breeder who choose to do so to bring in new blood, and breeders who choose to use the progeny of those dogs may do so. All it is doing is putting another tool in the breeders tool box.

Jess


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

jess you know as well as I do that " a few out crosses here and there " would make almost no impact on genetic diversity - out crossing would need to be done on a large scale across individual breeds and repeated at regular intervals 

You talk of open registries, what does this mean to the majority of breeds like Affenpinchers, Kerry Blues or Glen of Imaals - where there are no unregistered country of origin dogs to out cross with ?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> How do you know? Unless you're a vet, examined the dogs thoroughly and all of these dogs have been health tested, I don't see how you can say that tbh. Even if you are a vet etc. until post mortem I still don't know how anyone can know.
> 
> It's easier to see an unhealthy dog than it is to know that an apparently healthy dog on the outside is also healthy on the inside, plus 'healthy' is open to interpretation, there's plenty of 'differences' that have been acceptable in showing, that wouldn't be acceptable in humans or working dogs and would be considered health issues that affect quality of life?
> 
> So I don't believe you.


It is, of course, is your prerogative to believe whatever you want to believe. However, if you actually went to shows and saw the dogs in action, you might find that you have some actual knowledge upon which to base your beliefs 

Seeing dogs year in year out, seeing how they develop, seeing how they are still healthily running around the ring in veteran classes, hearing of dogs who pass away at ripe old ages - you don't need to be a vet to know that those dogs must be healthy. You don't need a post mortem when a dog dies at 16 or 17 years old to know that that dog was healthy.

It's called real life, experience and common sense


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Not in this context. Yes, the individual dog might live to 17 and appear happy and healthy, but he could have a high hip score that would affect his offspring, unless his hips were checked no-one would know. The context is breeding and closed gene pool. 

So, I would still say that you can't know just by looking at dogs at shows, it doesn't matter how long the individual dog lives, it matters what he could pass onto his offspring and what may happen in the future as well as today.

Plus, as I said, what you think is good, healthy conformation may not be what someone else does, so you can't say that the GSDs are all healthy and most show dogs are healthy, because you don't know. 

Even if I agreed with you that most show dogs were healthy, I couldn't actually know, it would just be something I think and other people would be quite entitled to think different.  If I were planning on breeding dogs, I would have to know that the individuals I were breeding were as healthy as it is possible to know and then I'd be looking at testing the individuals.

If we could tell that dogs were healthy by looking at them in the show ring, there'd be no need for any tests.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Elles said:


> .
> 
> If we could tell that dogs were healthy by looking at them in the show ring, there'd be no need for any tests.


ah but that's why reputable breeders only use dogs that are tested


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I suppose what is being said though is that at least in some breeds, if the closed gene pool idea is strictly adhered to, there will come a day when none of the dogs test healthy.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

But the evidence goes against that, where we start to test, the hip scores go down. This has happened with Labradors, I can't remember what the BMS was when it was first recorded, but even over the time I've owned Labradors there has been a reduction of 3 points (I think, from memory) down to 15. We haven't needed to outcross to achieve that


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Labs are a big breed though SL with loads of dogs, working and show and pet and all kinds of assistance dogs. I think the concern is more about the smaller restricted gene pools atm. In some of those cases, testing can make it worse, if only the dogs with the best results are bred from, it takes the gene pool even smaller and before you know it, there's lurking nasties and conformation issues appearing and the breeders could run out of healthy dogs to breed from, if they insist on sticking to their restricted genepool. As far as I understand it anyway.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

They are a very numerous breed, overall, but when you look closely, it's split into sections, show, working, pet bred, some people even split by colour. So in actual fact, you've got a BMS that has come down from different pools within a gene pool.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Elles , testing adds to the information we have with which to breed from , it should not be used in the kind of black and white way you suggest. For example my breed has a problem with epilepsy , we have now developed a test to find out which dogs have the gene for this. Previous to the test we simply could not use dogs from lines we thought were affected , now we can use carriers to clear dogs which in effect widens our choices rather than narrowing them.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> Labs are a [large-popn] breed,... SL, with loads of dogs, working & show & pet and all kinds of assistance dogs.
> 
> I think the concern is... smaller, restricted gene pools... In some of those cases, testing can make it worse,
> if only the dogs with the best results are bred from, it takes the gene pool even smaller, & before you know it,
> ...


