# Ethics of breeding wild x domestic hybrids? [per dagny0823]



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Hello all - 
we'd just started an intriguing discussion on the "New breed" thread, after *dagny0823* questioned the concept 
of creating domestic / wild hybrids, but we'd only gotten a dozen or so posts up, when a mod closed the thread.

I would still like to investigate those ideas - would anyone else be interested? :001_smile:

What arrangements would be needed for early-generation hybrids?
How can one ensure a diverse gene-pool? 
What sort of housing & husbandry requirements?
How does one prevent releases to the wild, or abandonment of hybrids?
& so on...


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

For me you've first got to answer why you'd do it. I can't think of a single ethical objective.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

I agree with Havoc - I think first you have to decide why it is necessary. Given the huge problems encountered with early generation Bengals and Savannahs, is it right to subject a few generations of kittens/ cats to a penned life as they are so wild (and sometimes euthanasia as so destructive) in order to create a new domestic cat breed?


----------



## OrientalSlave (Jan 26, 2012)

I'm with Spid and Havoc. It's not an ethical thing to do in the first place. I took part in the genetic debate over the sand cat as an interesting subject, but said at least once that I thought the best thing to do was neuter the Sand Cat rather than breed him.


----------



## NorthernDarkness (Jan 9, 2013)

IMO we have enough hybrid breeds and see no reason to develop any new ones at the moment.

I think I read somewhere that one of the current hybrid breeds (can't remember which one) was partly developed due to the wild species behind the breed having quite high % immunity against FIV and they hoped it would pass down to the domesticated offsprings.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

NorthernDarkness said:


> I think I read somewhere that one [wild x dom] hybrid breed... was developed [in part] due to the wild [parent]
> having quite high [resistance to] FIV, & they hoped [to retain that, in] domesticated offspring.


When was this breed developed? 

There's been a vaccine for FIV since at least 2005.


----------



## NorthernDarkness (Jan 9, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> When was this breed developed?
> 
> There's been a vaccine for FIV since at least 2005.


I can't remember which breed it was supposed to be so I don't know when it was developed.

Isn't the FIV vaccine pretty much useless? I've never heard of anyone using it and the vets don't even carry it here as no one uses it.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

NorthernDarkness said:


> Isn't the FIV vaccine pretty much useless?
> I've never heard of anyone using it and the vets don't even carry it here, as no one uses it.


Dual-subtype FIV vaccine (Fel-O-Vax FIV) p... [J Feline Med Surg. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

There are 5 related citations in the right-hand margin.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

more on FIV effectiveness - *article updated in 2006*

FIV: Vaccination Concerns and Questions | Dr. Arnold Plotnick | Feline Articles



> _
> 
> In 2004, the USDA approved the first vaccine against FIV. The vaccine has been licensed to Fort Dodge Animal Health,
> of Overland, Kansas.
> ...


Note that this update is *6 or 7 years old* - the vaccine may have been improved.


----------



## NorthernDarkness (Jan 9, 2013)

^Quick googling didn't help me much to find any information about improved vaccination. Also all the Finnish sources (dated for example 2010) I checked are still saying there is no reliable enough vaccination, so they don't generally recommend it.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

from the same article:



> _
> 
> FIV testing guidelines, per the American Assoc. of Feline Practitioners & the Academy of Feline Medicine.
> 
> ...


I don't know how common it is in free-roaming cats, but in the USA, it's frequent.
Same article:


> _
> 
> Dr. Jack Bregman, owner of two feline-exclusive veterinary hospitals in New York, is elated with the new vaccine.
> "I examine hundreds of cats every year. I diagnose a case of FIV at least once a month, & I euthanize more sick
> ...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

NorthernDarkness said:


> ^Quick googling didn't help me much to find any information about improved vaccination.
> Also all the Finnish sources (dated for example 2010) I checked are still saying that there is no reliable enough
> vaccination, so they don't generally recommend it.


Personally, even if it only protects approx 7 of 10 cats, i'd use it - 
as the infection-rate in exposed cats is 3 out of 4.

Far too many cats who are owned but allowed outside WILL encounter cats who are FIV-positive, whether 
they're owned, abandoned, or feral. Most free-roaming cats are positive by the time they're 12-MO, in the USA - 
unless they're vaccinated prior to exposure.


----------



## Toby Tyler (Feb 17, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> What arrangements would be needed for early-generation hybrids?
> How can U ensure a diverse gene-pool?
> What sort of housing & husbandry requirements?
> How do U prevent releases to the wild, or abandonment of hybrids?
> & so on...


Please let's not give any ideas on how to do it in case someone else thinks it's a good idea to inter species breed wildcats to domestic cats.

Bear in mind the OP of the thread had an un altered cat who is on the *threatened species* list - who belongs in the hands of conservationists - not someone "experimenting with a new breed".

The origins of her having the only Sand Cat in private hands strongly suggest this cat came from the black market exotic pet trade. There is nothing ethical about it IMO.


----------



## NorthernDarkness (Jan 9, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> Personally, even if it only protects approx 7 of 10 cats, i'd use it -
> as the infection-rate in exposed cats is 3 out of 4.
> 
> Far too many cats who are owned but allowed outside WILL encounter cats who are FIV-positive, whether
> ...


I know FIV is more common in the USA, but it's not that common here in Finland. Personally I do not know any infected cats, whether they are indoors only or allowed to go out. (Though I doubt most people letting their cats out even test their cats, and most often they die because of cars or predators, so if sick, it would go unnoticed easily..)

Obviously I've tested all my cats, and all their partners and parents etc. have been tested. I do breed them after all.

