Homozygous For The Bobtail Gene:

[sandgrubber]

As bans on tail docking spread, outcrossing and backcrossing to produce natural bobtails seems like an attractive option.

I was reading the Retrieverman blog awhile back and came across some horrid accounts of what can happen if pups are homozygous for the bobtail gene.

see: http://retrieverman....atural-bobtail/

Apparently they may end out missing not only a tail, but also without an anus, with the result that they should be PTS to avoid a horrid death.

Are people aware of this problem? Is it a problem?

(edited to add the word 'spread' to first sentence. I dropped it somehow, leaving the sentence confusing)

Edited November 27, 2011 by sandgrubber

[Guest Doglady0419]

As bans on tail docking, outcrossing and backcrossing to produce natural bobtails seems like an attractive option.

I was reading the Retrieverman blog awhile back and came across some horrid accounts of what can happen if pups are homozygous for the bobtail gene.

see: http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/homozygous-natural-bobtail/

Apparently they may end out missing not only a tail, but also without an anus, with the result that they should be PTS to avoid a horrid death.

Are people aware of this problem? Is it a problem?

This also happens with tailed breeds......along with many other breeding disorders such as missing limbs, deaf/blind pups, pups with abnormal conformation etc.

Question to you sangrubber....from your post you are less than impressed of this find....what do think will solve the problem other than baning in-breeding?

Edited November 27, 2011 by Doglady0419

[Janba]

As bans on tail docking, outcrossing and backcrossing to produce natural bobtails seems like an attractive option.

I was reading the Retrieverman blog awhile back and came across some horrid accounts of what can happen if pups are homozygous for the bobtail gene.

see: http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/homozygous-natural-bobtail/

Apparently they may end out missing not only a tail, but also without an anus, with the result that they should be PTS to avoid a horrid death.

Are people aware of this problem? Is it a problem?

This also happens with tailed breeds......along with many other breeding disorders such as missing limbs, deaf/blind pups, pups with abnormal conformation etc.

Question to you sangrubber....from your post you are less than impressed of this find....what do think will solve the problem other than baning in-breeding?

It has nothing to do with inbreeding. It has to do with the fact that it is claimed that pups that are homozygous for the bob tail gene die in utero so are never born.

[Guest Doglady0419]

As bans on tail docking, outcrossing and backcrossing to produce natural bobtails seems like an attractive option.

I was reading the Retrieverman blog awhile back and came across some horrid accounts of what can happen if pups are homozygous for the bobtail gene.

see: http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/homozygous-natural-bobtail/

Apparently they may end out missing not only a tail, but also without an anus, with the result that they should be PTS to avoid a horrid death.

Are people aware of this problem? Is it a problem?

This also happens with tailed breeds......along with many other breeding disorders such as missing limbs, deaf/blind pups, pups with abnormal conformation etc.

Question to you sangrubber....from your post you are less than impressed of this find....what do think will solve the problem other than baning in-breeding?

It has nothing to do with inbreeding. It has to do with the fact that it is claimed that pups that are homozygous for the bob tail gene die in utero so are never born.

sandgrubber wrote: As bans on tail docking, outcrossing and backcrossing to produce natural bobtails seems like an attractive option.

Banning Tail docking will not solve your problem when we use imports from countries that routinely dock all pups at birth because it is part of the breed standard....the breeders can't or won't tell you if the dog was born NBT or Full....I am aware of the homozygous bob tail gene die in utero. Inbreeding can be a problem with many abnormalities and there are those that say it doesn't....I am asking sangrubber in their opinion, a ban on tail docking is already in place and this still occurs but in minority, what measures do you think must be taken to put an end to this problem if you think it is a problem? You brought the subject up....what would you do about it? Remembering that dogs are born with the NBT gene. Many avoid NBT to NBT, what do you sugest?

[dancinbcs]

As bans on tail docking, outcrossing and backcrossing to produce natural bobtails seems like an attractive option.

