Poofy

You said: "You said that you will choose your five or six "breed specific" problems. I hate to tell you this, but those problems are going to grow to 500 or 600 if you continue to inbreed." My breed is around 3000 years old....it is pretty well set as what it is. I guess your screening methods don't really allow you to detect genetic problems do they? I test for PRA, luxating patellas, heart problems, thyroid and leg perthes... Only phenotypic problems but very genetic. You suddenly changed the subject to how human medicine hurting human genetics, and that is a point with which I will agree completely. I wasn't changing the subject. Just pointing out some information. I was in no way comparing human genetics to animal husbandry I was just pointing out that I doubt enough canine genetic research has been done for breeders to screen for many diesease, because we are certainly not there with human medicine where billions are spent every year." I really don't mind discussing this topic as I enjoy it. But I some how feel that you are fueled by some sort of personal experience. That you are trying to point blame, find blame or what ever. I honestly think that *you* are the one with a closed mind. You have your ideals and that is the only way you will see them....Perhaps they are based on your own breeding experiences...or dog purchase...I am sorry. But I know what I have lived with for many years, what other breeders have done for many years, what rabbit breeders etc have all done with breeding programs. I have never said that you should only inbreed. I have never said that inbreeding is the only way...etc...etc..etc...I *have* however defended inbreeding because it is a valuable tool. Good breeders are not out to "ruin" their breed. Their goal is not "just that next CH". Good breeders are for one thing...improving the breed....be it with out crossing, inbreeding, or hybridisation. I always liked studying about transgenic organisms, along with gene knockout..... I thought about taking a class at Cornel dealing with similar topics...

You said: "As for the genetic math that you did not understand, a first cousin marriage has a 7 fold greater chance of bringing together 2 recessive allelels, even when they are as rare as 0.01% in the rest of the population, than a mating between 2 genetically unrelated individuals. " And agian I ask you. When you say Seven fold. Are you meaning .01%x 7? Which would then equal the number .07% correct? a .07% greater chance at a problem?

You wrote: "You are 100% wrong that outbreeding will not get rid of mutations within the population. When you outbreed you can ELIMINATE the bad allelel from the POPULATION by selective breeding, thereby ELIMINATING the disease. " No I am not wrong. You will only eliminate the problem by eliminated those who A: Carry the gene or B: affected by the gene. If you have a bag of red marbles and put them into a bag of blue marbles, it does not matter how many times you divide or dump those marbles, the red ones do not disapear. They are still there.

You write: Poofy as I said before by the way that you play with semantics in your responses you are closed minded...... " Considering you don't know me, nor have you ever looked at the pedigrees on my dogs, nor have you observed my breeding program, you cannot make such a blanket statement. If you were standing here and saying that outcrossing ruins the breeds that we love, I would argue against that statment as well. You cannot put blame on a system of breeding....the blame goes to what is being bred. Did you even read the links I posted? Perhaps other scientists can phrase these things in a way that might open your mind. I was not trying to insult your intelligence, but I was trying to point out that you seem to try and speak with authority about topics which in my eyes you have only a very general and outright incorrect understanding. I am sorry you feel that way. But I could ask you why you think you have any athority in dogs? Have you ever bred a dog? Do you have a line that you breed? Do you compete with your dogs? Do you have any success with your breeding program? Do you know what your dogs carry? What they have produced? What have you done that makes you have any insite into dog breeding? I am simply trying to prevent the dissemintation of misinformation. I have now given 2 sources besides myself with good reasons to eliminate inbreeding, you have yet to demonstrate one source (other than dog breeders, one cow herd, and some rats) where inbreeding has truly improved the health of animals or people. In case you were wondering, part of my job is to create transgenic animals.....so as I said before I know a bit about breeding programs. Alright: I can give you a few sources of information if you want it. Malcolm willis, yes a dog breeder but also a geneticists. George Padgett, author of controlling Canine genetic disease, The gentic connection Lowell ackerman, Heridatry Bone and joint diseases in dogs, breeding better dogs, Guinea pig breeding, Modern Livestock and Poultry by Gillies, and the some few hundred years of experience from the many dog/horse/guinea pig/ Cat and rabbit breeders that I know.

