Pedigree Dog Segment On The 7pm Project

[toy dog]

If there were healthier dogs not inthe ring or which had less champs in the pedigree they were over looked for the only thing we went looking for - champions. Problem is many of us still do and that makes us the laughing stock of the world.

that dog i found in the pedigree way back that was grossly unsound, i just can't fathom how it was put through as a champion when it moved like that. the judges should be shot. it was that bad it had a hopping gait. it was very obvious even to an untrained eye in dog movement. yet a pretty dog. that is the only thing anyone was ever looking at i think to myself. forsake soundness for prettiness and type.

[Steve]

Did I hear the right when they said that RSPCA was making moves to have Inbreeding banned? If this is the case, what is being done to counteract that? They managed to steam roller tail docking, what's going to stop them from this little vendetta?

Well all dogs in the kennel club are inbred.

And every breeding of kennel club dogs is doing inbreeding.

By definition pedigree dogs are inbred animals.

However if they made a law that limited the amount of inbreeding to what is considered safe in humans, I would support that across all breeds.

I think that would be a good step in the right direction and would prefer that the ANKC made the change without the RSPCA having to make it a big pulbic welfare issue and a law.

Why would you want to advocate in breeding to be limited to what is considered safe in humans - and who will judge what is safe in humans? We dont have anywhere near the information for breeding in humans we do for breeding in dogs. I have 6 generations of one breed in my yard and I can tell you everything you could ask about them and their health and potential issues which may show up - how many humans have that sort of health info for their human relatives ? We practice selective breeding and we have at our fingertiops pedigree knowledge and genetic testing and scoring which we can use to make our decisions - we are talking about selectively breeding purebred dogs not randomly breeding humans!

The problem with purebred dogs is that some breeders have been slecting primarily for the way the dog looks - the show ring and you can skirt around it all you like but that has nothing to do with in breeding and everything to do with slection.

If you take away the ability for us to in breed all you will get is less predictibility on what diseases might show up and less chance of testing - if you still have such emphasis on how the dog looks and rates in a show ring.

I do not think so, I think you can have a breed and with some frequecy outcrossing and not loose your breed.

But look if people are happy to take it to the wire withthe governments and the animal welfare groups then go for it. I think you will loose and I think the UK kennel club making all these changes is a direct reaction to the notion that this topic is no longer a dicsussion, it is now a matter of changing or not having kennel clubs at all.

I also think that even if the kennel clubs are shut down, even if they ban many of the more extreme breeds, that there is still time then to reorganize and try some different ways to breed dogs.

I really do have to leave now for a Dr appointment.

Yes of course but that needs to be done with knowledge and science as much as any other breeding does and advocating for in breeding to be made a crimminal offence isnt the answer to finding what will and wont work with any other breeding program.

We need to educate breeders to select differently with science not just to run with people who want to choose a supposed cause and bleat about it with out the research to back it up.

I never said I wanted to make inbreeding a crime, but I think it may come to that if the kennel clubs can not find some way to regulate the amount of inbreeding then the governments may well step in and do it.

The kennel clubs never needed to find a way of regulating it as it was already proven it rarely happened. By the Kennel club bringing in a supposed method of controlling it they said we know it happens, that our members do it and that it is always a bad thing and opened the door for it to be made a crimminal offence. My inside info is that this is definitely on the agenda within a 5 year plan - among other things and everything you see happeneing via TV and other media is pushing exactly that way by design.

The kennel club and people who want to simply fall in line and believe that in breeding is a problem and a curse of terrible suffering at the hands of purebred rottenly cruel breeders! From the minute it started - Don B, Paul McG , PDE and every where we turn we are told in breeding is the culprit - but selection is - and you name a group and they have all bought it. And in the mean time yelling about in breeding makes even purebred breeders agree with them without question and that gets them off the hook because the real problem is what they select for not how closely related the dogs they are breeding are. The only thing which may remotely come close in an argument for in breeding is in breeding depression but that over simplifies the whole issue too and none of this is educating anyone - all its doing is ensuring what we have and what we should be doing to get it right will be squashed.

Well guess what - purebred breeders line breed , and shock and horror we also sometimes in breed and if you take that away you take away purebred dogs. Wake up Australia.

In breeding in purebred dogs is not the cause of the problem inbreeding for certain traits is the problem - selection - not in breeding and it's time we saw the difference.

[shortstep]

Hense why some breeds have such high rates of HD or ED, we know these are not simple recessive diseases, they are complex diseases, but they are still atleast in part inherited.

yes it is very complex!!! the testing system is not fail safe either. Some have said in the past that they believe it is polygenic as well. When you have a theory going and you think you may be starting to understand it, there is always something that pops up that discounts it.

Short step cross bred dogs get these things as much as any other. A cross Chi will have as much chance of get PL as much as any purebred Chi and at least the purebred chi breeders know what to look for and try to breed away form it in case it is a genetic issue.If YOU take the focus off the genetics and the belief that its is a genetic disorder you get to see other expert opinion who believe its caused by several other things impacting other than genetics- or at least that the genetic issue is a minor component. This is no argumant for outcrossing or making in breeding illegal.

To me this is a slight of hand argument.

Using your example of Chi and PL.

We do not know what causes PL, but I think we safe is saying is not simple recessive and is a complex disease. So proving a disease that is not a recessive shows up in a chi cross has nothing to do with inbreeding and recessive diseases.

No one has or at least not me, said that inbreeding is the cause of all dog diseases. But it does have a major roll in spreading recessive diseases very sucessfully though a breed in a closed stud book. And this has happened, over and over gain, and it is only when the disease reaches a high enough level of carriers that we know what has happened. Since most dog diseases are recessives, it makes sense to tread very lightly with inbreeding.

[toy dog]

Did I hear the right when they said that RSPCA was making moves to have Inbreeding banned? If this is the case, what is being done to counteract that? They managed to steam roller tail docking, what's going to stop them from this little vendetta?

Well all dogs in the kennel club are inbred.

And every breeding of kennel club dogs is doing inbreeding.

By definition pedigree dogs are inbred animals.

However if they made a law that limited the amount of inbreeding to what is considered safe in humans, I would support that across all breeds.

I think that would be a good step in the right direction and would prefer that the ANKC made the change without the RSPCA having to make it a big pulbic welfare issue and a law.