I was reading the Retrieverman blog awhile back and came across some horrid accounts of what can happen if pups are homozygous for the bobtail gene.

see: http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/homozygous-natural-bobtail/

Apparently they may end out missing not only a tail, but also without an anus, with the result that they should be PTS to avoid a horrid death.

Are people aware of this problem? Is it a problem?

It is a risk all breeders of bobtail gene dogs take all the time and the one they hate the most. Most homozygous puppies are never born but those that are will likely be deformed and have to be euthanised, just like any other deformed puppy. The homozygous bob tail has nothing to do with inbreeding but inbreeding does increase the risk of other common dog developmental deformities like cleft palate, club feet and heart defects like PDA.

[BJean]

As bans on tail docking, outcrossing and backcrossing to produce natural bobtails seems like an attractive option.

I was reading the Retrieverman blog awhile back and came across some horrid accounts of what can happen if pups are homozygous for the bobtail gene.

see: http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/homozygous-natural-bobtail/

Apparently they may end out missing not only a tail, but also without an anus, with the result that they should be PTS to avoid a horrid death.

Are people aware of this problem? Is it a problem?

I observed a litter last year where there was a puppy born with no anus.

Nothing to do with the NBT gene.

Actually it was from a Central Asian ovtcharka litter

as retrieverman likes to call them.

I guess that shoots some holes into his NBT = no anus theory.

Edited November 27, 2011 by lilli

[SwaY]

As bans on tail docking, outcrossing and backcrossing to produce natural bobtails seems like an attractive option.

I was reading the Retrieverman blog awhile back and came across some horrid accounts of what can happen if pups are homozygous for the bobtail gene.

see: http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/homozygous-natural-bobtail/

Apparently they may end out missing not only a tail, but also without an anus, with the result that they should be PTS to avoid a horrid death.

Are people aware of this problem? Is it a problem?

I observed a litter last year where there was a puppy born with no anus.

Nothing to do with the NBT gene.

Actually it was from a Central Asian ovtcharka litter

as retrieverman likes to call them.

I guess that shoots some holes into his NBT = no anus theory.

If I remember correctly, there was also another puppy (purebred hound breed) born with no Anus.

[SwaY]

I would have thought hare lips and cleft palates would be more common?

[sandgrubber]

sandgrubber wrote: As bans on tail docking, outcrossing and backcrossing to produce natural bobtails seems like an attractive option.

Banning Tail docking will not solve your problem when we use imports from countries that routinely dock all pups at birth because it is part of the breed standard....the breeders can't or won't tell you if the dog was born NBT or Full....I am aware of the homozygous bob tail gene die in utero. Inbreeding can be a problem with many abnormalities and there are those that say it doesn't....I am asking sangrubber in their opinion, a ban on tail docking is already in place and this still occurs but in minority, what measures do you think must be taken to put an end to this problem if you think it is a problem? You brought the subject up....what would you do about it? Remembering that dogs are born with the NBT gene. Many avoid NBT to NBT, what do you sugest?

For once, I have no opinion. In my breed we go for otter tails (coffee table sweepers). Personally, I prefer natural tails on all dogs, but I'm not against docking at birth.

I posted a set of articles by the guy who introduced the NBT gene into boxer lines (in Articles about Dogs: General discussion) and a few rotti/dobe breeders seemed interested in the possibility of this being done with their breeds. Those articles didn't present the problems of the homozygous pup being non-viable. Seems responsible to see that the problem gets discussed.

Also, I find the question interesting as the extreme case of a lethal recessive gene. As I understand it, the genetics is much the same as, say PRA, but in this case people deliberately breed for carriers (no genetic testing required), but risk loosing pups, usually by foetal absorption, but sometimes through non-viable live births, if they breed carriers.

Edited November 27, 2011 by sandgrubber

[zenchel]

I posted a set of articles by the guy who introduced the NBT gene into boxer lines (in Articles about Dogs: General discussion) and a few rotti/dobe breeders seemed interested in the possibility of this being done with their breeds. Those articles didn't present the problems of the homozygous pup being non-viable. Seems responsible to see that the problem gets discussed.

