This is fascinating stuff - thank you for pointing the way to it @sanjibasenji
Preferred breed type
-
Has anyone read this article?
http://www.thedogplace.org/ShowDog/Preferred-Type_Gammill-0901.asp
Thoughts??
-
Brilliant article. I think judges should have a good read of this. Breeders too could benefit from reading it and thinking about their choices of stud dogs, where they buy puppies from etc etc. Afterall, winning in the ring is not what the Basenji was designed to do and no number of CCs or equivilent will save the breed in the long run.
-
The article reminds me of the BBC documentary about how inbreeding is causing many problems and likely will be the downfall of many breeds.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/pedigree-dogs-exposed/
We can smugly think that it won't happen in our breed, but if you ignore the origin and purpose of your breed and start going exclusively for "pretty" it has certainly been demonstrated that it doesn't take a lot of generations before the wheels start to come off. With Basenjis I believe we are particularly at risk, as the gene pool of registered dogs is so small to begin with. The imports have helped, but where do we go for more new blood?
BTW, does the AKC register pups from close matings? (e.g. brother/sister, father/daughter). Just asking…..
-
Of course I agree with the overall premises. That is a no-brainer. But some points I don't.
She sort of lost me here:
Something called ?preferred type? is flooding the rings today and in many breeds, it has little to do with the Breed Standard.<<
Preferred type isn't new. Preferred type has won for the 20 yrs I have been involved in shows. Yes, it shifts, flavor of the year. But the one balance is that different judges do have different preferred types, which helps some. Sadly, not enough.QUOTE: Some judges, insecure in a breed and therefore lacking courage,,,,,,
Nor is the "lacking confidence" really true. Just because someone views a dog as the best, even if it IS like the rest, or dismisses a dog that looks different, does not mean they lack confidence. I'd have been more impressed if the writer focused on the real crime– which are judges that do not really know the standard or choose dogs that do not come nearly as close to it as dogs they put up. Unless the author is telepathic, making that about "lacking confidence" OR COURAGE blows her credibility. She hit it right with: Judges are to judge to the written standard to the best of their ability, fairly and efficiently.
Guess I disagree on handlers too-- it is a job. If judges did THEIR job, Top Handler Hank couldn't get the goat to win time after time and you bet the handlers would choose dogs that could show against standard, not handler popularity/skill/flavor of the month. I put the blame squarely on judges. If they do their job, breeders will do theirs and handlers will pick what will win and those picks will be, oh yeah bred to standard. Until then, handlers need a living and they will, like any "business" person, do what they need to do to make one.
?Priority judging? -- Wow, dead on. We all know judges who would give the win to a terrible specimen if it meets their head shape or movement or whatever couple of qualities that judge is known for preferring.
Exactly.:::"Winning because of an exceptional breeding program takes the breed and breeders toward breed excellence. That should be the goal yesterday, and today."
I do have to say though, that many of the dogs I know who are doing only performance, sorry, no. Those breeders often breed for performance and to hell with standards. The top MACH dog in the Rottie breed ever is unbelievable in work ethics, she's a freaking maniac, too smart to be believed. But even approaching the Rottweiler Standard? No. Nor is it just Rotties, it is with many breeds I know where the breeder is knocking out titles right and left and avoiding the conformation ring. Often these folks say "OH IT IS JUST POLITICS THERE!!" Um, a bit. But not even getting points on dogs to me is a pretty good sign the issue is your dog can't cut it. And so in many breeds we are seeing the conformation of dogs in the ring and in performance getting wider and wider til some barely look like the same breed. My point is that performance folks aren't any more innocent of breeding for the best than show folks. They too are breeding to win.
And eeeeefarm, lol, yeah, you can breed any dogs. Incest is a human morality/religious issue, not animal. Some of the greatest lines come from inbreeding. I am more comfortable with a close line/in-breeding every few generations, but I know some healthy great lines that do a lot more. If you have healthy dogs, know your genetics, even a brother sister breeding isn't an issue. Or if it is, darn good way to find out with that test breeding what you will get. IOW, not squeamish about inbreeding. Common in animal breeding programs from the dawn of time. Trust me, wild canids, horses, cats, etc don't care if they breed with their daughter or sibling.
-
This is a problem as old as dog-showing. And one of the reasons I stopped showing dogs (and I found it just extremely boring ;p).
If there are 10 dogs in the ring, with 9 of them having the same fould, but looking alike, the 10th dog who may be perfect, will look like the one that is wrong compared to the standard. So a judge will then allways pick the 'pretiest' out of the 9.
