shortstep

You love to attack, but fail again to deal in reality. Don't you feel even a bit silly for your first attack on me which was all assumption on your part and all wrong? So here you go again and you are wrong again. Read this..... I have never said that breeders should not test, nor ever questioned if testing should be done. You are yet again accusing me of things that are in your mind only and not real. So lets see if you can apologies this time for attacking me for something I have not said. Now if we can be in real world for a few seconds and get out of Pedigree Dogs Exposed Relived. I notice you did not answer if you are a breeder of Cavs or any breed or even own this breed? If you really are breeding Cavs, You said that the offspring should be screened and cull the affected 1 in 4 offspring. When do you screen all your pups you produce? How old are the pups when you do this/what is the youngest age they can be screened? Do you do this prior to placing them so the owners know their pup is not affected? What is it costing you to do this per pup? Are in fact 1 in 4 of your puppies affected? Is this 1 in 4 rate consistent across all of your bloodlines, another words do you have any line that has not produced at the 1 in 4 rate? These are questions that deserve answers if you expect anyone to listen to you about how to breed cavs.

It is incredulous that you pretend not to know the obvious answer As any breeder with a whit of knowledge would know you plainly ensure that you never breed from a dog which is not an 'a' You take the one pup out of 4 which is not an 'a' and cull it (not the parents)and only breed on with any 'a' which is produced Smoke and mirrors or is it ignorance? Additionally those of you who attack Bet have the whole world laughing at you as they watch you fumble through excuses as to why you continue to breed with dogs which are like rent a bomb for the breed.Flagellation of those who are telling you what needs to be done continues to place attention on the fundamental cruelty by purebred breeders who think they are exempt because they exhibit their animals in beauty contests.It is not Bet Hargraves who is responsible for the breed’s demise it is instead those breeders who hang onto megalomania born in the last century There is no hope for the breed while dinosaurs who account themselves as breeders appallingly behave as bullies rather than as guardians of the breed Wow! I guess you told me off and what a told off it is! You must feel much better now. You know I asked this same question right off and Bet never answered it. Guess she thought it was too incredulous to answer too. I do not breed Cavs, never owned one and am no expert on the breed. So yes the world can have a good laugh at me trying to figure out if 1 in 4 affected pups is an acceptable breeding plan. BTW I also do not know what folks in the UK think is the right thing to do as far as breeding parents you know produce the disease. So with your kind and educational words I now know that is in fact recommend to keep breeding 'A' cavs that have produced SM. Yes I can see why you think people are laughing at me for asking such a silly question. However, I would not be able to breed a litter if I thought 1 in 4 were going to be affected. Even if I knew you and the whole world were laughing at me, I would just not be able to bring myself to breed the parents again if they had produced it. Good thing I am not a cav breeder, eh. BTW are you a breeder of 'A' Cavs producing 1 in 4 affected pups with SM? PS I have never shown a dog in my life and never will, so not sure why you are chastising me for that. But I will hang my head in shame away. Have a nice evening. Ta

The threat to the existence of domestic dogs by animal liberatist is a very serious issue and not one to over looked in my opinion, even if you might agree with them on one issue. The statement was made that they did not understand why the animal liberationist did not recommend ANKC breeders. It is important for all to understand the animal liberationist do not approve of any dog breeders and will attempt to stop dog breeders as they do not believe in the right to own dogs.

I would like to see a very aggressive campaign to boycott all shops that sell cats and dogs (C/D). But not just a call for people to stop buying C/D at pet shops, it needs to be much more. We need to attack all of their business and give them lots of reasons to change their practice. All breeders need to write and sigh petitions saying they will boycott their store and send all their puppy buyers to other stores that do not sell C/D. We need to also say that we will be actively promoting the stores that do not sell C/D. All owners need to write and sigh petitions saying they will boycott their store and shop at other stores that do noty sell C/D. We need to also say that we will be actively promoting stores that do not sell C/D. We need to send the petition to everyone we know, friends family, groups clubs, (even none dog related). Come up with a breeders/owners signature list Certificate that give their approval to Store ___XYZ____ for it's refusal to sell cats of dogs. Which can be displayed on their wall. Tell pet shops that do not sell cats of dogs that you will link to them on your web site with your approval of their practice of not selling dogs or cats. Do all this in person as often as possible too. We did this with a local pet shop in my town about 20 years ago. It only took about 3 weeks of constant pressure for them to decide it was best to change their policy. Then we rewarded them as best we could. We had rescue groups come with dogs, we got a vaccinations clinic at reduced rates to take place in their shop to reward them with more walk in customers, we also have dog days where breeders would come to the shop and showcase their breed. We did a breeders bulletin board in the shop that listed KC breeders in the local area. We told our puppy buyers, friends and everyone we could think of to drop in and support the shop for it's new policy of not selling puppies (and to tell the owner when they visited that that was why they were there to shop). It was not long and they said they had improved sales of puppy items, upgrade foods and all pet supplies and they were very happy.

