GWH Pointer x Lab wanted please!

NikkiJ, I suspect the dogs you saw were maybe just walking rather than gaiting, which maybe can look stiff legged to the uninitiated, but as you so rightly say there is no way anyone can assume that is down to hd.
Galaxy has posted in some detail the various ways the KC are trying to improve the world of the pedigree dog (her dog is a GSP by the way not a GSD), and yet still you seem to want to rely on evidence from a tv programme that was known to be sensationalist, and views of a vet who left the RSPCA, rather suddenly, apparently to concentrate on his tv career restoring vehicles, a surprising move for someone who was so concerned about the welfare of animals in my view.

Just seen your comment about the white GSD. I would think it unlikely a white is well bred, it used to be a disqualifying colour so those who do breed them have a limited gene pool (so yes they probably are inbred) and imho they are breeding them for the wrong reasons.

The dogs were walking, but in no way was this normal, or could be described as normal. Hobbling would be a better description! As a dog owner of over 40 years, I know a lame dog when I see one.

Whoever said I rely on evidence from Mark Evans? I plough my own furrough in life, I do not rely on anything I read necessarily.
 
Correct, and those which weren't up to the mark, were destroyed, they weren't passed on to others, for breeding. ;)

Within the modern breeding regimes of the modern breeders, I wonder what they do with their mistakes.

Alec.

It depends what you mean by mistakes Alec. Most breeders I know will retain, or place with other breeders, the best pups from a litter, and the rest are placed in working/pet homes with a "not for breeding" endorsement. I bred 2 "mistakes", blue GSD puppies. After considerable discussion with the breed geneticist they were placed in pet homes, with endorsements and they were castrated when they were old enough. Nowadays of course, I could have advertised them as "rare blue" and stood them at stud and made myself a few quid.;)
 
Buyer beware, anyone who does their research should know not to pay top whack for such an animal, which I guess brings us back to the original point of the thread, which is now giving me a massive headache.
 
Okay so you don't rely on evidence from Mark Evans, but this was the impression I got from your comment earlier on.

"Are you telling me that it is OK to interbreed - it's worse than inbreeding - our dogs in this way? Did you not see that programme about Crufts - Mark Evans - and hear his statement about a parade of mutants?"
 
Can I just bring this thread back to a little bit of normality?! I think OP is misunderstanding why she was jumped on for her comment and actually it's not about being snobbish about cross breeds as AmyMay thought.

It's about the fact that ALL our rescues are stuffed to the brim with unwanted dogs, that vast numbers of healthy young dogs are being destroyed every day (last estimate for "my" breed is that around 70 Stafford or Stafford crosses are killed each day). This is why someone deliberately breeding an unproven cross is viewed so poorly as a lot of us are involved in some way with rescue work and all we see is someone else breeding for a quick buck and by doing so, another healthy dog is destroyed when people take on that pup and not a rescue. I fully accept that there are some real issues around breeding pedigrees but at least the good breeders are really trying to do something to improve their lines and (certainly within the Stafford community) the better breeders have cut back.

I could actually write a list of what I wanted from a Stafford in terms of colour, gender,age, training and still be spoilt for choice with the dogs in rescue.
 
Can I just bring this thread back to a little bit of normality?! I think OP is misunderstanding why she was jumped on for her comment and actually it's not about being snobbish about cross breeds as AmyMay thought.

It's about the fact that ALL our rescues are stuffed to the brim with unwanted dogs, that vast numbers of healthy young dogs are being destroyed every day (last estimate for "my" breed is that around 70 Stafford or Stafford crosses are killed each day). This is why someone deliberately breeding an unproven cross is viewed so poorly as a lot of us are involved in some way with rescue work and all we see is someone else breeding for a quick buck and by doing so, another healthy dog is destroyed when people take on that pup and not a rescue. I fully accept that there are some real issues around breeding pedigrees but at least the good breeders are really trying to do something to improve their lines and (certainly within the Stafford community) the better breeders have cut back.

I could actually write a list of what I wanted from a Stafford in terms of colour, gender,age, training and still be spoilt for choice with the dogs in rescue.