Why would you want to advocate in breeding to be limited to what is considered safe in humans - and who will judge what is safe in humans? We dont have anywhere near the information for breeding in humans we do for breeding in dogs. I have 6 generations of one breed in my yard and I can tell you everything you could ask about them and their health and potential issues which may show up - how many humans have that sort of health info for their human relatives ? We practice selective breeding and we have at our fingertiops pedigree knowledge and genetic testing and scoring which we can use to make our decisions - we are talking about selectively breeding purebred dogs not randomly breeding humans!

The problem with purebred dogs is that some breeders have been slecting primarily for the way the dog looks - the show ring and you can skirt around it all you like but that has nothing to do with in breeding and everything to do with slection.

If you take away the ability for us to in breed all you will get is less predictibility on what diseases might show up and less chance of testing - if you still have such emphasis on how the dog looks and rates in a show ring.

I do not think so, I think you can have a breed and with some frequecy outcrossing and not loose your breed.

But look if people are happy to take it to the wire withthe governments and the animal welfare groups then go for it. I think you will loose and I think the UK kennel club making all these changes is a direct reaction to the notion that this topic is no longer a dicsussion, it is now a matter of changing or not having kennel clubs at all.

I also think that even if the kennel clubs are shut down, even if they ban many of the more extreme breeds, that there is still time then to reorganize and try some different ways to breed dogs.

I really do have to leave now for a Dr appointment.

Yes of course but that needs to be done with knowledge and science as much as any other breeding does and advocating for in breeding to be made a crimminal offence isnt the answer to finding what will and wont work with any other breeding program.

We need to educate breeders to select differently with science not just to run with people who want to choose a supposed cause and bleat about it with out the research to back it up.

I never said I wanted to make inbreeding a crime, but I think it may come to that if the kennel clubs can not find some way to regulate the amount of inbreeding then the governments may well step in and do it.

The kennel clubs never needed to find a way of regulating it as it was already proven it rarely happened. By the Kennel club bringing in a supposed method of controlling it they said we know it happens, that our members do it and that it is always a bad thing and opened the door for it to be made a crimminal offence. My inside info is that this is definitely on the agenda within a 5 year plan - among other things and everything you see happeneing via TV and other media is pushing exactly that way by design.

The kennel club and people who want to simply fall in line and believe that in breeding is a problem and a curse of terrible suffering at the hands of purebred rottenly cruel breeders! From the minute it started - Don B, Paul McG , PDE and every where we turn we are told in breeding is the culprit - but selection is - and you name a group and they have all bought it. And in the mean time yelling about in breeding makes even purebred breeders agree with them without question and that gets them off the hook because the real problem is what they select for not how closely related the dogs they are breeding are. The only thing which may remotely come close in an argument for in breeding is in breeding depression but that over simplifies the whole issue too and none of this is educating anyone - all its doing is ensuring what we have and what we should be doing to get it right will be squashed.

Well guess what - purebred breeders line breed , and shock and horror we also sometimes in breed and if you take that away you take away purebred dogs. Wake up Australia.

In breeding in purebred dogs is not the cause of the problem inbreeding for certain traits is the problem - selection - not in breeding and it's time we saw the difference.

well said.

[Steve]

Hense why some breeds have such high rates of HD or ED, we know these are not simple recessive diseases, they are complex diseases, but they are still atleast in part inherited.

yes it is very complex!!! the testing system is not fail safe either. Some have said in the past that they believe it is polygenic as well. When you have a theory going and you think you may be starting to understand it, there is always something that pops up that discounts it.

Short step cross bred dogs get these things as much as any other. A cross Chi will have as much chance of get PL as much as any purebred Chi and at least the purebred chi breeders know what to look for and try to breed away form it in case it is a genetic issue.If YOU take the focus off the genetics and the belief that its is a genetic disorder you get to see other expert opinion who believe its caused by several other things impacting other than genetics- or at least that the genetic issue is a minor component. This is no argumant for outcrossing or making in breeding illegal.

To me this is a slight of hand argument.

Using your example of Chi and PL.

We do not know what causes PL, but I think we safe is saying is not simple recessive and is a complex disease. So proving a disease that is not a recessive shows up in a chi cross has nothing to do with inbreeding and recessive diseases.

No one has or at least not me, said that inbreeding is the cause of all dog diseases. But it does have a major roll in spreading recessive diseases very sucessfully though a breed in a closed stud book. And this has happened, over and over gain, and it is only when the disease reaches a high enough level of carriers that we know what has happened. Since most dog diseases are recessives, it makes sense to tread very lightly with inbreeding.

Correct - but I wasnt the one who bought up the incidence of polygenic disorders in any breed - slight of hand works both ways.When the disease shows up and we know its there a good breeder can do something about it and breed away from it. You cant breed away from anything if every breeding is luck and hit and miss. Most dog diseases are not recessives and if they were it wouldnt be an issue because sooner or later there will be DNA testing for all recessives. I can now breed a poodle and guarantee it wont get PRA - I cannot breed a mixed breed dog and guarantee the same.

[poodlefan]

Don't you just love it.. .the hunting down and elimination of "inbreeding" purebred dog breeders will fire up while any BYB can cross any damn breeds they like and that will be just fine.

So all those crossbreds with luxating patellas, hip issues, liver shunt (not uncommon in a certain very popular SWF cross) will continue to be produced.

Or will they.. because without the purebred base stock, there won't be any definable crossbreds.

Hope the pounds will be ready for the massive influx of dogs bought with the expectaion of certain characteristics and offloaded when they won't turn out that way.

My "inbred" Whippet came from a litter of 9 (so much for inbreeding depression) and has had one unscheduled vet visit - for a skin tear after going through a wire fence.

But hey, all those non-inbred dogs with cherry eye, skin allergies, dodgy knees, HD, ED, and other conditions - far superior from the point of genetic health.

Seriously what a crock. As Steve keeps saying, its not genes that are the issue here but selection.

And if you breed shit to shit, you get shit no matter what the breeds involved.

Edited July 4, 2011 by poodlefan

[shortstep]

Did I hear the right when they said that RSPCA was making moves to have Inbreeding banned? If this is the case, what is being done to counteract that? They managed to steam roller tail docking, what's going to stop them from this little vendetta?

Well all dogs in the kennel club are inbred.

And every breeding of kennel club dogs is doing inbreeding.

By definition pedigree dogs are inbred animals.

However if they made a law that limited the amount of inbreeding to what is considered safe in humans, I would support that across all breeds.

I think that would be a good step in the right direction and would prefer that the ANKC made the change without the RSPCA having to make it a big pulbic welfare issue and a law.