That's what has caused so much problems in some breeds, together with the fact that to get show titles, most breeds don't need to show that they can still do what they are intended for.You can allready see big differences in 'show basenji's' and 'african basenji's'. it's up to the breeders to keep it under controll…
-
Lots of good info in both articles, I believe.
-
And eeeeefarm, lol, yeah, you can breed any dogs. Incest is a human morality/religious issue, not animal. Some of the greatest lines come from inbreeding. I am more comfortable with a close line/in-breeding every few generations, but I know some healthy great lines that do a lot more. If you have healthy dogs, know your genetics, even a brother sister breeding isn't an issue. Or if it is, darn good way to find out with that test breeding what you will get. IOW, not squeamish about inbreeding. Common in animal breeding programs from the dawn of time. Trust me, wild canids, horses, cats, etc don't care if they breed with their daughter or sibling.
Ummm, no.
http://www.saveourwildhorse.com/behavior.htm
"By encouraging their offspring to leave the band, wild horses avoid inbreeding. It's interesting to note that most wild horses are more genetically diverse than any of our domestic horse breeds. In other words they are more able to deal with changing conditions and environments over time and can resist extreme drought or cold better than their domestic cousins. "
http://wolfology1.tripod.com/id76.htm
"These results suggest that full siblings or a parent and its offspring rarely mate and that incest avoidance is an important constraint on gray wolf behavioral ecology. In sum, our results show that within wolf packs, mated wolves are rarely related as siblings or as parent-offspring. This observation suggests that in general, wolf packs are established by unrelated or more distantly related wolves. Offspring do not often, if ever, replace either parent unless the opposite-sex parent is first replaced by an unrelated wolf, nor do full siblings often become the breeding pair. Despite frequent opportunities, incestuous reproductive succession is not a common means to attain reproductive success."
Cats? Maybe moreso, although there is some evidence that big cats manage to maintain genetic diversity by a number of methods.
It isn't a morality/religious issue at all. Even the human taboos seem to be based on an instinct to avoid a biologically destructive path.
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006/10/so-whats-wrong-with-incest.html
"For most primate species, males leave their native troop when they reach sexual maturity, which seems to be a mechanism for avoiding excessive inbreeding. For chimpanzees, the females leave at maturity to join another troop. This means that chimp mothers will be in the same troop with their sons. And their sons often do attempt to mount their mothers and sisters, but when the males reach sexual maturity, their mothers and sisters generally push them away. This is what Westermarck's theory would predict. The human incest taboo is humanly unique as a legal and moral norm, but it expresses a natural emotional disposition that can be found in primate evolutionary history."
-
Jo, thanks for that article… lots to think about.
So here I am - not a breeder, only a lover of the breed and the basenji I have (from VERY responsible breeders). This is what jumped out to me the most in the article: "Should a judge reward a dog to suggest it could possibly assist in correcting breed faults? NO! It is a breeder’s responsibility to incorporate such animals into their programs, regardless of success in the show ring".
Yes, I believe it is a breeder's responsibility to keep the breed as close to it's original form as possible (shudder... .bulldogs, german shepherds). But I would 'hope' that judges would play a part in recognizing and rewarding this.
-
I think another issue is the tendency to treat a breed class as a "showmanship" class, which it is not (or shouldn't be). I have seen this often with horses, and again with dogs. The perceived wisdom is that if you as an amateur can do anything at all with a horse/dog (and sometimes if you can't) a professional handler can improve on it, sometimes quite significantly. Why is this so? Yeah, the professional will show the animal to best advantage, but if the judge is any good at all, he/she should be able to see what is there and not be fooled by handler "tricks". Bottom line, the best animal should be put up regardless of any deficiencies in the skill level of the handler. (but then this would tend to put the pros out of business). I don't "have a dog in this hunt", but I am interested in any comments from those who do.
-
A judge's writtten critique says it all! I don't pre judge decisions until I've read the judge's reasons for doing what they did. I've written on another site that I've seen quite a few cases where the judges critique on a dog of breed type is better than that of his/her winners. To me that says it all. Although he/ she has the courage to write on a Basenji who does fit the standard they don't have the courage to give the top award to a Basenji who stands out as different from the rest of the competitors.
This is the path to the deterioration in breed type as the top winners are also chosen and particulalrly by novice breeders to be used at stud.