Ok then why is she calling herself an animal lilberationist? If you want to ignor that part go ahead, but be clear you are ignoring it. Do you support the end of dog ownership? Do you want dogs to have the legal rights of an independent entity with the right not to be owned by a human?

So if 1 in 4 pups will have SM from 'A' parents, do you then stop breeding the parents when they have their statistical 4th pup that has SM? If this is the case then there would be no dogs left to breed once they all had their 4th affected pup correct? (Ok there might be the odd dog that never produces it but you can substain a breed with a few odd dogs). Do I understand the prognosis correctly?

Look up Animal Liberationist. It is the belief that all animals should be liberated from humans, that no animals should be used by humans for any purpose or owned by humans. Remember PETAs old slogan "We don't wear them, we don't eat them, we don't own them". So yes they would want to end pet shop sales, but that is not by any means the end of what they want. That is what people often seem to not understand. There is a heck of a lot more going on than just wanting to stop pet shops from selling puppies. BTW I totally support the boycotting of all shops that sell pups or kittens (which would quickly lead to them not selling puppies or kittens in my opinion and experience). But I am not an Animal Liberationist and do not support their mission to end dog ownership. I firmly believe that the future existence of dogs is tightly bound to the human right to own dogs. No right to own a dog means the end of domestic dogs. Be clear about this.

That is the only option if you are an animal rights person. You guys need to know who you are supporting. Animal rights hero syndrome = no more domestic animals slavery = no more dog breeders = no more dogs. Only dogs that can be recommended by any self respecting animal rights hero are dogs at the animal shelter. When the last dog is born, mission complete. Now you can start on stopping people from having having children = no more humans = world a better place. Easy enough to understand. So are you saying she is associated with PETA? PETA member, who knows and I did not imply that she was. She is defined as an animal liberationist. The mission of animal liberationist is fairly consistent however. It is usually just how far they will go and their chosen methods that separate the groups. Lets take Animal Liberation Victoria, which recently held the rally that many here supported. This statement is from their web page that is typical mission of animal liberationist. http://www.alv.org.au/about.php TO ABOLISH THE PROPERTY STATUS OF ANIMALS Animal Liberation Victoria endorses an animal rights position which maintains that all sentient beings, regardless of species, have the right to be treated as independent entities, and not as the property of others. To me this is very clear and straight forward, they seek to end animal ownership. Which in turn means to make domestic dogs extinct. Maybe to you it means something else? If so can you explain how a domestic dog can be an independent entity and not the property of any human and still exist? How does this above statement support dog ownership (no can't call it that as right off I have violate their right of not being property)? Ok how about we call it something else, how about a dog human life sharing existence. How could this life sharing work and ensure that the domestic dog had the full rights of being an independent entity without ownership?

The best way to stop pet shops from selling puppies is to tell them you will not shop there because they sell pups (this can include every pet shop you can find that sells pups and you can notify them by letter). Then find a pet shop that does not sell pups and tell them you will shop there because they do not sell pups. Then tell everyone you know where to shop and where not to shop and why and ask them to do the same with their friends. If all the energy was spent on promoting the boycotting pet shops that sell pups instead of supporting radical animal rights groups who want the end of all pet ownership, there would likely not be any pets shops selling pups in this country. For example of how this works, these biggest pet shop chains across the US no longer sell puppies due to public boycotting to changed their policy and no longer sell pups. PETCO, PetSmart, Pet Supplies Plus and other larger retailers, and a huge number of small private shops others.

