@JENGOSMonkey I WAS THERE FOR '89! I was a kid, but I remember the water coming out of the swimming pool in huge waves and everything falling from the shelves! I was actually born in San Jose, but moved around a lot later LOL I hear the wildfires are more of a concern for you guys now? That's scarier than quakes for me...
Tame Russian foxes
-
The funding for the project has run out. Other fox farms (that breed foxes for the fur trade) have no use for these animals due to their unpredictable coat colors so most of the foxes in this project were destroyed. Some of the breeding stock was salvaged and the offspring will be sold to keep funding the project. At least, that is how I understand it anyway. (There has always been a demand for these foxes as pets but they have never been made available until now.)
ALL foxes that are sold will be spayed/neutered so no, they will not be useful to US fox breeders. (The US sellers do screen homes and use written contracts with a take back policy. It is on the website.)
In the US, foxes are considered exotic animals and there are many laws concerning the ownership of one. They are illegal in many states and other states allow them with special permits. Permits for breeding foxes are not easily obtained.
Foxes are fascinating but they can be complex to own. They have a very strong body odor that is very noticable indoors. They shed heavily in the summertime. Veterinary care is more complex than for a dog and vets must be liscensed to treat wildlife to care for them. They dig, fast and deep, and can go under a fence in a heartbeat. They climb over fences too. Housetraining can be a challenge.
Interesting animals but a lot of work.
I don't like the idea of them selling the foxes to keep the project going.. sorry.. And lets hope that all the strong regulations in the US (and anywhere else) will stay.. I think it's good that the animals are neutered (although I don't agree with neutering animals that young..), but what if it becomes a good business? What if someone wants a fox, but can't pay 6000 dollar? There will probably be someone who wants to try to breed American foxes.. Illegal or not.. if it will sell.. Why not..
And you may know they are complex to keep.. but 'the public' doesnt.. And I don't read it on the site either.. http://sibfox.com/caring/ For me, this sounds easier than anything that I have ever heard about caring for a Basenji….. They also say: "Caring for foxes is similar to caring for dogs" and "Unlike most exotic animals, foxes are neither fragile nor needy. Genetically, they are very close to dogs, so if you have cared for a dog, you will have no difficulties caring for a fox. The basic rules of fox care are the following: 1.A balanced diet 2.Sufficient exercise (walk or play) 3.Sufficient rest 4.Some affection" (http://sibfox.com/faq/)
-
I don't like the idea of them selling the foxes to keep the project going.. sorry.. And lets hope that all the strong regulations in the US (and anywhere else) will stay.. I think it's good that the animals are neutered (although I don't agree with neutering animals that young..), but what if it becomes a good business? What if someone wants a fox, but can't pay 6000 dollar? There will probably be someone who wants to try to breed American foxes.. Illegal or not.. if it will sell.. Why not..
Foxes are already sold in the US and have been for decades. A hand raised silver fox cub can be purchased for about half what one would pay for a Basenji puppy, $400-500. Despite being cheap and available to anyone with a permit, there has never been a huge demand for them as pets.
-
I agree this is an interesting topic and and interesting discussion. Thank you for bringing it here.
That said, I still think this study on "domestication" is more a study on selective breeding in general and had little to do with Canidae domestication. Evolutionary domestication theorists have never even agreed on whether humans domesticated dogs, or the dogs themselves took an evolutionary turn due to habitat/environmental issues amongst other things and became adept at insinuating themselves into hunter/gatherer sub cultures, thus domesticating themselves.
This experiment was, for lack of a better term, forced domestication resulting in a breed of foxes now ready for sale to anyone with a little money and wire cage in the back yard. In addition, the now domesticated fox has different social, emotional, and veterinarian needs due to this project. So now we have a wild-domesticated animal, dependent on humans for food, shelter, and love, and it lives in the backyard in a wire cage.
IMO this is the same as the neighbor with the dog chained in the backyard to the tree, given food and water and basic health care but no love.