Hobit you wrote: "Poofy continued inbreeding WILL cause gene drifts. Most knowledgable breeders recognized this, accept it and outcross. A breeder can not continue to inbreed for several generations without having detrimental effects on the future offspring(s), whether it be physical or mental. " And I have not disagreed with this at all. What I disagree with is blaming inbreeding for the problems, no matter what the breed. Inbreeding is not the problem....bad breeding is the problem.

You said" Your answer is sort of what I was afraid I would find within the dog breeding community, otherwise this wouldn't be the problem that it is today. One more question before I give up this discussion as an agreement to disagree: How many truly outbred (real heinz 57 mutt, not the product of an accidental purebred + sneeky neighboors dog) dogs suffer from hip dysplasia, early on set blindness, or seizures (just to name a few of the disease I have heard of)? I just don't understand how things like hip dysplasia can be nearly endemic in almost all the large breeds, but still thought of as independent of inbreeding and genetics. " To answer your question honestly. I see more mutts with problems then I do *well bred* pure bred dogs. Probably 100 times more problems. You also cannot compare the pet store or byb puppy to those bred by people who know and understand the breed. HD is not found only in large breed dogs. Its found in all breeds of dogs. the reason why it tends to affect large breed animals more is for several reasons. First is growth rate, second size, and lastly most giant breeds are the result of abnormal amounts of growth hormone that make them large. Its something that has been selected for to increase size. Selection of particular traits, such as dwarfism in the corgie or basset, make it impossible for them to have normal joints. "normal" for large and giant breeds is not the same for smaller breeds. Normal is subjective. Breeders do strive to select phenotypically normal dogs to increase the possible modifiers to better their chances in furture generations to achieve a better dog. "problems" are produced 90% of the time...by breeding problems to begin with. As far as human inbreeding, why the heck are all the super inbred royal families of Europe the first thing studied in population genetics? All their gorgeous family trees with the beautiful disease founders passing their problems from generation to generation to generation............ Because, the royal families were some of the few people to keep written documents in reguards to family origin. They are some of the best written records we have in reguards to human inbreeding studies as well. The most common "disease" was hemophelia. Which again, is a sex linked anomolie, that has nothing to do with inbreeding. Because males only carry one X chromosome if they recieve an affected one from their maternal parent then they will be affected with it. Also, you are dealing with a culture that made procreation desisions based on religion and origion...not based on what pairing would be the healthiest and most likely to lead to a stronger family line. If you breed weak you will only get weak.

You said: Continue breeding dogs from the same lines to the same lines and you are going to produce deeply inbred strains with some very common genetic problems. Yes. I will agree. You will produce a breed of dog, with a few, breed specific problems. I will take narrowing down my "problems" to 5 or 6 possibilties rather then thousands that most mix breeds have. Including temperament aspects with no way to guage them. The ONLY way to eliminate those alleles from the population is by outbreeding, mutations don't really fix themselves very often. You are very wrong. The only way to eleminate those alleles is not allow them to be passed on. Out crossing does not get rid of them. You cannot "get rid" of a gene or combination of genes by simply continiously mixing the genetic marbles.... You can only eleminate the organism that carries them. Sure you can pick up some problems with genetic screening and I have no idea how good the screens are for canines, but for humans they can't detect too many disease by screening yet and we have the entire human genome at our finger tips." There is a very big difference in comparing human genetics to animal husbandry. First being that due to religious reasons, most people do not beleive in limiting the human population. There are no steps taken in pairing one person to the next with reguard to health and type and even temperament. When you are dealing with animals...where the next generation is selected for betterment, then you have an entirely different set of rules in selection of parents. Animals are also, usually, not kept alive as infants to the great extent humans are. Animals are often left to die or humanely euthinized when there is a severe problem...incredible medical steps to insure that that an affected animal gives birth are usually not the case as they are in humans. Diseases such as Adrenal Leukodystrophy (sp?) used to never been seen in women....but thanks to medical advancements that allowed for the young affected boys to grow up and procreate, now the disease is found in both sexes and there is now the possibility for recessive homozygotes to exsist. Animals breeders, the good ones, have higher standards for production then even the most contentious human parents.

