|
Post by Brooke on Feb 27, 2004 18:31:46 GMT -5
I saw this debate going on over at dogo. I'm not sure if this will be much of a debate here...as it is over there.
A big part of the debate is whether purebreds really are healthier than cross breeds are.
Here is what one member had to say about it.
"Genetically speaking purebred dogs have a higher chance of producing diseased offspring because the dog and the bitch can be genetically nearly identical. Especially when breeders practice inbreeding. This is why you know exactly which diesease "pop" up in specific breeds, because the majority of the gene pool tends to be a carrier for the same genetic diseases. Now I have heard the argument that "my" lines are clean and all "my" dogs are healthy, but just wait, keep inbreeding. Eventually all the scientific evidence I have ever seen suggests that you are playing with fire.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The dog population is ripe for a major comuninicable disease outbreak. The immune system relies HEAVILY on genetic variability for the survival of any given population to a diesease outbreak. As the canine gene pools become smaller and smaller, the chance of all members of the pool being susceptable to a viral or bacterial diease increases EVERY inbred generation. This could lead to a disaster if a new canine pathogen comes along."
What are the theories. I've heard many times that mutts are a lot of times healither than purebreds but I'm not so sure I'm willing to believe one is really healthier than the other or even that a mutt would be healthier than a purebred. I've never seen anything backing this up.
What constitutes responsible breeding if genetic problems can pop up out of no where from generations down the line?
Is it responsible to breed dogs at all given that the pet population is at an all time high?
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Feb 27, 2004 19:54:35 GMT -5
Well I don't agree with breeding mutts on purpose but I will say, without any scientific data to back me up, that I do think that mutts are generally healthier because the propensity for a particular disease is "watered down" so to speak. I was on a another board just lurking. These people were obviously purebred snobs. I read the health section and was really taken aback. I had never seen so many dogs with so many life threatening, serious and severe illnesses and diseases. It was startling to me.
I have only had mutts in my life (except for Reign who is my brothers dog). Not one was ever ill until death. So there is my empirical evidence. No real basis in fact, just my opinion based upon my experience and the reading that I have done.
I also think that it is a crock for some to breed because they say they want to better the breed. For what? To walk in a circle at a show. If you want to better a breed it should be for the work that the breed was intended, there should be a need for that work and the dogs should do that work. Otherwise why not breed a mix, just as carefully as you would a purebred. And their temperment is watered down too, making them not as intense. Of course I don't think you should do this. But, if they are all going to be pets, what is the real difference. One is prettier than the other??? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Feb 27, 2004 20:14:07 GMT -5
Thats my biggest issue right now with this is the pet population. I don't think I would be so opposed to breeding cross breeds or purebred dog for that matter if the population wasn't so bad to be quite honest. As long as the temperament and genetics are taken into consideration. I don't know much about breeding but I know there is a right way and a wrong way to determine if the specimens are really the right match for it. As for the health issues, I really don't have an opinion about that because I haven't really learned much about it to back it up. Thats pretty much why I'm posting this here. I think we'd have some good opinions and maybe even knowledge on that here. I'm going to be surfing elsewhere to see what I can find on this...
|
|
|
Post by Willow on Feb 28, 2004 10:20:38 GMT -5
Aren't all *purebred* dogs *cross breeds* to begin with? I.e...the Lab...they are a mix of Newfoundland and some sort of European retriever or something, so my point is...even if they start to introduce new breeds through cross breeding, they will eventually become just like the *purebreds* we have now, won't they?
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Feb 28, 2004 11:39:54 GMT -5
Yes, I think you are right. A few years ago or maybe not even that long, the AKC recognized a breed, I think it is called the Conan or somthing similar sounding, which began as a mix of something that I don't recall right now. Now because it is an AKC recognized breed, the once mix is now automatically a purebred. I think most purebreds are too drivey and or have certain intense type temperments for the average novice PET owner. Even the sweet lab comes with insatiable exercise needs. If the dogs are being bred to be pets and that is what happens with most dogs bred, that or they show or breed further, what is so atrocious about trying to breed the perfect pet. Take the poodles intelligence, stir in some lab sweetness, mix with some GSD for loyalty and guarding and there you have it. The perfect pet. Instead what we are seeing are show breeders breeding for looks and breeding out the temperment or drive so they can sell their dogs as pets and to do so, they overlook the genetics for disease and illness and we end up with unhealthy freaks. It is another dog in the body of the breed. It probably would make better sense to breed healthy tempermently sound dogs of different breeds to dilute the drive or temperment, if that is the "pet" goal rather than try to eradicate it it as they are now doing. the American GSD is one example of this. The result is crippled unhealthy spooky dogs. There are many purebreds that make horrible pets. The Jrt for example. No offense to JRT lovers but these dogs must work. So if there is no call for a mole hunter at the moment, why breed them at all. Just one example. i have probably gone a bit off topic here, so I will stop now. ;D
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Feb 28, 2004 11:42:33 GMT -5
That is a good point Loey - for example the labradoodle - it will eventally become a "pure" beed right? given the breeders meet a certain set of critera laid out by the AKC or whoever....
Historically each breed was created for a purpose - just as this new "designer" mutt was created to make a smart, well tempered, "hypo-allergenic" pet. This is not a new set of circumstances but the wrinkle in all of this, as Brooke pointed out, is the over-population problem.