And just adding this so this is not completely OT: It's illegal here to keep wild animals, they need special permits. If you have for example a Bengal or Savannah, it must be F4 or was it even F5 or you'll need the wild animal permit. *edit* Wow, it seems they have actually updated the law about wild cat x domestic cat, you can now keep F1 without a special permit. Didn't see that one coming soon.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I would have to question why anyone would spend the money on one of these hybrids and then allow it to roam free - the only way it could get FIV. It's a pretty far fetched justification for breeding them.


----------



## dagny0823 (Oct 20, 2009)

This thread isn't about that sand cat topic---that's been closed and perhaps we should resist beating that dead horse. 

This thread, the way I understand it, is an attempt to have an objective intellectual conversation about such breeding. If we can't have a debate for fear of "educating" the wrong people, or merely discussing it in personalized terms, then this makes me very sad. I had nothing to do with this thread starting, although I was trying to get to this point in the other thread, and I really don't have an idea of where I stand regarding the ethics. I'm trying to learn. So it would be lovely and enlightening and perhaps uplifting to have people discuss this in terms of objective ideas and science, instead of "you have to explain why you think it's a good idea first", or "I feel it's wrong".


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> So it would be lovely and enlightening and perhaps uplifting to have people discuss this in terms of objective ideas and science, instead of "you have to explain why you think it's a good idea first",


All scientific research has checks and balances to stop the over enthusiastic. The first question is always why do it at all.


----------



## dagny0823 (Oct 20, 2009)

havoc said:


> All scientific research has checks and balances to stop the over enthusiastic. The first question is always why do it at all.


Fine, but I think you missed what I was saying. By saying "why would *you* do it" makes it sound like you're tossing it back to the OP as if lFL is planning to. Perhaps you meant "why would *one* do it"? and I just read it the other way.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> By saying "why would *you* do it" makes it sound like you're tossing it back to the OP


Presumably it would have been OK if I'd used the text abbreviation 'U' and therefore taken the accepted informal terminology for a collective 'you' to an even more informal level.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

The *American Bobtail* [1960s, Southwest origins on a native-American reservation; recognized 1989] 
& the *Pixie-Bob* [1985 / 86, Northwest coastal origin, recognized 1994] are 2 breeds from *un*planned 
wild x domestic matings: male bobcats will mate with domestic females, & the hybrid litters are often 
killed by their sires, while still in the nest.

In both cases, the breed-founder simply picked-up hybrid kittens & used them as foundation stock - obviously, 
neither chose the wild sires, who 'volunteered' at random, nor dams, who were either barn-cats or 
indoor / outdoor.

Is that ethical? Many owners ignored the litters, or even euthanized them - if they survived long-enuf to avoid
being slaughtered by their sires.

TICA American Bobtail Breed Introduction

TICA Pixiebob Breed Introduction


----------



## dagny0823 (Oct 20, 2009)

havoc said:


> Presumably it would have been OK if I'd used the text abbreviation 'U' and therefore taken the accepted informal terminology for a collective 'you' to an even more informal level.


I'm sorry, what? Do I seem like I commonly use textspeak?


----------



## izzyc (Dec 18, 2011)

I can't imagine why anyone would want to breed a wild x domestic hybrid. So many of the smaller wild cat species are in decline we should be trying to establish breeding programmes to save them, not cross them with domestic cats. 

If you want a cat that LOOKS 'wild' (and let's face it, no one wants a cat with a wild temperament!) you don't have to start by crossing with a non-domesticated species! It's not like the first breeders of Toygers started with tigers!!


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

If your foundation cat is naturally occuring, then none of the conditions for breeding that are normally accepted as essential (health tests, knowing the pedigree etc) have taken place. Why then would you think that was a suitable to cat to breed from?

If it was truly hybridised with another species, the evidence seems to point to a few generations of difficult behaviour and also a requirement to line breed to get the characteristics you want. At this stage, you only have the one cat because it was a chance discovery. So how do you get a viable and consistent breed without deliberate breeding?

And I am a bit vague on this, but there does seem to be something about F1 crosses being infertile, so is it essential to deliberately breed to get to consistent results? So one found hybrid could be a happy chance, but a whole new breed sort of implies human intervention?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Jonescat said:


> If your foundation cat is *naturally occurring*, then none of the conditions for breeding that are normally
> accepted as essential (health tests, knowing the pedigree etc) have taken place. Why, then, would you think
> that was a suitable to cat to breed from?


Scottish Folds, American Curls, some curly-coated breeds, & other breed-traits were spontaneous mutations:
Munchkins, Selkirk Rex, American Wirehair, Cornish Rex, & Sphinx were all spontaneous mutants, to begin with - 
IOW, what geneticists call 'sports'. The white cornflowers i observed along a roadside were also sports - no-one bred 
for a change from blue petals, they just "happened".


Jonescat said:


> ...there does seem to be something about F1 crosses being infertile, so is it essential to deliberately breed to get
> to consistent results? So one found hybrid could be a happy chance, but a whole new breed sort of implies
> human intervention?


i never heard that Bobcat x Domestic-cat progeny were sterile. 

Neither, so far as i know, were the original sports who began the Rex breeds [3 types], Wirehair, Sphinx, 
Munchkin, Curl, or Fold breeds. Some cannot be doubled-up [both sire & dam with the defining trait], but that's just 
as true of Chinese Crested, Xolo, & other dog-breeds, where both parents having the trait causes damaged pups.


