Pedigree Dog Segment On The 7pm Project

[shortstep]

I find this amusing as well. They seem to consistently put the boot into the ANKC.

Only if you equate inbreeding and ANKC as the same thing.

I see it is disucssing some current issue in dog breeding that seem to be very uncomfrotable for a few people, to the point they make personal attacks. I do not find that amusing.

[Marion 01]

thats a bit scary, we should accept dogs with unknown heritage??? my gosh the world has gone mad. i shudder to think how this is all going to pan out in 10 20 years time, the pedigree dog probably will be extinct by then.

So toydog, what do you thinkof the British Kennel club haveing done this, they are now an open stud book for all breeds including chi, any dogs that looks like the breed passes any maditory health tests will be registered, 3 generations later the pups are full KC registration ready for export to OZ!

Actually this is what happened way back in the 1930's with the Tibetan Terriers, one of the main sires of early litters was an unknown parentage dog found on a dockside and was accepted into the studbook because he looked like a TT, went in front of a panel and was judged to have all the characteristics of a TT, so therefore must have been a TT, he went on to be the foundation sire of one of the well known kennels of the early years. However the lady who was the foundation breeder of the TTs was not amused to have this happen and the shit hit the fan so to speak, but life went on and he went on to produce lots more progeny. No DNA tests back then, just observation. So history is repeating itself, gee haven't we come a long way, not.

[Steve]

In basis I agree with you but I dont want any old dog being able to be placed on the registry and surely there has to be some line in the sand .

So do you want ANKC to close the stud book to UK imports that go back to their new apendix registered dogs?

These dogs will not have pedigess listed even if they have them (I think). So would be just any dog by a purebred kennel club standards I would think. For example a WKC dog could be imported to the UK and now registered into the KC, 3 generations later his great grand pups could find their way back to OZ, so would you want to block these dogs from being in the ANKC due to the apendix working dog in the pedigree?

What will you do if the ANKC did like the KC did and just announce with out warning, they are doing the same open stud book policy here !!!

Now shortstep - thats not what Im saying at all - I think you know that - and what will I do when the ANKC does what the UK kennel club did - nothing any different to what Im doing now.

[Are You Serious Jo]

I find this amusing as well. They seem to consistently put the boot into the ANKC.

Only if you equate inbreeding and ANKC as the same thing.

I see it is disucssing some current issue in dog breeding that seem to be very uncomfrotable for a few people, to the point they make personal attacks. I do not find that amusing.

You have basically said that all purebreds are in crisis and all are inbred and that is the cause of all the issues. Now you are trying to tell us that you are also breeding purebreds, which by your definition makes you guilty of breeding genetic messes that are all unhealthy due to the fact they are inbred because they are purebred. You said it earlier, your own words. So, do you breed unhealthy dogs then? You pooed pooed poodlefan when she tried to explain that some breeds are perfectly fine and are not in dire need of rescue from animal rights people.

You refuse to give any information on what breeds you have so we have to guess based on your posts.

[Bullbreedlover]

I find this amusing as well. They seem to consistently put the boot into the ANKC.

Only if you equate inbreeding and ANKC as the same thing.

I see it is disucssing some current issue in dog breeding that seem to be very uncomfrotable for a few people, to the point they make personal attacks. I do not find that amusing.

You have basically said that all purebreds are in crisis and all are inbred and that is the cause of all the issues. Now you are trying to tell us that you are also breeding purebreds, which by your definition makes you guilty of breeding genetic messes that are all unhealthy due to the fact they are inbred because they are purebred. You said it earlier, your own words. So, do you breed unhealthy dogs then? You pooed pooed poodlefan when she tried to explain that some breeds are perfectly fine and are not in dire need of rescue from animal rights people.

You refuse to give any information on what breeds you have so we have to guess based on your posts.

I have now for many months tried to figure out exactly what agenda Shortstep is running on. I then gave up.

But I have found everyone elses posts great reading.