Hi Luci! I'm fully aware of rescue centres, the massive problem we have of unwanted dogs - both pedigree and crosses - etc. etc. However - no-one has yet answered why it is somehow acceptable for close-breeding, in breeding, inter-breeding, in pedigree dogs - but not in us - the human race? The very nature of a pedigree means that it is a closed gene pool - I have never heard of any pedigree breed out-crossing for instance, this would be totally frowned upon I am sure - but is entirely necessary to cure an inherent genetic problem in any one breed. Surely it is not good enough just to out-cross to another dog of the same pedigree? Why? Because they all come from the same gene pool - a bit like all Thoroughbred horses descend from 3 original Arabian stallions - The Byerley Turk, The Darley Arabian, and The Godolphin Arabian.

I don't "buy" the argument that breeding from mongrels should be frowned upon because we have far too many dogs of all types in rescues, sorry, I completely understand what a sad and massive problem this is, but cannot accept the wrongness of breeding mongrels - to me, hybrid vigour is everything that I love the most about my dogs, their extraordinary genetic mix of wolf, alaskan malamute, siberian husky, GSD and a couple of out crossings to collie.
 
Okay so you don't rely on evidence from Mark Evans, but this was the impression I got from your comment earlier on.

"Are you telling me that it is OK to interbreed - it's worse than inbreeding - our dogs in this way? Did you not see that programme about Crufts - Mark Evans - and hear his statement about a parade of mutants?"

That was not my intention - I think Mark Evans statement "a parade of mutants" is an absolutely brilliant description of many of the breeds that we see at Crufts. But I certainly don't rely on his evidence, or anybody else's for that matter. I am perfectly capable of sorting out for myself something that I have believed strongly in for decades - that close breeding, in-breeding, inter-breeding is WRONG and that hybrid vigour is everything. As a species, us humans do not mate with our grand-parents, our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers - even mating with our cousins is widely accepted by all GP's to be a disastrous thing to do. So why - please someone tell me why - this somehow is accepted by millions of dog lovers - and horse lovers too - to be perfectly acceptable!! I am struggling to understand this, and I have struggled ever since I lost my beloved bloodhound to epilepsy when I was 17 years of age - due, the vet said, to a defect well known with bloodhounds.
 
Some further evidence of the importance of hybrid vigour.

Link to a website re research into inherited diseases of dogs, including what they describe as "mixed breed dogs"

http://www.vet.cam.ac.uk/idid/

Just as an example, GSDs are listed with 51 inherited diseases

I could not find with a brief scan of the various breeds any individual breed coming anywhere near this large amount. The closest was the labrador retriever with 39.

Ratter terriers = 2
Alaskan Malamutes = 11
Siberian Huskies = 14
Canaan dog (a breed I was going to get a few years ago) = 1
Cavalier spaniel = 18
**** Hound = 1

Mixed breeds = 16

Parson jack russell = 2

So, following this very brief scan of the University of Cambridge's researches, it would appear that the GSD has by far the highest number of inherited diseases.

Ratters only 2 - bearing out my theory of hybrid vigour
the American **** Hound only 1 - again, bearing out my theory of hv
Canaan dog = ditto

I rest my case, m'Lud!!
 
Interesting that according to that link epilepsy is not listed as an inherited disease in bloodhounds, yet your vet told you it was a well known defect in the breed.
Not sure why you are victorious that the GSD apparently has the highest number of inherited diseases, isn't this thread about a GWHP x lab. Again from that link I note both of these breeds can suffer from haemophilia B, and although hd is not listed on the cambridge link as being an inherited disease for GWHP, it is a requirement that dogs are scored under the ABS which to me would suggest there is a problem in the breed.
 
Erm, OP, if you're still lurking somewhere and haven't done a runner, have a look at the rescue links a few people have put on here. Or even have a google! I'm sure you'll be able to find one from a previous litter, that is no longer wanted :)
 
Gosh, a numerically very large breed which is (and has been historically) tested for hereditary problems more than pretty much all other breeds, comes out with the most heritable illnesses. Shock horror.
 