On in-breeding - I have inbred to fix type in Basenjis. There was no reluctance on my dog's part to mate his sister and nor on his sister's part. (I only believe in natural mating). I wouldn't recommend in- breeding unless the dogs behind the mating pair are personally known to you and so you're able to assess the resulting litter's health etc.
-
What, pray tell, is a "gay" tail???
-
What, pray tell, is a "gay" tail???
I believe that is when a dog holds his tail too high or over his back, against breed standards for some breeds.
On in-breeding - I have inbred to fix type in Basenjis. There was no reluctance on my dog's part to mate his sister and nor on his sister's part. (I only believe in natural mating). I wouldn't recommend in- breeding unless the dogs behind the mating pair are personally known to you and so you're able to assess the resulting litter's health etc.
I personally think it can be used effectively by some breeders, but that it is overused by people who don't fully understand the implications. As far as dogs being willing to breed siblings or offspring, well that is one thing we have appear to have changed by domestication. In the wild, it seems to be innate to avoid such breeding. I have read a bit about it, and in horses had it demonstrated to me by my own mare, who rejected her (entire) offspring's amorous advances when she was in standing heat and quite willing to accept attention from another stallion. Of course there are exceptions, but generally speaking when animals are raised in a natural setting there does seem to be a mechanism to avoid inbreeding, which if taken to extremes can result in infertility, but that is pretty far down the road.
Interestingly, studies have found that unrelated human children raised from an early age in the same family and meant to marry (arranged marriages) are inhibited sexually and such relationships often fail for this reason. Nature does have its ways of protecting the species.
-
-
Going back to brother/sister choices, althoughas I've said I've had brother/sister matings with no reluctance on either side, Bungwa lives with his sisters through their seasons with only cursory interest. In fact I have wondered about him! However he was absolutely keen to mate an unrelated bitch as a stud. So it obviously varies.
Jo will be able to tell us more about mating choices in their natural environment.
-
Ummm, no.
"These results suggest that full siblings or a parent and its offspring rarely mate …
It isn't a morality/religious issue at all. Even the human taboos seem to be based on an instinct to avoid a biologically destructive path."For most primate species, males leave their native troop when they reach sexual maturity, which seems to be a mechanism for avoiding excessive inbreeding. ....The human incest taboo is humanly unique as a legal and moral norm, but it expresses a natural emotional disposition that can be found in primate evolutionary history."
Wow, my comment was simply that inbreeding is done, not frequency etc. But okay, lets go with it. First the "umm no" part. Umm yes. What I said was precisely accurate, they don't care, they do it. You then go on to get into frequency, but that wasn't what I said or addressed.
Did not suggest it was done frequently, but most absolutely it is done. And in packs of horses and wild canids (wolves and coyotes– though one interesting theory on red wolves/coyote hybrids is that the wolf/coyote breedings may be so high because of the lack of a lot of unrelated wolves, which supports avoiding it. Otoh, often wolves with plenty of mating opportunities still are known to mate with dogs and coyote so who knows), it is also done depending on isolation and other ssues. Obviously, island wild horses inbreed a heck of a lot more than those with the ability to roam. And incest in humans has not always been taboo, but even when not taboo, it wasn't common. Your article studied a limited number of wolves, yet found some that did. For you to suggest with your "um no" that they rarely or never is not what was stated even in the article you quoted about wolves in GENERAL. In fact, they found that the Minnesota wolves DID have higher inbreeding. And they did NOT say that there was none in any of the groups.
Also, keep in mind that the top male/female generally are usually the main breeding pair in the group. And although it has been proven that the old idea of it being ONLY them isn't true, it predominately is. So by the time an offspring is mature, the sire/dam often getting ready to be bumped out. And those staying with the pack often don't breed at all. That said, often pups from a pack do often leave to form/find another pack. I have often wondered if the dominate personalities of the sire/dam creates offspring that are more likely to move on where they also can rule, but who knows.
Furthermore, you have to look at different types of wolves and locations. Not much set in stone, including that red wolves actually tend to live in family packs.
http://www.fws.gov/redwolf/
And obviously, when there is a small (or isolated) population, they do indeed inbreed a lot.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061221074654.htmWild horses/burros … yes some inbreeding: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2009/IM_2009-062.html
Found quite a few others but the point is simply that it occurs in the wild with horses also.