[OSoSwift]

Well someone has their knickers in a knot about inbreeding! Inbreeding is not the root of all evil, it is only a tool for selecting genes you want. You can inbreed two closely related animals and if they are both free of a particular gene then their offspring won't have it. Similarly, you can take two animals that are not related in any way and if both carry a gene the offspring can develop it. You wouldn't blame inbreeding then would you? The solution to the problem is be selective in matings with knowledge of what your lines carry. It is well known that if you outcross you risk introducing genes you don't want.

This exactly.

[toy dog]

after what steve said about the 1st of july they have made steps? to ban inbreeding of close relatives, does anyone have a link to this ruling BTW??

i came across this on the ANKC website

3. Pedigree analysis for all ANKC registered breeds The University of Sydney is assisting the ANKC by conducting research on inbreeding co-efficients of pedigree dog data bases provided by the ANKC Ltd. Early reports show that the level of first degree inbreeding is less than 5% across the breeds studied so far and is considerably lower in many breeds. The ANKC Ltd is looking forwards to ongoing collaboration and assistance from the Genetic Department at Sydney University. To address this ongoing process will require funding from the ANKC.

and this one

4. Open pedigree studbooks The Opening of stud books is an area that is strongly opposed by many breeders. Where this has been done as with the LUA Dalmatians, it has been done to counteract the high uric acid problem that affects all Dalmatians. This is a very useful and purposeful exercise. These Low Uric Acid dogs have now been accepted by the Kennel Club (UK).

This out crossing was done in the correct manner i.e. the breed selected was-

a) of a similar head and body type,

b) did not carry additional problems,

c) did not carry the specific or target problem i.e. the high urate problem and

d) they have avoided doubling up on the dog that was brought in.

Where this type of outcrossing is proposed, it should be done primarily to clear/reduce a significant and specific health issue. Great care must be used when introducing any new genetic material. The relative health conditions of each base breed must be well researched, and the resultant progeny closely monitored for a good 10-15 generations for the appearance of any new conditions. Any adverse conditions that develop should be widely notified.

This type of outcrossing already occurs in the Miniature Bull Terriers, outcrossing to standard Bull Terriers in order to decrease the incidence of lens luxation - the resultant progeny are not allowed to be bred back into the standard Bull Terrier bloodlines. This is envisioned as ongoing until such time as an accurate DNA test for the condition is developed (which has just occurred in the last few months). Also, albeit on a small scale, intervarietal inbreeding is permitted in Belgian Shepherds.

[toy dog]

anyone see this also?

5.With regards to Inbreeding we are collaborating with the Sydney University Faculty of Veterinary Science investigating the status in Australia. We do not anticipate major problems in the numerically larger breeds, smaller breeds may have higher figures, however Australian breeders have a long history of importing new bloodlines, especially due to our geographical isolation.

[shortstep]

I read this on the AKC web site for Neos which explains the use of inbreeding in the Neo breed.

The Mastino's type, its unique appearance, was created in the Neapolitan countryside by years of inbreeding. As a result, the traits that make the Mastino an unusual dog: its wrinkles, dewlap, loose skin, enormous bone, and distinct lumbering gait, are created by an accumulation of recessive genes. To breed a sound dog with these attributes is truly an art...and a challenge.

From the AKC 2010 Neo National Specialty

[sas]

To breed a sound dog with these attributes is truly an art...and a challenge.

'Sound'? Really?

Edited July 4, 2011 by MEH

[Steve]

There is no denying that some dog breeds are in trouble - we make fools of ourselves in trying to deny that - and because they are BREEDS of course this has come about because the dogs were in bred and SELECTED FOR certain traits.

Again over and over - its not in breeding which caused this - its is what has been selected for. These traits were what the breeders wanted and the results of the pedigree analysis done by Sydney Uni proves they didnt get it by closely in breeding anyway.

No one knows yet what the long term outcome is going to be of selecting for certain health results or scores which we are muscled into taking into account. If a dog has good hips - forget about the other couple of hundred thousand genes select for that and we wont know for a lot longer than it takes to work out that breeding for the way the dog looks has created health issues.