You said" Poofy you are talking about semantics...........you are absolutely right that inbreeding does not CAUSE disease in the direct sense of the word. The exact same thing can be said about smoking. Smoking itself is not going to kill you outright, however it will greatly increase the mutational rate within lung, throat, and mouth tissue which will greatly increase the likelyhood of developing cancer. " Okay. Now you are comparing apples to oranges. Subjecting one's self to a chemical that may penetrate and change the molecular structure of cells, making them more likely to not under go apoptosis and begin multiplying in an irregular manner, has NOTHING to do with recessive alleles comming into combination through inbreeding. Yes genes mutate, however generally it is very self limiting as the organsim usually dies before development. HOWEVER molecular mutations are the mutations that happen most often and are carried on for multiple generations...etc..etc...and eventually can combine to create a pro or con. A mutation does not need several generations to cause a problem. No it does not. A mutation in DNA often causes an errant protein which can have an immediate effect within the organism or in their off spring. Usually no. Usually a mutation that will cause a great enough effect to alter the viability of the organism dies....usually before it is born. Those that do not express the problem later on, hopefully though selective breeding will not be bred. Such traits would be dominant, and would need only one mutant gene to be expressed, there for phenotype would be genotype. In a case where you are dealing with a recessive allele, those "diseases" are usually not the result of a spontanious mutation on both sides of the pedigree of the same gene at the same loci. Those problems are the result of a hidden gene that will be there wether you inbreed or out breed. By inbreeding you can reduce your possible variations and therefor bring to surface any problems and eleminate them. Its a tool, that when properly used is very valuable. Just ask someone with muscular dystrophy how long their single mutation took to change their life. MS is not the result of a sudden Mutation. It is the result of a recessive allele, that yes was created from a mutation, but that mutation occured mutliple generations ago, and has been handed down and passed on, waiting to pair up with another like allele. You do not LOOSE genes when you out cross...they are still there. They don't disapear, the mutations don't go away...you will have to deal with them...no matter how much you out cross. It doesn't work that way I am sorry. Muscular dystrophy, at least the two forms I am familiar with are not even the result of two alleles. They are sex linked and carried on the X chromsome and there for you don't need two to have the problem. There for inbreeding is not the cause. It is not the cure. And out crossing won't do you a HILL of beans to prevent the problem. You are using words like "molecular" and "anomolie" to make it appear like you have deep scientific understanding of genetics, which it is clear that you do not. No I do not have a deep understanding, I am only a student. My molecular genetics sucks. However you need not lower yourself to insulting another person's intelligence, or at least making insinuations. When the frequency of a recessive mutation within a population is 0.01% a first cousin mating has a 7 fold chance of producing a homozygous recessive offspring. Basically if the mutation is there inbreeding will bring it out for sure " And that would be what? .7% less then 1%? I could be mis understanding your mathmatical question there...but with those odds....I think I will stick to inbreeding. Finally: You talk about mutations as if they are all bad. They are not. Mutations are the source for new alleles that allow for adaptation and betterment as well. Yes. inbreeding can combine potentially dangerous alleles together...but those alleles are going to exsist in some frequency in ANY breed, within any species. The only thing you are going to do by continiously out crossing is to put yourself in a genetic pit with no where to go when there is a problem. Inbreeding also allows for a breeder to find and remove problems as well as find and keep better representations of the breed.

