OutOfSightHound

Given that I've got a bitch in whelp now and pups on the way, I'm not sure how I can view the existing standard as anything else. Theoretically a broader view is possible but as a person who's poured over that standard and who's going to be selecting my next generation breeding dog based on it, I am living in the now. I personally don't have any issue with the current standard and I'm trying to stay within it. I don't have the luxury of selecting dogs based on changes that might never happen. So dogs that I think will be too big, that don't conform as closely as possible to the desired standard won't get to stay.... for me the Standard as it is now is what I have to work to. Koolies are on the ANKC sporting register and don't even have a standard. But you know a Koolie when you meet one. So you dont even need a standard to have a breed.

Koolie club of Australia doesn't even have a standard and refuses to write one, yet they are on the ANKC sporting register. Can't mistake a Koolie when you meet one though. So you dont even need a standard to have a breed

I found myself nodding my head at this statement. Yes, completely agree. Touche on that one :D

How do you test function in breeds where an outlet for testing is either no longer available or unlawful? I think you'll find pedigrees predate the KCs too. I might also add that "sport" is shaping some breeds as fast as the show ring ever did. Sporting use is also no guarantee of genetic health. ISDS Border Collies are no free from genetic health issues. Pedigrees predate KC's but the studbook only "closed" when KC's got involved. I'm exteremely familiar with ISDS border collies and there are seperate issues there with the management side ignoring memebrs concerns (on an EBV program for eplilepsy) and not releasing health data or enforcing health testing (which they have done in the past). Performance breeding is by no means perfect, but once again its competition that has shaped some of the darker issues. Though on the whole perfomance dogs suffer less from extreme confimation and temprement issues due to the nature of sport. They do though suffer the same problems of popular sires and inbreeding. Its not immune. Winton's Cap appearing in EVERY ISDS BC pedigree becasue he was such a successful dog, and there have a been few attempts to recreate him by some severe line breeding. Had trialing not become a sport and the dogs stayed a purely working breed I wonder if ISDS border collies would have been better off? Trialing is what made Wintons Cap so popular. Working terrier shows are NOT competitions they are a display of working terriers The Hound Hunting club of Victoria do a similar thing.. the show is a side show. When I talk about sport I don't mean competitive sport, I mean taking your terrier ratting, or your bloodhound out to hunt Sambar deer (that is legal). Hunting Hare and Fox is also legal if the fox or hare is NOT released from a trap and is flushed from the undergrowth etc towards the hunter. SPort means getting active with your dog, and there are plenty of sports out there to keep your dogs in good shape and help guide a breeding program without it being competitive. Breeding a BC for trialing (ie getting the sheep the the run at the fastest pace with least errors) is not the same a breeding a BC that can work a 14 hour day in the shed and paddock. The farm BC only has to be good enough NOT the best. Same as hunting dogs, they have to be able to catch dinner, or find the injuried deer you shot, or get the rats out of the horse feed shed. They have to be good enough. This means that all adequate dogs geta chance to breed and not just the best which means your gene pool has a wider bredth and depth.

Fortunately, it doesn't have to be here. :) What the Americans do with their breed standards is a matter for them IMO. I am interested in owning and breeding dogs as the country of origin intended them. For Whippets that's the UK and that is the standard followed here. But it's your breed, surely you would have as much to say about that as you do about the colours allowed in whatever other breeds we are discussing here. I don't think I've expressed any opinion on what colours should be allowed in any breed. That is a matter for breed fanciers. What I said was "stick to the standard unless it is changed". Personally I think "colour immaterial" should remain the wording of Whippet breed standards because colour has no bearing on breed function. However, what I think as an individual is not what matters. The Americans breed some damn nice dogs - be nuts not to use American bloodlines judiciously in a breeding program. Yet that same standard forces non stadards into the limited register where they can't contribute their genes to the next "standard" genration which is what this debate is about.

good reason for standards not to be held up as unchangeable and infallible. They are not always written with all the best knowledge available, and often by people with vested interests. In most cases I think much of what created a breed standard is politics. Rarely were they created by geneticists or even people with a knowledge in animal movement or health. Before Kc's function defined a breed and I think thats what we should go back to. I love to see conformation become the side show with sport the main event. Lurcher and long dog shows as well as working terrier shows in the UK are working events with the beauty contest the side show for the day and a bit fun the serios part is testing the skill and function of the dogs.