That is the only option if you are an animal rights person. You guys need to know who you are supporting. Animal rights hero syndrome = no more domestic animals slavery = no more dog breeders = no more dogs. Only dogs that can be recommended by any self respecting animal rights hero are dogs at the animal shelter. When the last dog is born, mission complete. Now you can start on stopping people from having having children = no more humans = world a better place. Easy enough to understand. Be Green Go Veg !!!

OLD NEWS ON CAVS BET SAYS AGAIN, EXTINCTION IS ONLY POSSIBLE FUTURE FOR CAVS. And we have had this conversation already on this thread. There is not a snowballs chance in **** that they will find the genes for MVD and SM in the foreseeable future, we do not have any technology that is capable of finding all the genes and trait genes from complex genetic diseases...and you know this. So if this is your final word on Cavs, then what you want is the end of the breed. I say again, you are just too chicken to come right out and say what your goal is. You want to come off a wanting to help breed when in fact what you want is to scare the heck out all breeders and buyers in order to bring about the end of the breed.

About 63000 ANKC registered pups last year, final numbers have not been published yet, (that I can find, it might be a bit lower than that as it keeps dropping each year). No one knows how many pups are born each year. 25,000 greyhounds. WCK could give some numbers but would only be a few thousand. ABC reports millions yes with an 's' are born each yeaer (there are less than 3 millions dogs total in Australia), later they say 'And every year, about 250,000 of them are euthanised. That means 25 per cent of the pets we buy each year are being put down.' So that would mean 1 million with no 's' pets, but cats make up the larger number of euthanized pets, ( I think, someone can look that up if they like). I think they has got their numbers twisted up again. Story is called Crule Trade if you want to look it up. Some other estimates say around 500,000 are born each year and I think this sounds a more reasonable number when looking at the numbers taken into shelters each year. Around 400,000 dogs were abandoned to animal shelters last year. It is estimated there are around 2.5 million total dogs in Australia. At any rate, ANKC dogs make up a very small number of the dogs born and ANKC breeders would be a very small number of the people breeding dogs. So somwhere around 1/10th or less meaning 1 ANKC pup in every 10 or more dogs born. I am sure all the animal rights folks know this and I am also sure that is why the Vic rally did not end up stopping puppy farms or pet shop sales at all, but will go after ANKC breeders. I am sure that is why NSW says a puppy farm has been defind in such a way that even a first time ANKC breeder with a litter of 2 pups can be proscuted as a 'puppy farmer' is they are found to have delivered substandard care. Seems like very little is done to hunt out all the other breeders of the 9 or more pups out of 10 born.

Wow that is very committed. Every day eh? Are you looking for a dog? Or you would be doing that because ?? Yes, everyday. Reason isn't important and I would appreciate you stop hounding me. We are both on the same side here, for the dogs, and even though our opinions differ you should respect mine as I respect yours. I'm not saying I don't enjoy a healthy debate but take a second to read your posts back before you hit reply. I do not think I hound people when I ask question about something they said. So not a problem that you do not want to say why you do this, but I still find it a very interesting comment.

I see exactly what you are saying. And I think it will get worse and worse if we do not change the way things are being handled pretty soon. People are more and more urbanized and know less and less about animals in general and specifically how to care and live with them. The fewer people that have dogs, the more difficult we make it to own a dog (just say owner license and permits), the more detached and uneducated people will become about dogs. The moral of the story is education, encouragement and support with the goal of getting dogs back into the family home. It is not rocket science, nor is it something unnatural as we have been living with dogs for 10's of thousands of years and not a dog law in sight.

Wow that is very committed. Every day eh? Are you looking for a dog? Or you would be doing that because ??

Do you remember that book The Hidden Life of Dogs? Talk about the times have changed.

Totally agree, looking back 60 years, things have really changed and they have changed for the better. Just look at dog training methods, they have come on miles in the past 25 years and it was not a law that brought about that change. Look at the routine medical care most dogs get, yearly examines, vaccinations, special diets (oh gees diet in general has really improved), prevenative medicine, the list goes on and on. Back then almost no one desexed dogs or cats. Leash laws, well can't remember dogs on leash much. I will say that I never saw a dog fight, nor ever heard of anyone getting attacked. Of course there was no internet to make a big deal out it, but I also think dogs were better socialized back then becasue they more a part of everyday life.

