If It Looks Like Duck

[WreckitWhippet]

Besides the " relevant " breed health checks, the rest will be entirely unknown.

To enable me to understand this a little better, what potential issues with judges approval and DNA profiling do you see?

I'll use the SBT's for example and some things you could potentially introduce into your lines.

Short toes

Poor temperaments and this is a biggie

Oversized

A line that has a weak immune system and are predisposed to allergy, food intolerance, demodex

Cancer

Straight stifle and patella issue

Short tails, screw tails

Undershot, overshot and inverted mouths ( it's a hard breed even when you are dealing with the known )

HD & ED

The dog that is profiled and assessed, can really only be tested for L2-HGA HC, hip scored and eye tested and these paint only a very small picture. Good breeding comes not from slapping two dogs together and hoping for the best or from buckling under pressure.. The more research you do and the more you know about the health issues and what certain dogs and bitches have produced, the more informed decision you can make.

If I had a quality bitch, line bred for generations, there is no way I'd use an unknown dog in the name of introducing " genetic diversity", in order to satisfy and make it acceptable to "society" and " Government".

[poodlefan]

RSG, I'd be hoping like hell that any dog with a disqualifying breed fault and a dodgy bill of health wouldn't get the nod.

The devil in this proposal, will no doubt be in the detail.

[WreckitWhippet]

RSG, I'd be hoping like hell that any dog with a disqualifying breed fault and a dodgy bill of health wouldn't get the nod.

The devil in this proposal, will no doubt be in the detail.

The point is, it could look like a nice dog and pass the three available tests. It's not the dog in front of you, it's what's behind it that really counts. Type, temperament, structure and soundness

[poodlefan]

RSG, I'd be hoping like hell that any dog with a disqualifying breed fault and a dodgy bill of health wouldn't get the nod.

The devil in this proposal, will no doubt be in the detail.

The point is, it could look like a nice dog and pass the three available tests. It's not the dog in front of you, it's what's behind it that really counts. Type, temperament, structure and soundness

In some cases (perhaps not SBTs) those will be knowns, even if the dog isn't registered with the controlling body.

[BJean]

Besides the " relevant " breed health checks, the rest will be entirely unknown.

To enable me to understand this a little better, what potential issues with judges approval and DNA profiling do you see?

I'll use the SBT's for example and some things you could potentially introduce into your lines.

Short toes

Poor temperaments and this is a biggie

Oversized

A line that has a weak immune system and are predisposed to allergy, food intolerance, demodex

Cancer

Straight stifle and patella issue

Short tails, screw tails

Undershot, overshot and inverted mouths ( it's a hard breed even when you are dealing with the known )

HD & ED

The dog that is profiled and assessed, can really only be tested for L2-HGA HC, hip scored and eye tested and these paint only a very small picture. Good breeding comes not from slapping two dogs together and hoping for the best or from buckling under pressure.. The more research you do and the more you know about the health issues and what certain dogs and bitches have produced, the more informed decision you can make.

If I had a quality bitch, line bred for generations, there is no way I'd use an unknown dog in the name of introducing " genetic diversity", in order to satisfy and make it acceptable to "society" and " Government".

But does the Staffy even need genetic diversity?

Would there even be grounds for opening the studbooks based on narrow gene pool?

[i have no idea on staffys ]

[BJean]

Besides the " relevant " breed health checks, the rest will be entirely unknown.

To enable me to understand this a little better, what potential issues with judges approval and DNA profiling do you see?

I'll use the SBT's for example and some things you could potentially introduce into your lines.

Short toes

Poor temperaments and this is a biggie

Oversized

A line that has a weak immune system and are predisposed to allergy, food intolerance, demodex

Cancer

Straight stifle and patella issue

Short tails, screw tails

Undershot, overshot and inverted mouths ( it's a hard breed even when you are dealing with the known )

HD & ED

The dog that is profiled and assessed, can really only be tested for L2-HGA HC, hip scored and eye tested and these paint only a very small picture. Good breeding comes not from slapping two dogs together and hoping for the best or from buckling under pressure.. The more research you do and the more you know about the health issues and what certain dogs and bitches have produced, the more informed decision you can make.