We dont know whether, when we select for low hip scores that we are losing other genes which may be impacting on immunity or a million other things yet either. That would be the case if we were breeding first cross dogs only selected for low scores as much as it will if we breed cross bred dogs only selecting for low scores or purebreds selecting only for low scores.

We have to select for good health, longevity, temperament and predicitibility of management requirements AND select away from potential recessives which are prevalent in the breed to be able to breed consistently healthy dogs generation after generation with the new science and tools which are now at our disposal which have only been available to us in recent history.

Here's the deal. We breed purebred dogs. The reason we choose to do that rather than breed cross bred dogs is because we believe that even though some families can live with any dog or any breed that many cannot .

We believe that if we can breed dogs which are predictible we can have a better chance of having them and the families which take them live happily ever after. Because we are breeding consecutive generations and not just one - first cross - we need to consider what is in the mix which will show up in future.

This is something which is unique to purebred breeders of any species. Without this we would not have different breeds of sheep, cattle, horses blah blah blah.That is not to say that first cross breeders are the bogey man but because we are looking at future generations and the impact our decisions will have on the families and the dogs we need more education , more skills, more tools and more knowledge to get it right - because what we breed will be used to breed with.We do need to work with recessives and take them into consideration where a cross bred breeder does not. Knowing what recessives to look for and test for and eliminate from a couple of dozen choices makes it much easier to do that than it is if we have thousands of potentials which may show up any old time. The fact of the matter is someone has to be mindful of what will come next when they breed dogs which will be used for breeding or there is never any chance of improving on anything and every dog bred will be the result of pot luck. Not only will the obvious characteristics be a crap shoot but so too will whether or not the dog will suffer with a genetic disorder. With the pressure on to desex dogs and breeders - purebred and cross bred - being treated as low life pondscum every single day the canine gene pool used for or suitable for breeding reduces.

No doubt about it some breeders have selected for extremes in the breed standard without understanding the impact that may have on the health of the dogs into the future - whether they did this by breeding close relatives or not the decisions they made in selecting the dogs they bred have caused some dogs to suffer. Anyone from any group who is going to deny that needs to go and sit in a corner and re think what they think they know.

No doubt about it when some breeders have been concerned about the phenotype of the animal in order to conform to a breed standard - regardless of how that was interpreted - they have over looked the need to identify and remove animals from their breeding programs which have not been what is best for future generations.

No doubt about it something needed to be said and said pretty loudly in order for breeders to be more aware of the pros and cons with regard to health for generations to come which are impacted by the decisions they make in their selection of breeding dogs.

No doubt about it some of us still havent got it and the race is on to try to make those breeders see the light or at least to shut up about the fact that they dont get it publicly and to change their beliefs and objectives in their breeding programs before we are all penalised and restricted because of that but there are 500 reasons why we are where we are now and dozens of things which need to be addressed and worked on and whether or not we breed the occassional litter which is closely related is the very least of them.

We need to identify the problems and devise plans to fix them by looking at the whole issue objectively not by jumping on one popular uneducated belief perpetuated by people who dont get why we do what we do and which will threaten not aid the health of our dogs.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Steve

[poodlefan]

Steve:

There is no denying that some dog breeds are in trouble - we make fools of ourselves in trying to deny that

I don't see anyone attempting to deny it. The issue is with people concluding that if some breeds are in trouble, then ALL breeds are.

I personally take issue with the idea that outcrossing is the magic bullet for all health concerns. No one knows for sure what introducing new genes will produce when offspring are again linebred to re-establish type.

Edited July 5, 2011 by poodlefan

[Steve]

Steve:

There is no denying that some dog breeds are in trouble - we make fools of ourselves in trying to deny that

I don't see anyone attempting to deny it. The issue is with people concluding that if some breeds are in trouble, then ALL breeds are.