If every breeder did those things, the world would be a much better place. I in fact do almost all of these things and most of the breeders I know do too. However you do realize if all breeders only place their pups on desex agreement, then there are no new bloodlines for anyone, and that will quickly mean the end of dogs. So I do not think that to be an 'ethical' breeder, or 'for the world to be a better place', that all dog breeders should place all their pups on desex contract. I think that is a fatal idea for the future of dogs. Secondly and here is the one area I do differ with you. I do not believe that a bitch should only be bred once if you are doing your job as a breeder correctly. A quality bitch, especially one that throws a trait you are really after (such as consistent really good hips in a breed that does not have the best of hips for example) should not be limited to being used only once (edited grammer). Personally I would put that bitch to at least two different sires and keep at least one bitch pup or even a stud pup (If I really thought I had something special in the genetics) from each litter to possibly go forward with. In the end you may only use one of the combinations from the bitch, however you may use both and again diversify those breedings by using different sires with each. You need to be able to select and cull but not totally loose every line you work with in the process. Sometimes it is not until you see the grand pups that you really know what you have got. If you put all your eggs in one basket you will end up dumping baskets and changing baskets that you may never gain any control over what you are producing. Good breeders in my opinion never think they have a done deal, they are always looking to modify and refine their bloodlines. You can only do that when you have different dogs to select from. Again I would never put this sort of moral restriction on what I would call an 'ethical breeder. It is not in the best interest of future generations of the breed to deliberately inhibit diversity in the gene pool. Just my opinion.

I never assumed how 'you' feel about humans having children, (thought I do have a idea which I kept to myself). What I said was what you want to require dog owners to do prior to being able to get a dog, is not required of people prior to having babies. I do not find it off topic. I am trying to put dog ownership in to normal relation with all things in life. As such, if it requires more rules, licenses, tests and permits to have a dog than it does to have a child, I think there is something wrong with that process. Again you prove my point with the last sentence. Humans should know what they are doing prior to having a baby, but there are no laws, no tests, no permits, no inspections that force them to comply with before they can have a baby.

That was a nice read, nice to hear some common sense. It was written in 1995, did she do any follow up papers later?

Can the breeder at least put limits on the costs or types of service they have to provide to the owner of the dog when the owner wants to bail out on their pet? For example can they only pay for the needle and the cheapest form of disposal or do they have to pay for cremation with decorative urn, and who would get the urn the breeder or the owner? Or I like this way even better. The breeder can just pay for this cost at the time of sale. For example the pup cost $1000.00. The end of life costs or bail out of pet ownership costs are $2000.00. So the breeder pays the buyer $1000.00 to own the pup. Then the owner is responsible to bail out of their own pet using the money that they have been paid to do this with by the breeder. I really like that way of doing. It puts the responsibility back on the owner of bailing out of their own dog but the breeder still pays all their cost up front. Yet it still punishes the breeder,not only the cost of breeding the litter, but an additional $1000.00 penalty per pup for ever having bred the pup. The world has gone mad.

Hard to imagine, but your opinions are not the latest news. But you know that, and you also know that anyone searching the web will find that title. You will do what ever it takes, use any place you you can find, to keep preaching Cav armageddon like a religious zealot. I was just reading about what people like you are doing will have a fatal effect on the breeds they claim to love and want to protect. This is so true in your case as you do not even have a Cav in your life, you have already made that detachment from the breed and now want everyone on earth to do as you have done. You want to end the Cavs existence and it shows. Do you know who Jeffrey Brag is? I hope so. To me he is one of the founders of the concept that we might need to change some things in how we breed purebred dogs or at least allow others some leeway to do so with in the definition of a purebred. Some may hate him, others admire him, but for sure he is not in agreement with your type of dramatics. All you do is feed the animal rights activist more fuel to call for the end of dogs. That behavior is well beneath any noble Scotsman. Everyone should read this exchange about Pedigree Dog Exposed. Skip the first few post, then it gets down to the real heart of the matter. http://www.21st-century-dogs.com/21st-cent...hp?f=2&t=22 (Psssst....your hatred of dog breeders is showing. Makes your real problem visable, better hide that away again. )