----------



## Toby Tyler (Feb 17, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> The *American Bobtail* [1960s, Southwest origins on a native-American reservation; recognized 1989]
> & the *Pixie-Bob* [1985 / 86, Northwest coastal origin, recognized 1994] are *2 breeds from unplanned
> wild x domestic matings: male bobcats will mate with domestic females, & the hybrid litters are often
> killed by their sires, while still in the nest.*
> ...


First off, this wasn't intentional breeding by a human. The fact that the sire would kill them off tells me it's nature's way of taking care of things. 'Nature' can't possibly err on the wrong side of ethics.

As to the founder picking them up, why if they knew they were wildcats would they intentionally breed them?

It's like breeding wolves to dogs. Which I personally consider unethical, reckless and irresponsible. Far too many of these animals are difficult/impossible to home and end up in sanctuaries and are even euthanized.

For _humans_ to intentionally inter breed wild x domestic species - unless there is a specific need - does cross ethical boundaries IMO.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

The thing with the Selkirks etc was the mutation was naturally occurring within a domestic cat - not a wild one. So slightly more ethical as you are mating a domestic cat to a domestic cat - the resulting offspring aren't going to be vicious unsociable tykes. And you are only breeding for the continuation of one gene, the dominant curly gene. It has no detrimental effects to the cat. I don't agree with Scottish curls, or munchkins - that's breeding a defect. If you mate two curly Selkirks together there is no health risk just a harsher textured coat. 

With exotic hybrids you are trying to retain many many original genes. That's a) much harder and b) not always advisable.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

leashedForLife said:


> Scottish Folds, American Curls, some curly-coated breeds, & other breed-traits were spontaneous mutations:
> Munchkins, Selkirk Rex, American Wirehair, Cornish Rex, & Sphinx were all spontaneous mutants, to begin with -
> IOW, what geneticists call 'sports'. The white cornflowers i observed along a roadside were also sports - no-one bred
> for a change from blue petals, they just "happened".
> .


None of these are the result of inter species breeding, they are all variation within a species.

I am not confident about the infertile hybrids, although I have something rumbling around in my head about it. But happy to drop that from the discussion as a red herring.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I'm sorry, what? Do I seem like I commonly use textspeak?





> What arrangements would be needed for early-generation hybrids?
> How can *U* ensure a diverse gene-pool?
> What sort of housing & husbandry requirements?
> How do *U* prevent releases to the wild, or abandonment of hybrids?
> & so on...


I chose not to assume the OP was implying I or any other forum member was breeding these hybrids and therefore needed to ensure a diverse gene pool or prevent releases into the wild because they used the specific term 'you'. As there was objection to me using the word I can only assume what made it OK for them was the use of textspeak - it's the only difference I could see.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

Jonescat said:


> None of these are the result of inter species breeding, they are all variation within a species.
> 
> I am not confident about the infertile hybrids, although I have something rumbling around in my head about it. But happy to drop that from the discussion as a red herring.


I believe in the first few generations of Bengals they did have trouble with male fertility. Haven't read up enough on Savannahs to find out. But it often happens. Mules (horse x donkey) are infertile too.


----------



## Toby Tyler (Feb 17, 2013)

Jonescat said:


> None of these are the result of inter species breeding, they are all variation within a species.
> 
> *I am not confident about the infertile hybrids, although I have something rumbling around in my head about it. But happy to drop that from the discussion as a red herring*.


You are not alone because that's what I thought. I believe it might have even been mentioned in the 'other thread'.

Which speaks of the hand of nature vs. a human's need/quest to control nature.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Glad I still have some little grey cells working!


----------



## spotty cats (Jul 24, 2012)

DNA for Bobcats has not been found in the Pixiebob gene pool, for now there is no proof they began as a (naturally occurring) wild hybrid. 

My quick answer to should we be breeding wild cats to domestics is no, I don't agree with the current wild hybrids nor do I feel we need any more. 

In some countries those breeds are not progressing very far, they keep going back to Servals or Asian Leopard Cats, some of those breeders say it's to retain the wild look. 
Early generations are not allowed here, Bengals are the only wild hybrid permitted in this country and must be F5 and beyond.


The first 4 generations of male Savannahs are infertile. Bengals generations 1-3 are infertile, and about half the 4th gen are fertile.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

havoc said:


> I chose not to assume the OP was implying I or any other forum member was breeding these hybrids...


edited the OP, replacing "U" with 'one'. :001_smile: Sorry for the confusion, 
- t


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Jonescat said:


> None of these are the result of inter species breeding, they are all variation within a species.


Yes, i understand that - i simply meant that they, too, were "unplanned"; no testing was done on either 
potential parent, etc. They were 'luck of the draw' matings, with unexpected traits in the progeny.

I was not confusing sport-mutations with wild species matings, sterility, infertility, etc - 
but specifically referred to this objection from JonesCat - 


> _
> 
> If your foundation cat is naturally occuring, then *none of the conditions for breeding that are normally
> accepted as essential (health tests, knowing the pedigree, etc)* have taken place.
> ...


As these were all spontaneous, there could not be pre-existing tests; they could test the progeny AFTER 
they had some idea of the genetics, any associated traits, inheritance patterns [sex-linked, recessive, 
& so on], but not for the initial specimens, who were total surprises.

Also this:


> _
> 
> ...a whole new breed sort of implies human intervention? _


Breeds founded on sports [Curl, Rex, Sphinx, et al] arose from breeding spontaneous mutations to continue the trait.
The breeders took advantage of the new traits, but did not create or design them, if U see what i mean?


----------



## dagny0823 (Oct 20, 2009)

Jonescat said:


> is it essential to deliberately breed to get to consistent results? So one found hybrid could be a happy chance, but a whole new breed sort of implies human intervention?


