miss whippy

What modern educational thinking starts with the premise of the educator rubbishing a practitioners prior efforts based on minminal knowledge of practices and no practical experience in the subject? I didn't at any stage rubbish your efforts. Practical experience in dog breeding is not required to understand population genetics. And I will not argue that an understanding (even basic) of genetics isn't useful for a breeder. But it's not enough and I argue that "genetic diversity" is NOT the holy grail that should take precedence over all other breeding goals. You can breed very poor dogs that have very low COIs. At some point you have to evaluate and select breeding stock based on their soundness, type and temperament. Enter the use of breed standards. Perhaps we must simply agree to disagree. I agree with that. I think we've both had a pretty reasonable attempt at swaying the others opinion, so it's no good going over and over it, so yes, agree to disagree. :)

What modern educational thinking starts with the premise of the educator rubbishing a practitioners prior efforts based on minminal knowledge of practices and no practical experience in the subject? I didn't at any stage rubbish your efforts. Practical experience in dog breeding is not required to understand population genetics.

i think in a lot of cases, i dont want to know it would be too depressing Thanks for the vote of confidence. haha, no probs. When you look at how exaggerated and deformed some breeds have become in 100 years, coupled with the a common thread among the fancy of reluctance or refusal to see that there is anything wrong, it doesn't instil a lot of confidence Well despite my apparent lack of qualificatiion (in your eyes) to breed, I am trying to take my breed forward. My bad. Armchair criticism of my efforts must be borne because I have no choice. I am committed enough to wear it but I don't have to enjoy the opinions of people who think they know better. So be it. It's never been personal criticism. I just wanted to see if I could open your eyes to some new ideas seeing you were showing such a staunch support of the status quo. I certainly don't hate or feel any malice toward you anyone who does what they think is right, especially when they are convinced that it is the best for the breed. Because we don't share the same opinion on certain matters, I will continue to voice mine in the interests of a level and balanced debate and exchange of knowledge, but certainly don't take it personally. I may have addressed you particularly often, but only because you continued the offer debate. I don't hate purebred dog breeders, I don't disagree with the theoretical ideals of pedigree dogs and standards and even dog shows, I just think the reality is somewhat different from that ideal and I feel some education on some more modern thinking could help come closer to it. But you can't win them all.

i think in a lot of cases, i dont want to know it would be too depressing Thanks for the vote of confidence. haha, no probs. When you look at how exaggerated and deformed some breeds have become in 100 years, coupled with the a common thread among the fancy of reluctance or refusal to see that there is anything wrong, it doesn't instil a lot of confidence

i think in a lot of cases, i dont want to know it would be too depressing

very sensible comments :)

interesting point, DC. Would that also cover 'fashions' or 'trends' that are favoured ... but nothing to do with the standard? Even in my breed of interest where all colours & mixes are accepted in the standard, I was once told that 'chocolate' colour fell out of being 'favoured'. I'm no expert so don't know the detail (nor if it's in the past). But the remark made me wonder about the issue generally. I can only speak for my own breed but an example of what I mean would be the coat length in a BC. The "typical look" for a BC is quite heavy coated but the standard only specifies that they are rough-coat. Ours are not smooth coats, they are genetically rough-coats but do not even come close to the coat of a show dog. In a working sense however, you would run a mile from the show coat as it is too long and heavy to be practical. It would collect burrs and grass seeds and would weigh down easily in heavy rain. It also requires regular grooming to prevent matts etc. Our dogs are lucky to get a brush once a year and a bath every 5 years. Both types fit the standard as it was written, but only one would be able to achieve success in the show ring. That is because over time one "look" has evolved for the show ring, for whatever reason. Perhaps it looks flashier? I'm not entirely sure. Or perhaps a heavy coated dog did really well at one point, was bred often and produced more heavy coats. People got used to seeing them do well and the "heavy coat" got paired with that and people started to prefer that look. Does that make sense? I believe that BCs also have certain colours that do better than others and I know symmetrical markings are preferred but I really don't know enough about it to comment too much sorry. you make sense, but the situation doesn't really. :)

