sandgrubber

What a feeding frenzy!!!!

I find stuff like this quite incendiary. "gene which caused dysfunction" What dysfunction? "is a net-increase in disease, infertility, and disorder in the breed". And the diseases are? What exactly is "disorder"? Infertility? I seem to see breedings of bobtails with large viable litters. I think the boxers are fortunate to have someone like Dr Cattenach to introduce the gene. Not everyone wants bobtails, but it does mean that those who want a boxer, but not a longtail, can still have one. I personally think this is a positive in a hobby where ownership is decreasing, breeding is decreasing, and showing is decreasing Animal Rights doesn't have to do anything to sink the hobby, fanciers are doing it themselves while they tear everything down - simply because they can. I find statements like this incindiary . . . maintaining standards and being cautionary about deliberately altering a breed's gene pool is not tearing things down (SG) I find Cattenack's work fascinating and I'm not against outcrossing, carefully done, for good reason. Voluntarily introducing a lethal gene is playing with fire, and I think Cattenack soft-peddles that aspect of his otherwise quite-respectable work. I would call anything that causes one in four pups to die in the womb or soon after birth a dysfunction. I think 'lethal dysfunction' is the correct technical term. Technically, 'reduced fertility' is more correct than 'infertility', but that is a semantic distinction . . . and I think you'd find that population biology uses these words differently than reproductive biology. If a bitch was going to have 12 pups and ends out having only nine, the litter is still large and the reduction in surviving offspring may be a godsend, but it's still a dysfunction. The word 'disease' shouldn't be in there. But hell, we all make mistakes with words. . . . you opened your post saying you said 'a' when you meant 'b'. Not everyone wants bobtails, but some breeders seem to be setting themselves up as superior because they offer the new 'bobtail' variety. I would prefer to see outcrossing reserved for health reasons. Accepting it for cosmetic reasons could lead to purebred 'designer' movements that will further fragment the dog world. What if someone found a way to produce, say, an apricot Labrador, at the cost of introducing a lethal semi-dominant gene? I don't think they would be well received. With boxers, the problem is social: it's either non-acceptance of natural tails among breed fanciers, or increasing social intolerance of tail docking. It is not some genetic defect in the breed. I don't much like manipulating genes to try to get around social problems. In the Crestie, a lethal semi-dominant gene with major cosmetic ramifications came into bloodlines long ago. I'd love to hear some Crestie breeders join in the conversation. But I'd bet that most of them wish they didn't have to cope with the presence of a lethal semi-dominant gene. If lethal semi-dominants are ok, what about sub-lethal semi-dominants? Do we want to start introducing the merle gene into new breeds, so more breeders can have the joy of working around the 'double merle' problem?

If one sees the CC's primary role as one of keeping records, I'd say this is a good step. . . . gentle coercion to get breeders to do more to keep records. Don't know if that's what it is . . . just a guess. As someone who finds record keeping tedious, and who hates filing cabinets, I wish they'd move into the digital age and move all this stuff onto a good, transparent database with a user-friendly interface.

<br><br>I find stuff like this quite incendiary. <br><br><b>"gene which caused dysfunction"</b> What dysfunction?<br><br>"<b>is a net-increase in disease, infertility, and disorder in the breed"</b>. And the diseases are? What exactly is "disorder"? Infertility? I seem to see breedings of bobtails with large viable litters.<br><br>I think the boxers are fortunate to have someone like Dr Cattenach to introduce the gene. <br>Not everyone wants bobtails, but it does mean that those who want a boxer, but not a longtail, can still have one. I personally think this is a positive in a hobby where ownership is decreasing, breeding is decreasing, and showing is decreasing<br> <br><br>Animal Rights doesn't have to do anything to sink the hobby, fanciers are doing it themselves while they tear everything down - simply because they can.<br><br>bloody software!!!!! Does anyone else have this happen to them? How do you avoid it. Trying again, next post.

If only someone could design a such a scam so that it only catches people who shouldn't own a dog anyway :D.