Why would you want to advocate in breeding to be limited to what is considered safe in humans - and who will judge what is safe in humans? We dont have anywhere near the information for breeding in humans we do for breeding in dogs. I have 6 generations of one breed in my yard and I can tell you everything you could ask about them and their health and potential issues which may show up - how many humans have that sort of health info for their human relatives ? We practice selective breeding and we have at our fingertiops pedigree knowledge and genetic testing and scoring which we can use to make our decisions - we are talking about selectively breeding purebred dogs not randomly breeding humans!

The problem with purebred dogs is that some breeders have been slecting primarily for the way the dog looks - the show ring and you can skirt around it all you like but that has nothing to do with in breeding and everything to do with slection.

If you take away the ability for us to in breed all you will get is less predictibility on what diseases might show up and less chance of testing - if you still have such emphasis on how the dog looks and rates in a show ring.

I do not think so, I think you can have a breed and with some frequecy outcrossing and not loose your breed.

But look if people are happy to take it to the wire withthe governments and the animal welfare groups then go for it. I think you will loose and I think the UK kennel club making all these changes is a direct reaction to the notion that this topic is no longer a dicsussion, it is now a matter of changing or not having kennel clubs at all.

I also think that even if the kennel clubs are shut down, even if they ban many of the more extreme breeds, that there is still time then to reorganize and try some different ways to breed dogs.

I really do have to leave now for a Dr appointment.

Yes of course but that needs to be done with knowledge and science as much as any other breeding does and advocating for in breeding to be made a crimminal offence isnt the answer to finding what will and wont work with any other breeding program.

We need to educate breeders to select differently with science not just to run with people who want to choose a supposed cause and bleat about it with out the research to back it up.

I never said I wanted to make inbreeding a crime, but I think it may come to that if the kennel clubs can not find some way to regulate the amount of inbreeding then the governments may well step in and do it.

The kennel clubs never needed to find a way of regulating it as it was already proven it rarely happened. By the Kennel club bringing in a supposed method of controlling it they said we know it happens, that our members do it and that it is always a bad thing and opened the door for it to be made a crimminal offence. My inside info is that this is definitely on the agenda within a 5 year plan - among other things and everything you see happeneing via TV and other media is pushing exactly that way by design.

The kennel club and people who want to simply fall in line and believe that in breeding is a problem and a curse of terrible suffering at the hands of purebred rottenly cruel breeders! From the minute it started - Don B, Paul McG , PDE and every where we turn we are told in breeding is the culprit - but selection is - and you name a group and they have all bought it. And in the mean time yelling about in breeding makes even purebred breeders agree with them without question and that gets them off the hook because the real problem is what they select for not how closely related the dogs they are breeding are. The only thing which may remotely come close in an argument for in breeding is in breeding depression but that over simplifies the whole issue too and none of this is educating anyone - all its doing is ensuring what we have and what we should be doing to get it right will be squashed.

Well guess what - purebred breeders line breed , and shock and horror we also sometimes in breed and if you take that away you take away purebred dogs. Wake up Australia.

In breeding in purebred dogs is not the cause of the problem inbreeding for certain traits is the problem - selection - not in breeding and it's time we saw the difference.

I think you are silly to give any credit to DB and the like, he is just making a buck of the situation. I really see the former John Armstrong, Jeffery Bragg, and these sort of folks as the ones who have pushed this topic over the past 20 + years, and none of them were against purebred dogs at all.

Line breeding and inbreeding are the same thing as far as science is concerned, just the level or degree (% rate) at which you are removeing genes.

I think you will loose any argument that inbreeding (and that does mot mean just close inbreeding), does not spread recessive disease in dogs and some will also argue it is reducing vigor or as they call it inbreed depression.

I think we will hear more about this in the next few years as the new DNA tests that can focuse in on this area and as more of these genes functions are known or at least we have some hints. Immunity, allergies, other autoimmune disorders and diseases, this sort of thing. I see lots of new information on genetics on the way and really we should be very excieted about it.

[toy dog]

To me this is a slight of hand argument.

Using your example of Chi and PL.

We do not know what causes PL, but I think we safe is saying is not simple recessive and is a complex disease. So proving a disease that is not a recessive shows up in a chi cross has nothing to do with inbreeding and recessive diseases.

but do we need to know what causes it? sometimes it is dogs bred with a too shallow grove and it is congenital. we are trying to find out all we can by sharing info, talking about it being honest with each other and ourselves also. working great so far, many breeders have come up to me as they know i log all the info i can get, and tell me that they found it in their stock and have then desexed. or they can't show the dog because it has PL. good news. if you were around about 25 years ago or 30 years ago you'd know that that is a great achievement to what it used to be with mouths tightly shut protecting god knows what which doesn't help anyone let alone the breed of dog.

heres the low down after 25 years having to deal with it, doing my little experiments, breeding a dog infected will 9 times out of 10 produce a dog affected with it. some breeders tried to cheat nature by putting opposite grades together to get sound FAILED. some breeders tried to cheat the genetic problem by only putting one dog affected to a sound partner. FAILED. the only way we can beat this condition is not breed this genetic problem at all. many breeders agree with this theory. desex infected start again.

mini foxie club of Aus had same problem in their gene pool, so they had a scheme going where by they applied the above and it did reduce occourances in that breed of dog to the point where it is rare.

the reason why we think it may be. may be polygenic in nature is because we found that dogs with more exercise allowing muscele development, combined with good diet and good genes did help very much.

[shortstep]

Most dog diseases are not recessives

Now I have to admit I am just repeating what I have read many many times and again find with a quick internet search below ....so if this is wrong and you site some where that says that?

http://www.dogsincanada.com/canine-reproduction-1-pre-breeding-assessment

How disease is inherited

Most inherited diseases in dogs are recessive traits they occur sporadically when a puppy acquires two disease-causing genes, one from each of its parents.

A multi-published writer, Jeff Grognet, D.V.M., runs a veterinary practice in Qualicum Beach, B.C., along with his wife, Louise Janes, D.V.M.

Edited July 4, 2011 by shortstep

[Steve]

Did I hear the right when they said that RSPCA was making moves to have Inbreeding banned? If this is the case, what is being done to counteract that? They managed to steam roller tail docking, what's going to stop them from this little vendetta?

Well all dogs in the kennel club are inbred.

And every breeding of kennel club dogs is doing inbreeding.

By definition pedigree dogs are inbred animals.

However if they made a law that limited the amount of inbreeding to what is considered safe in humans, I would support that across all breeds.

I think that would be a good step in the right direction and would prefer that the ANKC made the change without the RSPCA having to make it a big pulbic welfare issue and a law.