Of course it is. That's the entire point of any purebred system regardless of species. Arent' you selecting for certain traits, and have no way of predicting which vital bits you can't see will fall by the wayside when you crossbreed? Won't you be backcrossing and limiting genetic diversity when you've done it? Bite strength, bite inhibition. degree of reactivity, guarding levels, prey drive, pack drive, human aggression, dog aggression, other temperment features. The whole point of a restricting a gene pool is increase the incidence of desireable traits in offspring and decrease the incidence of undesireable ones. Its not just about looks. So we outcross - and open up a whole new range of possible outcomes. Without a shadow of a doubt some of the most potentially dangerous dogs I have seen were Mareema/Golden Retriever crosses. A random mix of bite strength, bite inhibition, protectiveness and territorial aggression. But if genetic diversity was the desired outcome, they got that in spades. Seriously, have you thought this stuff through or are you repeating a line of thought you've read somewhere. Popular sire syndrome and tight inbreeding are problems created by breeders, not breeds. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps you need to meet more breeders because clearly the ones you're basing this stuff on don't seem to be up to snuff. As I said, people are free to outcross to their hearts content to fix what they perceive to be problems with pedigree dogs. However, don't expect the very system being rejected by such breeding to welcome the product of that breeding with open arms. Just out of interest, what will your next pup be a cross of? Im not suggesting cross-breeding. I am suggesting outcrossing.. However, that is semantics. Selective breeding is always going to reduce the diversity within the genepool, yes so of course once you go back to that after doing an outcross, you are going to lose some of the genes. Some of it is predictable, some isnt. That is the nature of genetics when you are not genetically engineering from scratch. What you are doing is replacing some of the diversity lost through closed genepool selective breeding. The premise of pure breeding is as you say, 'increase the incidence of desireable traits in offspring and decrease the incidence of undesireable ones' If only it were that simple. You cannot predict what your are selecting for or against that you cant see or test for. You are always going to be inadvertently fixing or increasing some genes that lurk in the background. You cant avoid it within that model of breeding. I also dont suggest you use a completely incompatible breed for your outcrossing either, so yes a maremma/golden cross is just a dumb idea.. I have definitely thought this stuff through, and so have the geneticists and biologists that test and research it. Breeds are nothing if not for the breeders. The decisions made by breeders shape the breed and it's future. The breeders I am basing this stuff on, most of them just don't understand the genetics of what they do. What many 'dog people' fail to realise is that it is not an untested new concept. Breeders of cattle and most livestock, horses, even cats use the principle. It works. And it is already being used in dogs in threatened breeds, to redress the loss of alleles that have been lost in some breeds and some countries where they have forward-thinking kennel clubs. It is not a 'rejection' of the system. It is simply realising that the system was flawed and suggesting a remedy. It's a tweak, an adjustment. It does not threaten the very life and heart of pedigreed dog breeding.

absolutely.hence there are some dogs that fit the standard, yet are likely unable to do the job they were meant to.hence the standard is not enough to 'preserve' the working side of a dog breed without the test of work. It's illegal to course live game in every state of Australia. What "test" shall sighthounds be put to? I'm not suggesting that there is necessarily a test for every breed that is still available or practical. The nearest thing for sighthounds sport-wise is Lure coursing. And i'm prett sure you're still allowed to hunt rabbits with them. But my point is that the standard is only a loose container. It doesnt describe in intricate detail with measurable, quantifiable parameters the nature and construction of the breed. It is still open to quite some interpretation and does not 'preserve' the essence of the breed in it's entirety. interesting point, DC. Would that also cover 'fashions' or 'trends' that are favoured ... but nothing to do with the standard? Even in my breed of interest where all colours & mixes are accepted in the standard, I was once told that 'chocolate' colour fell out of being 'favoured'. I'm no expert so don't know the detail (nor if it's in the past). But the remark made me wonder about the issue generally. Yes, trends, fashions, different styles between kennels and lines. They all fit within the standard.. But are they all correct? And are they all bettering the breed? What is being lost along the way in preferring certain colours or styles?