Also, I find the question interesting as the extreme case of a lethal recessive gene. As I understand it, the genetics is much the same as, say PRA, but in this case people deliberately breed for carriers (no genetic testing required), but risk loosing pups, usually by foetal absorption, but sometimes through non-viable live births, if they breed carriers.

According to most Boxer breeders, there are far more important issues than the NBT gene to consider arising from Bruce Cattanach's crossbreeding to produce the "Borgi". They want the pedigrees annotated to show where the NBTs are, thereby showing where the Corgis are, or were!

The NBT gene is dominant, not recessive. The birth defect issues have always been present in the breeding of Manx cats, among other breeds.

Sylvia

[sandgrubber]

According to most Boxer breeders, there are far more important issues than the NBT gene to consider arising from Bruce Cattanach's crossbreeding to produce the "Borgi". They want the pedigrees annotated to show where the NBTs are, thereby showing where the Corgis are, or were!

The NBT gene is dominant, not recessive. The birth defect issues have always been present in the breeding of Manx cats, among other breeds.

Sylvia

Thanks for the correction. Stupid of me to think recessive . . . it is clearly expressed with one copy present.

Can you suggest links relating to problems with the NBT?

I did a little scanning and find only studies reporting no problems, eg., this one with Australian Shephards

http://www.imgnr.com...al_nbt_art_.htm

Also what seems to be a solid research article on the genetics of short-tailed dogs. Link

MARJO K. HYTO¨ NEN*, ANAI¨S GRALL*, BENOIˆT HE´ DAN, STE´PHANE DRE´ANO, SAMUEL J. SEGUIN,

DELPHINE DELATTRE, ANNE THOMAS, FRANCIS GALIBERT, LARS PAULIN, HANNES LOHI, KIRSI SAINIOy,

AND CATHERINE ANDRE´y,Ancestral T-Box Mutation Is Present in

Many, but Not All, Short-Tailed Dog Breeds, Journal of Heredity 2009:100(2):236–240

This latter reports 29% reduced litter size when two NBT dogs are mated is Swedish Vallhund. They found no dogs homozygous for the gene, suggesting that the homozygous condition is always lethal.

After a bit more reading, I find some people refer to the NBT, like the merle gene, as lethal semi-dominant.

Edited November 28, 2011 by sandgrubber

[Jed]

There will be no "horrid outcomes" with bobtail boxers. Rather than garner incorrect information from sites such as the terrierman who has never been noted for veracity, why not go to the source?

This is from the boxer underground, telling the tale of the bobtail - with photos. Verified by Dr. Cattenach

http://www.boxerunderground.com/1998%20issues/oct_bu_98/bobtail.htm

http://www.steynmere.com/GENETICS.html

Dr Cattenach

From the beginning of this study there have been two health concerns. The first relates to the single dose, heterozygous bob-tail dogs; do they have any risk of associated abnormality? The second concerns the fate of the double dose, homozygous animals; what happens to them?

While it is well-known that some short tail genes in dogs, cats, and laboratory mice etc have associated undesirable consequences, no indication of this has been reported with the bob-tail condition of the Corgi. Thus,

Records from breeders collated by Olav Hedne in Norway where bob-tail Corgi breeding is expanding rapidly have not identified any defects among the bob-tail pups, despite full recording of details on live and dead pups, litter size, sex, etc in about 100 litters;

There was also no shortage of bob-tail Corgi pups relative to the 50% expectation (Fig 11);

A joint Norwegian Kennel Club/veterinary study, using radiography, upon adult bob-tail Corgis taken at random from the population has not found any spinal or other abnormalities.

To this I can add my own observations made on the 5 generations of Boxer crosses,

I have produced a total of 31 bob-tail dogs over the 5 generations of crossing. None have had any abnormality that I could detect other than involving the tail;

There were 58 pups in these crosses, so the frequency (53%), as with the Corgis, accords with the 50% expectation (Fig 11);

An as yet small but ongoing study using radiography has not shown any spinal or other defects in the bob-tail Boxers beyond the tail effect itself.