I think everyone has the right to research a breed, select the right breed, know pretty much what they are getting, meet the parents of thier puppy and pick the dog up at the right age and start off on the right foot so to speak...This is not really possible with your average shelter dog (mixed or "pure" bred).
I love pure breds and mixed breeds alike - there is a certain beauty in watching a pure bred dog do what it was born to do. I agree that breeders should focus more on temperment and ability and less on looks. The Aussie is a perfect example - there is a wide range of what is considered "acceptable" in looks and for the most part they are still bred for working ability.
I do not think that we can get away from breeding altogether and I do think it would be sad to "lose" many of the beautiful breeds we have all come to appreciate for their common traits ( like the Huskey's middle finger ;D) But I do think that the breeder who breeds only for looks and the indiviual who buys a pure bred dog only for status and looks is doing these breed and dogs in general a huge injustice.
As we taked about so many times before - it is a matter of putting irresponsible breeders and puppy mills out of business. In my opinion, a big part of that has to do with educating people about the ills of poor breeding practices and the over population problem.
|
|
|
Post by Willow on Feb 28, 2004 12:19:45 GMT -5
In my opinion, a big part of that has to do with educating people about the ills of poor breeding practices and the over population problem. I agree with this and with what everyone has said, but the problem is: There will always be those who refuse to become edumacated!!
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Feb 29, 2004 8:08:18 GMT -5
The other day I had the pleasure of seeing first hand what is called a DOODLE DOG. This was a standard poodle mixed with a golden ret. Strange looking dog and huge. I dont understand why you would breed this mix on purpose The woman told me that she paid $600 smackers for this mix breed I dont get it. It's just like with Mira breeding the Labornise, Lab/Bernie cross. Coda is a great dog but nothing spectacular. She can be extremly stubborn, vocal, and high strung so what have they accomplished with mixing the two? Certain breeds were meant for specific tasks. You already have breeds that do well with guide and service work so why come up with something different With the pet population at the point of explosion I think it is very irresponsiable to come up with more mixes. I think more time should be spent fixing some of the problems in the already exisiting breeds to get them back to their origianl tempermants and good health. I understand about the doodles. They are breeding them for people with allergies at least in the servce dog circle, but why just not use the standard poodle . They are smart good temps and perfect size. To say a bloodline or breed is PURE is a crock. In order to get the look, size, etc... there have been other things mixed in. Siberian bloodlines for example have been mixed up. If you look at the old Seppala lines no way are those pure. The majority of Sibes today look nothing like the origanl Seppla dogs which are few in number and it is questionable if there are any true originals left. There has been Mal mixed in along the way, wolf and some speculate at German Shepard and Samoyed. The thing that gets me is when you have a breed that is already proven why keep messing it up.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Feb 29, 2004 9:16:53 GMT -5
Just another breed of dog here...the Shiloh Shepherd....150lb of refined GSD of the old world....this breed has been in constant development for 30 years....
They've bred out some of the characteristics that we've come to know in GSD's (both good and bad) and are moving forward to bring back the GSD's original standards.
I know this is only one breed, but do you think they're acomplishing anything here, at least based on the original post by Brooke....in other words, with these breeders of Shiloh's, does it appear they're trying to make it better for the betterment of the breed?
-Richard
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Feb 29, 2004 9:42:33 GMT -5
See that is what I mean. I came face to face with one of those very large hairy Shiloh sheps and it scared the living hell right out me. Nice to look at but dont touch it, dont get near it. Not to many dogs put that much fear into me but his one did. So no they are doing nothing except breeding another dog to get a high ranking on the bite list
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Feb 29, 2004 10:37:25 GMT -5
That is funny you say that Ann cuz the breeding of Shilohs is supposed to give the dog a dispostion of a golden ret......with the security consciousness and physical size of a GSD....but I guess some slip by the temperment side....
It just goes to show, that no breeding program is perfect....even with the best intentions.
-Richard
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Feb 29, 2004 12:49:15 GMT -5
Ann - I couldn't agree more about the "Doodle" dogs and I really do think it is kinda silly - but my point is - it's nothing new! We have been "creating" breeds for thousands of years right? A friend of mine told me about a "Labradoodle" that she saw at Petsmart - it had been imported from Austrailia to the tune of about $3600! Holy nuts that is stupid! Especially when like you said - if you need a hypo allergenic pet - just get a standard Poodle to begin with. They actually look like real dogs when they don't have that stupid hair cut!
|
|
|
Post by Willow on Feb 29, 2004 16:05:08 GMT -5
I haven't seen the *current* mixes yet, but then I lead a sheltered life and don't get out much. ;D
Another controversy is over the *silver* Lab. It has got to have Weim in it, because the Lab doesn't have the gene to produce that color, but of course, breeder's say it doesn't.
I also feel when you start mixing breeds for color etc., it takes away from the original breed and you end up with dogs with less brains!!! JMO!!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dobemom on Mar 2, 2004 16:29:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Mar 2, 2004 19:13:58 GMT -5
Ooooohhh, now that's a dog I'm happy to see making a comeback!! I love the Shiloh, I think they're beeyootiful .
|
|