I am quite aware of how different purebred dog breeding is from the ideal of natural selection and randomised breeding. It is a very different animal. If you think that closing a genepool and consistently artificially select for various traits with no new blood for generation after generation and using only a small percentage of the population to further their genes each time is a better way than mother nature figured out, maybe you need to have another look at population genetics. I understand what you do works, and it has for many breeders for lots of years, and if breeders these days were as committed to their own 'lines' as you are it's possible that these sub-populations would hold enough diversity from one to another to be able to 'outcross' to when problems arise and you need a bit more vigour in your line. But with the age of frozen semen, hobby breeders and the internet, 'lines' are not what they used to be. Popular sires have spread their genes far and wide and some breeds have gone through such severe bottlenecks that the entire population is as related as half siblings. Purebreeding as we know it in dogs is a closed system. You cannot get back what you have lost, and there is no way of predicting which vital bits that you cant see when you select for or against certain traits are dragged along behind the scenes and just start going missing, or popping up 'unexpectedly' The closer the genepool is when you need to go 'fix' some problem, the less likelihood you have of still having enough diversity there to be able to avoid it.. I agree with you on the colour exclusion, and the limited register. You either need to be able to register non-standard colours on the main, for breeding and genetic diversity reasons, or be able to use limited register dogs for breeding. Whatever works. Colour is really the only thing in the standard that prevents you putting on the main register. You dont have to say if your dog has prick ears when they should be rose, or it has cat feet when they should be hare, or it's tail carriage is high when it should be low, or it's over height.. but heaven forbid you breed the wrong colour!

absolutely. hence there are some dogs that fit the standard, yet are likely unable to do the job they were meant to. hence the standard is not enough to 'preserve' the working side of a dog breed without the test of work.

:)

So what's your proposal for Whippets? And what will outcrossing fix? Genetic diversity. The idea is not necessarily to 'fix' something that is broken, but to prevent something from becoming broken. Well thanks all the same but if you can achieve a COI of less than 1% with a mating within a breed, I'm not sure what outcrossing for the sake of it brings to the party. Lets just agree to disagree on that. how many generations did you calculate that on? Yes, it is entirely possible to find fairly unrelated dogs still in the whippet breed. This is probably why they are still reasonably healthy. I commend you for your consideration of the low inbreeding coefficient of your litter as a priority. But it will get harder. Especially with some of your peers repeatedly perpetuating the heavy line-breeding and the use of popular sires. It is just a matter of time. I agree to disagree, I'll leave you alone :)

So what's your proposal for Whippets? And what will outcrossing fix? Genetic diversity. The idea is not necessarily to 'fix' something that is broken, but to prevent something from becoming broken. There are issues which are becoming problematic in the breed, they are already there, and there are other genes still there to be able to breed away from them. However doing so requires full disclosure on health and diseases, and a database of such, as well as an adjustment to the popularly held beliefs on inbreeding, linebreeding and popular sires. In whippets it may still be possible to avoid for some time the negative effects of increased inbreeding without going outside the breed. There will come a time in all purebred breeds where the only place to turn is to introduce new blood from outside the breed to fix a problem, one which cannot be fixed from within, and by that time there are probably many problems and the breed is in a dire state, as many rarer breeds or breeds that have gone through a bottleneck are at this point. Why wait until it's so hard, why not get in before things fall apart? But as I said above, any sort of mending or prevention must involve a re-evalutation of the way we breed purebred dogs, and the way we share information about them. At the moment it is all about competition, it needs to become about collaboration.

also what I don't get is the need for people to see standards as rules and that by learning new things and maybe taking them into account by suggesting changing them is 'breaking the rules'.

If the cap doesn't fit, then by all means don't wear it but you were sharing space with a person who thinks that outcrossing is the solution to most issues associated with pedigree dogs. In the world of sighthounds, its a view that gets a fair work out in some circles. Oh dont get me wrong, I believe that outcrossing is a very useful tool that should be considered by all kennel clubs in all breeds to promote the health of pedigreed dogs. I dont have a problem with pedigrees, nor do I think that the standards are the cause of the problems in the breeds.

Surely it not be such a 'challenge' to breed dogs that are fit for purpose and fits the standard.. isnt this what the standard was written for? I wasnt suggesting that breeding to the standard is lazy, much less that breeding a functional dog within the standard is lazy. I said that to rely on 'because it is in the standard' as a reason to continue to do something without question was. If anyone feels that I have bullied them, I apologise now, wholeheartedly. It is never my intent do so. I simply aim to challenge the engrained thinking and encourage people to question the reasons for their beliefs.

Nope, never said that. l said that they should be adhered to unless the "why" of a change can be answered. I said you didn't get to pick and choose what parts of the standard mattered. I also said that standards could be changed. But with a process, not on the gut instinct of people who have a view that pedigree dogs are somehow flawed and that breed standards are the cause of it. the why has been stated, that it could improve the genetic diversity/health of a breed. The why the colour is not there, may never be answered in some instances, but in each case it is only being proposed if it is believed not to be detrimental to health. You get to question the logic in any part of the standard. If we did not question, we would still think the world was flat. Who was suggesting that due process would not be followed in order to effect said changes? I hope the other people who felt reason to question the sense of excluding colours which dont make genetic sense in a breed are not offended by being tarred with the brush of 'people who have a view that pedigree dogs are somehow flawed and that breed standards are the cause of it' I don't think that at all.

