poodlefan

LovemyGSD, you say you no longer show at Allbreeds shows.. how do you know what's currently going on with other breeds and the quality of dogs made up to Champions? Every refused a challenge yourself when judging? I'm wondering if you are aware of how many breeds do not have specialty shows.

Opps sorry did not see this. Yes the very best example I can give is, every single breed in The Kennel Club UK is in an open stud book. Meaning what exactly.. that every breeder can outcross to whatever they want whenever they want for any purpose deemed desireable? Or do Breed Clubs have something to say about that?

How would you evaluate a "poor example" when you don't have a performance measure to test against? What's a "poor example" of a Pekingese? What makes you think ANKC breeders don't cull "inferior dogs" from their breeding programs now? Of course you are entitled to an opinion. Its when you suggest that what works for you and your breed will work for all breeds (particularly those without a working register and a clear function) that what you're advocating starts getting shakey.

Bryann..a open stud book can define and promote a breed, a breed does not need a clsoed stud book to exsist. There are many breeds that work with in open stud books. I have listed many of them before. One of the best example here in OZ is the Ozzie made working kelpie, see the WKC web site. It is an open stud book that allows outcrossing and back crossing. I would also say they have excellent breed type, but even more importantly excellent breed type in working traits. Tthis breed was well established and develope long ago and it continues to be well bred by the working community. A Ture Blue Aussie Job and very well done! Can you give an example outside working dogs? Can you give an example that doesn't involve heavy culling of "failures" and is a companion breed? ANKC breeders don't really have the option of solving performance issues with a bullet. I don't propose for a moment to instruct working dog breeders on the hows and whys of how they produce their dogs. However the issues that confront the breeders of companion animals are far more complex. In the meantime, I suggest the WKC start thinking about how they'll deal with the issue of a complete ban on the export of working dogs. That's another item on the animal rights agenda.

No revelation there. Numerous examples were given to you in the other thread. Flatcoats, Gordon Setters.. but carefully and only after identification of an issue and controlled crossbreeding to resolve it.

Finnish lapphund? Yep read the other thread. I can synthesise a range of views. No. Why would you? That would be silly? Thank goodness you are not a breeder. Oh hang on.... are you suggesting that is what SS is suggesting!!? That's known as a Strawman Argument. Why would I? Because there are people in this world who view Whippets as inbred (duh), unfortunate skinny creatures whose exaggerated breed features need to be outcrossed to improve their welfare. I mean its not like they could survive in the wild is it? And Shortstep, while clearly very well intentioned, is playing right into their hands. Once you open the door to external control of breeding and breeders Bryann, someone else will be setting the agenda for what breed features are exaggerated, and what needs to be gotten rid of. If, as a Whippet owner, you've not had a visit from the RSPCA about the welfare of your skinny dog, its only a matter of time. And logically it will be the RSPCA (bastions of knowledge about purebred dogs, genetics and breeding that they are) who calls the tune we all dance to. If you want people outside of purebred dog breeders and canine controls to say what can and can't be mated to "fix" purebred health issues, that's we're we end up. And you wonder why we're outraged. "Natural" dogs Bryann.. that's what the animal rights lobby want. Whatever the fark that means. Pariah dogs I suppose. One might accuse me of doing the Chicken Little impression I suggested Shortstop was doing in the other thread. I prefer to think see I can see the writing on the wall and the fatal blow will be struck when the notion that all purebred breeds are inherently unhealthy becomes common perception. Its a crock and it needs to be fought hard and now.

Bryann a purebred animal with an open stud book means "not purebred". SS has not proposed to tell us how opening the stud books might be controlled to prevent utter destruction of hundreds of years of selective breeding, nor, using Sheridan's example, how the introduction of new genes might not bring health issues previously not experienced in a breed. In the other thread (which you really need to read) Steve pointed out scientific evidence and opinion that it is selection of particular characteristics and NOT inbreeding that has led to health issues for some breeds. If inbreeding is not the problem, why "fix" it. In the meantime, I note Howard gets cold in winter. Clearly his lack of body fat is a breed related health issue that needs be fixed by outcrossing. Shall we outcross to a Labrador or introduce the coat of Alaskan Malamute to resolve this? The first example will introduce PRA to Whippets. The second will intoduce Spitz temperament. Who deals withe culls? What will people who just wanted a Whippet do with an animal that might bear a passing physical resemblence but has none of the temperament attibutes of one? The longest running, most public attempt to incorporate the desireable attribute of one breed into another breed is the Labradoodle. Wally Conron wrote it off as an abject failure. That much desired poodle coat coudl not be reliably added to Labrador temperament. Some of the first 'exports' of the breed went blind from PRA. And the much vaunted solution of outcrossing? To how many dogs? If its only a handful and the offspring are linebred to stablise the attribute, how is that expanding the gene pool. We'd be better off putting our hopes into gene splicing.

Salzburg!!! Want to come on a Sound of Music tour with me Feefs?? W

The overwhelming majority of crossbred dogs are not eligible for the Sporting Register. I don't think the ANKC needs to hide its head in shame about its primary function of purebred dog promotion. I have never heard it expressed that Associates are "privileged" to be allowed to compete in ANKC dog sports. That may be the attitude in Qld, but it sure ain't here.