In summary, therefore, it seems there is nothing to worry about with the bob-tail in terms of undesirable "side effects" with a single dose of the gene in either Corgi or Boxer.

But, what happens in the double dose, homozygous bob-tails? As illustrated in Fig 12, when single-dose, heterozygous bob-tails are crossed together, 25% of the progeny should be the homozygotes, 50% should be heterozygotes and 25% should not carry the gene. No such matings have yet been done in Boxers but in Norway and Sweden many bob-tail x bob-tail matings have been made with Corgis. Detailed breeding records have been collated by Olave Hedne and these have not even hinted at elevated incidences of abnormal or dying pups. One must therefore conclude that either the homozygotes are born, survive normally, and are not distinguishable from heterozygous bob-tail litter mates, or they are never born and die and then resorbed during the dams' pregnancies.

In the latter situation, an expected consequence would be that the litter size should be reduced by 25%. Yet this is not indicated in Olav Hedne's Corgi data which shows litter size to be no lower than that from bob-tail x normal tail or normal tail x normal tail matings. On the other hand, the observed incidence of bob-tail pups was not as high (66%) as should have been expected (75%, or 3 bob-tail : 1 normal) if the homozygotes are born. The information from these crosses is therefore contradictory and this has warranted a direct search for homozygotes among the bob-tail progeny of such matings. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there has never been a systematic search for the homozygotes. This hardly surprising because it is a daunting task.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Jed

[zenchel]

There will be no "horrid outcomes" with bobtail boxers. Rather than garner incorrect information from sites such as the terrierman who has never been noted for veracity, why not go to the source?

This is from the boxer underground, telling the tale of the bobtail - with photos. Verified by Dr. Cattenach

http://www.boxerunderground.com/1998%20issues/oct_bu_98/bobtail.htm

http://www.steynmere.com/GENETICS.html

Dr Cattenach

From the beginning of this study there have been two health concerns. The first relates to the single dose, heterozygous bob-tail dogs; do they have any risk of associated abnormality? The second concerns the fate of the double dose, homozygous animals; what happens to them?

While it is well-known that some short tail genes in dogs, cats, and laboratory mice etc have associated undesirable consequences, no indication of this has been reported with the bob-tail condition of the Corgi. Thus,

Records from breeders collated by Olav Hedne in Norway where bob-tail Corgi breeding is expanding rapidly have not identified any defects among the bob-tail pups, despite full recording of details on live and dead pups, litter size, sex, etc in about 100 litters;

There was also no shortage of bob-tail Corgi pups relative to the 50% expectation (Fig 11);

A joint Norwegian Kennel Club/veterinary study, using radiography, upon adult bob-tail Corgis taken at random from the population has not found any spinal or other abnormalities.

To this I can add my own observations made on the 5 generations of Boxer crosses,

I have produced a total of 31 bob-tail dogs over the 5 generations of crossing. None have had any abnormality that I could detect other than involving the tail;

There were 58 pups in these crosses, so the frequency (53%), as with the Corgis, accords with the 50% expectation (Fig 11);

An as yet small but ongoing study using radiography has not shown any spinal or other defects in the bob-tail Boxers beyond the tail effect itself.

In summary, therefore, it seems there is nothing to worry about with the bob-tail in terms of undesirable "side effects" with a single dose of the gene in either Corgi or Boxer.

But, what happens in the double dose, homozygous bob-tails? As illustrated in Fig 12, when single-dose, heterozygous bob-tails are crossed together, 25% of the progeny should be the homozygotes, 50% should be heterozygotes and 25% should not carry the gene. No such matings have yet been done in Boxers but in Norway and Sweden many bob-tail x bob-tail matings have been made with Corgis. Detailed breeding records have been collated by Olave Hedne and these have not even hinted at elevated incidences of abnormal or dying pups. One must therefore conclude that either the homozygotes are born, survive normally, and are not distinguishable from heterozygous bob-tail litter mates, or they are never born and die and then resorbed during the dams' pregnancies.

