tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post2306152229510403304..comments2024-03-20T17:32:35.238+00:00Comments on Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: Hate, hope and the HSUSJemima Harrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05092892697145388048noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-49324868171084225192011-07-30T09:09:55.146+01:002011-07-30T09:09:55.146+01:00Thanks Bijou. I have learned to treat lifepsan est...Thanks Bijou. I have learned to treat lifepsan estimates written on breed club websites with a large dose of salt.<br /><br />The author of the 1992 article (almost 20 years old!) in which the 10-15yrs estimate appears makes no reference to any data and I suspect is just a semi-educated guess. Certainly, the survey data from America from 2005 post-dates it - and that gives a mean lifespan of 10. <br /><br />The UK Bouvier Club website has no health info on it at all - not even a link to the Bouvier Health Foundation website. No link either to the 2004 KC health survey findings for the breed either (which found median longevity of 11.3yrs - NB small sample size)<br /><br />Like the US survey, the UK survey shows that cancer, reproduction, muscoskeletal and cardio the main concerns. <br /><br />http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1523/hsbouvier.pdf<br /><br />I also note that despite the both surveys finding that HD/arthritis is an issue in the breed that just three Bouviers were hip-scored in 2010 (with a breed mean of 18). US figures show that 15 per cent of Bouviers are dysplastic and only six per cent have excellent hips. (Compared, for instance, to the Belgian Sheepdog - only 3 per cent dysplastic and 33 per cent graded excellent).<br /><br />It might be (I hope) that the UK Club is being more proactive on health behind the scenes - if so it would be good to see it reflected on the Club website. As it stands, it is a poor shop-window for the breed and does not inspire confidence re health matters.<br /><br />As regards lifepsan - again,10 to 11 is not bad (and, actually, the KC survey included 18 yr old dog which is pretty impressive - echoing the US survey findings that these dogs have the potential to live a really long time); I just think it is important to give accurate info where it is available. <br /><br />JemimaJemima Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05092892697145388048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-412637909275841582011-07-30T07:04:19.707+01:002011-07-30T07:04:19.707+01:00"Where's your longevity data coming from,..."Where's your longevity data coming from, Bijou?"<br /><br />from the UK bouvier club http://www.bouvierclub.co.uk/<br /><br />"The life span of a Bouvier is from 10 to 15 years. If that seems too long a time for you to give an unequivocal loyalty to your Bouvier, then please do not get one! "Bijounoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-78232841121767650302011-07-29T22:06:41.243+01:002011-07-29T22:06:41.243+01:00Thank you, Julia, for another highly informative a...Thank you, Julia, for another highly informative and thoughtful response to my comments and questions. I am going to start with an apology – it is the end of the semester and I am in the midst of marking hell, so there will be a bit of a lag before I respond. I am truly not ignoring you – I just want to give your response the consideration it deserves.<br /><br />Having said that, I would like to comment on your ‘final thought’. You are spot on. Whatever stand we take on an issue, we all need critics and outside opinions to make us think about what we do and whether or not it really is the right thing. Lack of challenge leads to flabby thinking, ignorance and complacency. Disagreement is not the problem – defensiveness, antagonism and vitriol are. <br /><br />We who take the time to participate in the debates that take place in this blog space all love our dogs passionately. We are arguing about how to keep them healthy and happy in all their diversity. If we didn’t care, we wouldn’t be bothering Respecting this is not a sign of weakness. <br /><br />Thank you Jemima for providing so much food for thought and a space to discuss and debate.Sarahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-7949857259026251452011-07-29T13:10:16.948+01:002011-07-29T13:10:16.948+01:00Where's your longevity data coming from, Bijou...Where's your longevity data coming from, Bijou? The survey on the BHF website shows that the average age of death is 10, not 12. <br /><br />This not a bad age, granted - but interesting that the oldest dog in the survey was 19 - very impressive, and showing the capacity to live longer. <br /><br />Cancer very definitely a problem in the breed - claims the lives of 44 per cent of them (high compared to other breeds). Other main issues are bone/skeletal, hair/skin and reproductive. <br /><br />Re babies and bathwater, the point Sarah, Romany Dog, I and others keep trying to make is that you are in danger of doing exactly that by not thinking outside the box a little more.