As a species, us humans do not mate with our grand-parents, our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers - even mating with our cousins is widely accepted by all GP's to be a disastrous thing to do. So why - please someone tell me why - this somehow is accepted by millions of dog lovers - and horse lovers too - to be perfectly acceptable!!

TBH, I suspect the question hasn't been answered because it's not relevant. You are talking about two completely different species. You may as well be questioning arranged marriages, as that's what we do to dogs! Such diverse examples don't make for a good argument. Coincidentally, did you know that Penicillin kills guinea pigs?

As for your choice of dogs, surely there's already a similar crossbreed sitting in a pound somewhere that would meet your needs and be a better option than paying crazy money to line the pockets of one of these irresponsible breeders jumping on the bandwagon the latest ridiculous fad of breeding designer dogs? I have nothing against crossbreeds, but there are more than enough accidental matings to provide people with wonderful pets.
 
The very nature of a pedigree means that it is a closed gene pool - I have never heard of any pedigree breed out-crossing for instance, this would be totally frowned upon I am sure - but is entirely necessary to cure an inherent genetic problem in any one breed. Surely it is not good enough just to out-cross to another dog of the same pedigree? Why? Because they all come from the same gene pool - a bit like all Thoroughbred horses descend from 3 original Arabian stallions - The Byerley Turk, The Darley Arabian, and The Godolphin Arabian.

Actually, this has been done - both officially and unofficially. Probably the most publicised case in recent times was the Dalmation that was imported from USA a few years ago. It was the result of an outcross a few generations back to an English pointer in an attempt to reduce the uric acid issue that comes with the breed.
 
Interesting that according to that link epilepsy is not listed as an inherited disease in bloodhounds, yet your vet told you it was a well known defect in the breed.
Not sure why you are victorious that the GSD apparently has the highest number of inherited diseases, isn't this thread about a GWHP x lab. Again from that link I note both of these breeds can suffer from haemophilia B, and although hd is not listed on the cambridge link as being an inherited disease for GWHP, it is a requirement that dogs are scored under the ABS which to me would suggest there is a problem in the breed.

We had our bloodhound when I was 16 - decades ago. Maybe the breed has improved, I know not, back then DNA and genetic diseases were not common parlance! I can only quote what our vet said at the time - we had the dog put down. He was the love of my life, I was devoted to that dog and him to me.

I am not victorious at all about the poor wretched GSD breed. I think it is a tragedy that the most popular breed in the UK also has the most inherited diseases. I am fully aware that this thread is about GWP x lab, not pedigree dogs. However, somebody made the startling comment about why should someone want to cross a GWP with a lab in the first place, which triggered these extremely interesting threads which I am thoroughly enjoying. I hold very strong views about the injustice done to mongrels, as is apparent!
 
Gosh, a numerically very large breed which is (and has been historically) tested for hereditary problems more than pretty much all other breeds, comes out with the most heritable illnesses. Shock horror.

On what are you basing that statement? I think the facts are quite clear - the GSD is the most "unhealthiest" breed based on the UOC study - I am sure their researchers are capable of taking into account that there are more GSDs in the UK than any other breed. I haven't waded through each breed yet - but based on the few breeds that I selected, the GSD was outstanding as the breed with the most inherited disorders.
 
TBH, I suspect the question hasn't been answered because it's not relevant. You are talking about two completely different species. You may as well be questioning arranged marriages, as that's what we do to dogs! Such diverse examples don't make for a good argument. Coincidentally, did you know that Penicillin kills guinea pigs?

As for your choice of dogs, surely there's already a similar crossbreed sitting in a pound somewhere that would meet your needs and be a better option than paying crazy money to line the pockets of one of these irresponsible breeders jumping on the bandwagon the latest ridiculous fad of breeding designer dogs? I have nothing against crossbreeds, but there are more than enough accidental matings to provide people with wonderful pets.

Of COURSE it is relevant!! We are as a species mammals - so are dogs!! We are close enough for it to be extremely relevant!!