In the latter situation, an expected consequence would be that the litter size should be reduced by 25%. Yet this is not indicated in Olav Hedne's Corgi data which shows litter size to be no lower than that from bob-tail x normal tail or normal tail x normal tail matings. On the other hand, the observed incidence of bob-tail pups was not as high (66%) as should have been expected (75%, or 3 bob-tail : 1 normal) if the homozygotes are born. The information from these crosses is therefore contradictory and this has warranted a direct search for homozygotes among the bob-tail progeny of such matings. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there has never been a systematic search for the homozygotes. This hardly surprising because it is a daunting task.

Thanks Jed, that's really interesting. It would be great if somebody with the time, the inclination and the resources was prepared to come up with some properly researched results on this issue, although as Cattanach says "it's a daunting task"!

Sylvia

[sandgrubber]

There will be no "horrid outcomes" with bobtail boxers. Rather than garner incorrect information from sites such as the terrierman who has never been noted for veracity, why not go to the source?

This is from the boxer underground, telling the tale of the bobtail - with photos. Verified by Dr. Cattenach

http://www.boxerunde..._98/bobtail.htm

http://www.steynmere.com/GENETICS.html

Dr Cattenach

From the beginning of this study there have been two health concerns. The first relates to the single dose, heterozygous bob-tail dogs; do they have any risk of associated abnormality? The second concerns the fate of the double dose, homozygous animals; what happens to them?

. . .

Thanks Jed, that's really interesting. It would be great if somebody with the time, the inclination and the resources was prepared to come up with some properly researched results on this issue, although as Cattanach says "it's a daunting task"!

Sylvia

It would also be good if people check sources before dismissing them. Retrieverman (not Terrierman, whom Retrieverman often derides for lack of veracity) was the source. Retrieverman's Blog post follows a well referenced article by Christopher Landauer (Border Wars) which contrasts the outcrossing of Dalmatians for health reasons to the outcrossing of boxers, for cosmetic reasons. see http://www.astraean....-to-sit-on.html . Landauer concludes:

" I think it's advisable to retire Dr. Cattanach as a spokesman for the moral implications and justifications for outcross breeding. It must be noted that despite claiming that he persevered criticism of his program to one day help others who would outcross for health reasons, his Steynmere Boxer x Corgi program is exactly the opposite of this ideal. He purposely inserted a gene which causes dysfunction into a breed which did not have this gene and he did so for the explicit purpose of evading a ban on manual tail docking. This is a net-increase in disease, infertility, and disorder in the breed and I don't think this action squares ethically."

The negative outcome he describes (source cited below) is that, in contradiction to Cattanach's claims, not all homozygous pups are born dead. Some result in nonviable live births. This is not the (generally proven false) claim of viable offspring with spinal defects. I guess being born without an anus is no more horrid than a severe cleft palete, which we know happens once in awhile. As stated, the information on litter size reduction is contradictory, and more research is required: However, as would be expected if homozygous foetuses were rejected, roughly 25% littersize reduction has been found for both Swedish Vallhund and Australian shephards.

Boxerunderground and Cattanach are on one side of a debate . . . you will find as many people attacking Cattanach as defending him. True, some of the attacks are unsubstantiated. But it would be unfortunate if people undertook outcrossing in Rottis or Dobes (or other breeds) without understanding that they risk decreased litter size and increased numbers of pups who must be pts.

An analogous situation occurs in the Chinese crested. Homozygous for hairlessness in this breed is lethal. Breeders must always accept the fact that, on average, a third of the viable pups they produce will be coated. See, eg., http://www.ragglerock.ca/breeding.asp.

p.s. I posted the primary source, Cattanach (posted at http://www.steynmere.com/GENETICS.html) in the General Forum under Studies about Dogs. Cattanach's work is fascinating, but I think breeders need to know the pros and cons before they seriously consider outcrossing to change a cosmetic trait. It should be noted that Steynmere and Boxerunderground are breeders, justifying the fact that they have taken a controversial stand in their breeding program.

reference for live deformed births in NBT's: Indrebø A, Langeland M, Juul HM, Skogmo HK, Rengmark AH, Lingaas F. A study of inherited short tail and taillessness in Pembroke Welsh corgi. J Small Anim Pract. 2008 May;49(5):220-4.