<br /><br />JemimaJemima Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05092892697145388048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-74695986754612719572011-07-29T10:49:18.711+01:002011-07-29T10:49:18.711+01:00You really need to talk to a wider range of people...You really need to talk to a wider range of people Romany Dog - the Bouvier life span is between 10 - 15 years with the average age of death being around 12 years - this is typical for a breed of the Bouvier size and weight.<br /><br />What are Bouvier breeders doing to improve the health of their chosen breed - well quite a lot actually - here's just one example http://www.bouvierhealthfoundation.org/ and there are mnany other similar initiatives world wide not to mention the breed database to help breeders select dogs with good health test results etc.<br /><br />Contrary to what you would like to believe pedigree dog breeders care passionately about their breeds - it is overwhelmingly the pedigree dog breeder who health tests, funds reserach and compiles accurate records to inform other breeders - what we WON'T do is throw the baby out with the bathwater !.Bijounoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-40151016436104735712011-07-29T04:29:49.477+01:002011-07-29T04:29:49.477+01:00Julia,
'contrary to popular belief, most bree...Julia,<br /><br />'contrary to popular belief, most breeders do have the knowledge and desire to produce dogs that are as healthy as possible - owning a sickly, short-lived animals isn't in their interests either!'<br /><br />In my experience, owners and breeders of purebred dogs accept poor health and shortened lifespans as part and parcel of owning the breeds they own. I spoke with a woman recently who has always owned bouviers. She said they commonly live anywhere from seven to nine years. Most of hers have died of cancer, with her last one dying of autoimmune disease at age seven. <br /><br />So, what are bouvier breeders doing to combat the problem of sickly, short-lived dogs? I don't know of any breed where lifespans are increasing--in fact the opposite is almost universally true. And I would be curious to know what you believe breeders are doing, and what knowledge you believe they have and are using, to solve this problem?Romany Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17282398450593521005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-27406296229045504892011-07-28T23:26:54.845+01:002011-07-28T23:26:54.845+01:00One final thought - then I think this is enough fr...One final thought - then I think this is enough from me(!)<br /><br />Nothing is going to be resolved unless those on all 'sides' are prepared to listen and accept that their opponents may have valid points to make. As long as individuals and organisations remain entrenched in their own certainities there will never be any changes. Critics of show breeders need to allow for the fact that livestock/plant breeding based on the principals which they are condemning has endured for hundereds or even thousands of years without major catastrophe. It is most certainly not a 'recent evil' perpetuated solely by dog breeders to win a rosette.<br /><br />Equally, dog breeders need to conceed that certain beliefs and ideals may be outdated and that other factors than traditionally important ones need due consideration. They must also be prepared to examine and justify the reasons and consequences of their actions and open minded enough to alter their plans if necessary.<br /><br />Ultimately balanced outcome needs to be sought to the problem.Julianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-60776778632242006932011-07-28T23:23:10.888+01:002011-07-28T23:23:10.888+01:00Bijou,
' .....and if you outcross at every 3/4...Bijou,<br />' .....and if you outcross at every 3/4 generations then you WOULD lose breed characteristics - you know those things that Beth says make BSD different from GSD !'<br /><br />I agree that one solitary outcross would not do the trick to increase diversity but where did you see me quote or say that an outcross should be done every 3 or 4 generations? That accusation is not true and not honest, which is why I find it so tiresome. Please go back to my previous post and read what I actually did say.<br /> <br />Let’s forget about that loaded term ‘purity’ for a moment. The main objection to outcrosses seems to be a genuine fear that the physical characteristics that distinguish the different breeds we love will be compromised. The implication is that these characteristics are set in stone and will never change. Yet if you look at photographs of many breeds from the 1880s and compare them to dogs of the same breed today, there have indeed been significant changes in their features. These changes were engineered by humans selecting for certain physical characteristics for aesthetic purposes and this practice seems to be generally acceptable amongst clubs and breeders. So, even assuming for a moment that what you say about outcrosses having some effect on appearance is true, what is the problem? Why are some pretty major changes in appearance for the sake of aesthetics acceptable whereas potential minor changes that result in steps taken to improve health are not?