Generally the Americans dont' show dilutes at all. Their breed standard speciifies a dark eye and that's impossible in a dilute. Our breed standard follows the English one and eye colour has no impact on hunting ability. That, a strong preference for parti-colours (a recessive gene) and a higher height allowance in the US breed standard probably account for the genetic drift identified in American Whippets. So where is it okay to disagree with the standard and where is it not? Do you think that it is sensible to require a dark eye and allow dilute colouring and limit the genepool on what is basically a lack of understanding of genetics? Would you support this being changed? Is it possible that some other standards have similar inconsistencies and therefore would benefit from a re-visit to the colours allowed? I think the Current frech FCI change of the Azawahk standard is madness and one mans spiteful response to the current influx of Country of orgin bloodlines. Something the breeed sorely needs as it was founded on two sets of half siblings. Limitation of white and even the regions Country of importation is allowed is EXTREMELY SHORT SIGHTED, especialy in light of recent study expeditions into the regions of west africa, and the health isssues facing the breed. Luckily the Americans saw sense and have adjusted their breed standard to reflect COO colours and state as such on their standard and even allow a wider region for COO stock to be imported from. I honestly think unless there is a REAL health issue associated with colour it should not be excluded from breeding even if it cant be shown.

I think part of it is that veterinary diagnostics are improving and diagnosing more problems. However to return to your previous question. Can I ever see a point at which ANKC Whippet breeders seek approval for an outcrossing program to resolve a particular issue? With the population of available Whippets here and overseas, I'd have to say "no, unless a serious and widespread condition is diagnosed and an appropriate breed is identified to resolve it". Our breed is relatively young in pedigree terms - 150 years or there abouts. There's a mix of breeds in its ancestry and popularity brings genetic diversity. I have just done a mating where the COI is less than 1%. The ONLY way I could get it lower is to mate to another breed. So there is great potential to outcross to unrelated Whippets. To go to another breed, I'd need a serious answer for the "why". In other breeds, the issues are different. I leave it to those involved in those breeds to answer the question for themselves. Popularity doesn't bring gentic diversity. Once a studbook is closed the genes you will ever have are there and they can only get lost (unless you add new blood which is outcrossing). Also unless breeders breed widely and all healthy dogs breed equally (which doesn't happen as popular sires are rampant in show pedigrees) you WILL lose genes in every generation. Especially with so many dogs on limited register and in pet homes on spay neuter contracts only about 10% of the population is getting bred. In my breed on average 11% of males and only 14% of females continue onto the next generation thats A LOT of lost genes. Genetic drift can cause big losses of genetic variation for small populations (which breeds in Australia are and not many people can afford to import dogs). Population bottle necks occur when a populations size is reduced for at least one generation. Because genetic drift acts more quickly to reduce genetic variation in small populations, undergoing a bottleneck can reduce a population’s genetic variation by a lot, even if the bottleneck doesn’t last for very many generations. This is illustrated by the puppies represented as 'X''L''O' shown below, where, in generation 2, an unusually small draw creates a bottleneck. Gen 1 XOLOXLOXLO XOLXOLOXLO LLOXXXXXLL Gen 2 LL XL XX Gen 3 LLXLXLLXL XLLXLXLLX XLXLXLLLL That O gene could have been a gene for something important like proper uric acid or a colour. Ineffect by having such a small part of the population breed each genration you are pushing breeds through a bottle neck each generation even if your breed had a huge founding population. In Fact our breeding culture is bottlenecking our breeds into genetic impoverishmnet.