Isn't that a pretty fair definition of "responsible breeding", though? It's all human intervention, and choosing for temperament, colours, coat, etc. Just breeding willy-nilly is completely frowned upon.

Also, to go back to an earlier comment about health testing, could you not health test a wild cat if you were going to breed from it?


----------



## dagny0823 (Oct 20, 2009)

Toby Tyler said:


> First off, this wasn't intentional breeding by a human. The fact that the sire would kill them off tells me it's nature's way of taking care of things. 'Nature' can't possibly err on the wrong side of ethics.


In regular cat breeding, isn't it standard advice to keep toms away, including the sire, because he will kill the kittens?


----------



## Toby Tyler (Feb 17, 2013)

Really not sure what your point is other than to try to cause an argument Dagny. This isn't "regular cat breeding" as has been explained again and again on both threads. The Sand Cat thread _really is _what this thread is about. To be quite frank, I am confused as to what message you are trying to convey. 

Edit: Just how do those wildcats survive in the wild if left to their own devices.


----------



## Toby Tyler (Feb 17, 2013)

I apologize if I am incorrect, but TBH I am detecting a certain anti-breeder vibe based upon certain comments that keep trying to compare the ethics of breeding wild cats to breeding hybrid domestics. :rolleyes5:


----------



## NorthernDarkness (Jan 9, 2013)

A bit OT again, but I just realized I'm an idiot.. I've been wondering for ages how a domestic cat could ever mate with a bobcat as the size difference is so huge... But now I realized that people talking about bobcat hybrids are all US based, and the bobcat means 'lynx rufus' which is much smaller than the similar kitty we have here 'lynx lynx' which can weigh 30kg.
But still, I have never heard/read any proof of actual domestic x bobcat hybrids.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

dagny0823 said:


> In regular cat breeding, isn't it standard advice to keep toms away, including the sire, because he will kill the kittens?


No not really, there are many males that will 'father' the kittens, and many male neuters that will 'uncle' too. But 'just in case' the father is kept away.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

dagny0823 said:


> Isn't that a pretty fair definition of "responsible breeding", though? It's all human intervention, and choosing for temperament, colours, coat, etc. Just breeding willy-nilly is completely frowned upon.
> 
> Also, to go back to an earlier comment about health testing, could you not health test a wild cat if you were going to breed from it?


Not all the gene have been found in domestic cats for HCM, PKD, PKDef, PRA etc and they tend to be breed specific.You could n't do those test on wild animals. SO you could test for FIV etc and blood diseases but you won't know what gems could be lurking in genetically in there. They are a different species even, until their genome is sequenced it's going to be hard to pinpoint defective genes that may or may not affect domestic genes.

EDIT: I'm really not sure where this thread is going? We seem to be butting heads against each other - one side saying it shouldn't be done, and the other popping whys at that side. It's becoming a defensive stance, and that's not a discussion, that''s hounding. Where is this thread wanted to go, and why?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> But 'just in case' the father is kept away.


In most cases the father is many miles away and owned by a different breeder. We are not talking about committed and monogamous relationships here


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Toby Tyler said:


> The Sand Cat thread _really is _what this thread is about.


GAAAHHH - No, it is not. :yikes:

i have no interest whatever in breeding a Sand Cat or any other wild species to any domestic cat, period.
the OP of that thread quit replying; i was simply interested in the Q raised by Dagny, which was killed 
when the thread was locked.

Bengals, Savannahs, Spangles, etc, were founded with wild-species outcrosses. Obviously, they are now 
relatively accepted as breeds, & tho some ppl do object to them - it's not common. No one is lambasted 
on PF-uk for posting an anticipated litter, a newly-purchased kitten, a show win, etc, of those breeds.

*Obviously*, someone at some point bred a wild species to a domestic cat to get those breeds.

What i'm asking is, 
A - 
Why are the current wild-founded breeds accepted, if the prospect of a new breed with wild parentage 
is so anathema?

& B - 
Are there *ethical ways* to produce such breeds, minimizing various risks, such as BYBs getting 
early-generation stock, escaped F-1 thru F-4 generations, free-roaming cats, surrender to shelters of such
early or even later [F-5 & beyond] wild-parentage breeds, & so forth?

This is a discussion - not a How-To manual.  It's been done before. 
I'm not advocating it - i have serious qualms about the current wild-parentage breeds.
I just wanted to talk about it! :nonod:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

i give up.

I'm going to ask a mod to remove the thread; it's become sadly obvious that this isn't a topic 
we can discuss, as it simply degenerates into "WILD CROSSES ARE INDEFENSIBLE!", 
which seems downright bizarre, as they already exist - but i'm not interested in arguments, 
i just thought it would be interesting to explore the topic.

Sorry, all.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

dagny0823 said:


> In regular cat breeding, isn't it standard advice to keep toms away, including the sire,
> because he will kill the kittens?


yes, it is - our Siamese stud was never allowed near the kits until they were eating solid food, 
& then he was watched carefully until he made up to each one; allogrooming was a good sign.

our barn-cat females had to stand-off toms when they had kittens in the nest, or under 10 to 12-WO, 
as older kittens could run off or hide or defend themselves to a degree, but younger kits could not.
Sometimes it was the sire, sometimes a complete stranger - but always a tom.

i never saw any female cat try to kill another's litter, altho these were all BARN cats, outdoors - 
it's quite possible that females inside a house, with easy access to another female's kittens, 
might do so. Our queens were dam & daughter, & we marked the kittens at birth, as they often 
combined litters for rearing, or kits nursed whoever was available, & we didn't want misidentification 
of who was who's mother.

i want to emphasize that this is all IME - i'm not claiming that other ppl may not have other experiences.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Toby Tyler said:


> I apologize if I am incorrect, but TBH I am detecting a certain anti-breeder vibe...