<br /><br />Let’s look at the alternative: no outcrossing. You want to continue to breed only within a closed gene pool. To do so and avoid inbreeding depression, you need to prevent the loss of genetic diversity. If you don’t, inbreeding depression becomes inevitable. Even if you stopped all inbreeding and linebreeding, how are you going to do this, bearing in mind that most pedigreed dogs are never bred from and those that are are already related to some degree? I repeat my quotation from Carboli et al: they concluded that the inbreeding effective population size of the 10 breeds surveyed ranged from 17 to 114. This is in a study that used the records of 2.1 million dogs. They also concluded that ‘…many breeds [had lost] >90% of singleton variants in just six generations.’ There is no reason to believe that the situation is much different in any of the breeds not included in the study and many breeds are already displaying higher than average rates of compromised health related to genetic problems. Ask the pet insurers. Here’s a question I haven’t heard answered by proponents of closed registries: If you refuse to allow outcrosses, how are you going to stop this dramatic loss of genetic diversity and top up your gene pool in order to maintain and improve genetic health? What is your solution and can you back it up with any science?Sarahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-56609899245782729132011-07-28T23:07:55.014+01:002011-07-28T23:07:55.014+01:00Part Three!...
On to your final point which is a ...Part Three!...<br /><br />On to your final point which is a very reasonable one to make. I like to see dogs that are capable of succeeding in both confirmation and performance events as this demonstrates that not only is the animal a good specimen of breed type but is also sound in body and mind (and adds an extra dimension to the dog's existence). However, it must also be borne in mind that increasingly dogs have to shoe horn themselves into a small slot in modern life. Displaying overtly their breed characteristics (stamina, tenacity, high prey drive etc) isn't really acceptable anymore and we place huge demands on pet dogs that aren't really compatible with their original functions so in this respect, it may be necessary that dogs resemble their ancestors in a visual way only. Human nature being what it is, appearance is often a primary consideration when choosing a dog (or partner!) and this isn't ever likely to alter. <br /> <br />It is a myth that breeders pursue purity for the sake of purity. Maintaining distinct breeds and lines within breeds is important primarily so that the outcome of a breeding can be fairly accurately predicted. From producing an farm animal which develops rapidly for the table to one which is likely to succeed in guiding the blind to one which will excel as a sheepdog to one which exhibits desirable characteristics for the show ring.<br />I would argue that for a great many dog owners, keeping the predictability that is provided by the 'current system' is paramount. <br /> <br />There is always room for improvement: preventing overuse of popular stud dogs, reducing excessive exaggerations (which are not called for in the standard anyway), complete openness as far as heath problems are concerned as well as limiting the activities of commercial breeders and traders of course! But this MUST be balanced against preserving our many beautiful, distinctive and individual breeds for the future. Trying to initiate change via an antagonistic approach is likely to be counter productive but contrary to popular belief, most breeders do have the knowledge and desire to produce dogs that are as healthy as possible - owning a sickly, short-lived animals isn't in their interests either! .Julianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-57749192506483710302011-07-28T23:06:54.245+01:002011-07-28T23:06:54.245+01:00Part 2
Moving onto to 'exaggerations' now....Part 2<br />Moving onto to 'exaggerations' now. The quotation "any features which have the potential to cause suffering should be actively selected against (and not simply avoided)" illustrates my point exactly. To follow this thinking to it's logical conclusion, dogs shouldn't be bred with drop ears (spaniels, hounds etc) because it predisposes them to ear infection and they shouldn't be bred with long hair (afghans, shih tzus etc) or non moulting (poodles, bichons etc) because they might get matted and develop skin infections. It is the 'potential to cause suffering' which is so ambiguous - just about any anatomical feature could be so described under certain situations - refer to the whisker trimming post comments. (I will point out for those who haven't read the report that the authors appear to take issue with just about every 'deviation' from wild type that exists, from toy dogs to those with curled Spitz tails so I'm not being flippant with these assumptions). It isn't desirable to produce dogs that struggle to lead 'normal' lives but equally it isn't necessary that every dog born should be able to run for 1/2 mile either. Some potentially harmful characteristics such as drop ears and long coats are only an issue if adequate care isn't being taken of the dog. Is the potential for having a neglectful owner sufficient reason to avoid these features?