In the case of Whippets, rethought by whom? The Americans? The originators of the breed didn't have an issue with eyes matching coat colour and, so far as I know, no such thought crossed their minds. They have only to look at the eyes of raptors and some other predatory mammals to refute any such thought. I was using that as an example of a standard that excludes a colour for no good reason.. one that you are familiar with and can contextualise.. extend that to whatever other standard has a similar issue of excluding a colour for no good reason. Which is why we are on this thread.. Isn't that a reason to ask why not add a colour back in if it is in the breed? The premise of the whole thread. The thing you have been suggesting should not happen, that standards be questioned, because people should accept the standard, as it was the intention of the original creators. Or is the american whippet standard an exception in your eyes because it is not the original? I'm trying to get to the crux of your argument. Your comments seem to be conflicting, so I am trying to figure out where you actually stand. It seems as though you feel it may be okay if its well thought out and researched and all the why's have been considered and someone else more knowledgeable has instigated the questioning, but at the same time seems you are just fundamentally opposed to any deviation from the standards as written.

My avatar is a perfect example of dilute with dark eye and skin pigment. She is the creamiest of pale blue-fawn, but her eyes are as dark as any, and nose leather was indistinguishable from black when she was young. All UK lines. It's not impossible or really rare to have the combination, but why fault those that dont? There's no purpose to it, if the why of it was originally that they thought that light eyes affected eye sight, then since that has been debunked why hold onto it? And why not question it, and ask why it should not be re-thought..

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. What created most standards were people who were passionate about their particular breed. People that spent a lot of time working out the ideal breed type for their particular breed. No they probably weren't geneticists, but I bet they knew a hell of lot about how their dogs worked and what traits they wanted in their particular breed. Remember that most breed standards are over 100 years old and were developed in a very different world from what exists today. The dogs that the standards were/are based on had to work as well as show. Shows were meant to show off excellent breeding stock. That breeding stock needed to be able to produce dogs that were able to do what they were bred for. Sighthounds were used to hunt, terriers were used for ratting etc, gun dogs used for retrieving, pointing game, and working dogs actually worked. No they weren't geneticists but I bet they knew a hell of a lot about correct movement and health as for these people their reputations, their livilihoods, their passion all depended on knowing what was a good dog. If you want to through away the standard go for it, but don't come back crying to those of us who have stuck with it that your dogs don't look like X and can't do Y anymore. Because ultimately what you will end up with is just another cross bred with a fancy name. I dont think anyone is suggesting throwing away the standard, and outcrossing does not preclude the use of a standard. The point you make very well, is that the world is different from what it was back then, we dont have the functional test of work for many of the breeds we still have today, and to be honest, many of the show bred dogs would have serious trouble doing what they were originally meant for. The standards are not enough to retain this side of the dog. The show ring has no way of testing these qualities. Not only that, but the language in any of the standards I have read is so open to interpretation, it is impossible to quantify most of it. 'Moderate' or 'long' are seen differently in the eyes of todays exhibitors to those of the original creators, due to the comparative nature of the terms. It is all relative to what you see, and if you look back at what the whippet looked like 100 years ago, and compare that to that of today, you can see very clearly how interpretation has changed.

I'd be arguing that as colour has no impact on breed function, that the standard should stay as it is or return to it. I'll also chain myself to the doors of the ANKC if they want to raise the height standard here. But the whole point is that it there a process for changing standards and my individual opinion isn't the key issue. However as the owner of dilute Whippets, I think the American emphasis on dark eyes is short sighted. Do you only see it as relevant if it was in the 'original' standard?

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. I think you'll find that the notion of pure-breed as we know today didn't though.

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. I was just trying to get you to tell me what you thought about it, as you were happy to suggest that the why should always be considered before a change to another standard, but didnt seem to want to comment on the american whippet, and maybe question your adherence to 'stick to the standard unless it is changed'. Who makes necessary changes if everyone is faithfully sticking to the standard? What I was trying to weed out was if the breed standard was here as it is in the US, would you see reason for changing it to say coincide with the UK one? Or would you still be saying 'do what the standard says' until someone (else) changes it?

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.