So you want breeders to be responsible for any dog that they bred for the life time of that dog. What would you you make them do to provide this responsibility? Perhaps paying for an insurance policy that will pay for the dog being put to sleep or perhaps you want expenses covered for the dogs care for for the remainder of it's natural life? Or you want them to put their own dogs down to make room for any throw away when ever that might occur? Meanwhile the message to dog owners is, Hey it is not your fault that you are a total disgrace to the human race, it is the dog breeders fault. Get any dog you want, when ever you want, and as many as you want. Toss them out as desired, because the breeders of dogs are bastards and a criminals! They are responsible for you being a total ****head. This is exactly what we are telling out children these days. It is never their fault and they never fail, their poor work and poor effort is someone else's fault. What are we getting? A world full of people who want everyone else to be responsibly for their behavior. BTW before you go off thinking I have dogs dumped in every pound, think again,. Every dog I have bred for the last 15 years has been chipped. No dogs of mine breedings have ever been in the pound. If everyone, and yes that means first and foremost the owner of the dog is responsible, then you do not have dogs tossed out. Think.

So how many pups do you guys think there should be allowed each year? Only ANKC registered dogs and breeds? Can I ask how many people who want to do this have ever studied animal breeding? This is a little old now, but can I suggest that everyone read this that wants to legislate severely restricting the selection process in dog breeding and severely limiting the number of dogs in the breeding population. Please note that this is several pages long, click 'Next' at the bottom of each page to follow through to the end. http://www.netpets.com/dogs/healthspa/bragg.html#toc Now if you are too lazy to read it all, here is a one line which sums it up 'Population geneticists insist that limited populations under strong artificial selection, subjected to high levels of incest breeding simply cannot maintain genetic viability and vigor.' Here is only one page about selection pressures. Lessons from Population Genetics Gene Frequencies Much of the work of population genetics involves estimating or calculating gene frequencies, which quantify the relative commonness or scarcity, within a particular population, of alleles at a particular gene locus. If there is only one version of a gene in the population, then the entire population is necessarily homozygous for that gene. Gene frequencies are expressed as decimal fractions which must add up to unity, so a gene without alternative alleles has a frequency of 1.0. The gene frequency figure is a ratio of the number of copies of alternate versions of a gene in the population, independent of the number of animals involved and of whether they have the gene in homozygous or heterozygous form. An individual may have two copies of the same allele or it may have one or none. For example, if a locus has two alleles, and the population involved consists of fifty animals, and there are 25 copies of one allele, then the frequency for that allele is 0.25; therefore the frequency of the other allele must be 0.75, with 75 copies of it in the same population. It must be emphasised that gene frequency by itself says nothing about relative heterozygosity or homozygosity; it deals only with quantitative aspects of alleles in the population, not the diploid genotype of individuals. Founder Events Perhaps the most crucial concept in population genetics for dog breeders is the founder event, for its theory describes perfectly what takes place when a breed is "recognised" by CKC or a similar registry. Whatever may be the state of genetic balance or the frequency with which particular alleles are found in the general canine population, it all changes when a founder event occurs. In nature such events happen when individuals of a species occupy and reproduce in territory new to the species, losing contact with the source population of the migrants (as when small birds are deposited by hurricane winds on mid-ocean islands). The founder event describes the establishing of a small population, although later on it may grow to be a large one. When a finite number of individuals found a new population group, the genome of the new group will necessarily reflect the genes brought to it by the founder animals; gene frequencies within that population will reflect the gene frequencies within the founder group rather than that of the source population. In this way, when a founder event occurs, a gene quite rare in the source population may have a much higher frequency in the new population; conversely, genes common in the source population may be infrequent or even absent from the new population. It all depends on the genes of the founders! Thus a genetic defect extremely rare in the overall canine population can come to be common in a particular breed simply because one or more individuals of a small breed foundation carried that gene. Hardy-Weinberg Principle The Hardy-Weinberg Principle states that under certain specific conditions (random mating, very large population group, no mutations, absence of selection pressure, for example), the relative allele frequencies of genes at a given locus will not change from generation to generation and can be described by an equation, allowing