Human Inbreeding: We wonderful angelosaxon people tend to become a bit ethno eccentric and forget that there are other cultures out there. Many, many, many african and or non-industialized brazilan cultures (like the Yamo-Mamo) do not view family "relation" as we do. It is common for some to only veiw kinship through either the paternal or maternal side. Thus, making half brother half sister combinations a very common occurance. These countries have no problem procreating gneration after generation, which is the source of their problems dealing with famine. Also, you must remember that every species is different. What is considered inbreeding, on genetic level for one, may not be for another. Again, rats, which are able to inbreed to extremely high levels of COI but face no ill effects (as long as the inbreeding occures in nature and not in a labratory environment where unnatural selection occures). There is a herd of cattle documented in England, that has been fenced off and contained for the last 50 some odd years, where they have been allowed to breed to a level of nearly 100% COI with no ill effects. This goes for some breeds of dogs as well. A COI of 30% in one breed is much more devistating then in another. Considering even the most inbred lines rarely achieve over 18%, inbreeding is not reason for poor specimines. The reason there are poor specimines is because there are poor breeders and those who deliberately continue weak and debilitated lines. Finally COI, or the "math" involved with calculating inbreeding cannot account for the two sources that continue to maintain genetic diversity, cross over and mutation (on the molecular level) which occures evertime a germ cell goes through meiosis.

you said: "Inbreeding does cause genetic disease, I am a medical researcher and have taken MANY graduate level genetics classes. I realize that sceening will help prevent a disease phenotype from appearing in some dogs. However, there is a genetic phenomenon call "bottle necking" when a population becomes unable to breed outside it's group, genetic mutations become trapped within the population. " I am sorry but you are wrong. In breeding does not *cause* genetic disease. Genetics 101 will teach you that. Inbreeding may increase the possibility of particular alleles comming into combination. Those combinations of alleles may cause a genetic disease. Those "bad" alleles, which are the result of mutations on a molecular level, usually over multiple generations, may cause a deficiantcy which in turn may allow for the developement of a genetic anomolie. Inbreeding only increases the chances for the combination that *already exsists* it doe not "create" or "cause" the problem. Those molecular changes can also be beneificial allowing for certian alleles to come into combination and eventually meet and there for give the next generation the edge it needs for survival. Detrimental "problems" are often lost when they crop up do to the organisms ability for survival. Screening for genetic dieases does more then just reveal the phenotypic type of the animal. It also tells the breeder that the animals either carries enough modifiers or not enough alleles in order for it to develope the disease. While it cannot tell you wether or not it is a carrier, it gives you a heads up. Genetic bottle necks: While a genetic bottle neck is a concern when dealing with *wild* populations it is not that big of a concern when dealing with domestic. Mainly because domestic animals do not need the ability to of adaptation to their invironment for survival. To some exstent yes, such as immune syste, etc. But over all, we control their food, their shelter etc. In a wild population, especially one that is realatively isolated, loss of the gene pool has more of an impact. As we are back to those molecular mutations that build up over time and allow for the animals to adapt to change. Also, thanks to crossover and mutation, there will always be diversity to some degree unless you are so deliberate as to inter breed multiple father daughter, mother son generations, inorder to achieve a COI of 100%. Even in that event, in some species, particularly rats, it can go one for 50 or more generations with no side effects. Eventually you will reduce your immune system as well as your fertility. However, all species only have so long before they are exsitinct any how. In wild populations exsistance may only be a brief 10 thousand years...sometimes less. Logistically, in the time that it would take breeders to "kill off" the canine species, the human species will most likely be gone any how. Any how, inbreeding does not cause genetic disease...it cannot cause genetic disease....it only brings together those unwanted alleles which can then be erradicated from the gene pool making it stronger. You will not find and or track problems by "avoiding" them. You are better off to eliminate the true source. I will leave you with this from Geneticist Malcolm Willis " It is well established that inbreeding tends to be associated with the appearance of defects. This is a true observation but breeders must not imagine that inbreeding creates such defects..."