Close breeding is WRONG, pure and simple. Whether we be talking about humans, apes, horses, dogs, any mammalian species. Hybrid vigour is extremely important - without it, a species cannot survive.

How dare you tell me what type of dog I should have!! FYI, I have rescued several dogs in my life time, starting with a golden retriever, followed by a labrador. Then when I married for the first time, Jakey - the GSP x lab was a rescue. Lizzie, the Wittekind GSP was also a rescue, even though she was a pedigree. Then my 2 current boys are both rescues. The only rescue I have EVER had to pay for was my boy Tai, who although came free, I gave a £100 donation to the lovely lady who runs a small rescue service for Utonagans. So don't you go accusing me of lining breeders pockets - with the exception of the mal x wolf, whom I did pay for as an 8 week old puppy, ALL my rescues - both pedigree and cross - have been FREE.

So please get your facts straight before criticising others and trying to tell them what to do.
 
Actually, this has been done - both officially and unofficially. Probably the most publicised case in recent times was the Dalmation that was imported from USA a few years ago. It was the result of an outcross a few generations back to an English pointer in an attempt to reduce the uric acid issue that comes with the breed.

How very interesting - do we know if it was successful, or partially successful? I guess it would have to be repeated with different outcrosses many times to help, otherwise you would just end up back where you started!
 
I am basing it on the fact that the GSD is one of the most numerically popular breed in the world and is subject to more health tests than almost any other. I am sure you can find that out on Google or Wiki.

(Oh and Helmut Raiser has suggested an outcross to the Maliois also)
 
So can anyone explain to me - sensibly, not with ridiculous erroneous claims - why it is OK to close breed dogs and horses, but not humans? Why is it illegal for us to mate with our mothers, fathers or grandparents, but somehow it is perfectly OK for dogs and horses?
 
I am basing it on the fact that the GSD is one of the most numerically popular breed in the world and is subject to more health tests than almost any other. I am sure you can find that out on Google or Wiki.

(Oh and Helmut Raiser has suggested an outcross to the Maliois also)

So what? Why should that make the GSD more prone to inherited diseases just because it is tested more than any other breed - assuming that to be true. Don't you think that the eminent scientists at UOC would have thought of that and taken it into account? In other words, all the breeds they suggested were subjected to exactly the same tests?

I have no idea of course, but I am using my intelligence to assume that if I can think of something, then a Cambridge University professor would be able to!!
 
Because dogs and horses are not humans. The End.


Not good enough!! Elucidate - all species are mammals, we reproduce in the same way, with a few minor differences. We are all governed by our genes, our genetic make up is everything. Which is why stallions like Nijinksky lead such fantastic lives once their racing days are over. Everyone knows that there is a possibility that having Nijinksky cover your mare could just result in another fantastic racehorse. We also know as intelligent human beings that it is extremely undesirable to mate with our grandmother or our grandfather, or our brother, or sister, or father or mother because there is an extremely high likelihood of any subsequent offspring being genetically crippled in some way or ways.

So therefore why should it be any different for dogs and horses to breed through such close matings, and for it to be somehow to be perfectly OK? Don't you think that just some of the 2,000 plus known genetic diseases in our dogs might be attributable to such close breeding?

Think of the Russian royal family and the Csararevitch (spelling?) with haemophilia - directly attributable to inbreeding which was rife in royal families.

I'm at a loss to understand why you think it is perfectly OK to inbreed, close breed, call it what you will our dogs, when clearly it is very definitely not OK to do the same with our own species.
 
Of COURSE it is relevant!! We are as a species mammals - so are dogs!! We are close enough for it to be extremely relevant!!

Close breeding is WRONG, pure and simple. Whether we be talking about humans, apes, horses, dogs, any mammalian species. Hybrid vigour is extremely important - without it, a species cannot survive.

How dare you tell me what type of dog I should have!! FYI, I have rescued several dogs in my life time, starting with a golden retriever, followed by a labrador. Then when I married for the first time, Jakey - the GSP x lab was a rescue. Lizzie, the Wittekind GSP was also a rescue, even though she was a pedigree. Then my 2 current boys are both rescues. The only rescue I have EVER had to pay for was my boy Tai, who although came free, I gave a £100 donation to the lovely lady who runs a small rescue service for Utonagans. So don't you go accusing me of lining breeders pockets - with the exception of the mal x wolf, whom I did pay for as an 8 week old puppy, ALL my rescues - both pedigree and cross - have been FREE.