Edited December 5, 2011 by sandgrubber

[zenchel]

reference for live deformed births in NBT's: Indrebø A, Langeland M, Juul HM, Skogmo HK, Rengmark AH, Lingaas F. A study of inherited short tail and taillessness in Pembroke Welsh corgi. J Small Anim Pract. 2008 May;49(5):220-4.

Thanks for that also, SG - now I'm confused again Glad I don't own a breed with the NBT gene.

Sylvia

[Jed]

Sorry Sandgrubber, "terrierman" was a typo, I did mean "retrieverman", although I don't think one is more learned than the other

"

I think it's advisable to retire Dr. Cattanach as a spokesman for the moral implications and justifications for outcross breeding. It must be noted that despite claiming that he persevered criticism of his program to one day help others who would outcross for health reasons, his Steynmere Boxer x Corgi program is exactly the opposite of this ideal. He purposely inserted a gene which causes dysfunction into a breed which did not have this gene and he did so for the explicit purpose of evading a ban on manual tail docking. This is a net-increase in disease, infertility, and disorder in the breed and I don't think this action squares ethically."

I find stuff like this quite incendiary.

"gene which caused dysfunction" What dysfunction?

"is a net-increase in disease, infertility, and disorder in the breed". And the diseases are? What exactly is "disorder"? Infertility? I seem to see breedings of bobtails with large viable litters.

I think the boxers are fortunate to have someone like Dr Cattenach to introduce the gene.

Not everyone wants bobtails, but it does mean that those who want a boxer, but not a longtail, can still have one. I personally think this is a positive in a hobby where ownership is decreasing, breeding is decreasing, and showing is decreasing

Animal Rights doesn't have to do anything to sink the hobby, fanciers are doing it themselves while they tear everything down - simply because they can.

[sandgrubber]

<br>Sorry Sandgrubber, "terrierman" was a typo, I did mean "retrieverman", although I don't think one is more learned than the other <img src="http://www.dolforums.com.au/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=""> <br><br>"

I think it's advisable to retire Dr. Cattanach as a spokesman for the moral implications and justifications for outcross breeding. It must be noted that despite claiming that he persevered criticism of his program to one day help others who would outcross for health reasons, his Steynmere Boxer x Corgi program is exactly the opposite of this ideal. He purposely inserted a gene which causes dysfunction into a breed which did not have this gene and he did so for the explicit purpose of evading a ban on manual tail docking. This is a net-increase in disease, infertility, and disorder in the breed and I don't think this action squares ethically."

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

<br>

bloody software!!!!! Does anyone else have this happen to them? How do you avoid it. Trying again, next post.

Edited December 6, 2011 by sandgrubber

[sandgrubber]

Sorry Sandgrubber, "terrierman" was a typo, I did mean "retrieverman", although I don't think one is more learned than the other

But you are more learned than either? Cripes. I read blogs cause they turn up some interesting tidbits and expose me to new information and ideas, not because they are learned. Having spent a few decades of my life in universities, I wouldn't equate 'learned' with 'veracious'. (SG)

" I think it's advisable to retire Dr. Cattanach as a spokesman for the moral implications and justifications for outcross breeding. It must be noted that despite claiming that he persevered criticism of his program to one day help others who would outcross for health reasons, his Steynmere Boxer x Corgi program is exactly the opposite of this ideal. He purposely inserted a gene which causes dysfunction into a breed which did not have this gene and he did so for the explicit purpose of evading a ban on manual tail docking. This is a net-increase in disease, infertility, and disorder in the breed and I don't think this action squares ethically."

I find stuff like this quite incendiary.

"gene which caused dysfunction" What dysfunction?

"is a net-increase in disease, infertility, and disorder in the breed". And the diseases are? What exactly is "disorder"? Infertility? I seem to see breedings of bobtails with large viable litters.