I personally take issue with the idea that outcrossing is the magic bullet for all health concerns. No one knows for sure what introducing new genes will produce when offspring are again linebred to re-establish type.

I see some people trying to deny it though their intent maybe simply to defend their own breeds but in my opinion its not just an issue with assumptions that all breeds are in trouble - though I agree this is definitely one of the issues.

But even if they are never line bred again and type isnt considered important you are still going to see each recessive being more prevalant as there is a reducing gene pool due to social pressure. Problem is no one knows which recessives or what to watch out for or test for = more not less dogs with recessive disorders.

It is - what appears to be - an inability for some to accept its a much more complex issue than is being presented. This constant carry on about in breeding as if it is stopped it will be the magic bullet, and the fact that each breed has a different set of circumstances which will all need to be addressed or not addressed on a case by case basis with all of the tools and resources possible to be available for use, is rarely acknowledged.

In all honesty I cant see much point in all of the finger pointing and accusations about how blah blah blah came about especially when those telling us how it came about havent much clue about this breeding of this species or of particular breeds, that there is no research on incidences or prevalence and they seem to rely on what they think they know about humans to carry on about what is best for dogs.

That they show no respect what ever for any potential experience base or knowledge and assume they know better about what does or does not need to be done is another. The start place appears to be we are ignorant cruel people who care nothing for the animals we live with and therefore that we are incapable of finding the problems, the solutions and being in capable of doing whatever is required on a breed by breed, dog by dog basis to ensure purebred dogs exist and will be healthy regardless of their breed unless big brother comes in to decide what is best . there is never a word mentioned about the fact that purebred dogs rely on in breeding to exist as they do and it is what we do.

It bothers me that this has brainwashed purebred breeders who also think in breeding is a terrible sin without taking a look at the whole picture. Breeders shouldn't have to rely on animal rights propoganda to learn about breeding principals and husbandry issues with their species and it is folly to do so. Even more so because our numbers are dropping, breeders are doing some things which rather than helping is reducing the gene pools - and our CCs have decided to play a game which doesnt really consider the big picture again mainly pushed by animal rights and propoganda about puppy farms.

[Sheridan]

thats a bit scary, we should accept dogs with unknown heritage??? my gosh the world has gone mad. i shudder to think how this is all going to pan out in 10 20 years time, the pedigree dog probably will be extinct by then.

So toydog, what do you thinkof the British Kennel club haveing done this, they are now an open stud book for all breeds including chi, any dogs that looks like the breed passes any maditory health tests will be registered, 3 generations later the pups are full KC registration ready for export to OZ!

Actually this is what happened way back in the 1930's with the Tibetan Terriers, one of the main sires of early litters was an unknown parentage dog found on a dockside and was accepted into the studbook because he looked like a TT, went in front of a panel and was judged to have all the characteristics of a TT, so therefore must have been a TT, he went on to be the foundation sire of one of the well known kennels of the early years. However the lady who was the foundation breeder of the TTs was not amused to have this happen and the shit hit the fan so to speak, but life went on and he went on to produce lots more progeny. No DNA tests back then, just observation. So history is repeating itself, gee haven't we come a long way, not.

Story goes that when wheatens were accepted into the Irish Kennel Club (despite being the oldest of the native Irish terrier breeds), they lined up a bunch of wheatens and irish terriers and went, 'That one's a wheaten, that one's an irish terrier, that one's a wheaten ...'

[Steve]

thats a bit scary, we should accept dogs with unknown heritage??? my gosh the world has gone mad. i shudder to think how this is all going to pan out in 10 20 years time, the pedigree dog probably will be extinct by then.

So toydog, what do you thinkof the British Kennel club haveing done this, they are now an open stud book for all breeds including chi, any dogs that looks like the breed passes any maditory health tests will be registered, 3 generations later the pups are full KC registration ready for export to OZ!