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that "hybrid vigour" is a principle that needs careful application to achieve desired outcomes. Most studies I've read on it also say that beyond an F1 cross, any general improvements in heatlh are lost. There are heatlh statistics carefully gathered on a range of pedigree dogs. Why? Because of their known ancestry. Few, if any health researchers gather statistics on the incidence of inheritable conditions in crossbreds. That does not mean they don't occur. Incidence? Pure speculation. Insurance generally relies on statistical analysis. My vets on a number of occasions have told me that they see Whippets for vaccinations and skin tears. Pretty damn healthy for the most part although some issues are starting to rear their heads. However, I will say that you should NOT aim to improve the health of a breed by outcrossing to stock where there are no records about heatlh issues. That is, quite simply, gambling. And you don't always win. Bellumori TP, TR Famula, DL Bannasch, JM Belanger, & AM Oberbauer 2013 Prevalence of inherited disorders among mixed-breed and purebred dogs: 27,254 cases (1995-2010). J Am Vet Med Assoc 242: 1549-1555. There is a very good study done recently compaing Xbreeds to Purebreeds. 27 000 dogs were compared whichis a goood number from a statistical point of view. The study by Bellumori et al (2013) used medical records from the veterinary clinic at UC Davis for more than 27,000 dogs and compared the incidence of 24 genetic disorders in mixed versus purebred dogs. The abstract of the paper is included at the bottom of this page. Here is what they found: 1) The incidence of 10 genetic disorders (42%) was significantly greater in purebred dogs. 2) The incidence of 1 disorder (ruptured cranial cruciate ligament; 4%) was greater in mixed breed dogs. 3) For the rest of the disorders examined, they found no difference in incidence between mixed and purebred dogs. MORE IN PUREBREEDS Aortic stenosis Dilated cardiomyopathy Elbow dysplasia IVDD Hypoadrenocorticism Atopy / allergic dermatitis Bloat Cataracts Epilepsy (total) Portosystemic shunt MORE IN MIXED BREEDS Ruptured cranial cruciate ligament NO DIFFERENCE Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy Mitral valve dysplasia Patent ductus arteriosus Ventricular septal defect Hemangiosarcoma Lymphoma Mast cell tumor Osteosarcoma Hip dysplasia Patellar luxation Hyperadrenocortism Hypothyroidism Lens luxation Epilepsy (confirmed) Epilepsy (probable) Epilepsy (suspect) An interesting thing to note is that with the exception of one disorder, patent ductus arterioles, the odds ratios are higher for purebreds, but these failed to meet the criterion for statistical significance (hence no asterisk). This does not mean that the incidence in purebreds and mixed breeds was the same, only that they failed to find a statically significant difference in this study. This might be because they had inadequate data to detect a difference, or that in fact purebred and mixed breed dogs are the same and the differences in these data can simply be an artifact of sampling. (They incidentally found a significantly higher risk of being hit by a car in mixed breed dogs, which of course is not a health disorder and presumably not genetic.) his study found that purebred dogs have a significantly greater risk of developing many of the hereditary disorders examined in this study. No, mixed breed dogs are not ALWAYS healthier than purebreds; and also, purebreds are not "as healthy" as mixed breed dogs. The results of this study will surprise nobody who understands the basics of Mendelian inheritance. Breeding related animals increases the expression of genetic disorders caused by recessive mutations, and it also increases the probability of producing offspring that will inherit the assortment of genes responsible for a polygenic disorder. The authors of this study tackled a very important question that is difficult to address because collecting the "perfect" data set is impossible. Using data on clinical occurrence of disease is fraught with difficulty because of many sources of potential complication - perhaps purebred dogs are more likely to receive veterinary treatment than mixed breeds, and comparisons among groups (e.g., afflicted vs not, purebred vs mixed) are confounded by unequal sample sizes or differences among groups in the age, sex, etc of animals. It's a statistician's nightmare. (In fact, a highly regarded statistician, Thomas Famula, was involved in the study.) In fact, the "perfect" comparison will never be done. But this study presents a large compilation of data and a thorough analysis that is the first (and might be the only) attempt to explore differences in predisposition to disease in purebred and mixed breed dogs.