Hey come on guys. We've all heard this 'some breeds more aggressive than others' discussion up the yin yang. Only individual dogs are aggressive. A breed is a category, an abstraction. It can do nothing, it can't be trained, it can't be owned. Anyone who denies that there is a stronger tendency for aggression in some breeds than others is an idiot. But so is anyone who thinks all members of a breed are true to the reputation of their breed is just as stupid. And anyone who denies that behaviour is influenced by training and upbringing has closed eyes and a closed mind.

How about a nice long walk at the beach!

Phone the cattery. As I know from having run a kennel/cattery, such decisions are complicated, and each operator has to set their rules according to the best information they can find and stick by them. It's always safer for the cattery to say 'no' than 'yes', from a liability perspective. From a customer perspective, it's always safer to do a little more than required than try and skimp by with the minimum. If you are in a pinch and your vet will stick up for you, some operators will accept a note from the vet. Mostly they need to have their backside covered.

The board sounds like a good, cheap, and efficient solution. Good luck.

The OP was like it? hate it? Surprise. Some people liked it, others didn't. I don't see why people who liked it need to put down people who didn't. Tastes differ.

Thanks Jed, that's really interesting. It would be great if somebody with the time, the inclination and the resources was prepared to come up with some properly researched results on this issue, although as Cattanach says "it's a daunting task"! Sylvia It would also be good if people check sources before dismissing them. Retrieverman (not Terrierman, whom Retrieverman often derides for lack of veracity) was the source. Retrieverman's Blog post follows a well referenced article by Christopher Landauer (Border Wars) which contrasts the outcrossing of Dalmatians for health reasons to the outcrossing of boxers, for cosmetic reasons. see http://www.astraean....-to-sit-on.html . Landauer concludes: " I think it's advisable to retire Dr. Cattanach as a spokesman for the moral implications and justifications for outcross breeding. It must be noted that despite claiming that he persevered criticism of his program to one day help others who would outcross for health reasons, his Steynmere Boxer x Corgi program is exactly the opposite of this ideal. He purposely inserted a gene which causes dysfunction into a breed which did not have this gene and he did so for the explicit purpose of evading a ban on manual tail docking. This is a net-increase in disease, infertility, and disorder in the breed and I don't think this action squares ethically." The negative outcome he describes (source cited below) is that, in contradiction to Cattanach's claims, not all homozygous pups are born dead. Some result in nonviable live births. This is not the (generally proven false) claim of viable offspring with spinal defects. I guess being born without an anus is no more horrid than a severe cleft palete, which we know happens once in awhile. As stated, the information on litter size reduction is contradictory, and more research is required: However, as would be expected if homozygous foetuses were rejected, roughly 25% littersize reduction has been found for both Swedish Vallhund and Australian shephards. Boxerunderground and Cattanach are on one side of a debate . . . you will find as many people attacking Cattanach as defending him. True, some of the attacks are unsubstantiated. But it would be unfortunate if people undertook outcrossing in Rottis or Dobes (or other breeds) without understanding that they risk decreased litter size and increased numbers of pups who must be pts. An analogous situation occurs in the Chinese crested. Homozygous for hairlessness in this breed is lethal. Breeders must always accept the fact that, on average, a third of the viable pups they produce will be coated. See, eg., http://www.ragglerock.ca/breeding.asp. p.s. I posted the primary source, Cattanach (posted at http://www.steynmere.com/GENETICS.html) in the General Forum under Studies about Dogs. Cattanach's work is fascinating, but I think breeders need to know the pros and cons before they seriously consider outcrossing to change a cosmetic trait. It should be noted that Steynmere and Boxerunderground are breeders, justifying the fact that they have taken a controversial stand in their breeding program. reference for live deformed births in NBT's: Indrebø A, Langeland M, Juul HM, Skogmo HK, Rengmark AH, Lingaas F. A study of inherited short tail and taillessness in Pembroke Welsh corgi. J Small Anim Pract. 2008 May;49(5):220-4.