This Is NOT an 'anti-breeder' thread, period. I don't know where that came from - i regard the husbandry 
of any domestic breed as just as important & valuable as the conservation of any wild species. I don't regard 
ethical breeders as anything less than critical to the continued existence, let alone health, of any breed - 
dog, cat, sheep, cattle, swine, llama, Guinea pig, poultry, or ANY other domesticated animal.

If anything, i'm a strong supporter of ethical breeding & breeders, & count friends among them - 
i think there are TOO FEW ethical breeders, & we need more! maybe we could start a national reserve, 
where ethical breeders could reproduce, safe from the unethical sort? :thumbsup: [that's a joke, BTW.]


Toby Tyler said:


> ...certain comments... keep trying to compare the ethics of breeding wild cats to breeding hybrid domestics.


No post that i saw mentioned 'hybrid domestics'?

those would be crosses of already-existing domestic breeds, such as the Siamese x Persian which created
the Himalayan, a long-haired short-faced colorpoint breed.

The only breeds i've seem in this thread are wild-founded or mutation-founded?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

havoc said:


> I'd have to question why anyone would spend... money on [a hybrid], & then *allow it to roam free -
> the only way it could get FIV*.


Allowing cats or kittens of unknown FIV-status into one's home is a potential exposure.
Boarders, visitors, strays taken in temporarily, foster cats or kittens...

Cats who *escape* can also be exposed, or cats who are *shown* who are scratched 
by another cat, who wasn't tested negative. 


havoc said:


> It's a pretty far fetched justification for breeding them.


No one here made the initial rationalization - one comment said that SOME breeder, somewhere, 
said that [unknown wild species] "is more FIV-resistant than a domestic cat".

I have no idea if that was part of any wild x domestic founder's reasoning - or even if it's true. 
For all i know, wild-cats are just as susceptible, or even-more susceptible, to FIV. I've never seen data 
to support either statement, so can't say.

Wild cats, including big cats, WERE *highly* susceptible to feline- & k9-distemper, in the 1960s / 70s.
They have become less so, only because many died.  Perhaps FIV is another wild-cat killer - 
i have no idea.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

LeashedForLife - please sit down with me with a long cool drink in the shade. We can talk without fighting and without closing the thread. 

I don't know anything about how Bengals etc are bred now so won't comment on the breed as it is now. I do have difficulty understanding how starting a new hybrid today could be ethical, given that we know more than we did then. 

With regards to males killing kittens, many males of many species kill young not their own, and it is widely though to be to encourage the female back to fertility, and thus get his own genes in circulation. Female cats come back in to circulation very quickly and so I wouldn't think it was an essential behaviour. But if you only breed once a year, it may well be. 

With regards to why are they accepted now, I think because as you say - they are here now. People are usually warned about temperament though and I have seen threads where people have been told that they probably aren't the cat for them.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

I see no reason to close this thread - the other (sand cat) thread was closed because it was becoming a personal attack on the OP and so long as that isn't happening here then that's fine.
Of course people will have different views about the subject - that's what any debate is all about - just keep it reasonable without resorting to attacks on each other for differing points of view.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Jonescat said:


> LeashedForLife -
> please sit down with me with a long cool drink in the shade.
> We can talk without fighting, & without closing the thread.


thanks - 
i reconsidered after reading more posts, & just asked the mods to pretty-please keep an eye - 
i really don't want to begin quarrels, i thought it was intriguing.  If it gets ugly, i'll let it die.


Jonescat said:


> I don't know anything about how Bengals, etc, are bred now, so won't comment on the breed as it is now.
> I do have difficulty understanding how starting a new hybrid today could be ethical, given that we know more
> than we did then.


purely as speculation - 
Is it *possible* that it could be done "better", now? Is there such a thing?


Jonescat said:


> re males killing kittens, many males of many species kill young not their own, and it is widely thought to
> [bring] the female back to fertility, & thus get his own genes in circulation.
> Female cats come back [in estrus] very quickly, so I wouldn't think it was an essential behaviour.
> But if you only breed once a year, it may well be.


Lionesses breed year-round, yet male lions are among the species who consistently kill all young 
when they become the males of a resident harem - Fs own territory, Ms arrive as outsiders.
It's a sad & ugly process, but consistent.

Wild horses don't -*normally*- breed more than once a year, & again *normally* estrus is timed 
to have the foal weaning when the new grass is most lush; however, wild stallions very rarely kill foals.
It was seen by *one* documentary film-maker, who followed Cloud / Boulder et al for years on end.

Search down for "Looking Glass" - 
Cloud: Wild Stallion of the Rockies - Interview: Filmmaker Ginger Kathrens | Nature | PBS

Note that this stud is also incredibly aggro; he was seen to have one mare *on the ground* as he bred her.
That's not normal behavior.


Jonescat said:


> With regards to why are they accepted now, I think because as you say - they are here now.
> People are usually warned about temperament, tho, & I've seen threads where people have been
> told that they probably aren't the cat for them.


yes, i suspect it's simply that they're a fait accompli. ::shrug::


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> yes, i suspect it's simply that they're a fait accompli


Absolutely. You can't uninvent something.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

People always seem to want the unusual or different. Bengals and Savannahs are that. I expect a lot of people don't really know exactly what a Bengal is (seeing how many tabbies are called Bengal I would say the general public is fairly ignorant in that respect. They are a stunning looking cat and I'm sure for some they seem the ideal pet. Not for me though. People want them because they are there to be had. 

