Pedigree Dog Segment On The 7pm Project

[shortstep]

Bryann a purebred animal with an open stud book means "not purebred".

Bryann..a open stud book can define and promote a breed, a breed does not need a clsoed stud book to exsist.

There are many breeds that work with in open stud books. I have listed many of them before.

One of the best example here in OZ is the Ozzie made working kelpie, see the WKC web site.

It is an open stud book that allows outcrossing and back crossing. I would also say they have excellent breed type, but even more importantly excellent breed type in working traits. Tthis breed was well established and develope long ago and it continues to be well bred by the working community. A Ture Blue Aussie Job and very well done!

[poodlefan]

Bryann a purebred animal with an open stud book means "not purebred".

Bryann..a open stud book can define and promote a breed, a breed does not need a clsoed stud book to exsist.

There are many breeds that work with in open stud books. I have listed many of them before.

One of the best example here in OZ is the Ozzie made working kelpie, see the WKC web site.

It is an open stud book that allows outcrossing and back crossing. I would also say they have excellent breed type, but even more importantly excellent breed type in working traits. Tthis breed was well established and develope long ago and it continues to be well bred by the working community. A Ture Blue Aussie Job and very well done!

Can you give an example outside working dogs?

Can you give an example that doesn't involve heavy culling of "failures" and is a companion breed? ANKC breeders don't really have the option of solving performance issues with a bullet.

I don't propose for a moment to instruct working dog breeders on the hows and whys of how they produce their dogs. However the issues that confront the breeders of companion animals are far more complex.

In the meantime, I suggest the WKC start thinking about how they'll deal with the issue of a complete ban on the export of working dogs. That's another item on the animal rights agenda.

Edited July 5, 2011 by poodlefan

[Are You Serious Jo]

You know, suspect that SS's gripe about purebreds boils down to the old show versus working lines. A permanently open stud book means there is no breed, you have said it yourself, breed type, but not a breed.

Do you outcross your poor inbred ANKC dogs?

[shortstep]

Can you give an example outside working dogs?

Can you give an example that doesn't involve heavy culling of "failures" and is a companion breed?

I don't propose for a moment to instruct working dog breeders on the hows and whys of how they produce their dogs. However the issues that confront the breeders of companion animals are far more complex.

Culling as in meaning not used for breeding.

Would not culling poor examples help any breed, no matter that they are used for, be a good idea? Perhaps more culling of inferior dogs in the companion breeds might be an idea to explore.

I would not say that issues for companion dogs are more complex than issues for working dogs. I have had a lot of experince placing dogs into companion homes, coming up to 30 years, so I think I am Ok to have an opinion about it.

[shortstep]

You know, suspect that SS's gripe about purebreds boils down to the old show versus working lines. A permanently open stud book means there is no breed, you have said it yourself, breed type, but not a breed.

Do you outcross your poor inbred ANKC dogs?

I thought I was the gardener?

I make a good effort to keep the inbreeding as low as possible in my dogs.

[lappielover]

This is as simple as I can say it.

Health testing is great and I never said, nor implied, not to do it.

But health testing is like trying to close the barn door after the horse is out. The goal should be to breed dogs in such a way that inherited diseases do not become common in our breeds.

The kennel club breeding system, from it's very starting point of the meaning of purebred which means all dogs in any breed must be, all related to each other usually from a very small founder population, no new genetics brought in, constant use of inbreeding (there is no choice even if you do not want to inbreed), closed stud books and popular sire (and you can link this to showing if you like) effect. All need major review and updating how we do things.

I think you've expressed the whole purebred situation in a nutshell with this statement, Shortstep. ( A very difficult thing to do, by the way!! :D )

[poodlefan]

Culling as in meaning not used for breeding.

Would not culling poor examples help any breed, no matter that they are used for, be a good idea? Perhaps more culling of inferior dogs in the companion breeds might be an idea to explore.

I would not say that issues for companion dogs are more complex than issues for working dogs. I have had a lot of experince placing dogs into companion homes, coming up to 30 years, so I think I am Ok to have an opinion about it.

How would you evaluate a "poor example" when you don't have a performance measure to test against? What's a "poor example" of a Pekingese?