If I had a quality bitch, line bred for generations, there is no way I'd use an unknown dog in the name of introducing " genetic diversity", in order to satisfy and make it acceptable to "society" and " Government".

In contrast With say Anatolians from Turkiye, if you select a good field dog from field parents and grand parents, chances are the dog does not carry significant health problems, because in a working situation the dogs have to survive on their own accord, and dogs with immune weakness simply don't live beyond the whelping or rearing process.

Conformation faults are still abound, but you can see these on the dogs you do select as adults.

Cancer is a bit of an unknown, though I do know some lines of dogs that are still robust and having puppies at 11yo.

[Dogs bred in breeding establishments in Turkiye are another thing altogether and imo are more risky health wise as they are selected on looks and populist ideals and dont have to pass Mother Nature's tests which generally test a dogs soundness and immune capability.]

And as PF pointed out they can get sound Basenji's from working lines in Africa.

With dogs that dont have a working base, or natural environment base (for lack of a better word), like the staffy

I agree with RSG that opening the stud books is very risky.

For example there is no way in Australia that I would welcome opening the stud books and allowing unregistered Kangals born in Australia onto the Australian ANKC register.

Edited April 20, 2011 by lilli

[shortstep]

But does the Staffy even need genetic diversity?

Would there even be grounds for opening the studbooks based on narrow gene pool?

[i have no idea on staffys ]

I believe the idea or thinking is,

That there is never a time when a closed stud book is 'good' for a breed.

There is never a time when limiting genetic diversity is in the best interests of a breed.

I do not think that anyone is going to imply that opening the stud books by it's self is all that is needed to change breeding habits of the last century, nor will it change many breeders habits.

But it is a very big step towards saying, it is time for change.

Edited April 20, 2011 by shortstep

[BJean]

But does the Staffy even need genetic diversity?

Would there even be grounds for opening the studbooks based on narrow gene pool?

[i have no idea on staffys ]

I believe the idea or thinking is,

That there is never a time when a closed stud book in 'good' for a breed.

There is never a time when limiting genetic diversity is in the best interests of a breed.

I do not think that anyone is going to imply that opening the stud books by it's self is all that is needed to change breeding habits of the last century, nor will it change many breeders habits.

But it is a very big step towards saying, it is time for change.

But where does new stock come from?

imo new stock that is tempered by the same conditions as their registered counterparts

is more risky than a closed stud book.

Admittedly I'm blinded by my own bias and limited to what I know from my group of dogs,

eg: I see how the terrain / environment forces say dogs from kazakhstan to be healthier and more robust than the average dog in Australia - Kazakhstan volkodavs have to have strong immune systems, they have to free whelp, they have to fight their own infections or they simply die.

But what does an unregistered dog in Australia have over a registered dog?

[excluding working kelpies or dogs that rely on their physicality to pass on their genetic material

ie Kelpies, hunting dogs etc]

Registered dogs, you know their lineage and the health of that lineage - the good and the bad.

Edited April 20, 2011 by lilli

[Aidan3]

RSG, I'd be hoping like hell that any dog with a disqualifying breed fault and a dodgy bill of health wouldn't get the nod.

The devil in this proposal, will no doubt be in the detail.

The point is, it could look like a nice dog and pass the three available tests. It's not the dog in front of you, it's what's behind it that really counts. Type, temperament, structure and soundness

Thanks, that makes sense. Lilli's comments also make sense, interesting discussion.

[WreckitWhippet]

I'm not denying that there could be situations where the introduction of new blood could be useful, but who will decide if and when it's required ?

Call me a cynic but it won't be the breeders making the decisions, it will be made by outsiders, who have little if anything to do with breeding and will undoubtedly know very little about the breeds in question and what is best for them.

I can see COI will be the be all and end all.

[shortstep]

But does the Staffy even need genetic diversity?

Would there even be grounds for opening the studbooks based on narrow gene pool?