the geneticist to create a mathematical model of gene frequencies within the population. Without trying to explain the equation and its operation here, we can still say in general that the net result is that heterozygote organisms will be much more numerous than homozygotes in a Hardy-Weinberg population. Many natural populations can be described in this way, although purebred dog populations cannot, since they are subject to inbreeding, artificial selection, non-random mating and small populations. Nonetheless, the principle has a certain significance, in that the overwhelming preponderance of heterozygotes in natural populations means natural selection tends to favour the heterozygote. Thus the natural genetic balance systems of most species include a high degree of heterozygosity [Carson, 1983]. When we as dog breeders use incest breeding and artificial selection to fix characteristics arbitrarily, we are therefore quite likely to upset the natural genetic balance of the canine species in our breed populations. Moreover, the natural preponderance of heterozygotes is rendered even more important by overdominance effects, described below. Genetic Drift Small populations, such as most purebred dog breeds, are subject to a condition known as genetic drift. This is a situation in which gene frequencies change at random from generation to generation, varying from statistical expectations because of sampling error. (Sampling error occurs when too small a number of trials departs from the expectations of probability, as when someone flips a coin six times and gets five heads and one tail - if he flipped it 600 times, the results would be close to 300 heads, 300 tails, but in a small sample, chance can cause a departure from the expected result.) This happens also when gametes unite to form zygotes in reproduction; the union of gametes is at random by hazard. A dominant black dog, whose dam was white, when bred to a white bitch should in theory produce equal numbers of white and black pups, but few breeders would be very surprised to see 2 whites and 6 blacks, or vice versa. Yet when such sampling errors occur in small populations, over subsequent generations gene frequencies can change, taking a random walk that leads finally to the loss of one allele and the fixation of the other! The smaller the population, the fewer generations this result is likely to take. In a very large population, it will not happen at all. Genes are lost and other genes fixed completely at random in this way by genetic drift. Generation Time Since in limited, genetically isolated populations such as CKC breeds a certain amount of genetic diversity is lost with each reproductive event through the action of genetic drift, inbreeding and artificial selection. The number of generations from the founder event becomes an issue. The average time between one generation and the next is a convenient yardstick to help us realise the relative rate of genetic attrition. A few instances exist in which certain bloodlines - working dogs, usually - are bred conservatively enough that the generation time is as much as an average six or seven years. But this appears to be exceptional. Many exhibition lines seem to operate on the following model: "Phoo-Phoo" starts his show career at six months of age in Junior Puppy class, is heavily "campaigned" and has all his Championship points by ten months of age. The owners' immediate "bragging ad" in "DOGS in Canada" or the breed club newsletter recounts his triumph, adding that "puppies from Ch. (subject to CKC confirmation) Phoo-Phoo are eagerly awaited next month". In such lines the average generation time may be two years or even less. This reproductive rush has two implications: first, a greatly accelerated rate of loss of genetic diversity; second, an implicit selection for early maturity which carries with it an elevated risk of joint disease and a lowering of average longevity. Effective Breeding Population The population figure that matters in situations such as random genetic drift is not the total number of individuals alive at any one time. Nor is it even, as one might think, the actual number of individuals that contribute progeny to the next generation. Variations in breeding population from one generation to the next have a marked effect, such that the effective breeding population, especially where variations in number are extreme, tends to be only modestly greater than the lowest number. Another factor which makes a great difference and is crucially important in purebred animals is the sex ratio of successful reproductors. The effective breeding population can never be greater than four times the number of males, no matter how numerous the females may be, since gametes must come from both sexes. Thus anything that limits the number of males in use drastically restricts the effective breeding population. Overuse of popular sires is a tremendous factor in the genetic impoverishment of purebred dogs. One of the major drawbacks of the proposed CKC Advanced Registry is the virtual certainty that the existence and promotion of a few "elite" sires, titled, temperament-tested and certified "clear" of major hereditary diseases, will further dramatically reduce the effective breeding population in many breeds, causing further declines in breed vitality and viability and leading to the loss of vitally-needed breeding lines which happen not to be among the elite group. Linkage Disequilibrium Genes found on the same chromosome will fail to assort