There are plenty of slim Labs in this country - in working and sport homes. If you want a slimmer style of gundog without a double coat, there are plenty of breeds on offer. Slim Labs owned by people who don't feed them like feed lot cattle don't suffer in summer. What do you think introducing a breed that has low bite inhibition and a low bite threshold would to do soft gundog mouths? Will we see ball obsessed Labs with no off switches start to populate pounds because people got something other than what they were expecting from one? What would happen to the "culled" animals? Why wouldn't you outcross to something like a Hungarian Vizsla to resolve bulk and coat issues? I am NOT down on outcrossing where need and a purpose can be identified. Its been done in breeds in the past and it should WHERE NECESSARY be done again. What breed fanciers deem necessary for their breed is one thing. Forced outcrossing is another. You know what I CAN identify an issue in Whippets that some new blood might assist. It's size. Plenty of small non-registered Whippets out there. But introducing an Italian Greyhound to solve it - nope for a whole range of reasons that I don't need to go into here. One breed at a time, done carefully is one thing. Flinging open the doors of stud books for experimentation by people with a half baked idea about "fixing" an issue... no thanks. It might also do wonders for purebred dog genetic diversity if people weren't indoctrinated with the mantra that every purebred dog that's not destined for the show ring should be desexed by the age of six months.

Ah Qld.. what can you say. As I said, this is not the case in other states. No wonder non ANKC agility flourishes in Qld.

Small dog owners learn very quickly to judge each dog on its merits and that caution is warranted. I too would avoid unknown large dogs if I took my little guys to a dog park. Its great that your girl is gentle but I know a Papillon that was killed by a Rhodesian Ridgeback.. you have to take each dog as an individual. Holly will probably be regarded as "safe" but an owner would be unwise to view Holly as characteristic of all large dogs.

SS said precisely that in his/her other thread. He/she wants "all stud books open" and that means allowing other outcrossings into every breed. The example of the UK Kennel Club has been repeatedly trotted out despite several reminders that only a fraction of British dogs are registered with the UKKC. In the other thread I pointed out that the statement that all purebred dogs were inbred was a no brainer. Inbreeding is how you establish breeds in any animal. SS's assertion that such inbreeding is the root cause of health issues facing all dog breeds is where we part company. I asked SS several times to identify the health issue in Whippets that would be resolved with outcrossing but no response was given. SS uses the example of the Kelpie to justify opening all breed stud books. Yes, there are plenty of purebed non ANKC kelpies that might be added to the stud book to expand the breed. That is not the case for all breeds. If SS wants to see working line Kelpies incorporated into ANKC blood lines then she can go for her life convincing Kelpie people to make it happen. The mechanisms exist to do it already. I fail to see why that desire should fuel a general free for all in other breeds with healthy populations and no identified genetic health issues.

No one's denying it. But its not uniform across all breeds and the proposal of complusory crossbreeding to solve it is not a proven solution. Witness the Labrador x Poodle. It has TWO sets of inherited health conditions, now - more than either of the parent breeds. Health issues resolved? None that I know of. Indeed, it doubled up the chance of inherited PRA. At the very time where advances in reproductive science have allowed breeders to access breeding dogs anywhere in the world, outcrossing seems to me to be a very blunt instrument to solve the problem where it does exist, let alone where it doesn't

Get him a chair? Seriously, don't leave anything out for him to find. If the behaviour isn't rewarded, it will decrease.

Perhaps I haven't or can I humbly suggest you are both bringing your own lenses through which you view posts hunting for minutiae to pounce upon and be outraged. Or my outrage has a basis in an oft repeated pattern of behaviour from Shortstep that denigrates purebred dogs and would see the breeds I love changed forever because without any factual basis, they were condemned as unhealthy and sentenced not to "genetic rescue" but "genetic extinction". There is no hate in my arguments Bryann but real and genuine fear that such perceptions gather momentum and again ignorance will shape legislation that sees the future of dogs become less and less promising.

Just a small selection. But SS is apparently part of this whole thing, unless they outcross their ANKC dogs, which means they aren't ANKC breeds anymore. Or SS is doing the same thing that they condemn above. And what terrifies me is that this assertion that purebreds are by their very pedigree status "unhealthy" can gather momentum and be viewed uncritically by reasonable and rational people. The solution to an assertion based more on perception of a few breeds than facts about ALL breeds reminds me of the famous statement made (at least allegedly) at Ben Tre. Shortstep is applying Ben Tre logic to the issue of "saving" purebred dogs - whether they need saving or not. And some wonder why we aren't very calm about the notion.

What I'm arguing about is your assertion that you can expect every dog in a public dog park to be well socialised and that gives you the right to bowl in without checking with a stranger that its OK with them. I'm saying that for a range of reasons that doing that is both discourteous and potentially unsafe. That's hardly rewording what you said. Your 40 years of good luck could run out any day. All it takes is one dog. I hope for your sake it doesn't.

Which, according to Shortstep, will only be achieved by introducing other breeds into EVERY breed, regardless of whether or not the breed has health issues. And then doing the unthinkable.. inbreeding again *gasp*

Try reading this Yet another of Shortstep's 'purebred improvement' threads

Because you're here whinging about it???? Because it sure beats mistreating it??????

In the meantime separate the dogs and give the JRT cross a break - this must be profoundly stressful for her

The wolf article was used by Shortstep to suggest the application of "genetic rescue" to purebred dogs thus: And yes Bryann you have missed something. Shortstep has stated that the health issues of all purebred dogs can only be resolved by outcrossing to different breeds. And that this should be forced upon us all. You have also missed Steve taking issue with Shortstep's assertions and solutions.

Maybe ask Idigadog what mushers use??? I know Ruffwear make good boots but they ain't cheap either.

That behaviour from a 13 week old puppy would see me on the phone tomorrow.