[i have no idea on staffys ]

I believe the idea or thinking is,

That there is never a time when a closed stud book in 'good' for a breed.

There is never a time when limiting genetic diversity is in the best interests of a breed.

I do not think that anyone is going to imply that opening the stud books by it's self is all that is needed to change breeding habits of the last century, nor will it change many breeders habits.

But it is a very big step towards saying, it is time for change.

But where does new stock come from?

imo new stock that is tempered by the same conditions as their registered counterparts

is more risky than a closed stud book.

Admittedly I'm blinded by my own bias and limited to what I know from my group of dogs,

eg: I see how the terrain / environment forces say dogs from kazakhstan to be healthier and more robust than the average dog in Australia - Kazakhstan volkodavs have to have strong immune systems, they have to free whelp, they have to fight their own infections or they simply die.

But what does an unregistered dog in Australia have over a registered dog?

[excluding working kelpies or dogs that rely on their physicality to pass on their genetic material

ie Kelpies, hunting dogs etc]

Registered dogs, you know their lineage and the health of that lineage - the good and the bad.

Lilli I am far from an expert on this subject. I was waiting for some experts to chime in.

I do think you are on the right track about the working dogs, being tested by their life style and therefore would by an over all health, robost and vigorouse. In most cases close inbreeding in the working dog populations I know about is not practiced, or if it is it more a one off. The lines I know of that have been inbred over generations have all failed. I think this explains why working population often have very low COI, yet if you asked the breeder if they were breeding for low COI they would not be, might not even know what COI means.

It is also true that in most cases where breeds really are maintained as working dogs, that they are seldom in the KC. they either function in some other registry for their breed or they do not even have a registry per say and just keep records. If you speak to these people they feel they cannot function in the kennel club, often due to restrictions on the choice of allowable dogs to breed to (must be KC registered). For example in the WCK they have aprogram that allows for breeding out to border collie or other working dogs, and after I beleive it is 3 generations they are back to being purebred.

Some may say, well these dogs really not purebreds and do not really display what the breed is suppose to look like. I would argue that any kelpie in the back of ute is instantly recognizable. They really are proof that form follows function. Yet there will be often wide variation in the working dogs as to size, often colours, maybe ears or other traits that the working breeders do not value as needed or important for fit for function. Yet that kelpie is still instantly recognizable.

So what does a dog outside of the kennel club offer? It could be anything, better temperament, different genes, better working ability or even just a recent long term history of work which could be viewed as bringing in vigor and strength. As with all things dog, it really is a matter of what is in the mind and thoughts of the breeder choosing the dogs. What any dogs offers toa breeding program is choice.

I guess what it means to all of is that we may need to loosen up the restrictions real and perceived that we put on all breeders. To allow for others as well as for our selves, to make decisions they want to make. That this diversity, not only in genetics but also in breeding program ideals and freedom, really is in the best interest of the breeds over all future. Think of it this way, freedom works in both directions.

I am polishing my crystal ball as we speak, I am sure a picture of the future till appear any second!!! Maybe if a squint I will see it?

Edited April 20, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

I'm not denying that there could be situations where the introduction of new blood could be useful, but who will decide if and when it's required ?

Call me a cynic but it won't be the breeders making the decisions, it will be made by outsiders, who have little if anything to do with breeding and will undoubtedly know very little about the breeds in question and what is best for them.

I can see COI will be the be all and end all.

Well I could be all wrong.

I think it may well be the breeder (not breeders) who will decide. Though there may well be some welfare isses that are addressed by some sort of controls. For example, let say a breed has a 70% affected rate, then there might be a plan to reduce that rate and everybody has to follow the rules, and I hope this is under consultation with experts outside of the breed club (see below).

But I do not see the normal breed having those sorts of outside restrictions. I think if a breeder, say me, thinks oh that dog is a great working dog, really works in a very classic manner, is strong, is 9 years old, has all these great pups I have seen also working very well, and he is the perfect match for my bitch I have been looking for. I even find out he is registered in the working registry and there is even a pedigree. Hey my choice and why not give it a good look. Then if this dog meets the looks like a duck test, and passes the normal health testing that we only wish all ANKC breeders did, they hey way not let the preson use the dog. It is there breeding program.