Like I said, interesting study. But what's in store emotionally for these now pseudo dogs? They're just for sale. They deserve better than a twice a day feeding and a year round backyard cage. Where's the compassion, the warm bed, and the human contact they have now learned to expect and deserve?
-
wow, that is all I have to say ..wow..
We are about to have yet another thing on our hands people will try to dump..when things don't work out..
Cool project, but it is just that a project…IMO.
As a "moved here when I could-American" I think we do not need this..we have enough dogs and cats, livestock and other types of pets people dump, abuse or end up not wanting...
Let the wild animals be wild..and yes, I understand that dogs once were wild..but don't we have enough as it is? -
I posted the original information on these foxes in hopes for a conversation about how selection for a single trait brought about unexpected changes in other traits.
Would anyone care to discuss this?
-
I posted the original information on these foxes in hopes for a conversation about how selection for a single trait brought about unexpected changes in other traits.
Would anyone care to discuss this?
Sure. I was thinking about this in the car on my way home from work. We obviously select for certain traits as we breed dogs now, although towards a breed standard and hopefully the "whole package" perspective versus just one trait. But as we selected for improved temperment in basenjis along the way, were there certain other traits that changed along with it? Any major shifts in breed when temperments noticeably changed? I know the answer will probably be a muddy one as not everyone necessarily had the same perspective while breeding and temperment was not the only factor.
-
Okay, now that I have re-read some info I have on this. This is apparently an example of a promoter sequence change. Promoters are essentially regions of DNA which help turn on (or off) the expression of certain genes. Even small changes to the sequence of the promoters can have a large impact to the expression of certain genes. So in this case, as temperment was selected for, one or more promoter sequences which impacted those temperment-related genes (or more correctly genes which altered the brain development of the foxes to keep them in a more juvenile state) changed. One or more of these same promoters apparently controlled the expression of the genes related to other attributes such as coat color. So the genes weren't necessarily being changed themselves, just the regions of DNA which were turning them on or off were.
Hopefully that makes sense.
-
Okay, now that I have re-read some info I have on this. This is apparently an example of a promoter sequence change. Promoters are essentially regions of DNA which help turn on (or off) the expression of certain genes. Even small changes to the sequence of the promoters can have a large impact to the expression of certain genes. So in this case, as temperment was selected for, one or more promoter sequences which impacted those temperment-related genes (or more correctly genes which altered the brain development of the foxes to keep them in a more juvenile state) changed. One or more of these same promoters apparently controlled the expression of the genes related to other attributes such as coat color. So the genes weren't necessarily being changed themselves, just the regions of DNA which were turning them on or off were.
Hopefully that makes sense.
You lost me at "okay"
-
Okay, now that I have re-read some info I have on this. This is apparently an example of a promoter sequence change.
I don't have the paper, so forgive me. I have read about this experiment several times in other books, but just generalizations, never the papers themselves.
So are they saying all of these traits that modify together are under a single promoter, like several splicing variants or several exons in a single gene?
Or was a transcription factor that binds the promotors for many genes what was modified (e.g. TATA Binding Protein, etc)?
Is this just their hypothesis, or have they identified the differentially expressed gene products and their common promoter?
I would love the reference if you have it.
-Nicole
-
You lost me at "okay"
How about this,
You have a lightswitch (promoter) in your house that turns on a lightbulb in the kitchen (gene 1, temperment), and the living room (gene 2, coat color). Now you replace the existing lightswitch with a new fancy one (selective breeding). When you flip on the fancy light switch it causes the kitchen lightbulb to burn half as bright (less fearful) and the living room lightbulb to blink nonstop (coat color change). You didn't do anything to change the lightbulbs, you only changed the lightswitch.
The other way to possibly go about this is to keep the same lightswitch but replace the kitchen bulb with one that is half as bright (mutated gene for temperment) and the living room lightbulb with one that blinks (mutated gene for coat color).
So what apparently this is from a genetic perspective (I'm going off of class notes here) is that the selective breeding in this study was basically changing lightswitches instead of lightbulbs.