Now I don't know the exact ways people have developed these breeds, so can't say how it could be done. I do know though, that just one cat as a foundation when looking for keeping lots and lots of genes isn't desirable. I have no idea if it could be done better.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

In a relatively short period of time Bengals went from the very rare cat to a 'money breed' then the bandwagon effect was truly amazing and the population exploded as people went into breeding them for nothing but the cash. As long as you had the money you could get one for breeding. A couple of years ago I was in a [email protected] and over 70% of the notice board was ads for unregistered Bengal or Bengal cross kittens for sale. The 'market' is now flooded. There's no putting that genie back in the bottle.


----------



## dagny0823 (Oct 20, 2009)

Toby Tyler said:


> Really not sure what your point is other than to try to cause an argument Dagny. This isn't "regular cat breeding" as has been explained again and again on both threads. The Sand Cat thread _really is _what this thread is about. To be quite frank, I am confused as to what message you are trying to convey.
> 
> Edit: Just how do those wildcats survive in the wild if left to their own devices.


 right back at you. I am not trying to convey a message, I am asking questions to provoke some intellectual thought, not knee-jerk emotional responses.

Really, this is NOT about the sand cat, although the sand cat obviously was what first raised my question. My original question, and I assume this follow-up thread (from all lFL has said) was to bring this debate far away from one specific instance, and far away from personalized experiences. I, in my comments, am certainly not trying to cause an argument. I have said repeatedly that I don't have an opinion myself, but I am fascinated by the question, partly in an effort to come to an opinion. But opinions are total BS if there is no substance to back them up. I would hope that the adults and professionals on here could step back from themselves and actually try to engage in objective debate and consideration of why they "feel" the way they do. If anyone feels personally attacked or maligned as a breeder because of open debate, then it is not the debate that should be questioned. However, drawing it back time and again into the realm of "this is obviously about one specific case" or "this is anti-breeder" is close-minded and stifles any attempts at approaching this objectively.

I have to say, as a former academic, that I enjoy the opportunity to discuss ideas without people taking personal offense to a particular stance. I suppose it is a difficult thing to do. Most people who aren't used to such interaction probably do immediately think that something is directed at them personally. These are the sort you should never discuss politics, religion, or abortion with at parties . I confess I have not had the time, energy, or emotional stamina to devote to this conversation as I might normally do as I have had other things weighing on me (see my signature below), but I really would like to see this debate go somewhere except around and around in the circles of perceived slights and manufactured accusations, or snide comments about grammar.

Plenty of "responsible breeders" (in quotations because that is the acceptable term, not meant ironically) on this very forum and elsewhere devote their lives, money, energy, and emotions to creating little lives and improving breeds. Obviously there is all sorts of human intervention involved in the choosing. Yet, when these very people talk about interspecies breeding (some of which gave rise to the breeds they devote themselves to back in the mists of time when cats went from being wild, to feral, to domesticated and recognizable breeds), they say that human intervention is wrong, etc. Do you see where that doesn't make for a constructive or enlightening debate? It's like saying "A is always good", but then saying "A is always bad" when it doesn't apply personally. So, why would that be so? Has the argument or belief about A's value been thought through? Can we just talk about this in a broader objective sense?

So, for me here's the genesis: Obviously all pets were once wild creatures. Humans took them and manipulated them for our own purposes. Society seems to generally accept this as ethical, as we are used to all sorts of domesticated animals. But if we say that any effort to meddle is unethical, then what? Where does that leave us viz a viz all those domesticated animals? And if we accept some of them out of convenience or just being used to them, they why would we condemn new attempts? It might just be a conundrum, but it's an interesting one.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Obviously all pets were once wild creatures. Humans took them and manipulated them for our own purposes.


This happened over a long period of time - an 'organic' process if you like at first and for many thousands of years. The animals which became domesticated self selected to a certain extent as those which chose to have a relationship with humans. Not necessarily a close relationship but a mutually beneficial one and there was some element of choice on the part of the animal. I do see a difference between that very slow process of domestication and using a wild animal which has never shown any desire to engage with humans to create a new breed of pet for no particular reason.


----------



## wicket (Aug 22, 2012)

dagny0823 said:


> right back at you. I am not trying to convey a message, I am asking questions to provoke some intellectual thought, not knee-jerk emotional responses.
> 
> Really, this is NOT about the sand cat, although the sand cat obviously was what first raised my question. My original question, and I assume this follow-up thread (from all lFL has said) was to bring this debate far away from one specific instance, and far away from personalized experiences. I, in my comments, am certainly not trying to cause an argument. I have said repeatedly that I don't have an opinion myself, but I am fascinated by the question, partly in an effort to come to an opinion. But opinions are total BS if there is no substance to back them up. I would hope that the adults and professionals on here could step back from themselves and actually try to engage in objective debate and consideration of why they "feel" the way they do. If anyone feels personally attacked or maligned as a breeder because of open debate, then it is not the debate that should be questioned. However, drawing it back time and again into the realm of "this is obviously about one specific case" or "this is anti-breeder" is close-minded and stifles any attempts at approaching this objectively.
> 
> ...


You make fascinating case for debate, I have found your posts very thought provoking - and I am really sorry for your very recent loss.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

havoc said:


> This happened over a long period of time - an 'organic' process, if you like, at first, & for many thousands
> of years.


actually, there's a lot of argument about this, particularly in the light of Belyaev's fox experiment, 
which took a mere 15-generations to produce pups that actively solicit human-contact.