This is how I see it working.

Why is this good?

For example that cardigan breeder who got so frustrated by the KC, he would have stayed if he could have done what he wanted (BTW it was mostly the rule that he could not use a carrier to a normal dogs (all carriers had to be desexed) which flys in the face of using genetic testing and also is the worse thing they could have done to a gene pool with almost no dogs left) the man was right. So anyway he would have stayed, started his new breeding plans and promoted his ideas about working corgies all i nthe KC. All the new members he has in his club now, would have been in the KC, including all the dogs they have found and imported to use for breeding. The only people who really think this would have been a bad outcome are the handfull of show breeders controlling the 40 or so kennel club pups born each year, making sure none of them can be bred from. I just don't understand that sort of thinking.

Edited April 20, 2011 by shortstep

[Sandra777]

All the gum thumping about genetic diversity makes no sense to me.

Yes there are breeds which have ''native'' populations far removed from the KC population - Basenjis, Anatolians (sp!) and Working Kelpies and Cattle Dogs come to mind.

But in the majority of breeds which seem to cause such angst amongst the scare-mongers in the media the unregistered dogs come from registered stock, so introducing an unknown dog into the population in these breeds is actually more likely to increase the COI if the truth was known. There aren't any great unregistered pools of Bulldogs or Pugs or Cavaliers lying around anywhere in the world that would pass the conformation test required AND not be one or at most a couple of generations removed from KC registered dogs.

As another thought if all the KC Basenjis, just as an example, come from the Congo and all the ''native'' dogs come from the Congo then how widely different genetically are they in reality??

Yes dogs bred in their "native'' environment for their intended purpose are more likely to be healthy in themselves (the affected ones die) but this doesn't mean they're any more healthy when it comes to recessive genetic issues particularly than the KC registered ones - afterall the genetic problems in Basenjis (as an example) didn't just appear when a KC rego paper was waved around!

Edited April 20, 2011 by Sandra777

[shortstep]

All the gum thumping about genetic diversity makes no sense to me.

Yes there are breeds which have ''native'' populations far removed from the KC population - Basenjis, Anatolians (sp!) and Working Kelpies and Cattle Dogs come to mind.

But in the majority of breeds which seem to cause such angst amongst the scare-mongers in the media the unregistered dogs come from registered stock, so introducing an unknown dog into the population in these breeds is actually more likely to increase the COI if the truth was known. There aren't any great unregistered pools of Bulldogs or Pugs or Cavaliers lying around anywhere in the world that would pass the conformation test required AND not be one or at most a couple of generations removed from KC registered dogs.

As another thought if all the KC Basenjis, just as an example, come from the Congo and all the ''native'' dogs come from the Congo then how widely different genetically are they in reality??

Yes dogs bred in their "native'' environment for their intended purpose are more likely to be healthy in themselves (the affected ones die) but this doesn't mean they're any more healthy when it comes to recessive genetic issues particularly than the KC registered ones - afterall the genetic problems in Basenjis (as an example) didn't just appear when a KC rego paper was waved around!

To 1st highlighted section

But what if there is a breeder who for some reason gets it in their head to breed Bull dogs that can deliver their pups with out c section, and they hunt out an unregistered bull dog that is doing that, and they want to try to bring in the traits that make that possible in to their lines. The goal in this case was not to increase COI, it was to go after some traits. Why not? It will not 'make' the other registered bull dogs be able to have normal births nor will it give them some hidden problem, as no one else has to use their lines if they do not want to.

However we may find that the bull dog that can have it's pups naturally may not fit the standard or perhaps really does fit the standard, in either case it leaves much room for thought. I think that the reasons could be so many things, it really can be something that breeder is after and this gives a way for them to find it. It does not need to suit everyone.

To 2nd highlighted secton

Basenjis, The answer is the two populations are are very different.