<br /> <br />As far as improving a breed is concerned, it depends on the breed as to how it is answered, but generally breeders are (supposed to be) working towards producing an ideal type as described in the standard. Improvements could be anything from producing a steadier temperament, to better head shape, to better working ability. The premise is that the perfect dog has never been born but the better it fits (NOT exceeds) the description in the standard, the closer it is to achieving perfection. It may be that improvements are being made to issues which have crept in - e.g. excessive coat length or faulty construction so it is not necessarily a unidirectional process.<br /> <br />As for opening up registrations, this is a thorny issue. Permitting a small number of careful out crosses as you've described isn't a major issue, isn't universally abhorred by breeders and in the long run isn't likely to result in the annihilation of breeds I agree . However my point was that regular out crossing to other breeds, especially if combined with the other areas we've discussed (prohibiting line breeding and avoiding any 'potential harmful' features) would inevitably result in a generic type of dog.Julianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-8276292854476663492011-07-28T23:04:32.190+01:002011-07-28T23:04:32.190+01:00Hi Sarah and thanks for your (as always) detailed ...Hi Sarah and thanks for your (as always) detailed and balanced reply. <br /> <br />Inbreeding - I think it is very important to set out this definition. Certainly I would agree (as presumably would most breeders) that breeding first and second degree relatives constitutes 'close inbreeding'. However, it is reasonably uncommon to breed this closely these days and very uncommon indeed for this to be done repeatedly. Most breeders practise 'line breeding' where the common ancestor(s) are mostly four or five generations back. It is perceived to be a far more refined breeding tool than blunt close inbreeding and would also not come under the definition of 'inbreeding' which you have provided - between first and second degree relatives. It is absolutely crucial to differentiate between the two practises because restrictions on the former are unlikely to be controversial, whereas restrictions on the latter is another matter entirely...<br /> <br /> Any selective breeding (natural or artificial) is going to involve inbreeding to some extent. If a certain mutation produces a beneficial trait, then the individuals exhibiting this mutation are most likely the ones to reproduce and it is logical that they will be reasonably closely related. A trait become homozygous or 'fixed' in a population through this method which is how distinct species and breeds develop. Without employing inbreeding it becomes a much longer and more random process to bring about the desired result, if it happens at all. This explains why (close) inbreeding is frequently used to create a new variety. Once a variety has become established (homozygous for the important features/reliably breeding 'true') then inbreeding is less important. It is then down to 'fixing' the more subtle aspects, which is where line breeding comes in. There will be individuals which display desired characteristics to a greater extent than the majority, for example, outstanding working ability/longer coat. In order to (hopefully) replicate these traits in subsequent generations, line breeding back to this ancestor is employed. The ultimate goal is to produce an animal which is 'prepotent' - will pass on distinctive characteristics to the majority of its offspring no matter what type of mate it has. If a ruling was passed which prevented any shared ancestors being present in say 5 generations, for a start numerically smaller breeds would struggle to achieve it, but before long the subtle differences between the distinct 'lines' in a breed would disappear. This may sound very trivial and irrelevant to those not involved in breeding, but it could have negative consequences which outweigh the simple plan of increasing genetic diversity. Where distinct lines exist within a breed, it is possible to use these to improve a certain point which may be lacking in other lines. It is also possible for owners to chose between different sub-types. (Doesn't have to be aesthetic, just as easily temperament, health, working ability etc). If a prohibition on line breeding was introduced, there would be little motivation to carry on for many because breeding would become an entirely hit and miss affair.