Re: Dogs - the real poop

[Cole <missemma@coastalnet.com>]

Poster: Cole <missemma@coastalnet.com>

Stephanie M. Thorson wrote:
> 
> Poster: "Stephanie M. Thorson" <smt2@st-andrews.ac.uk>
> 
> On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 linneah@erols.com wrote:
> 
> > longevity and intellegence, a carefully selected mutt can't be beat.  The health
> > problems that occur in pure bred dogs is due to the inbreeding it takes to create
> > and maintain the breed.  Big dogs are prone to dysplasia, other breeds to
> > deafness and other health problems.  Though I love the romantic-ness of the
> > pure breeds, they all started out as mutts.
> 
> Leaving aside the problem of "all breeds started out as mutts" issue,
> which Corun and Eogan have already addressed, I'd quibble a bit with the
> assertion that the health problems in purebred dogs are a result of
> inbreeding.  Purebreds do have a potentially smaller gene pool from which
> to draw, but most breeds of any age - even Goldens, which are less than
> 200 years old - have a large enough gene pool that "inbreeding" is rather
> less of a problem than the general public seems to think it is.  Most
> breeders tend to keep their lines bred on related or similar stock, but no
> more or less so than, say, breeders of Arabian horses, and most of us make
> a point of making clear and distinct outcrosses into other, unrelated
> lines within the breed every 2-3 generations to keep the gene pool open.
> 
> "Inbreeding" has a bad rep, but it's not necessarily an unmitigated evil.
> All "inbreeding" does is reduce the size of the gene pool, and really all
> that does is reduce the number of traits which are available in any given
> generation.  That's not necessarily bad - it can reduce the number of
> undesirable traits as well as desirable ones.  The real reason that
> "inbreeding" can be a problem is that we don't generally know all the
> traits that are available in a given genetic stock, and can't breed around
> them, or eliminate dogs which, while they are phenotypically normal, are
> genotypic problems, from the breeding stock.  There is a canine genome
> project underway - maybe in 15 years breeding dogs will be made easier as
> a result.  <shrug> We'll just have to see.
> 
> Alianora
> *******************

Alianora has a really valid point.  Mostly with Rotts we line breed to
keep the traits that we like and out breed to get new blood or to try to
insert a desirable trait.  With TRUE dog breeders, not puppy mill
owners, they want to make the breed stronger not weeker.  Breeding
willy-nilly is what has caused the "pure breed dogs are inbred" press. 
I personally worked with a breeder that flew from Wilmington to
Washington State, twice, to breed her bitch because she wanted the
traits that male has in her line.  
	I like mutts, too.  My sister has two of them, she even named one after
me (thanks Pez, I've always wanted a dog named afer me!). But I think
the fact that we have so many of them is an abomination.  SPAY or NEUTER
your animal if it is not being bred. 
	Good Lord, where did I get that soap box??? Hush, Emma and go to
school... 

This post brought to you by the number 7, the letter E, and the
Electronic Mail Network.

Em
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org