I think the boxers are fortunate to have someone like Dr Cattenach to introduce the gene.

Not everyone wants bobtails, but it does mean that those who want a boxer, but not a longtail, can still have one. I personally think this is a positive in a hobby where ownership is decreasing, breeding is decreasing, and showing is decreasing

Animal Rights doesn't have to do anything to sink the hobby, fanciers are doing it themselves while they tear everything down - simply because they can. I find statements like this incindiary . . . maintaining standards and being cautionary about deliberately altering a breed's gene pool is not tearing things down (SG)

I find Cattenack's work fascinating and I'm not against outcrossing, carefully done, for good reason. Voluntarily introducing a lethal gene is playing with fire, and I think Cattenack soft-peddles that aspect of his otherwise quite-respectable work.

I would call anything that causes one in four pups to die in the womb or soon after birth a dysfunction. I think 'lethal dysfunction' is the correct technical term.

Technically, 'reduced fertility' is more correct than 'infertility', but that is a semantic distinction . . . and I think you'd find that population biology uses these words differently than reproductive biology. If a bitch was going to have 12 pups and ends out having only nine, the litter is still large and the reduction in surviving offspring may be a godsend, but it's still a dysfunction. The word 'disease' shouldn't be in there. But hell, we all make mistakes with words. . . . you opened your post saying you said 'a' when you meant 'b'.

Not everyone wants bobtails, but some breeders seem to be setting themselves up as superior because they offer the new 'bobtail' variety. I would prefer to see outcrossing reserved for health reasons. Accepting it for cosmetic reasons could lead to purebred 'designer' movements that will further fragment the dog world. What if someone found a way to produce, say, an apricot Labrador, at the cost of introducing a lethal semi-dominant gene? I don't think they would be well received.

With boxers, the problem is social: it's either non-acceptance of natural tails among breed fanciers, or increasing social intolerance of tail docking. It is not some genetic defect in the breed. I don't much like manipulating genes to try to get around social problems.

In the Crestie, a lethal semi-dominant gene with major cosmetic ramifications came into bloodlines long ago. I'd love to hear some Crestie breeders join in the conversation. But I'd bet that most of them wish they didn't have to cope with the presence of a lethal semi-dominant gene. If lethal semi-dominants are ok, what about sub-lethal semi-dominants? Do we want to start introducing the merle gene into new breeds, so more breeders can have the joy of working around the 'double merle' problem?

[Steve]

I havent looked at this for a while so Im a bit rusty so please correct me if Im wrong.

From memory - dogs which have the bobtailed gene have a bob tail because the bob tail is dominant.

Therefore there is no such thing really as a carrier [ one which carries the bobtail gene but doesnt have a bobtail]

That being the case if the intent is to ensure there is no meet up of the double bobtail because dogs with 2 copies

of this gene die pre birth surely all is well if they simply dont breed two dogs with a bobtail.

Now last time I looked we were up to about 15 generations past introduction of this gene and Im not convinced any dog which is born from one or even two bob tailed parents is suffering any health related issues more than any other dog or breed or more than the breed did prior to its introduction.

There are probably thousands of genes which when met up in vitrio cause death of the embryo including those which occur in humans which we havent tagged yet and anyone who breeds dogs long enough will face having a deformed or non viable pup which could be caused by all manner of things. Seems to me to be a bit of a beat up.

Bringing in the hairless gene into the conversation is a bit of a red herring because in that breed's case - again forgive me if Im wrong - the dogs with a long coat cannot be used for breeding and have to put on lilited register.

I would also like to say this sandgrubber - the place you are coming from in arguing that this gene was introduced for cosmetic purposes is not necessarily the case. At the time whether they were right or not breeders including me flet that it was going to be problematic for the breed to have to wear its long tail. You may not agree that they had a valid fear but I promise you that all of the people I met who were and still are breedingbobtailed boxers began doing that because they truly believed that thsi was what was best for the dogs of the breed and the breed in general. I chose to go the other way and not breed boxers at all after I bred one litter post ban because I believed I was breeding dogs destined to suffer . I cant answer for the motivation of the original matings but when that gene was being introduced to Australia it was already accepted on pedigrees and the breeders flet they were doing what was right for the dog and if any were caught up in the cosmetic side of it Ive never spoken with them.