Actually this is what happened way back in the 1930's with the Tibetan Terriers, one of the main sires of early litters was an unknown parentage dog found on a dockside and was accepted into the studbook because he looked like a TT, went in front of a panel and was judged to have all the characteristics of a TT, so therefore must have been a TT, he went on to be the foundation sire of one of the well known kennels of the early years. However the lady who was the foundation breeder of the TTs was not amused to have this happen and the shit hit the fan so to speak, but life went on and he went on to produce lots more progeny. No DNA tests back then, just observation. So history is repeating itself, gee haven't we come a long way, not.

Story goes that when wheatens were accepted into the Irish Kennel Club (despite being the oldest of the native Irish terrier breeds), they lined up a bunch of wheatens and irish terriers and went, 'That one's a wheaten, that one's an irish terrier, that one's a wheaten ...'

It is probably the case that this needs to be done now in some breeds but while ever we are going to have purebred dogs exist sooner or later its only a bandaid unless we also do many other things including utilise the science and resources which are now available to us - just picking a dog to add to a breeding program based on how much it resembles a breed in this day and age without taking a whole heap more into account is for me pretty dumb.

then what ? Will we still see peopel having pressure on them to breed less rather than increase the gene pool, will we see the stud books opened indefinitely and what is it exactly that we will need to test for or will testing be no longer necessary and if so for how long ?

For me the whole thing seems to perpetuate the problem - selecting dogs for their phenotype . It will increase the gene pool overnight and stop the bad bad inbreeding activity - only a good thing if you believe that is all its going to need to prevent dogs suffering. How long before they yell about selecting for the phenotype and not just the dreaded inbreeding. Sooner than we think I reckon.

I think if we are going to open the stud books that it needs to be presented as a program where we can see the method and the desired outcome for the breed for each dog presented as a possible candidate to be accepted without a registered pedigree . Without that how is it prgress? .

[poodlefan]

Story goes that when wheatens were accepted into the Irish Kennel Club (despite being the oldest of the native Irish terrier breeds), they lined up a bunch of wheatens and irish terriers and went, 'That one's a wheaten, that one's an irish terrier, that one's a wheaten ...'

That's how Cairns and West Highland White Terriers were divided.

[shortstep]

I don't see anyone attempting to deny it. The issue is with people concluding that if some breeds are in trouble, then ALL breeds are.

I personally take issue with the idea that outcrossing is the magic bullet for all health concerns. No one knows for sure what introducing new genes will produce when offspring are again linebred to re-establish type.

I never said that all purebred dogs were sick, I do say they are all inbred by the very nature of closed stud books.

I never said that outcrossing was magic bullet for all health problems and infact said several times I did not say or believe that, only to have you imply that I said it again. So no problem to me, here it is one more time.

Outcrossing and cross breeding is not a silver bullet for all health problems. It works very well for simple recessive diseases it would help if applied correctly, certainly closed stud books do not help with these diseases at all. It should be in a our tool box and effort should made to assure this happens.

Like it or not these topics are not going away. Currently UK KC has now made it possible for their breeders to lower their inbreeding levels for the first time in who knows how long, I applaud them for that. I have just heard that some of the KC in Europe will be following with their own programs. It's not going away.

I also noted this morning in the UK that several breeders had on their web sites that they were using the new Mate select and had written a bit about inbreeding and their desire to reduce in their breed and in their litters and had the COI posted for the parents and their litter. These were KC Accredited Breeders and were doing all the right things, health testing and showed their dogs, they look like very good caring breeder to me. It's not going away.

So now I am going out to do some pruning.

(That is gardening, and why they call me the gardener opps I mean The Stig.)

Edited July 5, 2011 by shortstep

[Sheridan]

I don't see anyone attempting to deny it. The issue is with people concluding that if some breeds are in trouble, then ALL breeds are.

I personally take issue with the idea that outcrossing is the magic bullet for all health concerns. No one knows for sure what introducing new genes will produce when offspring are again linebred to re-establish type.

I never said that all purebred dogs were sick, I do say they are all inbred by the very nature of closed stud books.

I never said that outcrossing was magic bullet for all health problems and infact said several times I did not say or believe that, only to have you imply that I said it again. So no problem to me, here it is one more time.