But my only point was that in the wild, animals do inbreed. I didn't say the norm, all the time or often. It varies widely.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061221074654.htm
As for dog breeds, I'll resist a "well duh" on them being highly inbred. That is how breeds are created– limited gene pools creating specific types. Here is something you may want to read up on if you don't already know. It's a joke when we talk much about line breeding with many (probably most) breeds. The inbreeding coefficient for so many breeds is so high and getting worse that it is amazing. Unlike wild animals, unless they are in isolated areas, have pretty healthy diversity. With dog breeds, particularly rare ones or show lines here that suffered horribly from "popular stud" issues, people look at a dog and see the parents and grandparents aren't related, think kewl. You go back 10 generations and nearly every dog is the same and you realize that your gene pool is terribly limited.
http://www.amrottclub.org/health_pedigree_analysis.shtml
"A four-generation pedigree containing 28 unique ancestors for 30 positions in the pedigree could generate a low inbreeding coefficient, while eight generations of the same pedigree, which contained 212 unique ancestors out of 510 possible positions, had a considerably higher inbreeding coefficient. What seemed like an outbred mix of genes in a couple of generations appeared as a linebred concentration of genes from influential ancestors in extended generations."Popular studs (and preferred colors, to get this back to the article) resulted in the total loss of some colors in the Scottish deerhound. The POPULAR color was grey. Grey is recessive. Breeders massively bred greys in order to win. (Greys are actually genetically brindle but that doesn't matter for the point.) The color preference of course also led to increasing the inbreeding coefficient. Rottweilers, a breed that also suffered greatly from popular studs, also have an incredibly high inbreeding coefficient. Both breeds are in the top highest for bone cancer. Creation of breeds and limited gene pools is a big basis for many genetic diseases that occur almost exclusively in a breed.
It is nice to see clubs pushing for breeders to really look into their breeding program's inbreeding coefficient.
http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/genetic-diversity.aspxNice article for anyone I haven't already lost: http://www.amrottclub.org/health_genetic_diversity.shtml
http://www.netpets.org/dogs/healthspa/longevity.html Armstrong has written a lot, and while this is on poodles, I think the link between inbreeding coefficient and shortened life span is very interesting.
your quote::: :::It isn't a morality/religious issue at all. Even the human taboos seem to be based on an instinct to avoid a biologically destructive path.:::
To humans.. not being snarky, but when you quote a blogger, it might help to know the person is not an expert and to read the comments pounding the article. While the theory is interesting, there is also theories that avoiding incest had a lot to do with social issues, such as raising offspring which would be less desirable if the offspring were potential replacements. In fact, I actually think but have no proof that we do have a predisposition to not be attracted to familiarity.
Studies done on kids raised in kibbutzes found that they rarely married those raised with them, even though not biologically related. Keep in mind also that isolated human groups have much higher "inbreeding coefficients" too. But because those with "bad" genes often died/didn't reproduce, they maintain relatively healthy populations. Studies done on some middle eastern populations found similar findings and that when these more closely related individuals married within a relatively closed environment, few genetic issues arose. -
As far as dogs being willing to breed siblings or offspring, well that is one thing we have appear to have changed by domestication. In the wild, it seems to be innate to avoid such breeding.
Interestingly, studies have found that unrelated human children raised from an early age in the same family and meant to marry (arranged marriages) are inhibited sexually and such relationships often fail for this reason. Nature does have its ways of protecting the species.Not common and innate avoidance are not the same. Animals in the wild WILL breed with relatives, depending on many issues. It is not RARE, just not the most common. But since I already gave quotes, done.
For the human, I really wish you would stop putting humans into the discussion. Psychological factors make us quite a different issue. That said, I'd love to see that study if done by a real scientific research/data gathering, not some right-wing blogger. In reality, many areas in Africa and Asia indeed send young girls to be raised by the potential spouse's family. Trust me, they marry. They don't have a choice. So I'd love to see proof they have a choice and result in such findings. Also, going to college 30 yrs ago with MANY Middle Eastern friends, most of whom had arranged marriages, a lot said they didn't love/feel attraction for their intended spouse and they weren't raised together. Yet if you look at longevity and even studies on marital satisfaction, long term they fair equally with our society "choose your own mate." I'd pretty much bet that those children raised with their potential spouses fared similarly. Cultural expectations and norms have a lot to do with satisfaction. You can bet if we made our USA raised kids marry someone, they'd fail most of the time. We aren't animals. Could genetic predisposition cause us to have the "familiarity breeds contempt" issue that kibutz kids suffer from– sure. But human in closed environments/islands/isolated regions feel attracted to and marry related people. It really depends.