What makes you think ANKC breeders don't cull "inferior dogs" from their breeding programs now?

Of course you are entitled to an opinion. Its when you suggest that what works for you and your breed will work for all breeds (particularly those without a working register and a clear function) that what you're advocating starts getting shakey.

Edited July 5, 2011 by poodlefan

[shortstep]

Can you give an example outside working dogs?

Opps sorry did not see this.

Yes the very best example I can give is, every single breed in The Kennel Club UK is in an open stud book.

[poodlefan]

Can you give an example outside working dogs?

Opps sorry did not see this.

Yes the very best example I can give is, every single breed in The Kennel Club UK is in an open stud book.

Meaning what exactly.. that every breeder can outcross to whatever they want whenever they want for any purpose deemed desireable? Or do Breed Clubs have something to say about that?

[Steve]

Shortstep has ANKC dogs and breeds some of the best working dogs in the country.

Not agreeing or disagreeing Steve but Australia is a damn big Country.

And concidering alot of SS's statements arise from internet browsing, one just never knows which agenda SS is going by.

Agenda ? Why does it matter? Healthy debate which pushes us to re assess what we think is a good thing surely? If OUR agenda is the betterment of the breeds and the dogs we personally breed then being challenged and having a place where we can belt it out - maybe even learn something is healthier than us staying in our comfort zones and stroking each other to PERHAPS justify mistakes we may have made and in advertently cause dogs to suffer when we can prevent that.

The wolf thing is interesting but how does that relate to what is happening in my back yard when what is happening in the wolf study isnt what is happening in my back yard ? Purebred dog breeders dont breed their dogs in any way that a wolf colony breeds - for us or at least for me it isnt relavant .

We select the mates based on the many things we take into account to try to breed the healthiest puppies and the husbandry methods we use in our loungerooms is hardly comparable in any way and surely by now we all know just as many studies done on inbreeding and natural selection to show a bit of ours.

Among antelopes incestuous matings are the rule. The African reedbuck, for instance, has two young at a birth, male and female, which mate together when mature. Only when one happens to die by accident does out- or cross-breeding occur and this is true of the smaller antelopes too, It’s the same with red deer . Brother and sister tigers mate as a the norm and among African buffaloes, breeding occurs mainly among the immediate offspring of the same cow. The cattle from La Plata in the Falkland Islands, not only quickly multiplied from just a few , but they also broke up into smaller herds according to colour, and the close inbreeding became more intensive because of the cattle’s own instincts.

Many animals do chase off the younger males and don’t let any new comers in so the, males mate with their own daughters.

In nature among some monkeys constant matings between the head of the horde and his daughters, sisters and other close relations, happen. Among most animals, including elephants , the leading male mates with his daughters, grand-daughters, and great-grand-daughters, as long as he is able to keep other males away. Even when he isn’t strong any more that doesn’t stop the incest because usually it will be one of his sons which take his place.

In New Zealand the red deer began as 3 and were introduced in the 1800’s from England and last count about ten years ago the herd numbered over 5,000. They show no signs of disease and they are superior in vigour and health to the original parent stock.

A fellow called Kronacher, starting with one male and three females (a mother and two daughters) of ordinary goats, and in bred for eight generations, without any loss of size, physical development, milking capacity, fertility or vitality. In fact their fertility tended to increase. And he declared that in this case he practised no selection whatever.

In 1916 Professor Castle stated that he had successfully bred Drosophila, brother and sister, for 59 generations, without obtaining any diminution in either vigour or fertility. Moenkhaus crossed the same fly, brother and sister, for 75 generations, without harmful consequences. Hyde and Schultze achieved the same result with mice. Castle tried rats, and Popenoe guinea-pigs, and both concluded that no deleterious effects could be ascribed to the in bred system of mating. King experimented with white rats, mating brother and sister regularly for 22 generations, and among these inbred rats some were obtained which proved actually superior to the stock rats from which they had sprung. The males were 15 per cent. heavier, and the females 3 per cent, while the fertility was nearly 8 per cent. Higher.