That is why so many different characteristics can change at once. If you change a lightswitch that controls a lot of different lightbulbs, you are going to have a lot larger impact than if you just change the lightbulbs individually. -
Clay, if you had been my highschool biology teacher, I think I would have not only understood the information more, but also may have passed that class, and as an added bonus, enjoyed it.
-
I find the experiment/study very fascinating, but in looking at all the videos, etc., I found myself a little sad that these animals were not just left alone to be foxes as they were meant to be. I know, all dogs were wild once - still, the ones who are not quite totally domesticated to act and feel like our dogs do must be very confused little guys. Just me. I'm sure everything is/was being done to make the transformation as easy on them as possible. We have wild foxes in our neighborhood - my dogs stare at them, they stare back - kind of a wistful thing, IMO.
-
Interesting thoughts Nemo.
These foxes supposedly have been selectively bred for 35+ generations. During this time they not only went through a tremendous temperament change but also coat color, ears, and some have twice a year heat cycles. Some Basenjis are starting to have twice a year heat cycles and temperament has definately mellowed in the past few decades. It will be interesting to see what other changes the Basenji will go through when they have been selectively bred for 35+ generations.
-
I don't have the paper, so forgive me. I have read about this experiment several times in other books, but just generalizations, never the papers themselves.
So are they saying all of these traits that modify together are under a single promoter, like several splicing variants or several exons in a single gene?
Or was a transcription factor that binds the promotors for many genes what was modified (e.g. TATA Binding Protein, etc)?
Is this just their hypothesis, or have they identified the differentially expressed gene products and their common promoter?
I would love the reference if you have it.
-Nicole
Unfortunately I don't probably have the level of detail you'd like. This was from notes I took during a lecture. It was used as one of the examples, which was probably dumbed down a bit. There is a book though that has some of that information as related to dogs, but I'll have to get back to you once I find the title. Regardless, the "lightswitch" analogy is still somewhat apt regardless if it is an actual promoter region or other parts of the regulatory sequence. My very limited grasp of the area is that the changes observed are believed to be due to changes in the frequency and amount of expression of genes versus functional mutation of specific genes which is much more difficult. And the changes to those regulatory sequences appears to cascade into the expression of a wider range of genes (such as coat color, etc.).
Similar reason apparently for differences between dog breeds. Found this interesting
article. There are a variety of other ones out there if you google the subject. http://www.pnas.org/content/101/52/18058.fullEnjoy! :eek:
-
Clay, if you had been my highschool biology teacher, I think I would have not only understood the information more, but also may have passed that class, and as an added bonus, enjoyed it.
Thanks.
I'd be a horrible biology teacher though…closest thing I took was biochemistry. :rolleyes: -
That is too funny that you responded now, as I have 2 other tabs open with papers on the experiment. One from 2005, and one from 2007.
Have just downloaded them, and will start reading soonI had also never heard of operons (multiple genes under control of a singe promoter) in eukaryotes. The dogma I was taught was: One gene, one promoter in eukaryotes. Operons only in prokaryotes.
So I was thinking it had to be a transcription factor change.
But apparently a small number of operons have been very recently identified in eukaryotes, so I have a 2002 and a 2004 paper I am looking at about that.Fascinating stuff. I am never going to graduate.
-Nicole
-
That is too funny that you responded now, as I have 2 other tabs open with papers on the experiment. One from 2005, and one from 2007.
Have just downloaded them, and will start reading soonI had also never heard of operons (multiple genes under control of a singe promoter) in eukaryotes. The dogma I was taught was: One gene, one promoter in eukaryotes. Operons only in prokaryotes.
So I was thinking it had to be a transcription factor change.
But apparently a small number of operons have been very recently identified in eukaryotes, so I have a 2002 and a 2004 paper I am looking at about that.Fascinating stuff. I am never going to graduate.
-Nicole
Focus! You can read dog genetics articles once you graduate.