The one thing that domesticated species share is that all are social - solitary species have not been 
successfully domesticated. Sheep, dogs, cattle, horses, etc, are animals who live with others of their kind,
& domestic cats are much-more social than we thought, when i was a child. No, cats, don't 'form packs', 
 but neither do dogs!, & they do share space - when feral, or in colonies or households.

Nobody has tried to domesticate, for instance, brown or black bears - who live together only as mother 
& offspring, & move thru & around one another's territories; pairs breed for less than a week in a year, 
& don't come back together, outside of estrus - nor breed repeatedly, over several years.


havoc said:


> The animals which became domesticated *self-selected* to a certain extent as those which *chose
> to have a relationship with humans*. Not necessarily a close relationship but a mutually beneficial one,
> & there was some *element of choice, on the part of the animal*.


the only species where i've seen this hypothesis suggested are dogs & cats, & in both cases, it wasn't 
*humans* they "chose to relate to", it was our FOOD - for dogs, hunting offal & camp trash; for cats, 
agriculture & early grain domestication, which brought *rodents* to stored or seed-grains.

No-one ever suggested that horses, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, etc, volunteered to be domesticated.
Horses can feed themselves - grass doesn't run away, & human-settlements didn't offer anything wonderful.
Everything from human-latrines to gut-piles are attractive, to dogs.


havoc said:


> I do see a difference between that very slow process of domestication & using a wild animal, which has
> never shown any desire to engage with humans, to create a new breed of pet for no particular reason.


Domestication wasn't necessarily 'slow', but i agree that making wild species into pets is questionable.

Thinking about it, *ferrets* are probly the least-social domesticated species, In The Wild - 
the domestic version is quite social.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> actually, there's a lot of argument about this, particularly in the light of Belyaev's fox experiment, which took a mere 15-generations to produce pups that actively solicit human-contact.


To be fair, if I could get past my block on it being OK at all I might start to listen to any breeder who was prepared to breed, keep and finance 15 generations before looking to suggest they had a new domestic, and therefore saleable, breed.


----------



## izzyc (Dec 18, 2011)

dagny0823 said:


> Plenty of "responsible breeders" (in quotations because that is the acceptable term, not meant ironically) on this very forum and elsewhere devote their lives, money, energy, and emotions to creating little lives and improving breeds. Obviously there is all sorts of human intervention involved in the choosing. Yet, when these very people talk about interspecies breeding (some of which gave rise to the breeds they devote themselves to back in the mists of time when cats went from being wild, to feral, to domesticated and recognizable breeds), they say that human intervention is wrong, etc.


Obviously selectively breeding any type of animal involves human intervention. But in order to consider the ethics of an action, we need to look at where we are now, not where we were thousands of years ago. Ethics are time-bound. And right now, many species of wild cat are in decline. Wild cats fill an important ecological niche (often an apex predator) and if they decline it negatively impacts whole ecologies.

Interbreeding with domestic cats will speed up this decline, as the wild cats used in hybrid breeding will be held by breeders, not zoos, and therefore will not be available for captive breeding programmes. Genes will be lost and the gene pool for the wild cats will become smaller.

That is one reason why it's unethical - the wider environmental impact.

But let's say that a certain species of wild cat was *not* in decline. Would it still be unethical for breeders to cross it with domestic cats?

Yes, IMO. Why? Because it is unnecessary. If you want to produce a cat that looks 'wild' you do not need to cross the species barrier to get it. You simply selectively breed domestic cats that show the particular wild traits you want.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> the only species where i've seen this hypothesis suggested are dogs & cats, & in both cases, it wasn't humans they "chose to relate to", it was our FOOD - for dogs, hunting offal & camp trash; for cats, agriculture & early grain domestication, which brought rodents to stored or seed-grains.


Mutually beneficial proximity was all that happened for many thousands of years. Humans didn't have the spare capacity until very recently to keep animals purely for companionship. By the time it had started to move towards that sort of relationship the animals with the desired temperament had self selected to a certain extent by being the ones which stayed closest.

Food animals or beasts of burden are a different question. They may be domesticated but they aren't domestic animals. Selection has been for different reasons. If I wake up tomorrow morning to the news that crossing a cow with some wild creature would absolutely guarantee nobody would ever go hungry again then that *would* be an ethical issue I'd struggle with.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

havoc said:


> Mutually beneficial proximity was all that happened for many thousands of years.


We don't know that - we hypothesize it, & it may not be true.


havoc said:


> Humans didn't have the *spare capacity, until very recently,* to keep animals purely for companionship.


That's also untrue - even in primitive societies, it is not uncommon to keep animals "as pets", 
for no reason other than company - parrots & other birds, turtles, pet-pigs which don't get eaten, 
all sorts of animals. Guinea-pigs were bred as food, but also kept as pets. Native tribes in S- & Central 
America kept pets, when they were first met by civilized people, & even today, but they are not 
"wealthy" & have very little spare anything, in terms of food, luxuries of any sort, etc.


havoc said:


> Food animals or beasts of burden are a different question. They may be domesticated, but they aren't
> domestic animals.


Are U sure?
Goats & horses & pigs have all been housetrained & kept indoors, in human-homes. [So have parrots - 
but parrots aren't domesticated.]

An elephant was housetrained, in at least one instance, because she'd been taken from her mum too young, 
& was living in a cold climate - so they reared her in the living-room until spring, when it was warm-enuf 
for her to go outside safely, & be in the barn without freezing.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

All of the above may be true but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion. I'm losing the connection with the thread. Are you saying those incidents have something to do with whether it's OK to cross breed domestic cats with wild ones today?