independently in accordance with Mendelian principles. Such genes are said to be in a state of linkage disequilibrium. This simple fact has a devastating effect in artificial selection, since it means in practice that when a breeder selects for or against any single-gene trait whatever, whether he is aware of the fact or not he is also selecting for or against every other gene located on the same chromosome. This is how genetic defects become rapidly fixed in inbred populations subjected to artificial selection. Since dogs have only 78 chromosomes (diploid number) but many thousands of genes, obviously linkage disequilibrium can be tremendously influential. Genes that are linked eventually become unlinked over time (except in certain special situations) through crossing over, a process whereby chromosome pairs exchange segments of their DNA structure during meiosis. The unlinking process however, is slow and unpredictable; it offers little hope of remedying the linkage disequilibrium problem in a few generations and of course is no help at all where deleterious alleles have already become fixed. Overdominance Situations exist in which a heterozygote individual enjoys a survival advantage over both the recessive homozygote and the dominant homozygote of the same gene; this is called overdominance or heterozygote superiority. As yet not much seems to be known about this mechanism and proven examples of specific overdominant genes are rare. Nonetheless this mechanism may be one reason (apart from their usually recessive nature) why genetic defects are persistently found in genomes despite their apparent fitness disadvantage in the homozygous state. While on this subject it is worth noting that population genetics offers mathematical models for various forms of selective breeding, including the selective elimination of individuals bearing homozygous recessive genes for harmful traits. These models demonstrate that the elimination from the breeding population of individuals homozygous for unwanted traits has only the smallest effect in changing the allele frequency! It has been calculated, for example, that to reduce the expression of the recessive albino gene in humans from one in ten thousand to one in one million, simply by prohibiting albino (i.e. homozygote) individuals from having children, would require nine hundred generations of such selective breeding to accomplish! This is one of several reasons why screening programmes, although perhaps profitable for the veterinary profession, are of questionable effectiveness, since they identify only affected (usually homozygous) individuals. Heterosis More commonly known as hybrid vigour, heterosis is a situation in which a cross of two or sometimes three highly-inbred bloodlines displays enhanced performance for some desired trait, as for example higher yield in corn. It works best in plant species capable of self-fertilisation, but has been amply demonstrated in domestic livestock species. It is worth noting that in practice many different inbred lines must be developed at the same time, that most of the inbred lines become so unfit that they must be discarded as they become non-viable, and that considerable random trial of different crosses must be done to establish which lines will actually yield the desired result. Although the seed-grower's methods are unsuited to purebred dogs, the overall principle is of interest, since it is thought that heterosis works because of the heterozygosity of the hybrid generation, probably through the action of both dominant and overdominant genes. Geneticists are now starting to realise that the balanced-heterozygote systems of many wild species involve a heterosis effect which gives them a high degree of fitness. Inbreeding Depression As genetic variability diminishes and homozygosity rises through inbreeding, a syndrome known as inbreeding depression sets in. It is characterised by a reduction in viability (survival of individual progeny), birth weight, fecundity (number of young) and fertility (reproductive success), among other things. Much of it is caused by the homozygous presence of rare, deleterious recessive alleles. Part of it may also be due to the relative absence of overdominant heterozygote combinations. As inbreeding depression becomes more severe, highly inbred lines tend to become extinct through the loss of ability to reproduce successfully and / or inability of the young to survive. It varies somewhat in intensity from species to species, due probably to variations in the number and nature of lethal, sublethal and subvital alleles involved. Some wild mammals which show almost no juvenile mortality when bred in captivity without inbreeding, exhibit 100 percent juvenile mortality when inbred! A survey of captive breeding records for 44 species [Ralls & Ballou, 1979, 1982] showed that juvenile mortality of inbred young was higher than that of noninbred young in 41 of the 44 species for which records were analysed. Genetic Load The difference between the fittest genotype of a population and the average fitness of that population is known as genetic load. [Muller, 1950] It is, of course, caused by the presence of lethal, sublethal and subvital alleles. The more such alleles found in a population, the greater the genetic load. Genetic load is sometimes measured by the number of lethal equivalents, and the severity of inbreeding depression can be quantified in this way. Humans in general normally carry in a heterozygous state from 5 to 8 lethal equivalents