As Bijou notes, there's No Such Animal as "the perfect dog" - we can't breed only perfect sires & dams,
as they don't exist. We breed dam to sire with full knowledge [or as full as possible] of their flaws,
ENSURING meanwhile that each dog moderates the other's flaws, rather than duplicate them.

A dog whose head is less than perfect but has excellent structure can be bred to a dog whose structure 
is less admirable in some points, but whose head is lovely - PLUS of course both dogs are tested for 
both breed-specific & species-generic heritable problems, to avoid breeding *carrier to carrier*, or mating 
an *affected dog* whose heritable problem is not recessive.

By "affected" i'm obviously referring only to minor issues, such as mismarks & other cosmetic details, 
or a less-perfect coat that is not sufficiently coarse / fine / weatherproof, & so on - Not things which affect 
the dog's lifespan, ability to move freely, cause chronic issues [pain, repeat health-crises, etc].

A dog who is otherwise very good with a white locket on the chest that is not disqualifying is obviously 
a dog who IMO should *stay in the gene-pool*, since that's a petty issue, not a health concern - 
even tho it's not "preferred".


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

Bijou said:


> jess you know as well as I do that " a few out crosses here and there " would make almost no impact on genetic diversity - out crossing would need to be done on a large scale across individual breeds and repeated at regular intervals


Nonsense. It would have a small continuous impact. There is a reason that Salukis maintain fairly decent genetic diversity and have more DLA haplotypes found than any other breed (thirty some odd at last count.) That is because they exist within an open registry and have had regular small infusions of native 'other' genes, and probably a fair bit of longdog genetics added under the table. (Note that although Salukis have a large number of founders, founder impact is extremely skewed due to popular sires like Sarona Kelb, and that most of that DLA diversity resides within the desert descent population, _not_ the 'domestic' Salukis.)

In any case, what you are looking at with an open registry is not wholesale genetic turnover (this is not possible anyways.) A closed registry, and common breeding practice in dogs (line-breeding) causes loss of variants. Thus heterozygosity becomes harder to maintain, especially in a rare breed with a very small population. Add even one percent 'new' blood per generation will add new variants and make heterozygosity easier to maintain, especially with the advent of tests for heterozygosity like Wisdoms Optimal Selection, and Genoscopers DLA test, or their new DNA service.

And really, while maintenance of diversity in the population would really be the goal in outcrossing, what it actually does is directly benefit the breeders who do it, and the breeders who choose to use the progeny.

You cannot INCREASE diversity in a closed population. You can only lose it, and genetic drift is faster and more extreme in small, closed populations, and populations under extreme selection (like dogs.) You cannot health test your way out of a bottleneck, as we've seen with the high rates of heart disease in CKCS. I've seen an exponential increase in heart disease in Salukis since I first got into the breed, and in IGs diseases are extremely prevalent now that were extremely rare when I got my first one. Complex inheritance, and so-called 'missing' inheritance means there are diseases you are simply not going to be able to develop a DNA test for. You cannot test your way out of a shrinking gene pool.



Bijou said:


> You talk of open registries, what does this mean to the majority of breeds like Affenpinchers, Kerry Blues or Glen of Imaals - where there are no unregistered country of origin dogs to out cross with ?


Don't be specious. In domestic cats (no COO population there), there are accepted outcrosses in some breeds; in fact, you may get several 'breeds' in a single litter with some types. Because purebred cats are bred in very small numbers, diversity can be a big problem, and having accepted outcrosses mitigates that.

IOW, you simply cross to another breed. Using the aforementioned tests, you can even look for genes that are either not present in your own lines, or rare.