Vive la difference! I have no issue with what working Whippet people wish to do or breed. They can thank their lucky stars if they've chosen not to outcross to BCs for "vigour and traits" like some have - a whole new little selection of health issues unknown in those irrelevant pedigree dogs. So much for "hybrid vigour"., My head will remain firmly in KC land because that is what I choose to breed and own. I'm interested in soundness, type and pedigree. Why pedigree? Because ancestry is the best indicator of the tr i"m traits I'm looking for. Perhaps you should famiiarise yourself a little with the rules of this forum and tone down the patronising posts. You clearly hold your views strongly. That's fine but its not carte blanche to rubbish those of others. I'm not rubbishing ANYONE, I'm just pointing out that most breeds came from working foundations, and diverged from there when showing came along. Hybrid vigour is a "real" biological phenomia and back up by science. I'm just asking people to think outside the box. I'm happy to have my views changed if you can back it up with well researched scientific fact. I love purebreds and I'm looking forward to Dogs VIC and the ANKC bringing in its Appendix register as it will be great to start some outcrossing to help fix the health probelms in the breeds I love. is this for real? When will it happen and what will be involved? How would dogs be selected? It was a result of the legal settlement in the Irish wolf hound case with Dogs VIC. Sylvia Powers the Health and Welfare officer at Dogs Vitoria was the main architect of this so it might be worth writing to her about it. As far as I know it still has to go to the ANKC's AGM.

What breeds and what problems? The issue with hybrid vigour is the assumption that outrcrossing in and of itself will "improve" health. That ONLY works if you are bringing in a gene pool where the issue you want to fix is unknown. That's not always easy to tell. Hybrid vigour has not assisted in the elimination of PRA, HD or a range of other issues in the popular Poodle crosses, despite a lot of suggesting that it would. I gather it has in some other breed outcrosses but it was done VERY carefully and only after careful research. Now your just baiting and have closed your eyes to whats actually going on in the KC world. Just go out and get health insurance quotes for your breed and then a cross of your breed. Purebred dogs will ALWAYS cost more to insure becasue there is more risk of the insurance company having to payout. It's how insurance works Has nothing to do with the orginal cost of the dogs (especially since designer X's can cost more these days.) When a Purebred dog costs less to insure than a mongeral we will have achieved the aims of what pedigree dog breeding is all about. Breeding BETTER dogs.

Vive la difference! I have no issue with what working Whippet people wish to do or breed. They can thank their lucky stars if they've chosen not to outcross to BCs for "vigour and traits" like some have - a whole new little selection of health issues unknown in those irrelevant pedigree dogs. So much for "hybrid vigour"., My head will remain firmly in KC land because that is what I choose to breed and own. I'm interested in soundness, type and pedigree. Why pedigree? Because ancestry is the best indicator of the tr i"m traits I'm looking for. Perhaps you should famiiarise yourself a little with the rules of this forum and tone down the patronising posts. You clearly hold your views strongly. That's fine but its not carte blanche to rubbish those of others. I'm not rubbishing ANYONE, I'm just pointing out that most breeds came from working foundations, and diverged from there when showing came along. Hybrid vigour is a "real" biological phenomia and back up by science. I'm just asking people to think outside the box. I'm happy to have my views changed if you can back it up with well researched scientific fact. I love purebreds and I'm looking forward to Dogs VIC and the ANKC bringing in its Appendix register as it will be great to start some outcrossing to help fix the health probelms in the breeds I love. Your also ignoring what KC clubs overseas are realising, that for breeds to be sustainable outcrossing needs to become a regular tool in a breeders tool box, not a last ditch effort to save a breed.

I dont think you understand that the standard is a show dog thing. Many of the LSG people who "work" and use their dogs have no qualms about non standard colours if the dog is protecting their flock. In fact Kangal and Kutchi are reguarly outcrossed to Tazi(sighthounds) for hybrid vigour. You can see this in country of orgin type central Asian Shepherds and some of the Russian shepherds. If you have been to central Asia you will often see the products of a cross and they are extremely common. The back cross of an LSG x tazi x tazi (F2) is highly valued for its boldness in hunting wolves. The Aloof temprement of Tazi lends itself well to the mix in LSG and many Tazi are also used as guard dogs and not just hunters. Your also misunderstanding what prey drive is. Any dog who works has had their prey drive modified to herd, guard or hunt. Either way they have prey drive. Its why F1 lurchers of LSG, herding, sighthound types are so desired and work so well no matter which way you back cross the dogs into the orginal gene pools.