per person - genes or combinations of genes any one of which, if homozygous, would cause the death of the organism. It should be emphasised that genetic load is present in every population, since never are all individuals maximally fit. The presence of lethal, sublethal and subvital genes is a normal state of affairs in all species. Homozygotes for such genes are usually so infrequent as to have little effect on species fitness. It is only when founder events and inbreeding occur that the gene frequency of deleterious alleles rises and genetic defects start to become a problem as the growing genetic load degrades the fitness of the inbred, limited population. Thus in the case of purebred dogs the problem does not inhere in the presence of "defect" genes, but in the registry and breeding practices of the purebred dog fancy! Balanced Heterozygous Population Structure In recent decades growing evidence from DNA studies of protein polymorphism conclusively disproved the "classical" view of species as being homozygous at most loci, with the phenotypes of all individuals of a species conforming to that of a type specimen. Population geneticists and evolutionary biologists now realise that typological concepts are useless in a natural world in which populations may best be described genetically not as individuals conforming to a type but as arrays of genetic variability. Some of the implications of the "balance view" are elucidated by one geneticist as follows: Species that are diploid and cross-fertilised [this includes all mammals]... characteristically carry large stores of genetic variability in a balanced state in their populations... Genetic recombination naturally generates diverse genetic types from the large field of variability in the gene pool. In order to meet environmental challenges, natural selection in many such organisms tends to develop a system based on the higher fitness of heterozygotes. These are maintained under regimes of selection that exploit the advantages of heterozygosity for many alleles simultaneously. In these, the large amount of genetic variability is continually being recombined as balanced hybrid vigour is maximised... The genetic system is not a fixed and frozen entity but is dynamic and variable... By its very nature, this genetic system is inimical to the perpetuation of sameness. At each reproductive event an enormous field of genetic variability is produced. Most of the variability is held in sexual populations by a complex balancing selection based on the superiority of fitness of heterozygotes... The biological conserver, short of putting the DNA into liquid nitrogen, cannot hope to freeze the characteristics of any natural population, be it a deme (local population), a subspecies, or a species. Hampton L. Carson. The Genetics of the Founder Effect, 1983 Efforts at artificial selection and breeding which attempt to defy this system of balanced heterozygosity and variability will almost certainly fall foul of the kind of difficulties we are now encountering in purebred dog breeds. It is hopeless to attempt to freeze the genetic characteristics of small populations and even the attempt, which is doomed to eventual failure, is quite costly in terms of the loss of hardiness and viability. Artificially selected populations, too, can and should be maintained in a state of dynamic heterozygous balance. Thus the entire problem of genetic defects would be minimised. Assortative Mating Assortative mating is a method of selective breeding capable of creating homozygosity for desired traits without having as great an effect on overall homozygosity as does inbreeding. It consists of mating phenotypically similar individuals that are not closely related. This method of selective breeding would be capable of maintaining a reasonable range of breed type in a balanced-heterozygosity breed system with an open studbook. Having now acquired a few of the more crucial concepts of population genetics, we are prepared to examine in a new light the nineteenth-century system of dog breeding and registration which we have inherited. As we prepare to enter the twenty-first century, perhaps we can conceive a renewed system which will serve our dogs and their breeders far better than the present one.

Maybe make the owner who dumps the dog responsible? No that would not be right, it is the breeder who placed the dog 4 years ago that is responsible. BTW I microchip every pup and have done so for 15 years. I also follow every pup and they are all still in their homes. No law is going to make me responsible, it is something you know you should do. Moosmum who said people do not know how to own dogs any more is right. More and more people are not growing up with dogs. So this is a good reason? to make owning a dog even more difficult so that even fewer people will own one and even more children do not grow up with a dog (or any animal according to PETA). I saw a kid the other day and I had a 9 week old cute as can be pup in my lap. Dad petted the pup and offered to his child to pet it, she just shook her head, I could see she in her eyes she had zero desire to interact with the pup, her mom just held her hand tightly. I ask dad if he had dogs as a kid and he said yes, I asked mum and she said no. It only takes one generation folks. So we need to make it darn hard to get a dog with lots of tests, licenses, inspections and fees?? keeping most homes dog free?? Then have the schools teach kids how to pet dog at their visit to petting zoo. Think.