So please get your facts straight before criticising others and trying to tell them what to do.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted a deliberately bred, from health tested parents, cross bred puppy because you had seen some of this cross and liked the look rather than a purebred bred by someone who had invested time and money into producing good & healthy dogs and charging accordingly. You now seem to think it should be free and that rescues don't incur any expenses picking up after irresponsible breeders.

Instead of ranting about subjects you apparently know knothing about perhaps you should do some research into codes of ethics and breeding practices.
I have bred purebred litters with an inbreeding coefficient of zero over 10 generations. I know of crossbreeds with an inbreeding cooefficent of 25 plus. I know of a feral, isolated, cat colony that only had one dominant male for around three years -just work out the inbreeding there.
 
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted a deliberately bred, from health tested parents, cross bred puppy because you had seen some of this cross and liked the look rather than a purebred bred by someone who had invested time and money into producing good & healthy dogs and charging accordingly. You now seem to think it should be free and that rescues don't incur any expenses picking up after irresponsible breeders.

Instead of ranting about subjects you apparently know knothing about perhaps you should do some research into codes of ethics and breeding practices.
I have bred purebred litters with an inbreeding coefficient of zero over 10 generations. I know of crossbreeds with an inbreeding cooefficent of 25 plus. I know of a feral, isolated, cat colony that only had one dominant male for around three years -just work out the inbreeding there.

What on earth are you talking about!! when did I EVER say that I didn't believe rescue centres should, or do, or don't, charge!! I have merely related MY OWN EXPERIENCES that I have never had to pay for a rescue. I wonder if this could be because I have never rescued a dog from an actual rescue centre - like, for instance, the Blue x or Battersea. Not that you would trouble yourself to find out before wading in :D All the dogs I have rescued have been taken on because they had fallen into adverse circumstances. Lizzie, the pedigree GSP, I was given by a friend who could no longer keep her - on the understanding that I would mate her with a GSP male called Boris, who was also a Wittekind, and give her the pick of the litter. This is exactly what happened a couple of years after I took Lizzie in. jakey was rescued from a nunnery of all places. The old nun who had her died, and the other nuns didn't want to keep her, so Yours Truly stepped into the breach. I may have given the nunnery a donation, I really cannot remember. My wolfie boy who happens to be son very coincidentally of my old wolf cross, belonged to a friend of our's who had a bad accident and could no longer keep Ben, so we took him in free of charge. Tai we rescued a few years ago from a man who loved him to bits but due to Tai's severe separation anxiety he had to rehome him. We got Tai for free, but gave a £100 donation to the lady who was the intermediary.

I don't know a huge amount about genetics - my OH is the medical scientist - but my own commonsense and education is enough to tell me that inbreeding is WRONG, end of, full stop, period. If it was OK to close breed, then like the royal family and aristocrats in the old days, we would continuously marry our cousins - and continuously produce children with genetic problems, as used to happen.

Actually, a can quote an example from the hospital where I work as a med sec. I temped a few years ago for the Neonatal Consultant, and one morning he exclaimed out loud "o no!" Apparently, he had had a new born baby in the Neonatal Unit who had died from some genetic condition which I forget, and because the parents had already got healthy children of both sexes, my boss told them that they must not have any more children because undoubtedly it would end up in the same tragic way. The parents were first cousins, not from this country. They ignored my boss, had another child, and the poor wee mite was afflicted with the same serious genetic problem with the same tragic ending.
 
NikkiJ, you do seem to be coming across as rather close minded and unwilling to listen to other people's reasoned statements - whether that is your intention or not. Nobody on here has said they think that daughter/father, grandfather/granddaughter etc. matings are OK and ANY responsible breeder wouldn't even consider it (regardless of the fact that you can't register the resulting pups anyway).