There are hundreds of studies done on in breeding in humans going way back in history but more modern studies in human population genetics are The Pitcairn islanders, the Kisar Hybrids, the Bastards of Rehoboth, and the people of the island of Batz, all of whom are examples of human breeding with close inbreeding without harmful results.

The Bataks of Sumatra, who also habitually marry their first-cousins, are some of the healthiest people in the Indian Archipelago. The chiefs in Polynesia and New Zealand have all been noticed for their superior height, looks and vigour. And throughout Polynesia the closest inbreeding in mating is among the chiefs.

Therefore, humans are just as capable as some of the animals of thriving on close inbred matings, if the strains are healthy.

Now - in breeding isnt the cause of problems but not being careful to select for or away from something important in any breeding program - whether that be outcrossing, crossbreeding or inbreeding we can see issues arise which will cause the dogs we breed to suffer. lest not forget in the examples we use for pro inbreeding that usually any born which cant survive in its natural habitat or which was deformed etc either perished or was thrown off a cliff.

We have actually seen something different and decided because it was different we would breed like to like to be able to have more of them.

So 100 % its what we select for - its quicker if we in breed but theoretically we could still get the same results eventually if we only selected like for like.

Opening the stud books is going to lead us no where as long as we keep selecting in ignorance and thats why I dont want regs on banning of in breeding or the stud books being open to any dog unless that dog can pass more than a cursory glance to tell me it looks like its a purebred - and unless the breeder can articulate why they are choosing that dog and what they are hoping to achieve in their breeding program.

[toy dog]

the RSPCA seemed to have started stating arguments against pedigree dogs when we saw from England - PDE. So ANKC has issued a statement to address RSPCA concerns as RSPCA wrote to ANKC complaining about inbreeding of pedigrees and how unhealthy they were. So they've taken info that was grossly exagerated from a tv show (and as i said before which seemed to have been ignored by the main person going on about problems in pedigree dogs on here) all dogs CAN and has potential no matter if crossed bred, pedigree outcrossed, inbred, line bred, CAN suffer from genetic problems. In that program which i assume 7pm project is going off as is others in the media, they have concentrated on grossly exagerated examples of some breeds and portrayed it to mean that all pedigrees no matter what breed has problems.

i was very angry viewing PDE, then 7pm project then RSPCA website where they are all going on about the same thing working off each other and letting it get bigger and bigger and gaining momentum in the public eye. I am angry because with my over 25 years in this world and having alot of experiences with pedigree dogs and also cross bred dogs, rescue dogs and shelters and you name it to do with dogs, i know all this rubbish that is being printed is complete and utter ignorant garbage. it is not how it is........

i think ANKC have answered the public and the RPSCA very well and very diplomatically as i believe its just all scare mongering. UK is not Australia. There are different situations over there in re: to the registries. and the attitude of the public. they still say that most people choose to own a pedigree rather than a cross bred DD. whereas here most of the public has run with the DD craze. so there are big differences between each country yet we are being compared to England and their problems.

Standards are up to individual intepretation always have been like that. Its always been up to individual breeders and it always been apparent to me that there are always going to be breeders with ethics, people with ethics and people with no ethics, people who consider winning the be all and end all no matter if it is detriment to the dog they are showing and there's others who are not this way.

opening stud books? as i said before too that has seemed to be ignored some breeds are 100's of years old and if researched you can find dogs that aren't even remotely related to each other for more than 10 generations back. I have done such a research as a kid this is all i did while other kids went to parties. so rather than opening stud books would it not work, if we select dogs in a pedigree that aren't even remotely related in some breeds you can do this and it works very well, and then breed for a healthier type. no need to open stud books and allow for unknown variables to enter into the gene pool.

I agree with Steve it is all about selection of certain traits that has either helped or not helped others.

someone said on here that there is hate, how can we hate a person that we don't know?

why is it that if we defend ourselves with a reasonable argument of why theories don't work and haven't worked in the past etc etc. and have a debate, we get perceived as "those" people belonging to some sort of elite group/ btw don burke has said this in his interview????????????

i refer you again to the ANKC website where it explains it all in full i believe.