Why would you want to advocate in breeding to be limited to what is considered safe in humans - and who will judge what is safe in humans? We dont have anywhere near the information for breeding in humans we do for breeding in dogs. I have 6 generations of one breed in my yard and I can tell you everything you could ask about them and their health and potential issues which may show up - how many humans have that sort of health info for their human relatives ? We practice selective breeding and we have at our fingertiops pedigree knowledge and genetic testing and scoring which we can use to make our decisions - we are talking about selectively breeding purebred dogs not randomly breeding humans!

The problem with purebred dogs is that some breeders have been slecting primarily for the way the dog looks - the show ring and you can skirt around it all you like but that has nothing to do with in breeding and everything to do with slection.

If you take away the ability for us to in breed all you will get is less predictibility on what diseases might show up and less chance of testing - if you still have such emphasis on how the dog looks and rates in a show ring.

I do not think so, I think you can have a breed and with some frequecy outcrossing and not loose your breed.

But look if people are happy to take it to the wire withthe governments and the animal welfare groups then go for it. I think you will loose and I think the UK kennel club making all these changes is a direct reaction to the notion that this topic is no longer a dicsussion, it is now a matter of changing or not having kennel clubs at all.

I also think that even if the kennel clubs are shut down, even if they ban many of the more extreme breeds, that there is still time then to reorganize and try some different ways to breed dogs.

I really do have to leave now for a Dr appointment.

Yes of course but that needs to be done with knowledge and science as much as any other breeding does and advocating for in breeding to be made a crimminal offence isnt the answer to finding what will and wont work with any other breeding program.

We need to educate breeders to select differently with science not just to run with people who want to choose a supposed cause and bleat about it with out the research to back it up.

I never said I wanted to make inbreeding a crime, but I think it may come to that if the kennel clubs can not find some way to regulate the amount of inbreeding then the governments may well step in and do it.

The kennel clubs never needed to find a way of regulating it as it was already proven it rarely happened. By the Kennel club bringing in a supposed method of controlling it they said we know it happens, that our members do it and that it is always a bad thing and opened the door for it to be made a crimminal offence. My inside info is that this is definitely on the agenda within a 5 year plan - among other things and everything you see happeneing via TV and other media is pushing exactly that way by design.

The kennel club and people who want to simply fall in line and believe that in breeding is a problem and a curse of terrible suffering at the hands of purebred rottenly cruel breeders! From the minute it started - Don B, Paul McG , PDE and every where we turn we are told in breeding is the culprit - but selection is - and you name a group and they have all bought it. And in the mean time yelling about in breeding makes even purebred breeders agree with them without question and that gets them off the hook because the real problem is what they select for not how closely related the dogs they are breeding are. The only thing which may remotely come close in an argument for in breeding is in breeding depression but that over simplifies the whole issue too and none of this is educating anyone - all its doing is ensuring what we have and what we should be doing to get it right will be squashed.

Well guess what - purebred breeders line breed , and shock and horror we also sometimes in breed and if you take that away you take away purebred dogs. Wake up Australia.

In breeding in purebred dogs is not the cause of the problem inbreeding for certain traits is the problem - selection - not in breeding and it's time we saw the difference.

I think you are silly to give any credit to DB and the like, he is just making a buck of the situation. I really see the former John Armstrong, Jeffery Bragg, and these sort of folks as the ones who have pushed this topic over the past 20 + years, and none of them were against purebred dogs at all.

Line breeding and inbreeding are the same thing as far as science is concerned, just the level or degree (% rate) at which you are removeing genes.

I think you will loose any argument that inbreeding (and that does mot mean just close inbreeding), does not spread recessive disease in dogs and some will also argue it is reducing vigor or as they call it inbreed depression.

I think we will hear more about this in the next few years as the new DNA tests that can focuse in on this area and as more of these genes functions are known or at least we have some hints. Immunity, allergies, other autoimmune disorders and diseases, this sort of thing. I see lots of new information on genetics on the way and really we should be very excieted about it.

Silly - it wasnt Armstrong and Bragg and the likes who bought it to the public with only a onesided view and regardless of what the motivation is the desired affect is most certainly being felt. I would like to argue that inbreeding doesnt spread but rather contains recessive diseases - which enables us to identify it and eliminate it .Before anyone can argue that it is reducing vigor they first have to prove that this isnt caused by the fact that the particular dogs they are looking at havent been selected for things other than vigor .

Years ago when I was breeding ragdoll cats - very tightly in bred - my cats were having 9 sometimes 10 a litter. I thought this to be a good thing but the blurb that came out with the cat people in writing was that I should be selecting for smaller litter sizes - so if over time you get smaller litter sizes you have to first prove its not because its something you have done [not selected for large litter sizes ] or greater fertility and that it is in fact soley caused by in breeding.

Some dog breeders have forgotten to select for ease of mating, ease of whelping , good mothering, large litters, longevity as they have selected for other things - thats not to say its caused by inbreeding but rather inbreeding without selection for those things.

My Dorper sheep are in bred - very - more so than my dogs- yet they drop lambs - twins or triplets every time and some are over 10 years old - because that is one of the things they have been selected for. Small birth weight, great growth rate and good mothering - no idea what their hip scores are though.

By the way no one is advocating line breeding every litter or that outcrossing isnt needed or even that we should breed close relatives but Im not going to allow someone to say that this is the cause of the problems in purebred dogs and that as a result we should be told what we can and cant breed in our own breeding programs by either a kennel club or a government which is in line with some nob who has no idea. We have to stop taking the blame for in breeding and accept the real problem is what we have or have not selected for .Then we can face the issues and do something about it.

Going with this crap only takes us to breeding dogs which are not closely related - its doesnt stop us from selecting for poor physical extremes, dogs that die young or have an in ability to breed without human intervention etc.

There is much work to be done here and loads of education needed and buying this crap slows it all down.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Steve

[poodlefan]

To me this is a slight of hand argument.

Using your example of Chi and PL.

We do not know what causes PL, but I think we safe is saying is not simple recessive and is a complex disease. So proving a disease that is not a recessive shows up in a chi cross has nothing to do with inbreeding and recessive diseases.

Patella luxation isn't a "disease" at all but a consquence of certain structural issues in the dog's hind legs. Its as endemic in crossbreds as it is in any breed you care to name.

Selection for different structure would be as effective as banning inbreeding. Indeed, once you've got a structure in Chi's that mitigates against the risk of PL, you "inbreed" to increase its occurence.

But not under the new world order you don't.