Would the introduction of the gene to other breeds be about cosmetics ? You have to be pretty sure you have it right before you dub all peopel involved in that being motivated by the look and not because they beleive its inthe breed's best interests.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Steve

[Guest Doglady0419]

I havent looked at this for a while so Im a bit rusty so please correct me if Im wrong.

From memory - dogs which have the bobtailed gene have a bob tail because the bob tail is dominant.

Therefore there is no such thing really as a carrier [ one which carries the bobtail gene but doesnt have a bobtail]

That being the case if the intent is to ensure there is no meet up of the double bobtail because dogs with 2 copies

of this gene die pre birth surely all is well if they simply dont breed two dogs with a bobtail.

Now last time I looked we were up to about 15 generations past introduction of this gene and Im not convinced any dog which is born from one or even two bob tailed parents is suffering any health related issues more than any other dog or breed or more than the breed did prior to its introduction.

There are probably thousands of genes which when met up in vitrio cause death of the embryo including those which occur in humans which we havent tagged yet and anyone who breeds dogs long enough will face having a deformed or non viable pup which could be caused by all manner of things. Seems to me to be a bit of a beat up.

Bringing in the hairless gene into the conversation is a bit of a red herring because in that breed's case - again forgive me if Im wrong - the dogs with a long coat cannot be used for breeding and have to put on lilited register.

I would also like to say this sandgrubber - the place you are coming from in arguing that this gene was introduced for cosmetic purposes is not necessarily the case. At the time whether they were right or not breeders including me flet that it was going to be problematic for the breed to have to wear its long tail. You may not agree that they had a valid fear but I promise you that all of the people I met who were and still are breedingbobtailed boxers began doing that because they truly believed that thsi was what was best for the dogs of the breed and the breed in general. I chose to go the other way and not breed boxers at all after I bred one litter post ban because I believed I was breeding dogs destined to suffer . I cant answer for the motivation of the original matings but when that gene was being introduced to Australia it was already accepted on pedigrees and the breeders flet they were doing what was right for the dog and if any were caught up in the cosmetic side of it Ive never spoken with them.

Would the introduction of the gene to other breeds be about cosmetics ? You have to be pretty sure you have it right before you dub all peopel involved in that being motivated by the look and not because they beleive its inthe breed's best interests.

Steve....Firstly, Thank You for your post...the most sensible post I have read in regards to this subject but I wanted to comment on your saying "Therefore there is no such thing really as a carrier [ one which carries the bobtail gene but doesnt have a bobtail]"

Secondly, I know most of you are going shoot me down for what I am about say and it doesn't really matter. The fact is I have a bitch that WAS born a FULL tail and does CARRY the gene....I have had her DNA certified, but I can't tell you what the status of her parents were yet they produced 5/7 NBT all alive...I have mated my bitch twice, with a known full tail born male and an unknown status import. With these two litters my bitch produced 9 in the first litter. The first born was still born and to the naked eye the most perfect pup, beautifully marked and a short NBT. Why it was dead, who knows. From this same litter at 8 days old I had one of the pups develop Septic Arthritis and had him put down. From her second litter she produced 8 pups and one died hours after it was vet checked. Why? Who knows. In the first litter there were 6/9 NBT, 3 full tailed...The pups that didn't make it were 1 NBT and the other full tailed. In the Second litter 6/8 were NBT and the one that died was a NBT.

Her daughter from the first litter produced 7 pups, 7 alive 2 Full tailed and 5 NBT....again the sire's status unknown import. She was born NBT and is DNA certified. I don't know why my bitch carries the NBT gene, but she does and she produces NBT's with a full tailed sire and an unknown. Is she a freak of nature? Who knows! Wittnesses were present when she was born. Shoot me down.....it is what it is!!