Gene pools.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eejits who breed 'pure' and 'true' tend to ignore pressing health issues. They don't want the dogs to look perfect or have extreme anything, it's simply snootiness with the lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not with any of the dog breeders I have ever known.... and sadly I have known a fair few....

They want perfection from a show point of view, end of.

[/ QUOTE ]

because those lines are perfect. I can't see how anyone truely considers sick animals perfection in the slightest - it's all about the pedigree.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ravenwood - the programme was still on BBC I Player earlier this evening?

[/ QUOTE ]

And if not there, it's on YouTube, which is how I got to see it.
 
Bloody Hell! I seem to agree with Starbucks.

I will have to disappear again for a few weeks in shock and horror........
 
I only saw the programme last night, so I'm still digesting and reeling. I don't profess to know much about gene pools, but out of curiosity, I checked the website of Stella's breeder. No inbreeding of siblings, parents etc. since 1973, when they started breeding, but five generations before that, I'm seeing a dog in the late 1950s/early 1960s, the offspring of which has siblings bred to one another
frown.gif


I do not like the completely flat faces one bit, but not all short-nosed dogs are unhealthy. Stella has a short snout and walked eight miles or so today. She can also run like the wind and has no problem tolerating hot NYC summers. Brandy Boston Terriers breeds BTs for agility and flyball, and they do fantastically in both.

Prior to the side of her head being pushed into the staircase, she had never run into anything--even with one eye, her spatial awareness is incredible--but I was horrified on the show to see the pug with bulged-out eyes following an accident. That can't be right. Speaking of pugs, I actually see examples out and about that look more like the old-fashioned version; I must ask their owners next time how they came across examples like that.

I think it should be a must for breeds to have dual titles--obedience and conformation, agility and conformation, say--much like working bred dogs. This would leave little option but for non-sporting breeders to buck up their ideas and create dogs that are leggier, snoutier, leaner, less wrinkled, with good hearts etc. etc.
 
Agree with several others here, small gene pools aren't the problem imo, just the way breeders use the available genes. I have been around in my own breed far longer than I care to admit, and many breeders have bred to improve type. This has been done by selective breeding, but sometimes using one dog to improve say temperament, can compound another fault that dog has, or carries.
Unfortunately, whilst there are definitely some exhibitors/breeders who do not carry out all the necessary health test, in GSDs a lot of problems have been caused I think by people breeding from a pet animal without carrying out tests, purely because they are not aware of the need to do so.
I know the KC used the cop out on the tv programme that if they introduced restrictions they would lose control of breeders but that is rubbish. If all breeding stock had to have health checks and pass some sort of temperament assessment before being bred from we would I am sure see an improvement in health etc in all breeds.

Severnmiles - you've got another Shepherd nerd intrigued about your bitch now, any more clues, perhaps names from her pedigree?
 
I dont agree with breeding dogs with health issues for the show ring. I think soundness should be the most important factor.

Having had a mastiff with health issues I got quite involved with a judge and breeder who is determined to eradicate the breed of the problem. One of the mastiff clubs is behind the research but the other wont accept there is even a problem.

So it makes things difficult. The top breeders wont come forward and admit there dog has this problem. The dog is PTS. (Not criticising the pts BTW but the not coming forward!)

So it is little people like me who buy a dog that has a problem that come forward.

The group that are researching the problem have identified the dog which they think brought the problem into the breed. A prolific stud dog. Owned by a top breeder. The reason they have been able to do this is because of the small gene pool. They are attempting to find the gene causing the problem by DNA sampling/testing the dogs but obviously need owners consent.

If they can find the gene responsible it is believed by thorough DNA testing of litters they could breed the gene out of a line within 3 generations.

Unfortunately the top breeders wont acknowledge the problem, wont accept DNA testing, and wont come forward as it will affect their business. (Judges words not mine)
 
Def. not saying everything in Sweden is perfect, but most are used to following rules and regulations. Once, long back in time, a King was prevented from taking x-fortune with him because the clerk/officer denied him access without the right papers wich couldn't be sanctioned due to it being weekend...