you said: "I read an article about dog breeding in a science magazine and I was wondering about the opinion of people who actually breed dogs. Okay, we can all agree that inbreeding is bad an causes genetic disease." Inbreeding does not cause genetic disease. Please, please, please do some reading about genetics. You said: "So that being said, many dog breeds are seriously inbred and frought with genetic problems, right? So the suggestions made by scientist (just a general example we can talk about specifics later if your interested) would be to cross a breed like GSD with a similar dog (this was not totally clear, perhaps another similar type of shepherd), this would introduce new genetic combinations into the line, then breed those dogs back to a "pure" breed. You would then be able to select puppies/adults with the traits expected for the GSD. " Hmmmm...I am really beginning to wonder about the "scientist" who wrote this article. What this person is reffering to is hybrid vigor. Yes, you can increase heterozygosty through a hybrid breeding, however that vigor is only good for the F1 generation. It does not preceed it and once you take that hybrid back into the line, what ever problems were there, will be there again. Also, what are you going to do when there are genetic disease that are across species? Hip dysplasia effectc ALL breeds, no matter how big or small...you cannot avoid it by hybrid vigor. To many genes and modifiers play a part in the problem. Infact, through a "hybrid" you can actually introduce problems that were never there. The key is to BREED SMART....select healthy animals to begin with and use the tools we have today to select for supior animals. You said"You would then be able to select puppies/adults with the traits expected for the GSD. I was wondering if there is ANY interest in "fixing" the current breeding lines or have people become too set in their ways of pure bred to pure bred to even consider these options. This stuff makes sense to me, but then I am a geeky scientist." Firstly, you cannot "fix" the problems by these methods. And quite honestly, well bred dogs (perhaps some of the most in bred ones) do not have the majority of problems that are listed as breed specific, because breeders *screen* for those diseases before breeding. When diseases are based on a simple autosonomal recessive or domiant trait, it can be quickly eleminated...those influenced by modifiers and or poly genes, can take longer but can still be changed over time....through selective breeding. And once you make the line "pure again" the problems you have will be there all over again....the ONLY way you will get rid of the problem is to not breed them...and breeding hybrids has nothing to do with that.

I only recieved and error message.

Some of the most irresponsible breeders I have ever met were vetrinarians....and I know PLENTY of vet techs who don't have the sense to pour p*ss out of a boot.... Not impressed.

Once upon a time there was this cat burgler, who was very skilled at his profession. Once night when he entered a particularlly large, old, and very dark mansion he found himself just a bit edgy. After a few steps into the house, he was gathering his confidence when he heard, out of the darkness, a soft voice that spoke to him. " Jesus is watching you" The burgler froze. He could not move. The house was silent, only the sound of the night out side...maybe he had imagined it? Slowly he went on, heading toward the far wall where the safe would surely be hidden. Again, the voice called out to him... " Jesus is watching you" Again he froze. After a moment he shook off his hesitation squinted his eyes trying to locate where the voice was comming from. The voice spoke again. " Jesus is watching you" He edged over to the coner of the room, where he promptly found a large bird cage. Through the darkness he could just make out the shape of a parrot, who emmidiatly spoke. " jesus is watching you." The burglar breathed a deep sigh of relief, " Thank goodness that was just you little fellow." " Yes it was me" Stated the bird Now, totally relaxed and looking for the wall safe again, the burglar casually asked the parrot " So whats you name bird?" The parrot rustled his feathers and proudly replied... " Napoleon!" The burglar laughed and shook his head, he had found his wall safe and began to pick the lock. " And what kind of stupid idiot would name a parrot Napoleon." And the parrot promptly replied... " The same stupid idiot that named the Doberman Jesus."

I am sorry but that Vet HAS to have a record of that rabies tag. Maybe they did a rabies shto clinic and do not store those records on computer...but if they gave that shot by D*MN they had better have a writter record of who it went too. I would try again...and be VERY persistant!!!!

If you want a rottie and would consider a rescue, I strongly suggest that you go through pure bred rescue. Pure bred rescue is usually made up of people who are very familar with the breed. They know what to look for and how to properly temperment test the dogs before they are released into new homes. I know shelters mean well, but quite honestly they are staffed with people who know next to nothing about dog behavior especially breed specific needs and behavior.