Outcrossing and cross breeding is not a silver bullet for all health problems. It works very well for simple recessive diseases it would help if applied correctly, certainly closed stud books do not help with these diseases at all. It should be in a our tool box and effort should made to assure this happens.

Like it or not these topics are not going away. Currently UK KC has now made it possible for their breeders to lower their inbreeding levels for the first time in who knows how long, I applaud them for that. I have just heard that some of the KC in Europe will be following with their own programs. It's not going away.

I also noted this morning in the UK that several breeders had on their web sites that they were using the new Mate select and had written a bit about inbreeding and their desire to reduce in their breed and in their litters and had the COI posted for the parents and their litter. These were KC Accredited Breeders and were doing all the right things, health testing and showed their dogs, they look like very good caring breeder to me. It's not going away.

So now I am going out to do some pruning.

(That is gardening, and why they call me the gardener opps I mean The Stig.)

Open stud books would be a disaster for breeds where the mode of inheritance of a disease is unknown. I can point at any old dog that looks like a wheaten and go, 'That's a wheaten' and sure it might be. If it is and it's pedigree is unknown, I might well be introducing a protein-wasting disease into a line that previously did not have it. The only tests for protein wasting diseases show that the dog doesn't have it on the day of the test. Open stud books are not a magic bullet where a mode of inheritance is unknown and it behooves you to acknowledge it.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Sheridan

[Marion 01]

Why not study nature, all the animals and their way of keeping only the best and strongest of the lines etc. No one out there to tell them when to breed and with whom, they keep their lines very close. In some animals if a prospective male from other lines comes in hoping to mate with the females, they get shortshifted very smartly, and if a mating does occur the babies are killed because the lines have been violated. We could learn invaluable lessons from studying their behaviour re breeding and the family structure. They haven't got the benefit of science to tell them what to do, like we have.

[shortstep]

Why not study nature, all the animals and their way of keeping only the best and strongest of the lines etc. No one out there to tell them when to breed and with whom, they keep their lines very close. In some animals if a prospective male from other lines comes in hoping to mate with the females, they get shortshifted very smartly, and if a mating does occur the babies are killed because the lines have been violated. We could learn invaluable lessons from studying their behaviour re breeding and the family structure. They haven't got the benefit of science to tell them what to do, like we have.

Just a couple of big problems with that idea.

Firstly there is a huge range of levels of reproduction methods, from self fertilization to no family inbreeding at all. A dog is not a plant, and it is not a worm and it is not mouse. So when it comes to natural reproduction the choices are specific to each animal or plant. How you would determine what the natural method would be in man made domestic dogs is another matter, and I have no idea. Look at wolves perhaps or even dingos might be better, really I have no idea.

Second problem is in nature there is only natural selection. Not the artificial selection to meet an artificial breed standard that we do with purebred dogs. Dogs are man made and this changes everything. However we already know what happens when you let a bunch of purebred dog breeds run wild for a few generations and let nature make the choices, the resulting feral pups will basically become moderate, med sized, mobile eared, nicely proportioned basic generic mutts.

Thirdly many of the traits we select for that make a breed what it is, would never be selected for in nature. Nature will only keep what works, normal mouths, normal noses, normal skin and so forth. If a dog had to really hunt for it's own food I think you can imagine what would happen to many of our breeds. So if we want to follow nature in real selection of the fittest then we would have to totally change what we expect to find in our dogs. I think there is merit in this, but this would not be an acceptable idea.

So I do not think we can pretend that we can ever mimic natural breeding and natural selection. Even if you could prove that dogs or perhaps wolves would actually choose to only inbred very closely and would shun all other members of their species in nature (which I do not think would be the case but too tired to look it up). We still could not mimic which dogs would be selected in nature, but for sure many of breeds would not make the 'natrual selection' cut. What we are doing with dog breeds does not come any where close to what happens with natural selection.

Edited July 5, 2011 by shortstep