Some organic vintners use flame torches. Some councils use them to weed sidewalks. They work, but it's laborious if you have a large area.

I don't think there's a single answer to this question. Morally, we should hold ourselves to the same standard as we hold others. If I expect a breeder to compensate me for a genetic defect for which mode of inheritance is unknown, and which was unexpected given the pedigree, then I must in turn be ready to compensate those to whom I sell pups who turn out to have similar defects. At least that's how I understand right and wrong.

Please give references. I'm active in a vineyard discussion forum where we've thrashed this one over quite a bit. see, eg http://www.winepress...__fromsearch__1 Keeping the area under the vines -- or other agricultural areas -- weed free is expensive, and glyphosates are widely used. Glyphosate is the most widely used agricultural chemical in the world, by a wide margin. There are some concerns about weeds developing resistance in row crops, but little confirmed evidence that it is harmful to higher animals. There are a few people mounting lonely campaigns against glyphosate, but very few people are buying the argument. I haven't heard that the stuff has been banned by any country. (Btw, RoundUp is Monsanto's glyphosate product. They sold it on patent for many decades. It went off-patent some years ago, and there are now many generic versions available. In commercial agriculture, people tend to buy a generic and add surfactants / ajudivants as appropriate to the application). Some versions of RoundUp contain ingredients other than glyphosate which are lethal to amphibians . . . here's the first clip I could find using Google. It came from a gardening forum. But the final advice is critical. READ THE LABEL. http://forums.garden...2580527444.html Previous research had found that the ingredient lethal to amphibians in Roundup was not the herbicide itself, glyphosate, but rather the surfactant, or detergent, that allows the herbicide to penetrate the waxy surfaces of plants. In Roundup, that surfactant is a chemical called polyehtoxylated tallowamine. The problem really comes from improper application and/or choice of products for the given area. Roundup is not a labeled product for use over water or in wetland areas because of one of the ingredients in it (not the Glyphosate) is damaging to aquatic life. Rodeo is the Glyphosate product labeled for use over water. Many people misuse herbicides without reading the label. In a limited way, Roundup could be safely applied in areas known to contain amphibians if it were applied with either a brush or wick applicator. A mist application is typically the real culprit. Once again … READ THE LABEL. Improper use typically yields unintended consequences. Another, longer treatment can be found at: http://www.pan-uk.or...es/glyphosa.htm On further reading I find Denmark has banned glyphosate. But that's because it was breaking down less rapidly than predicted, and therefore accumulating in groundwater; not because it was proving toxic, carcinogenic or mutagenic. Denmark has some of the most intensive agriculture in the world, and almost everything accumulates in groundwater.

I agree, whilst it was funny, and it was entertaining - it didn't seem to address the real issues as to why desexing your dog is important. It did appear to just focus on the unattractiveness of the 'balls'. This angle has the potential to work - the amount of people who hang on to the words of celebrities because it's 'fashionable'. However the repercussions may indeed be that people stupidly thinking it's ok to 'chop off' any other perceivable 'ugly' part. Katherine Heigl cracks me up though. She's great a keeping a straight face throughout! I wonder how many takes it took to shoot this piece perfectly +1 Too many overtones of cartoon man-hating feminism for me. I doubt this did much other than tittilate. The propped up boobs over cutting off balls grossed me out.

If you don't often carry human passengers, you can make a great dog car by taking out the back seat of a hatchback. I gutted a 4-door Ford Festiva, including the passenger seat, and had a welder do up some cages. Worked great and I could easily and comfortably transport four or five dogs. I'm pretty incompetent backing up a trailer . . . and in WA markets it's cheaper to buy an old hatchback than a dog trailer. I also did the LPG Ford Falcon Wagon . . . another good solution.

From the Forum Rules We also ask that you refrain from unnecessary designer dog discussion. (ie discussion that has no real purpose other than to express dismay at the latest 'cross breed' you saw (or read about)). Sure, we all know they are out there, but we prefer to concentrate on discussing the pure bred dog (ANKC recognised breeds).