I have all my puppies spayed before they go to their new homes...they don't even notice anything has been done...and play as always. :) In just a few days they are healed and i have never had one so much as even look at their inscision.

Ethics has little to do with what is legal....you can have something that is ethically wrong...but not wrong in the eyes of the law....there are many "good breeders" who share like or exact kennel names.... A name is a name, I guess some feel that a name doesn't guarantee quality...I do understand what you mean...but...lets face it...everyone's ideals about what is ethical is different.

Bullie Girl: Company of not you CAN NOT copy right any word commonly used or accepted you can only copyright how a word is DESIGNED. I know this for a fact, first I have a sister as a lawyer, second, the breed club I am a memember of had a LONG and detailed discussion of this common "problem" in our anual breed magazine. If I want to call my company the Purple Camel and sell windows and some one else comes along and sells doors and they call themself Purple Camel, then there is NOTHING I can do about that. However, if I write Purple camel in a particular desing, like Big Balloon purple letters they cannot write Purple Camel the same way...the DESIGN is what is copy righted not the word. (now if they wrote it in green letters they could argue) If I come along and name my compay Pafoos then Yes, I can copyright that word...the word is a made up word, and not recognized. A while ago the pet product company Fourpaws, wrote mass letters to people who were doing buisness under the same name. At the time I had a boarding kennel named four paws, and guess what there was another boarding kennel with the SAME name about 50 miles west of me too...any how...the Fourpaws pet supply company wrote threatening letters to ANYone using those words...guess what...my lawyer, as well as the lawyers of others, told them to go soak their head...four and paws are common english words and CANNOT be copy righted. Fourpaws the pet supply company could not do a darn thing no matter how much they whined and cried. You can also copyright a phrase, or combination of words, as long as the words are not "common". Such as the Phrase "don't you wish everybody did" which is a phrase that belongs to the Dial company for their soap...if Walmart were to come along and use that as their "catch phrase", then yes, Dial could raise a stink..... The word Cola cannot be copyrighted, the word, coke, or pepsi is. I.e. coca-cola and Pepsi Cola.

Well, the fact is, you cannot register (at least with AKC or in general copy right law) or copy write common words or names. You can copy write how those names are "designed" as a graphic...but words are public property.

Well in an international show, because of the way the dogs are to be judged, it would be useless trying to get political. You are NOT in competition with any one...only the standard.

Believe it or not hobbit, a judge is not supposed to look at any physical scars or damage, that a dog has taken...they are supposed to look at the overall dog. I find this more true with the International dog shows then any where else. International shows are also much more laid back and welcoming..the judge speaks to you, gives you critiques...etc... :)

Yes the seeing eye people are crossing goldens and labs. However they are using dogs from their own colonies. They do this for grooming reasons, not because they are heathier. They still have to do all the hip eye heart, etc..etc.. The golden tends to be easier then a lab and the lab has an easier to care for coat. A lab is a lab and a golden a golden. If you want a lab, get a lab, if you want a golden, get a golden. If you mix the two dogs, genetics does not say that it will be a "mixture" of the two personalities...infact you could have totally unexpected results such as agression, fear, etc...if you want a particular temperament, then LOOK for that temperament in the dog you are seeking...there are a scale of attitudes within every litter.

You need to look for an international dog show, not an FCI show, sorry, the international shows do FCI breeds.... Any how here is a link to their calander of events [url]http://www.internationaldogshow.com/Dog%20Show%20Calendar.htm[/url]

In an FCI show a dog is not judged against another dog. They are judged against the written standard. Multiple dogs can recieve a V1 rating, in the same class and become champions. The judges at these shows are often familiar with ALL types of dogs not found in the US. In fact, each judge you show to, MUST be from a different country...there for its possible, very possible, to find a judge that is familiar with your breed. You need only 3 V1 ratings, and there are usually at least 3 shows in a two day weekend. The judges give written critiques which is nice, and let you know exactly what they find nice and faulted about your dog.