Afghans, for example, are not maintained within an open registry despite the presence of COO dogs. Native Afghans are fairly difficult and expensive to get, as well, and it's not exactly the part of the world you pay a visit to and wander around enquiring about dogs. Salukis would make an excellent outcross for Afghans. Afghans actually make an excellent outcross for Salukis as well, because the coat is easy to eliminate, you can even DNA test for the gene if you like.

Let's have a little fun, shall we? Two of these dogs are AKC registered Salukis, and two of them are not purebred (they are two generations away from 'pure,' 3/4 Saluki, 1/4 Afghan.)


































Compare and contrast. Are two easily eliminated as 'obviously impure?'

Let's have even more fun. See that dog in my avatar? 3/4 Afghan hound, 1/4 Saluki. Breed her to an Afghan and you'd have dogs that would pass for even 'modern' Afghans, maybe a little less coat growth. You can have a look at my crosses and backcrosses here. And here's an interesting link on how that type of breeding works if you want to make a 'pure' dog.

This is not rocket science, and it isn't anything new. In fact, this type of breeding and maintaining of types has been around since far, far longer than closed registries have been around. Dogs were maintained as distinctive types for millennia, without the benefit of closed registries or central studbooks.

Don't think that there are going to be Tigers or Pandas or any number of other highly endangered species in a hundred years. Their gene pools are too small to maintain the species for that long. Dogs are no different. Stick with a closed gene pool, winnow it down like crazy in each generation due to hyper-selection, and dog breeds will go the way of the tiger in a hundred years. That's about four human generations. Railing about hidden anti-purebred agendas, lying about how many outcrosses need to be done, or how many generations it'll take to return to type won't do you any good. Y'all have fun with that.

Rising Numbers May Not Be Enough to Save Tigers and Kiwis - ScienceNOW
New Zealand's Little Spotted Kiwi Birds are in More Trouble than We Thought | Running Ponies, Scientific American Blog Network
Attack of the Mutant Pupfish | Wired Science | Wired.com
Are Mixed Breed Dogs Healthier Than Purebreds? |

Of course some of the European KCs are pushing diversity now, and so is the FCI, and even your venerated KC has re-opened the B registry. So I guess there's some hope after all. (Only a small bit of sarcasm in that statement.)

Jess


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But the evidence goes against that, where we start to test, the hip scores go down. This has happened with Labradors, I can't remember what the BMS was when it was first recorded, but even over the time I've owned Labradors there has been a reduction of 3 points (I think, from memory) down to 15. We haven't needed to outcross to achieve that


That depends entirely on having enough 'normal' individuals in the population. If you have a problem that has reached a high frequency level, there may not be enough individuals in the population that are normal to achieve a reduction in disease rates without losing what diversity is still there, or without continuing to breed affected animals along the way. There are some breeds where the affected rate for disease is 40-60%. If the inheritance is unknown or ambiguous (incomplete penetrance comes to mind) you get an even bigger problem.

Jess


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nightmare said:


> That depends entirely on having enough 'normal' individuals in the population. If you have a problem that has reached a high frequency level, there may not be enough individuals in the population that are normal to achieve a reduction in disease rates without losing what diversity is still there, or without continuing to breed affected animals along the way. There are some breeds where the affected rate for disease is 40-60%. If the inheritance is unknown or ambiguous (incomplete penetrance comes to mind) you get an even bigger problem.
> 
> Jess


We're talking about dogs that regularly have a CoI of 10%, my bitch has a CoI of 9% with a clear health test result sheet. Not that I would treat that as the be all and end all. The KC recommend an individual CoI of 6%.

But she's not unusual, and for a breed that is known as having *hip problems* the lowering of the BMS and addressing the problem has been a huge success; even speaking to vets they admit that they see less problems in comparison to the bad old days. I'm hoping the elbow problem which I personally think has more impact on a dog, after all, that's where they carry the bulk of their weight, will begin to have the same impact now that more people are using the grading scheme.


----------