In short, a population of thousand and thousands of dogs, being bred for working traits (village hunting dogs) where inbreeding on certain pedigrees is not the practice, you will have a very very wide number of different possible genes in the population, the more different genes the less likely any 2 dogs with the same mutation will be matched up. Any 'bad' genes will be lightly and slowly dispersed through the population never building up to any great levels in the breed. So the population has a low COI reflecting a large population of dogs loosely related to each other (not inbred tightly) .

As compared to a population in closed stud book, which almost always begins with a small number of dogs, often less than 20. These dogs are then inbred to each other over and over again, selection being based appearance and fixing as many desired visible traits as possible. This is actively and rapidly reducing the number of available genes on offer in the population, a population that is closed, with the only new genes on offer being random mutations. Another words the inbreeding is making dogs not only look the same on the outside but also on the inside at the genetic level. In the Basenjis case, I think he said a total of 30 dogs made up the entire breed and were inbreed to each other for the last 70 years. This is very intense inbreeding over a good period of time and the result would be the loss of gene choices in every generation as each genertion becaomes more and more inbred. Increaseing the chance of fixing recessive unwanted or mutant genes through out the population. (example, Shar pei, line bred to fix the mutation for wrinkles and accidently fix the mutation for the fever disease at the same time)

In any dog at any time can have a mutation and if it is recessive it will not be seen in that dog. In the closed inbred gene pool, when a mutation occurs in a dog, that is then bred, the mutation starts to be passed around. Even worse if the gene pool is small and inbreeding is routine, the gene will pass faster to a larger % of the breed and sooner or later his mutated gene will travel through much of the population. Then it starts to happen, 2 dogs that have the gene are bred together and the disease appears. The race is then on to control it. Usually at first by culling affected dogs and any dog that are thought to carry the mutation. This however reduces the gene pool (reduces the number of available dogs each with a chance of having different genes) which in turn will cause a greater risk of another mutation getting spread through the population. It is a spiral that just keep going.

There are other factors that can also have dramatic effects on dog populations.

One is popular sire syndrome. This occurs in almost any population where there are contests, be it show ring, racing, trials of any sort. Dogs that win are often selected more often than other dogs in the population to be sires. This can lead to a significant number of dogs being related to that one dog and as the generations go by, all of a sudden it may be almost impossible to find a dog that does not have their stud in the pedigree. This effect then will increase rapidly over the next generations, and soon you are counting how many time he shows up, 10 20 30 times. If this dog had a recessive mutation not only has it had opportunity to have been spread though most if not all of the population, but now you are breeding back to that opportunity over and over again in each breeding. An open stud book can give the breeder the ability to reach outside of this population and find a dog that does not have this popular sire in their history.

Bottle neck is another problem in closed gene pools along with genetic drift and others.

Edited April 20, 2011 by shortstep

[Sandra777]

To 1st highlighted section

But what if there is a breeder who for some reason gets it in their head to breed Bull dogs that can deliver their pups with out c section, and they hunt out an unregistered bull dog that is doing that, and they want to try to bring in the traits that make that possible in to their lines. The goal in this case was not to increase COI, it was to go after some traits. Why not? It will not 'make' the other registered bull dogs be able to have normal births nor will it give them some hidden problem, as no one else has to use their lines if they do not want to.

However we may find that the bull dog that can have it's pups naturally may not fit the standard or perhaps really does fit the standard, in either case it leaves much room for thought. I think that the reasons could be so many things, it really can be something that breeder is after and this gives a way for them to find it. It does not need to suit everyone.

The scheme isn't touted about being about traits it's touted as being about genetic diversity.

Typical nonsense talk from people appeasing the lunatic element while actually achieving very little. Genetic diversity in and of itself isn't automatically a wonderful thing that will solve all problems like a magic wand. Most of the lunatic fringe wouldn't know genetic diversity or a COI if it bit them on the butt.

Introducing an unknown dog which is almost certainly only one or two generations away from registered ancestors anyway so, in theory, could be a full brother or sister to the sire or dam of the dog or bitch it is mated to, doesn't do a thing to introduce genetic diversity.

The blurb states that - it's all about genetic diversity.