<br />Inbreeding does of course also bring to the fore any undesirable recessive problems which otherwise may become hidden within a population. It is necessary to strike a balance between maintaining a reasonable amount of genetic diversity in the variety and retaining sufficient control over what is likely to be produced from each breeding. <br /> <br />To be continued..Julianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-50870021505324724912011-07-28T22:36:48.026+01:002011-07-28T22:36:48.026+01:00Consider the same chain of thought applied by othe...Consider the same chain of thought applied by others on here would mean to rid the world of Sickle Cell Anemia, all the African/Middle Easten/ Mediterranean carriers of the condition would have then be "Crossed" out to other races to ensure the disorder was wiped out. The condition is a recessive genetic disorder with approx 2% of children in Africa born with it and estimates of carriers being from as low as 1% up to third of the population across Africa. Question - What would you do to stop this, if the question is simple in dogs, why not man too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-59652273374291225612011-07-28T19:34:01.713+01:002011-07-28T19:34:01.713+01:00Define breeding for function ...- are agility, obe...Define breeding for function ...- are agility, obedience, shutzhund , fly ball or heelwork to music acceptable functions ( but presumably showing is not ? ) - or are they simply canine hobbies that you approve of .....<br /><br />Of course if you mean breeding only from dogs that perform their ORIGINAL function then we'll be working with a miniscule gene pool in most breeds !!!!bijounoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-49871165787847071542011-07-28T18:17:49.362+01:002011-07-28T18:17:49.362+01:00Bijou:
"Nope - not having this - you change y...Bijou:<br />"Nope - not having this - you change your parameters lke the UK weather ! - come on what is it ? either we breed for function in which case LOADS of different breeds which perform the same function can be mixed together or else they are in fact all different and should be kept that way ..."<br /><br />Oh, Bijou, I think you definitely have reading comprehension problems. I have not changed my parameters once, yet you keep jumping out to "gotcha" me by misrepresenting what has been said. Its getting tiresome. <br /><br />"answer the question - why does the BSD and GSD have to be separate breeds if your criteria is functionality ? "<br /><br />Because they have differences in temperament, size and functionality, depite your coninued arguments that there is no difference in a GSD and Terv other than they way that they look. <br /><br />"it most certainly does if I want to continue breeding BSD specifically rather than a generic herding/guarding type !! "<br /><br />This has been explained to you ad nauseum. Breeding for function will not eliminate breeds. If this were true, there would be no working Border Collies, Beardies and Aussies, only an amalagam of generic driving dogs. This has not happened. If you still don't get it after all the information that has been presented here, I cannot help you.Beth F.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-13327513138338620832011-07-28T17:42:50.443+01:002011-07-28T17:42:50.443+01:00Nope - not having this - you change your parameter...Nope - not having this - you change your parameters lke the UK weather ! - come on what is it ? either we breed for function in which case LOADS of different breeds which perform the same function can be mixed together or else they are in fact all different and should be kept that way ... <br /><br /><br />answer the question - why does the BSD and GSD have to be separate breeds if your criteria is functionality ? <br /><br /><br />"My point (and others here) is that the limited group your breeding pool comes from should not be based on the "purity" of a breed (meaning all his ancestors were the same breed and therefore look the same) "<br /><br />it most certainly does if I want to continue breeding BSD specifically rather than a generic herding/guarding type !!Bijounoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-41706369712942508582011-07-28T16:47:34.317+01:002011-07-28T16:47:34.317+01:00Bijou:
"...see I 'm confused here .... yo...Bijou:<br />"...see I 'm confused here .... you now seem to be saying that in fact BSD,GSD and other breeds are NOT interchangeable - if that is now your stance then breeders surely have to stick within restricted gene pools to retain the sometimes quite small differences between breeds."<br /><br /> Whats with the reading comprehension problem? I have never said that breeds are interchangeable...where on earth did you get that from? Indeed to maintain the characteristics you want in your dog you will have to limit your breeding choices to dogs who have the criteria you want to maintain in your breeding practice.<br /><br />My point (and others here) is that the limited group your breeding pool comes from should not be based on the "purity" of a breed (meaning all his ancestors were the same breed and therefore look the same) or by choosing a dog who will help deliver flashy markings that will win in a conformation ring. <br /><br />Instead choose from the dogs who have the right set of characteristics that define the function of your dog, be it an ability to scent, move livestock, tolerate children, breathe correctly or whelp naturally. This might mean the dog you breed of isn't as pretty, has the wrong ear set or occasionally, might be a different breed.<br /><br />A dog breed is more than what it looks like, or at least it should be.Beth F.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-40485245328418778362011-07-28T12:31:41.745+01:002011-07-28T12:31:41.745+01:00I say a carefully planned out cross for the pug is...I say a carefully planned out cross for the pug is the only way to prevent this breed suffering various medical conditions related to conformation. Let's say a beagle.<br />I've noticed that very few comments are left under any of Jemima's blogs related to extreme brachys (bull dogs, and pugs). Why?<br /><br />1. Universal acceptance that these breeds cannot be helped if they carry on as they are??<br /><br />2. "Not my breed" so I cannot comment?Kate Pricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12984661154425549615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-80985270191488833692011-07-28T11:16:35.253+01:002011-07-28T11:16:35.253+01:00To Bijou
If, say, it were a tossup between keepin...To Bijou<br /><br />If, say, it were a tossup between keeping Norfolk and Norwich Terriers as separate breeds, even at the cost of increased genetic disease, or lumping the breeds together to increase their genetic diversity, I would thought it would be a no-brainer. What would you rather have? Ears just so or genetic disease? Miltral valve disease or floppy ears?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-14512100378199114092011-07-28T06:57:16.531+01:002011-07-28T06:57:16.531+01:00"it would include whatever characteristics th..."it would include whatever characteristics that are required for that breed to do the job required"<br /><br /><br />Ok then....so what different characteristics does a BSD need to do it's original job that a GSD does not ? ...see I 'm confused here .... you now seem to be saying that in fact BSD,GSD and other breeds are NOT interchangeable - if that is now your stance then breeders surely have to stick within restricted gene pools to retain the sometimes quite small differences between breeds.<br /><br />"How on earth does opening up the registries automatically equate to a free-for-all that would result in the disappearance of every single dog breed into one amorphous canine mass? I am frankly getting really tired of this particular leap in logic"<br /><br /><br />...because outcrossing for diversity is a whole different kettle of fish than outcrossing to 'correct' a single problem ...diversity would be lost if all we did was outcross once and then breed back into the same restricted gene pool over many generations ( and don't forget it too many more than 4 generations to get Dalmatians that looked like their breed after the Pointer cross ) .....and if you outcross at every 3/4 generations then you WOULD lose breed characteristics - you know those things that Beth says make BSD different from GSD !<br /><br />you may be tired of hearing the 'leap of logic' that breeders make whenever outcrossing os mentioned but then again we're tired of the oversimplistic view that outcrossing would STILL enable us to keep our hundreds of seperate and individual breeds - that's not honest and it's not true !!Bijounoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-30536588195963123762011-07-27T21:02:41.937+01:002011-07-27T21:02:41.937+01:00Bijous says: " 'I think the simplest answ...Bijous says: " 'I think the simplest answer is to breed for function and health alone.' no mention of breeding for differences in Character/temperament/appearance etc"<br /><br />That is implied in breeding for function. It was stated by me and others that "function" is more than the working ability of a breed, it would include whatever characteristics that are required for that breed to do the job required, be it being a lap companion or a police dog or a flock tender or a flock gathering dog, etc. This would include temperament, size etc. This has been my position all along. No changing of my mind!Beth F.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-27252938981493066582011-07-27T19:55:16.925+01:002011-07-27T19:55:16.925+01:00And finally, Part Three :-)