I couldn't agree more. Its ALL political. Most standards were written by bored Victorian house wives with too much time on their hands. There are also some very weird myths on colour with no scientific backing in working circles. White greyhounds don't have the heart to chase, Border collies need a black roof on their mouth to be good workers. Just old wives tales. To be honest most colours are political or old wives tale beliefs. Working people didn't write the standards show people did! Working breeders have dogs that make show people go oh thats not a border collie its a cross. (nope is working standard). Also with the outcross projects for the Irish wolf hound, griffon, Finnish Laphund and Irish red and white setter, purebred in the KC sense is changing. Victorians created the dog show as display of conspicious consuption and wealth. Getting a dog breed standardised and excepted into the KC bought you fame and sometimes fortune. It also was a form of eltism and eugenics saying my dog has better breeding than yours.There are more dog breeds that exist outside the Kennel clubs than in them and standardising any breed as far as I can see leads to the downfall of its functionality when its based on looks alone. As to impurity working terriers were regularly outcrossed to certain breeds and some believed in the superiority of certain crosses over that of others when working in the backcross (lurcher people still have heated arguments over this). I'm sure that when they wrote the standard someone wanted to make sure someone elses lines couldnt be included in the "new" breed. SOME colours are indications that the dog is not purebred. I think you'll find the keeping of pedigrees and the idea of purebreds predates those "bored Victorian housewifes". It was men who wrote most standards and the idea of of keeping pedigrees and not breeding outside them predates the origins of dog showing by hundreds of years. Show me a black and tan or a liver "Whippet" and I'll show you a crossbred dog. Does that matter? YES. What is introduced along with that colour may be temperament and behavioural qualities incompatible with the breed's purpose. Espinay wrote a good post about this. The Whippet breed standard does says "colour immaterial" because colour has no bearing on function. However, some colours are still excluded for the reason I state above. Should teh colour occur in a pup of verifiable pedigree, that will have to be thought about quite carefully. The working whippiters version of purebred and yours are VERY different. I know working whippet people and "purity" has nothing to do with a good purebred whippet. In fact purebreed means breeds ture, even if the dogs Great grandfather was a Kelpie. I also know a few good working whippets with some kelpie in their background (working people love to outcross to get hybrid vigour and traits they think are uselful). So NO it doesnt matter unless your showing. I have NEVER heard a working whippet person question a dogs whippetness over colour. You have to get your head out of KC land as the working world has no need for the KC and its ideas on purity. In working land colour and "purity" are irrelevent. Also with all the out cross projects for the Irish wolfhound, Irish red and White setter, Finish Lapphunds, Chinooks as well Griffons going on in the Nordic countries and UK, your going to have to change your ideas on pure bred. Kennel clubs OS are realising that dogs cant exist in a closed gene pool and are accepting Country of origin populations into their studbooks as well. The sciencie is catching up with dog breeding. Also when working people keep a pedigree (like Working kelpie council) its the work side of the animal they are interested in, not its "purity". The koolie club accepts 1/2 and 3/4 bred in its studbook just like the dairy and cattle studbooks do. The working ability of the animal is what is of importance and what the pedigree are kept for not its "purity".

I couldn't agree more. Its ALL political. Most standards were written by bored Victorian house wives with too much time on their hands. There are also some very weird myths on colour with no scientific backing in working circles. White greyhounds don't have the heart to chase, Border collies need a black roof on their mouth to be good workers. Just old wives tales. To be honest most colours are political or old wives tale beliefs. Working people didn't write the standards show people did! Working breeders have dogs that make show people go oh thats not a border collie its a cross. (nope is working standard). Victorians created the dog show as display of conspicious consuption and wealth. Getting a dog breed standardised and excepted into the KC bought you fame and sometimes fortune. It also was a form of eltism and eugenics saying my dog has better breeding than yours.There are more dog breeds that exist outside the Kennel clubs than in them and standardising any breed as far as I can see leads to the downfall of its functionality when its based on looks alone. As to impurity working terriers were (and still are) regularly outcrossed to certain breeds and some believed in the superiority of certain crosses over that of others when working in the backcross (lurcher people still have heated arguments over this). I'm sure that when they wrote the standard someone wanted to make sure someone elses lines couldnt be included in the "new" breed.