Yes, way way back certain breeds were produced via in/interbreeding when DNA and genetics weren't even known to exist - thank the Victorians for that. However, the way you are talking sounds like you think that breed a X breed b means a healthier dog. Which is a complete falasy (sp). There is a chance that the resulting puppies will have zero of the defects that either breed could be prone too, there is also an equal chance that they will have the defects from both breed a and breed b. PLUS, as these breedings are generally (note I said generally, not always) done by people who have a 'pretty bitch' and are not put through the same vigorous health tests and genetic research, there is no way to trace what lines, if any, the puppies come from. These also 'tend' to be the kind of breeders who don't offer lifetime guarantees for the resulting puppies, don't socialise properly, don't register/microchip/vaccinate etc (again, this is a generalisation).

My own personal opinion is that anyone breeding should be doing it for one reason and one reason only... for the betterment of the breed. Health tested parents, full research into the genetic lines and then proper vet care, socialisation, education of new owners etc once the puppies are here. This is the ONLY way that we can actually work to getting these defects out of the breed - by ensuring that those who do carry genes or genetic markers for certain defects are NOT bred from!

Certain people will always want pedigrees so you can have the best idea possible of what dog you will end up with. That is why I went to a breeder.... after doing 2 years of research into the breed and available breeders! Regarding the dalmation that was discussed, due to the outcrossing with the pointer this bitch not only didn't have the acid problem herself, but also didn't carry the gene to pass it to her offspring. So outcrossing can be HUGELY beneficial to a breed, but this isn't just some dally and pointer grabbed off the street and stuck back end to back end with each other. A huge amount of research went into this.

If someone doesn't want a pedigree, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of accidental matings every year which can easily supply the demand for 'mongrels'. From my point of view, if you want to know what you are getting then go for a pedigree from a GOOD RESPONSIBLE breeder... if you are not bothered then go to a rescue. Its as black and white as that.

Sorry for the rant :)
 
NikkiJ, you do seem to be coming across as rather close minded and unwilling to listen to other people's reasoned statements - whether that is your intention or not. Nobody on here has said they think that daughter/father, grandfather/granddaughter etc. matings are OK and ANY responsible breeder wouldn't even consider it (regardless of the fact that you can't register the resulting pups anyway).

That's unfortunate, because I am not at all close-minded to REASON. But there can be nothing reasonable about anybody expressing amazement at the thought of a GWP crossed with a labrador! It might well be the norm now for no closer matings than first cousins to take place in the pedigree world - I have no idea either way, as I am not involved in such a world - but most certainly just a few short years ago it most definitely WAS the norm

Yes, way way back certain breeds were produced via in/interbreeding when DNA and genetics weren't even known to exist - thank the Victorians for that. However, the way you are talking sounds like you think that breed a X breed b means a healthier dog. Which is a complete falasy (sp). There is a chance that the resulting puppies will have zero of the defects that either breed could be prone too, there is also an equal chance that they will have the defects from both breed a and breed b. PLUS, as these breedings are generally (note I said generally, not always) done by people who have a 'pretty bitch' and are not put through the same vigorous health tests and genetic research, there is no way to trace what lines, if any, the puppies come from. These also 'tend' to be the kind of breeders who don't offer lifetime guarantees for the resulting puppies, don't socialise properly, don't register/microchip/vaccinate etc (again, this is a generalisation).

No, not way back - very recently! And the point I am trying to make is that of course a cross breed can be unhealthy, of course it can, just the same as a pedigree dog can be unhealthy. It is the concept of hybrid vigour I am trying to get across - if you give the genes a good old shuffle, you have a far higher % chance to breed a healthy litter than if you just keep breeding with the same old same old closed gene pool, however distantly related the individual dogs may be within that closed gene pool. The whole point of this argument is my annoyance at the arrogance of someone who says "why on earth would you want to cross a GWP with a lab"? I am saying why not? Why shouldn't you cross a GWP with a lab? Why is that any worse than crossing a labrador with its first cousin?