Edited July 4, 2011 by poodlefan

[shortstep]

But hey, all those non-inbred dogs with cherry eye, skin allergies, dodgy knees, HD, ED, and other conditions - far superior from the point of genetic health.

Cherry eye I thought was caused by a brachy skull, too shallow of eye sockets, excesse skin, I do not think I have ever hear it is a simple recessive disorder.

Skin Allergies is not known but thinking is auto immune in nature and likely complex, so not a known simple recessive.

Doggy knees, I have that and it is not simple recessive it is an injury.

HD and ED are complex and nor simple recessive.

Maybe this will help. Both are beter read on the link.

http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2010/11/inbred-mistakes-ii.html

It’s a common misconception among the public at large that ‘inbreeding’ is responsible for every woe known to pure bred dogs.

This is a rather weak straw-man that uses the some-all fallacy to suggest that if we can name a woe in purebred dogs that isn’t caused or exacerbated by inbreeding that we can discount or ignore all the problems that are. This neither proves nor disproves anything.

And backing up a bit and for Steve too

http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2010/11/inbred-mistakes-i.html

Line-breeding is still inbreeding, but we give it a different term to show that we’re not just concentrating genetic material randomly (as you would if you bred brother to sister). You’re doing it to try to re-create the aspects you like of a single dog or group of dogs in the pedigree.

While the first part of this statement is true, close breeding isn’t necessarily random, certainly not more random than line-breeding more distant relatives. Selection vs. randomness is a different quality that can be applied to a brother x sister, father x daughter, or more distant pairings. Randomness would imply that we are not selecting, but breeders almost always select. As I wrote about before, inbreeding by itself doesn’t change the frequency of alleles across the offspring, it simply creates more AA and aa individuals versus Aa individuals. It concentrates and separates, but by itself it does not exclude. Breeders using selection do the exclusion; the concentration of alleles makes each individual selection more potent in removing diversity. And no breeders inbreed and then use all the offspring equally, as this would defeat the goals behind the inbreeding.

This would be similar to a brewer distilling a 50% alcohol-water solution into 75% alcohol and then adding the removed water back in. The process of distillation doesn’t destroy water or alcohol, it simply gives us two solutions that become more concentrated alcohol and more pure water. It is the selection of the alcohol and the removal of the water that removes total “diversity.”

Breeding brother to sister is not more random than a great-grand father to great-grand daughter, it’s just more likely to double up a greater percentage of alleles. If we are selecting for the same apparent trait in both cases, say chocolate coat color, the brother x sister pairing will not result in more random results on that trait and all other traits that the two parents share. In fact, we are more likely to see more “randomness” in the non-selected traits in the distant mating than in the close mating because a brother and sister are already expected to share 50% of the same alleles.

I think what Joanna is trying to say is that closer breedings are more likely to double up on genes that the breeder has no desire one way or the other to be doubled up. This is true, and this is why a more distant breeding between dogs that still share the desired traits is safer. In fact, this is what I advocate. If you want to maintain good bone and a long shiny straight coat in your dogs, find an unrelated dog that has both good bone and a long shiny straight coat. This should not be that difficult, and the benefits to keeping the other 99.9% of the genes that we don’t want doubled up on unnecessarily free to be heterozygous is a major benefit.

You can keep pushing COI further and further back, but at some point it becomes less useful because you start hitting the founding dogs of the breed and that can artificially inflate the COI (because those are behind every single dog in that breed). So ten generations is considered pretty standard.

This is not true. Adding more information to a COI calculation is NEVER less useful or less accurate. The truth is the exact opposite: looking at only a few generations can give you the mistaken impression that you are not inbreeding. Taking a COI calculation back to the founders and beyond will never “artificially inflate” the COI. The opposite is true. Once we reach a founding dog (i.e. a dog that we know nothing about its parents) we have created ARTIFICIAL DIVERSITY. The COI calculation assumes that all founding dogs are 100% unique and 100% heterozygous. We know this isn’t true, it’s never true, but it’s an assumption we have to make.

If you only have 8 generations of ancestors, and you take a COI(10) or a COI(100) the answer will be the same. There’s no inflation, no distortion, and no creeping artificiality. The Coefficient of Inbreeding calculation has an exact definition and that definition in no way becomes less accurate the further back you go. COI is both the probability that two alleles in an individual are identical by descent and also the proportional decrease in heterozygosity under inbreeding. The more we know about the ancestors the more accurate and representative the COI calculation is.

Failing to go back as far as you can ARTIFICIALLY DEFLATES the COI calculation. A dog can not be found to be less inbred by finding out more about its ancestors. It can only be found to be more inbred. All the dogs in the Nth generation of a COI(N) are assumed to be unrelated and heterozygous. No additional information can make that any less extreme.

The reason that a COI6,7, or 10 is more “standard” practice in the breeding culture is not accuracy but convenience. The amount of information and the difficulty of calculation doubles each generation requring the use of expensive software and burdensome data acquisition and entry.

It has taken me over 4 years to compile the near-complete pedigrees on my dogs and even then I am stuck at a few dead ends in now-closed registries. It has taken literally thousands of hours of phone calls, letters, faxes, and e-mails and inquiries into online databases and to other breeders to compile copies of pedigrees and information from stud books.

If we count the single dog as the 0 generation, the parents as the first generation, etc., then a 10 generation pedigree will have 2047 potential dogs on it. While one page can hold a 5 generation pedigree with 62 ancestors on it, you’ll need to collect 33 such pedigrees to fill out a 10 generation history.

The worst error, however, comes in the comments to Joanna’s post where a breeder named Todd Chrisman says this:

While I agree with you generally, your take on COI is off. Outcrossing decreases “genetic diversity” by melting all of the strains and family types of a breed into one pot. The problem is you gloss over the negative recessive traits and those traits come back to haunt your breed, you have no repository of “clean” genetics to turn to.

This is bunk. As I noted before, inbreeding or outcrossing by themselves do not increase nor decrease genetic diversity. They only change the degree to which the existing alleles are segregated into like alleles. If we blindly inbred dogs over several generations with no selection other than relatedness, we’d find that the numerous puppies would be highly inbred but that we would have the same representation of alleles as the original founders.

This of this like a deck of cards where every two cards represents and individual. A mostly heterozygous gene pool is a randomly shuffled deck. A mostly inbred and homozygous gene pool would be a deck that is fresh out of the package with almost all the red cards next to red cards and almost all the black cards next to black cards. In both cases, there are 50% red cards and 50% black cards, but under inbreeding we have many many more pairs of cards that match color.