I think another issue is the tendency to treat a breed class as a "showmanship" class,
Oh man do we agree on that one. But what to do? I know a gal who is in a wheelchair, cannot show her own dogs. Should she be penalized if a breed allowed only owner handlers? Oh wait, I know many breeders who put the name of a professional handler on their litter so the handler can show "bred by" classes. People find a way to get around any good idea. But I absolutely feel pros have massive advantage over others in the ring. And it isn't fair.
-
Boy, somebody spent a lot of time typing.
All I disputed was the contention that there was no mechanism to avoid inbreeding in wild populations. There is. It is sometimes more successful than others. As pointed out, "island" animals and others in isolated conditions have less choice in the matter. I had referenced in my reply to Patty the studies that show humans seem to be inhibited from sexual attraction to those they are raised with. It is interesting that some studies appear to indicate the children must be together from before the age of five.Interestingly, studies have found that unrelated human children raised from an early age in the same family and meant to marry (arranged marriages) are inhibited sexually and such relationships often fail for this reason. Nature does have its ways of protecting the species.
I have also noted that in my own experience horses are inhibited from breeding with their offspring. A very interesting study "The Behaviour of Horses" by Dr. Marthe Kiley-Worthington notes the same thing. Key seems to be a herd situation where they are not separated artificially and do grow up in the group.
As far as using inbreeding/linebreeding to fix type, of course. The danger of "overdoing it" has become apparent in many species, but appears to be less risky in others. Whether the way in which we choose to recognize our dogs as belonging to a specific breed…...i.e. closed registries.......is a good idea is an interesting question. In the past (before registries) and in working breeds or perhaps more accurately types, incorporating new blood to improve the line is used rather frequently. In horses, many breeds went "outside" e.g.Thoroughbreds & Quarterhorses were a recognized outcross for Paints, but solids produced were relegated to "breeding stock" status, Quarterhorses had "appendix" registry for outcrosses to Thorougbred, etc.
An interesting approach is to register on "type" rather than bloodlines. Warmblood registries are more inclined to follow this route.
I think inbreeding is fine if the breeder is willing to cull anything produced if necessary. COI is a useful tool to recognize just how inbred your line is becoming, and it's too bad the AKC isn't offering this service as the UK registry does. I threw out my original query "does the AKC register pups from close matings? (e.g. brother/sister, father/daughter)" to see whether there was any restriction or plans to have one. It was a serious question, and I was a bit disappointed to receive this reply:
And eeeeefarm, lol, yeah, you can breed any dogs. Incest is a human morality/religious issue, not animal.
I don't recall framing my question as a "morality/religious issue", but never mind.
The current direction breeders are taken is called into question by this interesting article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950109/
A bit long, but worthy of a read, IMHO.
-
For the human, I really wish you would stop putting humans into the discussion. Psychological factors make us quite a different issue. That said, I'd love to see that study if done by a real scientific research/data gathering, not some right-wing blogger..
To humans.. not being snarky, but when you quote a blogger, it might help to know the person is not an expert…...... Studies done on kids raised in kibbutzes found that they rarely married those raised with them, even though not biologically related.
Bloggers are easy to read and often get it right, but never mind. I assume you are referring to Edward Westermarck's work with the Kibbutz references. But you're right, humans are irrelevant to the discussion, and I wouldn't have bothered if the "human morality/religious issue" hadn't been raised.
@DebraDownSouth:Oh man do we agree on that one. But what to do? I know a gal who is in a wheelchair, cannot show her own dogs. Should she be penalized if a breed allowed only owner handlers? Oh wait, I know many breeders who put the name of a professional handler on their litter so the handler can show "bred by" classes. People find a way to get around any good idea. But I absolutely feel pros have massive advantage over others in the ring. And it isn't fair.
Wow, on the same page at last! Maybe there is hope for this relationship. Have a great day, Debra. If it means anything (and doesn't destroy our "Jousts") I do like you.
Just an observation…...I don't know a lot about coat colour in dogs, but have done a fair bit of work on it in horses. I find it interesting that grey is recessive, as it is dominant in horses. With a homozygous grey stallion, you know exactly what you are going to get!
Just to add, an example of what I meant about judging. From Reginald S. Summerhays' book, "The Arabian Horse"........"we found a miserable looking little yearling colt, much smaller than all the others and in the poorest condition, obviously suffering from worm trouble, which we placed first. He was in fact, Dargee, later purchased by Lady Wentworth, and was to become famous on both sides of the Atlantic. "........A great example of judges that could look behind the cosmetics and actually see the quality of the animal. This occurred in 1946. I wonder if it would be possible today.