For the record, luxating patella is not autosomal, in the sense of autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive. As others have correctly pointed out, the mode of inheritance is unknown. It is likely to be polygenetic. I've been on the other side of this one. I sold a Labrador pup (as a pet) to someone. It eventually needed patella surgery. Although luxating patella is known in Labradors (I think OFA gives prevalence of 6%), it is not a commonly recognized problem in the breed and it is not something that Lab people commonly test for. The puppy owners were nice about it and I ended out paying half the vet costs. I didn't feel obliged, as it's unrealistic to expect I have had only one pup, in over 100, who had this problem. It can seemingly come out of nowhere, and there is nothing I could have done to prevent the problem. Thus, while I was free to take responsibility, I felt innocent of blame.

Sorry you got bitten . . . did you report it? Are you sure about breed id? Can you guess the mix of breeds in these dogs? Which are Labrador Retriever mixes? The Herald Sun article says the dog was thought to be a pit bull X . . . .not sure where you got Labrador. No the article says labrador K&P . . . my bad. I read wrong. The point holds. People mistake some mutts for Labradors, just as they mistake other mutts for APBT's. Rescue groups worsen the problem because Labs are probably the most adoptable of larger breeds, so they label many dogs as Lab-X who have no Lab in them. I breed Labs, and I scored worse on the 'spot the Labrador' test in link above [i got #3, #6, and #7 wrong]) than I've done on 'spot the pit bull' tests (which I usually do correctly).

Sorry you got bitten . . . did you report it? Are you sure about breed id? Can you guess the mix of breeds in these dogs? Which are Labrador Retriever mixes? The Herald Sun article says the dog was thought to be a pit bull X . . . .not sure where you got Labrador.

Glyphosate, sold under the brand name RoundUp, is as close to non-toxic as you can get. In testing it, they fed dogs as much as 500mg of the active ingredient/day and observed no ill effects. It is short lived in the environment, so you don't need to worry about buildup. I use the stuff in the vineyard . . . . as do most vintners . . . my dogs suffer no ill effects.

Ouch! Must have been terrifying. Poor people/dogs.

Having been a landlord who takes tenants with pets, I can understand why most landlords don't. Irresponsible tenants with pets can cause expensive damage and a lot of annoyance. The 'If your pets are looked after' is a big 'if'. Working pet owners who leave pets locked in and unattended when they work can be a problem. Chewing and scratching doors, hair in carpets, smells, barking and neighbours complaints, destroying the lawn/vegetation in the back yard . . . I have also had great tenants with pets. But the bad ones make you regret that you didn't put a 'no pets' clause in the rental agreement. References, unfortunately, can be cooked up and tenants from hell sometimes come up with great references.

My first Labrador was said to be typey and 'a good type', also show quality. She didn't like water and wouldn't fetch. Hence my cynicism about the word.

No overpopulation? There's no overpopulation of cute puppies. Seems like everybody wants a puppy. Babies have them on their PJ's, in their story books, and on their television shows. Its like society tells kids, from six months onward, that they have the right to have a puppy. Lots of adults who could turn down a grown dog get all soft when it comes to a puppy. But a lot of people lack the time and resources to raise a puppy properly. So when the cuteness wears off, and all too often, when the dog starts barking too much, escaping, annoying people, digging holes, fighting with other dogs . . . or the kids get tired of picking up dog pooh, even though they promised they would, and they take the dog to a round of training classes, but it doesn't fix the problem. Somehow drifts to another home, and eventually ends up in a pound. Some people are willing to look at adopting a pound dog instead of getting a puppy . . . but not enough to make the books balance. btw, The cost of subsidizing a spey or neuter is more or less the same as the cost of euthanising and cremating a dog. Scandinavians don't often neuter their dogs. But I'd guess fewer than 1 in 10 dogs in Scandanavia is allowed to reproduce.