Instead of being well mixed and heterozygous, we would find most alleles paired up and homozygous in the highly inbred lot. For example, if the two founding dogs were Aa x Aa, we’d eventually find that all the puppies would be AA or aa. All those puppies would not be clones, however, as their other genes would be homozygous but not paired equally.

If the parents are Aa Bb x Aa Bb, the offspring would eventually be: AA bb, AA BB, aa BB, aabb. So all the offspring are homozygous, but we still have 50% As, 50% as, 50% Bs and 50% bs.

In practice, breeders breed very few puppies from each litter and continue to inbreed upon them. This throws out genetic diversity as fast as you can. To maintain genetic diversity, one needs to not only breed unrelated dogs, but you also need to use multiple puppies from any give pairing instead of just a few. Any given puppy is only able to preserve half the genes from each parent. The more heterozygous the parents, the harder it is to preserve their complete genome.

The bogus “melting” concept Todd presents has no support in biology. It is just the opposite. A heterozygous dog is able to preserve twice the data than a homozygous one as I have demonstrated in a previous post.

So too is the idea that inbreeding can maintain a repository of “clean” genetics that can be used to save the breed is as well unsupported by any physical means or observationally. Normal genetic drift, let alone consistent and breed wide selection on a few criteria lead to the rapid change in the frequency of gene variants; in other words, the concentration and loss of genetic diversity. In general, alleles drift to loss or fixation [appearing in none of the breed or in all of it], and this happens significantly faster in smaller populations. A frequency of 100% does not mean that genetic drift leads to homozygosity, rather that at least one of the possible two alleles will be the one in question.

This is why, for instance, flat coats and goldens are no longer produced in the same litter, why there are no Dalmatians without spots (or a uric-acid stone problem), and why fluffy corgis are on the way to extinction. The popular sire effect and the selection of only a few sires to produce the vast majority of puppies in breeds has made the notion of truly distinct lines a fantasy.

If there is an inbred pool of “healthy” dogs, it is to be found in another breed, and even then the rules of blood purity have prevented the Dalmatian backcross project from being accepted. And the idea that an outcross needs to be inbred itself is also unsupported and dangerous. One never need turn to this mythical healthy inbred population if breeders would simply outcross and bring in even a little bit of new blood. The maximum benefit will not come in removing disease through inbreeding (this has never been successful), but in managing disease so that it is rare.

It is not a problem that disease exists in dogs, it is a problem that it is so prevalent. Playing the lotto is not stupid because you have a chance at winning a fortune, it is stupid because you have a really really really lousy chance at winning and a very very very good chance at losing your investment.

Negative recessive traits don’t come back to haunt outcrossed breeds. They remain rare and unexpressed. They are harmlessly carried, affecting very few individuals, until normal genetic drift removes them. They only haunt inbred breeds where they are doubled up on and are carried by genetic drift to 100% frequency instead of 0% frequency. This is why sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs disease are very rare in the greater human genome but highly concentrated within certain ethnic gene ponds.

Todd Chrismann’s analysis is idiocy.

Edited July 4, 2011 by shortstep

[Steve]

Most dog diseases are not recessives

Now I have to admit I am just repeating what I have read many many times and again find with a quick internet search below ....so if this is wrong and you site some where that says that?

http://www.dogsincan...ding-assessment

How disease is inherited

Most inherited diseases in dogs are recessive traits – they occur sporadically when a puppy acquires two disease-causing genes, one from each of its parents.

A multi-published writer, Jeff Grognet, D.V.M., runs a veterinary practice in Qualicum Beach, B.C., along with his wife, Louise Janes, D.V.M.

I think perhaps whether or not there are more of one or another is not really that important to the big scheme of things and I have several books here which say that the opposite is the case. It is one of those things where you show me your and I can show you mine.

However, surely we can both agree that the recessives for a purebred dog breeder are the easiest for us to try to work with - identify and even if there are no DNA test available as yet that there is a fair chance there will be in reasonably short time or we can track potential carriers and do something about it all.

Polygenic diseases for us are 100% the most challenging - causing immune related issues, joint issues and it seems more and more every day.

As a purebred dog breeder I hold more hope of being able to do something to stop dogs sufering in my breed from recessive disorders than I do with polygenic ones - therefore whether there are more recessives or more polygenic is a mute point - however, I can guarantee that there are less recessives in my purebreds than there are in a mixed breed dog.

Before we all go mad pushing for out crossing - this is granted written about humans and how opening the gene pool and globalisation is affecting us. Not everything is as simple as it may seem.

Quote Alper.

http://www.idi.harvard.edu/news_events/articles/polygenic_diseases_on_the_rise/

In a nutshell, when a specific population has undergone selection against one or more of several disease susceptibility genes - the very genes required for a polygenic disease to occur - that population will, as a result of this selection, have a reduced incidence of the disease. However, when individuals from this population mix with populations that have selected against a different set of susceptibility genes, then their offspring will have a more complete set of these susceptibility genes than either parent. A higher incidence of polygenic diseases is the result.

This is counter-intuitive and the opposite of the concept of "hybrid vigor" which results in a reduction in incidence of recessive diseases caused by single genes.

[shortstep]

By the way no one is advocating line breeding every litter or that outcrossing isnt needed or even that we should breed close relatives

Bbut under the current system you can not outcross, not even what I woudl call no brainer outcrosses. For example you can not breed a WKC Kelpie to an ANKC Kelpie. Even something like this which should be so simple is not allowed. This sort of ridgity is what leads to I response from the other end of the extreme, like the UK KC now registered dogs with no pedigree at all.

I do not think these topics are a waist of time or a distraction.

[Steve]

But hey, all those non-inbred dogs with cherry eye, skin allergies, dodgy knees, HD, ED, and other conditions - far superior from the point of genetic health.

Cherry eye I thought was caused by a brachy skull, too shallow of eye sockets, excesse skin, I do not think I have ever hear it is a simple recessive disorder.

Cherry eye is a recessive disorder in my beagles. Even though some beagle breeders wouldnt agree with this there is no doubt whatever for me that this is the case.

[Steve]

But hey, all those non-inbred dogs with cherry eye, skin allergies, dodgy knees, HD, ED, and other conditions - far superior from the point of genetic health.

And backing up a bit and for Steve too

http://www.astraean....mistakes-i.html

Line-breeding is still inbreeding, but we give it a different term to show that we’re not just concentrating genetic material randomly (as you would if you bred brother to sister). You’re doing it to try to re-create the aspects you like of a single dog or group of dogs in the pedigree.