-
Boy, somebody spent a lot of time typing.
assume you are referring to Edward Westermarck's work
I have also noted that in my own experience horses are inhibited from breeding with their offspring.
As far as using inbreeding/linebreeding to fix type, of course. The danger of "overdoing it" has become apparent in many species,
An interesting approach is to register on "type" rather than bloodlines. Warmblood registries are more inclined to follow this route.
Wow, on the same page at last! Maybe there is hope for this relationship. Have a great day, Debra. If it means anything (and doesn't destroy our "Jousts") I do like you.
Just an observation…...I don't know a lot about coat colour in dogs, but have done a fair bit of work on it in horses. I find it interesting that grey is recessive, as it is dominant in horses. With a homozygous grey stallion, you know exactly what you are going to get!ROFLMAO, sadly I type about 70 to 80 wpm so things just fly off my fingers.
First, I absolutely should not have included the incest/morality comment. I was surprised you asked since I am not aware of any dog registry that prohibits it. While some places have breed wardens, the issues they address are quality etc, nothing to do with any prohibition about the relationship of the dogs. My response was not really about you, but the morality put on it as if it is against G-d or has anything to do with such stuff by many people. Your inclusion of Arnhardt (who is the blogger I was referring to) did have me wonder if that was an issue for you.
If you look back, you will see I said that their greys are genetically brindle. Most dogs also grey is dominant. Coat color genetics in dogs is a bit overwhelming to me because while there are general rules, there are some variations. As I recall with the SDs the issue wasn't so much color as coat and the belief that darker colors had inappropriate coats (not sure at this point if thickness or length was issue and really I doubt anyone cares who is reading this– it was simply interesting to me that color and type of coat was related).
Having seen a few horses in my day with absolutely no inhibition about breeding mother/daughter/father/son, my experiences vary from yours. In fact the lack of such inhibition has caused concerns with some areas of wild horses and burros resulting in removing and bringing in unrelated stock in a few of the things I looked at yesterday. Bu I didn't address captive horses though because the issue is in the wild, not human managed or artificially contained.
And absolutely I enjoy our jousts. I suspect other than dog training we are on the same page a lot.
And for my final rant-- it is what we do to dogs that gives PETA a foothold. We breed dogs that we then chop their tails and ears. Other countries ban the practice, the breeds go on, they adjust standards to fit natural looks. Many US clubs react, prohibiting natural dogs from showing. (Been a hot fight with the Rottweiler club, with some judges putting up tailed dogs in spite of it being a DQ.) The UK takes a stand that dogs (bulldogs) that are bred so massively they must do c-sections to prevent puppies crushed in the birth canal must move toward more normal standards and many Bulldog folks here are appalled at the idea we shouldn't so artificially select standards that create dogs that cannot naturally mate or whelp. Rottweilers have an astronomical rate of cruciate issues. One university research found that just lengthening the back and a little less angulation would dramatically improved the issue, even with genetic tendencies; but we just want those abnormally short backed dogs and striking. We need to think dog health before dog look, being my point.
-
Good morning Debra
I agree…...we likely have more common views than not. In regards to horses in the wild, I saw a PBS special (ongoing series) where a wildlife photographer has been tracking the same band for some time, and she had video evidence of a herd stallion allowing......if not actually encouraging......an unrelated stallion to breed one of his daughters! Absolutely surprised the heck out of me! Dr. Marthe Kiley-Worthington observed the more "normal" behaviour of the herd stallion evicting his daughters when they are between one and two years of age. That said, for sure a lot of stallions will breed anything that is receptive to them.
I find it bizarre that some breeds of dog can no longer reproduce naturally. I asked about registering inbred dogs because in the BBC documentary they were pressing the point with U.K. registry officials about whether inbreeding should be allowed and obviously that the registry could control it by refusing to register such animals. As the documentary isn't new, I wondered if anything had changed or if changes were being considered by the AKC.
I do have a question that perhaps I should pose in the Breeders section, but I'll throw it out here. What is "responsible" breeding as regards Fanconi's syndrome, now that there is a reliable test? Obviously clear to clear is fine, affected to affected shouldn't happen, but the other choices might be less obvious. Clear to carrier may result in carriers. Clear to affected will definitely result in all carriers. Neither will result in affecteds, however. So is the push to remove inherited Fanconi from the gene pool, or just to control it, realizing that we risk decreasing genetic diversity even further? And is it ever an acceptable risk to breed carrier to carrier? Opinions?