5. ‘Just how far is r...And finally, Part Three :-)<br /><br />5. ‘Just how far is reform to be taken? If you operate an open registration system which permits regular outcrossing to other breeds, dictate that there should be no reoccuring ancestor in x number of generations and strive to eliminate 'exaggerations' then before too long, there won't really be any distinct breeds of dogs left. There will only be some generic looking creature of average height, coat, build and looks. Is that really what you are aiming for?’<br /> <br />How on earth does opening up the registries automatically equate to a free-for-all that would result in the disappearance of every single dog breed into one amorphous canine mass? I am frankly getting really tired of this particular leap in logic. An occasional, well-thought out, scientifically informed outcross that is worked out with the help of geneticists and approved by an independent body would benefit breeds suffering from low effective population numbers or outright inbreeding depression. How many should be done? Which breeds should be used? These are impossible questions to answer without proper research into the breed in question and I have no problem saying so. However, if you want a guideline, the Canadian Animal Pedigree Act defines ‘purity’ as 7/8, or in other words, one great-grandparent is not like the others. MacGreevy and Nicholas (1999) state ‘After only three or four generations of backcrossing with selection, the resultant animals will, for all intents and purposes, be indistinguishable from purebred members of the breed.’ Pedigree dog breeding in the UK: a major welfare concern? states that ‘… these worries have been shown to be unfounded by a UK trial that successfully produced a “Bob-tailed Boxer” by crossing a Boxer to a Welsh Corgi, and then backcrossing to Boxer. A fourth-generation animal (3rd back-cross) was registered with the Kennel Club and won prizes (Cattanach 1996).'<br /><br />As someone who is more of a working dog person, let me turn your question around. Do you think that breeds are defined by more than their looks? You yourself point out that show dogs in working breeds tend to have softer temperaments that make them more suitable as pets. These softer temperaments make them less able (or unable) to do their real jobs, the ones that their features were selected for over all those thousands of years. If I define a dog by its function rather than its appearance, might I not argue that dogs are thus losing an integral part of their breed make-up and that the show ring is turning dogs into one amorphous, generic mass of pets?<br /> <br />To me it is very clear. If we knowingly select for features that lead to dogs being unable to run, see, hear, breathe and reproduce freely and fully, and if we knowingly reduce the gene pool to the point that inbreeding depression sets in, we are cruel and irresponsible, no matter how much love and luxury we provide. The current system places ‘purity’ and an aesthetic ideal over genetic health and general welfare. It enforces and perpetuates these ideals, rewards those who follow these them and punishes those who do not. How would you describe such a system?<br /><br />The information that demonstrates that this approach is problematic for dogs’ health and welfare has been around, and available, for a long time. Given the accessibility of information in this day of the internet, I have to ask: Is it that clubs and breeders don’t know or don’t want to know?Sarahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-57478803223315415002011-07-27T19:50:11.318+01:002011-07-27T19:50:11.318+01:00Part Two
4. ‘We would in essence be turning our b...Part Two<br /><br />4. ‘We would in essence be turning our backs on thousands of years of history to a time where we relied upon hunting and gathering before we uniquely learned to adapt organisms around us for our own benefit. Has mankind been doing it wrong all this time???’<br /> <br />No, because while humans have indeed been selectively breeding for certain features in animals since time immemorial and with great success, until the advent of kennel clubs humans were selecting for function and nature and man between them culled ruthlessly. The real problems as far as health is concerned set in less than two hundred years ago with the formation of kennel clubs that put into practice the ideology and science of their times by demanding that dogs be ‘pure’ and meet a breed standard based on appearance. <br /><br />Of course it is unfair to criticise people for acting in accordance with the values and knowledge of their time and place. The people that I criticise are those living now who cling to outdated ideals that are known to be harmful. The information about the damage caused by inbreeding and extreme conformation standards has been around for a long time; I can find articles going back to the 1950s. Am I arguing that we should turn our backs on detrimental ideas based on the science and social theory of a different time and place? You bet.