I put the "blame" on the breeders/owners. In Finnish Lapphund there was a male dog with a good showingrecord and a less frequent colour, though the first litters showed signs of a healthproblem, the owner continued lending his services to new bitches until the word really got out.

As far as the inbreeding, the SKK has an internet service were you enter the two dogs that you're considering and they figure out the inbreeding%. If you want to do a mating with more than 12,5 % inbreeding, they have to like your explaination or you won't get the pedigreepapers to the litter. The SKK's goal is that all matings in all breeds should be below 5 % inbreeding.
For exampel my pups has an inbreeding on 0,2 %, when I was looking for a studdog I contacted one breeder with a dog I liked, but when she found out that the inbreeding would be 3,7 % she told me that there was so many other dogs available that I would get a much smaller inbreeding% with, that she didn't want me to use her dog.

from Sweden.
smile.gif
 
As above I think FASHION or DEMAND is largely responsible for a lot of problems in modern domestic animals, birthing problems in cattle, and especially specific trait requirements from irresponsible judging leads to problems in show ring breeds etc, etc.

Usually in true working breeds weakness will be weeded out because of necessity especially in breeds where sentiment is absent!!!

But problems also lie in genes, for a gene to change it must mutate to benefit or deficit! This is how we have all developed to be as we are today, through the process of adapting via gene mutation to become more in tune with our environment. If the mutation is a bad trait and recessive all well and good as if in the wild no other individual has that gene and no inbreeding takes place then it will die out, but dominant mutations and inbreeding in individuals with recessive mutations will perpetuate that trait good or bad! That is where man slips up sometimes especially with congenital disease because of a desire to impose a type inbreeding is a quick way to achieve the goal but there are risks.

Also closing "breeds" to outcrosses perpetuates problems as you are stuck with your foundation stock with no more chance of introducing hybrid vigour (new fresh blood). To improve the breed you must rely on what you have already.

But in nature there have been several genetic bottle necks! However nature has no sentiment and has weeded out any mutations that are a survival threat and not kept them because they look pretty!!
 
Genetic testing has come on in leaps and bounds, in part to the huge Canine Genome project in the US. Unfortunately organisations like the Kennel Club (UK) and (USA) care to ignore progress and follow other countries like Germany and Sweden where they have very good and strict rules on breeding and litter registration. Mainly due to the fact that many of the "people at the top" in the KC here are themselves big breeders and exhibitors!

Part of an interesting article that gives a simple explanation of how a small gene pool in a breed can still be managed to keep that breed population healty. All it takes is a simple DNA test, not expensive. The Animal Health Trust has a very good scheme for breeders to use and has a whole host of genetics test for breed with know hereditary disease. It should be compulsory in the breeds that so far disease has been identified to have a test before being bred.

Genetic testing: A guide to breeders by Mary Whiteley, Ph.D.
There are basically two kinds of mutations, dominant and recessive. Every cell in the body (except sperm and eggs) has two copies of each gene (one from the sire, and one from the dam). A dominant mutation is where one defective copy of a gene is enough to affect the individual, whereas a recessive mutation requires that both copies of the gene carry a mutation for the individual to be affected.
The area of genetic testing in dogs is so active that the prediction is that within a decade that there will be genetic tests for most of the genetic diseases in dogs. As well, one can envision tests for behavioral traits. One important note to breeders is that information must be used carefully, to make proper decisions for breeding in order to maintain genetic diversity in the breed. In the case of recessive disorders, if a carrier is bred to a clear, none of the puppies will be affected; however there is a 50% chance that individuals will be carriers. Likewise, there is a 50% chance that the puppies will be normal.
Litters that are DNA-tested can be used to gradually eliminate the problem from the breed, without disturbing the gene pool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top