My own personal opinion is that anyone breeding should be doing it for one reason and one reason only... for the betterment of the breed. Health tested parents, full research into the genetic lines and then proper vet care, socialisation, education of new owners etc once the puppies are here. This is the ONLY way that we can actually work to getting these defects out of the breed - by ensuring that those who do carry genes or genetic markers for certain defects are NOT bred from!

The only totally reliable way to breed out genetic diseases from any breed is basically to start again - this is only my opinion, and of course I am not a geneticist, I am not a scientist, a doctor, or anyone of any merit whatsoever. Just someone who is very opinionated and believes in speaking her mind!! And to my mind, the only way we can breed out genetic diseases from every pedigree breed is to go back to basics - which means either taking the best representative of each breed and crossing it with a wolf, or taking the best representative of each breed and outcrossing it to the second best representative of that breed which bears absolutely no close relationship to the said best representative. In other words, going back to basics and starting again. Frankly, it isn't going to happen - the wolf option would be totally unacceptable for a myriad of reasons, and the second option probably would only partially fix the problem.

Certain people will always want pedigrees so you can have the best idea possible of what dog you will end up with. That is why I went to a breeder.... after doing 2 years of research into the breed and available breeders! Regarding the dalmation that was discussed, due to the outcrossing with the pointer this bitch not only didn't have the acid problem herself, but also didn't carry the gene to pass it to her offspring. So outcrossing can be HUGELY beneficial to a breed, but this isn't just some dally and pointer grabbed off the street and stuck back end to back end with each other. A huge amount of research went into this.

This sounds more like it - I don't agree with the idea of pedigrees = wysiwyg!! To me, that is an anathema, how boring, you might as well just clone dogs and be done with it! However, I can accept that most people are not as daft as me and after all there would be no dog breeds if people don't want to buy to a recipe, so overall I can accept the concept of outbreeding to eliminate problems - not sure that it would entirely, because to use your dally as an example, in future generations the faulty gene could rear its ugly head randomly - nevertheless, it must be the way to go, however reluctant I am to admit this

If someone doesn't want a pedigree, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of accidental matings every year which can easily supply the demand for 'mongrels'. From my point of view, if you want to know what you are getting then go for a pedigree from a GOOD RESPONSIBLE breeder... if you are not bothered then go to a rescue. Its as black and white as that.

I'm bothered - I'm bothered by the fact that virtually all pedigree breeds have major genetic flaws due to irresponsible breeding - personally, I don't think you can beat a good mongrel, and although I can see there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, I personally have NEVER EVER met or had any knowledge of a mongrel who was not healthy - and as someone who adores dogs over and above any other species including her own - even horses! - this means a lot. Personally, I like a particular type of mongrel - and I have 2 of those lying at my feet at the moment, but then I am mad!! Most people would run a mile if they had 2 dogs like mine. But I loves 'em in their all their hybrid splendour - here is a picture of Ben, the wolfie one, taken just an hour or so ago in the back garden!

Sorry for the rant :)

You're not ranting at all. You are speaking from your heart as you see it - we are not so far away from each other, you clearly adore dogs same as me, all dogs, not just pedigrees. You rant away - there is nothing wrong with passion!!

Edited to say: oops - that photograph hasn't worked, will try again!
 
Last edited:
Only read the first 6 pages but just want to say I work in an inner city school in a very deprived area and the degree of 'inbred' students we have is astonishing! You can have two girls in the same class be aunt and niece and much much more bizarre, but as far as I'm aware none of them have three ears or only one lung (all though they may be a bit think, lol!)

Just thought i'd share that, lol!
 
Because dogs and horses are not humans. The End.

Not good enough!! Elucidate - ........

Intelligence, Compassion, Love, Principles and Morality, Ethos, Belief and Faith and Charity. Ethics and the power of reason, and the list goes on.

Despite the fact that man doesn't always display the above qualities, he has the capacity to do so, and that's what separates humans from animals.

Those who state that they get on better with animals, and in some ways I'd be amongst them, are simply admitting to an inability to deal with their own kind, animals being the easiest option, as they tend not to judge us.

There-yer-go, and all that's whilst I'm sober! :D

Alec.
 
Top