<br /> <br />To be continued again...Sarahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-58895665454704281632011-07-27T19:44:18.507+01:002011-07-27T19:44:18.507+01:00Julia, yes, we have discussed this and most enjoya...Julia, yes, we have discussed this and most enjoyable it was too. I am the first to agree that parameters need to be set. You do ask valid questions and, but I think you will find that the critics have indeed proposed some answers, though whether or not you agree with the answers is another issue. There is actually a lot of research out there and has been for over ten years, well before PDE. <br /><br />I also have a few questions, which you will find embedded in my answers below.<br /> <br />1. ‘At what point does the definition of 'inbreeding' actually apply - if there is a shared ancestor in 3, or 5 or 18 generations?’<br /> <br />I think you’ll find there is a pretty standard definition of inbreeding in any reputable dictionary: breeding between closely-related individuals (plants, animals, or people). ‘Closely-related’ is usually defined as first- or second-degree. I think the number 18 is a bit of a red herring. <br /> <br />2. ‘How much inbreeding is too much? When does having a closed registry really become detrimental?’ <br /> <br />Carboli et al (2007) concluded that the inbreeding effective population size of the 10 breeds surveyed ranged from 17 to 114. This is in a study that used the records of 2.1 million dogs. They also concluded that ‘…many breeds [had lost] >90% of singleton variants in just six generations.’<br /> <br />I would argue that if you are interested in genetic health, any inbreeding (including ‘linebreeding’) in such an already genetically compromised group as ‘purebred’ dogs is too much and that the closed registry system has already become detrimental. The Bateson Inquiry Report makes the following recommendation: ‘A good rule of thumb is that, if the pedigrees of the potential mates include more than two grand-parents, avoid that mating’ (p. 40)<br /> <br />And here’s a question for you: What is the purpose of inbreeding in a breeding programme and what are the benefits of it to the dog that outweigh the risks to genetic health, either for the individual or the population? <br /><br />3. ‘What exactly is a deformity/exaggeration? Is any slight deviation from 'wild type' to be classed as detrimental?’ <br /> <br />I agree these are subjective questions: the discussion is huge and well beyond the scope of a blog space. However, I think the real question is: at what point do we stop breeding for them? Again, this issue has been discussed and answers proposed. If you can find the article by McGreevy and Nicholas (1999) titled ‘Some practical solutions to welfare problems in dog breeding’, you will see an in depth discussion. The independent report Pedigree dog breeding in the UK: a major welfare concern? is open-source and also discusses this issue in depth and makes the following recommendation on page 17:<br /> <br />‘We suggest it would be safest to recommend that any features which have the potential to cause suffering should be actively selected against (and not simply avoided)… A reasonable starting point may be, if the animal’s morphology results in health problems, and if those types of health problems cause pain or suffering in humans, then we are ethically obliged to assume that they cause comparable pain and suffering in dogs, unless we have clear evidence to the contrary. ‘ <br /><br />On this topic, I have another question, one that I have asked before and not seen answered by breeders. What exactly do you mean when you say you are ‘improving’ the breed when you select for certain features?<br /><br />To be continued...Sarahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-66382708730905698712011-07-27T19:42:56.824+01:002011-07-27T19:42:56.824+01:00Ahh Beth now you're changing your mind - origi...Ahh Beth now you're changing your mind - originally you said ""I think the simplest answer is to breed for function and health alone. " no mention of breeding for differences in character/temperament/appearance etc...in fact no mention for breeding for all the subtle diffrences that present day breeders DO breed for and which require us to use restricted gene pools to achieve !!- if you're talikng of function then yes BSD and GSD are interchangeable -should we thus combine them to form one breed ?Bijounoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1183957703077342201.post-37394831298267761722011-07-27T18:19:39.419+01:002011-07-27T18:19:39.419+01:00Again, Bijou - you are talking appearance, I am ta...Again, Bijou - you are talking appearance, I am talking about all the other factors that make a breed a breed. <br /><br />Yes, Malinois and GSD are similar dogs, yes, their foundation stock dogs were also probably similar and the two breeds used to be very similar in appearance. But they are very different in many other ways. Your insistance on defining a breed on appearance alone is confounding me.Beth F.noreply@blogger.com