6. Breed Standards

Breed standards are being held up as the be all and end all of the problems in the dog world. Limited research has noted that one or more conditions may be related to breed standards in those standards that have been examined. The vast majority of breed standards were written over 100 years ago and have changed very little since. Problems arise over time where breeders and judges may have selected what appeared more attractive at that time.

Equally over time, this can develop in to the more exaggerated aspects seen in certain breeds.

The breed standards themselves are reasonably open documents and were written to give guidelines for breeds that were predominantly used for hunting and working purposes. The standards were intended to produce sound animals of similar type to breed on with.

Over time (100 years plus), and as fashions change, certain aspects do become altered (particularly when seen from such a distance), but rarely does the standard point the way.

The “Fit for function, fit for life” approach by the Kennel Club (UK) appears to be the best way to approach the selection and breeding of sound dogs into the future. It should be remembered that these problems of exaggerations of the breed standards have developed over generations of both dogs and breeders. The problems cannot be fixed in one generation but need a steady, consistent approach that should be looked at as a long term goal. Attempting to “fix” everything at once will in the vast majority of breeds result in severe number reduction which in turn would cause increased inbreeding with the remaining breeding stock.

The health and welfare notation that has been added to each standard is a clear statement towards the fit for function, fit for life approach. Furthermore judges have been clearly instructed to non-award or excuse from the ring any animal that is distressed, lame or obviously unsound in any way (poor health, temperament, eye discharges etc). This is the culture we need to promote such that breeders will over time not exhibit animals with problems and further, not breed with them.

The “Any departure from the foregoing….” at the end of each standard is there primarily to avoid exaggerations. The statement certainly does not imply that health and welfare issues are to only be considered when departures occur.

The Australian based breed standards affect some 7 breeds – the Kelpie, Cattle Dog, Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog, Border Collie, Australian Terrier, Australian Silky Terrier and more recently the Tenterfield Terrier. None of these breeds are exaggerated structurally to any degree, as the majority come from a solid agriculture working base as reflects our history and culture. These standards are maintained and monitored by the breed societies involved and must agree to any changes.

The ANKC Ltd has very little say in the alteration of breed standards based overseas.

Breed extensions is an area with continual review – this is undertaken every 5 -10 years across all breeds and is an area that could become very proactive in promoting fitness and health in breeds. These are used to educate judges and to a lesser degree breeders. A higher emphasis on health and welfare aspects as well as the fit for function can be readily brought in along with the need to avoid exaggerations.

These are all long term goals that will need time, education and a whole shift in the dog breeding fraternity philosophy towards dog breeding and exhibition. This, like any major shift, is often subtle but eventually quite profound. “Fit for function, fit for life” should be the eventual common goal for us all.

blah..........

[Steve]

Did I miss something!?!

All I can see is a discussion about changes taking place in the UK

and whether we want them here

and the likelihood that they will be regardless

and the suggestion that perhaps being proactive (as groups like the MDBA and Steve are)

that the changes can be made to our benefit rather being forced.

The wolf article was in response to another poster and is an interesting read.

The wolf article was used by Shortstep to suggest the application of "genetic rescue" to purebred dogs thus:

Me, Do we see a new field of studies on purebred dogs, 'genetic rescue' on inbred populations of dogs. Oh gees.

And yes Bryann you have missed something. Shortstep has stated that the health issues of all purebred dogs can only be resolved by outcrossing to different breeds. And that this should be forced upon us all. You have also missed Steve taking issue with Shortstep's assertions and solutions.

Im disagreeing with shortstep on some of the things she says and trying to debate the issue - Im not taking issue with shortstep. I respect her and her right to voice her opinion and I embrace the opportunity to bash it out. It makes me think, reassess what I know and where I stand - and why. Im happy to say if she changes my mind and proves me wrong and I assume she is woman enough to do the same assuming our agenda is for the benefit of our dogs -and for me thats all Im interested in its a good thing.

[Steve]

Bryann a purebred animal with an open stud book means "not purebred".

Bryann..a open stud book can define and promote a breed, a breed does not need a clsoed stud book to exsist.

There are many breeds that work with in open stud books. I have listed many of them before.

One of the best example here in OZ is the Ozzie made working kelpie, see the WKC web site.