While the first part of this statement is true, close breeding isn’t necessarily random, certainly not more random than line-breeding more distant relatives. Selection vs. randomness is a different quality that can be applied to a brother x sister, father x daughter, or more distant pairings. Randomness would imply that we are not selecting, but breeders almost always select. As I wrote about before, inbreeding by itself doesn’t change the frequency of alleles across the offspring, it simply creates more AA and aa individuals versus Aa individuals. It concentrates and separates, but by itself it does not exclude. Breeders using selection do the exclusion; the concentration of alleles makes each individual selection more potent in removing diversity. And no breeders inbreed and then use all the offspring equally, as this would defeat the goals behind the inbreeding.

This would be similar to a brewer distilling a 50% alcohol-water solution into 75% alcohol and then adding the removed water back in. The process of distillation doesn’t destroy water or alcohol, it simply gives us two solutions that become more concentrated alcohol and more pure water. It is the selection of the alcohol and the removal of the water that removes total “diversity.”

Breeding brother to sister is not more random than a great-grand father to great-grand daughter, it’s just more likely to double up a greater percentage of alleles. If we are selecting for the same apparent trait in both cases, say chocolate coat color, the brother x sister pairing will not result in more random results on that trait and all other traits that the two parents share. In fact, we are more likely to see more “randomness” in the non-selected traits in the distant mating than in the close mating because a brother and sister are already expected to share 50% of the same alleles.

I think what Joanna is trying to say is that closer breedings are more likely to double up on genes that the breeder has no desire one way or the other to be doubled up. This is true, and this is why a more distant breeding between dogs that still share the desired traits is safer. In fact, this is what I advocate. If you want to maintain good bone and a long shiny straight coat in your dogs, find an unrelated dog that has both good bone and a long shiny straight coat. This should not be that difficult, and the benefits to keeping the other 99.9% of the genes that we don’t want doubled up on unnecessarily free to be heterozygous is a major benefit.

You can keep pushing COI further and further back, but at some point it becomes less useful because you start hitting the founding dogs of the breed and that can artificially inflate the COI (because those are behind every single dog in that breed). So ten generations is considered pretty standard.

This is not true. Adding more information to a COI calculation is NEVER less useful or less accurate. The truth is the exact opposite: looking at only a few generations can give you the mistaken impression that you are not inbreeding. Taking a COI calculation back to the founders and beyond will never “artificially inflate” the COI. The opposite is true. Once we reach a founding dog (i.e. a dog that we know nothing about its parents) we have created ARTIFICIAL DIVERSITY. The COI calculation assumes that all founding dogs are 100% unique and 100% heterozygous. We know this isn’t true, it’s never true, but it’s an assumption we have to make.

If you only have 8 generations of ancestors, and you take a COI(10) or a COI(100) the answer will be the same. There’s no inflation, no distortion, and no creeping artificiality. The Coefficient of Inbreeding calculation has an exact definition and that definition in no way becomes less accurate the further back you go. COI is both the probability that two alleles in an individual are identical by descent and also the proportional decrease in heterozygosity under inbreeding. The more we know about the ancestors the more accurate and representative the COI calculation is.

Failing to go back as far as you can ARTIFICIALLY DEFLATES the COI calculation. A dog can not be found to be less inbred by finding out more about its ancestors. It can only be found to be more inbred. All the dogs in the Nth generation of a COI(N) are assumed to be unrelated and heterozygous. No additional information can make that any less extreme.

The reason that a COI6,7, or 10 is more “standard” practice in the breeding culture is not accuracy but convenience. The amount of information and the difficulty of calculation doubles each generation requring the use of expensive software and burdensome data acquisition and entry.

It has taken me over 4 years to compile the near-complete pedigrees on my dogs and even then I am stuck at a few dead ends in now-closed registries. It has taken literally thousands of hours of phone calls, letters, faxes, and e-mails and inquiries into online databases and to other breeders to compile copies of pedigrees and information from stud books.

If we count the single dog as the 0 generation, the parents as the first generation, etc., then a 10 generation pedigree will have 2047 potential dogs on it. While one page can hold a 5 generation pedigree with 62 ancestors on it, you’ll need to collect 33 such pedigrees to fill out a 10 generation history.

The worst error, however, comes in the comments to Joanna’s post where a breeder named Todd Chrisman says this:

While I agree with you generally, your take on COI is off. Outcrossing decreases “genetic diversity” by melting all of the strains and family types of a breed into one pot. The problem is you gloss over the negative recessive traits and those traits come back to haunt your breed, you have no repository of “clean” genetics to turn to.

This is bunk. As I noted before, inbreeding or outcrossing by themselves do not increase nor decrease genetic diversity. They only change the degree to which the existing alleles are segregated into like alleles. If we blindly inbred dogs over several generations with no selection other than relatedness, we’d find that the numerous puppies would be highly inbred but that we would have the same representation of alleles as the original founders.

This of this like a deck of cards where every two cards represents and individual. A mostly heterozygous gene pool is a randomly shuffled deck. A mostly inbred and homozygous gene pool would be a deck that is fresh out of the package with almost all the red cards next to red cards and almost all the black cards next to black cards. In both cases, there are 50% red cards and 50% black cards, but under inbreeding we have many many more pairs of cards that match color.

Instead of being well mixed and heterozygous, we would find most alleles paired up and homozygous in the highly inbred lot. For example, if the two founding dogs were Aa x Aa, we’d eventually find that all the puppies would be AA or aa. All those puppies would not be clones, however, as their other genes would be homozygous but not paired equally.

If the parents are Aa Bb x Aa Bb, the offspring would eventually be: AA bb, AA BB, aa BB, aabb. So all the offspring are homozygous, but we still have 50% As, 50% as, 50% Bs and 50% bs.

In practice, breeders breed very few puppies from each litter and continue to inbreed upon them. This throws out genetic diversity as fast as you can. To maintain genetic diversity, one needs to not only breed unrelated dogs, but you also need to use multiple puppies from any give pairing instead of just a few. Any given puppy is only able to preserve half the genes from each parent. The more heterozygous the parents, the harder it is to preserve their complete genome.

The bogus “melting” concept Todd presents has no support in biology. It is just the opposite. A heterozygous dog is able to preserve twice the data than a homozygous one as I have demonstrated in a previous post.

So too is the idea that inbreeding can maintain a repository of “clean” genetics that can be used to save the breed is as well unsupported by any physical means or observationally. Normal genetic drift, let alone consistent and breed wide selection on a few criteria lead to the rapid change in the frequency of gene variants; in other words, the concentration and loss of genetic diversity. In general, alleles drift to loss or fixation [appearing in none of the breed or in all of it], and this happens significantly faster in smaller populations. A frequency of 100% does not mean that genetic drift leads to homozygosity, rather that at least one of the possible two alleles will be the one in question.