And the requirement that the dog be approved by 2 ch show judges as being representative of it's breed is a guarantee that the style of dog which is winning in the ring will be the style of dog which is accepted.

To 2nd highlighted secton

Basenjis, The answer is the two populations are are very different.

You have DNA tests to prove this?

And has there ever been a definitive study of how high a COI for a SPECIFIC breed is too high? And how do you decide at what point high is 'too high" if there are no ill effects. Some populations of wild animals are highly in bred and if a breeder was to breed that tightly AND cull as strongly as nature then how is this intrinsically harmful??

What is the breed average COI world wide or even country by country for each breed?

Edited April 20, 2011 by Sandra777

[shortstep]

To 1st highlighted section

But what if there is a breeder who for some reason gets it in their head to breed Bull dogs that can deliver their pups with out c section, and they hunt out an unregistered bull dog that is doing that, and they want to try to bring in the traits that make that possible in to their lines. The goal in this case was not to increase COI, it was to go after some traits. Why not? It will not 'make' the other registered bull dogs be able to have normal births nor will it give them some hidden problem, as no one else has to use their lines if they do not want to.

However we may find that the bull dog that can have it's pups naturally may not fit the standard or perhaps really does fit the standard, in either case it leaves much room for thought. I think that the reasons could be so many things, it really can be something that breeder is after and this gives a way for them to find it. It does not need to suit everyone.

The scheme isn't touted about being about traits it's touted as being about genetic diversity.

Typical nonsense talk from people appeasing the lunatic element while actually achieving very little. Genetic diversity in and of itself isn't automatically a wonderful thing that will solve all problems like a magic wand. Most of the lunatic fringe wouldn't know genetic diversity or a COI if it bit them on the butt.

Introducing an unknown dog which is almost certainly only one or two generations away from registered ancestors anyway so, in theory, could be a full brother or sister to the sire or dam of the dog or bitch it is mated to, doesn't do a thing to introduce genetic diversity.

The blurb states that - it's all about genetic diversity.

And the requirement that the dog be approved by 2 ch show judges as being representative of it's breed is a guarantee that the style of dog which is winning in the ring will be the style of dog which is accepted.

To 2nd highlighted secton

Basenjis, The answer is the two populations are are very different.

You have DNA tests to prove this?

And has there ever been a definitive study of how high a COI for a SPECIFIC breed is too high? And how do you decide at what point high is 'too high" if there are no ill effects. Some populations of wild animals are highly in bred and if a breeder was to breed that tightly AND cull as strongly as nature then how is this intrinsically harmful??

What is the breed average COI world wide or even country by country for each breed?

The scheme isn't touted about being about traits it's touted as being about genetic diversity.

Ok. Lets start again the traits to be able to have puppies naturally with out a c section are genetic traits, that have been lost in the bull dog breed for the most part as I understand it. Let us assume it is the genes to make the head small enough to fit through the pelvis. If not fill in the blanks with what every lost traits for natural birthing you like.

Sorry I did not make that clear, it is genetic diveristy but with a mission, to fix the problem of bull dogs not being able to deleiver their pups without c sections, not the concept of an in general increasing of genetic diversity is good for the bred. Perhaps you now can see the difference.

Typical nonsense talk from people appeasing the lunatic element while actually achieving very little. Genetic diversity in and of itself isn't automatically a wonderful thing that will solve all problems like a magic wand. Most of the lunatic fringe wouldn't know genetic diversity or a COI if it bit them on the butt.

If you can only attempt to prove your point by attacking me and saying nasty things about me, have at it. I stop at this point.

Edited April 20, 2011 by shortstep

[BJean]

But in the majority of breeds which seem to cause such angst amongst the scare-mongers in the media the unregistered dogs come from registered stock, so introducing an unknown dog into the population in these breeds is actually more likely to increase the COI if the truth was known. There aren't any great unregistered pools of Bulldogs or Pugs or Cavaliers lying around anywhere in the world that would pass the conformation test required AND not be one or at most a couple of generations removed from KC registered dogs.

Agreed.

Unregistered does not equal Unrelated.