It is an open stud book that allows outcrossing and back crossing. I would also say they have excellent breed type, but even more importantly excellent breed type in working traits. Tthis breed was well established and develope long ago and it continues to be well bred by the working community. A Ture Blue Aussie Job and very well done!

Purebred breeders have always had the ability to apply to have the stud books opened and they still do.

Not much point in beating up SS about their belief that opening stud books across the board is the answer as this is exactly what the UKKC have done and without doubt sooner or later teh ANKC will bend to animal rights push and do the same thing.

My argument is that its still being done based on conformation which in my opinion is nothing more than a bandaid - because its still about selection.

[poodlefan]

Im disagreeing with shortstep on some of the things she says and trying to debate the issue - Im not taking issue with shortstep. I respect her and her right to voice her opinion and I embrace the opportunity to bash it out. It makes me think, reassess what I know and where I stand - and why. Im happy to say if she changes my mind and proves me wrong and I assume she is woman enough to do the same assuming our agenda is for the benefit of our dogs -and for me thats all Im interested in its a good thing.

I never suggested you were playing the 'man' rather than the ball Steve. Like you, I know that we are more than our opinions and that disagreement should not be an invitation to personal attack.

I have said in this thread and the other that the concept of outcrossing in and of itself is not a bad thing. Its SS's starting point that all purebred dogs must, by virtue of their pedigree status and that alone have health issues (and that open stud books are logical and necessary solution) that's got my debating this.

Opening the stud books won't change a damn thing if the same features are selected for and a small number of outcrossed individuals become dominant sires within a breed. Sooner or later you get back to the practice that is allegedly the root cause of the issue - inbreeding.

If a minimum COI was to be specified (based on rational, scientific research) and breed standards were amended to remove the "more is more" wording of some. that IMO would produce a faster, less risky result than outcrossing.

These issues are complex and there is no 'magic bullet'. As I said before, we need to do more than take a blunt instrument to hundreds (and in some cases) thousands of years of selective breeding simply because someone wants to see ANKC and working breed registers opened to one another in their breed of choice. That is my assessment of what is driving this.

Agendas always matter. If Shortstep wants all breeds to fall into line with what she sees as best for Kelpies then its only fair to point out that all breeds are not Kelpies and that what works for one isn't necessarily suitable (or available) for all.

Edited July 6, 2011 by poodlefan

[shortstep]

Shortstep has ANKC dogs and breeds some of the best working dogs in the country.

Not agreeing or disagreeing Steve but Australia is a damn big Country.

And concidering alot of SS's statements arise from internet browsing, one just never knows which agenda SS is going by.

Agenda ? Why does it matter? Healthy debate which pushes us to re assess what we think is a good thing surely? If OUR agenda is the betterment of the breeds and the dogs we personally breed then being challenged and having a place where we can belt it out - maybe even learn something is healthier than us staying in our comfort zones and stroking each other to PERHAPS justify mistakes we may have made and in advertently cause dogs to suffer when we can prevent that.

The wolf thing is interesting but how does that relate to what is happening in my back yard when what is happening in the wolf study isnt what is happening in my back yard ? Purebred dog breeders dont breed their dogs in any way that a wolf colony breeds - for us or at least for me it isnt relavant .

We select the mates based on the many things we take into account to try to breed the healthiest puppies and the husbandry methods we use in our loungerooms is hardly comparable in any way and surely by now we all know just as many studies done on inbreeding and natural selection to show a bit of ours.

Which is exactly what I said.

However making along list of species that inbreed, is no different from making a long list of animals that do not closely inbreed, and neither list proves it is good or bad for our dogs, as they are not those animals. More importantly it is all negated by the fact we do the selection not nature, so all bets are off.

Personally I woudl sugest all human example not be used for a lot of reasons, the main one being that has been already used by PETA very sucessfully and I would never feed into that idea.