This is why, for instance, flat coats and goldens are no longer produced in the same litter, why there are no Dalmatians without spots (or a uric-acid stone problem), and why fluffy corgis are on the way to extinction. The popular sire effect and the selection of only a few sires to produce the vast majority of puppies in breeds has made the notion of truly distinct lines a fantasy.

If there is an inbred pool of “healthy” dogs, it is to be found in another breed, and even then the rules of blood purity have prevented the Dalmatian backcross project from being accepted. And the idea that an outcross needs to be inbred itself is also unsupported and dangerous. One never need turn to this mythical healthy inbred population if breeders would simply outcross and bring in even a little bit of new blood. The maximum benefit will not come in removing disease through inbreeding (this has never been successful), but in managing disease so that it is rare.

It is not a problem that disease exists in dogs, it is a problem that it is so prevalent. Playing the lotto is not stupid because you have a chance at winning a fortune, it is stupid because you have a really really really lousy chance at winning and a very very very good chance at losing your investment.

Negative recessive traits don’t come back to haunt outcrossed breeds. They remain rare and unexpressed. They are harmlessly carried, affecting very few individuals, until normal genetic drift removes them. They only haunt inbred breeds where they are doubled up on and are carried by genetic drift to 100% frequency instead of 0% frequency. This is why sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs disease are very rare in the greater human genome but highly concentrated within certain ethnic gene ponds.

Todd Chrismann’s analysis is idiocy.

Give me a break I know line breeding is in breeding - sheesh.

it still does nothing to show that we will get what we select for whether that is a dog which is closely related or not .

If I have babies with my ex husband the chances I will have kids with a blood disease are 50 % and I scored higher 4 out of 6 and Im not related to him in at least 8 generation pedigree.

If I am selecting for this blood disease I will have babies with him if I am selecting against them I will choose someone who does not have or carry the disease - whether or not we are related as long as that's all Im selecting for is not relavant.

[shortstep]

However, surely we can both agree that the recessives for a purebred dog breeder are the easiest for us to try to work with - identify and even if there are no DNA test available as yet that there is a fair chance there will be in reasonably short time or we can track potential carriers and do something about it all.

Polygenic diseases for us are 100% the most challenging - causing immune related issues, joint issues and it seems more and more every day.

As a purebred dog breeder I hold more hope of being able to do something to stop dogs sufering in my breed from recessive disorders than I do with polygenic ones - therefore whether there are more recessives or more polygenic is a mute point - however, I can guarantee that there are less recessives in my purebreds than there are in a mixed breed dog.

LOL well I think you have about as good as idea of what recessives are hidding in your dogs as I do in my dogs, Zip as in Zero. But we both know they are there hidding, or atleast I hope you know that.

This is a common argument that inbreeding helps to control disease.

To me it is far better to have resessive genes not concentrated so that we never or very seldom see them. Verses concentrating them to the point they show up and now we have to deal with. Often by more inbreding in attempts to get rid of them. All the while concentrating some other recessive we did not know was there. It is a dog chasing it's tail game if you ask me. (which I am sure you did not LOL)

Edited July 4, 2011 by shortstep

[Steve]

By the way no one is advocating line breeding every litter or that outcrossing isnt needed or even that we should breed close relatives

Bbut under the current system you can not outcross, not even what I woudl call no brainer outcrosses. For example you can not breed a WKC Kelpie to an ANKC Kelpie. Even something like this which should be so simple is not allowed. This sort of ridgity is what leads to I response from the other end of the extreme, like the UK KC now registered dogs with no pedigree at all.

I do not think these topics are a waist of time or a distraction.

I dont think these topics are a waste of time either - I think they are good for us but an outcross for me is to use a dog which has no common ancestors in a 5 generation pedigree - which is better than most people have on their own pedigrees - and why cant you breed a WKC kelpie to an ANKC kelpie. Far as I know the ANKC has exemptions on for working dog breeders. You may not be able to get them on the ANKC data base but there is no prohibition last time I looked to being able to breed them.

[shortstep]

why cant you breed a WKC kelpie to an ANKC kelpie. Far as I know the ANKC has exemptions on for working dog breeders. You may not be able to get them on the ANKC data base but there is no prohibition last time I looked to being able to breed them.

Yes we would not want to bring that cross bred back into the kennel club now would we. LOL

So yes this is true if you want to leave the kennel club you are free not to inbred, point well made and well taken...LOL My case rests LOL

Edited July 4, 2011 by shortstep

[Steve]

However, surely we can both agree that the recessives for a purebred dog breeder are the easiest for us to try to work with - identify and even if there are no DNA test available as yet that there is a fair chance there will be in reasonably short time or we can track potential carriers and do something about it all.

Polygenic diseases for us are 100% the most challenging - causing immune related issues, joint issues and it seems more and more every day.

As a purebred dog breeder I hold more hope of being able to do something to stop dogs sufering in my breed from recessive disorders than I do with polygenic ones - therefore whether there are more recessives or more polygenic is a mute point - however, I can guarantee that there are less recessives in my purebreds than there are in a mixed breed dog.

LOL well I think you have about as good as idea of what recessives are hidding in your dogs as I do in my dogs, Zip as in Zero. But we both know they are there hidding, or atleast I hope you know that.

This is a common argument that inbreeding helps to control disease.

To me it is far better to have resessive genes not concentrated so that we never or very seldom see them. Verses concentrating them to the point they show up and now we have to deal with. Often by more inbreding in attempts to get rid of them. All the while concentrating some other recessive we did not know was there. It is a dog chasing it's tail game if you ask me. (which I am sure you did not LOL)

I worked my heart out for years to eliminate cherry eye from my lines and then bought in a couple of queensland dogs - lots of champs in their pedigree and no common ancestors and now I know its back - waiting . As long as I never breed any of them - no worries but the fact is Im not a cross bred breeder and I breed for future generations I dont breed without the intent of keeping the best so should I choose to just breed one litter from them put them all out as pets - there will be carriers no affected or do I keep the best and hope its not a carrier - and/ or that the new boy Im bringing in - lots of champs in the pedigree doesnt carry the crap either? How long before I see it again - how long before anyone taking one of my dogs for breeding sees it? Tell me again why did I bring in a dog which had the ability to do this ? Oh thats right - no line breeding.