----------



## dagny0823 (Oct 20, 2009)

havoc said:


> Mutually beneficial proximity was all that happened for many thousands of years. Humans didn't have the spare capacity until very recently to keep animals purely for companionship. By the time it had started to move towards that sort of relationship the animals with the desired temperament had self selected to a certain extent by being the ones which stayed closest.
> 
> Food animals or beasts of burden are a different question. They may be domesticated but they aren't domestic animals. Selection has been for different reasons. If I wake up tomorrow morning to the news that crossing a cow with some wild creature would absolutely guarantee nobody would ever go hungry again then that *would* be an ethical issue I'd struggle with.


As long as there has been recorded history, animals have been kept as pets. How are you defining "very recently".


----------



## dagny0823 (Oct 20, 2009)

havoc said:


> All of the above may be true but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion. I'm losing the connection with the thread. Are you saying those incidents have something to do with whether it's OK to cross breed domestic cats with wild ones today?


I think it might have a lot to do with the discussion--by exploring the history of human/animal interaction, we reveal some interesting points about the ethics involved in this question.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

Think this is going to be left to Dagny and LFL and anyone else that can be bothered - I for one am not enjoying this 'discussion' at all. I'm out.


----------



## Toby Tyler (Feb 17, 2013)

spid said:


> Think this is going to be left to Dagny and LFL and anyone else that can be bothered - I for one am not enjoying this 'discussion' at all. I'm out.


Yup. Me three a long time ago.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

havoc said:


> All of the above may be true but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion.
> I'm losing the connection with the thread. Are you saying those incidents have something to do with whether
> it's OK to cross breed domestic cats with wild ones today?


Since U introduced them in that last post, Havoc, i can only presume that U think they connect? 
And yes, i do see domestication past & present as being related topics. Why not?


----------



## dagny0823 (Oct 20, 2009)

Toby Tyler said:


> Yup. Me three a long time ago.


And yet, you obviously have continued to follow it. Interesting.


----------



## dagny0823 (Oct 20, 2009)

spid said:


> Think this is going to be left to Dagny and LFL and anyone else that can be bothered - I for one am not enjoying this 'discussion' at all. I'm out.


Well I am here to learn, so I'm sad that an actual responsible breeder with a wealth of knowledge doesn't want to discuss. But thanks for letting us all know.


----------



## spid (Nov 4, 2008)

dagny0823 said:


> Well I am here to learn, so I'm sad that an actual responsible breeder with a wealth of knowledge doesn't want to discuss. But thanks for letting us all know.


I don't have a wealth of knowledge in this area AT ALL and have NO interest in gathering it either. I don't want to continue posting in a thread for the sake of others only when I'm not enjoying the responses that are forthcoming - why should I?


----------



## Cerridwen (Jul 26, 2008)

My main problems with hybrid breeding (except from the fact that I believe very few haven the knowledge and practical possibilities to keep wild cats in a sound environment) are:

1. Where do the breeders get the wild cats they use? Are there any guarantees the cats haven't been caught in the wild? This is one of my maine concerns.

2. There are sometimes problems with incompatibility with gestation between species. For some of the larger species normal gestation is around 70 days. For the domestic cat it's 63-65 days. You can risk having kittens born prematurely when using a domestic mother and if using a wild mother you can have the exact opposite problem.

3. There are sometimes genetic incompatibilities that leave the male offspring in the first, second and sometimes third generation sterile (a phenomenon called. This is true in for example the Bengal. We know that the immune system usually is severely compromised in hybrids where all offspring (no matter sex) are sterile. This could be true for the hybrids where only the males turn out sterile as well. The sterility in itself is a symptom of large genetic divergence which actually isn't a good thing when it's to much.

Last but not least... The biggest problem for me is that I don't believe there are enough people that have proper education to keep wild animals and hybrids. Hey, people in general know way to little about domestic felines!!! Wild cats and hybrids are at huge risk of being kept under poor conditions. Something that's seen all over in the US where it in many states is legal to keep wild cats of all sizes as pets. There are many, many wild cat rescues in the US.

I'm very glad it's illegal to keep wild predators and hybrids as pets here in Sweden.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

This jumped out at me - 


Cerridwen said:


> The biggest problem for me is that I don't believe there are enough people that have proper education to keep
> wild animals and hybrids. Hey, people in general know way to little about domestic felines!
> 
> Wild cats and hybrids are at huge risk of being kept under poor conditions. Something that's seen all over
> ...


Yes, the biggest problem in the USA is a lack of legislation to *prohibit* keeping big cats,
bears, venomous snakes, & other dangerous wildlife as "pets".

Texas alone - ONE state, albeit a large area - has more captive tigers than India has wild tigers.
In 2002, an estimated 4k tigers were kept as 'pets' in TX, vs between 5k & 7k tigers in all India.
Exotic pets: Tiger, tiger, buying right | The Economist

However, these cats are "mutts" which cannot be released to the wild; nor do zoos want them.
They are surplus to anyone's breeding-schemes but the seller's. :nonod:

Trophy-hunting during the Raj period decimated India's tigers & bankrupted their genetic-diversity:
over 93% of all the gene-variants present in the 1858 - 1947 period *are gone*; under British rule, 
more than 30,000 tigers were shot as trophies. [The popn declined from 40k to 1,800 in a century.]

Futurity.org  Inbreeding threatens Indias wild tigers


----------