Edited July 6, 2011 by shortstep

[toy dog]

but dont you guys think using the dalmation as an example that its going to take alot of years before that happens (opening of stud books here and other countries). it took them 40 years in the dalmation to have them accepted and still its only UK that has accepted them. other countries have not as yet. other countries still deem them cross breeds. (just going on what i read)

Edited July 6, 2011 by toy dog

[Steve]

but dont you guys think using the dalmation as an example that its going to take alot of years before that happens (opening of stud books here and other countries). it took them 40 years in the dalmation to have them accepted and still its only UK that has accepted them. other countries have not as yet. other countries still deem them cross breeds. (just going on what i read)

So who should answer for it taking 40 years? Surely if someone knows its a problem and there is a way of fixing it - its a no brainer - fix it. Remember the agenda should be to stop dogs suffering - If an antiquated system is what is holding it up better we now re assess the sytem so that in future when we find a way of fixing something we can go ahead and use it.

[Steve]

Shortstep has ANKC dogs and breeds some of the best working dogs in the country.

Not agreeing or disagreeing Steve but Australia is a damn big Country.

And concidering alot of SS's statements arise from internet browsing, one just never knows which agenda SS is going by.

Agenda ? Why does it matter? Healthy debate which pushes us to re assess what we think is a good thing surely? If OUR agenda is the betterment of the breeds and the dogs we personally breed then being challenged and having a place where we can belt it out - maybe even learn something is healthier than us staying in our comfort zones and stroking each other to PERHAPS justify mistakes we may have made and in advertently cause dogs to suffer when we can prevent that.

The wolf thing is interesting but how does that relate to what is happening in my back yard when what is happening in the wolf study isnt what is happening in my back yard ? Purebred dog breeders dont breed their dogs in any way that a wolf colony breeds - for us or at least for me it isnt relavant .

We select the mates based on the many things we take into account to try to breed the healthiest puppies and the husbandry methods we use in our loungerooms is hardly comparable in any way and surely by now we all know just as many studies done on inbreeding and natural selection to show a bit of ours.

Which is exactly what I said.

However making along list of species that inbreed, is no different from making a long list of animals that do not closely inbreed, and neither list proves it is good or bad for our dogs, as they are not those animals. More importantly it is all negated by the fact we do the selection not nature, so all bets are off.

Personally I woudl sugest all human example not be used for a lot of reasons, the main one being that has been already used by PETA very sucessfully and I would never feed into that idea.

I agree so perhaps we should just stick to studies done on purebred breeding of mammals - where the variables more closely resemble what we do - or what we should do. No more wolves and no more people ;)

[shortstep]

Can you give an example outside working dogs?

Opps sorry did not see this.

Yes the very best example I can give is, every single breed in The Kennel Club UK is in an open stud book.

Meaning what exactly.. that every breeder can outcross to whatever they want whenever they want for any purpose deemed desireable? Or do Breed Clubs have something to say about that?

Why don't you read it for yourself.

It says that any dogs that looks like the breed and passes the required health tests can be registered. It is a 3 genertion appedix system (just like what the WKC uses that I sugested folks look at) that brings the dogs in to main registration status, or perhaps you would want to say 'now considered purebred'.

There has already been an amendment, that allows working trial judges to look at the working breeds if the owner requests that, so they do not get exclude, as working dogs often have a body type very different from the show lines.

So this means that smooth coated border collie on the paddock down the road can enter the UK border collie stud book and then the 3 generation could come back into our stud book. So it seems rather silly to keep them out any more, it would be better to control our own intergration system. However we can just dig in and wait for the RSPCA and Governement to push our kennel club to do the same system they are doing in the UK, across the board, all breeds and no one talks to the parent.

And guess what, after this conversation I will now just support the across the board system, it is just too hard to try to get anything else even talked about, never mind done.

And no, the breed clubs have no say in the matter they cannot stop anyone from bringing in a dog. Why you ask? Because everyone knows it would take another 30 years and 24 generations to bring in a dog free of a disease that every KC registerd dog has, and only then under huge diress.

Game is over. We need to face it and deal with it and denying that change is needed is only makeing it worse.

The Gardener.

Edited July 6, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

I agree so perhaps we should just stick to studies done on purebred breeding of mammals - where the variables more closely resemble what we do - or what we should do. No more wolves and no more people ;)

I think dogs are not mice either.

So really only dogs (unless it proves my point and the all rules of fair play are out! LOL).