As another thought if all the KC Basenjis, just as an example, come from the Congo and all the ''native'' dogs come from the Congo then how widely different genetically are they in reality??

It is not that they all originate from the same place, but the rigours and selection process for breeding is different.

Yes dogs bred in their "native'' environment for their intended purpose are more likely to be healthy in themselves (the affected ones die) but this doesn't mean they're any more healthy when it comes to recessive genetic issues particularly than the KC registered ones - afterall the genetic problems in Basenjis (as an example) didn't just appear when a KC rego paper was waved around!

Yes as example I see entropion in volkodavs (Kazakhstan) and in Anatolians (Turkiye); and I have experienced entropion in CAO and Anatolians in Australia.

This is not the big deal.

The big deal is how the breeding dogs are selected. In Australia we breed from dogs and make allowances for weakness that are not allowed for or possible in native environments. We coddle our dogs and send them to vets. By making our dogs 'healthier' in effect we breed them weaker. The more care we give the less the dog can look after itself.

In a native environment always the strongest are bred from. If a dog is bred from with entropion that is because the dog still supersedes its entropion free counterparts.

Kazak volkodavs are rarely vaccinated and wormed yet they are rarely made incumbent by parasites.

The past 30 years dogs in Turkiye have received more regular worming and innoculation.

Anatolians are not as tough as Alabais/volkodavs (CAOs from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan). I speak with a few long time breeders, dogmen who know both breeds, and I ask were Turkish dogs once as tough as the Kazak and Turkmenistan dogs - they think so. But a lot has changed in the past 30 years. The Kangal types in Sivas and Ankara in general are not as robust as the dogs used for wrestling in areas mostly unknown to western 'kangal' enthusiasts, areas like Denizli, Goreme. Where the dogs only passs on their genetic material if they succeed. But now I am going into LGD breed thread detail

In any case, each time I visit I learn new things from comparison. I used to think we take better care of our dogs in general, but now I am not so sure.

Edited April 20, 2011 by lilli

[vetrg]

For me the most interesting thing was that the people who would do the selecting will be show judges. Speaking from the basis of working springers (which is the breed I am most familiar with): there are KC registered working springers in the uk, who if placed next to a show dog, look like a different breed. They are certainly healthy, prized and bred from on the basis of their working ability. The show versions of working breeds frequently seem to have drifted significantly from their working roots preferring form over function.

I suspect this is a step in the right direction as when all breeds were being originally developed they did not come from closed stud books and strategic outcrossing to other breeds and types was, I suspect, frequently performed to acquire desired traits.

I would be more impressed if the working breeds were made to pass working tests rather than just conform to present standards on looks. For the non working breeds it would be nice if they could pass simple standards of - can it breathe? (all the brachycephalic breeds), can it see without discomfort? (brachycephalics, sharpei, St Bernards etc), is it lame? (pretty much all large breeds).

Pause........wait for howls of outrage and derision..................

[BJean]

I would be more impressed if the working breeds were made to pass working tests rather than just conform to present standards on looks. For the non working breeds it would be nice if they could pass simple standards of - can it breathe? (all the brachycephalic breeds), can it see without discomfort? (brachycephalics, sharpei, St Bernards etc), is it lame? (pretty much all large breeds).

Pause........wait for howls of outrage and derision..................

Not in small breeds?

And what will lameness tell you?

[vetrg]

The bits in brackets were examples only not definitive lists of all high risk breeds/ types.

Lameness- as an example. I go to perform a pre purchase examination on a horse. It is lame. I tell the purchaser not to buy it. They say "but we really like it, it's very pretty". I say"ok, give it 2 weeks for it to get better from its bruised foot/ kick in the field and we'll look at it again". Two weeks later it's still lame. The advice is don't buy it. It has some ongoing issues, they may get worse, it may stay lame. The purchasers don't buy it. Hooray! a triumph of function over form. I would prefer not to breed from a lame animal unless I knew why it was lame and whether it potentially an inherited issue. It should be up to the owner of the animal to present a functionally sound animal for inspection.